Chapter 7: Virginia 


The case study of Title V in Virginia, which focuses on the national evaluation communities of Hanover 

and Waynesboro/Staunton, demonstrates the many successes that can be achieved and some of the 

challenges associated with implementing the Title V model. Both communities had been engaging in 

community-based prevention planning for some time, and Title V fit within their existing structures. 

The first section of this case study report presents and discusses state support for Title V from 1998 to 

2002. The second and third sections present and discuss the Title V initiatives in Hanover and 

Waynesboro/Staunton from 1997 to 2002. The final section presents concluding remarks on Title V in 

Virginia. 

This presentation is based on four primary data sources that were gathered during the national 

evaluation: stakeholder interviews, in person and via telephone; a review of Virginia’s Title V 

documentation, including the FY 1999 request for proposals; a review of Hanover’s and 

Waynesboro/Staunton’s Title V documentation, including the grant applications, quarterly progress 

reports and prevention policy board meeting minutes; and a review of the federal Title V guidelines and 

documentation. In addition, the case study report includes the evaluation team’s interpretation of the 

case study data that represents Caliber’s experience of working with all 11 national evaluation 

communities during the multiyear implementation of the evaluation. 

State Support for Title V 

Virginia has been eligible to receive funds ranging from $296,000 to $964,000 each year. This level of 

funding is based on the size of its juvenile population. The Department of Criminal Justice Services, the 

implementing state agency in Virginia, has supported communities with grant awards ranging from 

$9,000 to $131,550. From the beginning of Title V in 1994 through 2002, Virginia funded 45 Title V 

communities. 

The Department of Criminal Justice Services has provided solid support for the Title V model in 

Virginia. A cornerstone of Virginia’s implementation strategy is the coordination of Title V with other 

prevention efforts to discourage fragmentation and duplication of efforts at the local level. This 

department has monitored its strategies and has adjusted them over time in efforts to improve outcomes. 

The two Virginia communities selected to participate in the Title V national evaluation are Hanover 

County and the cities of Waynesboro and Staunton (hereafter Waynesboro/Staunton). Each community 

received 3 years of Title V funding, which each used to implement a single program. Both communities 

already had components of the Title V model in place, such as a community prevention board, needs 

assessment, and comprehensive delinquency prevention plan. Both communities were quite successful 

in their efforts and have institutionalized their processes and programs. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 187 
Virginia’s Granting Process 

The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services is the state agency responsible for coordinating 

Title V grant activities in Virginia. The department falls within the Secretariat of Public Safety and is 

charged with planning and carrying out programs and initiatives to improve the functioning and 

effectiveness of Virginia’s criminal justice system as a whole. 

The Department of Criminal Justice Services has a stated commitment to collaboration and helps 

communities coordinate Title V program requirements with other local prevention efforts. It does this in 

two ways: by helping communities develop one community prevention board to plan and oversee all 

local prevention efforts and by supporting communities in conducting a comprehensive community 

assessment to meet the funding requirements of a variety of federal- and state-sponsored prevention 

initiatives. 

Before 2000, Virginia’s State Advisory Group (SAG) set forth state-level priority areas for Title V 

applicants each year. Applicants were then requested to propose strategies that addressed one of the 

priority areas. Strategies could be replications of promising approaches or innovative programs. 

Beginning in 2000, however, Virginia changed this process. The SAG no longer sets statewide priority 

areas. Instead, each applicant is asked to identify its priority needs on the basis of a local needs 

assessment. In addition, strategies selected to address applicants’ priority needs must now be 

replications of promising approaches. The rationale for these changes is twofold: the state truly wants to 

focus on local priority needs, and it wants to capitalize on the extensive research about “what works” in 

prevention by having communities replicate promising approaches. 

The criminal justice department’s prevention specialist, in consultation with the state juvenile justice 

specialist, sends eligible units of local government and local offices of state agencies an invitation to 

submit a letter of intent to participate in the Title V program. The SAG reviews submitted letters and 

sends eligible applicants a request for proposal that reflects both Title V and Title II funding guidelines 

and requirements, and a notice of upcoming training sessions. (Title II funds comprehensive, 

community-based services for adjudicated youth.) In 2000, to increase applicants’ ability to screen 

themselves and determine their readiness to apply for Title V funds (e.g., their ability to mobilize a 

community prevention board and conduct a risk and resource assessment), the department added some 

forms from the Title V Self-Evaluation Community Workbook to the application package. 

Once the deadline for submitting proposals has passed, the prevention subcommittee of the SAG 

reviews all new and continuation Title V grant applications and makes funding recommendations to the 

full SAG. The SAG then reviews the recommendations and makes final funding decisions which it 

passes on to the Criminal Justice Services Board. The board then notifies communities of their grant 

award status. 

To be eligible for continuation funds, Title V subgrantees must empirically demonstrate at least 75­

percent achievement of the goals and objectives outlined in their comprehensive plans. Continuation 

communities also must update their prevention plans (to reflect past and future goals, objectives, and 

activities) and modify their evaluation plans accordingly. Most communities are able to fulfill the 

requirements necessary for continuation funding for the 2 years for which they are eligible (for a full 3 

years of Title V support). In 1999, because of past years’ overwhelming demand for Title V funds, 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 188 
Virginia’s Department of Criminal Justice Services capped Title V funding at $65,000 per community 

per year. 

Training and Technical Assistance 

Virginia has provided the federally funded Title V training to support the efforts of its applicants. 

Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. was the federal contractor until June 2000. Its trainings 

were based on the Communities That Care curriculum and consisted of three sessions: key leader 

orientation, risk and resource assessment, and promising approaches. Since 2000, Developmental 

Services Group, Inc., has been the federal contractor providing Title V training. These trainings also 

consist of three sessions: community team orientation, community data collection and analysis, and plan 

and program development. 

Participation in training by potential applicants is optional. In the early years, communities were allowed 

to select among the three training sessions, but in 1999 the state began to require that applicants desiring 

training attend all three sessions. This change was made in an effort to encourage coordination and to 

provide training continuity at the local level. Virginia also offers optional evaluation training and 

technical assistance to Title V applicants and existing Title V communities. 

Evaluation 

The Virginia Title V request for proposals includes expectations for program evaluation but does not 

require applicants to track risk or protective factors or juvenile problem behaviors. The expectations for 

program evaluation provide little guidance about exactly what is expected from or how to conduct such 

activities. For example, the request for proposals requires applicants to describe their evaluation plans, 

but does not define expectations for realistic or measurable program outcomes or provide descriptions of 

evaluation methods. 

To support communities in their evaluation efforts, staff from the Department of Criminal Justice 

Services offer individualized technical assistance to communities that request it. Individualized 

assistance is delivered both by department staff and by consultants who provide evaluation-specific 

training to Title V subgrantees. 

Other State Factors 

A number of significant prevention activities occurred in Virginia during its participation in the Title V 

national evaluation. In July 2000, the Governor’s Office of Substance Abuse Prevention was established. 

This office coordinates all substance abuse prevention efforts for youth across the state, and its creation 

raised the visibility of prevention efforts at the state level. Also in 2000, Virginia passed legislation that 

re-emphasized prevention as a focus for the state’s local Offices on Youth. In previous years, the 

Department of Juvenile Justice, which oversees these offices, had shifted away from a focus on planning 

and prevention, and the legislature wanted to shift the focus back. These events indicated strong state 

support for prevention. In 2002, however, the legislature eliminated state funding for the Offices on 

Youth because of the state budget deficit. Some offices have continued to operate with financial support 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 189 
from their local governments and other sources, but others have been eliminated. These budget cuts may 

significantly reduce the communities’ ability to provide delinquency prevention programming. 

Interpretation 

Virginia’s support of the Title V model has both strengths and weaknesses that may impact the model’s 

implementation and the likelihood that positive results will be documented at the local level. The state’s 

support of coordinated community prevention boards encourages communities to integrate efforts 

related to Title V with existing prevention efforts, rather than create new community prevention boards. 

This is consistent with the Title V model’s emphasis on communitywide coordination of all prevention 

efforts. 

One challenge associated with Virginia’s support of the Title V model relates to state requirements for 

training. Because the state does not require training, communities that choose not to receive training 

may lack useful information about the model’s intent and needed guidance in how to implement it. 

However, the state’s decision to require communities receiving training to attend all three sessions may 

improve this scenario for communities that do opt to receive training. Another challenge relates to state 

guidance regarding the role of the prevention policy boards. The request for proposals does not clearly 

explain the state’s expectations for the prevention policy board’s role in implementation or 

institutionalization, two key phases of the Title V model that board members are expected to influence 

through their support, input, and resources. This lack of guidance from the state may result in wide 

variation in the role the boards play in local Title V efforts. 

Consistent with the Title V model’s emphasis, the state encourages communities to coordinate their Title 

V needs assessment activities with existing efforts. Virginia’s Title V request for proposals does not 

provide much information about what is expected in the needs assessment, however, and communities 

may therefore submit assessments that provide less information than is desirable. For example, the 

request for proposals provides definitions of risk and protective factors, but it does not provide guidance 

regarding the indicators to use in identifying these factors, nor on how to collect data and document the 

data collection process. Communities that choose to participate in training receive more guidance in 

these areas, but those that do not may use or conduct needs assessments that are not as valid and reliable 

as may be desired. 

The state’s request for proposals conveys some level of expectation that each community’s plan include 

overall goals and objectives, and that the proposed strategies be designed to fill gaps in the community’s 

resources and to address selected priority risk factors. The request for proposals provides little guidance, 

however, about how to develop goals, objectives, and strategies. For example, there are no expectations 

that the goals and objectives be realistic and measurable. Communities that choose to participate in 

training or request technical assistance receive more guidance in these areas, but those that do not may 

have difficulty developing a feasible comprehensive plan if they have little experience in such activities. 

The state’s decision to require communities to use promising approaches is expected to result in more 

effective programs. The state’s earlier choice to allow communities to implement unique programs 

offered room for innovation, but challenges in evaluation made it difficult to determine programs’ 

effectiveness. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 190 
Staff at the state office acknowledge that they have struggled to help communities evaluate their Title V 

programs and overall initiatives. They offer individualized technical assistance regarding evaluation, 

which is beneficial to those that request it. They also have explored various other options, including the 

possibility of requiring communities to track specified indicators for each risk factor and requiring the 

use of certain Title V Community Self-Evaluation Workbook forms, but the state has chosen not to 

implement these requirements. Virginia’s request for proposals does not provide much detail about the 

state’s expectations for program evaluation. Strengthening these expectations in the request for 

proposals may be helpful, but communities may still struggle to implement effective evaluations because 

of a lack of experience and resources (e.g., staff knowledgeable about evaluation or funds to use to 

contract with evaluators). 

Virginia’s Title V request for proposals says little about institutionalizing Title V efforts beyond the 

grant period. It is clear that the Title V funds are time limited, but there is little state guidance in how to 

build on the strategies (e.g., by building support among prevention policy board members and by using 

evaluation data to “sell” a strategy’s success to potential funders). Because of this lack of guidance, it is 

possible that many communities may not address institutionalization adequately and may lose 

momentum after Title V funds expire, even if they have implemented successful strategies. 

Summary 

In general, Virginia provides significant support for the Title V model. However, many details of the 

state’s expectations are not part of the request for proposals, but instead are available through optional 

training that not all communities receive. The state’s continuing emphasis on coordinating community 

efforts and requiring use of promising approaches bodes well. Strengthening the state’s expectations and 

guidance in the request for proposals related to the role of the prevention policy board, needs 

assessments, evaluation, and institutionalization may communicate these more consistently, and may 

improve communities’ abilities to implement and institutionalize their Title V initiatives more 

successfully. Virginia’s willingness to modify its approach based on “lessons learned” has resulted in 

improvements to the process and suggests that the state will have continuing success in the future. State 

support for Title V has an impact on how communities implement the Title V model. The following 

sections describe and analyze the Title V initiatives in Hanover County and Waynesboro/Staunton, VA. 

Hanover County 

This case study documents the Title V process in Hanover County from its initial planning in 1998 

through the end of its Title V funding in June 2002. Hanover County successfully planned, 

implemented, and sustained its Title V funded prevention program, the Boys to Men program, and its 

community prevention board, the I CARE Youth Development Council. 

This case study presentation begins with a brief community description and discussion of the role of 

Title V in Hanover County. It continues with presentations and discussions of the five stages of the Title 

V model as implemented in Hanover: community mobilization and collaboration, initial assessment and 

planning, implementation of prevention strategies, monitoring and evaluation, and institutionalization. 

This section concludes with the evaluation team’s interpretation of the data. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 191 
National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 192

Brief Community Description 

Hanover County is located in Central Virginia and is part of the greater Richmond metropolitan area. It 

is a rapidly suburbanizing county of 473 square miles, although it still has some rural communities. 

