Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12

DOI 10.1002/ajcp.12438

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Addressing Crime, Violence, and Other Determinants of Health

through Community-Based Participatory Research and Implementation
Science
Katie Cotter Stalker,1 Mary Ellen Brown,1 Caroline B.R. Evans,2 Julie Hibdon,3 and Cody Telep1

Highlights
• This study highlights the utility of CBPR and implementation science for crime/violence prevention.
• Through cross-sector partnerships, the nature and scope of community crime/violence were assessed.
• Findings highlighted an active drug market, high-stress, concern for youth, and lack of trust in police.

© 2020 Society for Community Research and Action

Abstract In this paper, we describe the assessment and residents and law enforcement, and a need to address the
planning phase of the Thrive community-based initiative built environment to promote safety and well-being.
to reduce violence and address other determinants of
health in a community in the Southwestern United States. Keywords Community-based participatory research 

Using community-based participatory research (CBPR) Crime prevention 

Violence prevention Health


and an implementation science framework, we engaged promotion Implementation science



residents and other key stakeholders as equal partners in

the assessment and planning process. The Thrive
assessment and planning phase involved collaboration
among researchers, residents, law enforcement, nonprofit
agencies, public health, local government, and other
cross-sector partners. We used implementation science in
order to examine the barriers and facilitators to addressing
community health and safety, to assess the nature and
scope of health and safety issues, to review existing
solutions, to assess the acceptability and necessary
adaptations of selected interventions, and to assess
feasibility and sustainability of the initiative. Through
interviews, focus groups, analysis of crime incident data,
geomapping, and direct observations, our findings
highlighted the presence of an open-air drug market, the
high-stress nature of the community, concern for the lack
of opportunities for youth, the lack of trust between
✉ Katie Cotter Stalker
katie.stalker@asu.edu
1
Arizona State University, Tucson, AZ, USA
2
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC,
USA
3
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
Introduction
Residents in communities with high levels of crime
and violence are at heightened risk for a host of nega-
tive physical and mental health outcomes (Krug, Dahl-
berg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002; Weisburd et al.,
2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR)
represents a promising approach to promote health
among residents in communities impacted by crime
and violence. The purpose of the current article was to
describe the assessment and planning phase of the
Thrive community-based initiative to reduce violence
and address other determinants of health in a commu-
nity in Tucson, Arizona. The assessment and planning
efforts of this initiative were rooted in CBPR and were
organized using an overarching implementation science
framework (the Quality Enhancement Research Initia-
tive; QUERI).
Connections Between Community Crime/Violence and
Health
Community crime and violence impacts residents both
directly (i.e., personal victimization or property crime)
2 Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
and indirectly (i.e., witnessing and/or hearing about com-
munity members being victimized or property crimes tak-
ing place; DeCou & Lynch, 2017; Hartinger-Saunders
et al., 2012). Both direct and indirect community crime/
violence are considered serious public health issues and
can negatively impact residents’ mental and physical
health (Krug et al., 2002; Weisburd et al., 2018). Victims
of crime/violence suffer from physical pain, decreased
quality of life, and psychological distress (McCollister,
French, & Fang, 2011). More specifically, feeling unsafe
in one’s neighborhood due to crime/violence was signifi-
cantly associated with poor mental health and decreased
physical activity (Meyer, Castro-Schilo, & Aguilar-Gaxi-
ola, 2014). Residents in violent neighborhoods might stay
indoors due to fear of victimization and, as such, may
have fewer opportunities for community engagement. The
social and environmental conditions of neighborhoods
have been connected to violence, a lack of access to
health resources, and few safe places to be active out-
doors, contributing to social disconnectedness and poor
health outcomes (Cubbin, Egerter, Braveman, & Pedre-
gon, 2008). Indeed, a meta-review concluded that decreas-
ing community violence was necessary to improve
community health and well-being (Egan, Tannahill, Petti-
crew, & Thomas, 2008).
Implementation Science and CBPR
Despite acknowledgment of the impact of crime and vio-
lence on community health, there are considerable chal-
lenges to implementing crime and violence prevention
initiatives. Indeed, there is a research-practice gap such
that the uptake of research-based strategies to address
crime and violence in real-world communities is limited
(Backer & Guerra, 2011; Knight et al., 2016; Spoth &
Greenberg, 2011). Implementation science can be used to
address this research-to-practice gap. Implementation
science refers to the translation of research into commu-
nity solutions by focusing on barriers to successful imple-
mentation, identifying strategies for effective
dissemination, and determining necessary adaptations of
interventions (Eccles et al., 2009). CBPR, described
below, complements an implementation science approach
by encouraging authentic community engagement and sus-
tained social change.
Community-based participatory research is an approach
that involves collaboration between researchers and the
community members affected by the issue being studied
in order to enact social change (e.g., improve health out-
comes, eliminate health disparities; Faridi, Grunbaum,
Gray, Franks, & Simoes, 2007; Israel et al., 2008; Kral &
Allen, 2016; Minkler, 2005). CBPR establishes a coopera-
tive and collaborative relationship between researchers
and community members in which both parties contribute
equally and engage in co-learning and empowerment
(Brown & Stalker, 2018; Minkler, 2000). When commu-
nity members are involved in and committed to the
research taking place in their community, it is more likely
that the findings will be embraced by community mem-
bers and readily implemented (Faridi et al., 2007). Thus,
the CBPR approach increases the likelihood that research
findings will make positive and lasting community
change.
Using principles of CBPR and implementation science,
the Thrive initiative aims to address community crime,
violence, and other determinants of health in partnership
with residents and stakeholders. In this paper, we present
the results of the assessment and planning phase of the
Thrive initiative. Through partnerships with community
residents, law enforcement, social service agencies, non-
profit agencies, public health, and local government, we
identified challenges and developed a continuum of strate-
gies in response to the issues that negatively affect the
health and well-being of community members. In the fol-
lowing sections, we describe our CBPR/implementation
science approach, present the results of the planning and
assessment phase, and discuss highlights and challenges
of our CBPR process.
Method
Target Community
The Thrive initiative focuses on a 1.5-square-mile area in
Tucson, Arizona. Although the target community once
flourished as the main gateway into downtown Tucson,
over the last 20 years the area has experienced gradual
decline characterized by disrepair and blight. The area is
now known for high levels of crime and violence, access
to drugs, sex work, and high numbers of individuals who
are homeless.
Residents of the target community are quite diverse.
There are a number of older adults and individuals with
disabilities who reside in a high-rise public housing com-
plex located in the Thrive community. In addition, the tar-
get community is home to a small urban Native American
community. The majority (58%) of residents in the target
neighborhood identify as Hispanic. In terms of race, 55%
identified as White, 7.5% as American Indian, 6.5% as
Black, 3.4% as Asian, 5.3% identified as two or more
races, and 22.6% identified as some other race. The target
area includes some long-term residents, although much of
the population is transient. Approximately 64% of house-
holds are renter-occupied, 22% are owner-occupied, and
14% are vacant (ESRI, 2019). Many residents live below
Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
the poverty line. In 2019, the median household income
was $17,754 (ESRI, 2019).
Approach
We used CBPR and an implementation science framework
(QUERI) to guide our work with residents and other
stakeholders as equal partners throughout the Thrive
assessment and planning phase. QUERI was developed by
the Department of Veterans Affairs and is a 5-step process
that guides the implementation of evidence-based practices
in healthcare settings by translating research findings into
practice in order to enhance patient care (Stetler, Mittman,
& Francis, 2008). We adapted QUERI for use with com-
munity crime/violence prevention initiatives and used the
adapted QUERI-CV (i.e., QUERI-Crime and Violence)
framework for the current study. Specifically, we used the
QUERI-CV framework to organize the aims of our plan-
ning and assessment phase and our work toward these
aims was grounded in CBPR values (i.e., authentic com-
munity participation, equal power, co-learning).
The assessment and planning phase of the Thrive initia-
tive was organized around the following QUERI-CV
informed aims: (a) to evaluate the barriers and facilitators to
addressing community violence, including community-level
health disparities and risk factors; (b) to assess the nature
and scope of safety and health issues; (c) to conduct a for-
mal systematic review of available interventions to address
the specific public health and crime needs; (d) to assess the
acceptability (e.g., cultural relevance, stakeholder support)
of a continuum of interventions co-created with the commu-
nity to address the presenting health and safety needs, and
determine necessary adaptations; and (e) to assess the feasi-
bility and sustainability of the interventions.
In order to achieve these aims, we convened a research
team (i.e., the ACTION team) that consisted of both
researchers and community partners. The ACTION team
involved joint decision-making and ensuring that both par-
ties had equal power to share perspectives and influence
research activities as described in the Assess Connect
Transform In Our Neighborhood framework (Brown &
Stalker, 2018). The following sections describe the speci-
fic methods used to reach the five planning and assess-
ment aims.
Interviews, Focus Groups, and Visioning Sessions
In order to address QUERI-CV aim 1 (i.e., to evaluate the
barriers and facilitators to addressing community violence,
including community-level health disparities and risk fac-
tors), the ACTION team guided decisions related to what
type of information we needed to gather, how it should be
gathered, and who we needed to gather it from.
3
Ultimately, interviews, focus groups, and visioning ses-
sions were conducted with law enforcement, community
members, and other community partners.
Seven interviews were conducted with law enforcement
and resident leaders. Police officers were recruited from
the local police department and volunteered to participate
in the interview process. Residents and other community
partners were recruited from various community meetings
and volunteered to participate. Each interview lasted
between 45 and 60 minutes and was audio recorded and
then transcribed. Each interview was structured using a
detailed interview guide with questions focused on partici-
pants’ views of what types of crime/violence impacted the
Thrive community, causes/drivers of the crime/violence,
challenges to addressing crime/violence in the Thrive
community, resources/assets the community has that could
be leveraged to address crime/violence, community readi-
ness to address crime/violence, and possible incentives to
encourage community participation.
Four focus groups and seven visioning sessions were
held across the community. Focus groups were closed,
invited groups with 7–12 participants each while visioning
sessions were open, public groups comprised of 6–22 par-
ticipants each; these group sessions lasted 60–90 minutes
each. Participants consisted of community residents and
key community leaders. Participants were recruited from
community meetings and by word of mouth. The same
interview guide used for the individual interviews was
used for the focus groups and visioning sessions. Each
group session was audio recorded and transcribed verba-
tim. Interviews were facilitated by researchers, whereas
focus groups were co-facilitated by researchers and resi-
dent partners who assisted with Spanish translation. Two
researchers read and coded all interviews by identifying,
extracting, interpreting, and synthesizing common themes
across interviews, focus group, and visioning transcripts.
A theoretical thematic analysis, driven by the specific
research questions related to QUERI-CV aim 1 was
employed (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Findings were vali-
dated using member checking with participants to ensure
accuracy and credibility.
Assessment of Crime Hot Spots
We assessed the nature and scope of safety and health
issues (QUERI-CV aim 2) in the community by analyzing
existing crime incident data. Point-level crime incident
data from the local police department were used to iden-
tify hot spots (i.e., small geographic areas of chronic
crime) and to examine types of crime occurring. Part 1
incidents as classified by the Uniform Crime Report (i.e.,
criminal homicide, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, rob-
bery, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson) were selected
4 Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
from all recorded incidents, geocoded, and examined in
two ways. First, geocoded events were spatially joined to
street segments (i.e., events occurring on both sides of a
street from intersection to intersection) in order to obtain
approximate counts for each street segment. Second, the
geocoded data were used to create kernel density maps.
Essentially, this technique creates a grid of cells for the
study area. Values for each cell within the grid are then
calculated based on the number of incidents within and
bordering each cell. Thus, darker areas represent cells with
higher calculated densities based on the number of events
within a given spatial proximity. The lighter colors in the
map represent cells with lower densities. In our ACTION
team meetings, we shared the heat maps and crime statis-
tics and engaged in interpretation of the data. We identi-
fied five chronic crime hot spots, described in the results
section below, through this collaborative process.
Systematic street observations, a second method for
assessing the nature and scope of safety and health issues
in the Thrive community, were a collaboration between
researchers and law enforcement partners. Specifically,
systematic street observations at the hot spots identified
through point-level crime incident data were conducted by
police-researcher dyads during ride-alongs in which a
researcher accompanied a police officer on his/her patrol.
During each ride-along, a researcher sat in the front seat
of the police car while the police officer drove to each of
the hot spots that were established through the hot spot
mapping process. For each hot spot, the police officer–re-
searcher dyad was instructed to drive through the two-
block radius surrounding the hot spot and then to park in
order to record their observations using a digital system-
atic street observation tool. Systematic street observations
occurred during four 6-hour blocks throughout the day:
12:00 pm–6:00 pm, 6:00 pm–12:00 am, 12:00 pm–
6:00 am, and 6:00 am–12:00 pm. Observations lasted
between 90 and 120 minutes.
For four of the five hot spots identified, both the police
officer and researcher completed an online survey.
Twenty-four ride-alongs took place, which resulted in 24
researcher and 24 police observations (N = 48) for each
of the four hot spots (the fifth hot spot contained a resi-
dential housing unit, and rather than collect data via
observation, we conducted focus groups with residents).
Surveys assessed the number of people present in each
hot spot, group size, and activities (e.g., waiting for a bus,
engaging in recreation, using substances, loitering). In
addition, participants noted the functionality of street
lights, presence of graffiti and gang-related graffiti, traffic
density, and presence of various activities (e.g., conflicts,
dogs barking, individuals exercising/walking, adults play-
ing with children). Finally, researchers and police were
asked to rate their perceived level of safety in each hot
spot with five possible response options (very unsafe,
unsafe, somewhat safe, safe, or very safe).
Systematic Review
The results of the interviews, focus groups, hot spot map-
ping, and systematic street observations (described below)
indicated that crime/violence in the form of drug use and
dealing was one of the most pressing issues in the Thrive
community. This finding informed our systematic review
(QUERI-CV aim 3), which we used to identify possible
intervention strategies to address the drug use, dealing,
and crime issues in the Thrive community. Two research-
ers independently and systematically reviewed 12 data-
bases, focusing on crime/violence interventions that also
addressed substance use. The researchers compared their
results to ensure that the same articles were selected and
addressed any discrepancies. The authors then extracted
data for each of the articles and thematically analyzed the
results (see Evans, Stalker, & Brown, 2020 for additional
details on the methodology).
Collaborative Intervention Workshops
Following initial assessment, the ACTION team held work-
shops with community members, law enforcement, and
other stakeholders to examine potential intervention strate-
gies to address the identified issues. The goal of these
workshops was to consider possible strategies to address
the most pressing needs in the community that our data col-
lection uncovered. Specifically, we collaboratively assessed
the appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability of a num-
ber of potential strategies (QUERI-CV aims 4 and 5).
Results
Interviews, Focus Groups, and Visioning Sessions
Five major themes emerged across interviews, focus groups,
and visioning sessions related to barriers facing the Thrive
community: (a) existence of an open-air drug market, (b) the
high-stress nature of the Thrive community, (c) lack of
opportunities for youth, (d) lack of resident trust in police
officers, and (e) challenges with the built environment.
Existence of an Open-air Drug Market
In all sessions, participants mentioned the toll that drug
use and dealing has had on the community. The drug use
and dealing occurs in plain sight. In addition, participants
frequently mentioned problems with property crimes (i.e.,
shoplifting, petty theft, burglaries, larceny, vandalism,
Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12 5

