Communities That Care

Communities That Care
Name	Communities That Care
Type	Prevention system
Founder	Peter J. Catalano; J. David Hawkins
Established	1990s

Communities That Care is a community-based prevention system designed to reduce youth problem behaviors by mobilizing local coalitions to implement evidence-based programs. The model integrates public health approaches used by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, research methods from University of Washington, and policy frameworks associated with Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to promote protective factors and reduce risk factors for adolescents. Communities That Care emphasizes data-driven decision making, coalition building, and selection of programs validated by registries such as Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development and What Works Clearinghouse.

Overview

Communities That Care draws on epidemiological methods exemplified by Framingham Heart Study, uses dissemination strategies similar to Diffusion of Innovations, and aligns with prevention taxonomies endorsed by World Health Organization, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The system situates local planning alongside national initiatives like Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and collaboratives such as Robert Wood Johnson Foundation initiatives. Partner organizations often include local school districts, county health departments, Juvenile Justice, and nonprofits like Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.

Origins and Development

The model was developed in the 1990s by researchers including J. David Hawkins and Richard F. Catalano at Social Development Research Group and University of Washington. Early development drew on longitudinal studies such as the Seattle Social Development Project and analytic techniques from National Institute on Drug Abuse funded work. Pilot implementations were informed by policy experiments like Safe Communities and evaluated using designs similar to the Community Trial and Randomized controlled trials employed in prevention science. Funders and adopters included foundations such as Annie E. Casey Foundation and agencies like Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Core Components and Framework

The model's core components parallel constructs from developmental psychopathology research at Johns Hopkins University and program registries such as Blueprints, emphasizing assessment, prioritization, and selection of programs. Key elements include community readiness assessment modeled after Transtheoretical Model of Change, risk and protective factor surveys analogous to measures used by Monitoring the Future and Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, and selection of interventions listed by SAMHSA and CDC prevention compendia. Implementation fidelity monitoring draws on methodologies from Implementation Science centers at Harvard University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Implementation and Training

Training for local coalitions often uses curricula developed with support from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, technical assistance from Social Development Research Group, and partnerships with state-level agencies such as Washington State Department of Health and Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Training models include phased community assessments similar to Collective Impact and capacity building approaches used by Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. Implementation supports draw on tools from Child Trends and evaluation frameworks by RAND Corporation and Mathematica Policy Research.

Evidence of Effectiveness

Evaluations have used experimental and quasi-experimental designs inspired by National Institutes of Health standards and methods from Cochrane Collaboration-influenced reviews. Multi-site trials with designs similar to those used in Blueprints evaluations have reported reductions in substance use, delinquency, and violence, mirroring outcomes reported in studies by Pew Charitable Trusts and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Meta-analyses employing techniques used by Campbell Collaboration and American Psychological Association task forces have assessed effect sizes and moderators such as community context and fidelity.

Global and Local Adaptations

Adaptations have been made in locales ranging from United States states like Pennsylvania and Washington (state) to international contexts involving collaborations with World Health Organization, European Commission, and agencies in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Canada. Local adaptations often engage stakeholders including school boards, tribal councils, youth courts, and organizations like Save the Children and UNICEF to tailor programs listed by Blueprints and What Works Clearinghouse.

Criticisms and Challenges

Critics reference implementation barriers documented in reports by Government Accountability Office and evaluations by Urban Institute, highlighting issues of sustainability, funding, and fidelity in resource-constrained settings such as some rural counties and under-resourced urban districts similar to cases studied by Annenberg Institute. Additional challenges mirror debates in prevention science involving transferability noted by Thomas Schelling-style critiques and replication concerns raised in literature from American Educational Research Association and Sage Publications.

Category:Prevention programs