Ashland is the one incorporated town in the county. Hanover County has two interstate highways, I 95 

and I 295, which are among the busiest in the eastern United States. 

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, Hanover County has a population of approximately 86,000 people 

and is considered one of the fastest-growing counties in Virginia. Youth under the age of 19 make up 

about 29 percent of the population. Even though the median income of the county is $59,223, 

approximately 7 percent of families have an annual income of less than $15,000. 

Eighty-nine percent of the county’s residents are white, and 11 percent are non white. The nonwhite 

population is growing more diverse in that there are increasing numbers of African Americans, Asians, 

Native Americans, and Hispanics. 

Major industries in Hanover County include Paramount’s Kings Dominion theme park, Bear Island 

Paper Company, Richfood, AMF Bowling and AMF Reese world headquarters, and Tyson’s Foods. A 

full 88 percent of Hanover County residents are employed outside the county, making it a bedroom 

community and increasing its need for 

afterschool programming and child care. 

Title V in Hanover County 

Community collaboration in Hanover County, 

particularly in the area of prevention, was 

strengthened in the late 1990s with the arrival 

of the first coordinator of prevention services and community education at the Hanover County 

Community Services Board. The collaborative prevention board in Hanover County, the Hanover 

County Substance Abuse Prevention Committee, which the coordinator of prevention services and 

community education helped to organize, built upon pre-existing good relationships among local 

organizations, such as the public schools and law enforcement. 

Several important events led the Hanover County community to pursue Title V funding. In the late 

1990s, six young people between the ages of 15 and 22 died of heroin overdoses in the county in a 

period of 22 months, revealing an upsetting trend in this middle-class bedroom community. In response, 

key leaders in Hanover County, including the Sheriff, the Director of the Hanover County Community 

Services Board, and the Superintendent of Schools, spearheaded the development of the Hanover Forum 

on Drugs and Alcohol. 

Held in February 1998, the forum attracted more than 200 residents from across the county. According 

to its final report, “The forum was a collaborative effort of citizens, county government, social services, 

law enforcement, educators, and the business community to provide an opportunity to brainstorm about 

the causes of illegal drug and alcohol use, and to develop solutions.” According to the Sheriff, “We 

decided perhaps the answer was in the community, and we certainly didn’t have it. And so the idea of 

the drug forum was born out of that concern and need to get information as to what’s going on.” 

Hanover County 

Funding period: July 1999–June 2002 

Amount of Title V funding: $132,253 

Unit of local government: Hanover County 

Lead agency: Hanover County Community Services Board
Following the Hanover Forum on Drugs and Alcohol, group discussions and the analysis of followup 

focus group data resulted in the formation of three subcommittees to develop strategies toward solutions 

with regard to law enforcement and punishment issues, treatment and intervention options, and 

comprehensive prevention strategies. The subcommittee on comprehensive prevention strategies 

identified several risk factors for youth in the community related to drug and alcohol use and presented 

them to the community at the second Hanover Forum on Drugs and Alcohol, held in October 1998. The 

subcommittee continued its work following the second forum and ultimately became an ongoing 

community group, the Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Committee. 

With the development of the Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Committee in 1998, Hanover 

County became eligible to apply for several sources of funding available to Virginia communities for 

use in implementing community-based prevention strategies, including the Governor’s Discretionary 

Funds for Safe & Drug Free Schools; funds from the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, 

and Substance Abuse; and Title V initiative funds. 

Title V filled a small gap for services in Hanover County. The program that Hanover County 

implemented with Title V funds served up to 30 boys per year. This small pilot program allowed the 

county to try different prevention curricula and program designs for afterschool programming for middle 

school youth that ultimately strengthened the proposal it made to the state for the state incentive grant. 

The Title V grant was a source of funding that allowed the county and the Increased Community 

Awareness Requires Everyone (I CARE) Youth Development Council to gain experience in 

implementing community-based youth development programs, which was a relatively new development 

in the county. Hanover County’s Title V timeline is illustrated in figure 7.1. 

Figure 7.1: Hanover County Timeline for the Title V initiative 

1998 Initial Hanover Forum on Drugs and Alcohol held 

Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Committee formed 

1999 Hanover County applies for Title V grant 

Year 1 implementation of the Boys to Men program begins 

2000 Year 2 implementation of the Boys to Men program begins 

2001 Year 3 implementation of the Boys to Men program begins 

Hanover County awarded a 3-year State Incentive Grant (SIG) 

2002 Title V grant ends; Boys to Men program activities continue via SIG funding 

Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

The Title V community mobilization and collaboration process includes introducing community 

prevention to key leaders, forming a prevention policy board, and participating in prevention training. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 193 
This section describes the process of community mobilization for the Title V initiative in Hanover 

County from 1997 through 2002 and discusses factors that influenced it. 

Introducing Community Prevention to Key Officials and Leaders 

Beginning in 1997, key leaders were mobilized to address issues of substance abuse prevention in 

Hanover County, particularly among youth. Stakeholders report that before the Hanover Forum on 

Drugs and Alcohol, community members had little awareness of the need for community prevention 

programming. Several local needs assessments (e.g., the Family Preservation and Support Needs 

Assessment in 1995 and the Hanover Child Protection Team Needs Assessment in 1998) had 

demonstrated the need for prevention programs for the middle school age group, but data from the 

assessment had not been widely shared with key leaders and the community. It took the Hanover Forum 

on Drugs and Alcohol in 1998 to begin to mobilize the community on this issue. 

Prevention Policy Board 

In Hanover County, the Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Committee (subsequently 

renamed the Hanover County Planning Council), which began as a result of the initial Hanover Forum 

on Drugs and Alcohol, served as the prevention policy board for the county’s Title V initiative. The 

committee was formed prior to the Title V initiative to continue planning and implementing strategies 

that arose from the county’s drug forums. Since its inception, the committee has conducted prevention 

planning and implementation activities, but it has never received formal community prevention training. 

Forming the Prevention Policy Board 

In 1999, once the committee had finished its work associated with the Drug Forums, it changed its name 

to the Hanover County Prevention Planning Council. As it developed into an ongoing community group, 

rather than an ad-hoc subcommittee, the council formed five subcommittees: community, school, family, 

youth/individual, and T.E.E.N.S (a youth council). 

As the Hanover County Prevention Planning Council became more formalized, a Prevention Advisory 

Council was also formed in Hanover County. The Prevention Advisory Council included professionals 

in the prevention field who lived in Hanover County and other key stakeholders. It included the 

prevention coordinator for Henrico County, the prevention coordinator for Goodland/Powhattan, the 

director of Communities in Schools, a representative of the Hanover Business Council, the editor of the 

Herald Progress, and the chair of the Hanover County School Board. The role of the advisory council 

was to meet once a year to review the activities of the planning council, offer suggestions, and locate 

resources to assist the planning council in implementing programs. 

Planning council membership was representative of many segments of the community and maintained a 

balance of agency professionals, community citizens, and youth. When originally formed, it consisted of 

approximately 21 members representing organizations such as the Hanover County Community Services 

Board, Hanover County Public Schools, Hanover Parks and Recreation, Hanover Sheriff’s Department, 

Hanover Health Department, and the Girl Scouts of America. It also included local business owners, 

parents, and students. Since its inception, the Hanover County Prevention Planning Council has been 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 194 
chaired by the coordinator of prevention services and community education, with other employees of the 

community services board and community volunteers leading the council’s subcommittees. 

The planning council originally met monthly to discuss community prevention strategies (e.g., 

information and resource sharing, planning and coordination, promotion of prevention efforts) and new 

programs or grant opportunities to fund prevention programming, and to develop and approve the 

community services board’s annual prevention plan. In addition, I CARE (Increased Community 

Awareness Requires Everyone), an initiative of the planning council’s community subcommittee, was a 

major effort to raise community awareness of prevention issues. The planning council was a grassroots 

organization actively supporting many locally developed prevention activities. 

Prevention Policy Board Continuation Activities 

From its initial role as a subcommittee of the Hanover Forum on Drugs and Alcohol, the Hanover 

County Prevention Planning Council took on a number of roles in the county: prevention policy board 

for the Title V initiative, advisory board for the community services board, and developers of a 

community awareness campaign named I CARE. The I CARE campaign, initiated in 2001, was 

designed to establish clear community norms that promote a substance-abuse-free message through 

organized, community-based prevention strategies. A secondary goal of the initiative was to create an 

environment in which parents send a clear substance-abuse-free message through their attitudes and 

behaviors. The campaign included the distribution of bumper stickers, pamphlets, window patches, and 

a monthly column in the Hanover Herald Progress and the Mechanicsville Local that provided parents 

with an opportunity to write in and ask questions. The Hanover planning council also supported other 

local prevention initiatives, such as the development of local teen centers, Safe Night USA, and a Youth 

Issues Forum. 

Since its formation in 1998, the Hanover County Prevention Planning Council maintained an active 

membership, with representatives from local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and local 

citizens. Over the 3 years of the Title V initiative, the council averaged 27 members (although not all 

members regularly attended meetings). There was turnover in membership, but at least seven members 

remained on the council during the 3-year period when the county had Title V funds. The planning 

council also had strong ties to influential organizations such as the County Sheriff’s Department, the 

school administration, the local business council, and local media. It also benefited from the personal 

commitment of several citizen volunteers. 

A major change in the planning council occurred when the coordinator of prevention services and 

community education resigned in Fall 2000. As a result of the resignation, the council lacked leadership 

for several months until a new coordinator was hired. In an effort by the new coordinator to revitalize 

the council and refocus its efforts, the council changed its name to the I CARE Youth Development 

Council in 2001. In summer 2001, the council also developed a new mission: “To promote resiliency 

and healthy choices among Hanover youth and their families in an effort to reduce alcohol, tobacco, and 

other drug use and related problem behaviors.” The council was further re-energized and refocused on 

prevention efforts in the community through the development of an application for a Virginia State 

Incentive Grant. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 195 
Community Prevention Training 

Title V training is designed to enhance the abilities of participating communities to plan, develop, and 

implement risk- and protection-focused delinquency prevention strategies. The Hanover County 

Prevention Planning Council did not receive Title V training because there is no requirement in Virginia 

for a community to attend training before applying for a Title V grant. 

The county’s coordinator of prevention services and community education had attended all three 

components of the Communities That Care training while in a previous job. She used her knowledge of 

the Communities That Care process to guide the planning council through the process of conducting a 

community needs assessment to guide its efforts and to fulfill the state requirements for the community 

services board to submit an annual prevention plan. The planning council had been able to produce an 

annual prevention plan since FY 1998–99, but its chairperson cited the lack of training in communitybased prevention planning as a real obstacle to this process. 

Factors That Influenced Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

Community mobilization and collaboration on prevention issues in Hanover County were spurred by 

several tragic incidents and subsequent community action to address them. This community response 

had several positive impacts, one of which was the development of the Hanover County Prevention 

Planning Council (formerly the Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Council). Several other 

factors contributed to Hanover County’s success in the process of community mobilization: 

• Personal commitment to the community prevention efforts. The coordinator of prevention 

services and community education and several citizen members were committed to sustaining the 

activities of the Hanover County Prevention Planning Council. 

• Community awareness of prevention issues. The Hanover County Forum on Drugs and Alcohol, 

coverage of issues by local media, and opportunities to participate in organized groups were helpful 

in educating not only key leaders, but also county residents, about community-based prevention. 

Several factors hindered community mobilization: 

• Lack of influence. The Hanover County Prevention Planning Council was primarily a grassroots 

community organization that did not include the influential leaders of the Hanover County Forum on 

Drugs who could make policy or funding decisions. 

• Lack of training. The members of the Hanover County Prevention Planning Council never received 

formal training in planning or implementing community prevention strategies. 

Initial Assessment and Planning 

The Title V initial assessment and planning process is expected to include the identification of risk 

factors, resources, and prevention programs and the development of a 3-year comprehensive prevention 

plan. This section describes the process of initial assessment and planning for the Title V initiative in 

Hanover County from 1998 to 2002 and discusses factors that influenced it. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 196 
Identifying Risk Factors, Resources, and Prevention Programs 

When the Hanover County coordinator of prevention services and community education received the 

1998 Title V application from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, she brought that 

experience to the attention of the Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Council. She believed 

that the support of this community-based prevention planning council was a key component required for 

Hanover County to pursue the Title V funds. To address one priority issue identified by the council’s 

needs assessment, the coordinator proposed the submission of an application to implement a new 

leadership development program for young men. The program, called Boys to Men, would provide 

afterschool services to middle school boys identified as being at risk for developing adolescent problem 

behaviors. With the support of the council, the coordinator of prevention services and community 

education wrote the Title V grant, which included letters of support from several local organizations, 

including the Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Council, the Hanover County community 

services board, and the public schools. 

