Chapter 5: Pennsylvania 


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

Fayette and Northampton Counties, presents both successes and challenges in the implementation of the 

Title V model. Strong state- and local-level support, community collaboration, and commitment to the 

Title V model were key factors in success, although difficulties in planning and evaluation resulted in 

significant challenges. 

The first section of this case study presents and discusses state support for Title V from 1998 to 2002. 

The next sections present and discuss the Title V initiatives in Fayette and Northampton Counties from 

1998 to 2002. The last section presents concluding remarks on Title V in Pennsylvania. 

This presentation is based on four primary data sources from each community throughout its 

participation in the national evaluation: stakeholder interviews, in person and via telephone; a review of 

Pennsylvania’s Title V documentation, including the request for proposals and the community grant 

applications; a review of Fayette’s and Northampton’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 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 

Based on Pennsylvania’s juvenile population, a factor that determines the amount of Title V funds 

allocated to each state, Pennsylvania has been eligible to receive funds ranging from $538,000 to 

$1,523,000 each year. The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, the implementing 

state agency in Pennsylvania, chooses to support communities with sizable grant awards; these awards 

have ranged from $5,927 to $95,850. From the beginning of Title V in 1994 through 2002, Pennsylvania 

funded 91 Title V communities. 

Pennsylvania’s Title V initiative is based on the Communities That Care curriculum for juvenile 

delinquency prevention efforts. Title V is generally viewed as the funding mechanism for implementing 

Communities That Care principles and strategies in communities across the state. Since the state and the 

communities identify their work as Communities That Care rather than Title V, “CTC” or “Title 

V/CTC” will be used in this chapter when referring to the state and community initiatives. 

The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency has provided strong support for Title V/CTC 

efforts in Pennsylvania through its use of state funds for planning grants, training, technical assistance, 

and access to data for use in assessments. The agency also has demonstrated commitment to Title V and 

CTC principles evidenced by its requirements for community members’ participation in training, 

submission of comprehensive assessments and delinquency prevention plans, and other key components 

of Title V and Communities That Care. The primary challenge for the commission has been in the area 

of evaluation. The successes achieved by Title V/CTC communities in their implementation and 

outcomes closely aligns with these strengths and challenges. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 111 
The two Pennsylvania communities selected to participate in the Title V national evaluation were 

Uniontown in Fayette County and Easton in Northampton County. These communities each received a 

planning grant and 3 years of funding. They each implemented broad-based delinquency prevention 

initiatives centered on a project director or community mobilizer who coordinated all aspects of the 

community’s efforts, including management of the prevention policy board, assessment and planning, 

implementation of specific strategies, support and coordination of existing strategies, and evaluation. 

These communities had varied levels of success in their efforts, but generally understood and were 

committed to the Communities That Care principles. 

Pennsylvania’s Granting Process 

The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency is the state agency responsible for 

coordinating Title V grant activities in the state. The commission, a body of the Governor’s Executive 

Office, serves as “a catalyst for the prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency . . . and . . . 

strives to effect improvements in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.” 

Each fiscal year, the commission sends to all eligible units of local government a letter of invitation to 

participate, pre-grant, in a series of three training sessions. These sessions are based on the Communities 

That Care curriculum for delinquency prevention planning and include key leader orientation, risk and 

resource assessment, and promising approaches. To be selected for participation in the trainings, the 

commission requires interested communities to submit a letter committing themselves to: 

• Send five appropriate community representatives to each of three training sessions. 

• Complete a risk and resource assessment. 

• Develop a comprehensive 3-year delinquency prevention plan within 3 months of completing the 

training. 

An interdepartmental team reviews applications to participate in pre-grant training and selects those that 

meet the internal “readiness” criteria. Once they are selected, the commission requires those 

communities to send representatives to all three training sessions. At the end of the training series, 

communities have 45 days to complete and submit 3-year comprehensive community-based delinquency 

prevention plans—their Title V grant applications. 

All Title V applications are reviewed by both staff from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and 

Delinquency and members of the Prevention Subcommittee of the Juvenile Advisory Committee, which 

serves as the Pennsylvania State Advisory Group. Commission staff and Prevention Subcommittee 

members present their recommendations to the full Juvenile Advisory Committee, which then votes 

whether or not to fund the application. Representatives from the applicant community are invited to 

attend the meeting at which their application will be discussed. 

Grants are awarded on a 12-month fiscal cycle, though Title V communities are guaranteed 3 full years 

of funding as long as they meet quarterly and annual state evaluation and monitoring requirements, 

including implementation and budget reports. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 112 
Training and Technical Assistance 

Pennsylvania’s Title V grant activities are based on the Communities That Care risk and protective 

factor approach to delinquency prevention. The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency 

requires that key community members participate in the three-stage Communities That Care training 

series—key leader orientation, risk and resource assessment, and promising approaches—before they 

submit a grant application and that they integrate the basic Communities That Care principles into their 

grant applications. To provide continuity, at least one person attending each session must be the same 

person. These trainings are also available to prevention policy board staff and members who join in the 

process during a community’s implementation phase. 

When the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention transferred the Title V training contract 

from Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., which provided the Communities That Care 

trainings, to Developmental Services Group in July 2000, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and 

Delinquency decided to remain committed to the Communities That Care model and began using state 

funds to continue providing the trainings to its Title V applicants. 

