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

Last updated:

13/11/2025

Publication Date:

06/08/2025

Content Type:

Policy Briefs

Issues:

Multi-Actor Frameworks

This is the second policy brief published under this project. Explore the first policy brief here.

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 was 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 targeted violence threats impacting communities around the country. Strong Cities piloted this project in collaboration with five US cities: Albuquerque (New Mexico), Athens (Ohio), Chattanooga (Tennessee), Overland Park (Kansas) and Stamford (Connecticut).

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 Local Leadership Groups composed of representatives of local government, community-based organisations, law enforcement and others. Strong Cities provided these groups with training on an array of prevention-related topics, and then collaborated on the development and initial implementation of a local framework for preventing all forms of hate and targeted violence that is driven by the needs and priorities of local communities. As a result of these experiences, Strong Cities is producing a set of policy briefs that outline lessons learned and key findings to inform and strengthen future prevention efforts in cities across the United States and beyond. The first in this series was published in December 2024; this is the second, with a third and final one to follow in the coming months.

During this phase, Strong Cities partnered with the local multi-actor working groups to conduct a local needs and vulnerabilities assessment in each city. This included a community survey soliciting input on the local hate and targeted violence landscape and prevention priorities.

The top three concerns related to the hate and targeted violence threats and the top three prevention priorities the surveys identified in each city were:

Albuquerque (New Mexico):
- Threats: anti-unhoused and indigent hate; school shootings and workplace attacks; and anti-Black hate
- Prevention Priorities: gun violence prevention; youth engagement; and building bridges between different communities
Athens (Ohio):
- Threats: anti-Black hate; anti-LGBTQI+ hate; and anti-immigrant hate
- Prevention Priorities: support for traumatised and marginalised communities

Chattanooga (Tennessee):
- Threats: anti-LGBTQI+ hate; anti-Black hate; and gender-based hate
- Prevention Priorities: Reducing hate speech and/or hate group activity; support for traumatised and marginalised communities; building bridges between different communities

Overland Park (Kansas)
- Threats: antisemitism; anti-LGBTQI+ hate; and anti-immigrant hate
- Prevention Priorities: reducing hate speech and/or hate group activity; building bridges between communities; addressing online harms

Stamford (Connecticut):
- Threats: antisemitism; anti-Black hate; and anti-immigrant hate
- Prevention Priorities: building bridges between communities; youth engagement; reducing hate speech and/or hate group activity

Strong Cities and the working groups then co-developed a local prevention framework grounded in each city’s unique context. Each framework outlined the city’s key objectives for prevention. Though objectives varied across cities, each framework adopted a public health approach to prevention, setting goals around fostering social cohesion, promoting individual and community protective factors, supporting interventions for ‘at-risk’ individuals, and developing a sustainable, coordinated prevention system.

As a result of this work 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. These are enumerated below. Several of the insights and quotations are taken from participant surveys administered after the framework was developed.

1. There is strong support for enduring forums where local government and community leaders can jointly address hate, targeted violence and other threats to social cohesion

Across the pilot cities, both local government officials and community stakeholders expressed a strong desire for standing collaborative forums – not just the short-term ad hoc working groups – to foster continued dialogue, coordination and strategic action. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted many of the informal and formal networks that once supported multi-actor collaboration. This has left many local governments and communities having to rebuild the relationships and trust needed to jointly address complex social issues. Stakeholders emphasised that such forums should go beyond the initial task of co-developing a prevention plan and evolve into sustained spaces for information sharing, joint problem-solving, and early identification of emerging threats, which, if left unaddressed, risk resulting in violence or otherwise undermining community safety.

Interlocutors in the five cities pointed to both short- and long-term benefits of establishing such forums. In the short term, they have helped increase “connectivity among…different groups of people” and which communities they represent, facilitating the flow of timely information between sectors, communities and city leadership. One city official highlighted how “collaborating among stakeholders has already proven beneficial” when it comes to issues such as harmful rhetoric and divisive narratives “spreading in the community.” And over time, these forums will continue to foster deeper peer-to-peer relationships that underpin more resilient and responsive local prevention ecosystems.

To ensure these efforts have a lasting impact, participants emphasised the need for strong coordination across sectors and consistent inclusion of voices from different communities across a city in decision-making. “Alignment is key to sustaining these efforts”, one city official observed. “The Local Leadership Group can help maintain the voice of the community when it comes to the local prevention framework.” These ongoing structures, participants argued, should serve as an institutional anchor for multi-sector collaboration, enabling communities to respond not only to current risks but also to adapt to evolving threats to social cohesion.

2. Cities see local prevention frameworks as particularly valuable for strengthening social cohesion and resilience at both the individual and community level

Cities recognised that a comprehensive local prevention framework does more than mitigate risks of hate or targeted violence. It also plays a proactive role in strengthening the social fabric and promoting the well-being of all communities across a city. At the individual level, prevention efforts can reduce social isolation, particularly among youth – a concern echoed across many cities. One participant noted, “By fostering strong, connected networks within the community, individuals are more likely to feel supported and less isolated. This sense of belonging can prevent the development of harmful behaviours and promote collective responsibility for safety.” The COVID-19 pandemic deepened feelings of disconnection in many communities, making these frameworks especially timely as cities seek ways to re-engage residents and rebuild a sense of trust and mutual care.