For the Title V application, two existing community needs assessments—the Family Preservation and 

Support Needs Assessment (1995) and the Hanover Child Protection Team Needs Assessment (1998)— 

were cited as the primary data sources. These needs assessments revealed three priority problem areas: 

substance abuse, family management problems, and a lack of afterschool activities for youth. The 1998 

needs assessment in particular identified a need for afterschool programming to curtail the rise in 

juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, and teen pregnancy in Hanover County. 

The Hanover County Prevention Planning Council also completed a needs assessment in 1998 to help 

guide its efforts and to support the development of the community services board annual prevention 

plan/report. The data from this needs assessment were not used as a basis for the Title V grant 

application, but they identified three risk factors that supported the development of the Boys to Men 

program: 

• Alienation and rebelliousness. 

• Friends who engage in problem behaviors. 

• Early initiation of problem behaviors. 

The needs assessment also identified a number of protective factors, including: 

• Public schools with excellent academic programs, opportunities for involvement in extracurricular 

activities, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. 

• Resident and business community involvement in resource development for youth programs. 

Hanover County’s Title V grant application included a plan to implement a new prevention strategy, the 

Boys to Men program. The program met the need for afterschool prevention programming that had been 

identified through the planning council’s 1998 needs assessment. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 197 
Developing a Comprehensive Prevention Plan 

As part of its Title V grant application, Hanover County submitted a copy of the community services 

board FY 1998–99 prevention plan/report. The primary purpose of this plan was to fulfill of the 

Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and the requirements of the Hanover County 

Forum on Drugs and Alcohol. The community services board prevention plan/report, “. . . included 

communitywide goals, objectives, and activities mutually developed by a group composed of more than 

50 percent non-[board] members.” The Hanover County coordinator of prevention services and 

community education developed the plan on the basis of the needs assessment data collected by the 

Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Council. 

The FY 1998–99 prevention plan/report was still in its developmental stages when the Title V grant 

application was submitted, but it included a number of new and continuing strategies for addressing 

youth risk factors in the community. These strategies included: 

• New student support groups. 

• Premarital communication and conflict resolution classes. 

• Family Fun Days. 

• Parent hotline. 

• Public awareness campaign on substance abuse. 

• Youth community center. 

• Leadership development programs. 

• Healthy life skills programming in the elementary and middle schools. 

• Monitoring local liquor establishments for ID infractions. 

The only strategy in the plan to be funded by the Title V grant, a life-skills program for boys, led to the 

development of the Boys to Men program. The goal of the Boys to Men program was to decrease 

intakes involving delinquency by Hanover County youth ages 15 to 17 through prevention 

programming. The program had six initial objectives related to knowledge, attitude, and behavior 

changes of the participating youth. These objectives were increased knowledge of conflict resolution and 

substance abuse, increased involvement in school and community activities, positive adjustments at 

home, and a heightened sense of self. 

Although Boys to Men is not a research-based program, it does respond to the Communities That Care 

strategy that recommends increasing protective factors for participating youth by “establishing healthy 

behaviors through positive opportunities, skills, and recognition at home, school, and in the community; 

bonding with adults in these areas; and the establishment of clear standards and healthy beliefs.” To 

accomplish this, the Boys to Men program incorporated research-based program components, including 

the Life Stuff and Creative Conflict Resolution curriculum with recognized youth development 

strategies such as tutoring, recreational opportunities, and mentoring. 

Factors That Influenced Initial Assessment and Planning 

The coordinator of prevention services and community education led the assessment and planning for 

the Title V initiative in Hanover County, with assistance in data collection from the Hanover County 

Substance Abuse Prevention Council. Although these efforts were completed primarily in response to 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 198 
other planning mandates (i.e., the Hanover County Forum on Drugs and Alcohol and the state 

Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation), they were also accepted by the state Department 

of Criminal Justice Services in the application for the Title V grant. Several factors contributed to the 

community’s success in the assessment and planning process: 

• Availability of prior needs assessment data. These data provided credibility to the findings and to 

the risk and protective factors identified through the limited needs assessment completed by the 

Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Council. 

• Leadership of the coordinator of prevention services and community education. The 

coordinator directed the Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Council through the needs 

assessment process and was able to synthesize its efforts into a plan that served several needs in the 

community, including fulfilling the requirements for the Title V grant application. 

Several factors also hindered the assessment and planning process: 

• Lack of prior experience. The Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Council had been in 

existence for less than 1 year when it was tasked with contributing to the development of a 

community needs assessment and prevention plan. 

• Lack of clear planning guidance. The Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation 

template for a community prevention plan only required communities to provide short descriptions 

of goals, objectives, risk indicators, protective indicators, strategies, domains, persons or groups 

responsible, evaluation, timeline, and program number. Very little in the way of narrative 

explanations or program rationales was required. 

• Lack of training. The members of the Hanover County Substance Abuse Prevention Council never 

received formal training on conducting a community needs assessment or developing a 

comprehensive community plan. 

Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

The implementation of prevention strategies includes initiating prevention services and activities and 

identifying and leveraging other resources for prevention. Hanover County received $132, 253 in total 

Title V funding from June 1999 through June 2002, with a 50-percent match in local in-kind and 

monetary contributions from the community services board, local middle schools, and discretionary state 

resources. Hanover County served as the unit of local government and the Hanover County community 

services board served as the fiscal agent. 

The Title V funds were used primarily to support one full-time prevention specialist and one part-time 

prevention aide hired by the community services board to implement the Boys to Men program. 

Additional Title V funds were used for equipment and supplies. 

The Boys to Men program is designed to develop life and leadership skills in participants through 

identified curriculums, alternative activities, and community service. This program was the only one 

implemented with Title V funds in Hanover County during the 3-year Title V funding period. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 199 
Year 1 Implementation 

In an attempt to remain a prevention program and not a program for youth who require a more intense 

intervention, the Boys to Men Program established clear recruitment guidelines to serve youth who are 

alienated and isolated from their peers and youth considered to be at high risk because of exposure to 

substance abuse and violence, but who are not already experimenting or exhibiting other risk-related 

behaviors. The eligibility requirements specified that youth cannot have behaviors or cognitive 

impairments that prevent them from participating in structured and unstructured group settings, 

activities, and curriculum processing. Program recruitment began in December 1999 with 30 referrals. 

After informational sessions held at two Hanover County middle schools for parents and potential 

participants, the implementation of Boys to Men started in January 2000 with an initial enrollment of 15 

youth. 

Boys to Men was offered for 2 1⁄2 hours, 2 days a week at Stonewall Jackson Middle School and Liberty 

Middle School. Special alternative activities were offered on Fridays and the weekends. The early 

implementation of Boys to Men was hindered by a hiring delay, the process of setting up program 

guidelines, and difficulties recruiting appropriate youth. 

Year 2 Implementation 

In the second year of implementation, approximately 18 youth were enrolled in Boys to Men. The 

program was offered 4 days a week at a single location, and this arrangement helped strengthen the 

program and youth bonding. The project goals remained the same as in year 1, but a different 

prevention-based curriculum was used and a parents’ component, Parents Night Out, was added. 

Modeled after the research-based Families and Schools Together (FAST) program, the boys, staff, and 

volunteers prepared a meal for the boys’ parents one Friday night a month. They ate as a group, and 

after dinner the boys went on a field trip while the parents stayed for a parenting education session on 

various topics. The goal of the Parents Night Out component was to increase the positive interactions 

between parents and their children. In 2000, a Boys to Men summer program was established. The 

summer program focused on rites-of-passage programming and community service. 

Year 3 Implementation Year 3 Boys to Men Program Objectives 

In the third year of implementation, a third middle 1. The level of competence, as reported by parents and 

school, Chickahominy Middle School, asked to teachers of Boys to Men program participants and as 

evidenced by a statistically significant increase in 

participate in the Boys to Men program. The individual scores on the Behavior Emotional Rating program components remained the same as in Scale (BERS), will increase after 1 year of participation 

previous years. In the third year, the program in the afterschool program. 

reached its capacity of 30 boys and had to institute a 2. Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

waiting list. In the program planning for year 3, program will develop an understanding of the nature 

and causes of violence and healthy responses to eight program objectives were established. These conflict as measured by 90-percent mastery of the objectives included some revisions of the original knowledge, skills, and attitudes pre- and posttests on 

six objectives. The year 3 objectives are presented the Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways 

in sidebar 7.1. (R.I.P.P.) curriculum. 

(continued) 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 200 
The I CARE Youth Development Council was not 

actively involved in the implementation of the Boys to 

Men program, although the coordinator of prevention 

services and community education occasionally 

provided updates to the council or solicited support 

for program activities, when needed. At least one 

member of the I CARE Youth Development Council 

reported that, if the Boys to Men program were being 

started in 2002 rather than in 1999, the council had 

evolved to the point where it could be more involved 

and supportive in program development, since it is 

now more aware of research-based strategies and state 

and community resources for prevention. 

Identifying and Leveraging Other Resources for 

Prevention 

As required by the Title V model, the Hanover 

County Title V initiative received matching resources 

of approximately $20,000 per year. The matching 

resources were in the form of university and 

community volunteers from Virginia Commonwealth 

University and J. Sarget Reynolds Community 

College, and in-kind support (supplies, computers, 

and mileage) from the Hanover County community 

services board and two middle schools, Liberty 

Middle School and Stonewall Jackson Middle School. 

At Liberty, the program also collaborated with the 

local Boys & Girls Club afterschool program on 

programs and activities. 

Year 3 Boys to Men Program Objectives 

(continued) 

3. Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will increase by 50 percent their opportunities 

for involvement in positive community activities, as 

measured by participation data and satisfaction surveys 

gathered before and after program participation. 

4. Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will increase by 20 percent their use of peer 

refusal skills and ATOD knowledge, as measured by 

curriculum knowledge, skills, and attitude scales and 

self-reflection reports. 

5. Middle school students participating in Boys to Men will 

demonstrate a positive involvement in the school, as 

evidenced by a 50-percent reduction in participant 

referrals to school administration, measured before and 

after each semester. 

6. Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will demonstrate an increased commitment to 

school, as evidenced by maintenance of a 90-percent 

attendance rate and a minimum grade point average of 

2.0 during the school year. 

7. Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will report an increased sense of resiliency and 

overall well-being, as evidenced on the Hanover 

Resiliency Scale after 1 year of participation in the 

program. 

8. Eighty-five percent of student participants, parents, and 

key school personnel will express overall satisfaction 

with the Boys to Men program, as evidenced by an 

average score of 4 or above on the Prevention Services 

Satisfaction Survey administered at the end of each 

semester and following the summer program. 

Several of Hanover County’s prevention efforts, including Boys to Men, received financial support from 

the local business community. Local groups such as the Friends of Hanover, the Elks Lodge, the 

Hanover Moose Lodge, and the Ruritan Clubs have been key supporters in the county’s prevention 

programming through their in-kind and financial contributions. According to the initial Title V grant 

application, “Once needs are identified, Hanover County residents and the business community are 

known to take an active involvement in resources development.” 

Factors That Influenced Implementation 

Implementation of the Title V initiative prevention strategies in Hanover County was led by staff of the 

community services board (i.e., the coordinator of prevention services and education, the prevention 

specialist, and the prevention aide). Two factors contributed to the community’s success in 

implementation: 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 201 
• Leadership of the coordinator of prevention services and education. The original coordinator 

was essential to program startup, since it was her vision that guided program development. Her 

successor also made significant contributions to program implementation by focusing on the 

evaluation and data collection components that would help establish the program’s sustainability 

beyond the Title V grant. 

• Staff dedication. The original grant application included numerous planned components (e.g., the 

Life Stuff curriculum) that ultimately were not a good fit with the needs and skills of the 

participating youth. The prevention specialist and aide were able to adapt the program to meet the 

needs of participating youth, however, by incorporating other components such as a summer 

program and community service. 

Several factors hindered implementation. Program startup was delayed because of delays in hiring staff. 

Once the Title V grant approval had been received, it was necessary to gain the approval of the Hanover 

County Board of Supervisors before the program staff could be hired. After the positions were approved, 

the prevention specialist position needed to be advertised twice. Overall, the hiring process took 2 

months longer than originally planned. In addition to these delays, changes in program components 

presented challenges. At the end of year 2, program staff still had not identified a substance abuse 

prevention curriculum that met the needs of highly active middle schoolers with limited reading levels. 

Administrative staffing transitions also adversely affected program development. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

The monitoring and evaluation stage of the Title V model theoretically should include several activities, 

including conducting program evaluations of each prevention strategy, evaluating the Title V initiative 

as a whole, and reassessing community indicators. This section describes the process of evaluation of 

the Title V initiative in Hanover County from 1999 to 2002 and discusses factors that influenced it. 

Because of the state of Virginia’s emphasis on increasing the evaluation of community services board 

programs, the evaluation of the Boys to Men program was always a concern of the coordinator of 

prevention services and community education and the Boys to Men program staff. As part of the Title V 

national evaluation, Title V communities were offered evaluation technical assistance as an incentive for 

participation. In Hanover County, several sessions were conducted, particularly during the first 2 years 

of the Title V initiative. This assistance included helping the Boys to Men program staff focus on 

developing short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes; discussing the proposed evaluation tools; 

and developing a project logic model. According to the second Title V grant application, “Caliber 

Associates has been providing technical assistance as it relates to evaluation. This has been an asset to 

our program development and community-based planning council and its infrastructure, for they 

provided many [recommendations] for process evaluation as well as a framework to look at our outcome 

and impact evaluation methods. The process evaluation has been an ongoing portion of the program 

infrastructure.” 

The I CARE Youth Development Council was not involved in the evaluation of the Boys to Men 

program, nor did it evaluate any of its other prevention strategies. The I CARE Youth Development 

Council did not have any training in evaluation and was more involved in planning and implementation 

activities. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 202 
Monitoring and Evaluating Program Activities 

When the Boys to Men program was designed, the plan was to evaluate the program using two 

instruments being introduced by the state of Virginia for use by programs sponsored by the community 

services board: the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale and the Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior 

Instrument. Hanover County planned to implement the pre- and posttest components of several 

curriculums, including Drug Free 2, Life Stuff, and Creative Conflict Resolution. The county also 

planned to gather data from program attendance sheets and school guidance departments to evaluate the 

progress of program participants. The collection of program satisfaction data from teachers and parents 

was to be the final evaluation component. 

At the end of year 1, process data were collected on program attendance and the length of time spent on 

different program components, including curriculum-based support group, educational programs, and 

alternative activities. No data were collected or reported on program outcomes, however, because the 

program only operated from January to June in year 1. 

At the end of year 2, progress toward the year 1 program outcomes was reported. Some outcome data 

were available, but changes in curriculums resulted in many outcomes not being measurable at this time 

(see table 7.1). 

Table 7.1: Progress on Boys to Men Program Objectives, Year 2 

Objective Outcome 

Young men participating in the Boys to Men program will 

develop a shared understanding of the nature and causes of 

conflict, possible responses to conflict, and the potential 

benefits of such responses, as measured by 90-percent 

mastery of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes tests on the Life 

Stuff curriculum. 

Students addressed issues related to conflict through daily 

group discussion, individual conferences with staff, and selfreflection journals. The Life Stuff curriculum was not 

implemented as planned because it did not meet the 

developmental needs of the middle school students. A 

replacement curriculum, the Responding in Peaceful and 

Positive Ways program, will be implemented in Year 3. 

Opportunities for involvement in positive community activities 

shall increase by 50 percent for young men participating in the 

Boys to Men program, as measured by data gathered before 

and after participation. 

Program participants completed a number of community service 

events, including landscaping at the Day Health and 

Rehabilitation Building, recording anti-violence messages for 

local radio, and sponsoring a safe and drug-free talent show. 

Young men participating in the Boys to Men program will 

become more knowledgeable about substance abuse and its 

impact, and they will demonstrate constructive refusal skills in 

their prevention of substance abuse, as measured by 90­

percent mastery of the Drug Free 2 knowledge, skills, and 

attitude test. 

Activities from the Drug Free 2 curriculum were used to 

supplement Prime For Life, which addresses substance abuse 

prevention issues. Drug Free 2 posttest results were not 

reported. 

Boys to Men participants shall demonstrate a greater level of 

involvement in the school setting, as measured by a 40-percent 

decrease in school-related behavior complaints. 

Teacher and guidance staff feedback indicate that program 

participants maintained a positive level of school involvement. 

Participants exceeded the target of a 40-percent decrease in 

disciplinary incidents. 

Boys to Men participants shall demonstrate a positive 

adjustment in the home, as measured by pre- and posttest 

interview data gathered from parents and guardians. 

Through reflective writing exercises, program staff monitor 

overall adjustment to home situations. Individual followup 

sessions and group discussions about getting along with 

parents are integrated into weekly meetings, as needed. 

Boys to Men participants shall have a heightened sense of self 

and increase their internal locus of control by 25 percent, as 

measured by the KAB—Knowledge, Attitude and Behavioral— 

inventory. 

Because of difficulty administering and analyzing KAB, the tool 

will not be used. Progress toward this objective shall be 

monitored through reflective writing exercises combined with 

self-assessment surveys. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 203 
The Boys to Men program also reported process data on the program components, including length of 

sessions, participation rates, and topics covered. 

For year 3, the overall goal—to decrease intakes involving delinquency by Hanover County youth ages 

15 through 17 through prevention programming—remained the same, but the objectives were refined to 

reflect a higher level of specificity and were clearly linked to measurement with an identified evaluation 

instrument. The program curriculums and specific objectives reflected a new emphasis on resiliency and 

skill application through structured activities. The program’s substance abuse prevention curriculum was 

changed from Life Stuff 2 to SMART Moves. Program staff also reported progress on the year 2 

objectives (see table 7.2). 

Table 7.2: Progress on Boys to Men Program Objectives, Year 3 

Objective Outcome 

The level of social competence, as reported by parents and 

teachers of Boys to Men program participants, will increase as 

evidenced by a statistically significant increase in individual 

scores on the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) after one 

year of participation in the afterschool program. 

As new youth have enrolled, the survey has been incorporated 

into the registration packet, but posttest data are unavailable 

from the evaluator. 

Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will develop critical skills for avoiding alcohol, tobacco, 

and other drugs, and for avoiding premature sexual 

involvement, as measured by 90-percent mastery of the 

knowledge, skills, and attitudes pre- and posttests on the 

SMART moves curriculum. 

Surveys indicate an increase in awareness of healthy 

decisionmaking skills and attitudes in 70 percent of the 

participants. 

Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will increase their opportunities for involvement in 

positive community activities by 50 percent, as measured by 

satisfaction surveys administered before and after program 

participation. 

All youth increased or maintained their level of community 

involvement, as estimated by a self-report interview. 

Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will increase use of peer refusal skills and ATOD 

knowledge by 20 percent, as measured before and after the 

curriculum knowledge, skills, and attitude measurements and 

self-reflection reports. 

Surveys indicate an increase in awareness of healthy 

decisionmaking skills and attitudes in 70 percent of the 

participants. 

Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will demonstrate a more positive involvement in the 

school setting, as measured by a 50-percent decrease in 

participant referrals to school administration, as measured 

before and after each semester. 

No participant referrals were reported to school administration 

during the fourth quarter. 

Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will demonstrate an increased commitment to school, 

as evidenced by maintenance of a 90-percent attendance rate 

and a minimum grade point average of 2.0 during the school 

year. 

To date, all participants, with the exception of one, have 

maintained a 2.0 grade point average and a 90-percent 

attendance rate through the school year. 

Middle school students participating in the Boys to Men 

program will report an increased sense of resiliency and overall 

well-being, as evidenced on the Hanover Resiliency Scale 

before and after 1 year of participation in the program. 

This objective was modified in an effort to avoid duplicating the 

SSRS, which also focuses on resiliency. 

Eighty-five percent of student participants, parents, and key 

school personnel will express an overall satisfaction with the 

Boys to Men program, as evidenced by an average score of 

four or above on the Prevention Services Satisfaction Survey 

administered at the end of each semester and following the 

summer program. 

The survey revealed that 90 percent of student participants and 

key school personnel were satisfied with the Boys to Men 

program. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 204 
Ongoing Assessment 

As part of the Title V initiative, Hanover County did not reassess the risk factor indicators identified 

through the initial needs assessment. However, an extensive community needs assessment, Community 

Trends 2001, was developed by Hanover County for its State Incentive Grant application in 2001. 

According to Hanover County’s application, Community Trends 2001 examined indicator data initially 

collected in 1998 to determine the priority risk factors for the county. This analysis revealed the 

following priority risk factors: availability of drugs, community laws and norms favorable toward drug 

use, transition and mobility, family management problems, family conflict, early initiation of problem 

behavior, and low commitment to school. In addition, the County Sheriff’s Department also documented 

an escalation in juvenile problem behaviors, including: 

• A 50-percent increase in arrests for possession of tobacco products from 1998 through 2000. 

• A 50-percent increase in arrests for the sale and distribution of marijuana from 1998 through 2000. 

• An increase in arrests for possession of marijuana from 43 in 1998 to 78 in 2000. 

The data analyzed in Community Trends 2001 were not parallel to the community indicators assessed 

for the Title V grant. Of the priority risk factors identified in this needs assessment, only early initiation 

of problem behavior had been identified in previous needs assessments conducted in the mid-1990s. 

Recent risk factor indicator data revealed that from 1998 to 2000 juvenile arrests for possession of 

marijuana, possession of tobacco products, and unlawful purchase/possession of alcohol continued to 

increase. 

Factors That Influenced Monitoring and Evaluation 

With guidance from the coordinator of prevention services and education, Boys to Men program staff 

led evaluation and monitoring of the program in Hanover County. The original evaluation plans were 

modified throughout the 3-year period as program components changed and youth assessment tools 

were re-evaluated. An evaluation of the entire Title V initiative was neither planned nor conducted. 

Several factors made positive contributions to Hanover County’s attempts to evaluate its prevention 

activities, including an organizational awareness of evaluation. In the late 1990s, state agencies in 

Virginia were increasingly being asked to collect and report data on program effectiveness. 

Several factors hindered monitoring and evaluation: 

• Inappropriate youth assessment tools. In the two instruments selected to comply with the state 

Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services’ Prevention 

Performance Outcome Measurement System for the evaluation of programs for school-age youth, 

the Boys to Men program staff faced a barrier in the clarification and interpretation of the data and 

required technical assistance from the department. They noted in the year 2 grant application that 

they should have selected an instrument that was more user-friendly. 

• Lack of training and expertise in program evaluation. There was no in-house expertise in 

program evaluation, particularly of a new program with several different youth development 

components. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 205 
• Changes to program design. Each time the Boys to Men curriculums were changed, or the program 

design changed, the ability to evaluate program outcomes accurately was affected. 

Institutionalization 

The process of institutionalizing prevention efforts includes sustaining key components of the initiative, 

meeting goals and objectives, and obtaining continuation funding for successful programs and strategies. 

This section describes the process of institutionalizing of the Title V initiative in Hanover County from 

1999 to 2002 and discusses the county’s institutionalization efforts. 

According to the coordinator of prevention services and community education, the I CARE Youth 

Development Council, which started as an outgrowth of the Hanover County Forum on Drugs and 

Alcohol, matured during the period that it served as the prevention policy board for the Title V grant. 

According to one stakeholder, “[the Council evolved] from a concept to a real coalition.” Following the 

conclusion of Title V funding, the I CARE Youth Development Council continued to be an active 

organization in Hanover County. By 2002, the council had created a strong infrastructure and was 

prepared to pursue additional funding, such as the State Incentive Grant that it received in 2001. 

The most significant ripple effect of Title V in Hanover County occurred in 2001, when the county was 

awarded a 3-year Virginia State Incentive Grant. The goal of the State Incentive Grant program is “the 

implementation of a network of neighborhood-based prevention programs for youth and their families 

that promote resiliency, healthy choices, and the reduction of youth alcohol, tobacco, and other drug 

use.” One of the key strategies in this grant was the implementation of afterschool programming for 

middle school youth. The Boys to Men program was included as an ongoing prevention strategy that 

would be funded by the State Incentive Grant. 

According to the Hanover County coordinator of prevention services and community education, 

although the first three years of the Boys to Men program may have affected relatively few boys, it 

contributed to positive systematic changes in the county. It helped build new relationships among the 

community services board, schools, parks and recreation, and other stakeholders who now collaborate 

on the State Incentive Grants programs and other youth development programs (e.g., the Boys & Girls 

Club). Boys to Men also laid the foundation for using science-based programs and collecting data on 

youth and measuring results; it was the template for afterschool programs being implemented with the 

State Incentive Grant. 

The Title V initiative had little impact on the level of communitywide monitoring and evaluation of 

prevention programs. However, ongoing data assessment is being conducted through the State Incentive 

Grant. 

Two primary components of the Title V initiative in Hanover County, the prevention policy board (the I 

CARE Youth Development Council) and the prevention strategy (Boys to Men), were institutionalized 

by the end of the funding period. Even though the I CARE Youth Development Council was not actively 

involved in the planning or implementation of the Boys to Men program, its connection to the program, 

primarily through the coordinator of prevention services and community education, helped to establish 

new relationships with other county organizations. The Title V initiative was also a source of seed 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 206 
money for Hanover County to use in developing a prevention program based on the needs identified in 

the county prevention plan. The Title V funding allowed the county to experiment with program design 

and strengthen the program model into one that was replicated in 2002 as part of the countywide 

strategy for afterschool programs for middle school youth funded by the Virginia State Incentive Grants. 

