Introduction

The term “violence” refers to threatened or actual physical actions that cause (or make more likely) psychological, emotional, and/or physical harm.[1] Violence occurs under many circumstances and in many forms (Figure 1), from self-harm[2] to harm resulting from armed conflict between nations.[3]

Figure 1

Categories of Violence

A diagram of violence categories
Source: Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083–1088.

In the context of urban communities, violent crime is often discussed as being interpersonal (between people) and categorized in ways that point to specific behaviors (e.g., sexual assault, robbery, or murder), severity (e.g., felony or misdemeanor), characteristics of victims and perpetrators (e.g., child abuse, elder abuse, youth violence, and violence against women), situational contexts (e.g., school, street, and prison), relationships (e.g., family/partner) or other qualities.[4] Several labels may be used to refer to the same act of violence depending on the perspective, resulting in overlap when categorizing violence.[5] This discussion focuses on interpersonal violence and frameworks to prevent it, but other forms of violence (e.g., suicide) and their potential connections to interpersonal violence[6] are important to consider in the broader context.

Interpersonal Violence in Illinois

In 2017, homicides comprised 1.8 percent of reported violent crimes in Illinois.[7] These incidents are, by definition, perpetrated by another person (i.e. assault-related). However, non-fatal assaults (i.e. assault-related injuries) make up a large proportion of the interpersonal violence experienced in Illinois communities. Violent crime reported to law enforcement in Illinois during 2017 included sexual assault (9.7%), robbery (31.7%), and aggravated assault/aggravated battery (56.8%).[8] Additionally, about 73% of the 114,852 domestic offenses reported in 2017 included homicide, battery, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, assault, and sexual assault/abuse.[9] In state fiscal year 2017, Illinois Adult Protective Services received 16,507 reports of abuse/neglect of adults[10]; 82% of the reports regarded victimized persons 60 years of age or older.[11] Reported abuses included confinement, physical, sexual, and emotional abuses, passive neglect, willful deprivation, and financial exploitation.[12] In state fiscal year 2019, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services reported 143,019 cases of suspected child abuse and neglect; 26% of these reports had credible evidence to support the claims.[13] The consequences of interpersonal violence are physical, psychological, emotional, and socioeconomic and span across time and relationships, chronically affecting victims, offenders, families, friends, entire neighborhoods and beyond.[14]

Reducing Violence

Many social systems address interpersonal violence. Public health and public safety professionals have led the way in implementing formal solutions to reduce violence. Violence reduction efforts can be implemented both before and after violence occurs. Populations to be served with violence reduction activities vary from entire communities to only those who are at risk for or who are already engaging in violence (or being victimized).

The public health field generally categorizes violence reduction initiatives according to when they are implemented and the population to be served, classifying activities as “primary” if the focus is to stop violence before it happens, “secondary” if they seek to minimize harm after it occurs or intervene in high-risk situations where violence is about occur, or “tertiary” if the focus is on long-term goals, such as treating or rehabilitating victims and perpetrators.[15] Furthermore, “universal” interventions are geared toward a wide audience, “selective” interventions seek to engage people at an elevated risk, and “indicated” interventions target those already engaged in or affected by violence.[16]

Primary prevention activities focus on reducing the likelihood of violence before it occurs. They may be geared toward entire communities (i.e. universal) or toward those at heightened risk of violence (i.e. selective). A school-based positive youth development program would fit among primary prevention activities, while street outreach interventions for youth in high-risk situations where violence is occurring would, in most cases, be considered a secondary prevention strategy. Traditional criminal justice responses to suppress violence through specific deterrence and incapacitation, such as arrest and imprisonment, sometimes align with the definitions of secondary or tertiary prevention strategies. However, they are mostly discussed as “suppression” because of their distinct use of criminal sanctions when responding to violence.[17] Table 1 summarizes these categories.

