Organizational Empowerment in Community

Mobilization to Address Youth Violence

Derek M. Griffith, PhD, Julie Ober Allen, MPH, Marc A. Zimmerman, PhD, Susan Morrel-Samuels, MA, MPH,
Thomas M. Reischl, PhD, Sarah E. Cohen, MPH, Katie A. Campbell, BA

Abstract: Community mobilization efforts to address youth violence are often disconnected,
uncoordinated, and lacking adequate resources. An organizational empowerment theory
for community partnerships provides a useful framework for organizing and evaluating a
coalition’s community mobilization efforts and benefits for individual organizations,
partnerships, and communities. Based on a qualitative analysis of steering committee
interviews and other primary data, the results of a case study suggest that the intraorgani-
zational infrastructure; interorganizational membership practices and networking; and
extraorganizational research, training, and organizing activities facilitate the community
mobilization efforts of the Youth Violence Prevention Center in Flint, Michigan. The
organizational empowerment framework, and its focus on organizational structures and
processes, illustrates the importance of recognizing and incorporating the organizational
systems and structures that provide the foundation on which a community mobilization
effort may build. This framework also highlights how organizational structures and
processes are central components of multilevel strategies for organizing and mobilizing
community efforts to address youth violence.
(Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3S):S89 –S99) © 2008 American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Introduction creating and sustaining conditions that promote and

maintain behaviors associated with widespread health

V
iolence in the U.S. has diminished from levels
reported in the early 1990s, but American ado-
lescents continue to experience more violence
than their counterparts in most developed countries.1
Though most often considered a criminal justice issue,
violence has been conceptualized as a major public
health problem for more than two decades.2,3 Violence
prevention has moved from focusing primarily on
individuals to considering community-level factors.4
Theories of social disorganization,5–7 social ecology,8,9
and social capital5,10 suggest that a community’s ability
to prevent youth violence is based on its internal level
of support, connection, and organization.4 “Weak ties,”
or relationships that link people from otherwise discon-
nected networks, may be critical for violence preven-
tion because they help integrate resources, services,
and networks.11,12 As research supporting the value of
weak ties has grown, collaborative partnerships and
coalitions also have been recognized as effective inter-
vention strategies for addressing youth violence and
other public health concerns.12–15 The key feature of
this approach is “broad community engagement in
Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of
Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Derek M. Griffith,
PhD, Department of Health Behavior & Health Education, School of
Public Health, University of Michigan, 109 Observatory Street, 3806
SPH I, Ann Arbor MI 48109-2029. E-mail: derekmg@umich.edu.
and well being” (pp. 369 –370).14 Although not typically
seen as organizations, organizational structures and
practices can enhance the viability and influence of
collaborative partnerships.
Three Components of
Organizational Empowerment
Organizational empowerment focuses attention on the
structures and practices of both organizations and
collaborative partnerships with organizational traits.
These organizational components can play a central
role in facilitating community change.16 Peterson and
Zimmerman16 describe a model of organizational em-
powerment with three components: intraorganizational,
interorganizational, and extraorganizational. The intraor-
ganizational component represents the internal struc-
ture and function of an organization, which provide the
foundation for participants to engage in proactive
behaviors necessary for community change. This com-
ponent includes organizational viability, leadership,
and the mutual trust of members. The interorganiza-
tional component enables the development and utiliza-
tion of connections for mobilizing and sharing resources,
gaining credibility and standing in the community, and
creating opportunities for participants to develop net-
works and relationships. Included in this component

Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3S) 0749-3797/08/$–see front matter S89

© 2008 American Journal of Preventive Medicine • Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.015
are the linkages and relations between organizations
(e.g., collaboration, accessing social networks of
other organizations, and alliance building). The ex-
traorganizational component refers to actions taken
by organizations to influence community life and
policy, such as disseminating information, procuring
and marshalling resources to benefit the community,
developing opportunities for community mobiliza-
tion, and harnessing collective power to influence
public policy and practice.
Organizational empowerment refers to organiza-
tional efforts that increase individuals’ perceptions of
power, control, and ability to influence the larger
system of which they are a part.16 Although few studies
describe the relationships among individuals, organiza-
tions, coalitions, and communities, it is important to
describe theories and applications that explain how
empowerment occurs within a multilevel framework.
The interrelationships of organizational structures and
processes that provide opportunities for development
are critical for individuals and organizations within
coalitions. Transactions across organizations in coali-
tions provide a basis for enhancing community stand-
ing, influence, and effectiveness. Community mobiliza-
tion by partnerships provides a means by which
organizations, individually and collectively, can influ-
ence policy, the community, and youth violence.
Organizational empowerment provides a lens for
examining the confluence of factors that character-
ize how individuals, organizations, and communities
can be mobilized to address social and public health
problems.
This paper explores how an organizational empow-
erment framework can be used to document and
understand the critical elements of a collaborative
partnership and its community mobilization strategy to
prevent youth violence. Organizational empowerment
theory16 is used to describe a case study of Flint,
Michigan’s Youth Violence Prevention Center (YVPC).
