News & Events

Innovations in Prevention: Piloting Multi-Actor Frameworks in Small and Mid-Sized Cities in the United States

Publication Date:

23/07/2024

Content Type:

Share:

Tags:

AlbuquerqueAthensChattanoogaCity-Led PreventionDHSmulti-actor prevention frameworksOverland ParkStamfordTVTP

— 12 minutes reading time

In October 2023, the Strong Cities Network, in partnership with Boston Children’s Hospital, the University of Illinois Chicago, and the Prevention Practitioners Network, and with funding support from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s targeted violence and terrorism prevention (TVTP) grants programme, launched a two-year project to develop and pilot local multi-actor prevention frameworks in several small-and mid-sized cities across the United States. Among the project’s objectives is to focus attention on the often overlooked and thus unmet needs of cities, particularly small- and mid-sized ones, as they look to address the complex set of hate- and extremism-related challenges impacting communities around the country. Strong Cities is piloting this initiative in collaboration with five cities: Albuquerque (New Mexico), Athens (Ohio), Chattanooga (Tennessee), Overland Park (Kansas) and Stamford (Connecticut).

In the first half of the project, Strong Cities, with support and guidance from its project partners and a group of experienced prevention practitioners, worked with each pilot city to develop diverse working groups (composed of representatives of local government, community-based organisations, law enforcement, etc.) and then provided these groups with training on an array of prevention-related topics. As a result of these experiences, and consistent with its commitment to inform the prevention efforts of cities in its global network and beyond, Strong Cities has identified a number of lessons and key findings so far. These are listed below.

1. City-led prevention rests on a ‘four-legged stool’. The development of city-led prevention efforts depends on contributions from four core categories of stakeholders: a) mayors and city council members; b) city government staff; c) community-based organisations; and d) local law enforcement

The more each category of stakeholder is aware of their role, the more engaged they are in prevention, and the better connected each category is with the others (as indicated by strong trust and cooperation), the more likely a whole-of-city approach can be initiated. When one of the individual groups or connectivity between the groups is weak, it becomes more difficult for a city to operationalise, let alone sustain, a whole-of-city approach to prevention.

For example, prevention efforts can be hindered where a city government has yet to build partnerships and/or trust with historically marginalised or otherwise ‘hard to reach’ communities, or where trust between local police and these or other communities is strained. Similarly, even if countering hate is a mayoral priority, and community-based organisations are committed to partnering with the city government in advancing this priority, the capacity and willingness of city government staff – particularly those in the mayor’s office – to take on additional responsibilities is essential to launching and sustaining a city-led multi-actor prevention effort. To that end, it is a good practice for additional capacity – measured in both time and expertise – to be explicitly allocated to those with the responsibility to launch such prevention efforts in order for the efforts to be truly sustained.

Such initiatives can often proceed at the discretion of the mayor and may, therefore, be subject to shifting mayoral priorities – especially with the advent of a new mayoral administration with its own political and policy objectives. This underscores the importance of institutionalising or otherwise integrating prevention into the city government bureaucracy and community infrastructure and ensuring the city budget includes dedicated funding to support city-led prevention efforts. The latter could, for example, cover dedicated staff position(s) in the city government and/or grants to support prevention-related work led by community-based organisations, which can continue even if a new mayor comes to office.

2. There is an increasing diversity of local government stakeholders who can lead, or even contribute to, city-led prevention efforts

In the countering violent extremism (CVE) era (circa 2011 – 2016), local government leads for prevention efforts, if any, typically held law enforcement roles. However, with a shift in focus in the United States from CVE to ‘targeted violence and terrorism prevention’ in recent years – and particularly following the racial reckoning of Summer 2020 – local government stakeholders willing to contribute to prevention initiatives stem from a wider array of portfolios. These include those with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), anti-hate, anti-racism or public safety portfolios and those with broad strategic, policy or administrative responsibilities in the mayor’s or city manager’s office.

The portfolio and profile of the individual designated by the mayor or city manager to lead the city’s prevention efforts sets the tone for, and impacts, the development and implementation of a city’s approach to prevention. This includes the city’s ability to bring on board other stakeholders, whether from the local government and/or the community. 

Particularly given that city-led prevention requires involvement from all parts of the local government – including DEI, public safety, policy implementation and senior city management – it is critical to ensure that the individual selected by the mayor or city manager to lead/coordinate the development and coordination of a city-wide approach is well-placed to attract a diversity of local government, and non-government, actors to the table.