auto theft), violent crimes (i.e., shootings, gangs, simple
assault, street level violence, domestic violence), and
social disorder (i.e., homelessness, sex workers, public
intoxication, illicit drugs). Notably, many participants
reported that non-drug crimes were often related to drugs;
participants reiterated that substance use and drug dealing
were problems in and of themselves and also caused other
types of crime and violence.
High-stress Nature of the Thrive Community
Participants described the community crime and violence
as negatively impacting residents’ lives in a number of
ways. First, the presence of crime and violence decreased
overall quality of life. For instance, residents were hesitant
to use the park or public transportation and parents did
not feel children could safely walk to school or play out-
side. Residents reported feeling fear and anxiety, and
police reiterated that residents lived in a heightened state
of stress and fear of victimization. Participants who
worked in the community also reported being fearful
going to and from their workplaces. Further, participants
reported the large number of vulnerable populations in the
community (e.g., people who are homeless, veterans,
older adults, individuals with disabilities, individuals suf-
fering from substance addictions, children, and youth)
made them easy targets for exploitation and victimization.
lack of trust in police. This lack of trust was considered a
significant barrier for reporting crime and promoting crime
prevention in the Thrive neighborhood. Further, partici-
pants noted that youth in the community do not have
opportunities for positive interaction with police officers.
Challenges with the Built Environment
Participants noted a number of challenges and barriers that
were related to the built environment. Specifically, a num-
ber of vacant and abandoned homes, aging homes, lack of
property upkeep, high number of out-of-state landlords,
lack of lighting in the streets, and trash and blight were
identified as contributing to crime in the community. In
addition, several business owners and residents identified
a desire for support in addressing criminal activity that
impacts their businesses and neighborhood streets.
Assessment of Crime Hot Spots
After geomapping official crime incident data, five distinct
geographic areas with high concentrations of crime

Lack of Opportunities for Youth

Participants indicated that there was a lack of opportunities

for youth to engage in prosocial activities in the commu-
nity. Participants also emphasized the need for positive role
models given that many youth witness violent and illegal
behavior. One focus group participant who works with
youth in the community explained: “And even though it’s
the middle of the day and there’s kids in the park, there’s
still people who don’t care. They’re going to go on with
their illegal activities, they’re going to cuss you out, they’re
going to stare you down. [. . .] They don’t care if there’s
kids getting off the bus. We’ve had cars honk at them
because there’s people in the middle of the street beating
each other up. We’ve seen people shooting up and we’ve
called and the response time-- and we are usually the ones
who only call because no one else will.” Prosocial activities
and positive role models were seen as avenues to prevent
youth from engaging in crime and violence.

