Prevention Science

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 180–191 | Cite as

Effects of Communities That Care on Prevention Services Systems: Findings From the Community Youth Development Study at 1.5 Years

  • Eric C. BrownEmail author
  • J. David Hawkins
  • Michael W. Arthur
  • John S. Briney
  • Robert D. Abbott


The Community Youth Development Study (CYDS) is a community-randomized trial of the Communities That Care (CTC) prevention system. Using data from 2001 and 2004 administrations of the Community Key Informant Survey, this study reports changes in three community-level outcomes 1.5 years after implementing CTC in 12 communities. Respondents consisted of 534 community leaders in 24 communities representing multiple sectors within each community. Results of multilevel analyses controlling for respondent and community characteristics indicated that (a) CTC and control communities had comparable baseline levels of adopting a science-based approach to prevention, collaboration across community sectors, and collaboration regarding specific prevention activities; and (b) CTC communities exhibited significantly greater increases in these outcomes between 2001 and 2004 relative to control communities. These results suggest that CTC was successful in changing proximal system outcomes theorized to lead to more effective prevention services and, ultimately, reduced risk, enhanced protection, and improved adolescent health and behavior outcomes.


Community Youth Development Study Communities That Care Adoption Collaboration Prevention science 



This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute on Child Health and Human Development, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration/Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (DA15183). We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments made by Mark E. Feinberg, Mark T. Greenberg, Mary Ann Pentz, Abigail A. Fagan, and Charles B. Fleming to earlier versions of this article, as well as all contributions made to this study by the Community Youth Development Study research team.


  1. Arthur, M. W., Glaser, R. R., & Hawkins, J. D. (2005). Steps towards community-level resilience: Community adoption of science-based prevention programming. In R. D. V. Peters, B. Leadbeater, & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Resilience in children, families, and communities: Linking context to practice and policy. (pp. 177–194). New York: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fix indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkowitz, B. (2001). Studying the outcomes of community-based coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 213–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, E. C., Hawkins, J. D., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., & Van Horn, M. L. (2007). Multilevel analysis of a measure of community prevention collaboration. American Journal of Community Psychology, (in press).Google Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Butterfoss, F. D. (2006). Process evaluation for community participation. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 323–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–197). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinman, M., Hannah, G., Wandersman, A., Ebener, P., Hunter, S. B., Imm, P., et al. (2005). Developing a community science research agenda for building community capacity for effective preventive interventions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 143–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Ennett, S. T., Ringwalt, C., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., Vincus, A. A., Simons-Rudolph, A., et al. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prevention Science, 4, 1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fagan, A. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2007). Using community epidemiologic data to improve social settings: The Communities That Care prevention system. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Changing schools and community organizations to foster positive youth development. New York: Oxford University Press, (in press).Google Scholar
  13. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 241–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Green, L., Daniel, M., & Novick, L. (2001). Partnerships and coalitions for community-based research. Public Health Reports, 116, 20–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallfors, D., & Godette, D. (2002). Will the ‘Principles of Effectiveness’ improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Education Research, 17, 461–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawkins, J. D. (2006). Science, social work, prevention: Finding the intersections. Social Work Research, 30, 137–152.Google Scholar
  18. Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Investing in your community’s youth: An introduction to the Communities That Care system. South Deerfield, MA: Channing Bete Company.Google Scholar
  19. Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2003). Community board orientation: Participant’s guide. South Deerfield: MA: Channing Bete.Google Scholar
  20. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 951–976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to delinquency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jasuja, G. K., Chou, C. P., Berstein, K., Wang, E., McClure, M., & Pentz, M. A. (2005). Using structural characteristics of community coalitions to predict progress in adopting evidence-based prevention programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klerman, L. V., Santelli, J. S., & Klein, J. D. (2005). So what have we learned? The Editors’ comments on the coalition approach to teen pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, S115–S118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kreuter, M. W., Lezin, N. A., & Young, L. A. (2000). Evaluating community-based collaborative mechanisms: Implications for practitioners. Health Promotion Practice, 1, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell, R. E., Florin, P., & Stevenson, J. F. (2002). Supporting community-based prevention and health promotion initiatives: Developing effective technical assistance systems. Health Education & Behavior, 29, 629–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide (3rd ed.) Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  28. Quinby, R. K., Fagan, A. A., Hanson, K., Brooke-Weiss, B., Arthur, M. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (2007). Installing the Communities That Care prevention system: Implementation progress and fidelity in a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Community Psychology, (in press).Google Scholar
  29. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  31. Raudenbush, S. W., & Xiao Feng, L. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riggs, N. R., Feinberg, M. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2002). Community sector and gender differences in the perception of community-based prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovation (4th ed.). New York: Free.Google Scholar
  34. Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shinn, M. (1990). Mixing and matching: Levels of conceptualization, measurement, and statistical analysis in community research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology: Issues of theory and methods (pp. 111–126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Spoth, R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). Toward a comprehensive strategy for effective practitioner-scientist partnerships and larger-scale community health and well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 107–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  39. Stevenson, J. F., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Community-level collaboration for substance abuse prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 23, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Horn, M. L., Hawkins, J. D., Arthur, M. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2007). Assessing community effects on adolescent substance use and delinquency. Journal of Community Psychology, (in press).Google Scholar
  42. Wandersman, A. (2003). Community science: Bridging the gap between science and practice with community-centered models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 227–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2003). Community interventions and effective prevention. American Psychologist, 58, 441–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Prevention Research 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric C. Brown
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. David Hawkins
    • 1
  • Michael W. Arthur
    • 1
  • John S. Briney
    • 1
  • Robert D. Abbott
    • 2
  1. 1.Social Development Research GroupUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Educational PsychologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations