A Toolkit for Cities: Building a Multi-Actor Local Prevention Framework

Last updated:

28/10/2025

Publication Date:

27/10/2025

Content Type:

Tools & Guides

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Chapter 2: Creating a Stakeholder Directory

Before starting work on elaborating an LPF, a city needs a clear understanding of who in the community is already working to build resilience, strengthen social cohesion, address social isolation, or prevent gang, gender-based or other forms of violence. Developing a Stakeholder Directory is a foundational step in this process. It allows cities to map the landscape of local actors and services, identify existing strengths and critical gaps, and build an informed network of partners that will guide the design and delivery of prevention activities.

What is the purpose of the directory?

The directory will help cities identify key actors to include in the LLG. In addition, the directory provides the relevant city with a list of actors and resources to consult, coordinate and/or refer to in the development and implementation of the local prevention framework itself.

It can help cities:

Identify potential members for the LLG that will develop and oversee the local prevention framework.
Facilitate coordination and information-sharing across sectors
Leverage existing and otherwise plan referral pathways and service linkages for prevention activities
Ensure all relevant prevention levels – primary, secondary and tertiary – are addressed
Promote trust and authenticity by recognising the work of community-based organisations and leaders

It can also be useful should a hate-motivated or targeted violence incident target or otherwise impact a city’s residents or communities.

To support this process, Strong Cities developed several key resources. The narrative methodology document outlining a step-by-step approach to building the Stakeholder Directory is included below. Additional tools are provided in the appendices. These consist of:

A generic directory template to help each city structure their data collection and stakeholder mapping
A list of potential actors to consider during outreach and directory development
Sample outreach emails for inviting individuals to join the LLG
Strong Cities Pilot Initiative Participation Guidelines, which outline roles, responsibilities and expected time commitments of those who choose to engage in this process

These resources are intended to be adapted for use in any city setting.

Methodology for Developing a Directory of Local Prevention Stakeholders, Organisations and Programmes

Below is a list of questions (and considerations) to help guide the development of the directory, which, once developed, should be sense-checked with other city officials and trusted local organisations and other community partners.

Compiling Information

What/who should be included in the directory?

Any actor, initiative, programme, agency, department, or organisation – either governmental or non-governmental – that is working to address hate, targeted violence or other threats to social cohesion in the relevant city, including the drivers and/or manifestations of these challenges, whether at a community and/or individual level. Actors and initiatives working to address one or more forms of hate and extremism that residents/communities might have experienced and/or are currently experiencing. This might include, for example, racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti-AAPI, anti-LGBTQI+, anti-establishment, and/or far-right, far-left, or religious, political, or other forms of extremism that can lead to violence.

Actors who are working with communities that might be the targets of such hate/extremism, as well as those who are working with individuals who are themselves threatening to undermine community cohesion.
Stakeholders operating at different levels of prevention: primary, secondary and tertiary:
Primary prevention involves building resilience and social cohesion across communities, including by raising awareness of the local hate/extremism threat.
Secondary prevention targets individuals or segments of the population identified as particularly vulnerable to becoming radicalised to hate- or extremism-motivated violence.
Tertiary prevention engages individuals who have already committed to violence, including those who might be serving or have completed prison sentences.
Actors and initiatives that work to address the underlying conditions that can create fertile ground for hate or extremism that can lead to violence. These will typically be specific to each city and even community, but often stem from social, economic, educational and political inequalities and/or grievances.

Where to start?

Leveraging a city’s networks and institutional knowledge is a helpful starting point that will provide direction for seeking out other potential participants. Existing contacts and data to work with include, but are not limited to:

Government agencies or departments – at the city, county, state, and federal levels – your office is already working with.
Community-based, city, county, state or national organisations the city is already in contact.
Community leaders and/or advisors the mayor turns to for these issues.
Members of city commissions, community committees, or other fora that involve city officials and/or community members.

What information should be captured?

Useful insights about the individuals and organisations that will help a city assess their critical importance to, and viability for, potential inclusion in the LLG and/or other involvement in the development or implementation of the LPF. Key inputs to consider gathering, where applicable and available, include:

Contact information (e.g., name of main point of contact and their associated organisation/agency/institution, as well as their email address, phone number, personal and/or organisational website, LinkedIn, etc.)
Stakeholder type (e.g., individual, organisation, specific initiative, etc.)
Form(s) of hate/extremism or other threat addressed
Level of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary)
Service provided (e.g., advisory/consulting on a specific threat or community issue; after-school programmes; multidisciplinary community safety team, such as a school safety or other behavioural threat assessment and management team; anti-gun violence advocacy; research and analysis; social impact initiatives; capacity building support; etc.)
Geographic reach (e.g., are they working at the neighbourhood/community, city, county, state, federal, or other level?)
Target beneficiaries (e.g., do they work with youth only, an ethnic or religious community, a particular education level, specific victims or offenders’ groups, etc.?)
For organisations: capacity (e.g., number of staff, number of relevant programmes, individuals served annually, total operating budget, etc.)