Lack of Resident Trust in Police Officers
Both law enforcement and residents reported that residents
were often reticent to talk to the police. Participants noted
a declining police presence in their neighborhood and a
Fig. 1 Kernel Density Map of Part 1 Crimes in Thrive Neighbor-
hood. Note: Part 1 incidents are designated by the Uniform Crime
Report (UCR) offense reporting definitions. Part 1 offenses include
murder/homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary (break-
ing or entering), larceny–theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson (see
https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/offenses.cfm for complete definitions)
6 Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
emerged (i.e., hot spots; see Fig. 1 for a heat map illus-
trating Part 1 Violent Crimes). We held an ACTION team
meeting with the goal of collaboratively interpreting the
maps. Our discussions began with team members orient-
ing themselves to the map and where the hot spots resided
in their community. Community partners described the
features of each of the hot spots and also highlighted
characteristics of the environment that contributed to crim-
inal activity. Hot spot #1 is a commercial area with a con-
venience store (one of the only places to buy food in the
area) and two bus stops nearby, making it a high traffic
area. A fast food restaurant and alley behind the conve-
nience store provide a semiprivate location for illegal
activities. There are also a few vacant lots, bus stops, and
dim lighting that facilitate crime. Hot spot #2 is also a
commercial area with an adjacent elementary school and a
stretch of space with a wall that is known for sex workers.
Hot spot #3 houses old “motor court” style residences that
are small, low cost, and generally not well-maintained.
Alleys, dumpsters, and dim lighting facilitate drug deal-
ing. Hot spot #4 is a commercial area with a strip mall
that houses several small retail stores including a dollar
store and smoke shop. There is a behavioral health clinic
and vacant gas station across the street. Hot spot #5 is a
commercial/residential area with a large, public housing
high rise.
In general, community partners agreed that the identi-
fied hot spots were indeed areas of significant criminal
activity. The group then examined the frequency and
types of crimes that occurred at each hot spot (see Fig. 2).
Hot spots 1, 2, and 4 had high frequencies of burglary/lar-
ceny/shoplifting. In terms of types of assaults, hot spot 1
60
*
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hot Spot 1
Hot Spot 2
Hot Spot 3
Assaults
Burglary/Larceny/Shoplifting
Narcotic Drug Laws
Fig. 2 Frequency of select crime incident categories in Thrive hot spots, 2018. Note: Frequency of burglary/larceny/shoplifting in hotspot 2
was 129. The maximum value of the y-axis was limited for clarity
had a considerable number of non-domestic violence
assaults, hot spot 3 had a considerable number of domes-
tic violence related assaults, and hot spot 2 had relatively
high numbers of both types of assaults. Hot spots 2, 3,
and 5 had higher frequencies of transports to treatment
facilities and welfare checks. Counts of narcotic drug law-
related offenses were sizeable in hot spots 1 and 2. Disor-
derly conduct incidents were also notable across the five
hot spots.
In addition to examining secondary crime incident data,
we also conducted direct observations of hot spots. This
was necessary given documented limitations of police
data, particularly when examining narcotics crime.
According to Hibdon and Groff (2014), it is necessary to
examine multiple sources of data because police data tend
to reflect proactive policing at locations known for drug
activity.
Hot Spot #1
Police and researcher observations indicated that this area
was poorly lit, with several nearby vacant and aban-
doned buildings. Twenty-four of 33 responses indicated
that the place did not appear to be safe for residents. Of
the 48 total observations, police and researchers noted
26 incidents of suspected drug use, eight incidents of
suspected drug dealing, and two incidents of suspected
sex work. Other notable challenges documented during
observations included loitering and soliciting money.
Observers also noted maintenance of public space, indi-
viduals waiting for a bus, and children playing/walking
with adults.
Hot Spot 4
Hot Spot 5
Assaults- Domestic Violence
Disorderly Conduct
Transported to Treatment/Welfare Check
Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
Hot Spot #2
Similar to the findings from hot spot #1, police and
researchers noted that hot spot #2 was poorly lit, with
several abandoned and vacant buildings. When asked
whether the place appeared to be safe for residents, 19 out
of 32 responses indicated “no.” Of the 48 total observa-
tions, police and researchers noted 16 incidents of sus-
pected drug use, 8 incidents of suspected drug dealing,
and 6 incidents of suspected sex work. Additional
observed activities included individuals loitering, exercis-
ing/walking/cycling, and children walking with adults.
Hot Spot #3
Twenty-three of 32 responses indicated that the place did
not appear to be safe for residents. Of the 48 observations,
police and researchers noted 16 incidents of suspected
drug, seven incidents of suspected drug dealing, and three
incidents of suspected sex work. Police and researcher
observations also indicated the presence of unattended
dogs, individuals engaged in conflict/arguments, children
playing, and individuals engaged in home repair.
Hot Spot #4
Seventeen of 30 responses indicated that hot spot #4 did
not appear to be safe for residents. Of the 48 total obser-
vations, police and researchers observed 23 incidents of
suspected drug use, 6 incidents of suspected drug dealing,
and 5 incidents of suspected sex work. Observations also
indicated the presence of graffiti, loitering, and individuals
soliciting money. Individuals were also observed waiting
for the bus and exercising/walking/cycling.
Hot Spot #5
Hot spot #5 was the location of a public housing high-rise
building. Through discussion with our law enforcement
partners during our ACTION team meetings, it became
clear that the nature of criminal activity in this hot spot
was unique. Many of the calls for service were generated
from the public housing unit. Thus, we agreed that con-
versations with residents of the public housing unit would
be the best way to further understand the nature and scope
of crime in this hot spot. We conducted focus groups with
the residents and reviewed resident complaint forms. Find-
ings indicated that residents reported concerns related to
physical fighting, threats/verbal fighting, suspicion of drug
use and dealing, conflict among neighbors, noise com-
plaints, smoking on the property, theft, and unauthorized
guests on the property.
7
Systematic Review
Overall, 73 articles were included that either evaluated or
described an intervention designed to reduce crime/vio-
lence that also addressed substance use. Specifically, 40
