This document seeks to identify best practices, bright spots, and possible opportunities for their replication with more of a focus on PVE/CVE. It operates under the hypothesis that youth engagement in positive alternatives to violence should be maximized in order for peace writ large to take hold. The definitions and interpretations of violent extremism as well as peacebuilding and security may differ by context. USAID follows the US government definition of CVE as “proactive actions to counter efforts by violent extremists to radicalize, recruit, and mobilize followers to violence and to address specific factors that facilitate violent extremist recruitment and radicalization to violence. This includes both disrupting the tactics used by violent extremists to attract new recruits to violence and building specific alternatives, narratives, capabilities, and resiliencies in targeted communities and populations to reduce the risk of radicalization and recruitment to violence.”2 Overall, USAID focuses much of its work on a development approach to countering violent extremism, while other US government agencies tend to focus more on counter-insurgency and securityfocused measures. While these programs incorporate aspects of youth-led and community-based approaches, they tend not to specifically require the use of a Positive Youth Development (PYD)3 approach. A recent systematic review of PYD in LMICs4 found that, out of 108 studies included in the systematic review, only 30 focused on violence and 30 focused on youth capacity building and civic engagement. The study also found that few programs self-identify as using a PYD approach, even though they meet the definition of PYD. Applying a PYD approach can build youth skills in active community decision making and connecting youth with community role models and mentors. Other work involving youth in peace and security includes gang-violence-reduction programs, engaging youth in post-conflict situations, and promoting the inclusion of youth in political, economic, and cultural realms. In the area of gang-related-violence prevention, the inclusion of the public health approach and comprehensive community- or placebased responses, which diagnose levels of vulnerability to the epidemic of violence and aim to pair the appropriate response to an individual’s level of risk, have shown promising outcomes.