Although the YVPC was not explicitly founded on an
organizational empowerment model, this framework is
useful for examining relationships between the pro-
cesses and structures of the Center and the community
mobilization and change outcomes. This application
of organizational empowerment theory illustrates
how collaborative partnerships can promote and
advance youth violence prevention through a focus on
structures and practices. These components enable
partnerships to develop the capacity to effect commu-
nity-level change. The thesis of this paper is that an
effective strategy for mobilizing a community partner-
ship should address organizational processes that in-
crease all partners’ individual and collective power and
influence in ways that promote effective action and
mutual benefit.
S90 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 34, Number 3S
Methods
Study Context: Flint, Michigan
Since losing the solid economic base provided by General
Motors in the late 1970s, Flint has struggled to redefine its
economy, culture, and race relations.17 Population has de-
creased by 35% while poverty, unemployment, and crime
have increased dramatically during this time.18 –22 Flint sur-
passes national averages for assaults, burglary, rape, and
murder.18,23 Violence is particularly an issue for youth. In a
survey of 9th grade Flint students, 58% reported engaging in
some sort of violent behavior within the past 12 months and
50% reported being victims of violence.24 Reports from the
Michigan State Police19 indicate higher juvenile arrest rates
in Flint than the average for the entire state. Although
recognized as a problem, previous efforts to address youth
violence in Flint have been fragmented, unsystematic, and
stymied by inadequate resources.
Among Flint’s strengths are its recognized leadership in
developing African-centered approaches to education,
commitment to addressing racism and celebrating African-
American culture, and community-led leadership in community-
based public health. The city has a history of community
activism, yet, prior to the establishment of the YVPC, these
efforts had not been coordinated in a sustained manner to
address youth violence.
Center Description
Flint’s YVPC was established in October 2000 by a National
Academic Centers of Excellence on Youth Violence Preven-
tion grant from the CDC. The YVPC is a collaborative
partnership that includes the University of Michigan School
of Public Health, local hospitals, local and state health
departments, Flint police, courts, the local school system, and
grassroots organizations (see Figure 1). The mission of the
YVPC is to utilize community-based participatory research
principles to achieve five goals: (1) Build the scientific and
community infrastructure necessary to develop a community-
wide youth violence prevention strategy; (2) Promote collab-
oration between diverse community organizations and the
university; (3) Enhance youth violence prevention training;
(4) Develop a surveillance system to monitor prevention
efforts; and (5) Create youth development and mobilization
opportunities.
Research Design and Data Collection
The case study collected in-depth data from numerous
sources to provide a multidimensional and longitudinal ex-
amination of the Center. Creswell25 notes that the foundation
of a case study design is purposeful sampling to gather
multiple, critical perspectives of the case. Interviews con-
ducted with members of the YVPC board, as part of the
process evaluation of the Center, were the primary source of
data for analysis. The semi-structured interviews included
both open- and closed-ended questions. Interview topics were
perceived YVPC accomplishments, barriers and challenges,
benefits of YVPC affiliation, clarity about YVPC focus and
goals, the functioning of YVPC’s Community Steering Com-
mittee, and hopes for YVPC’s future. Conducted by members
of the research team, interviews were 20 – 60 minutes long, in
person or by phone. These data were complemented by a
www.ajpm-online.net
Figure 1. Flint, Michigan’s Youth Violence Prevention Center (YVPC) components of organizational empowerment to promote
youth violence prevention.
review of Center records from 2004 and 2005, including
board meeting minutes, grant proposals, and YVPC progress
reports submitted to the funding agency.
Sample
Interviews were conducted with members of the YVPC board,
called the Community Steering Committee (CSC). At the end
of the first year of YVPC’s operation (2001), 12 interviews
(67% response rate) were completed. At the end of the
fourth year (2004), 20 interviews were performed (83%
response rate).
Data Coding and Analysis
The interviews were transcribed verbatim and entered into
the qualitative data software package, ATLAS.ti, 4.2 (Scien-
tific Software Development, Berlin, Germany, 1998). The
coding method was similar to that described by Zimmerman
and colleagues.26 Interviews were chunked into text segments
representing distinct concepts, thereby retaining original
meanings outside the context of the complete transcripts.
March 2008
The research team reviewed selected interviews to ascertain
recurring patterns and topics related to the research objec-
tives, and developed a standardized codebook. In 2005,
exhaustive searches were conducted to extract all interview
segments relevant to organizational empowerment and com-
munity mobilization, using ATLAS.ti and the initial chunking
and coding system. A deductive approach, drawing from the
relevant literature, was combined with inductive strategies to
capture the breadth of perspectives articulated by the CSC
partners in the interviews. Relevant archival materials pro-
vided context for the interview discussions, including a time-
line and detailed information on project and board activities.
This process produced a scheme for organizing the concepts
discussed in the interviews and expressed in the written
materials, based on the three components of the organiza-
tional empowerment framework.