articles evaluated crime/violence and substance use pro-
grams implemented in the community, schools, law
enforcement/justice settings, and healthcare settings and 19
articles described programs implemented in these milieus.
A thematic analysis was conducted on both evaluation and
descriptive studies (See Evans, Stalker, & Brown, 2020).
Researchers considered each intervention found in the sys-
tematic review for potential use with the Thrive community
including a Drug Market Intervention (DMI; Corsaro,
Brunson, & McGarrell, 2010; Stallings, Hawkins, & Ward,
2015) that was ultimately selected for the Thrive commu-
nity. The collaborative workshop process used to guide
intervention selection is described below.
Collaborative Intervention Workshops
The findings from the focus groups, visioning sessions,
individual interviews, and systematic street observations
highlighted a number of issues affecting the health and
safety of the Thrive community. Based on these issues,
the ACTION team compiled a variety of evidence-based
and innovative interventions that could be used to address
the identified issues. For each proposed intervention, the
ACTION team held a workshop that brought together
community stakeholders that were in some way connected
to the identified issue or the proposed intervention. For
example, as previously mentioned, the DMI emerged from
the systematic review as a promising intervention to com-
bat the drug use and related community crime. For the
DMI workshop, the ACTION team invited law enforce-
ment officers, representatives from a behavioral health
agency, and a representative from the county attorney’s
office. This workshop group discussed whether DMI was
appropriate and relevant in the Thrive community,
whether adaptations were necessary, and which resources
existed to contribute to the intervention and continue after
the grant ended. Ultimately, seven workshops were held
and five strategies, discussed in detail to follow, were
selected (i.e., DMI, Community Resiliency Model, You
Can Too, Youth Empowerment Solutions, Crime Preven-
tion through Environmental Design).
Discussion
Grounded in CBPR and implementation science, the Thrive
assessment and planning phase involved collaboration
8 Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
among researchers, residents, law enforcement, nonprofit
agencies, public health, local government, and other cross-
sector partners. The CBPR partnership aimed to examine
the barriers and facilitators to addressing community health
and safety, to assess the nature and scope of health and
safety issues, to review existing solutions, to assess the
acceptability and necessary adaptations of selected inter-
ventions, and to assess feasibility and sustainability of the
initiative. The CBPR approach guided our assessment of
community crime/violence from a variety of perspectives
(residents, business owners, law enforcement, crime inci-
dent data) using a number of methods (interviews, focus
groups, geomapping, direct observation). Together, our
findings highlighted the presence of an open-air drug mar-
ket, the high-stress nature of the community, concern for
the lack of opportunities for neighborhood youth, a lack of
trust between residents and law enforcement, and a need to
address issues in the built environment.
Open-Air Drug Markets and Drug Market Intervention
(DMI)
Findings from the interviews, focus groups, and system-
atic street observations indicated that there was an open-
air drug market operating in multiple hot spots in the
Thrive community. In essence, an open-air drug market
means that drugs are sold and used out in the open; these
markets operate in a specific geographic location at identi-
fiable times so buyers and sellers can easily locate each
other (Haroscopos & Hough, 2005). The Drug Market
Intervention strategy was identified through our systematic
review and was selected by community partners to shut
down the open-air drug market. The DMI strategy
involves arresting violent dealers, suspending cases for
nonviolent dealers, and bringing together community lead-
ers, law enforcement, and dealers to send a message that
the dealing must stop (National Networks for Safe Com-
munities, 2015). In order to support the sustainability of
the DMI and other law enforcement strategies in the target
community, our law enforcement partners have created a
command center to provide infrastructure within the
agency to examine data and develop data-informed solu-
tions on a continuous basis.
Using a CBPR approach was essential for our identifi-
cation of the open-air drug market in the Thrive commu-
nity. In addition to examining official crime incident data,
we had in-depth conversations with residents and law
enforcement through focus groups and interviews.
Through these conversations, we learned that drug use
fueled much of the crime in the area, such as assaults and
shoplifting/burglary. Drugs were a key driver of crime
that was not readily apparent in the crime data alone, a
finding that is consistent with previous research (Hibdon
& Groff, 2014). Further, by using a CBPR approach, we
developed a strong relationship with our law enforcement
partners, which allowed us to safely conduct systematic
street observations that further illuminated the existence of
an open-air drug market.
High-Stress Nature of the Community and the
Community Resiliency Model (CRM)
Findings highlighted the high-stress nature of the Thrive
community. Residents were exposed to multiple forms of
chronic stress (e.g., visible drug use and dealing, violence,
poverty, social disorder) on a daily basis. Research indi-
cates that chronic stress alters the brain, diminishing the
body’s ability to process and respond to stressors. These
changes are related to increased emotional exhaustion,
PTSD and depressive symptoms, physical pain, duration
of poverty, career instability, hostility, and mortality as
well as decreased cognitive ability, self-rated health,
mobility/physical activity and functioning, working mem-
ory, and maternal responsiveness (See Juster, McEwen, &
Lupien, 2010 for a review). In order to mitigate the
impact of the chronic stressors on individual well-being,
the Community Resiliency Model (CRM) was selected as
an implementation strategy in the Thrive community.
The goal of CRM is to create “trauma-informed” and “re-
siliency-focused” communities that understand the impact of
chronic stress and trauma on the body and how a skills-based
approach can restore resiliency (Trauma Resource Institute,
n.d.). Community CRM training teaches community mem-
bers about the common reactions to communal trauma/stress
such as poverty, racism, and violence; how to reduce these
reactions; and how to integrate wellness skills into daily life
(Trauma Resource Institute, n.d.). Promoting sustainability,
participants are encouraged to pass these skills along to fam-
ily, friends, and the wider community. Research indicates
that CRM was significantly associated with reductions in
anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and hostility. In