In addition to funding training, the commission uses its own funds to contract with Shippensburg 

University’s Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research to provide planning, implementation, and 

evaluation technical assistance and training. The center also facilitates opportunities for networking 

among Pennsylvania’s Title V/CTC communities. Technical assistance is available at numerous points: 

• Communities that have submitted applications to participate in the pre-grant trainings and have been 

deemed “not ready” (e.g., they may not have the people or resources in place to follow through on 

the commitment to attend training or conduct a risk and resource assessment) can receive technical 

assistance to enable them to begin this process. 

• Communities that have begun the training sessions and are struggling to develop their 

comprehensive plans can receive technical assistance to accomplish this. 

• Communities that have received funding can receive technical assistance related to implementation 

of prevention strategies. 

In past years, the technical assistance and networking opportunities were conducted on a statewide level. 

In 2000, the number of communities had grown to the point that statewide conferences were unwieldy. 

Consequently, five regions were formed within the state, and the center is responsible for coordinating 

these regional networking efforts and providing technical assistance to each region. New full-time 

technical assistance providers were hired so technical assistance could be provided on an individual 

basis to communities within each region. 

Evaluation 

Pennsylvania’s Title V request for proposals requires applicants to present project objectives, strategies 

intended to accomplish those objectives, and expected results or impacts. Quarterly reports are designed 

for applicants to indicate expected and actual measurements for each “anticipated impact.” Little 

guidance or instruction is provided beyond this. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 113 
To assist Title V and non-Title V communities in completing requisite needs assessment and evaluation 

activities, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency supports the following two 

activities: 

• Electronic Juvenile Justice Data Book: an electronic source of county and state data covering a 

variety of areas related to children, youth, and families. The Data Book is funded with state and 

federal sources and is available to assist communities in conducting data-driven risk and resource 

assessments and local program evaluation. 

• State-sponsored, state-level evaluation: an evaluation conducted by Pennsylvania State University 

to document and assess the Communities That Care process in Title V communities across the state. 

Other State Factors 

The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency sets aside state funds specifically to support 

the Title V planning efforts of communities. All communities that have completed the first training 

session are eligible to receive a one-time planning grant. Between 1994 and 1999, planning grants 

ranged from $15,000 to $25,000. In 2000, Pennsylvania began offering new Title V communities 

$50,000 planning grants. These grants are provided so communities can hire a mobilizer to coordinate 

the development of the community’s 3-year plan during the planning phase and to coordinate Title Vfunded delinquency prevention activities during the implementation phase. This continuity is meant to 

streamline the planning and implementation processes for communities and reduce time needed for 

startup. 

Interpretation 

Overall, Pennsylvania’s support of the Title V model is quite strong, as evidenced by its commitment of 

significant state resources to the Title V efforts and the conformance of its request for proposals and 

training guidance to Title V principles; however, it has been challenged in some areas. 

The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s requirement that teams from interested 

communities attend all three training sessions before submitting their Title V grant application is fully 

consistent with the Title V model’s proposition that training may impact future phases of community 

prevention planning. Participation in the training ensures that all communities receive consistent 

information and guidance. State support for training is complemented by its support for technical 

assistance, which is made available to those who need help in any phase of the process. Furthermore, the 

state planning grants enable communities to hire community mobilizers who can guide the efforts of the 

prevention policy board in the mobilization, planning, and implementation stages. 

The commission’s request for proposals and training materials provide clear and thorough guidance in 

some areas, but are less thorough in others. For example, the request for proposals is very clear about the 

requirements for a prevention policy board’s composition and its role in planning for Title V, but it is 

not as clear about the expectations for the board’s role in the implementation and institutionalization 

phases of the initiative. The request for proposals and training materials also provide useful guidance for 

assessment and planning activities (such as explaining how to collect indicator data for risk factors), and 

the state’s sponsorship of the Electronic Juvenile Justice Data Book is further evidence of its support for 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 114 
these efforts; however, the materials are lacking in some areas. For example, the request for proposals 

does not clearly state that program goals and objectives must be realistic and measurable, and 

communities without much experience in evaluation may struggle with this. In addition, it does not 

provide sufficient guidance or requirements for the collection of data-based protective factors, although 

a definition of protective factors is offered and the training provides some guidance in collection of these 

data. 

The commission’s requirements regarding implementation include applicants’ participation in the 

promising approaches training (which provides information about research-based strategies), but the 

commission does not require applicants to select such strategies for their Title V initiatives. It does, 

however, state that strategies must be designed to impact priority risk factors: “Specific projects 

proposed in the delinquency prevention plans must be designed to reduce the impact of delinquency risk 

factors identified by applicants via the risk factor assessment process.” 

Two of the weakest areas of Pennsylvania’s support for Title V are evaluation and institutionalization. 

According to commission staff, program evaluation was not a state priority until 1998. The commission 

recognizes that evaluation is a challenge and was considering the addition of an evaluation component to 

the three-session Communities That Care training series. The request for proposals addresses the issue 

of institutionalization only to the extent that it requests applicants to discuss their plans for continuation 

funding beyond the Title V grant period. The commission does not request information beyond this nor 

provide guidance in strategies to sustain the initiatives. 

Summary 

Overall, Pennsylvania’s support of the Title V model is very strong. However, its commitment is more 

to the Communities That Care approach specifically than to the Title V model, although the two are very 

similar. The state has dedicated numerous resources to the communities to assist them in being 

successful, and this support is evident in the implementation experiences of the communities that 

participated in the Title V national evaluation. A description of two communities’ Title V initiatives 

follows. 