Capturing this information in the directory will help facilitate the outreach process to invite those identified therein to participate in the LLG or otherwise contribute to the creation of an LPF.

Review and Finalisation

What are the stakeholder gaps?

Review the directory to identify whether there are any gaps (e.g., types of actor, levels of prevention, etc.). Where possible, the directory should include individuals, organisations or programmes that work at each prevention level to ensure the local prevention framework is both comprehensive and can be fully operationalised.

Look at the actors and organisations already identified to illuminate any gaps in prevention levels.
Seek out information on individuals and organisations that work at the prevention levels where gaps exist.
Ensure there is diversity in the services offered and target demographics served. For example, if a priority issue in the city is gang violence, make sure the directory includes programmes or organisations that work with at-risk youth on avoiding involvement in gang violence (secondary prevention) as well as any aimed at reducing recidivism among adult offenders (tertiary prevention).

Selection & Recruitment

Which/who are essential to the LLG?

The size and composition of each LLG are likely to vary and depend on several factors. However, it should typically consist of 10-15 individuals, prioritising representatives from those parts of the city government and of those disciplines and communities considered essential for the development of a comprehensive LPF that is tailored to the needs and challenges facing the city.

Accordingly, Strong Cities recommends 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/or other respected community leaders, including those who might be sceptical of this initiative (but still want to contribute constructively)
Practitioners/professionals (e.g., law enforcement, social workers, mental/behavioural health)
Educators
Behavioural Assessment and Management teams (if in existence)
Local help line (e.g., 211, 988)

(See Appendix F for an expanded list of potential stakeholders.)

What is the reputation of each stakeholder?

Stakeholder reputation, particularly within the relevant local communities, should be an important factor when considering which to prioritise for inclusion in the LLG. Trust, particularly between police and city residents and local government and communities, including those who have been historically marginalised, is critical to the development, effectiveness, and sustained implementation of an LPF. Trust-based relationships among LLG members serve as an important foundation for this effort. In fact, in many cases, community-based organisations will have greater access to and understanding of particular communities than the government.

Key questions to consider here include:

Who is holding community engagement events at the civic, professional, civil society, and/or government levels? What is their reputation in the relevant community?
How is their leadership perceived within the community and across city agencies?
Do they have good working relationships across disciplines that positively impact your city?
Are they truly representative of the community they claim to represent?

This information will ensure that those selected will be reliable and reputable agents in the development and deployment of the LPF.

Transparency & Inclusion

For those deemed less essential for the LLG but still important community voices to ensure a transparent and inclusive approach, the city may wish to consider alternative mechanisms of inclusion. This can include:

An advisory group (e.g. that meets once per quarter)
A Town Hall meeting/city council hearing, or a series of community meetings on the initiative and its goals
An ‘open comment’ period via the city website

Above all, developing a transparent, explainable decision-making process for how the LLG was formed and, if applicable, how advisory members were determined, will help ensure community buy-in.

Gathering Information

To build an effective and comprehensive Stakeholder Directory, cities should collect detailed information on each relevant individual, organisation, programme, agency or company operating within their local prevention ecosystem. At a minimum, this should include key contact details such as the name of the point of contact, organisational affiliation, email address, phone number and any associated website. To better understand each actor’s role, cities should also document the issue(s) addressed, the level(s) of prevention the entity engages in (primary, secondary, or tertiary), the type of service provided, and the geographic area where services are delivered. Additional information should include the target beneficiaries (e.g., specific demographic groups), a brief description of relevant programmes or services, and the organisation’s operating level (e.g., community, city, county, state, or federal). Where available, data on staff size, the number of individuals served annually, and operating budget or funding sources of the particular agency, office, or organisation should also be gathered. This information allows cities to assess stakeholder capacity, identify strategic partners for inclusion in the LLG, and uncover potential service gaps. A flexible notes section can be used to capture any additional relevant context or considerations. To support this process, see Appendix E for a downloadable template, which cities can adapt and use to collect and organise directory data in a consistent and structured way.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11