Table 1

Categories of Violence Reduction Approaches

Population Description Example
Universal Target everyone in the community or society Public education campaign
Selective Target those at highest risk Dating education campaign for teens experiencing relationship churning
Indicated Target those who are known to be involved/exposed Emergency shelter for victims of domestic abuse
Timing Description Example
Primary/Prevention Seek the reduction of violence by acting before conditions for it occur (i.e., address root causes) Healthy teen dating education campaign
Secondary/Intervention Seek to intervene immediately after violence occurs or in contexts where it is likely Street outreach to young people on streets with active conflicts
Tertiary Address longer-term consequences of violence Reentry services for high utilizers of prison
Suppression Traditionally addresses violence after it occurs through specific deterrence and incapacitation Criminal sanctions (arrest, supervision, jail, and/or prison)
Adapted from: Mercy, J. A., Rosenberg, M. L., Powell, K. E., Broome, C. V., & Roper, W. L. (1993). Public health policy for preventing violence. Health Affairs, 12(4), 7–29; and Rutherford, A., Zwi, A. B., Grove, N. J., & Butchart, A. (2007). Violence: A glossary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(8), 676–680.

Activities to reduce repeated engagement in violence or violent victimization among an involved (i.e. indicated) population after violence has occurred are sometimes interpreted as “preventive” in that they aim to prevent further violence, but they would not be considered primary. These are important distinctions to consider because “…without a system for classifying specific interventions, there is no way to obtain accurate information on the type or extent of current activities, . . . and no way to ensure that prevention researchers, practitioners, and policy makers are speaking the same language.”[18]

A Problem-Solving Approach

Both public health and public safety professionals promote the prevention of violence via a problem-solving process that involves identifying/assessing the problem, developing solutions, implementing and evaluating those solutions, and incorporating the knowledge gained to improve the system’s response. In the public safety field, efforts have focused on reactive ways by dealing with violence when it occurs (e.g., responding to calls to police, making arrests, prosecuting offenders, and imprisonment). However, the problem-oriented policing model promotes a proactive, preventive approach that research suggests is related to modest reductions in crime and disorder.[19] Preventing, intervening in, and suppressing gang or group-related violence incorporates problem-solving and proactive activities alongside traditional criminal justice responses.[20] The public health field typically follows a standard four-step, problem-solving approach for preventing disease and injury that involves:

  1. Defining the problem.
  2. Identifying risk and protective factors.
  3. Developing and testing prevention strategies.
  4. Assuring widespread adoption.[21]

This approach could be implemented at many points in time, but the public health version emphasizes targeting risk and protective factors for individuals before they engage in or become victims of violence. Because of the explicit, sustained emphasis on primary prevention activities and the model’s wide applicability, the public health perspective is a helpful starting point for developing prevention programs and services and could be adopted within many social systems. Primary prevention activities and public health professionals should not be the only drivers in problem-solving, though. A multi-sector approach that also incorporates public safety professionals, community stakeholders (e.g., school personnel, parents, and youth), and secondary, tertiary, and suppression activities is recommended.[22]

Risk and Protective Factors

Risk factors for violence are elements of a person’s life that make violent perpetration or victimization more likely, while protective factors reduce the impact of risk factors and make violence less likely. Many factors are associated with both perpetration and victimization.[23] Some risk and protective factors can be addressed at the individual level. Other factors associated with violent offending or victimization span across different levels of a person’s social life; family, peer, school and community influences play a role in making violence more or less likely.[24] It is important to identify where targeted risk and protective factors fit among all social spheres of an individual’s life when implementing comprehensive prevention efforts that lead to long-term outcomes.[25]

As an individual develops from a child into an adult, an increasing and cumulative array of factors may relate to the occurrence of violence in their lives.[26] Some of these are more reliably associated with violence than others. Evidence suggests that younger individuals are especially likely to engage in violence and that they are also more likely to be victimized.[27] Relatedly, studies have found that countless factors in childhood and adolescence are associated with violent perpetration and victimization.[28] These factors, emerging throughout the phases of development, encompass biological, neurological, cognitive, and personality characteristics, parental supervision practices and quality of family life, peer and romantic partner relationships, academic achievement, individual attitudes, cultural and societal norms, and situational and environmental factors, among others.[29]

Strategies and Activities

One conclusion to be drawn from existing literature is that promoting healthy and safe lives for children, teens, and young adults through risk factor management and promotion of protective factors is a core component in the prevention of violence, and an especially important one in primary prevention. Another conclusion is that a single violence prevention initiative focused on one factor is, by itself, unlikely to result in large, sustained reductions in violence.[30] Table 2 provides additional ways that violence reduction initiatives can be categorized. These categories and those discussed previously can help distinguish between and inform discussions on violence reduction activities when collaborating and coordinating.