Fayette County (Uniontown) 

This case study documents the Title V process in Uniontown, Fayette County, from its initial planning 

for the Title V initiative in 1996 through its end in 2000. Key community members were committed to 

the Title V principles (although they identified with Communities That Care more than with Title V), 

and achieved most of their success in the community mobilization and assessment phases. Challenges in 

planning, implementation, and evaluation, however, resulted in the initiative’s termination at the end of 

the Title V grant period. 

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

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

V model as implemented in Fayette County: community mobilization and collaboration, initial 

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

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

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 115 
National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 116

Brief Community Description 

Fayette County lies in the southwest corner of 

Pennsylvania. The Title V target community is 

the Uniontown Area School District, which 

consists of the city of Uniontown and adjacent 

mountain and valley areas. Community members 

describe the area as having all facets of socioeconomic conditions, from very rural poor families to very 

wealthy ones. They also talk about the lack of employment opportunities in the area, which is traced to 

the decline of coal mines in the early 1950s. 

In 2000, Uniontown had a population of 12,422 people, and Fayette County had a population of 148,644 

people. In Uniontown, 84 percent of the residents are Caucasian, 14 percent are African American, and 2 

percent are other races. The median age of Uniontown residents is 41 years; 21 percent are children. The 

median household income in Uniontown is $19,477, significantly below Fayette County’s median 

household income of $27,451 and even further below Pennsylvania’s median of $40,106. Twenty-two 

percent of Uniontown families live below the poverty line. 

Title V in Fayette County 

In the grant application and in interviews with prevention policy board members, it was reported that 

Fayette County agencies had a history of strong collaboration due to necessity. Fayette County is a small 

community without many resources, and service providers had realized some time ago that no one could 

stand alone. Two examples of collaborative efforts in Fayette County that were in place at the start of 

the Title V initiative are: 

 Family Services System Reform Collaborative Board: a strong collaborative effort addressing 

social services delivery system reform. 

 Human Services Council: a coalition representing more than 50 health and human services 

agencies in the county. Its mission is “to improve the quality and delivery of health, human, and 

education services in Fayette County; mobilizing community resources through partnerships with 

business, government, religious and community organizations.” 

More than a dozen other collaborative efforts are briefly described in the grant application. These groups 

focus on issues such as crime, childcare, teen health, and spiritual/religious needs. Fayette County also 

seems to have a number of prevention programs addressing issues such as teen pregnancy and substance 

abuse. In addition, they have a number of “general” programs that may impact juvenile problem 

behaviors, including Boy Scouts, recreational activities, and job shadowing. Fayette County receives 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools funds. 

Fayette County’s Title V initiative is based on the Communities That Care risk and protective factor

curriculum for delinquency prevention, as this is the curriculum the state has been promoting for some 

time. Leaders in Fayette County identify their initiative as “CTC,” and recognize Title V only as the 

funding source supporting implementation of Communities That Care principles and strategies. For this 

reason, Fayette County’s Title V efforts will be referred to as “CTC” or “Title V/CTC” in this chapter. 

Fayette County (Uniontown) 

Funding period: January 1998–December 2000 

Amount of Title V funding: $168,000 

Unit of local government: Fayette County Office of the 

Commissioners 

Lead agency: Fayette County Office of Human Services
Title V, or rather CTC, was the impetus for the community’s delinquency prevention strategy described 

here. A timeline of Fayette County’s Title V/CTC initiative is presented in figure 5.1. 

Figure 5.1: Fayette County Timeline for the Title V Initiative 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

Planning begins 

Prevention policy board (PPB) first meets 

RRA conducted; first Project Coordinator hired 

Application submitted 

Initiative supports 7 continuing and 8 new programs 

Second Project Coordinator leaves; third hired 

Initiative supports 9 continuing and 3 new programs; efforts to reassess risk factors begin 

Title V grant ends; formal initiative activities cease 

Grant period begins 

Initiative supports 10 community programs 

Second Project Coordinator hired 

Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

The process of community mobilization includes introducing community prevention to key leaders, 

forming a prevention policy board, and participating in prevention training. A description of the process 

of community mobilization for the Title V/CTC initiative in Fayette County from 1996 through 2000 

follows. 

Introducing Community Prevention to Key Leaders 

Planning for the Title V/CTC initiative began in 1996 when the Fayette County Planning Office initiated 

the process of preparing for an application for Title V funds. A decision was made that the Title V/CTC 

initiative would form its own board rather than join with an existing board so the group could more 

closely align itself with the expectations for a community delinquency prevention planning group. 

Prevention Policy Board 

The prevention policy board, known as the CTC Prevention Council, began meeting in March 1997 to 

prepare for receipt of the Title V grant. A project coordinator was hired with a $25,000 state planning 

grant to facilitate the planning process. The coordinator, who worked for the planning office, worked 

closely with the Director of the Fayette County Office of Human Services in coordinating the early 

stages of the council and planning for the initiative. Council members were recruited from local public 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 117 
and private human services agencies, schools, the faith community, juvenile services, other collaborative 

boards, and the community at large. 

During the planning phase, key community leaders and members of the CTC Prevention Council 

attended the three-stage Title V/CTC training series to prepare for their Title V initiative. In the early 

months, the council discussed the functions of the board and its relationship with the Family Services 

Systems Reform Board. The council decided to remain separate, but connected to, the board so the 

council could focus solely on Title V/CTC. Members of the council also assisted in conducting the risk 

and resource assessment, creating a vision for the community, and planning for Title V/CTC activities. 

The CTC Prevention Council’s vision for the community read “We vision Fayette County as a 

community with adults who have integrity, who are healthy, who possess necessary skills, who are 

motivated and who are resilient.” 

