Statewide Violence Prevention Plan: 2020-2024

Experiencing forms of violence is a substantial public health concern. Violence is defined as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.” (World Health Organization, 2021). Violence can include child abuse and neglect, bullying and cyberbullying, teen dating violence, youth physical fighting and weapon carrying, adult intimate partner violence, sexual assault and violence, violent crime (e.g., homicides, aggravated assault, sexual assault, robbery), and abuse against older adults and adults with disabilities. People can be exposed to these forms of violence within their homes, at school, and in their communities.

A staggering 3.5 million children in the United States in 2017 were reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) for maltreatment concerns (ACF, 2019), and an estimated 15.5 million children are exposed to IPV annually (McDonald et al., 2006). Approximately 1 in 3 youth are victimized by their peers at school, and 1 in 4 experience a form of teen dating violence (CDC, 2018). There were also approximately 368.9 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the United States (FBI, 2018). Victimization, perpetration, and exposure to violence can result in enormous costs to society, including substantial health care, criminal justice, and child welfare costs. Violence also can have a significantly negative impact on an individuals’ mental health, such as depression, suicidal behavior, and posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as medical outcomes and conditions, such as chronic disease, cardiovascular disease, and asthma (Garthe, 2019; Gilbert et al., 2015; Mersky et al., 2013; Metzler et al., 2016; Rivera et al., 2019; Sumner et al., 2015). There is also substantial research that documents the relationship between the perpetration and victimization of violence; most perpetrators of violence have also been victims of violence (Delong & Reichert, 2019).

In addition, causes of violence and trauma stem from societal inequities, including discrimination, racism, oppression, and poverty. These inequities result in limited economic opportunities, a disinvestment in education, fewer social services, fewer affordable and quality housing options, and systemic racism, all of which can increase the likelihood of experiencing violence and trauma.

“Violence is not the main problem, rather it is a symptom of a system with many problems.” -Respondent, Violence Prevention and Intervention Staff Survey

Together, the high prevalence statistics and compounding outcomes highlight the utmost urgency of preventing violence from occurring. In addition, trauma-informed services that recognize the impact of trauma on an individuals’ development and emotional, behavioral, and relational outcomes are critical for recovery. For more information on trauma-informed care, please see: https://ncsacw.samhsa.gov/userfiles/files/SAMHSA_Trauma.pdf





Violence Prevention Framework
Science-informed violence prevention efforts seek to decrease vulnerability (i.e., factors that place individuals at a higher risk for violence) and increase resiliency (i.e., factors that protect individuals from experiencing violence). Risk and protective factors exist at various levels, including individual, relational, community, and structural or systemic factors (Weisner, 2020; Wilkins et al., 2014).

Although research on violence can take a siloed approach, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (e.g., Wilkins et al., 2014) have urged researchers to consider how multiple forms of violence can share many of the same risk and protective factors. By considering these shared factors, programs can be expanded or enhanced to prevent multiple forms of violence. These factors include:

Individual risk factors include impulsiveness/poor emotional and behavioral control, substance use and abuse, aggressive beliefs, norms, and attitudes, weak school achievement, unsupervised access to firearms, witnessing violence, history of violent victimization, mental health concerns.

Relationship risk factors include peers who engage in violent or gang activity, parental conflict and violence, messages from parents and peers about how to handle conflict, lack of connection to school, exposure to violence in relationships, lack of social support

Community risk factors include residential instability, concentrated poverty, lack of positive relationships and connections between neighbors, crime and gang activity, drug use or sales, lack of quality services, lack of accessibility to services,

Societal risk factors include cultural norms that support violence, violence in the media, economic inequities, structural racism

Adapted from the CDC’s Prevention Strategies (David-Ferdon, 2016), recommendations have been made for how to address these shared risk and protective factors through five violence prevention strategies:

Additionally, David-Ferdon (2016) stresses the importance of the following approaches to these five violence prevention strategies, including:

The CDC’s Technical Package for Preventing Youth Violence can be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv-technicalpackage.pdf

This Violence Prevention plan utilizes these national strategies and approaches as a framework for its recommendations. In addition, the planning group wrote five guiding principles, informed by this evidence-based framework:

Statewide Violence Prevention Plan 2020-2024 The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) is a state agency whose mission is to improve the administration of justice in Illinois. ICJIA brings together key leaders from the justice system and the public to identify critical issues facing the justice system in Illinois, and to propose and evaluate policies, programs, and legislation that address those issues. ICJIA’s authorizing statute includes the requirement of a four-year statewide violence prevention plan:

"To coordinate statewide violence prevention efforts and assist in the implementation of trauma recovery centers and analyze trauma recovery services, the Authority shall develop, publish, and facilitate the implementation of a 4-year statewide violence prevention plan, which shall incorporate public health, public safety, victim services, and trauma recovery centers and services." 20 ILCS 3930/7(x)

The purpose of this plan is to identify and implement violence prevention grant program recommendations as well as cross-state agency collaboration related to violence prevention projects. ICJIA has convened a Statewide Violence Prevention Planning group consisting of representatives from state government agencies and ICJIA Board Members who met and collaborated to develop goals that will focus any general violence prevention funding appropriated to ICJIA during state fiscal years 2022-24.