Several factors contributed to the community’s success in institutionalization: 

• Dedication to prevention efforts. Despite a lack of training and prior experience in prevention 

planning and implementation, the I CARE Youth Development Council and the Boys to Men 

program staff were able to implement their projects—making mid-course changes when necessary. 

As a result, both were viable projects to fund when other sources of prevention funding became 

available. 

• Capitalizing on success. Although no evaluation data were available to document positive outcomes 

of the I CARE Youth Development Council or the Boys to Men program, local media provided good 

publicity and anecdotal data on their successes. When funding opportunities such as the State 

Incentive Grants were available, it was possible to report on the county’s anecdotal success and 

increased capacity. 

Interpretation 

Hanover County is an example of a community where all stages of the Title V model were successfully 

completed, although it was not conducted as a single process. The coordinator of prevention services 

and community education, however, was able to create positive synergies between the activities of the I 

CARE Youth Development Council and the Boys to Men program that ultimately contributed to their 

sustainability. Throughout the Title V initiative, Hanover County benefited from the strong leadership of 

the coordinator of prevention services and community education, even with transition in that position at 

the beginning of year 3. 

When the Title V initiative began in Hanover County, the county had a relatively new collaborative 

board that quickly began to tackle fairly complex tasks, such as collecting needs assessment data and 

supporting the development of new, locally developed prevention strategies. These tasks were more 

difficult for the council to perform without any formal training, but the council benefited from having 

members who were personally committed to the issue of prevention. Another advantage was that most 

of the needs assessment data collection and initial planning activities had been previously conducted by 

other local government organizations. In Hanover County, local needs assessments results were often 

were shared with other organizations that could leverage the data in their own planning efforts. As a 

result, the I CARE Youth Development Council had access to up-to-date, reliable data for planning 

without having to burden its volunteer members with extensive data collection and analysis activities. 

In Hanover County, the Title V grant provided funding for the Boys to Men Program at a time when 

county funding for prevention programming was limited. Although the Boys to Men Program was not 

research-based, it incorporated several science-based programs, including Responding in Peaceful and 

Positive Ways, Drug Free 2, Life Stuff, and Creative Conflict Resolution, and other youth development 

strategies, such as tutoring and mentoring. As a result of the Title V funding, Hanover County was able 

to test a new programming idea in the community, work through some program startup issues (e.g., 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 207 
staffing, transportation, and evaluation), and develop a foundation for more sophisticated and expanded 

program implementation in future years. 

The issues associated with setting up and implementing a new program took priority over setting up and 

implementing an evaluation in Hanover County. In fact, even if the county had wanted to evaluate the 

program, changes in program processes, implementation schedules, and participants in the first few 

years would have made it difficult to measure any valid and reliable outcomes. Even setting up pieces of 

a process evaluation, however, may have helped the County identify issues with implementation sooner 

and make more informed changes to the program design. 

The receipt of the State Incentive Grant in 2001 solidified the institutionalization of the Title V activities 

(the Boys to Men program and the I CARE Youth Development Council) in Hanover County. The grant 

provided funds to the community to support and expand the prevention activities begun with the Title V 

funds. The primary components of the Boys to Men program are the same as when it was implemented 

with Title V funds, but now that the program is receiving State Incentive Grant funds, it is focused 

specifically on achieving the goals of the Hanover State Incentive Grant project: increasing youths’ level 

of social competence, use of peer refusal skills, and knowledge of the risks associated with alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drug use. The size of the grant ($100,000 per year for three years) also provides the I 

CARE Youth Development Council with more clout and recognition within the county. It has 

empowered the council to strive toward more ambitious prevention goals. 

Summary 

The Title V initiative in Hanover County was a key step in developing and expanding collaborative, 

community-based prevention strategies. Although Title V was not implemented as a seamless process, 

overall, the process contributed to educating the I CARE Youth Development Council about 

community-based planning and implementation, while also providing seed money to test an innovative, 

locally developed prevention program. At the conclusion of the Title V initiative, Hanover County had 

not only a stronger council, but also a stronger infrastructure for countywide prevention planning and 

implementation. 

Waynesboro/Staunton 

This case study documents the Title V process in Waynesboro and Staunton from the formation of its 

community prevention board in 1997 through the end of its Title V funding in June 2002. As the 

following sections describe, Title V fit within an existing structure for delinquency prevention planning 

in these communities. 

This case study presentation begins with a brief community description and discussion of the role of 

Title V in Waynesboro/Staunton. It continues with presentations and discussions of the five stages of the 

Title V model as implemented in Waynesboro/Staunton: community mobilization and collaboration, 

initial assessment and planning, implementation of prevention strategies, monitoring and evaluation, and 

institutionalization. This section concludes with the evaluation team’s interpretation of the data. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 208 
National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 209

Brief Community Description 

The Title V community of Waynesboro/Staunton 

encompasses these two neighboring cities in one of 

the largest counties in Virginia—Augusta County—

which is nestled in Shenandoah Valley. The 

following demographic information is derived from 

2000 Census data. 

Waynesboro 

Waynesboro is a city of approximately 19,500 residents, with a median household income of $32,686, 

well below the state median of $46,677. Eleven percent of Waynesboro’s families live below the 

poverty level. Approximately 14 percent of the residents are minorities (primarily African Americans), 

and 24 percent are children. Seventy-eight percent of adults age 25 and older have a high school 

diploma. In 2000, the school system served more than 4,300 children. 

Factories provide the major source of employment in Waynesboro, and the community is heavily 

populated by retired factory workers. Interviews with key stakeholders described Waynesboro as a fairly 

stable, religious community, with approximately 60 churches serving its residents. Waynesboro also is 

viewed as having an abundance of low-income housing. 

Staunton 

Staunton is a city of approximately 23,800 residents with a median household income of $32,941; 

approximately 12 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Seventeen percent of the 

residents are minorities (primarily African Americans), and 20 percent are children. Approximately 76 

percent of adults age 25 and older have a high school diploma. In 2000, the school system served more 

than 5,300 children. 

Factories and local universities provide two of the major sources of employment for residents of 

Staunton. Stakeholders described the community as fairly religious and conservative. Some stakeholders 

felt that, in general, community members were fairly uninvolved in, or apathetic about, community 

issues. 

Title V in Waynesboro/Staunton 

The Waynesboro and Staunton communities have a number of years of experience with collaborative 

programming and with a multitude of prevention programs. Since the early 1990s, collaborative groups 

in these communities have focused on such issues as child welfare, teen pregnancy, parenting issues, and 

health and wellness. Prevention programs addressing such issues as child abuse, substance abuse, 

juvenile high-risk behaviors, and educational failure have existed for some time. 

Rather than giving impetus to delinquency prevention efforts in Waynesboro and Staunton, Title V fit 

into an existing community structure for these activities. In particular, community mobilization, 

Waynesboro/Staunton 

Funding period: July 1999–June 2002 

Amount of Title V funding: $187,087 

Unit of local government: City of Waynesboro 

Lead agency: Waynesboro/Staunton Office on Youth
collaboration, assessment, and planning activities occurred separately from Title V efforts. Title V funds 

were used to pay for a single program. A timeline for the Title V initiative is presented as figure 7.2. 

Figure 7.2: Waynesboro/Staunton Timeline for the Title V Initiative 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

Regional Planners for Prevention Services (RPPS) (i.e., the prevention planning board [PPB]) 

begins 

Training for PPB members 

Comprehensive plan and Title V grant application completed 

Title V grant begins 

SWEAT (Students Working Effectively Against Truancy) begins 

RPPS restructures and hires coordinator 

Focus on Youth community assessment report 

Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted 

Office on Youth loses state funding 

Title V grant ends; SWEAT continues with other funds; other prevention efforts continue 

Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

The process of community mobilization and collaboration includes introducing community prevention 

to key leaders, forming a prevention policy board, and participating in prevention training. This section 

describes the process of community mobilization related to delinquency prevention in Waynesboro and 

Staunton from 1997 through 2002. It also describes factors that influenced mobilization and 

collaboration. 

Introducing Community Prevention to Key Leaders 

Community prevention efforts were in existence in Waynesboro and Staunton for some time prior to 

Title V. The primary means of coordinating these efforts has been the Regional Planners for Prevention 

Services, a community prevention planning group formed in January 1997 under the auspices of the 

local community services board, a state agency providing numerous mental health, substance abuse, and 

delinquency prevention services. 

Prevention Policy Board 

The Regional Planners for Prevention Services was identified as the prevention policy board for the 

Title V grant application. The board had little involvement in Title V activities, however. Board 

members provided letters of support for the Title V grant application and received periodic updates on 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 210 
the program funded by Title V, but they were not involved in the assessment and planning, 

implementation, evaluation, or institutionalization of the Title V efforts. This arrangement is generally 

how the planning group functioned overall: it provided support for new programs and shared 

information about programs, but it did not provide oversight or advice to individual programs. 

The Regional Planners for Prevention Services is a multidisciplinary group of primarily human services 

agency representatives. It is co-facilitated by a prevention specialist from the community services board 

and a community agency representative. The primary purpose of the co-facilitation arrangement is to 

encourage buy-in from the community agencies. Community services board staff have stated that, 

although they are required by the state to sponsor the group, they want local agencies to be an integral 

part of the effort. 

The vision of the planning group is “to ensure the provision of quality prevention services to the 

residents of Staunton, Waynesboro and Augusta County.” The group’s mission statement follows: 

[Regional Planners for Prevention Services (RPPS)] is a team of community 

representatives devoted to identifying and unifying prevention services in the Staunton, 

Waynesboro, and Augusta County area. RPPS strives to identify community needs and 

provide for comprehensive prevention services, thereby promoting healthy and 

productive lifestyles for community residents. 

The planning group has maintained a membership of 60 to 70 members since its inception; 20 to 30 

members generally attend the meetings. Almost all of the members are representatives from local human 

services agencies and local governments, such as the Offices on Youth, Departments of Social Services, 

Boys & Girls Club, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, school systems, police departments, offices of elected 

officials, and other prevention coalitions. The board has attempted to recruit members from some of the 

hard-to-attract groups, such as faith communities, businesses, parents, and youth, but has not had much 

success. One stakeholder stated, “I would say that we are truly underrepresented by the faith 

community.... And we talked to ministers, lots of people from the faith community, and for whatever 

reason, they have just not been receptive to the idea.... Businesses too.” 

During the early phases of the Regional Planners for Prevention Services (prior to the Title V planning 

period), community agencies struggled to understand its purpose and had concerns about sharing 

resources. One interviewee stated: 

I don’t think [agencies] saw the utility and they thought that it was a waste of time, and 

frankly I think there were segments of the community that really felt like, “I don’t want 

to sit down at a table with folks and talk about resources, because what is mine is mine 

and they’re limited to begin with and I don’t want to lose what I already have....” That 

this is a community that has been very territorial and has not always worked well with 

one another. 

Over the years, the group has addressed these concerns and has become a more structured, cohesive 

board. In general, it is a group that serves to link professionals in the community around prevention 

issues. The Regional Planners for Prevention Services has met monthly or quarterly, with an informal 

agenda. A keystone of the meetings is the community exchange, in which members share information 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 211 
about ongoing or upcoming programs to encourage participation or to seek assistance. Members have 

stated that this portion of the meetings is very valuable. 

The functions of the planning group have evolved over time. From 1997 through 1999, the group 

employed a committee structure to focus on issues such as juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, and 

illiteracy. These committees became fairly inactive, and in January 2000, the group decided to 

restructure itself to focus on two primary issues: child and family development and adolescent risk 

factors. 

Also in 2000, the planning group was awarded a state grant that it used to hire a coordinator. The 

coordinator provided some structure for the board by ensuring that agendas and minutes were completed 

and by conducting outreach activities to recruit new members. The coordinator also increased the 

board’s capacity to conduct new activities, and the board elected to begin efforts to seek funding for 

community programs. Until this time, the group had served as a vehicle to support individual agencies’ 

efforts in program development but had not sought to develop programs itself. None of the group’s grant 

applications have yet been successful, but the group is continuing to engage in collaborative program 

development efforts. 

Community Prevention Training 

In 1997, some board members received state training in the development of community plans. The 

director of the Office on Youth, the lead agency for Title V, is a member of the planning group and 

participated in the Title V-sponsored Communities That Care training prior to the submission of the 

Title V grant application. No subsequent trainings have been reported. 

