The Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Monica and eight partner Clubs in Los Angeles County launched the Peaceful Connections program to leverage Club-based interventions to reduce risk factors for youth violence in seven cities disproportionately affected by violence. In this report, the authors share the findings of their evaluation of the program, and they include recommendations for improving both the program and evaluation efforts going forward.

Evaluation of the Peaceful Connections Violence Prevention Program

Local Evaluation Report

Mallika Bhandarkar, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Kami Ehrich, Alexandra Bilder, Elizabeth Marsolais

ResearchPublished Dec 22, 2025

The Peaceful Connections program, implemented by the Boys & Girls Clubs (BGC) of Santa Monica and eight partner Clubs, was launched using a California grant to address youth violence in seven cities disproportionately affected by violence in Los Angeles County. The targeted communities also experience systemic barriers related to poverty, academic underachievement, and justice system involvement.

The overarching purpose of Peaceful Connections was to leverage Club-based, evidence-informed interventions, including group and individualized services, to reduce risk factors for youth violence, strengthen protective factors, and improve educational and career-readiness outcomes for youth who are most at risk. The program built on existing group-based programming available through BGC, which focuses on social-emotional, leadership, and career skills, and added a case management component for higher-risk youth.

In this report, the authors share their findings from a process and outcome evaluation of the Peaceful Connections program, and they include recommendations for how BGC could improve both the program and evaluation efforts going forward.

Key Findings

  • Most youth enrolled in the program were already connected to BGC. The program served a diverse group of youth (youth were ages ten through 18, evenly split by gender, and mostly Hispanic, Latino, or Black) from disadvantaged communities affected by high rates of violence.
  • After completing intake assessments, youth received services in one of two "tracks" depending on the number of risk factors identified: Track 1 involved group-based programming and emphasized social-emotional development, and Track 2 provided intensive case management for youth.
  • Youth in only Track 1 showed no significant change in their number of risk factors, possibly because of baseline differences (e.g., their overall lower level of risk) and sample size limitations.
  • Among Track 2 participants, there was a statistically significant reduction in total risk factors from intake to outgoing assessment. Improvements were seen in the categories of social-emotional connection, impulsive risk-taking, truancy and justice involvement, and mental health indicators.
  • Youth valued the safe and supportive environment, consistent mentorship, and individualized attention they received as part of Peaceful Connections programming — particularly in case management sessions.
  • The integration of intensive case management into established Club programming filled gaps in mental health care and one-on-one support. Staff credited the program's success to the commitment demonstrated by leadership, collaboration with community resources, and the flexibility of adapting services across Club environments.
  • Challenges included staff turnover, data-collection limitations, variable access to private space, recruitment shortfalls at some sites, and the need for more-consistent staff training and additional infrastructure.

Recommendations

  • BGC should clarify the purpose of Track 1. Because Track 2 services were associated with reductions in risk factors and Track 1 services alone were not, BGC might consider whether to focus on case management services for high-risk youth or consider ways to adapt these services for medium-risk youth.
  • BGC should adjust goals for program implementation, such as by reducing the case managers' caseloads and increasing the length of services from six months to at least the length of a school year.
  • BGC should invest in case management software to allow tracking youth across services, documenting the types of services received, and entering detailed case notes.
  • BGC should ensure private spaces for case management sessions, or guidance should be provided to case managers for what to do when a private space is unavailable.
  • BGC should provide training resources for program staff, especially case managers, in the form of consolidated and modular training courses.
  • BGC should strengthen the program's theory of change and logic model to ascertain whether there are certain aspects of the programming that are more directly linked to the goal of addressing risk factors for violence.
  • BGC should revisit the intake and outgoing assessments and consider replacing the intake assessment with a fully validated scale, such as the Gang Reduction and Youth Development Youth Services Eligibility Tool.
  • BGC should improve processes for collecting outcome data, such as by having case managers track the goals they worked on and when a goal was fully accomplished.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Bhandarkar, Mallika, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Kami Ehrich, Alexandra Bilder, and Elizabeth Marsolais, Evaluation of the Peaceful Connections Violence Prevention Program: Local Evaluation Report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4200-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Boys & Girls Clubs (BGC) of Santa Monica and conducted by the Infrastructure and Justice Program of RAND Education, Employment, and Infrastructure.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.