Three subcommittees (organized by primary, secondary, and tertiary violence prevention strategies; see page 16 for a description of these strategies) met in July and October 2020. The goals and strategies identified by these subcommittees were aggregated and reviewed by the larger planning committee during the October and November meetings. All of the strategies were informed by the Needs Assessment data, the planning group committee meeting discussions, and current ICJIA violence prevention grantee strategies.

The following goals, objectives, and strategies were developed by Statewide Violence Prevention Planning Group to inform future violence prevention notice of funding opportunities (NOFO). Any future NOFO(s) are contingent on appropriated State funds with broadly worded appropriated language so the following goals, objectives and strategies can be applied to any NOFO(s). Note: Please see glossary of terminology.

To inform the funding and violence prevention goals, a series of reviews and analyses took place. First, we reviewed state agency efforts in violence prevention.

Violence Prevention Funding and Programs by State Agencies In 2018, state violence prevention funding was reported by state agencies in a survey administered by ICJIA, and was reviewed by this planning group. A total of 14 state agencies responded, with 88 violence prevention programs detailed. Many programs were multi-faceted and included multiple strategies (i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary).

Funding was organized by primary, secondary, and tertiary strategies. For the full list of programs and program descriptions, please see Appendix #1.

Primary Strategies: involve whole populations (e.g., social-emotional skills taught at the school district level), aiming to prevent violence from occurring.

Secondary Strategies: involve immediate intervention and response to violence that has already occurred, aiming to prevent violence from occurring again and help with the short-term impacts of violence.

Tertiary Strategies: involve long-term or ongoing support and services to victims or people harmed by violence, as well as accountability and services for those who have harmed others. Tertiary also includes diversion and enforcement programs (please note that most diversion funding is at the county level in Illinois).

As shown below in orange, many programs included two or three violence prevention strategies (i.e., combinations of primary, secondary, or tertiary strategies). Of the programs with one violence prevention strategy (as shown below in blue), the majority were tertiary violence prevention.

Additionally, across all programs, tertiary was included in the majority (73%), whether on its own (n = 27), or in combination with secondary strategies (n = 16) or in combination with primary and secondary strategies (n = 21). Secondary strategies were included in 50% of programs, while primary strategies were included in the fewest number of programs (44%).

Needs Assessment of Violence in Illinois

Next, data was pulled for the comprehensive needs assessment of violence in Illinois. Data came from a variety of sources, including publicly available datasets and reports. Data were also obtained by the research team from various organizations and centers. For links and citations to these data, please see the full section of the data presentation of these sources in the Appendices.

As detailed in the Appendix, rates of violence were assessed across type of violence and by demographic or geographically based groups. Across most types of violence, Illinois had higher rates of violence compared to the rate in the United States.

                                                                                          Figure 6: Rates of Violence in Illinois and the United States ¹

Additionally, these rates were examined by demographic characteristics and geographic regions. Several disparities are noted here; please see the appendix for additional information and analyses.

Additional Surveys: Violence Prevention & Intervention Staff and IL Adult Residents

As detailed in Appendix #2, data from two additional surveys were collected. In the first survey, 130 violence prevention and intervention staff across the state (serving 91% of the counties in Illinois) were asked questions about community collaborations, perceptions on protective factors, and violence prevention strategies. Some of the key findings include: Staff strongly agreed that violence is a concern in their community to families (65%), community residents (64%), community leaders (45%), and community elected officials (33%). Staff serving rural counties perceived that violence is less of a concern across these four entities (e.g., 18% strongly agreed that violence was a concern to elected officials). About 30% of staff across the state “somewhat” or “strongly agreed” that community leaders are knowledgeable about evidence-based violence prevention programs. These rates varied by community type, with the lowest rates among staff serving rural counties.

Staff collaborated with a variety of organizations, groups, and stakeholders. A total of 81% to 93% of staff endorsed “some” or “a lot” of collaboration on violence prevention efforts with the following collaborators: social service agencies, school leadership staff, community-based organizations, com-munity coalitions, healthcare institutions, law enforcement, and city government.

Additionally, staff rated a list of evidence-based protective factors of violence from “not important at all” to “very important.” The top-rated protective factors were at the individual and relational level:

Community and other protective factors were also rated as very important:

83.8%-Trauma-informed training and practices

80.8%-Positive community connection and engagement

72.1%-Job training and workforce development

71.5%-Exposure to diverse cultural practices

54.6%-Knowledge of community and socio-political history

After rating these protective factors on importance (shown in blue), staff were asked to rate if their community was adequately addressing each factor (shown in orange). There was a gap between perceived importance and adequacy of addressing these factors in communities:

Finally, staff were asked to list solutions that are not considered in their community that could prevent or reduce violence. Many of the solutions were in alignment with the five guiding principles (see page 28), including fostering belonging and social connectedness, advancing equity, promoting safety, supporting health, and engaging state agencies.