addition, CRM participants reported improvements in daily
functioning including self-regulation of agitation anger,
impulsivity, and proclivity to self-medicate with substances
(Miller-Karas & Citron, 2013a, 2013b).
Our CBPR approach led us to take a holistic approach to
our community assessment. For instance, we learned from
community members that they felt unsafe taking their chil-
dren to the local park and allowing their children to walk to/
from school. Further exploration of the lived experiences of
residents highlighted a number of persistent stressors pre-
sent in the Thrive community. In addition to identifying
CRM as one of our strategies to address the identified
chronic stress, we were able to leverage our local partner-
ships to bring dental and health resources and information
into the Thrive community through a biannual resource fair.
Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
Lack of Opportunities for Youth, Youth Empowerment
Solutions (YES), and You Can, Too (YCT)
Data collected through interviews, focus groups, and system-
atic street observations indicated that youth in the Thrive
community had limited opportunities and were often exposed
to the criminal behavior at the identified hot spots. In addi-
tion to efforts to decrease crime directly, we sought program-
ming that would provide support for youth and enhance
protective factors. The Youth Empowerment Solutions
(YES) and You Can Too (YCT) programs were selected as
interventions to address the lack of opportunities for youth.
YES is an evidence-based prevention program focused
on enhancing leadership skills, community pride, program
planning, and resource mobilization (Zimmerman et al.,
2011). The program provides youth with opportunities for
involvement in preventing youth violence, creating commu-
nity change, enhancing the ability of community organiza-
tions to engage youth, and changing the environment to
reduce and prevent violence. Thrive youth will participate
in the YES program in order to help youth develop violence
prevention strategies and prevent future involvement. Eval-
uation research indicates that YES was significantly associ-
ated with increased psychological empowerment, which in
turn was associated with increased prosocial behaviors and
decreased delinquent behaviors (Zimmerman et al., 2018).
During our collaborative intervention workshop, the group
indicated that we would need to conduct a cultural adapta-
tion of the YES program for indigenous youth within the
Thrive community.
YCT was developed by a local police officer who works
in the Thrive community. The goals of the program are (a)
to engage local youth and replace fear of police with facts,
(b) to increase knowledge and life skills, and (c) to promote
an interest in a career in public safety. Police officers deliver
the YCT curriculum to students in their classroom in order
to improve the relationship between police officers and
youth. The adoption of YCT as part of our implementation
strategy exemplifies the value of the CBPR approach.
Through our engagement with local law enforcement, we
met the officer who had recently developed the YCT pro-
gram. As our assessment results highlighted the need for
youth programming and lack of trust between residents and
police, YCT became a natural fit as an implementation strat-
egy. Because YCT was developed for the community by
the community, adaptations were unnecessary and the pro-
gram will be carried forward by law enforcement partners.
Lack of Resident Trust in Police Officers and You Can,
Too (YCT)
Findings highlighted the general lack of trust between
police and residents in the Thrive community. Without
9
trust, it is impossible for the police and community to
have a collaborative relationship. A positive police–com-
munity relationship reduces residents’ fears and biases
towards the police and enhances trust between the com-
munity and police, enabling the police to effectively do
their job; community cooperation and support is vital
for police to successfully combat crime and maintain
safety (Tyler & Fagan, 2008). In order to increase resi-
dents’ trust in law enforcement, YCT will not only be
administered to youth, but will also be adapted for and
implemented with adults in the community. This pro-
gram will educate community members about the role of
police and reduce fear and biases residents might have
toward police.
Built Environment and Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED)
Another key finding was that there are opportunities to
address the built environment in the Thrive community. In
particular, focus groups with business owners and resi-
dents identified a desire for support in addressing criminal
activity that impacts their businesses and neighborhood
streets. In addition, our systematic street observations
revealed a number of built environment factors that con-
tributed to crime (i.e., lighting, alleys, vacant buildings).
Based on this identified need, we will be incorporating
crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)
in a program to support business owners and to address
the built environment in hot spot locations. CPTED posits
that built environment influences neighborhood crime,
perceptions of safety, and quality of life (Cozens, Saville,
& Hillier, 2005).
The CPTED program will involve connecting law
enforcement with business owners, conducting short
CPTED assessments, and providing business owners with
reports on actions that they can take to limit opportunities
for criminal activity. Additionally, Thrive will implement
an innovative, research-based intervention (i.e., Commu-
nity Health And Resiliency Through Environmental
Design; CHARTED) to address social and environmental
determinants of health and safety in specific hot spot loca-
tions. CHARTED incorporates all of the principles of
CPTED, yet expands to promote community protective
factors, health, and resiliency by focusing on additional
principles including: sense of community responsibility
(i.e., promoting mutual self-interest and a feeling of
responsibility for the collective well-being of one’s com-
munity; Nowell & Boyd, 2014), creative placemaking
(i.e., promoting social cohesion and health through reflect-
ing culture, arts, and creativity), power campaigning (i.e.,
the celebration of community through a promotional cam-
paign), and resiliency activation (i.e., activating
10
community relationships, trust, and access to health pro-
moting resources).
The development of CHARTED as an implementation
strategy is a direct response to the findings from our com-
munity assessment, reinforcing the value of the CBPR
approach in implementation science. Through our commu-
nity conversations with residents and other community
stakeholders, it became clear community members were
eager to restore health and the social fabric of the commu-
nity, and to promote a sense of community pride. The
local police department plans to lead the CPTED assess-
ments and conversations with business owners, which will