Table 2

Additional categories of Violence Reduction Approaches

Environment Description Example
Individual Address biological or psychological factors, behavior or personal experience In-home visits to teach parenting skills; social and emotional learning; cognitive behavioral therapy
Relationship (peer family) Target interactions between two or more closely-associated people Peer program promoting positive dating norms among friends; adults mentoring youth
Community Address issues with the health, safety, and stability of whole communities Physical impirovements to neighborhoods; business improvement districts; reducing crime/fear of crime
Societal Examine broad patterns in thinking and acting that produce a specific social dynamic Awareness campaigns around intimate partner violence, bystander intervention education, legislation/public policies supporting family-leave
Activity/goal Description Example
Change individual knowledge, skills, attitutdes, or behaviors Develop prosocial attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, social skills, marketable skills, and deter criminal actions. Conflict resolution education; social skills training; job skills training; public information and education campaigns; parenting education
Change social environment Alter the way people interact by modifying social circumstances Adult mentoring of youth; job creation programs; battered women's shelters; economic incentives for family stability; deconcentrated lower-income housing
Change physical environment Modify the design, use, or availability of contributing commodities, structures or spaces Restrictive handgun licensing; control of alcohol sales at events; increased visibility of high-risk areas; disruption of illegal gun markets
Adapted from: Mercy, J. A., Rosenberg, M. L., Powell, K. E., Broome, C. V., & Roper, W. L. (1993). Public health policy for preventing violence. Health Affairs, 12(4), 7–29; Rutherford, A., Zwi, A. B., Grove, N. J., & Butchart, A. (2007). Violence: A glossary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(8), 676–680; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, January). The social-ecological model: A framework for prevention.

Promising and Effective Violence Prevention Programs and Services

The multitude of factors related to violent perpetration and victimization has spawned many programs and services intended to address risk and protective factors for violence. These efforts have spurred an interest in program and service evaluation. However, not all prevention activities have been scientifically evaluated yet to determine whether they prevent and/or reduce violence. Research indicates effective violence reduction efforts are aimed at reaching the most at-risk people, places, and behaviors; are proactive in nature; build legitimacy between formal (e.g., police, schools) and informal means of social control (e.g., families, community members); are fully and properly implemented; are informed by a clear theory of change; and include partnerships with other stakeholders.[31] Similarly, a meta-review of prevention activities concluded the most promising and effective were “…comprehensive, included varied teaching methods, provided sufficient dosage, were theory driven, provided opportunities for positive relationships, were appropriately timed, were socioculturally relevant, included outcome evaluation, and involved well-trained staff.”[32]

Helpful online resources to identify promising or effective violence reduction initiatives that address specific types of violence include:

Caveats to consider when attempting to implement a program found to be effective in the past include practicality, cost, necessity/appropriateness of adaptations and modifications, and known implementation challenges.

Conclusion

Interpersonal violence is a pervasive part of society with severe and long-lasting negative consequences for health and well-being. At the same time, poor health and well-being, particularly during early stages of human development, may contribute to the prevalence of interpersonal violence later on. Interrupting and preventing this cycle of harm is one of the most important challenges facing society today. Approaches to reducing interpersonal violence exist and can be categorized according to the type of violence to be addressed, the target population, the timing of implementation, social environment, and/or the focus of activities. Partnerships to reduce violence can benefit from a mutual understanding of the variety of violence prevention approaches. Policymakers and program/service administrators should support efforts to rigorously evaluate existing and new forms of prevention activities and consider scientific evidence on the effectiveness of violence prevention activities when making decisions on implementing policies, programs, or services.