To organize its efforts, the CTC Prevention Council formed committees focusing on each of the three 

priority risk factors it had identified in the needs assessment—friends engaging in problem behavior, 

low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization, and family management problems/family 

conflict. Council members chaired these committees. The council itself was co-chaired by the project 

coordinator and one of the agency representatives. This structure remained intact throughout the Title V 

grant period. 

The project coordinator was the staff person for the council, coordinating meetings, guiding the process, 

and carrying out the council’s recommendations. Council members assisted in setting objectives 

regarding reducing risk factors. During the implementation phase, the council and its committees met 

regularly to provide guidance and oversight for the Title V/CTC initiative. 

At the end of the Title V grant period, Fayette County had 29 active members on the CTC Prevention 

Council, many of whom had been active from the beginning. An emphasis of the Fayette County CTC 

initiative had been to encourage involvement of community members; five of the 29 active members 

were community representatives. The council’s project coordinator went to some lengths to encourage 

community participation, such as scheduling meetings at times and places that were convenient for the 

members of the community. According to the coordinator, 

It’s important to have folks on there [the CTC Prevention Council] that are from the 

community and have ties only to the community, not necessarily a certain agency . . . . I 

think it’s necessary to begin to effect changes in norms and values in the community. 

This process can’t be effective if the people living in the community don’t work with it. 

Stakeholders viewed the council as key to “spreading the [Communities That Care] message” 

throughout the community and human services delivery system. By engaging council members in the 

process and training them in the Communities That Care curriculum, it was hoped that they would carry 

their knowledge and enthusiasm back to their communities and agencies, serving as spokespeople for 

the initiative. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 118 
Community Prevention Training 

Teams of council members participated in the three-stage Title V/CTC training required by the state 

during the planning process. The team sent to the Key Leader Orientation included two county 

commissioners, the director of the Fayette County Drug and Alcohol Commission, and the editor of the 

local newspaper. Project staff and council members who became active during the grant also 

participated in training. At the end of the first year (December 1998), 11 council members attended a 

local training entitled “CTC Risk and Protective Factor Focused Prevention.” Some council members 

also attended the risk and resource assessment training in February 2000. 

Many people involved in the project felt that the Title V/CTC trainings were an important part of the 

process and wished they were more available at a local level to educate staff in local agencies with 

whom the council members were trying to work. Some people also expressed a desire for other trainings 

addressing such issues as strategic planning, grant writing, and group dynamics. 

Factors That Influenced Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

Fayette County’s efforts to mobilize its community were consistent with the Title V model. It 

successfully formed and sustained a communitywide prevention board and had particular success 

recruiting community members. CTC Prevention Council members did participate in training, and the 

council remained active in the Title V initiative throughout the grant period. 

Council members noted a number of factors that facilitated the community mobilization process. These 

included a history of collaboration in the community, efforts made to recruit community members, and 

having council members who were committed to the model. Another facilitating factor was the 

complementary skills of the co-chairs: one was seen as skilled in visioning and the other in organizing 

and followthrough. 

Although Fayette County experienced success in its community mobilization efforts, it acknowledged 

some challenges in the process. One challenge was turnover in council membership, but this was felt to 

be a normal part of group process. Turf issues were identified as another challenge. While a history of 

collaboration was noted as a facilitating factor, some members felt competitiveness among agencies was 

still a problem. One stakeholder stated the challenge in this way: 

Possibly agencies [are] viewing CTC as another program as opposed to a process or a 

way of thinking . . . . Now there might be another agency out there or program out there 

that is vying for those funds. Sometimes [this] could be seen as a turf issue . . . so it’s 

been incumbent on me to make them understand that this is not a program; it’s a process. 

It’s a way of thinking and a way of doing business. 

Another challenging factor that was identified relates to efforts to engage community members. 

When someone from the community who has no agency affiliation, maybe a parent, 

enters into a room full of folks from agencies, they feel some sort of intimidation.... 

Maybe they feel like they are, their information is less important than what the people 

from the agencies can give. And that’s been a barrier for me to overcome, to make them 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 119 
understand that their information and feedback is just as important as anything I can get 

from an agency. That’s kind of why we brought the “We’re Putting the Pieces Together” 

and “You Are a Piece of Fayette County.” And we can’t put that puzzle together unless 

we have every last piece. 

In spite of these challenges, Fayette County’s community mobilization and collaboration efforts were 

quite successful during their Title V grant period. 

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 the assessment and 

planning activities for the Title V/CTC initiative in Fayette County in 1997. 

Identifying Risk Factors, Resources, and Prevention Programs 

The County’s Planning Department conducted the Fayette County Communities That Care risk 

assessment in 1997. The CTC project coordinator led this effort and council members assisted in 

reviewing the data and selecting the priority risk factors. 

Fayette County’s risk assessment included archived data from many local human service agencies, 

census data, and other data from federal and state reports. In addition, graduate students at a local 

university conducted a survey of local youth. Indicators were gathered for all 19 risk factors identified in 

the Communities That Care curriculum. No data were gathered for protective factors, nor was a list of 

existing resources included in the assessment. 

Based on the data from the risk assessment, three risk factors were selected as priorities to be addressed: 

• Family management problems/family conflict: an increase in reported child abuse from 1994 to 

1996; an increase in children living outside the family from 1994–95 to 1995–96; an increase in the 

divorce rate from 1991 to 1994; and an increase in domestic violence reports from 1991–92 to 1992– 

93. 

• Low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization: a decrease in the voting 

population from 1988 to 1996 and a higher rental vacancy rate than neighboring Schuylkill County. 

• Friends engaging in problem behavior: an increase in the number of adolescents in the juvenile 

system from 1994 to 1996; an increase in adolescent pregnancies from 1994 to 1995; a significantly 

higher rate of youth with sexually transmitted diseases than neighboring Schuylkill County; and an 

increase in adolescents in treatment from 1990–91 to 1992–93. 

Developing a Comprehensive Prevention Plan 

Fayette County’s Title V application, which served as its comprehensive prevention plan, was based on 

the data gathered in the risk assessment. The CTC project coordinator and the Fayette County Office of 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 120 
Human Services director worked together on the application and presented it to the CTC Prevention 

Council for approval. The application was submitted in the fall of 1997. 

The Fayette County Title V application presents an “overall prevention plan strategy” to accomplish 

three goals: 

• To increase family and community prosocial bonding and encourage healthy beliefs and clear 

standards of behavior while decreasing the incidence of community risk factors that may lead to 

adolescent problem behaviors. 

• To implement the social development strategy as outlined in the Communities That Care curriculum 

for juvenile delinquency prevention. 

• To identify additional funding/program resources. 

The application also states: 

The overall goal of this project is to increase community mobilization to reduce the risk 

factors of family management problems/family conflict, low community attachment and 

neighborhood disorganization, and friends engaging in problem behavior. We intend to 

increase the number of community-based organizations, to increase the membership of 

existing community-based organizations and to create communitywide norms and values 

against problem behaviors . . . . It is our intent to hire a full-time project coordinator . . . 

dedicated to help the CTC Council . . . to design, coordinate, implement and evaluate the 

mobilization effort as outlined in our CTC promising approach strategy. 

In addition to the overall goals, the application details a fairly elaborate plan to address the three priority 

risk factors. Although not explicitly stated as such, the overall strategy of community mobilization and 

many of the specific activities described below seem to be based on promising approaches as described 

in the Communities That Care training manual of the same name. For each risk factor, the following 

were identified: strategies; target population; protective factors to be addressed; overall goal to be 

achieved; long, medium, and immediate outcomes; objectives; activities; timelines; agencies 

responsible; resources needed; and expected impacts. Summaries of the plans to address each of the 

priority risk factors are given below. 

Family Management Problems/Family Conflict 

Strategies planned to address the risk factor of family management problems/family conflict involved 

media campaigns and community mobilization. The target population was parents of children from birth 

to 18 years. The goal was “to increase the ability of families to competently manage daily, individual 

and family stress.” Fifteen activities aimed at accomplishing three objectives were identified. Some of 

the activities were: 

• Work with early childhood education providers in the development of standards for positive 

behavior. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 121 
• Work with the Uniontown Area School District to reinforce standards for positive behavior and 

increase parental involvement with the schools. 

• Coordinate a long-term multimedia campaign to reinforce good parenting techniques and positive 

conflict resolution. 

Some of the expected effects were 100 preschool and school-age children impacted by prevention 

activities; students’ grades improve and school dropout rate decreases; parents report increased 

confidence in school situation; and 65 percent of the initiative’s activities covered by local news media. 

Low Neighborhood Attachment and Community Disorganization 

The strategies planned to address the risk factor of low neighborhood attachment and community 

disorganization involved media mobilization and asset mapping. The target population was the 

community living within the Uniontown Area School District. The goal was “to promote community 

bonding and recognition of community resources.” Twenty-four activities aimed at accomplishing four 

objectives were identified. Some of these planned activities were: 

• Develop a comprehensive media campaign to support the Communities That Care approach. 

• Educate and mobilize local communications media. 

• Produce a communitywide Geographic Information Systems (GIS) asset map. 

• Implement two recognition events per year to highlight outstanding efforts that support children and 

families in Fayette County. 

Two of the expected impacts were a GIS planning map created and available for use in the county by 

1999 and increased use of county resources/increased agency interaction with grassroots organizations. 

Friends Engaging in Problem Behavior 

Strategies to address the risk factor of friends engaging in problem behavior involved peacemaking and 

conflict resolution training and community opportunities. The target population was preschool and 

school-age children and youth. The goal was “to increase prosocial behaviors and attitudes in children 

and adolescents.” Thirteen activities aimed at accomplishing two objectives were identified. Some of the 

planned activities were: 

• Work with the Uniontown Area School District so every school will offer coordinated instruction in 

positive pro-social skills for children and parents. 

• Work with the schools and community to offer unstructured opportunities for youth to practice the 

skills they have learned. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 122 
Some of the expected effects were students in the district will receive some formal prosocial skills 

education at least once per year; and the district will hold at least two events per year that employ 

student peer mediation and conflict resolution skills. 

Factors That Influenced Initial Assessment and Planning 

Fayette County’s assessment and planning process was mostly consistent with the Title V model. They 

gathered and reported objective data on their community risks, prioritized their risk factors, and made 

plans to address them. Some areas, though, were not addressed or addressed only partially. For example, 

most of the strategies selected were not research-based. In addition, no data were gathered to document 

protective factors, but the plan did identify protective factors that strategies were intended to address. 

Finally, no comprehensive listing of existing resources was provided. 

Community stakeholders identified the primary facilitating factor in this process as the assistance of the 

graduate students from the local university. The primary challenging factor identified was the 

inconsistency in how data were reported across agencies. Stakeholders felt that this problem likely 

emanated from the state level where each department requests data in different ways. 

Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

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

identifying and leveraging other resources for prevention. The remainder of this section describes the 

implementation process for the Title V/CTC initiative in Fayette County from 1998 through 2000. 

Fayette County was awarded a 3-year Title V grant from January 1998 through December 2000. It was 

awarded $168,000 in grant funds, which was matched by $138,329 in local contributions for a total 

budget of $306,329. The Fayette County Office of the Commissioners was the official applicant and the 

Fayette County Office of Human Services was the lead agency. In Fayette County, the initiative funded 

by Title V was identified as the Communities That Care initiative. It did not identify with the term “Title 

V.” 

Implementation of this initiative centered around the project coordinator. The first project coordinator, 

who had worked for the planning office, left the position in November 1997 shortly after the grant 

application had been submitted. At this time, the director of the Fayette County Office of Human 

Services, who had worked closely with the coordinator, assumed lead efforts and supervised the 

subsequent coordinators. A second coordinator was hired and held the position from April 1998 to 

February 1999. A third coordinator was hired at that time and held the position for the remainder of the 

grant period, through December 2000. 

Implementation of Fayette County’s Title V/CTC initiative was loosely related to the plans discussed in 

the grant application. As stated in the plan, the coordinators attempted to mobilize community members 

and implement some of the identified strategies, but many of the strategies were not implemented while 

other, new opportunities were embraced. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 123 
Activities 

One project coordinator described the initiative as an effort to incorporate Communities That Care 

concepts throughout the human services agencies and communities in Fayette County. The coordinator 

engaged in many activities to accomplish this, including board management, promoting collaboration, 

coordinating programs, program-related activities, public relations, and evaluation. Most of these 

activities were carried out with the advice and assistance of members of the CTC Prevention Council. 

Below is a summary of each of these activities. 

Board Management 

For the CTC Prevention Council, the project coordinator recruited members, convened and facilitated 

meetings, prepared agendas and meeting minutes, and communicated with members between meetings. 

The coordinator occasionally attended committee meetings, but was not responsible for managing them. 

The coordinator often led the council meetings, providing updates to council members on initiative 

activities. 

Promoting Collaboration 

Promoting collaboration among agencies was seen as a central responsibility of the project coordinator. 

Human services agency representatives often called the coordinator when they were considering starting 

a new program, and the coordinator shared her knowledge of existing resources and needs that might 

affect that agency’s course of action. To keep updated on knowledge and current relationships, the 

coordinator was active in a number of collaborative efforts. These included the Human Services 

Council, of which the coordinator was chair of the Community Outreach Committee and a member of 

the Special Activities and Research and Development Committees, and the Community Health 

Improvement Partnership, of which the coordinator was a member of the board and the Perinatal Task 

Force. Other boards of which the coordinator was a member included the Fayette County Partnership for 

Housing and Homelessness, the Child Care Planning Committee, the Family Services System Reform 

Collaborative Board, the Fayette County Children’s Trust, and the Safe Kids Coalition. All of the 

projects supported by the Title V/CTC initiative were based on collaborative efforts. 

Program Coordination 

A large part of the coordinators’ efforts in this area centered around mapping the county’s resources 

using GIS software. A survey had been designed and much information had been gathered about agency 

services. This information was shared with others, but they were never able to get the resources needed 

to develop GIS maps of these services. The coordinator also assisted in a resource assessment conducted 

by the Human Service Council and the Workforce Improvement Board. 

Program Activities 

The project coordinators assisted with at least 22 programs and projects, some of which were connected 

to strategies identified in the plan, and some of which were not. The project coordinator’s rationale for 

involvement in these activities included opportunities to educate groups and agencies about 

Communities That Care principles and social development strategy, to promote collaboration among 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 124 
groups and agencies, and to promote healthy behaviors in the community. Project coordinators helped 

plan, develop, and implement various program activities, including: 

• Designing and carrying out recognition events for community members and groups who had 

promoted community attachment or clear and acceptable standards of behavior and had 

demonstrated extraordinary commitment to their communities. 

• Coordinating Family Fun Fests in which the coordinator collaborated with numerous agencies to 

obtain resources and staff support for communitywide, 1-day events designed to provide fun 

activities for children and families, and offer educational materials about important issues and 

services. 

• Planning events for Red Ribbon Celebration weeks (a substance abuse prevention campaign) and 

sponsoring a Communities That Care booth during the Red Ribbon parade. The Red Ribbon 

celebrations were the result of collaboration among Title V/CTC, the Fayette County Drug and 

Alcohol Commission, the Boy Scouts of America, the Uniontown Mall, Students Against Drunk 

Driving, and others. 

• Designing and coordinating Project Brotherhood, which sponsored field trips for groups of lowincome children from the East End Community Center to the Bruderhof (a local religious 

organization located on a farm) for cultural enrichment activities. This project was the result of 

collaboration among CTC, the East End United Community Center, and the New Meadow Run 

Bruderhof. 

• Assisting the East End Community Center in establishing a neighborhood association. 

• Working with the Crime Victims Center and the Family Services Systems Reform Collaborative 

Board to develop videos with positive parenting messages. 

• Purchasing uniforms for a local Boy Scout troop which consisted of low-income neighborhood 

children. 

Public Relations 

The project coordinator assisted with a media campaign to promote Communities That Care and a 

“healthy decisions” message. The coordinator created and distributed brochures at numerous community 

events. The coordinator also conducted numerous speaking engagements about Communities That Care 

to community groups and assisted with publicizing many of the Title V/CTC-related projects, such as 

the Family Fun Fests and the Red Ribbon Celebrations. 