Factors That Influenced Mobilization and Collaboration 

Regional Planners for Prevention Services has been a vehicle for coordinating prevention efforts in 

Waynesboro and Staunton since 1997. A number of factors have contributed to the board’s continuation 

and its successes as a networking mechanism: 

• During the past few years, there has been an emphasis on strengthening the coordination of services 

among Waynesboro, Staunton, and Augusta County so regional concerns can be addressed rather 

than individual concerns. This emphasis has led to improved planning and better use of resources 

among the three jurisdictions. 

• Waynesboro and Staunton are relatively small communities where most of the human services 

agency staff know each other. These relationships are often the foundation for successful initiatives. 

• The planning group has continued to strengthen its relationships with other prevention-oriented 

collaborative boards such as the Community Health Forum sponsored by the local hospital. This 

relationship sparked a joint effort to conduct a needs assessment that provided valuable information 

for both groups. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 212 
• The use of the state grant to hire a coordinator provided more structure for the board and enabled it 

to engage in more focused activities aimed at enhancing the network of prevention resources in the 

community. 

Although the planning group has enjoyed some successes, it has also experienced some challenges 

during its evolution. Overcoming board members’ concerns about “losing” resources through sharing of 

information required considerable energy, as did educating them about the value of the process. In 

addition, the group’s momentum has slowed periodically because of turnover of the facilitators, 

members’ busy schedules (which influence their choices to attend meetings), and a lack of focus. 

Finally, the board has had difficulty attracting members from certain segments of the community. 

Overall, the planning group seems to have evolved into a cohesive, functioning board that provides its 

members with valuable networking opportunities. Members are increasingly becoming more active in 

their support of others’ programmatic and data collection activities. 

Initial Assessment and Planning 

The assessment and planning phase includes conducting a community needs assessment and developing 

a comprehensive 3-year delinquency prevention plan. This section describes delinquency prevention 

assessment and planning activities in Waynesboro and Staunton in 1998 and 1999 and discusses factors 

that influenced them. 

Most of the assessment and planning activities discussed in the Title V grant application were conducted 

separate from, and prior to, specific Title V efforts. In 1998, the Office on Youth, a local government 

agency that provides many delinquency prevention programs, through its Youth Commission, conducted 

a needs assessment and developed a communitywide prevention plan. The office had been required by 

the state to develop a Comprehensive Plan for Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development every 6 

years (recent state budget cuts have eliminated this mandate). The Regional Planners for Prevention 

Services had no involvement in the assessment and planning activities referred to in the Title V 

application, although it engaged in other, similar efforts. 

Identifying Risk Factors, Resources, and Prevention Programs 

Rather than conduct a new assessment for Title V, the Waynesboro and Staunton communities chose to 

use the Office on Youth’s comprehensive plan that had been completed in August 1998. The plan 

included a needs assessment that combined archival data from local agencies with results from a public 

opinion survey, an agency survey, and youth focus groups and surveys in which respondents were asked 

to identify and rank the importance of problems in the community. The archival data were collected 

specifically for the problems noted in the survey results. The assessment also included a comprehensive 

list of area programs and resources. This information led to the identification of a number of “priority 

problems” for each community. 

For the Title V initiative, the relevant problems in Waynesboro and Staunton were academic failure, 

dropping out, and truancy. Dropout rates were lower than the state average, but the proportion of 

students failing the state’s Literacy Passport Test was consistently higher than the state average. The 

various surveys and focus groups conducted as part of the needs assessment also indicated that many 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 213 
believed that school issues were a serious problem. Other priority problems in the communities included 

violence and crime; teenage sex, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases; and child abuse and 

neglect. 

Developing a Comprehensive Prevention Plan 

The comprehensive plan developed by the Office on Youth in 1998 contained numerous goals, 

objectives, outcomes, and strategies for addressing the identified problems. Two of the communities’ 

goals were “empower parents to embrace their role” and “encourage community responsiveness to youth 

issues.” The relevant goals, objectives, outcomes, and strategies for the Title V initiative are presented in 

figure 7.3. 

Figure 7.3: Waynesboro/Staunton Title V Prevention Plan 

Goal 

Promote accountability and responsibility 

among youth. 

Objective 

Expand community support to local 

schools through the development of 

school-based intervention programs. 

Outcome 

Enhance the educational experience of 

youth in local schools. 

Strategy 

Provide community programming for 

youth during periods of out-of-school 

suspension and expulsion. 

Staff from the Office on Youth developed the Title V grant application to seek funds for implementation 

of a strategy alluded to in the plan. The grant application did not serve as the comprehensive plan, since 

the office had already developed one. Instead, the application summarized the community’s 

characteristics, collaboration activities, and planning process, and proposed to implement an innovative 

program serving suspended students. The program was titled SWEAT (Students Working Effectively 

Against Truancy). 

Rather than selecting a research-based strategy, staff from the Office on Youth designed their own 

program. The structure of SWEAT was similar to that of an earlier program operated by the office that 

served expelled students. On the basis of this experience, the office proposed a program of daily 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 214 
supervision and activities for suspended students that would include tutoring, counseling, and 

community service. In addition, participants would receive referrals to other services as needed and 

followup visits from program staff after their return to school. Office on Youth staff had consulted with 

local school administrators to design the SWEAT program. 

Factors That Influenced Assessment and Planning 

The primary factor facilitating the assessment and planning process for the Title V initiative was the 

existence of the Office on Youth’s comprehensive plan, which provided the required needs assessment 

information and overall planning structure. One of the challenges during this process was concern in the 

community about whether the data would confirm their own perspectives on the communities’ problems. 

One stakeholder said: 

People in the beginning, and probably still now, felt very threatened about the data. And 

because . . . and maybe every community is this way, but this community almost had a 

phobia about it, I think, because they were very concerned that what they thought they 

knew in their hearts to be a problem for their community, that the data would not support 

it and that they did not agree with the data . . . . So . . . we worked backwards. We let the 

community come together and brainstorm: “What do you guys think the problems are in 

our community?” 

Overall, the assessment and planning activities were consistent with the Title V model, even though 

there was no connection between the two. The assessment included much subjective data, but it also 

included objective data, and the plan was very comprehensive. 

Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

The implementation of prevention efforts includes initiating prevention services and activities and 

identifying and leveraging other resources for prevention. This section describes the implementation 

process for the Title V initiative in Waynesboro and Staunton from July 1999 through June 2002 and 

discusses factors that influenced it. 

The Waynesboro/Staunton community received 3 years of Title V funding, from July 1999 through June 

2002, in the amount of $187,087. Matching funds of $105,237 brought the total budget to $292,324. 

Funds were requested for a specific program that would address a gap in services identified in the 

comprehensive plan. The City of Waynesboro was the official applicant for the grant, and the local 

Office on Youth was the lead agency for the program. Office staff had developed the comprehensive 

plan (including a communitywide needs assessment) and had written the Title V grant application. The 

program was designed and implemented by Office on Youth staff; the Regional Planners for Prevention 

Services had no involvement in these activities. 

Title V funded the SWEAT program. As stated in the original grant application, the purpose of the 

program is “to prevent future suspensions” and “to enhance youth academic performance.” SWEAT 

provides supervision and structured services in two locations to middle and high school students who 

have been suspended for 3 to 10 days. The services provided have included tutoring, informal and 

formal counseling, community service work, referrals to other services, and followup visits. Some 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 215 
flexibility existed in implementation, but the program was generally operated as planned during the 

grant period. It typically served between 250 and 300 students each year. 

The SWEAT program began in September 1999, coinciding with the beginning of the school year, 2 

months after receipt of the grant. Initially, it focused its services on students from the Waynesboro and 

Staunton school systems and accepted some students from the Augusta County school system. During 

the grant period, the number of students accepted from Augusta County schools was increased to expand 

the program’s reach and increase the number of students served. 

Students are primarily referred to SWEAT by school administrators at the time of a suspension. Students 

and their parents are given information about the SWEAT program, and administrators may encourage 

participation, but the program is voluntary, and the decision to participate is left to the students and their 

parents. Schools have supported referrals to the program by including information about SWEAT in the 

standard letter that is sent to all parents of suspended students. Probation officers working with 

suspended students also make referrals and have used the program as leverage against the students’ 

being placed in a detention facility. 

During the Title V grant period, the SWEAT program operated two sites, one serving Waynesboro and 

Augusta County students and the other serving Staunton and Augusta County students (Augusta County 

students attended the program in the location most convenient for them). The locations of the programs 

were moved in attempts to find the most suitable space for the type of services provided. 

Staffing for the programs centered on each site’s program coordinator, who coordinated and provided 

most of the services, including tutoring, informal counseling, coordination of community service work, 

and coordination with the schools. The program coordinators were assisted by part-time tutors, who 

helped in all areas as needed. 

SWEAT’s structure has remained, for the most part, intact over the years, but changes in staff and 

improvements and challenges in some areas have resulted in variations in emphasis among the various 

components. For example, the tutoring services received less emphasis during the first year because of 

difficulties in obtaining the students’ school assignments. Improvements in this process have resulted in 

more relevant tutoring sessions, during which the students are able to receive assistance with their actual 

assignments rather than generic learning opportunities. Formal group counseling had been emphasized 

more during the first year, but challenges in this area resulted in a decision to eliminate this component 

in the third year. The challenges included finding qualified counselors who would provide onsite 

services, the time needed to transport students to off-site counseling services, and concern that the group 

counseling sessions were not meaningful for short-term participants (e.g., those suspended for just 3 

days). 

Another area of change involved the community service work. Beginning in the second year of the 

grant, the program coordinators at the two SWEAT sites have had differing philosophies about the 

purpose of community service work. One director has used the community service work component as 

more of a “punishment” or as a consequence for the misbehavior that resulted in the students’ 

suspensions. This director’s work assignments have included cleaning a gymnasium and raking leaves. 

The other director has used the community service work component as an opportunity to do something 

meaningful, to encourage a connection between the participants and a caring adult, and as an 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 216 
opportunity for the participants to assist others and gain a sense of accomplishment. This director’s 

assignments have included tutoring young children in a local elementary school, assisting at a recycling 

plant, and helping elderly residents with various chores. 

In general over the 3-year period, the program was operated in the manner in which it was planned. 

Accommodations were made as needs arose, and directors were given flexibility to run the programs as 

they saw fit within the general program outline. 

Identifying and Leveraging Other Resources for Prevention 

The Office on Youth successfully leveraged resources from a number of sources to support the Title Vfunded SWEAT program. Staunton and Waynesboro contributed some funds; the Office on Youth 

designated some of its state funds from the Virginia Juvenile Crime Control Act grant to the program; 

and the Office on Youth provided significant in-kind contributions, such as office space, use of a van for 

transportation, and administrative support. 

Factors That Influenced Implementation 

In general, the program operated in the way it was intended. Stakeholders mentioned a number of factors 

that facilitated successful implementation. One factor mentioned was qualified and engaged staff; many 

believed that the SWEAT program coordinators were performing well. Another factor mentioned was 

the support of the Office on Youth. The resources brought to bear by the office, such as its office space 

and the use of its van, helped enormously. A third factor mentioned was the support of the schools. For 

the most part, the schools making referrals to SWEAT were very supportive. They approved a letter 

describing SWEAT that was to be given to the parents of all suspended students, and most school vice 

principals encouraged participation in the program. 

A number of challenging factors were also mentioned. Getting students’ schoolwork from the schools 

was difficult, especially for high school students, who had work from several different classes and 

teachers. Some schools were more cooperative than others in devising strategies to overcome this 

challenge, for example, using guidance counselors to coordinate with teachers and the SWEAT program 

regarding students’ assignments. Another challenge was providing meaningful counseling sessions. 

Numerous problems existed with the formal counseling component, and it was ultimately discontinued. 

Stakeholders also discussed a lack of parent support. Program staff believed that they could be serving 

many more students if parents were more supportive. Many staff believed that some parents allowed 

their children to decide whether or not they would participate, and many students preferred to spend 

their suspensions at home. 

Overall, the SWEAT program has operated quite successfully. It has provided services as planned and 

has allowed for the flexibility required to adapt to changing situations. Staff have worked diligently to 

address the challenges they have faced, and they have been more successful in some areas than others. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 217 
Monitoring and Evaluation 

The monitoring and evaluation stage of the Title V model theoretically should include several activities, 

including conducting program evaluations of each prevention strategy, evaluating the Title V initiative 

as a whole, and reassessing community indicators. This section describes these activities for the Title V 

initiative and for larger community efforts in Waynesboro and Staunton from July 1999 through June 

2002. It also discusses factors that influenced these activities. 

Office on Youth staff were interested in conducting a meaningful program evaluation, and they 

improved in their ability to do so during the grant period. No evaluation of the overall Title V initiative 

was conducted. The Regional Planners for Prevention Services had no involvement in the program 

evaluation activities. It did, however, have involvement in efforts to gather and update communitywide 

data on risk factors and juvenile problem behaviors during and beyond the grant period. 