Additional solutions included:

• Increasing comprehensive and collaborative initiatives
• Increasing opportunities and access to resources
• Addressing economic and employment inequities
• Increasing knowledge and solutions related to violence prevention
• Others (e.g., using evidence-based practices, strengthening education).

Also detailed in Section IV, a sample of 712 Illinois adult residents were surveyed through a Qualtrics Panel. Adults were surveyed on their experiences with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), mental health and trauma, and sources of protection against violence within relationships and communities.

Some of the key findings include:

Knowledge of Violence Prevention Organizations & Programs
Respondents were asked if they knew of organizations or programs in their community that aimed to prevent different forms of violence. The majority of respondents (81%) indicated that they knew of at least one type of violence prevention organization or program in their community.

Respondents also indicated they were knowledgeable about:

• 41.2%—Organizations or programs in their community or neighborhood that address the needs of individuals who have experienced violence or trauma.
• 28.2%—Organizations or programs in their community or neighborhood that provide support for individuals who are returning from prison or jail, or are serving a probation or parole sentence.
• 29.2%—Organizations or programs in their community or neighborhood that provide support for youth who have been detained for a crime or that aim to prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice system.

Quality of Resources
They also rated the quality of various resources in their neighborhood/community. Resources that were rated as fair or excellent by fewer participants included employment and job training opportunities, family-focused programs, mental health care services, and substance abuse services.

Mental Health
Across three areas of mental health, adults reported heightened or clinically significant symptomology of mental health concerns, including:

• 42.4%-Depression Symptoms
• 45.1%-Traumatic Stress Symptoms
• 27.1%-Moderate or Severe Anxiety Symptoms

Black or African American adults reported the highest rates of depression and traumatic stress.

Hispanic or Latin adults reported slightly higher levels of anxiety compared to White and Black or African American adults.

Violence Prevention ICJIA Grantee StrategiesIn 2020, there were 11 violence prevention ICJIA grantees that drafted their own violence prevention plans. These grantees represented the City of Chicago (n = 3), Suburban Cook County (n = 5), Central Illinois (n = 2) and East St. Louis (n = 1). Across the plans, gun violence was the most common type of violence to be addressed, followed by domestic violence.

As detailed in Appendix #1, violence prevention strategies from these plans were coded according to the guiding principles of this plan.

1. Appendix 1: State VP Programs

2. Appendix 2: Needs Assessment

3. Appendix 3: Community Type Reports

4. Appendix 4: County Reports

5. Appendix 5: County Reports // Word file

6. Executive Summary Document

This review and needs assessment that informed the goals presented in this plan make many strong contributions. However, a few limitations are worth noting:

• Administrative data includes various self-report surveys, as well as reports to agencies and law enforcement; however, violence is often under-reported, so these data may not represent true experiences of violence. Also, while the majority of data sources in this report are from 2018, we had to include reports that were older (e.g., 2010-2012) as they were the most recent data available. Continued data collection efforts are necessary to truly understand the prevalence of the various forms of violence.
• Although the data and statistics within this report can help illuminate risk and disparities, they do not capture the complexities of violence, nor do they fully capture the impact that violence can have on individuals, families, and communities. Violence can impact one’s mental health, development, or relationships, and create long-lasting pain and trauma. Violence not only impacts the victim or target of violence, but also the one perpetrating the violence, those witnessing or exposed to the violence, and those connected to those involved in the violence. People also may define and label these experiences differently. More work is necessary to fully capture the experiences of those impacted by violence.
• This report relied on quantitative data; qualitative data from individuals impacted by violence are needed to move this work forward. Qualitative data would allow for a greater understanding of the context in which violence is taking place. This type of data collection would also allow for individuals to describe violence and the impact of violence in their own words, creating a more in-depth and immersive understanding of violence.
• Disruptions from COVID-19:
  • The adult resident survey collection took longer than anticipated. Thus, the adult resident survey data came in after the planning committee meetings concluded.
  • The researchers had hoped to gather qualitative data from program participants (e.g., youth panels, etc.); however, in-person data collection was not possible due to university pandemic regulations, and there was not enough time to collect qualitative data via electronic platforms.
  • There is also the possibility that mental health concerns were heightened among adult residents during the pandemic.
• The adult resident survey was completed by a research panel; although largely representative of the state of Illinois in terms of race/ethnicity, sex, and economic status, and surveys were obtained from all areas of the state, participants were individuals who are paid to complete surveys. Thus, the survey results not generalizable to all adults in Illinois.