• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide
  • YEAR ONE - we will engage in a Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) planning process with community partners that uses individual, school, and community profiles of risk and protective factors collected from middle school aged adolescents using the School Success Profile to guide the choice of prevention program components. YEAR TWO-FOUR: we will implement a youth violence initiative with universal and targeted components in Robeson CountyYEAR FIVE: we will focus on completing a comprehensive evaluation on the program that considers county and school-level youth violence outcomes, as well as changes in proximal individual and school risk and protective factors. Throughout - Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach / Monitoring & evaluation /Training experiences for doctoral students and junior investigators


  • 1. A project funded by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in partnership with the UNC School of Social Work (SSW), UNC Injury Prevention Resource Center (IPRC), Robeson County Health Dept. (RCHD) and the Center for Community Action (CCA).
  • 2. About NCACE-YVP
    • Use a unique multidisciplinary approach to violence prevention
    • 3. Research youth violence prevention approaches
    • 4. Collect & analyze surveillance data
    • 5. Foster relationships with local community partners to help develop, implement & evaluate promising prevention efforts
    This collaboration between research universities, local communities, and community-based organizations results in empowered communities that are mobilized to address the problem of youth violence.
  • 6. History of the ACE Program
    • In 2000, in the wake of the Columbine tragedy, legislation is introduced that would form the NACE.
    • 7. From 2000-2005, 10 research universities received awards
    • 8. In 2005, new funding was awarded to 8 universities
    • 9. In 2006, 2 additional universities were funded as Urban Partnership ACE & The National ACE Coordinating Center was established
    • 10. In 2010, UNC-CH through the UNC-IPRC & UNC-SSW was awarded a five year grant to implement the nation’s first rural ACE
    • 11. In 2011, implementation of the project in Robeson County begins
  • 2005
    • Columbia University
    • 12. Harvard University
    • 13. University of California, Berkeley
    • 14. University of California, Riverside
    • 15. University of Hawaii
    • 16. University of Chicago
    • 17. Virginia Commonwealth University
    • Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
    • 18. Meharry Medical College
    *Urban Partnership ACE to serve
    high-risk urban area with youth homicide rates twice the national average.
    2000 -2005
    • Columbia University
    • 19. Harvard University
    • 20. John Hopkins University
    • 21. University of Alabama at Birmingham
    • 22. University of California, Riverside
    • 23. University of California, San Diego
    • 24. University of Hawaii
    • 25. University of Michigan
    • 26. University of Puerto Rico
    • 27. Virginia Commonwealth University
    Funded Research Universities
  • 28. ACE Logic Model
  • 29. Ranks first in NC for juvenile arrests
    (Rate: 16,064 per 100,000)
    One of the poorest counties in the nation
    (Rate: 34.7% vs. 13% U.S.)
    Homicide rate more than 4 times the national average (Rate: 23.9 % vs. 5.2 % U.S.)
    Has the largest non-reservation concentration of Native Americans of any county in the nation
    A diverse rural community with a history of strong community programs and passionate people
    Why Robeson County?
  • 30. Figure 2: Target and Comparison Communities
    Buncombe County
    Robeson County (target community)
    Pitt County
    Cumberland County
    Socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural counties with troubled school systems and high levels of youth violence
  • 31.
  • 32.
  • 33. Academic Advisory Board
    UNC-CH Injury Prevention Research Center (IPRC)
    Administrative Core
    • Paul Smokowski, PhD., Director
    • 34. Natasha Bowen, PhD.,Director
    • 35. Cindy Porter, Administrative Assistant
    • 36. Accountant -TBN
    • 37. IT Specialist - TBN
    • 38. Rea Gibson, Graphics Designer
    • 39. Michele Rogers (JIF), J’Ingrid Mathis (IPRC)
    -Communications and Dissemination
    NC-rACE – Rural Academic Center for Excellence in Youth Violence Prevention
    Implementation & Evaluation Core
    • Mac Legerton, EdD., Director of Community Relations
    • 40. MarticaBacallao, PhD., Dir. of Program Implementation
    • 41. Jim Barbee, MPA, Center Coordinator
    • 42. Program Implementation Staff –see next chart
    • 43. Shenyang Guo, PhD., Director of Evaluation
    • 44. Dean Duncan, Assoc. Director of Evaluation
    • 45. Data analysts - TBN
    Training Core
    • Kathleen Rounds, PhD. Core Director
    • 46. Doctoral Students,
    • 47. Postdoctoral Fellow
    • 48. Gary Nelson, DSW, Assoc. Dir. For Community Training
    Jordan Institute for Families (JIF)
    UNC-CH School of Social Work
  • 49. NC-rural Academic Center for Excellence in Youth Violence Prevention Local 2010-2011 Implementation Team
  • 50. ----Stephen Covey
    “Begin with the end in mind…”
  • 51. Implementation & Evaluation Core: Five Year Overview
    Specific aim: Reduce youth violence in Robeson County, NC by implementing and evaluating a multifaceted, evidence-based approach to prevent perpetration of youth violence.