Results
Flint’s YVPC community mobilization efforts include
projects and programs that provide opportunities for
Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3S) S91
the Center and its partners to influence and mobilize
the community (Table 1). Figure 1 shows how these
projects and programs (extraorganizational component),
the Center (intraorganizational component), and the
members of the collaborative partnership (interorgani-
zational component) are organized. Figure 2 illustrates
the YVPC’s model of organizational empowerment,
showing how organizational structures and processes
(intra- and interorganizational components) coalesce
to yield community mobilization and change outcomes
(extraorganizational). Although some of the data for
this study fit the processes and outcomes of organiza-
tional empowerment presented by Peterson and Zim-
merman,16 the analysis highlighted the importance of
additional constructs that fit within each component of
organizational empowerment.
Intraorganizational Component
The YVPC infrastructure includes an administrative
office, a field office, and a Community Steering Com-
mittee (CSC). The administrative office, located at the
University of Michigan School of Public Health, over-
sees fiscal and management responsibilities, facilitates
integration of Center activities, and coordinates evalu-
ation and research activities. The staff, with experience
in public health research, program evaluation, surveil-
lance, and community-based participatory research,
provide technical expertise for YVPC projects (e.g.,
grant writing, program development, and human sub-
jects protection). In addition to providing resources,
personnel from the School of Public Health make con-
certed efforts to share power and leadership, and help
others take advantage of opportunities that benefit the
YVPC, CSC members, and individual organizations.
The Flint field office includes research personnel,
support staff, and a YVPC Coordinator/Community
Organizer who manages community mobilization ef-
forts in Flint and represents the YVPC on other local
committees and boards. The Coordinator works closely
with the other CSC partners to advance youth violence
prevention activities in their organizations and helps
link CSC partner organizations and efforts. In addition,
the Coordinator is a leader in attracting and initiating
(with other field staff and CSC members) non-research
activities to complement research-based programs in
the YVPC Community Mobilization plan.
The CSC is considered the foundation of the Center
and provides project oversight and overall direction.
The CSC partners play crucial roles in developing,
implementing, hosting, and supporting YVPC projects
(see Table 1). They are involved in initiating project
ideas, establishing Center policies, developing action
and evaluation strategies, conceptualizing research pro-
grams, writing grant proposals, interpreting surveil-
lance data, disseminating findings, training community
S92 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 34, Number 3S
members and professionals, and determining resource
allocation.
Community-based participatory research (CBPR)
principles are central to YVPC operations. CBPR is a
partnership approach that equitably involves all part-
ners (e.g., community-based organizations, health and
human service providers, academic researchers) in all
aspects of research and intervention, both to increase
knowledge and understanding and to link these with
interventions and policy change to enhance commu-
nity health and quality of life.27,28 One drawback of the
YVPC’s structure, leadership style, and dedication to
CBPR was an initial lack of direction and strategic
planning. After the YVPC was established, the university
and community partners who were involved in the
initial grant proposal felt is was essential that the CSC,
which represented a broader constituency, determine
the direction of the Center. Although this was consis-
tent with CBPR principles, it took the CSC some time to
collectively develop a mission and goals for the Center.
The YVPC also tended to forgo long-range plans,
preferring to be responsive to community issues as they
developed. The YES project, described below, was per-
ceived by many as the beginning of the YVPC’s efforts
to plan strategically for the future.
CSC meetings are held monthly and promote regu-
lar, face-to-face contact between stakeholders who oth-
erwise interact infrequently. They are organized to
allow time both for essential Center business and for
informal sharing, networking, and developing of
partner relationships. The resulting trust, collabora-
tive relationships, and mutual respect of CSC partners
promotes open communication.
Although the intraorganizational dimension of orga-
nizational empowerment was not often articulated as
important in the interviews, it would be extremely
difficult for this collaborative partnership to function as
effectively as it does without this basic infrastructure.
The structure and stability of the intraorganizational
component provides an important foundation for the
fluidity of the interorganizational component.
Interorganizational Component
The YVPC was established to bring together groups
interested or involved in addressing youth violence in
Flint. It recruits key stakeholders, promotes their sus-
tained involvement, supports networking and organiz-
ing, and fosters community involvement in the Center.
In the interviews, several CSC members mentioned that
the YVPC meetings were the one place where the many
diverse organizations and agencies linked to youth
violence prevention came together to discuss common
issues, share ideas and resources, and develop a collec-
tive strategy. In the words of one CSC partner, “the
Center isn’t necessarily coordinating [all the different
initiatives addressing youth violence in Flint] per se,
www.ajpm-online.net
Table 1. Description of Flint’s Youth Violence Prevention Center programs and their associated partners
and accomplishments
Program
Character Development
African-centered approach to
promoting non-violence among
children through training on
ethnic identity and values
Emergency Department Intervention
Emergency department web-based
tool for violence prevention
Gun Violence Prevention
Workshops and Camp
Education for elementary school
students to prevent gun
violence
KidSpeak®
Youth testimony to policymakers
on issues of concern
Ruth Mott Health Careers
Public Health graduate students
lead teams of high school
students in research on youth
violence
Safe Passage
Neighborhood groups monitor
routes children walk to
elementary schools
Youth Against Violence Photovoice
Images and narratives on what
causes and prevents youth
violence
Youth Empowerment Solutions for
Peaceful Communities (YES)
Middle school students work with
neighborhood organizations on
community improvement
projects
CSC, Community Steering Committee; UM-SPH, University of Michigan School of Public Health; YVPC, Youth Violence Prevention Center.