Evaluation 

The project coordinator assisted with designing and carrying out evaluation plans for a number of 

projects, including the Family Fun Fests, the Fayette County Drug and Alcohol Commission’s 

afterschool programs, and the Wesley Church Health Center. The coordinator also led the CTC 

Prevention Council’s efforts to establish “outcome statements” for reducing juvenile problem behaviors. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 125 
As is evident, the Title V/CTC initiative became a part of many local prevention efforts, some of which 

were not identified in the original plan. One project coordinator wanted to help where possible with 

initiatives that served youth and families in Fayette County and did not limit Title V/CTC’s involvement 

to programs that addressed the identified risk factors. Not all efforts were successful, though. For 

example, two of the originally planned strategies were not accomplished. Efforts to conduct GIS 

mapping of needs, assets, and programs suffered from a lack of resources to train staff in using the 

software, and efforts to work with the schools to implement a character education campaign met with a 

lack of interest from the schools. 

A priority for one project coordinator was infusing Title V/CTC principles throughout Fayette County 

human services agencies. The coordinator wanted the agencies to buy into the concepts and incorporate 

them into their planning and programming. “The more education that we can do around the social 

development strategy and getting agencies or community organizations to structure their programming 

around protective factors, the more success we’re going to have.” 

Identifying and Leveraging Other Resources for Prevention 

Matching funds for the Title V grant were provided primarily by the lead agency, the Fayette County 

Office of Human Services. Other sources of matching funds for programs include the Family Services 

System Reform Collaborative Board, the Head Start state collaborative project, the Uniontown Area 

School District, and volunteers. 

Factors Influencing Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

Although the ideas behind Fayette County’s Title V/CTC strategies were consistent with the Title V 

model, their implementation did not fulfill all expectations. Fayette County chose to support and 

strengthen existing agencies’ prevention efforts and infuse the Title V/CTC ideals into them. While 

there was some success with these efforts, there was not as much as had been hoped for. 

Stakeholders mentioned a number of factors that facilitated their efforts: 

• One was the training and technical assistance provided by the state. The initiative benefited from 

having training available during the implementation phase for the project coordinators as they came 

on board. Training for the council members helped them understand the model and be supportive of 

the CTC coordinator’s efforts. 

• Another facilitating factor was the existence of numerous other collaborative groups, which enabled 

the project coordinator to more easily learn about existing services and discover opportunities for 

further collaboration. 

• A third facilitating factor was that the project coordinator was housed in the Office of Human 

Services which was seen as a neutral agency. In addition, the Office of Human Services was able to 

provide needed support such as office space and administrative assistance to the project coordinator 

and Title V/CTC. 

A number of challenging factors were discussed by project coordinators and Council members. One was 

the desire to “be all things to all people” and the difficulty in staying focused. A second was continuing 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 126 
competition among some groups—a lack of cooperation in planning for community services and setting 

outcomes. Finally, a third challenge was the need for extensive “groundwork” to be laid for agencies to 

really understand and embrace the Title V/CTC model. Stakeholders felt that the model is somewhat 

complex. One stakeholder felt that early efforts did not adequately emphasize Communities That Care 

and the social development strategy as tools that agencies could use; progress was hampered by the time 

and effort needed to do this late in the grant period. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation activities include conducting an evaluation of prevention strategies and the 

whole initiative and reassessing community indicators. These activities for the Title V/CTC initiative in 

Fayette County from 1998 through 2000 are described below. There were no data discussing community 

members’ perspectives of factors influencing their evaluation and monitoring activities. 

Although the project coordinator expressed strong commitment to evaluation, few of the Title V/CTC 

programs were evaluated, and no systematic evaluation of the entire initiative was conducted. The CTC 

Prevention Council was minimally involved in evaluation activities. 

Monitoring and Evaluating Program Activities 

The primary focus of Fayette County’s Title V/CTC initiative was system-level change such as greater 

use of Communities That Care principles in program planning. No systematic evaluation of these efforts 

was conducted. The quarterly reports submitted to the state primarily presented information about 

various programs the initiative was supporting. Few program evaluations were attempted; those that 

were consisted primarily of process data. For example, a survey was conducted of Family Fun Fest 

participants that asked them to rate various aspects of the event such as location, hours, and activities. 

All areas were rated “very good.” 

Ongoing Assessment 

In February 2000 (during the third year of implementation), the project coordinator began the process of 

updating the community’s risk assessment with the assistance of CTC Prevention Council members, but 

this was not completed. The coordinator led the council members in efforts to set outcome statements 

related to the five juvenile problem behaviors (as identified in the Communities That Care 

curriculum)—substance abuse, violence, teen pregnancy, delinquency, and school dropout. They wished 

to reduce the indicators of these problem behaviors by 25 percent by the year 2015. Meeting minutes 

indicate that discussions were held about gathering indicator data to set baseline measurements, but 

there is no evidence that this occurred before the end of the grant period. 

Community-Reported Impacts 

Although no systematic evaluation of Fayette County’s Title V/CTC initiative was conducted locally, 

interviews with stakeholders provide some evidence of its perceived accomplishments. Some 

stakeholders felt that the community mobilization process resulted in more community members and 

agencies embracing Communities That Care principles and encouraging others to do so. One stakeholder 

also mentioned that the risk assessment and comprehensive plan served some valuable purposes: The 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 127 
assessment provided stakeholders with objective data about what the problems were, and this enabled 

them to prioritize the problems. In turn, they were able to focus efforts on plans to address those 

problems and use the data to justify grant requests. Another stakeholder mentioned, though, that the data 

have not been used as widely by area agencies in program planning efforts as had been hoped. 