lead to sustainability of the program beyond grant fund-
ing.
Challenges
The scope and complexity of the Thrive assessment and
planning phase led to some challenges related to maintain-
ing partnerships and community engagement. Thrive part-
ners represented diverse sectors (e.g., law enforcement,
local government, behavioral health, nonprofit agencies,
and residents) with diverse goals and responsibilities. In
our experience, although the goals of our partners are typ-
ically aligned, situations occasionally arise in which part-
ners have competing goals. In one example, as an
environmental nonprofit partner was working on revital-
ization plans for a neighborhood park, law enforcement
partners identified visibility issues with the park that con-
tributed to an incident of violence. In other words, our
two partners had different visions for the park based on
the unique mission and goals of their agency. To address
this challenge, our team facilitated a conversation between
the two partners in order to develop a solution that was
consistent with the goals of each partner. This solution
was possible because of the trust that we have built over
time with our community partners. Ultimately, the park
revitalization plans included CPTED principles to deter
crime while maintaining the natural landscape.
With regard to community engagement, we faced chal-
lenges engaging residents in some aspects of the project.
As mentioned previously, many residents of the target
neighborhood are transient and therefore may be less will-
ing to invest their time in a neighborhood initiative if they
do not have long-term plans to live in the neighborhood.
In order to address this challenge, we made a concerted
effort to identify long-term residents who were actively
engaged in the community. Several residents emerged as
members of our core team. We also often posed a “call to
action” for residents to bring a neighbor to the next com-
munity meeting in order to build resident engagement.
Another significant challenge was the separation of resi-
dents within sub-communities. Despite the fact that the
Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
target community is only 1.5 square miles, residents iden-
tified strongly with smaller subgroups. For instance,
elderly residents of the public housing complex mostly
identified their community as being limited to within their
building. Members of the urban Native American commu-
nity also held distinct cultural norms and values. In order
to address these challenges and promote social cohesion,
we regularly held meetings at different locations across
the community to ensure that we were accessible to resi-
dents of these sub-communities.
Conclusion
The aim of the planning and assessment phase of the
Thrive initiative was to use a CBPR approach grounded
in implementation science to engage community residents
and stakeholders to better understand determinants of
health and drivers of crime in a high crime area. Using
interviews, visioning sessions and focus groups, current
crime statistics, hot spot mapping, systematic street
observations, a systematic review, and community work-
shops, the research team collected and analyzed data
examining crime and violence in Thrive community.
Findings highlighted the presence of an open-air drug
market, the high-stress nature of the community, limited
opportunities for youth, a lack of trust between commu-
nity residents and the police, and a built environment
that is conducive to criminal activity and dissuades health
and well-being.
We recognize our work is not without limitations. While
we made extensive efforts to collaborate with a range of
residents and stakeholders, we are aware that our partners
may not fully represent the views of the Thrive community.
In particular, those who may be most impacted by crime
and disorder (e.g., those experiencing homelessness) are
also among the most challenging to engage in CBPR.
Future work could incorporate additional resident and busi-
ness surveys to expand outreach, as well as focused ethno-
graphic work with vulnerable groups. While we
incorporated police and researcher observations of our
identified hot spots, we did not incorporate multiple
researcher or officer observations simultaneously and thus
did not assess interobserver reliability. We view the close
partnership with the local Police Department as a strength
for acquiring data and insights about the Thrive commu-
nity, but understand that the involvement of police in the
project may dissuade some residents mistrustful of law
enforcement from participating. We also recognize the limi-
tations of relying on incident data when generating hot
spots, particularly for crimes like drugs where patterns of
misuse may not always align with patterns of police
enforcement (Hibdon, Telep, & Groff, 2017).
Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
Despite these limitations, a major strength of our work
though is the effort to move beyond official data to under-
stand community concerns. Importantly, these insights
about the Thrive community would not have been possi-
ble with a reliance on crime data alone. The multi-faceted
data collection approach and community partnership
throughout made it possible to fully diagnose strengths
and challenges in this community. Crime data and crime
mapping played an important role in choosing intervention
targets, but community, stakeholder, and police expertise
allowed for a more tailored and nuanced response plan.
Ultimately, the research team, in collaboration with the
community, chose to implement multiple evidence-based
or promising programs.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge ASU
Office of Community Health, Engagement and Resiliency team
members, community partners, and partner organizations in the Tuc-
son community for their contribution to this research. This research
was supported in part by funding from the U.S. Department of Jus-
tice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (2017-AJ-BX-0015). Points
of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of DOJ.
Conflict of Interest
There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
Backer, T. E., & Guerra, N. G. (2011). Mobilizing communities to
implement evidence-based practices in youth violence preven-
tion: The state of the art. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 48, 31–42.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychol-
ogy. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Brown, M. E., & Stalker, K. C. (2018). Assess connect transform in
our neighborhood: A framework for engaging community part-
ners in CBPR research designs. Action Research. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1476750318789484
Corsaro, N., Brunson, R. K., & McGarrell, E. F. (2010). Evaluating
a policing strategy intended to disrupt an illicit street-level drug
market. Evaluation Review, 34, 513–548.
Cozens, P. M., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention
through environmental design (CPTED): A review and modern