March 2008
Partners
Implementation: Flint Odyssey House
Host: Flint Schools
Evaluation: UM-SPH
Implementation and evaluation:
University of Michigan Department
of Emergency Medicine
Host: Hurley Hospital
Assistance with program
development: UM-SPH
Lead organization: U.S. Attorney’s
Office
Workshop organization and content:
YVPC field staff and CSC
Workshop content: Flint Police
Department Genesee County
Sheriff
Host and support: Flint Schools
Implementation: YVPC field staff and
CSC Priority Children Community
Matters Connexion, Inc.
Model development: Michigan’s
Children
Lead organization: UM-SPH
Hosts and community mentors: Flint
Odyssey House YVPC field office
FACED
Funder: Ruth Mott Foundation
Implementation: Flint Schools
Evaluation: UM-SPH
Volunteer organizer: Neighborhood
Roundtable
Implementation: UM-SPH
Hosts: Teen Centers Local Churches
Dissemination assistance: Greater
Flint Arts Council
Implementation and evaluation:
UM-SPH
Neighborhood organization
engagement: Neighborhood
Roundtable
Hosts and resources: Flint Schools
Resources and support: Flint Urban
Garden and Land Use Corporation
Provision of data: Police Department
Prevention Research Center of
Michigan
Accomplishments
Engaged over 100 youth in Character
Development class
Documented and evaluated curriculum
Adapted curriculum for middle school
students in Youth Empowerment
Solutions (YES) program
Developed interactive SafERflintteens.com
website accessed by 115 youth in the ER
Pilot evaluation led to NIH grant to expand
the intervention and evaluate its
effectiveness
Gathered data on youth ER visits, violence,
and related factors
Workshops presented by members of the
CSC were held at 5 elementary schools
40 students attended a gun violence
prevention summer camp
Over 150 students testified on youth issues
to state and local policymakers
Students learned about the policy process
through participation in city and county
government meetings
Listening panel members invited youth to
provide additional input into their
organizations
Teams explored topic of youth violence as a
public health issue and local problem
Teams created photo displays, a video, and
posters on their research that were
disseminated locally and at national
conferences
Several graduates of the program are
attending college with an interest in
health careers
25 community members monitored safety of
routes to 5 elementary schools
Gathered survey data on perceptions of
school safety from 842 students
Recommended program improvements to
Flint Schools
Youth expressed their views in presentations
to CSC and other local organizations and
through display of photos and narratives
in public spaces throughout city
Themes identified informed a needs
assessment conducted by the CSC
YVPC partners competed successfully for
grant to conduct research on community-
level youth violence prevention program
based on empowerment theory
28 youth developed into the governing
body for YES and functioned as YES
ambassadors and peer leaders
Over 60 youth and 4 neighborhood
organizations are working to improve
local neighborhood environments
Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3S) S93
Figure 2. Flint, Michigan’s Youth Violence Prevention Center (YVPC) model of organizational empowerment to promote youth
violence prevention. CSC, Community Steering Committee.
but it’s created a context and the opportunity for
increasing the possibility for that kind of coordination
and collaboration that may not have happened before.”
Rather than a rigid recruitment and membership
policy, the YVPC has developed a flexible model of CSC
membership and meeting attendance. A core of orga-
nizations provides stability for the Center, while the
level of other partners’ involvement varies. Some CSC
partners find the irregularity in meeting attendance to
be a shortcoming, but some find that this flexibility
supports the Center’s diversity and sustainability. The
combination of a core group of individuals and orga-
nizations with an open meeting policy has been an
important asset of the YVPC community mobilization
efforts, allowing inclusion of several individuals and
fledgling organizations. Small organizations have
been able to join the CSC, despite having limited staff
availability to attend meetings regularly.
Among the numerous benefits of affiliation with
YVPC, CSC members described networking opportuni-
ties to meet people and learn about other community
S94 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 34, Number 3S
projects and organizations addressing youth or youth
violence as one of the greatest benefits of participation.
Networking occurs among CSC partners through weak
ties to individuals or groups external to the Center.
Attracting a wide variety of organizations was a major
YVPC accomplishment, according to many partners. All
of the partners interviewed in 2004 indicated that the
CSC was either fairly or very representative of key
stakeholders. Networking has helped CSC partners and
the Center disseminate information, acquire resources,
influence local policymakers, and engage citizens in
community mobilization efforts. The coordinator, who
was very active in community organizing and recruiting
stakeholders to attend CSC meetings, was credited with
much of this success. As one partner stated, “Our
coordinator does an excellent job of bringing people to
the table . . . . The system does work to cast a broad net,
and not everybody is going to stick around. But by
casting a broad net, we do wind up with the people who
are most motivated and most interested . . . .” A few
partners mentioned that the influence and visibility of
www.ajpm-online.net
the YVPC and its community mobilization efforts could
be further heightened by engaging members of the city
government and the local media. The CSC partners
also discussed how the range of perspectives it repre-
sents promoted innovation both within and outside the
YVPC. They highlighted the benefit of having opportu-
nities to discuss ideas with others who share similar
concerns but hold differing perspectives.