At the community level, cities emphasised the role of prevention frameworks in fostering connection across racial, ethnic and faith lines – helping to cultivate shared values and open dialogue. This kind of intentional community-building not only promotes inclusion and understanding but also strengthens a city’s ability to withstand future crises that can otherwise divide communities and undermine trust between residents and the local government. Whether responding to a hate incident, political tension or another local disruption, our city interlocutors agreed that stronger relationships and open lines of communication are essential to a coordinated and resilient response. By embedding these goals into a local prevention framework, cities are better positioned to support broader social cohesion.

3. City officials and community leaders see youth as essential to prevention – empowering them to engage civically, focusing on their social-emotional development and building stronger peer connections

Across pilot cities, there was widespread recognition that youth are not only susceptible to hate and recruitment into violence, but also powerful agents of positive change. Local officials and community leaders expressed interest in engaging young people from all parts of their cities in civic-oriented efforts that allow them to contribute meaningfully to their communities. They see involving youth in prevention planning, volunteering and local initiatives as a way to promote a sense of purpose and belonging, while also fostering intergenerational trust. But this needs to be more than just a “feel-good” exercise and means making sure their concerns are really heard and responded to. These civic touchpoints help young people view themselves as stakeholders in the well-being of their city – building a foundation for long-term resilience and shared responsibility.

Beyond civic participation, leaders also emphasised the role of supporting young people’s social-emotional development. Prevention efforts that focus on character-building and cultivating healthy relationships – both peer-to-peer and youth-adult – can equip youth with the skills they need to navigate conflict, resist harmful influences and support one another. Programmes centred on empathy, communication and emotional regulation are especially valuable in countering the drivers of hate and targeted violence. When youth feel secure in their relationships, they are more likely to contribute positively to their communities.

Finally, local government and community stakeholders noted the importance of creating safe, independent spaces where youth can build community among themselves. These environments – whether physical gathering places or youth-led online get-togethers – serve as protective spaces for identity formation, creativity and peer connection. Especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, young people need places where they can connect outside of adult-driven structures, free from judgment or surveillance, while still being supported by trusted mentors and facilitators. Our pilot cities underscored that when youth have these safe spaces, they are more likely to feel grounded, connected and resilient in the face of social pressures or divisive influences.

4. Communities are calling for strong, clear City-led communication to build trust, raise awareness and promote a sense of shared responsibility

Across participating cities, community members consistently expressed a desire for more proactive, transparent communication from local government. Residents want to better understand their rights, the steps their local elected leaders and local government are taking to protect them and what services or resources are already available to support safety and social cohesion. Just as importantly, they want opportunities to share what is missing – whether programmes, legal protections or resources – so that local policies and programmes can be more responsive and inclusive. Strengthening this two-way communication builds trust and helps ensure that the local government’s prevention efforts are grounded in the lived experiences and needs of the intended beneficiaries: city residents and communities.

As part of that effort, community members also want their local government and the elected leaders to first strengthen their situational awareness of the local threat landscape – particularly concerning on and offline hate and targeted violence. Participants emphasised the importance of tracking these evolving risks not only through expert research and national trends, but also by providing community-based tools such as anonymous mechanisms to allow residents to report bias incidents or hate crimes. Such efforts are key to closing the feedback loop: allowing residents to raise concerns safely, while enabling the local government to act on timely, credible information. Together, better communication and information sharing can help cities move from reactive response to proactive prevention.

5. Cities are eager to adopt a new prevention framework – provided concerns about trust, feasibility and clear messaging on its purpose are addressed

Across the board, working group members showed a strong appetite for adopting a local prevention framework. Many city officials and community partners viewed it as a much-needed structure to coordinate efforts, strengthen partnerships and proactively address issues like hate, polarisation and targeted violence. Most stakeholders did not see significant downsides and welcomed the opportunity to pilot new approaches. They appreciated that the framework can be flexible and adaptable to their local context, allowing for collaboration across sectors that had previously operated in silos. For many, the promise of long-term collaboration and more informed, community-rooted strategies outweighed any perceived risks.

That said, the enthusiasm was not without caveats. Some stakeholders noted that a new framework could risk setting unrealistic expectations – both in terms of impact and resourcing. With many local governments already under strain, concerns were raised that the framework could further stretch limited staff and budgets. Others worried that a visible prevention structure could create a false sense of security, particularly when threats – such as ideologically-motivated violence – often originate from outside the city itself. Without clear messaging, some expressed concern that there is a risk communities might assume the framework is a silver bullet for all safety issues.

Additionally, participants flagged the importance of ensuring the framework is implemented in a way that builds trust across the community. Concerns were raised about potential bias or overreach – especially if law enforcement plays too dominant a role or if Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or other sensitive records are not handled responsibly. Some community-based organisations expressed fears that involvement in prevention work could expose them to increased scrutiny or political backlash, especially in the current climate. Others worried the process could become yet another bureaucratic exercise, viewed by residents as a waste of time if not clearly tied to tangible benefits. As cities move forward, building transparency, trust and safeguards into the framework will be essential for success and broad community support.

Resources for Mayors, Other Local Leaders and Cities

For cities interested in getting more involved in hate and targeted violence 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.
National-Local Cooperation Toolkit: Support for policymakers and practitioners to strengthen and operationalise cooperation between national and municipal governments to prevent hate and targeted violence, based on local context.
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 the North America Regional Hub at [email protected].

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

Related Resources