Monitoring and Evaluating Program Activities 

The Waynesboro/Staunton Title V initiative conducted an evaluation of the SWEAT program that 

examined both process and outcome indicators. Staff were challenged to find meaningful, realistic 

outcomes that were feasible to measure. These measurements are presented in table 7.3; a discussion of 

accomplishments follows. 

Table 7.3: Percentage of SWEAT Program Process and Outcome Objectives Met in Years 1 

Through 3 in Staunton (ST) and Waynesboro (WB) 

Objectives 

Year 1 (%) Year 2 (%) Year 3 (%) 

ST WB ST WB ST WB 

Provide services to 25–35% of 

eligible students 

37 23 26 21 42 21 

Provide tutoring to 95% of 

participants 

100 100 100 100 100 100 

Provide professional counseling to 

75% of participants 

62 47 66 71 N/A 24 

Provide referrals to 10% of 

participants 

32 63 30 52 8 43 

Provide three followup contacts to 

90% of participants 

60 62 70 67* 90* 88* 

See that 50% of participants turn 

in school work 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 92 

Prevent repeat suspensions for 

50% of participants 

72 37 74 76 90 90 

*These measurements record the percentage of participants who received one or more contacts, not three or more


stated by the objective. 


One of the primary process measurements of SWEAT has been the proportion of all eligible students 

that were served by the program (eligible students are those suspended from local middle and high 

schools for 3 to 10 days). In the belief that the program needs to serve a significant proportion of eligible 

students to be considered cost effective, program staff established an objective of serving 35 percent of 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 218 
all eligible students. The Waynesboro site, in particular, struggled to meet this objective, and its 

objective was lowered to 25 percent in the third year. Some of the reasons for the difficulties 

Waynesboro encountered were, to some extent, out of its control. For example, there may have been 

some inconsistency in school administrators’ encouragement of student participation, and it is not 

known how strongly parents encouraged their children to participate. Furthermore, some schools had 

significantly higher numbers of suspended youth than others, making the benchmark harder to reach. For 

example, in the third year, there were a total of 265 suspensions in Waynesboro schools and 184 in 

Staunton schools. 

Other SWEAT process objectives were set to measure the proportion of participants who received 

various program components, such as tutoring, referral, counseling, and followup services. In general, 

the program was successful in providing tutoring and referral services to the expected number of 

participants. It was not successful in providing professional counseling at the level hoped for, however, 

and ultimately discontinued this service. SWEAT staff also had struggled to meet the objective of 

providing at least three followup contacts to participants, and began recording the proportion of 

participants who received at least one followup contact. They did not change their objective to match 

this revised measurement, however. 

In the early phases of the program, the staff hoped to achieve outcomes related to reduction in students 

dropping out of school. As one staff member noted, “Long-term, I hope kids graduate from high school 

and become successful citizens.” After some discussion, SWEAT staff realized that, because of the short 

duration of the program, long-term outcomes such as these were unlikely to be achieved. Staff then 

hoped to show that SWEAT participants had a lower re-suspension rate than did suspended students 

who did not participate in SWEAT. Early analyses of these numbers indicated, however, that SWEAT 

participants actually may have a higher rate of re-suspension. Staff speculated that this result may be due 

to the fact that local probation officers frequently refer suspended students who are on probation to 

SWEAT as an alternative to placing them in juvenile detention. This may result in the SWEAT 

population having a greater representation of “high-risk” youth, as compared to suspended students who 

do not participate in SWEAT. If this is the case, higher rates of re-suspension could be expected. 

Finally, SWEAT staff chose to set preventing re-suspensions among participants as an objective. 

Specifically, the outcome was to “prevent the occurrence of one or more repeat suspensions for at least 

50 percent of program participants in the 12 weeks of school following the termination of their 

suspension.” For the most part, the program exceeded this outcome. However, no data were collected on 

the previous rates of suspension for the students involved, so it is not known whether this outcome 

represents an improvement for the participants. 

Staff also began to consider more immediate outcomes SWEAT could be expected to achieve. They 

believed that participation in SWEAT could influence students to complete and turn in homework 

following their suspensions. They generally believed that students who are unsupervised during their 

suspensions do not exhibit these behaviors with regularity. In the third year, staff added the outcome “50 

percent of students will turn in schoolwork upon their return to school.” This outcome was exceeded, but 

no data were gathered on a control group, so it is unknown if this outcome is due to the program’s 

influence. 

Other outcomes were discussed and discarded because of difficulties in gathering data. For example, 

some staff believed that the program would reduce the level of juvenile crime and juvenile problem 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 219 
behaviors (such as drug and alcohol use and sexual activity) during students’ suspensions, but data on 

these activities were not available. Staff also discussed the possibility that SWEAT services could 

impact participants’ grades, but it was believed that collecting these data would be impossible because 

of the resources needed and confidentiality issues. 

Ongoing Assessment 

In addition to its Title V efforts, the community updated its needs assessment data and its 

Comprehensive Prevention Plan. In 1999, the Augusta Medical Center Community Health Forum, a 

collaborative group focused on health issues, joined with the Regional Planners for Prevention Services 

to sponsor a youth needs assessment in Waynesboro, Staunton, and Augusta County. The resulting 

report, published in 2000, is titled Focus On Youth. Data were gathered from agency reports, and the 

Youth Risk Behavior Survey was implemented in the Waynesboro and Staunton school districts. An 

informal assessment of youth developmental assets also was conducted at this time. Some of the 

problems revealed in the data include high levels of youth tobacco and alcohol use, high teenage 

pregnancy rates, and high rates of juvenile crime. Some of the notable youth developmental assets 

included youth reporting they have positive values (such as liking to help others) and high levels of love, 

support, and encouragement from their families. 

On the basis of the Focus On Youth results and other input, the Regional Planners for Prevention 

Services established a comprehensive plan for the period 2001 through 2003. The plan contains eight 

goals. Corresponding risk factors, indicators, objectives, protective factors, strategies, lead 

organizations, and support resources are identified for each goal. The goals include reducing youth 

tobacco use, teen pregnancy rates, and juvenile crime rates and increasing students’ commitment to 

school and community awareness of youth substance abuse. The SWEAT program is not one of the 

strategies identified in this plan. 

Community-Reported Impacts 

No local evaluation of the community’s prevention efforts or Title V initiative has been conducted; 

however, interviews with stakeholders provided anecdotal evidence of the impact of some of their 

activities. Stakeholders said that having the Regional Planners for Prevention Services has enabled them 

to build a coalition that has been influential in supporting agencies’ program efforts. The planners group 

also has been instrumental in accomplishing communitywide needs assessment and planning activities. 

The planners group was pivotal in gaining buy-in from all of the local school systems to ensure that the 

needs assessments were comprehensive. The information gathered during these activities has since been 

used by agencies in program development efforts. One stakeholder felt that the needs assessments have 

also increased community awareness of youth issues. 

Interviews with stakeholders also revealed some specific thoughts about the impact of SWEAT, the Title 

V-funded program. Anecdotally, SWEAT seems to have had some positive impacts on the program 

participants, schools, and the community. For example, some stakeholders believed that SWEAT kept 

suspended students positively engaged in activities during their suspension and possibly prevented some 

delinquent acts that students might have committed if they had been left unsupervised. Another 

stakeholder felt that SWEAT helped suspended students accomplish schoolwork, which often goes 

undone when suspended students are unsupervised. Finally, one stakeholder felt that SWEAT helped 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 220 
establish “connections” among the participants and Office on Youth staff, who were able to identify and 

make referrals for other needed services. Some quotes from interviews with program staff and 

stakeholders illustrate these anecdotal outcomes: 

We kept kids off the streets. 

The schools were definitely satisfied because they now had something to offer parents 

whose kids had been suspended. The parents were satisfied because they didn’t have to 

deal with their kids during the day when they were suspended. The kids were satisfied; 

they found it to be a safe place. 

The main impact that SWEAT has had is that it kept suspended kids positively occupied. 

It prevented youth from committing other delinquent acts while they were suspended. 

Students kept up with their schoolwork, although that required a lot of coordination from 

the schools. SWEAT gave the lower risk kids the opportunity to realize what they did and 

rethink their behavior. SWEAT allowed the [Office on Youth] staff to make good 

connections with the kids. The SWEAT staff made youth referrals to other programs 

offered by the [Office on Youth]. Not sure how much of what they accomplished is 

measurable. 

Factors That Influenced Monitoring and Evaluation 

Many factors influenced the Waynesboro/Staunton community’s program evaluation and 

communitywide assessment activities. The SWEAT staff’s interest in evaluating program effectiveness 

facilitated the SWEAT program evaluation efforts, but these efforts were hindered by a lack of resources 

to conduct the evaluation or hire an evaluator and by a lack of staff with the requisite knowledge and 

skills. One stakeholder discussed the challenge in this way: 

We’re interested in whether or not something is working because we don’t want to waste 

time or we don’t want to waste resources.... We are trying to evaluate our programs, but 

we’re not getting a lot of support. Unless it’s a grant-funded program, with money built 

in for evaluation, we’re on our own trying to evaluate programs. 

Evaluation efforts were also hindered by an inability to collect some data, such as participants’ grades, 

from the schools. 

The community’s evaluation efforts have been facilitated by human services agencies’ and school 

systems’ increasing interest in gathering data documenting needs and resources. They also have been 

helped by an occasional receipt of funds from the state, funds the community has used to conduct 

assessment activities. Factors hindering the community’s efforts include the loss of state funds for the 

Office on Youth and the loss of the state mandate for the office to conduct comprehensive assessments 

every 6 years. In spite of these hindering factors, the Regional Planners for Prevention Services and 

other groups seem to be committed to finding the means to continue conducting communitywide 

assessment activities. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 221 
Institutionalization 

Institutionalization of prevention efforts includes sustaining the key components of the initiative, 

meeting goals and objectives, and obtaining continuation funding for successful programs and strategies 

beyond the Title V grant. This section describes Waynesboro/Staunton’s experiences with 

institutionalization following the end of their Title V grant in June 2002 and discusses factors that 

influenced their institutionalization efforts. 

As stated earlier, the Regional Planners for Prevention Services, the group that was identified as the 

prevention policy board for the Title V grant, began before Title V, functioned separately from Title V, 

and has continued beyond Title V. Its role has evolved since its inception in 1997, but it continues to 

serve as the community’s collaborative prevention board. The hiring of a coordinator provided the board 

with opportunities to function more consistently and to formalize its planning and program development 

activities. Budget cuts may result in the loss of the coordinator, however, and the level of the board’s 

activities may therefore be reduced. 

Communitywide delinquency prevention assessment and planning activities had also begun prior to Title 

V and are continuing. Although the Office on Youth is no longer required to conduct an assessment and 

develop a comprehensive plan, the community services board recently acquired funds that they chose to 

use to conduct the Youth Risk Behavior Survey in the public schools. The community services board 

coordinated this effort through the planning group and used group members to assist with survey 

implementation and reporting. For the first time, the Augusta County school system participated in the 

survey. One planning group member stated that, “Getting the [Youth Risk Behavior Survey] into 

Augusta County schools had been another dream and now has been accomplished.” The community 

services board hopes to be able to repeat this survey periodically to measure changes in youth risk 

behaviors. Doing so has the potential to provide the community with valuable data to use in planning 

and would be evidence of this community’s commitment to delinquency prevention assessment and 

planning. 

The Title V-funded program, SWEAT, has secured funds to continue, but at a funding level that is less 

than the level provided by the Title V grant. Sources of SWEAT funds include: 

• A 1-year Drug-Free Communities grant. 

• A portion of the Office on Youth’s allocation of Virginia Juvenile Crime Control Act funds. 

• Maximization of funds drawn from the Department of Social Services. 

• In-kind contributions from the Office on Youth, including staff resources and a van. 

• In-kind contributions from the Augusta County government, including office space. 

During the first year beyond the Title V funding, SWEAT is continuing and has, in fact, expanded to 

include more youth from Augusta County schools. But the level of programming and the future of the 

program beyond this year are uncertain. Attempts have been made to secure funding from other sources, 

including the local school systems, local allocations of federal funds, and state grants, but it is unknown 

if these efforts will be successful. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 222 
Several factors seem to have facilitated institutionalization of all the components of the Title V model in 

Waynesboro/Staunton. These include leadership, stakeholders’ interest and buy-in, and strengthened 

relationships among agencies. Leadership was mentioned by a number of stakeholders, particularly in 

relation to maintaining the Regional Planners for Prevention Services. Having a person to coordinate the 

efforts has been key to Waynesboro/Staunton’s success. In some instances, stakeholders felt that the key 

to the community’s success was a specific person with strong leadership skills and a positive reputation 

in the community. Leadership of the Title V program, in terms of the agency director and the SWEAT 

program coordinators, was also cited as a facilitating factor. The agency director applied her skills in 

management and collaboration to ensure the smooth functioning of the program, and the program 

coordinators were described as being effective in relating to students and responsive to the schools. 