  1. Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083–1088. ↩︎

  2. Fowler, K. A., Jack, S. P. D., Lyons, B. H., Betz, C. J., & Petrosky, E. (2018). Surveillance for violent deaths—National violent death reporting system, 18 states, 2014. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries, 67(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6702a1 ↩︎

  3. Rutherford, A., Zwi, A. B., Grove, N. J., & Butchart, A. (2007). Violence: A glossary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(8), 676–680. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043711 ↩︎

  4. Husso, M., Virkki, T., Hirvonen, H., Eilola, J., & Notko, M. (2016). A spatial-temporal, intersectional and institutional approach to interpersonal violence. In Interpersonal violence: Differences and connections (p. 14). ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com ↩︎

  5. Rutherford, A., Zwi, A. B., Grove, N. J., & Butchart, A. (2007). Violence: A glossary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(8), 676–680. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043711 ↩︎

  6. Bills, C. B. (2017). The relationship between homicide and suicide: A narrative and conceptual review of violent death. International Journal of Conflict & Violence, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.400 ↩︎

  7. Illinois State Police. (n.d.). Domestic offenses, 2017. ↩︎

  8. Illinois State Police. (n.d.). Domestic offenses, 2017. ↩︎

  9. Illinois State Police. (n.d.). Domestic offenses, 2017. ↩︎

  10. Illinois Department on Aging. (n.d.). Adult protective services: Annual Report, FY 2017. ↩︎

  11. Illinois Department on Aging. (n.d.). Adult protective services: Annual Report, FY 2017. ↩︎

  12. Illinois Department on Aging. (n.d.). Adult protective services: Annual Report, FY 2017. ↩︎

  13. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. (2019). Six-year statistics on child protective services. ↩︎

  14. Giffords Law Center. (2017). Investing in intervention: The critical role of state-level support in breaking the cycle of urban gun violence. Giffords Law Center. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Investing-in-Intervention-12.18.17.pdf; Hashima, P. Y., & Finkelhor, D. (1999). Violent victimization of youth versus adults in the national crime victimization survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(8), 799–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626099014008002; Hinton, E., Henderson, L. & Reed, C. (2018). An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of black americans in the criminal justice system. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.; Jackson, J., & Gouseti, I. (2016). Threatened by violence: Affective and cognitive reactions to violent victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(18), 2987–3016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515584336; Kelly, S. (2010). The psychological consequences to adolescents of exposure to gang violence in the community: An integrated review of the literature. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(2), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00225.x; Langton, L., & Truman, J. (2014). Socio-emotional impact of violent crime (p. 30) [Government]. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/sivc.pdf; Shaffer, J. N., & Ruback, R. B. (2002). Violent victimization as a risk factor for violent offending among juveniles (p. 12) [Government]. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.; Zahn, M. A. (2003). Intimate partner homicide: An overview (p. 56) [Government]. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/e569102006-001 ↩︎

  15. Rutherford, A., Zwi, A. B., Grove, N. J., & Butchart, A. (2007). Violence: A glossary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(8), 676–680. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043711 ↩︎

  16. Temporal and population-based distinctions are not perfect. Secondary (or vicarious) trauma resulting from the occurrence of past violence may greatly expand the consequences of a violent event beyond the individuals directly affected, blurring the distinction between a point in time before experiencing violence and a point in time after experiencing violence. ↩︎

  17. Abt, T. P. (2017). Towards a framework for preventing community violence among youth. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1257815 ↩︎

  18. Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. In P. J. Mrazek & R. J. Haggerty (Eds.), Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders, Division of Biobehavorial Sciences and Mental Disorders. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ↩︎

  19. Braga, A. A., Weisburg, D. L., Waring, E. J., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology; Columbus, 37(3), 541–580.; Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00617.x ↩︎

  20. Alderden, M. (2017). Community violence prevention, intervention, and suppression [Government]. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. http://www.icjia.state.il.us/articles/community-violence-prevention-intervention-and-suppression; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2010). Best practices to address community gang problems: OJJDP’s comprehensive gang model (second edition) [Government]. Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/231200.pdf; Tapia, M. (2015). Looking beyond suppression: Community strategies to reduce gang violence. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 44(2), 201–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306115570271q ↩︎

  21. Mercy, J. A., Rosenberg, M. L., Powell, K. E., Broome, C. V., & Roper, W. L. (1993). Public health policy for preventing violence. Health Affairs, 12(4), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.12.4.7 ↩︎

