This page describes how youth researchers led the design of our study on community violence in Washington, D.C. While adult facilitators from Child Trends and Sasha Bruce Youthwork provided structured training and support, youth were the driving force behind the study design, bringing their lived experiences, insights, and priorities to every step of the process.
Develop research questions
The process of developing research questions began with youth identifying and reflecting on the key issues they saw in their neighborhoods. Through a series of collaborative activities, youth explored their own experiences, shared stories, and surfaced themes around community violence. They named concerns such as the normalization of gun use, lack of access to mental health supports, and unsafe public spaces. Building on these reflections, youth created a shared vision for what a safe, thriving community would look like.
From there, they worked to translate their concerns into focused research questions. The group first drafted a central, overarching “Big Question” that reflected the heart of the inquiry: What are the causes and consequences of community violence in Wards 7 and 8? Once this central question was identified, youth broke it down into sub-questions aligned with their priority areas. These included:
- At what age are youth typically first exposed to community violence, and how does that exposure change as they get older?
- Why do some youth carry firearms, and what social or environmental factors influence that decision?
- What places in the community feel safe, and what makes those places feel that way?
- How does experiencing or witnessing violence impact mental health and well-being?
- What supports or programs currently exist, and how familiar are youth with them?
Youth refined these questions through multiple rounds of discussion, ensuring they were answerable, meaningful, and tied directly to their lived experiences.
Example facilitation guides, activities, and other resources
- Understanding Our Community Facilitation Guide – This facilitation guide supports youth in reflecting on their neighborhoods’ strengths, challenges, and safety conditions. It walks participants through activities to explore personal experiences, examine community data, map local assets, and begin identifying the root causes of violence as a foundation for youth-led research.
- What is a Research Agenda Facilitation Guide – This facilitation guide supports youth in recognizing their everyday experiences as valid forms of research and walks them through creating a focused research agenda by identifying, prioritizing, and refining key community issues and questions related to violence and safety.
- Identifying your “Big Question” Facilitation Guide – This facilitation guide supports youth in developing a central research question and related sub-questions by connecting their personal experiences and community priorities to a shared vision for change.
- Youth Researcher Priority Area Discussion Topics Artifact – This artifact summarizes the priority concerns youth researchers identified during early discussions
Determine data collection methods and participants
After finalizing their research questions, youth explored various methods of data collection to determine how best to gather the information they needed. They were introduced to different approaches, including interviews, surveys, focus groups, and secondary data analysis, and examined the strengths and limitations of each. Youth discussed the kinds of stories they wanted to hear, the types of patterns they hoped to uncover, and how different methods could help meet these goals.
Ultimately, the youth decided to use a mixed-methods approach. They chose:
- Surveys to capture broader trends and general patterns among youth, families, and community members across Wards 7 and 8
- Interviews and focus groups to allow for deep storytelling, rich detail, and personal reflection
- Secondary data to supplement their findings with existing datasets on topics, such as crime trends, education, and public health
In addition to selecting their methods, youth also decided who should be part of the study. They identified young people ages 14 to 24 as the key population, with particular emphasis on reaching those directly impacted by community violence whether as witnesses, survivors, or those who had engaged in violence themselves. They also chose to gather data from family and community members who could offer valuable perspectives on young people’s experiences. Youth discussed the importance of peer-to-peer recruitment, trust-building, and ethical considerations when asking sensitive questions.
Example facilitation guides, activities, and other resources
- Learning About Different Research Methods Facilitation Guide – This facilitation guide introduces youth to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research through hands-on activities and helps them evaluate which methods best fit their research goals.
- Qualitative and Quantitative Research Guided Notes – This guided notes document helps youth differentiate between qualitative and quantitative research by prompting them to reflect on the purpose, methods, questions, and reporting styles of each approach.
- Diving Deeper into Qualitative Research Facilitation Guide - This facilitation guide teaches youth how to analyze qualitative data by identifying themes and supporting evidence, using an interview with Kendrick Lamar as a practice dataset.