Another factor that influenced institutionalization was interest—when key people want something to 

happen, they work harder to make it happen. Data from the interviews indicate that, in each component 

(community mobilization, assessment and planning, and implementation), there are people who are 

committed to the success of the process and are working hard to keep it going. One example is the 

community services board’s designation of flexible funds for use in community needs assessment. 

A third facilitating factor was the strengthening of relationships among key agencies. Stakeholders felt 

that improved relationships among agencies involved in the planning group facilitated new community 

assessment activities, and collaboration between the Office on Youth and the schools facilitated 

continuation of the SWEAT program. 

The primary factor hindering institutionalization is resources. In each case, the struggle for resources has 

the potential to have a negative effect on the community’s ability to continue its work. The resources 

needed to continue the planning group’s coordinator position, the community assessment activities, and 

the SWEAT program are all uncertain. 

Interpretation 

Title V was not a driving factor for the delinquency prevention activities in Waynesboro and Staunton. 

These communities already had a structure in place to mobilize community members, conduct 

assessment and planning activities, and implement prevention strategies. Title V funds were simply used 

to fund a program the community wanted to implement. Even though Title V was not influential in the 

overall structure, the components of the Title V model are present in this community. One stakeholder 

stated that the factors that helped Waynesboro/Staunton get Title V funds (i.e., the Regional Planners for 

Prevention Services and the community’s comprehensive plan) would have existed with or without Title 

V. The SWEAT program, however, would not have been implemented without Title V. 

The Waynesboro/Staunton community had begun mobilizing community members for delinquency 

prevention activities prior to their introduction to Title V. The community board that was formed to 

address delinquency prevention, the Regional Planners for Prevention Services, has been in existence 

since 1997 and was identified as the prevention policy board for the Title V grant application. The 

planning group has been influential in facilitating coordination among the service agencies. Evidence of 

its influence is apparent in collaborative assessment activities, grant applications, and program efforts. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 223 
Regional Planners for Prevention Services is continuing beyond the Title V grant period. It seems firmly 

rooted and is, in fact, evolving into a more active board than it had been. Its existence and activities were 

mentioned as strengths of the community numerous times in interviews. 

The Waynesboro/Staunton community’s mobilization and collaboration efforts are somewhat consistent 

with the Title V model, but there are also differences. For example, the community did have a 

collaborative community prevention board, but this board was only minimally involved in the Title V 

initiative, rather than integrally involved as called for in the model. The board members did receive 

some training in community prevention planning, but this training was limited, and only the Title V lead 

agency director participated in the Title V-funded training curriculum. It is difficult to say whether 

greater board involvement in the initiative or more training for the board members would have resulted 

in improved assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation, and institutionalization of the Title V 

initiative (the SWEAT program). The board does seem to have been a facilitating factor in some of these 

areas on a larger scale. Regional Planners for Prevention Services has been credited with such successes 

as: 

• Strengthening relationships among community agencies and between schools and community 

agencies. 

• Conducting community assessment activities. 

• Developing communitywide prevention plans. 

• Supporting existing prevention programs and developing new programs to fill gaps in the service 

delivery system. 

Overall, the community’s mobilization and collaboration efforts seem to have been quite successful and 

are continuing to be strengthened as the role of the planning group evolves. 

Waynesboro/Staunton’s communitywide needs assessment and comprehensive plan were developed 

prior to Title V planning efforts. The Office on Youth’s comprehensive plan, on which the Title V grant 

was based, was thorough in that it provided information about the community’s needs and followed 

through with goals, objectives, strategies, and existing resources available to meet the identified needs. 

One of the problems with this plan, however, was that it relied heavily on opinion surveys of public 

agencies, youth, and the general public to identify needs. Objective data were gathered to define these 

needs, but it is likely that other needs existed in the community that were not explored using objective 

measures. As a result, attention and resources may have been focused on problems not supported by data 

as the most significant problems in the community. 

The Title V program, SWEAT, is clearly related to the comprehensive plan and is designed to address 

identified problems. It is not, however, a research-based program with proven results. Rather, it is an 

innovative program for the community that is testing out a new system of services. Title V, however, 

recommends using proven or promising strategies to increase the likelihood of successful outcomes. 

Stakeholders did not speak directly to the rationale for this choice, but it appears that Title V was simply 

a funding mechanism used to implement a program design the community believed would address its 

needs. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 224 
This community chose to use its Title V funds to fill a gap in its service delivery system by 

implementing SWEAT, a program providing supervision and structured activities to suspended students. 

The implementation strategies seemed well constructed. The community: 

• Selected a program that filled a gap in services identified in the comprehensive plan. 

• Sought dedicated, qualified staff. 

• Sought support from their primary stakeholders, the school systems. 

• Designed a service array to address the problems as they saw them. 

• Leveraged other resources to enhance the program. 

• Made efforts to address challenges, such as transportation and obtaining participants’ school work. 

• Connected the program participants to other prevention programs in the community as needed. 

Overall, the implementation strategies seem to be one of the greatest strengths of 

Waynesboro/Staunton’s Title V initiative. One of the primary factors contributing to this success seems 

to be the program’s leadership. The Office on Youth Director has worked in these communities for some 

time and has nurtured many strong relationships with local agency, school, and government 

administrators. Her knowledge of community needs, skill in program design and management, and 

ability to work well with other agencies were key factors in the SWEAT program’s successes. 

The Waynesboro/Staunton community monitored its Title V program implementation (SWEAT), but it 

was challenged to evaluate the outcomes of this program effectively. On a larger scale, the community 

has improved its ability to assess community risk factors, but it has not attempted to use these 

communitywide assessments to measure the impacts of specific initiatives. 

On the basis of interview data, the SWEAT program seems to have been fairly successful, but because 

program evaluation was lacking in some areas, it is challenging to make this assertion with certainty. 

The staff were diligent in their evaluation efforts, but were hampered by a lack of training, expertise, and 

access to data. They also found it difficult to establish outcomes that were realistic, meaningful, and 

measurable. For example, program staff wanted to measure the program’s impact on participants’ rate of 

turning in homework and re-suspension. They were able to gather these data for participants, and the 

outcomes were positive, but they were not able to gather comparison data and, therefore, were 

challenged to state the program’s impact on the outcomes. Other possible outcomes were discarded 

because of a lack of available data. These challenges in program evaluation are not entirely unexpected, 

given the state’s lack of guidance and training regarding evaluation and the community’s lack of 

resources for evaluation. 

On a larger scale, the Waynesboro/Staunton community has conducted several communitywide 

assessment and planning activities, including the Regional Planners for Prevention Services’ and the 

AMC Community Health Forum’s Focus on Youth assessment. Coordination of these activities seems to 

be improving. Various agencies had conducted these activities in the past, but the planning group seems 

to be facilitating collaboration in these areas effectively so communitywide assessments and plans are 

conducted with the input of many agencies rather than as separate activities. Resources may be one of 

the driving factors for these collaborative assessment activities. The loss of state funds for the Office on 

Youth limited that agency’s ability to update its own comprehensive plan, but the receipt of funds by the 

Community Services Board, the lead agency for the Regional Planners for Prevention Services, offered 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 225 
an opportunity for the planning group to spearhead efforts to conduct the Youth Risk Behavior Survey in 

local schools. 

Those conducting the assessments and plans—whether a single agency or a group of agencies—have 

generally been comprehensive in gathering information to identify needs and following through with 

goals, objectives, and strategies. The latest Focus on Youth report also addressed issues of youth 

developmental assets or protective factors, and the reports have generally addressed issues 

communitywide, looking at a variety of needs and strategies across the spectrum. 

One area of notable improvement is access to and use of objective data to document needs. The 1998 

comprehensive plan used in the Title V application began with community perceptions and used data to 

document identified concerns. The 2000 Focus On Youth report was more data driven, but 

Waynesboro/Staunton was not able to gather all the data it needed (the Augusta County schools had not 

agreed to implement the Youth Risk Behavior Survey along with the Waynesboro and Staunton school 

systems). There has been growth in this area, and the Augusta County schools have since implemented 

the Youth Risk Behavior Survey to provide data necessary for the comprehensive assessments. 

The progress made in this area has been significant. Some of the leading prevention agencies had 

discussed early challenges in convincing others of the need for comprehensive assessment and planning, 

but more agencies seem to be supportive of these efforts. A reduction in agency resources may have had 

a negative impact on the efforts of some agencies, but this circumstance may also have encouraged more 

collaborative efforts. With the commitment of key community agencies, such as the community services 

board and the Office on Youth, it seems that monitoring, assessment, and planning activities will 

continue to be strengthened. 

Overall, this community is sustaining its community prevention planning efforts and the Title V-funded 

program. The Regional Planners for Prevention Services, the community board that served as the Title V 

prevention policy board, continues to function and evolve. Greater commitment to data-based, 

communitywide assessments and plans is evident. And the Title V program, SWEAT, is continuing to 

provide services. The program’s long-term future is uncertain, however, because a stable funding source 

is lacking. It is possible that better implementation of the earlier phases may have strengthened efforts to 

institutionalize the program. For example, if the planning group had been more involved in the 

program’s planning and implementation, the members may have had a greater sense of ownership for 

the program and that might have spurred efforts to find continuation funding. If the program had been 

better able to evaluate its effectiveness, staff might have been more successful in convincing the local 

governments or the school systems to provide ongoing financial support. 

Summary 

Overall, the Waynesboro/Staunton and Augusta County communities seem to have built a solid 

infrastructure for community delinquency prevention efforts, and they continue to strengthen their 

approaches. Although Title V did not play a noticeable role in these activities, the spirit and components 

of Title V are clearly evident. For example, the Regional Planners for Prevention Services is improving 

collaboration among agencies, and this improvement is, in turn, strengthening assessment, planning, and 

program implementation activities. And community members are using resources creatively to carry out 

their desired activities. The primary challenge facing this community in relation to the Title V model is 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 226 
evaluation: the community appears to have strong systems and programs in place, but has yet to 

document its successes reliably. Better evaluations could be facilitated by more guidance and evaluation 

training from the state and by dedication of resources to evaluation. This community has proved itself to 

be creative and persevering, and if its progress in other areas is any indication, it can be expected to 

improve in this area as well. 

Title V in Virginia: Concluding Remarks 

In general, Virginia implemented the Title V model with fidelity, albeit with varied, and changing, 

levels of emphases on various components. For example, the state initially allowed communities to 

select which trainings, if any, they wished to attend. Only later did the state require interested 

communities to attend the package of Title V trainings. The state also shifted from setting state-level 

priorities to allowing communities to identify and focus on local needs. At the same time, the state 

shifted from allowing communities to implement innovative programs to requiring implementation of 

promising practices. Although the national evaluation was not tasked with evaluating the impact of these 

policies statewide, they generally appear to bode well for the communities based on the assumptions of 

the Title V model. 

One of the key aspects of Virginia’s implementation of Title V was the emphasis on coordination of 

Title V with other prevention initiatives; both communities participating in the national evaluation did 

so. Although this approach made it somewhat difficult to evaluate the communities’ Title V initiatives 

specifically, it did provide valuable insight into the incorporation of Title V into existing efforts. In both 

cases, the existence of community prevention boards, needs assessments, and plans prior to Title V 

seemed to ground these efforts more solidly and contributed to their continuity beyond Title V. The 

communities’ resources and support for prevention were not tied to Title V funds, but were rather larger 

efforts to which Title V funds contributed. 

The two Virginia communities’ Title V initiatives shared many similarities in that each community: 

• Based its Title V application on an existing community prevention board, needs assessment, and 

comprehensive prevention plan. 

• Used Title V funds for a single program to fill a gap in services identified in the plan. 

• Implemented a locally designed program rather than a research-based program (although Hanover 

did use some evidence-based curricula within its program). 

• Was committed to program evaluation and showed improvement in evaluation skills, but struggled 

to carry out a successful evaluation plan. 

• Institutionalized its prevention policy board and Title-V funded program. 

In addition, each community’s prevention policy board had little involvement in the Title V funded 

program, and each board evolved over time to become more formal, structured, and effective in its 

coordination of community prevention efforts. Although both boards began to engage directly in 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 227 
program design and implementation efforts, only Hanover was successful in obtaining targeted grant 

funds to do so. 

One of the more challenging areas for the state and communities was evaluation. Although the state has 

provided optional evaluation training and technical assistance, the communities continued to struggle 

with this because of a number of issues, including a lack of resources, knowledge, ongoing support, and 

ability to measure meaningful indicators of success. Improvements were made during the period of the 

national evaluation, and the state’s requirement for implementation of promising programs may further 

strengthen this. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Virginia 228