  22. Abt, T. P. (2017). Towards a framework for preventing community violence among youth. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1257815; Cerdá, M., Tracy, M., & Keyes, K. M. (2018). Reducing urban violence: A contrast of public health and criminal justice approaches. Epidemiology, 29(1), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000756; Heinze, J. E., Reischl, T. M., Bai, M., Roche, J. S., Morrel-samuels, S., Cunningham, R. M., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2016). A comprehensive prevention approach to reducing assault offenses and assault injuries among youth. Prevention Science; New York, 17(2), 167–176. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1007/s11121-015-0616-1; Mercy, J. A., Rosenberg, M. L., Powell, K. E., Broome, C. V., & Roper, W. L. (1993). Public health policy for preventing violence. Health Affairs, 12(4), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.12.4.7 ↩︎

  23. Block, R., Galary, A., & Brice, D. (2007). The journey to crime: Victims and offenders converge in violent index offences in chicago. Security Journal; London, 20(2), 123–137. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1057/palgrave.sj.8350030; Costa, B. M., Kaestle, C. E., Walker, A., Curtis, A., Day, A., Toumbourou, J. W., & Miller, P. (2015). Longitudinal predictors of domestic violence perpetration and victimization: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.06.001; Shaffer, J. N., & Ruback, R. B. (2002). Violent victimization as a risk factor for violent offending among juveniles (p. 12) [Government]. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. ↩︎

  24. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (2015). Risk factors for delinquency (p. 13) [Government]. OJJDP. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Risk Factors.pdf ↩︎

  25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019). The social-ecological model: A framework for violence prevention. CDC. ↩︎

  26. Andershed, A.-K., Gibson, C. L., & Andershed, H. (2016). The role of cumulative risk and protection for violent offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.006; Wasserman, G. A., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R. E., Coie, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Loeber, R., & Petechuk, D. (2003). Risk and protective factors of child delinquency [Government]. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/e501772006-001 ↩︎

  27. Hashima, P. Y., & Finkelhor, D. (1999). Violent victimization of youth versus adults in the national crime victimization survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(8), 799–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626099014008002; Shaffer, J. N., & Ruback, R. B. (2002). Violent victimization as a risk factor for violent offending among juveniles (p. 12) [Government]. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. ↩︎

  28. Costa, B. M., Kaestle, C. E., Walker, A., Curtis, A., Day, A., Toumbourou, J. W., & Miller, P. (2015). Longitudinal predictors of domestic violence perpetration and victimization: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.06.001 ↩︎

  29. Eck, J. E., Madensen, T., Payne, T., Wilcox, P., Fisher, B. S., & Scherer, H. (2010). Situational crime prevention at specific locations in community context: Place and neighborhood effects (p. 191) [Government]. University of Cincinnati.; Farrington, D. P. (2010). The developmental evidence base: Psychosocial research. Forensic Psychology., 113–132.; Goldberg, J. H., & Schwabe, W. (1999). How youthful offenders perceive gun violence. RAND.; Halpern-Meekin, S., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2013). Relationship churning, physical violence, and verbal abuse in young adult relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01029.x; Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. (2016). Protective factors for violence: Results from the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.007; Kaufman, J. M. (2005). Explaining the race/ethnicity-violence relationship: Neighborhood context and social psychological processes. Justice Quarterly : JQ; Abingdon, 22(2), 224–251. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/10.1080/07418820500088986; Liu, J., & Wuerker, A. (2005). Biosocial bases of aggressive and violent behavior—Implications for nursing studies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.06.007; Papachristos, A. V., Wildeman, C., & Roberto, E. (2015). Tragic, but not random: The social contagion of nonfatal gunshot injuries. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.056; Reingle, J. M., Jennings, W. G., & Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2012). Risk and protective factors for trajectories of violent delinquency among a nationally representative sample of early adolescents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(3), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204011431589; World Health Organization. (2009). Changing cultural and social norms that support violence. World Health Organization. ↩︎

  30. Abt, T. P. (2017). Towards a framework for preventing community violence among youth. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1257815 ↩︎

  31. Abt, T. P., & Winship, C. (2016). What works in reducing community violence: A meta-review and field study for the northern triangle (p. 53). Democracy International, Inc. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/USAID-2016-What-Works-in-Reducing-Community-Violence-Final-Report.pdf ↩︎

  32. Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.449, p.450 ↩︎