[One] project for example, I think that really
turned out the way it did because [the community
organization partners] were so involved in it: a lot
of it came from their ideas. All [the university
partners] did was operationalize it into a proposal
formal evaluation plan. A lot of the ideas were
their own . . . . We added our two cents to their
ideas . . . . What we ended up with was the mix of
all of that, which was a real strength.
Extraorganizational Component
To have a tangible effect on youth violence in Flint, the
YVPC engaged in a broad-based community mobiliza-
tion strategy that included research, training, and com-
munity organizing resources to benefit youth, families,
partners, and the Flint community. The Center re-
ceived federal, state, and local grants to support its
projects. Those projects integrate multiple partners
and represent a synergy of the values, goals, strengths,
and connections of partner organizations and the
Center itself (Table 1).
Several projects did not originate as YVPC projects,
but were adopted by CSC members or Flint field staff.
These projects expanded the scope and diversity of the
Center’s community mobilization efforts, attracting
participation of an even greater variety of partners, and
have broadened the use of resources and expertise
marshaled through the Center to benefit various part-
ners and the larger community. In addition, many
projects funded by the Center are led by its community-
based organization partners, which receive funding and
technical support to implement these projects, thereby
building their organizational capacity to carry out collab-
orative programs and independent projects in the future.
Through their affiliation with the YVPC, CSC partners
have also been successful in acquiring financial support,
technical assistance, materials, and human resources to
support their own organizations and programs address-
ing youth violence. This, in turn, increases their orga-
nizations’ visibility in the community.
The pooling of resources among YVPC partners has
enabled the YVPC and its partners to support surveil-
lance projects used to evaluate the Center’s impact on
youth violence and related issues in the community.
Surveillance research includes Flint police data on
crimes involving juveniles; periodic updates on juvenile
court petitions; a county injury surveillance system
developed by the YVPC, the health department, and
March 2008
three local hospitals; and a university-led biennial tele-
phone survey of over 1800 county residents on percep-
tions of neighborhood conditions, violence and crime,
social determinants of health, and other indicators of
community health. Connecting these data provides a
unique opportunity to develop a surveillance system
that is comprehensive, addresses the limitations of any
one source, and provides useful information for Center
planning and evaluation. The Center also has devel-
oped a community resource guide of youth programs
that address various aspects of youth violence preven-
tion. Surveillance and other data also inform and
influence priorities of YVPC partner organizations.
Some CSC members suggested expanding the availabil-
ity and accessibility of information available through
the YVPC surveillance system to community and neigh-
borhood groups not affiliated with the Center, to
enable more community-action research addressing
topics outside the scope of the YVPC’s mission.
The YVPC’s most recent project—Youth Empower-
ment Solutions for Peaceful Communities (YES)—is an
example of how the Center has mobilized resources
and the community to promote community-level
change for youth violence prevention. The project links
middle school students with community organizations
to work on community improvement projects (e.g.,
gardens). YES employs a multilevel strategy with the
goal of providing youth with opportunities for mean-
ingful involvement in three broad areas: (1) preventing
youth violence and creating community change;
(2) enhancing neighborhood organizations’ ability to
divert youth from destructive activities by engaging
them in neighborhood projects; and (3) changing the
social and physical environment to reduce and prevent
violence. The YVPC surveillance system was used to
support the plan for the project and will be a critical
resource for monitoring and evaluating its effective-
ness. CSC partners consistently indicated that this
project was an opportunity for the YVPC to further
develop, refine, and implement a model for addressing
youth violence prevention in Flint.
The YVPC also hosts trainings to educate youth and
families about diverse aspects of violence and to sup-
port the next generation of concerned adults and
youth violence prevention professionals. A collabora-
tive conference of YVPC, CSC partners, and other
organizations on girls’ aggression provided a rare op-
portunity to focus on the issue of young female perpe-
trators of violence, often overshadowed by violence
among boys. And, in partnership with the U.S. Attor-
ney’s office and two local neighborhood organizations,
the YVPC developed a gun violence prevention pro-
gram for elementary schools and a companion session
for parents.
In addition, the YVPC has been integrally involved in
fostering the Ruth Mott Health Careers program,
which trains teams of high school students, supervised
Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3S) S95
by graduate students studying public health, to investi-
gate different aspects of risk and protective factors for
youth violence. The Center also collaborated with the
school system, police, a local coalition, and community
crime watch programs to create Safe Passage, in which
adult volunteers monitor city streets to reduce violent
incidents involving students traveling to and from
school.
Because youth involvement is a core goal and value of
the YVPC, the Center has employed a variety of strate-
gies to promote youth mobilization to address youth
violence. The Photovoice and KidSpeak® projects illus-
trate how empowerment and mobilization of youth and
the broader community have been operationalized to
address youth violence.29 In Photovoice, youth are
given cameras to capture a topic related to youth
violence.30 Youth meet in groups to discuss their pho-
tographs and compose descriptive narratives. Displays
of the pictures and narratives at the public library, the
county health department, and the arts council were
used to raise awareness and promote dialogue in the
community on violence-related issues.17 The Photo-
voice projects also provided the CSC with youths’
perspectives. This, along with other sources, informed
the selection of priorities and new projects for the
Center.
