--Printer-friendly version--

The research base in public health strongly suggested that while a balance of activities is necessary, policy change is a key factor in promoting public health goals. Publications by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and California’s Injury Control Program indicated the importance of policy development and implementation related to firearms, alcohol and drugs. Policy change to allocate additional resources for effective violence prevention programs was also needed. The VPI Policy Program was made up of three components: the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention (Pacific Center), the public education campaigns, and policy (formerly called supplemental policy) grantees. TCWF established the VPI Policy Program with the following goals and objectives.

Policy Goal I: Work to shift society’s definition of youth violence from a law enforcement perspective to include a public health perspective that addresses societal and environmental influences contributing to youth violence. Objectives were to: 1) educate and inform policymakers and opinion leaders about the need to shift the distribution of public resources from a focus on incarceration only, toward a focus that includes prevention programs that foster the health education and employment of youth; and 2) educate the media about the need to change news practices regarding the portrayal of youth and violent behavior.

Policy Goal II: Advocate for public policies that reduce the access to alcohol and other drugs, which contribute to youth violence. Objectives were to: 1) educate policymakers and opinion leaders about the economic cost of alcohol and other drugs and their association with youth violence; and 2) educate policymakers and opinion leaders about the need to increase the enforcement of underage drinking laws by the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control.

Policy Goal III: Advocate for public policies to reduce firearm injury and death among youth. Objectives were to: 1) educate policymakers and opinion leaders about the need to formulate state policies to reduce the availability of, and access to, handguns by youth; 2) encourage and engage communities and local jurisdictions to enact policies and regulations to prevent firearm injuries; and 3) educate policymakers and opinion leaders about the economic cost of firearm injury to youth.

To ensure that all components of the VPI had the opportunity to be integrated into the Initiative’s Policy Program and to ensure that the goals and objectives of that program were accomplished, the Foundation awarded a grant to the Trauma Foundation of San Francisco General Hospital to establish the Pacific Center for Violence Prevention (Pacific Center). The Pacific Center was to offer media advocacy and public policy advocacy training to all individuals and organizations associated with the Initiative. The intent was to create a statewide network of social activists, connected by an electronic communication system that would inform policymakers and opinion leaders in California about programs and policies to prevent violence.

Because violence in television programming and in feature films was strongly associated with violent behavior, an Entertainment Industry Project was funded. The Foundation provided a grant to Mediascope for the purpose of working collaboratively with the entertainment industry to develop policies regarding the portrayals of violence; to develop and produce reports on current industry practices; and to design a curriculum for film schools that would balance freedom of expression with social responsibility.

The Foundation awarded grants to Martin & Glantz, LLC, and i.e. communications, LLC, to develop, implement and evaluate several multimedia public education campaigns with goals of reducing the availability of, and access to, handguns and of increasing resources for youth violence prevention programs. Based on the results of market research, the audience for campaign messages was divided into two sectors: the general public, with emphasis on specific geographic and demographic targets, and policymakers/opinion leaders. To effectively communicate with these two audiences, comprehensive multifaceted campaigns were designed that not only utilized substantial paid media, but also educated public opinion leaders and decisionmakers and actively invited the participation of organizations associated with the VPI.

The mass media/general public component of the public education campaigns consisted of three primary strategies: 1) paid advertising in target markets; 2) statewide PSA (public service announcement) placements; and 3) statewide earned media. The second major component of the public education campaigns centered around the opinion leader activities. The opinion leader program complemented the paid media by providing more in-depth information on the public health model, a rationale to reduce access to firearms among California’s youth, and a rationale to increase resources for prevention programs. Opinion leaders were defined as those individuals who would most likely be called upon to make public statements and/or policy decisions on the issue of youth and gun violence in California. The opinion leader component of the campaigns also considered three key strategies focused around “communities of influence”: 1) database and direct mail communications program; 2) policymaker education; and 3) teleconferences.

TCWF also funded 12 additional policy grants in an effort to provide funding across a variety of policy programs to contribute to the discourse and development of state and local youth violence prevention policy. The work of these grantees complemented and enhanced the efforts of the Pacific Center and the public education campaigns to educate policymakers, opinion leaders and the general public about the need to increase both public and private investment in comprehensive violence prevention programs for youth and firearms policy.