- Diving Deeper into Quantitative Research Facilitation Guide - This facilitation guide teaches youth how to recognize, interpret, and visualize quantitative data using real-world sources like public data dashboards, and it supports them in practicing basic data analysis skills.
- Mixed Methods & Recruitment Facilitation Guide - This facilitation guide introduces youth to mixed methods research and supports them in selecting a sampling strategy and recruitment approach aligned with their study goals.
- Sampling Methods Presentation – This presentation explains key sampling concepts and compares probability and nonprobability sampling methods, highlighting purposeful snowball and voluntary response sampling as strategies for recruiting participants.
Develop qualitative tools
To prepare for interviews and focus groups, youth created their own qualitative tools. They began by revisiting their research questions and identifying what types of conversations would help them find answers. Working in small groups, they drafted open-ended interview and focus group questions tailored to each priority area. These included prompts like:
- “Can you describe a time you felt unsafe in your neighborhood? What made it feel that way?”
- “Who do you trust to talk to about violence or safety?”
- “What changes would make your community feel safer?”
Youth considered how to word questions in ways that would feel accessible and non-judgmental to peers. They also discussed which questions might work best in one-on-one interviews versus group settings. Through peer feedback and facilitator support, the questions were refined to ensure clarity, relevance, and emotional safety. This process helped youth develop strong qualitative tools and build their confidence in facilitating sensitive conversations with their peers.
Example facilitation guides, activities, and other resources
- Qualitative Research Protocol Development Facilitation Guide – This facilitation guide helps youth develop and refine interview and focus group questions aligned with their research agenda, while also considering who to engage and how to recruit participants.
- Protocol Question Bank Artifact – This artifact compiles youth-developed interview and focus group questions organized by research themes.
Develop quantitative tools
To complement their qualitative tools, youth also developed a survey to collect quantitative data. Using their research questions as a guide, youth drafted items that could be answered using scaled responses. The survey included questions about community belonging, perceptions of safety, access to resources, and relationships with adults. Example items included:
- “I feel like I belong in my neighborhood.”
- “There are safe places for youth to hang out in my community.”
- “My neighbors look out for each other.”
- “I know where to go if I need help with my mental health.”
Youth were thoughtful about wording, answer options, and length. They considered how to make the survey engaging while still collecting meaningful data. As part of this process, they practiced analyzing real datasets and creating charts to visualize information, which helped them understand how survey responses could turn into findings. Youth also discussed logistics, such as survey length, who should complete it, and how to distribute it.
Example facilitation guides, activities, and other resources
- Quantitative Research Protocol Development Facilitation Guide – This facilitation guide engages youth in drafting, reviewing, and refining survey questions that align with their research priorities, while prompting reflection on sample size, feasibility, and participant recruitment.
The Safety 7 includes seven youth researchers (Zionnah Garnett, Elijah Jones, London Mclean, Jermese Perkins, Ife Tobechi, Ike Tobechi, and Meagan Tutt) who make all key research decisions in partnership with staff from Child Trends and Sasha Bruce Youthwork. The Safety 7 is supported by Quiana Lewis Wallace and Deja Logan from Child Trends, Courtney Gibbs, and Bianca Faccio from Sasha Bruce Youthwork. Principal investigators for the study are Samantha Holquist and Quiana Lewis Wallace (Child Trends) with support from Kelly Murphy. Jennifer Widstrand (Child Trends) served as the Project Director. Additional contributions came from Ja’Chelle Ball, Kenya Downing, Jessica Conway, Olivia Reyes, and Alyssa Scott (Child Trends), and Deborah Shore, Donnell Potts, Ivana Gutierrez, and Jane McGhee (Sasha Bruce Youthwork).
If you have questions about the Centering Youth Experiences to Address Community Violence project, please contact Principal Investigator Quiana Lewis Wallace at qlewiswallace@childtrends.org.
This project was supported by Award No. 15PNIJ-22-GG-01420-RESS, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.