This chapter presents findings from a study that examined the response to community violence between 2006 and 2016 in one area of Jamaica. A university–community engagement lens informs the discussion of the multi-stakeholder community violence response involving residents. These residents are of different networks within the community and demonstrate togetherness and capacity to organise and implement or support place and behavioural change activities that reduce tension and improve interaction between residents. However, analysis of quantitative and qualitative data revealed strengths and limitations in the university-community engagement, the overall stakeholder response and corrective actions to address the likelihood of fragmentation in interventions. Residents could not always collaborate oustide of their network. Memories of violence, gang activity and distrust are partially responsible for the lack of collaboration. Staff and students were able to increase capacity in the community violence response, particularly with their provision of psychosocial support following gun violence and with community organisation training. Individuals and organisations interested in community violence approaches in contexts of residents’ desire for a violence-free community and the inputs that comprised a response in which a university is a stakeholder will find the framework highlighted in this chapter for university involvement in a community violence response useful.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Community Violence Responses and University–Community Engagement: Evidence from Jamaica

  • Tarik Weekes,
  • Olivene Burke

摘要

This chapter presents findings from a study that examined the response to community violence between 2006 and 2016 in one area of Jamaica. A university–community engagement lens informs the discussion of the multi-stakeholder community violence response involving residents. These residents are of different networks within the community and demonstrate togetherness and capacity to organise and implement or support place and behavioural change activities that reduce tension and improve interaction between residents. However, analysis of quantitative and qualitative data revealed strengths and limitations in the university-community engagement, the overall stakeholder response and corrective actions to address the likelihood of fragmentation in interventions. Residents could not always collaborate oustide of their network. Memories of violence, gang activity and distrust are partially responsible for the lack of collaboration. Staff and students were able to increase capacity in the community violence response, particularly with their provision of psychosocial support following gun violence and with community organisation training. Individuals and organisations interested in community violence approaches in contexts of residents’ desire for a violence-free community and the inputs that comprised a response in which a university is a stakeholder will find the framework highlighted in this chapter for university involvement in a community violence response useful.