KidSpeak® brings youth to speak before panels of
community leaders and local and state policymakers on
topics related to youth violence. Topics have included
after school programs, community centers for youth,
quality of education, drugs in schools and neighbor-
hoods, youth suicide, abandoned buildings, the need
for employment opportunities for teens, and the lack of
safe spaces in school. Several youth have been invited
by members of the listening panels to share more of
their perspectives and insights through additional pre-
sentations and involvement in their organizations. De-
scriptions of additional YVPC programs are provided in
Table 1.
Another avenue through which the YVPC sought to
influence policy at the state level was participation in
the Michigan Department of Community Health’s
Youth Violence Strategic Planning Process. University
partners on the CSC were approached to participate in
this planning process, intended to provide suggestions
to the state legislature on policies and resource distri-
bution to reduce and prevent youth violence. The
University partners were able to involve several other
members of the CSC, thus ensuring that the views of
the YVPC and the needs of the Flint community were
well represented.
Discussion
This paper describes the community mobilization
strategies of Flint’s Youth Violence Prevention Center
(YVPC) within a framework of organizational empow-
S96 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 34, Number 3S
erment. The YVPC created an infrastructure (intraor-
ganizational component), networking opportunities
(interorganizational component), and intervention
strategies (extraorganizational component) that facili-
tated and organized efforts to address youth violence
in Flint (see Figure 2). The structures and practices
of the YVPC provided a foundation to capitalize on
community expertise, resources, and opportunities
to support community mobilization for youth violence
prevention.
The intraorganizational component of the Center
provided the structure and opportunities to bring to-
gether key stakeholders working on youth violence pre-
vention. The resources and expertise represented in
the YVPC administrative office, the Coordinator,
and the Community Steering Committee (CSC) pro-
vided the breadth and depth of knowledge, resources,
scientific expertise, and experience to inform the
YVPC’s community mobilization strategy. In addition,
the participation of partners in all aspects of Center
functioning has helped create the atmosphere of trust,
cooperation, involvement, and engagement necessary
to make the collaborative partnership successful.
The interorganizational component of the YVPC
helped to facilitate information sharing, relationship
building, and coordination. The CSC’s flexible recruit-
ment and membership policies helped create opportu-
nities for interested parties to learn from one another,
share their perspectives, and collaborate on strategies
to prevent youth violence. The YVPC’s structure and
practices give a diverse group of stakeholders the
opportunity to develop “weak ties,” thereby forming a
basis on which community mobilization efforts can
thrive. As Granovetter31 points out, weak ties act as
bridges between networks, thus linking individuals or
groups to others with access to needed information,
opportunities, and resources.
The YVPC’s extraorganizational component and
community mobilization efforts are rooted in the other
two components of organizational empowerment. Uti-
lizing and building on local resources, opportunities,
and structures to advance youth violence prevention
is not only cost effective, but helps to build commu-
nity capacity. This also helps to organize, coordinate,
and mobilize these resources at the community level.
Grounding the YVPC’s community mobilization strat-
egy in this collaborative partnership facilitates innova-
tion and the use of diverse types of expertise. Training,
empowering, and mobilizing youth to experience the
effect they can have on policy, practice, and their
communities creates a cadre of youth advocates to
reinforce and encourage continued involvement in
youth violence prevention. Further, marshalling the
collective resources and voice of the YVPC and its
youth can help shape youth violence prevention
public policy and practice at local, state, and national
levels.
www.ajpm-online.net
Implications
This case study provides practitioners with a model for
mobilizing their communities to address youth vio-
lence. The organizational empowerment framework,
and its focus on organizational structures and pro-
cesses, illustrates the importance of recognizing and
tending to the organizational systems and structures
that provide the foundation on which a community
mobilization effort may build. Strategies to organize
and empower a community to address youth violence
more effectively require strong partnerships with a well
connected core group of entities, and a broad network
of weak ties to community, political, institutional, and
environmental sources of information and influence.
The YVPC illustrates the importance of connecting
grassroots organizing and mobilizing with key institu-
tions and policymakers at the local and state levels. This
partnership provides an important, regular, and easy
opportunity for local and state policymakers interested
in youth violence to refine their ideas, disseminate infor-
mation, and collaborate across constituencies. This cross-
pollination of ideas not only strengthens program
development but also provides a venue for understand-
ing and addressing programmatic challenges (e.g., re-
cruitment, retention), acute community problems (e.g.,
incidents of violence), and chronic community challenges
(e.g., poverty, racism, institutional discrimination).
