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 6: Developing the Local Prevention Framework

Once a city has completed its NVA and established its LLG, it is ready to develop its Local Prevention Framework (LPF). The LPF is the city’s roadmap for preventing hate and targeted violence. It defines a clear, structured plan that reflects local priorities, needs and resources, and sets out how local government and community partners will work together toward shared goals.

While a strong LPF is local government-led and tailored, there is no single model that fits every community. Each city faces its own combination of threats, vulnerabilities, strengths, and resources. To maximise impact, an LPF must be practical, achievable with local capacity and flexible enough to adapt over time.

At its core, the LPF should include several key elements:

Statement of need: A clear description of the local challenges, threats and underlying drivers identified through the NVA.
Purpose and objectives: The overall goals of the framework and the specific measurable objectives it aims to achieve.
Analysis of local needs and vulnerabilities: A summary of key NVA findings, including priority threats, at-risk populations, service gaps and community assets.
Prevention activities: Planned interventions, programmes or services to address identified needs. These may include awareness-raising campaigns, education initiatives, community engagement efforts, mental health or social services, referral pathways, or behavioural threat assessment and management.
Post-incident response: Plans to support impacted communities and reduce the risk of escalation following incidents.

To help organise these elements clearly and ensure they are actionable, cities are encouraged to use a logic model. A logic model is a structured way to represent the plan visually or in a table, showing the logical connections between resources, planned activities, measurable outputs and intended outcomes. It helps city teams see how their strategy will work, improves communication with partners and funders, and supports monitoring and evaluation.

A logic model for an LPF often includes:

Inputs: Resources and conditions that make the framework possible (for example, city staff time, partner expertise, existing prevention programmes, funding and technical assistance).
Objectives: The specific aims the city seeks to achieve, such as improving coordination, raising awareness of threats, building social cohesion or providing support to at-risk individuals.
Activities: Concrete actions to be taken, including stakeholder mapping, prevention training, community outreach, establishing referral mechanisms, and delivering behavioural threat assessment and management.
Outputs: Direct, countable results of activities, such as the number of partners engaged, trainings delivered, residents reached, or cases managed.
Short-Term Outcomes: Immediate changes resulting from activities, like increased awareness of reporting systems, improved practitioner readiness or greater community understanding of risks.
Mid-Term Outcomes: Changes over time, such as stronger collaboration between partners, improved access to social services or greater public trust in local leadership during crises.
Impact: The long-term goals of the framework include sustained, well-coordinated prevention programmes, increased resilience to hate and targeted violence and improved safety and social cohesion.

Below is an example template that cities can adapt to structure their Local Prevention Framework:

ElementExample Content
InputsLocal Prevention Framework, Local Leadership Group, Needs and Vulnerabilities Assessments, learning modules, city staff time, partner organisations, funding and technical assistance.
ObjectivesEstablish partner coordination mechanisms, improve community awareness of threats and available resources, support social cohesion, ensure robust referral and intervention processes and sustain prevention efforts through resourcing.
ActivitiesStakeholder mapping, conducting Needs and Vulnerabilities Assessment, delivering training sessions, running community awareness campaigns, establishing referral pathways, convening multi-agency meetings, implementing behavioural threat assessment and management processes.
OutputsNumber of partners engaged, number of trainings delivered, residents and practitioners reached, awareness materials distributed, referrals managed and coordination meetings held.
Short-Term OutcomesStakeholders understand roles and responsibilities, increased awareness of hate incident reporting mechanisms, improved practitioner readiness and greater resident knowledge of prevention resources.
Mid-Term OutcomesEffective collaboration on prevention strategy implementation, increased community trust in city leadership, improved access to social services for at-risk individuals and reduced risk factors for violence.
ImpactEffective collaboration on prevention strategy implementation, increased community trust in city leadership, improved access to social services for at-risk individuals and reduced risk factors for violence.

Element	Example Content
Inputs	Local Prevention Framework, Local Leadership Group, Needs and Vulnerabilities Assessments, learning modules, city staff time, partner organisations, funding and technical assistance.
Objectives	Establish partner coordination mechanisms, improve community awareness of threats and available resources, support social cohesion, ensure robust referral and intervention processes and sustain prevention efforts through resourcing.
Activities	Stakeholder mapping, conducting Needs and Vulnerabilities Assessment, delivering training sessions, running community awareness campaigns, establishing referral pathways, convening multi-agency meetings, implementing behavioural threat assessment and management processes.
Outputs	Number of partners engaged, number of trainings delivered, residents and practitioners reached, awareness materials distributed, referrals managed and coordination meetings held.
Short-Term Outcomes	Stakeholders understand roles and responsibilities, increased awareness of hate incident reporting mechanisms, improved practitioner readiness and greater resident knowledge of prevention resources.
Mid-Term Outcomes	Effective collaboration on prevention strategy implementation, increased community trust in city leadership, improved access to social services for at-risk individuals and reduced risk factors for violence.
Impact	Effective collaboration on prevention strategy implementation, increased community trust in city leadership, improved access to social services for at-risk individuals and reduced risk factors for violence.

Developing the LPF should be a collaborative process led by the LLG. Members should work together to identify priorities, design interventions, assign responsibilities and establish realistic timelines. This shared ownership helps ensure the framework reflects real local needs and has community support.

Throughout the process, cities should maintain a human-centred, trauma-informed approach that protects civil rights, promotes transparency and addresses the underlying conditions that contribute to violence. By prioritising inclusivity and trust-building, cities can create an LPF that is both effective and supported by the communities it is designed to serve.

The example below outlines a generic logic model that cities can adapt to their local context. To illustrate what this looks like in practice, the graphic below provides a sample logic model developed by a participating city during the pilot phase. It demonstrates how a city can connect its inputs and planned activities to measurable outcomes and long-term impact. This example can serve as a reference for local teams as they begin to design their own framework. [An editable version of this can be found here.]