3. Who is at the table matters: local prevention requires multi-actor, multi-sector leadership, coordination and collaboration

In its engagement with the project’s five pilot cities, Strong Cities has encouraged each to develop a local leadership group (LLG) to oversee the development and then the implementation of the city’s approach to hate and extremism prevention. The size and composition of each LLG will vary and depend on several factors (e.g., city size, number of key relevant stakeholders locally, existing relevant city-level commissions or coordinating bodies). To date, LLGs in the five pilot cities have varied from as few as 10 to as many as 40 individuals.

Strong Cities advised prioritising representatives from the parts of the city government and disciplines and communities considered essential for the development of a comprehensive local prevention framework that is tailored to the hate and extremism needs and challenges facing the city. More specifically, Strong Cities has recommended that each city prioritise the following stakeholders for its LLG: 

• City government official(s) 
• Other government officials (county, state, or, where appropriate, federal) 
• Community-based organisation(s), including ones working on crime/violence prevention, anti-racism or social cohesion 
• Faith and other respected community leaders, representing the diverse array of demographic groups in the city, including those historically marginalised or victimised
• Prevention practitioners/professionals (e.g., law enforcement, social workers, mental/behavioural health practitioners – especially co-responder units)
• Educators
• Behavioural assessment and management teams (if in existence) 
• Local help line (e.g., 911, 211, 988, etc.) 

Beyond the varying roles of the city prevention leads mentioned above, examples of those involved in the LLGs in the pilot cities include: city government community liaisons and community service providers; public safety directors, emergency service coordinators and uniformed law enforcement; Black, Hispanic, Asian-American, Native American and LGBTQ+ community and advocacy organisations; Jewish, Muslim, Christian and interfaith leaders; public health specialists and academics; social service providers (e.g., housing, youth, mental health, refugees, etc.); school and university administrators; community relations and human rights commissioners; and assistant United States attorneys and Justice Department community engagement officials.

4. A growing ‘civic fatigue’ of community groups to new city-led initiatives is a challenge to successful recruitment to join prevention efforts

Small and mid-sized cities face growing ‘civic fatigue’ as a result of many of the same community-based stakeholders (and local government officials) being asked to lead or become involved in an increasing number of new prevention-related initiatives (e.g., anti-racism, anti-LGBTQ+ hate, antisemitism, Islamophobia, DEI, anti-gun violence, etc.), often funded by different United States government agencies and departments. This can impact negatively the willingness of city officials and community-based groups to assume an active role in new initiatives, such as the one Strong Cities has launched with the pilot cities. 

The Strong Cities team has so far sought to overcome this obstacle by encouraging cities to integrate this new effort into existing/ongoing initiatives aimed at addressing related challenges (e.g., a racial equity working group, a community relations commission, etc.).

More broadly, this highlights the importance of finding ways to leverage existing governmental and community programmes for the purpose of addressing hate and extremism rather than creating entirely new apparatuses. It also underscores the importance of explaining to local stakeholders – including governmental stakeholders – how becoming more involved in hate and extremism prevention will help strengthen these existing initiatives and/or benefit their professional and organisational responsibilities, rather than merely adding to their project load.

Relatedly, Strong Cities has found that tying prevention efforts to more immediate public safety and/or community well-being challenges that both city government staff and community-based organisations already need to address makes prevention less abstract and easier to ‘sell’ to unconvinced stakeholders. Moreover, it may help persuade them that investments in prevention can assist with their workload rather than add to it. Such challenges could include, for example, upcoming elections, the beginning of a new school year, students arriving or returning to the local college campus, dealing with local impacts of global crises such as the Israel-Gaza conflict, etc.

5. Convening stakeholders and engaging with them on their local hate and extremism challenges and prevention needs are, in and of themselves, valuable

Although the LLGs are being formed primarily to spearhead the development and oversight of the local prevention frameworks, the process of recruiting and then convening LLG members has value in and of itself. For example, where Strong Cities has helped convene local stakeholders in some of the pilot cities as part of the LLG formation process, it is often the first time that the participating local government and community-based stakeholders have met to discuss hate and extremism and related challenges facing the city. These convenings have enabled them to share their concerns, find mutual points of connection and explore mechanisms for prevention and response to community fears over hate and extremism. In short, the mere act of convening itself can lay the foundation for sustained relationships that, over time, can generate greater social cohesion and trust building.