bibliography. Property Management, 23, 328–356.
Cubbin, C., Egerter, S., Bravemean, P., & Pedregon, V. (2008).
Where we live matters for our health: Neighborhoods and
health. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Com-
mission to Build a Healthier America. Available from: https://
www.issuelab.org [last accessed October 10, 2019].
DeCou, C. R., & Lynch, S. M. (2017). Assessing adult exposure to
community violence: A review of definitions and measures.
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 18, 51–61.
Eccles, M. P., Armstrong, D., Baker, R., Cleary, K., Davies, H.,
Davies, S., . . . & Sibbald, B. (2009). An implementation
research agenda. Implementation Science, 4, 1–7.
11
Egan, M., Tannahill, C., Petticrew, M., & Thomas, S. (2008). Psy-
chosocial risk factors in home and community settings and their
associations with population health and health inequalities: A
systematic meta-review. BMC Public Health, 8, 239–252.
ESRI (2019). ArcGIS community analyst: Community profile. Source
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1, ESRI fore-
casts for 2019. Redlands, CA: Author.
Evans, C. B. R., Stalker, K. C., & Brown, M. E. (2020). A system-
atic review of crime/violence and substance use prevention pro-
grams. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Faridi, Z., Grunbaum, J. A., Gray, B. S., Franks, A., & Simoes, E.
(2007). Community-based participatory research: Necessary
next steps. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health
Research, Practice, and Policy, 4, 1–5.
Haroscopos, A., & Hough, M. (2005). Drug dealing in open-air mar-
kets. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Hartinger-Saunders, R. M., Rine, C. M., Nochajski, T., & Wiec-
zorek, W. (2012). Neighborhood crime and perception of safety
as predictors of victimization and offending among youth: A
call for macro-level prevention and intervention models. Chil-
dren and Youth Services Review, 34, 1966–1973.
Hibdon, J., & Groff, E. R. (2014). What you find depends on where
you look: Using emergency medical services call data to target
illicit drug use hot spots. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 30, 169–185.
Hibdon, J., Telep, C. W., & Groff, E. R. (2017). The concentration
and stability of drug activity in Seattle, Washington using
police and emergency medical services data. Journal of Quanti-
tative Criminology, 33, 497–517.
Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., Becker, A. B., Allen, A.
J., & Guzman, J. R. (2008). Critical issues in developing and
following CBPR principles. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein
(Eds.), Community-based participatory research: From process
to outcomes (pp. 47–62). Plano, TX: Jossey-Bass.
Juster, R., McEwen, B. S., & Lupien, S. J. (2010). Allostatic load
biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cogni-
tion. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 2–16.
Knight, D. K., Belenko, S., Wiley, T., Robertson, A. A., Arrigona,
N., Dennis, M., . . . & JJ-TRIALS Cooperative (2016). Juvenile
Justice—Translational Research on Interventions for Adoles-
cents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS): A cluster randomized
trial targeting system-wide improvement in substance use ser-
vices. Implementation Science, 11, 1–18.
Kral, M. J., & Allen, J. (2016). Community-based participatory
action research. In L. A. Jason & D. S. Glenwick (Eds.), Hand-
book of methodological approaches to community-based
research (pp. 253–262). New York: Oxford University Press.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano,
R. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., & Fang, H. (2011). The cost of
crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and
program evaluation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 108,
98–109.
Meyer, O. L., Castro-Schilo, L., & Aguilar-Gaxiola, S. (2014).
Determinants of mental health and self-rated health: A model of
socioeconomic status, neighborhood safety, and physical activ-
ity. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), 1734–1741.
Miller-Karas, E., & Citron, S. (2013a). Veteran extension project:
Final evaluation. Trauma Resource Institute. Available from:
https://www.traumaresourceinstitute.com/research [last accessed
October 8, 2019].
Miller-Karas, E., & Citron, S. (2013b). Community resiliency model
evaluation. Trauma Resource Institute: Available from: https://
12
www.traumaresourceinstitute.com/research [last accessed Octo-
ber 8, 2019].
Minkler, M. (2000). Using participatory action research to
build health communities. Public Health Reports, 115, 191–
197.
Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Chal-
lenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of
New York Academy of Medicine, 82, ii3–ii12.
National Networks for Safe Communities (2015). Drug market inter-
vention: An implementation guide. Washington, DC: Office of
Community Oriented Policing.
Nowell, B., & Boyd, N. M. (2014). Sense of community responsibil-
ity in community collaboratives: Advancing a theory of com-
munity as a resource and responsibility. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 3–4, 229–242.
Spoth, R., & Greenberg, M. (2011). Impact challenges in community
science-with-practice: Lessons from PROSPER on transforma-
tive practitioner-scientist partnerships and prevention infrastruc-
ture development. American Journal of Community Psychology,
48, 106–119.
Stallings, R. P., Hawkins, P. M., & Ward, K. C. (2015). Examining
perceptions of crime and quality of life by residents living in a
drug market intervention neighborhood. Crime Prevention and
Community Safety, 17, 166–188.
Am J Community Psychol (2020) 0:1–12
Stetler, C. B., Mittman, B. S., & Francis, J. (2008). Overview of the
VA quality enhancement research initiative and QUERI theme
articles: QUERI series. Implementation Science, 3, 1–9.
Trauma Resource Institute (n.d.). The community model: Commu-
nity Resiliency Model. Available from: https://www.trauma
resourceinstitute.com/crm [last accessed October 8 2019].
Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why
do people help the police fight crime in their communities?
Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.
Weisburd, D., Cave, B., Nelson, M., White, C., Haviland, A., Ready,
J., . . . & Sikkema, K. (2018). Mean streets and mental health:
Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder at crime hot spots.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 61, 285–295.
Zimmerman, M. A., Eisman, A. B., Reischl, T. M., Morrel-Samuels,
S., Stoddard, S., Miller, A. L., . . . & Rupp, L. (2018). Youth
empowerment solutions: Evaluation of an after-school program
to engage middle school students in community change. Health,
Education, and Behavior, 45, 20–31.
Zimmerman, M. A., Stewart, S. E., Morrel-Samuaels, S., Franzen,
S., & Reischl, T. M. (2011). Youth empowerment solutions for
peaceful communities: Combining theory and practice in a com-
munity-level violence prevention curriculum. Health Promotion
Practice, 12, 425–439.