In addition, employing a community-based participa-
tory research (CBPR) approach can add value to the
proximal and distal outcomes of community mobiliza-
tion efforts. This approach is particularly well suited for
youth violence prevention because it brings together
diverse partners with multiple skills, expertise, and
sensitivities to examine and address complex problems
in culturally appropriate ways15,32,33; increases the rel-
evance, usefulness, and quality of intervention research
and resulting programs33–35; improves all partners’
research and program development capacity33,36; and
enhances the potential to overcome distrust of research
by communities that have historically been the focus of
such research.33,37 The way the YVPC operationalized
CBPR provided important tangible benefits to all part-
ners involved, apparently contributing to high atten-
dance, investment, and participation. All core partners
could identify tangible benefits of participating in the
YVPC and felt their perspectives and input were truly
valued and considered.
The organizational empowerment framework pro-
vided an insightful and flexible model for examining
proximal and distal benefits of the YVPC. Some of the
organizational empowerment constructs relevant to the
YVPC derive from Peterson’s and Zimmerman’s16 con-
ceptualization, whereas others emerged during the
data analysis as playing key roles in the YVPC’s empow-
erment and community mobilization efforts. Concep-
tual models of coalition or partnership research often
March 2008
focus on collective goals and functioning and pay less
attention to the unique missions of the partnering orga-
nizations. The organizational empowerment framework,
as operationalized in the YVPC, allows for simultaneously
considering the benefits of collaboration to individual
organizations, the collective partnership, and the com-
munity of interest. This framework also allows the
organizational structures and processes to be viewed
as central components of building a multilevel strat-
egy for community mobilization to address youth
violence.
Limitations
All collaborative partnerships are distinctive by nature,
so these findings may not be generalizable. Yet, the role
of open organizational membership, creation of oppor-
tunities for involvement, shared resource management,
and the organizational empowerment framework may
be a model for other partnerships. Although the results
of this study are based primarily on a limited set of
interviews, the case study design facilitated the collection
of extensive, in-depth data on CSC partners’ perceptions
and experiences with the YVPC. Future research that
collects information on the perceptions of CSC part-
ners who did not remain active with the partnership or
from informants external to the YVPC may provide a
more complete picture.
Qualitative research methods and data analysis tech-
niques may also raise concerns about the validity and
reliability of the data. The accuracy of self-reported
information is an important consideration when rely-
ing primarily on interview data. To diminish this prob-
lem, all interviews were confidential, the authors devel-
oped ongoing relationships and rapport with CSC
partners, and diverse data sources were used to trian-
gulate the results.33,38 – 40 The data analysis strategy
involved a systematic process of developing and refin-
ing a coding scheme and quote attribution.
Conclusion
Community-level interventions are critical aspects of
youth violence prevention. Collaborative partnerships
provide a means of organizing and facilitating efforts
across diverse sectors of a community. Organizational
empowerment theory provides a useful heuristic for
developing the necessary elements to mobilize the
people, resources, and activities for a coordinated
community mobilization effort. The YVPC infrastruc-
ture and practices (intraorganizational), sharing and
networking (interorganizational), and multifaceted in-
tervention strategy (extraorganizational) helped it cap-
italize on the breadth of resources in Flint to pro-
mote youth violence prevention. Collaborative
partnerships grounded in organizational empower-
Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3S) S97
ment theory can effectively use weak ties in the
community to address complex problems like youth
violence, which require a coordinated and sustained
commitment.
This research was supported by a grant from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Academic Centers
of Excellence on Youth Violence Prevention, through the
Flint Youth Violence Prevention Center (Cooperative Agree-
ment Number: R49/CCR518605) and a grant from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevention Re-
search Centers Program, through the Prevention Research
Center of Michigan (Cooperative Agreement Number: 1-U48-
DP-000055). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors
also would like to thank the partners of the Flint YVPC
Community Steering Committee who made this research
possible: Catholic Charities, Challenge Day, Community
Foundation of Greater Flint, Community Matters, C. S. Mott
Foundation, Flint Community Schools, Flint-Genesee
County Neighborhood Roundtable, Flint Odyssey House
Health Awareness Center, Flint Police Department, Gen-
esee County Community Action Resources Department, Gen-
esee County Family Court and Prosecutor’s Office, Genesee
County Health Department, Genesee Health System, Gen-
esee Intermediate School District, Greater Flint Arts Council,
Hurley Medical Center, Industrial Mutual Association, Light
of the World Foundation, Michigan Department of Commu-
nity Health, Michigan Department of Human Services Gen-
esee County Office, Motherly Intercession, Mott Children’s
Health Center, the Prevention Research Center of Michigan,
and Priority Children.
No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of
this paper.
References
1. Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R, eds. World report on
violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.
2. Koop CE. Violence and public health: update. In: Rosenberg ML, Fenley
MA, eds. Violence in America: a public health approach. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). Youth
violence: a report of the Surgeon General. Final report. Washington, DC:
USDHHS, Office of the Surgeon General, Jan 2001.
4. Sabol WJ, Coulton CJ, Korbin JE. Building community capacity for violence
prevention. J Interpers Violence 2004;19:322– 40.
5. Kawachi I, Kennedy BP, Wilkinson RG. Crime: social disorganization and
relative deprivation. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:719 –31.
6. Sampson RJ, Groves WB. Community structure and crime: testing social
disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 1989;94:774 – 803.
7. Shaw C, McKay H. Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1942.
8. Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1979.
