2. Purpose, Questions, and Methods

The primary purpose of the Acclivus evaluation study was to examine organizational capacity, staff recruitment and development processes, managerial decision making and structure, program implementation, and perceptions of the program by external publics. Original plans called for a study to be conducted over a twelve-month period and to be inclusive of questions about the effectiveness of organizational structure and infrastructure, decision making, and sustainability. A significant delay in processing the contract providing funding for the study resulted in a six-month contract and even shorter data collection and analysis period and led to a subsequent decision to make implementation of the hospital response and community-based violence prevention programs the primary inquiry areas. Four major questions guided the aspect of the study that is the focus of this report.

1. Who are the Acclivus staff?
2. What do they do and how?
3. What are their perceptions of the effectiveness and importance of their work?
4. How is Acclivus perceived by community partners, leaders and residents?

The study was designed and conducted by researchers at the Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research, a University of Illinois Chicago center in the Jane Addams College of Social Work and was approved by the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board (IRB). The Center has a distinguished history of social research and social policy analysis and the study’s principal investigator, also referred to as lead researcher, and co-investigators have significant experience in conducting research, providing consultation and technical assistance, and developing services that address the social conditions and needs of poor, urban communities.

The study was conducted using qualitative interviews with select groups as the primary study method. This decision was informed by reviewing the literature on community violence prevention programs and services, reflecting on similar work conducted by the Center and the study’s lead researchers, and talking with Acclivus leaders about the organization’s mission, goals, and work. The coronavirus pandemic which halted most group activities and the study timeline were instrumental in the decision to conduct most interviews by phone.

Prior to conducting the study, the Acclivus Chief Executive Officer (CEO) informed all staff of the study purpose, plan and team via e-mail and announcements at staff meetings and the Chief Operating Officer (COO) provided the team with a staff list with job titles, areas served and phone numbers, and a list of hospitals served by Acclivus and each hospital’s trauma unit contact person. The study team used the staff lists to identify persons in administrative and supervisory positions that would be included automatically and to select a representative sample of hospital responders, street outreach workers and case managers to be interviewed. The team’s professional knowledge, connections, and previous work in Acclivus communities were used to identify community leaders and partners and to approach community residents, i.e., persons who lived and/or worked in the area. This group was referred to as community stakeholders.

Information about Acclivus was obtained by reviewing Acclivus program descriptions on the website and Facebook page, examining agency documents including reports of agency operations provided by the COO and talking with the CEO. Guided conversations covering the Cure Violence history and transition to Acclivus were conducted with the CEO and two field directors, all of whom had been part of the Cure Violence leadership team. Individual interviews were conducted with the CEO, the two field directors, the two senior level program directors, all seven supervisors, and a randomly selected sample of 19 front-line staff. The front-line staff group included hospital responders, community outreach workers and case managers. A total of thirty-one staff participated in individual interviews. Stakeholder interviews were conducted with persons not on Acclivus staff. They included two hospital trauma unit staff, two community leaders, five individuals who either represented community agencies or had individual contracts with Acclivus, and fourteen persons who lived or worked in communities where Acclivus has a presence. Each person who lived/worked in an Acclivus community and participated in an interview received $40 in recognition of their time spent responding to the interview questions. A total of 23 stakeholder interviews were conducted. No one who was asked to participate in a stakeholder or staff interview declined to participate. All interviews were conducted in the spring of 2021.

Although the initial evaluation plan called for a review and analysis of a sample of case records of persons who were seen between July 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 as one way of assessing what staff do, this data collection method was not used. Changes in recordkeeping used by Acclivus prior to the study’s designated period impacted active cases and the method and time required to identify appropriate cases and obtain correct data rendered records review an impractical option for this six-months contract.

Interviews were conducted by four African American males, all of whom had experience providing social services or conducting interviews in communities where violence was prevalent. In addition, all interviewers attended training and review sessions conducted by the principal investigator. Staff interviews lasted from 30 minutes to two hours with most averaging about 60 minutes. Stakeholder interviews took from 20 to 60 minutes. Since Chicago was still dealing with social restrictions related to the coronavirus pandemic, most interviews were conducted by phone. The interviews with persons living/working in communities served by Acclivus were an exception. Those persons were recruited by flyers posted or distributed near Acclivus program sites or by persons who were interviewed telling others, and interviews were conducted at Acclivus neighborhood offices with social distancing and other health and safety precautions in place.

The interview guides for both staff and stakeholders consisted of open-ended questions designed to solicit answers to the major research questions and determine how the hospital response and community-based programs operate. Topics covered organizational aims; position roles and responsibilities; significant accomplishments and challenges; views of the neighborhood, job, and success; and ideas for organizational change and service enhancement. Some questions differed for hospital responders and community outreach workers; there were also differences in questions for staff versus stakeholders. In addition, all staff who were interviewed provided background information covering race, age, employment, educational status and incarceration. Information on these characteristics was not obtained from stakeholders.