    Ongoing: Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach / Monitoring & evaluation /
    Training experiences for doctoral students and junior investigators
  • 52. NCACE Community Violence Prevention Board
    • Robeson County Health Dept.
    • 53. Center for Community Action
    • 54. Public Schools of Robeson County
    • 55. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
    • 56. Duke Center for Child & Family Policy
    • 57. Partnership for Children
    • 58. Southeastern Mental Health (SOC)
    • 59. Communities In Schools
    • 60. NAACP local chapter
    • 61. Lumbee Tribal Council
    • 62. UNC-Pembroke
    • 63. Lumberton Police Dept./Sheriff
    • 64. District Juvenile Court Services
    • 65. Southeastern Family Violence Ctr.
    • 66. Chamber of Commerce
    • 67. Healing Lodge
    • 68. Palmer Drug
  • Flexible community-based participatory approach to intervention selection, with non-negotiable aspects
    Multi-faceted with universal and targeted components
    Focus on individual, family, and community risk factors
    Evidence of effectiveness with grades 6-8
    Reasonable implementation resource requirements
    Potential interventions
    Intervention Approach
    Universal programs
    Positive behavior
    (Positive Action)
    Dating relationships
    (Safe Dates)
    Bullying/peer relationships (Success in Stages)
    Academic engagement (CareerStart; Cultivating Student Success)
    Targeted programs
    Family relationships (Parenting Wisely; Functional Family Therapy)
  • 69. Evaluation Overview
  • 70.
  • 71. Measures
  • 72. School Success Profile PLUS
  • 73. School Success Profile PLUS (cont’d)
  • 74. Implementation & Fidelity
    • Initial staff training and periodic refresher sessions
    • 75. Weekly session notes and implementation tracking
    • 76. Attendance, hours, content delivered
    • 77. Weekly clinical supervision sessions
    • 78. Selection of programs with strong resources for dissemination, implementation, and fidelity measurement
    • 79. Specialized measures of implementation and fidelity specific to selected intervention programs
    • 80. Ongoing process evaluation
    • 81. Quantitative and qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators
    • 82. Understand any implementation and fidelity issues and identify salient themes for content and process improvement
    • 83. Iterative cycle of integrating feedback into ongoing program planning
  • Specific Aim: Enable the development of scholars and scholarly practitioners through cross-disciplinary training of new and established investigators in youth violence prevention
    Training Core
  • 84.
    • Create training opportunities
    • 85. Exposure to local and visiting scholars
    • 86. Series of seminars on topics related to youth violence prevention
    • 87. Risk and protective factors
    • 88. Surveillance of youth violence
    • 89. Prevention strategies
    • 90. Research methods
    • 91. Create mentoring opportunities
    • 92. Master’s students, doctoral students, and junior youth violence prevention researchers receive supervision and guidance from senior researchers and advisory board
    Training Core Activities
  • 93.
    • Establish new collaborations
    • 94. Multi-disciplinary team of researchers and practitioners collaborate on Advisory Committee and Community Violence Prevention Board
    • 95. Representatives from social work, public health, education, sociology, and psychology
    • 96. Framework for connections between community practitioners and practitioners and researchers
    • 97. Raise awareness in the professional and lay communities
    • 98. Training and continuing education to social service providers, educators, public health practitioners, and clinicians
    Training Core Activities (cont’d)
  • 99. For further information regarding the projectcontact Jim Barbee NC rACE Center Director jmbarbee@email.unc.edu