9. Stoklos D. Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: toward a
social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol 1992;47:6 –22.
10. McNulty TL, Bellair PE. Explaining racial and ethnic differences in
adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and social
capital. Justice Quarterly 2003;20:1–31.
11. Randall J, Swenson CC, Henggeler SW. Neighborhood solutions for
neighborhood problems: an empirically based violence prevention collab-
oration. Health Educ Behav 1999;26:806 –20.
S98 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 34, Number 3S
12. Cheadle A, Wagner E, Anderman C, et al. Measuring community mobili-
zation in the Seattle minority youth health project. Eval Rev 1998;22:
699 –716.
13. Kegler MC, Steckler A, McLeroy K, Malek SH. Factors that contribute to
effective community health promotion coalitions: a study of ten project
ASSIST coalitions in North Carolina. Health Educ Behav 1998;25:338 –53.
14. Roussos ST, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy
for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health 2000;21:
369 – 402.
15. Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for
prevention and health promotion. Health Educ Res 1993;8:315–30.
16. Peterson NA, Zimmerman MA. Beyond the individual: toward a nomolog-
ical network of organizational empowerment. Am J Community Psychol
2004;34:129 – 45.
17. Wang CC, Morrel-Samuels S, Hutchinson P, Bell L, Pestronk R. Flint
Photovoice: community building among youths, adults and policymakers.
2004;94:911–3.
18. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports: crime in the U.S.
2002. Final report. Washington, DC: Office of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2002.
19. Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center. Crime in
Michigan: 2003 Uniform Crime Reports. Final Report. Lansing, MI:
Michigan State Police; 2003.
20. U.S. Census Bureau [database on the Internet]. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Fact Finder. c2003–[cited 2005 Apr 17]. Available at: http://factfinder.
census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang⫽en.
21. U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics [database on the
Internet]. Washington, DC: Local area unemployment statistics for states
and metropolitan Statistical Areas. c2003- [cited 2005 Apr 17]. Available at:
http://www.bls.gov./data/home.htm.
22. State of the Cities Data System [database on the Internet]. Washington,
DC: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. c2001
[updated 2005 Mar 31; cited 2005 May 10]. Available at: http://socds.hu-
duser.org/index.html.
23. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform crime reports: crime in the U.S.,
2004. Washington, DC: Office of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2005.
24. Caldwell CH, Chavous TM, Barnett TE, Kohn-Wood LP, Zimmerman MA.
Social determinants of experiences with violence among adolescents:
unpacking the role of race in violence. Phylon 2003;50:87–113.
25. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five
traditions. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
26. Zimmerman MA, Israel BA, Freudenberg N, Becker MH, Janz NK. Meth-
odology. In: Freudenberg N, Zimmerman MA, eds. AIDS prevention in the
community: lessons from the first decade. Washington DC: American
Public Health Association, 1995:199 –203.
27. Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, et al. (RTI-University of North
Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center). Community-based participatory
research: assessing the evidence. Evidence report/technology assessment
no. 99. Final report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, July 2004. Contract No: 290-02-0016.
28. Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. Introduction. In Israel BA, Eng E,
Schulz AJ, Parker EA, eds. Methods in community-based participatory
research for health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
29. Flint’s Youth Violence Prevention Center [homepage on the Internet].
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of Public Health c2001–
2005 [cited 2005 Apr 17]. Projects: Photovoice; [about 3 screens]. Available
at: http://www.sph.umich.edu/yvpc/projects/photovoice/index.shtml.
30. Wang C, Burris M. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for partic-
ipatory needs assessment. Health Educ Behav. 1997;24:369 – 87.
31. Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Socio
Theor 1983;1:201–33.
32. Minkler M. Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in commu-
nity-based participatory research. Health Educ Behav 2004;31;684 – 697.
33. Israel BA, Schultz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based
research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu
Rev Public Health 1998;19:173–202.
34. Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Israel BA, Becker AB, Maciak BJ, Hollis R. Conduct-
ing a participatory community-based survey: collecting and interpreting
data for a community health intervention on Detroit’s east side. J Public
Health Manag Pract 1998;4;10 –24.
35. Kerner JF, Dusenbury L, Mandelblatt JS. Poverty and cultural diversity:
challenges for health promotion among the medically underserved. Annu
Rev Public Health 1993;14;355–77.
www.ajpm-online.net
36. Singer M, Gonzalez W, Vega E, Centeno I, Davison L. Implementing a
community based AIDS prevention program for ethnic minorities: the
Communidad y Responsibilidad Project. In Van Vugt JP, ed. AIDS preven-
tion and services: community based research. Westport, CT: Bergin &
Garvey, 1994:59 –92.
37. Williams DR, Collins C. US socioeconomic and racial differences in health:
patterns and explanations. Annu Rev Sociol 1995;21:349 – 86.
March 2008
38. Abu-Lughod L. Veiled statements: honor and poetry in a Bedouin society.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
39. Bernard H. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative
approaches. 3rd ed. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
40. Dewalt K, Dewalt B, Wayland C. Participant observation. In: Bernard R, ed.
Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Press; 1998:259 –99.
Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3S) S99