Girma Meron, Schleimer Julia, Aveledo Astrid, Mustafa Ayah, Rencken Camerin, Thurston Carolyn, Nehra Deepika, Torset Kris, Jones Kristian, Johnson Laura, Polansky Lauren, McCollum Olivia, Ames Orlando, Ross Rachel, Decker Sam, Taylor Stephanie, Harrison Tarrell, Lyons Vivian, Lynch Zaheed, Rowhani-Rahbar Ali
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Dispute Resolution Center of Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties, Aberdeen, WA, USA.
Inquiry. 2025 Jan-Dec;62:469580251361742. doi: 10.1177/00469580251361742. Epub 2025 Aug 8.
Community violence intervention (CVI) is a promising strategy to reduce community violence, but research on CVI programs remains underdeveloped. While prior reviews have examined the effectiveness of certain CVI models, we lack a comprehensive synthesis of how CVI research is done and what measures are used. We conducted a scoping review of CVI evaluation measures and methods in the United States, reviewing both peer-reviewed and gray literature from 1996 through 2023. We summarized characteristics of CVI program evaluations, including evaluation measures used, units of analysis, and involvement of external partners-including community members-in the evaluation. Of 1763 articles screened, 149 were included. A plurality of studies examined both outcome and process measures (38.9%), and use of process measures increased over time. Most outcome evaluations used only deficit-based measures (76.4%), with variation across CVI model/approach. Authors of studies included in this review reported that CVI practitioners contributed to evaluations in various ways, but only 10.7% of evaluations included CVI practitioners as authors. Process measures were most often collected at the individual level (84.2%), while outcome measures were collected relatively equally at the individual (56.6%) and community level (53.8%) though with notable variation across CVI models/approaches. Community partners working in CVI were part of our authorship team and offered critical insights into interpreting the findings from this scoping review. Findings underscore the need for a more comprehensive approach to CVI evaluation. By including process and outcome measures, including community-level units of analysis in addition to the typical individual-level ones, employing asset-based frameworks, and actively involving community voices, future research can more effectively assess the implementation and impacts of CVI programs.
社区暴力干预(CVI)是一种很有前景的减少社区暴力的策略,但关于CVI项目的研究仍不发达。虽然之前的综述研究了某些CVI模式的有效性,但我们缺乏对CVI研究方法以及所采用测量方法的全面综合分析。我们对美国CVI评估措施和方法进行了一项范围综述,回顾了1996年至2023年的同行评审文献和灰色文献。我们总结了CVI项目评估的特征,包括所使用的评估措施、分析单位以及外部合作伙伴(包括社区成员)在评估中的参与情况。在筛选的1763篇文章中,有149篇被纳入。多项研究同时考察了结果和过程测量指标(38.9%),并且过程测量指标的使用随着时间有所增加。大多数结果评估仅使用基于缺陷的测量指标(76.4%),不同CVI模式/方法之间存在差异。本综述纳入研究的作者报告称,CVI从业者以各种方式为评估做出了贡献,但只有10.7%的评估将CVI从业者列为作者。过程测量指标大多在个体层面收集(84.2%),而结果测量指标在个体层面(56.6%)和社区层面(53.8%)的收集比例相对均衡,不过不同CVI模式/方法之间存在显著差异。从事CVI工作的社区合作伙伴是我们作者团队的一部分,并为解读本范围综述的结果提供了关键见解。研究结果强调了对CVI评估采用更全面方法的必要性。通过纳入过程和结果测量指标,除了典型地在个体层面外还纳入社区层面的分析单位,采用基于资产的框架,并积极纳入社区意见,未来的研究可以更有效地评估CVI项目的实施情况和影响。