Relatedly, Strong Cities has found that it is important to ensure that these convenings include a diversity of partners – even those whose presence can be uncomfortable for some others. Excluding law enforcement or teachers, for example, from a discussion on prevention and response to incidents of hate and extremism risks leaving out key stakeholders and perspectives on such issues. Avoiding such diversity at the outset risks creating an echo chamber with limited uptake by those whose input is necessary for community-wide impact.

6. Language matters: discussions should be framed around issues that resonate with participants and the chosen terminology should be tailored to local sensitivities

In addition to ensuring that the ‘right’ partners are at the table – particularly when LLG members are meeting for the first time – attention needs to be given to ensuring that the discussions are framed around issues that resonate with the participants and that the terminology used avoids alienating them.

For example, during Strong Cities engagements with the pilot cities we have seen how challenges of ‘hate, extremism and polarisation’ – rather than ‘targeted violence and terrorism’, which they tend to view as an issue for federal and state law enforcement and not one that affects local communities such as their own – resonate much more with LLG members. Similarly, project partners have found that use of the term ‘threat’ or ‘mapping’ can be off-putting, potentially stigmatising and conjuring a security-centric mindset. To navigate these issues, the project team has emphasised terms and concepts such as the ‘hate and extremism landscape’, ‘social cohesion and safety’, ‘stakeholder identification’ and ‘needs and vulnerabilities’. 

7. City leaders and community groups seek greater understanding of the online threat landscape and its offline impact in their neighbourhoods

Given that much of the offline hate, extremism and targeted violence landscape originates, or is associated, with online communities and social media activity, it is essential for city-based stakeholders to have an updated and nuanced understanding of the digital threat environment and how it relates to activities locally. And yet, Strong Cities engagements with the pilot cities have revealed that capacities are often lacking in this area. City-based stakeholders have shared that they are generally unfamiliar with specific details of the digital hate and extremism ecosystem and seek more information and insight. Moreover, local government and community-based stakeholders often feel underserved by available resources. For example, police often focus on local crime rather than digital hate ecosystems and state fusion centre intelligence products focus primarily on terrorism-related threats that are not top-of-mind for city officials. To fill this gap, Strong Cities has tapped its host organisation, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, to provide periodic threat briefings on the evolving digital hate and extremism landscape to the pilot cities. (To date, such a briefing was delivered at the outset of the training period to better frame the discussion of the need for prevention-related efforts; follow-on briefings will be delivered upon request.)

Resources for Mayors, Other Local Leaders and Cities

For cities interested in getting more involved in hate and extremism prevention, Strong Cities has a series of living guides to support mayors, local leaders and city governments. Developed through consultations with mayors and city officials in different contexts globally, the guides draw on experiences, good practices and advice from leaders and city officials around the world and offer a diversity of examples of city-led approaches on prevention and response. Housed in our online Resource Hub, Strong Cities’ guides and policy briefs are crucial resources for in-depth training and support for mayors and city officials globally.

Explore our resources:

• A Guide for Mayors: Key questions, decision points, good practices and lessons learned to help mayors prevent and respond to hate, extremism and polarisation.
• A Guide for Cities: Support for local government officials, practitioners and staff on their roles, and that of local government, in preventing hate, extremism and polarisation.
• A Guide for City-Led Response: Support for mayors and cities in formulating a sensitive and effective response in the wake of a hate- or violent extremism-motivated attack, incident or crisis.
• Navigating Local Impacts of Global Crises: Ten Considerations for Mayors and Cities – Lessons from the Israel-Gaza Crisis: Support for mayors and cities grappling with how to navigate local manifestations of global crises, which can divide communities, accelerate hate incidents and threaten social cohesion.
• Preventing and Responding to Election Disruption and Violence: Ten Considerations for Cities: Support for mayors and cities to safeguard democratic practices and mitigate potential harms during and after election periods.

Contact

For more information on this project or other Strong Cities North America activities, please contact Jordan Reimer, Senior Manager, North America, at [email protected].

This project is funded by the DHS Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, opportunity number DHS-23-TTP-132-00-01.

News & EVENTS

Stay up to date with recent news, articles and event reports

News & Events

Looking for something in our Resource Hub?

Or explore all resources

Nominated for Best Animated Short at Cannes

Watch now

Join US

Looking to become a Strong City?

Get in touch