One stakeholder mentioned that having a coordinator allowed for more far-reaching impacts than 

operating a single program would have because the coordinator was successful in incorporating 

Communities That Care principles into many different segments of the community. For example, the 

East End Community Center began focusing on protective factors in its work with children and the 

Crime Victims Center began focusing more on evaluation in its program planning efforts. Another 

stakeholder mentioned that the initiative helped reduce duplication of services. Finally, a third 

stakeholder was seeing much more collaboration among agencies as a result of this initiative; agencies 

are working together to meet common needs. One person mentioned that the most important change 

seen as a result of Title V/CTC is “. . . recognition that there is a method to approaching social problems 

. . . . We see our various social service agencies, our community groups, adopting the strategy as a 

means to an end. There’s a method. It’s not a haphazard approach.” 

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. Fayette County’s experiences with institutionalization during 2001, the first 

year after the termination of their Title V grant, is described below. 

Although the Fayette County Title V/CTC initiative did not continue in a formal way beyond the grant 

period, efforts continue to infuse the Communities That Care principles into existing agencies and 

programs. 

The CTC Prevention Council did not continue to meet beyond the Title V grant period. There had been 

plans for the group to continue functioning and to be involved in communitywide needs assessment and 

planning. There also had been discussions of the group joining with other community boards, but neither 

of these occurred. Stakeholders attributed the demise of the council to the loss of the project coordinator: 

the position was not continued due to a lack of funding. 

One stakeholder believed council members would join other community boards and represent the 

Communities That Care perspective in those groups. The stakeholder stated, “I think we’re going to see 

a natural kind of evolution there. You know, these folks have come together. They’ve learned all these 

strategies. They see it working. And then they in turn are going to take the message to the various 

groups that they have membership in.” 

The plan for continuing the program coordinator’s position involved soliciting contracts with local 

agencies to have the coordinator written into grant applications as a project evaluator and/or planning 

consultant. By the end of the Title V grant period, at least one agency, the Crime Victims Center, had 

written Communities That Care into some grant applications to consult on program evaluation, and 

discussions had been held with other agencies. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 128 
When the Title V grant ended, the Title V/CTC project coordinator was hired to work for the Office of 

Human Services in another capacity (the office had employed her as the CTC coordinator). 

Although both the coordinator and the Office of Human Services director (who had been involved with 

Title V from the beginning) were committed to the Title V/CTC model, insufficient funds were available 

to continue the work of the initiative, and the former project coordinator became subsumed with her new 

job responsibilities. 

Although no longer the project coordinator, the person formerly holding this position has attempted to 

continue some of the work begun during the Title V grant period. She has continued to participate in 

numerous community coalition meetings such as the Children’s Health Initiative Partnership, Human 

Services Council, and Family Services System Reform Collaborative Board (which has maintained a 

board seat for Title V/CTC); and she interjects Communities That Care ideals into her contributions to 

these groups. She also began work with Fayette County Children’s Partnership to assist in using 

Communities That Care principles in its community grant-making efforts. 

Of the projects supported or sponsored by Title V/CTC, few have continued. Two that have continued 

are the Project Brotherhood program and other East End United Community Center projects. Big 

Brothers Big Sisters, which the Title V/CTC coordinator helped introduce to Fayette County, began 

serving youth in the county; the local chapter partnered with the nearby Westmoreland County chapter 

to do this. 

The former Title V/CTC coordinator reported that a number of agencies are now using the components 

of the Communities That Care curriculum in their regular programming efforts. These include the Crime 

Victims Center, the Drug and Alcohol Commission, the East End United Community Center, the 

Juvenile Probation Office, the Healthy Start Program, and the Office of Human Services. Use of the 

Communities That Care curriculum may include using a community board to help design or oversee the 

programs, gathering data and identifying risk factors, targeting programs to identified needs, identifying 

outcomes, and conducting program evaluations. 

No specific assessment or evaluation activities have continued beyond the Title V grant period. 

Stakeholders had hoped to have the CTC Prevention Council update the risk assessment for use in grant 

opportunities and also had discussed approaching the Family Services System Reform Collaborative 

Board about purchasing the Communities That Care survey, but none of these activities have occurred. 

Although the Title V initiative itself has not continued, the commitment of one of the former project 

coordinators has kept the ideals of the model flowing among community agencies, and a number of 

agencies continue to use strategies they learned during the grant period. The former coordinator has 

become a central person in Fayette County’s social services system and continues to educate and 

encourage others to use Communities That Care principles in their planning and program efforts. The 

coordinator stated that “my full belief in the process has made me want to do it on a volunteer basis until 

we can build it to the point where it can sustain a staff.” However, even with this level of commitment, it 

appears that only a few notable activities have continued. 

Clearly, the most significant challenge to institutionalizing the initiative was the lack of continuation 

funding that resulted in the loss of the coordinator’s position. As much of the initiative was based on this 

person’s work, it is not surprising that other aspects of the initiative were unable to continue without the 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 129 
support and guidance of a central person. For example, stakeholders clearly stated that loss of the CTC 

Prevention Council was due to the loss of the project coordinator who coordinated and facilitated the 

council’s work. 

The former project coordinator stated that two reasons for the lack of success in institutionalizing the 

initiative were turnover in the coordinator’s position and a lack of planning. 

Institutionalizing this process, in my mind, should have started from year one . . . . I 

really wish I had had the full 3 years not to have to worry about finding alternative 

funding and finding a way to institutionalize it. Because I think if it had been done 

differently from the beginning, that would have taken care of itself . . . by the time I got 

the training and had a full view of what it was I needed to do or what this community 

needed me to do, the time was up. 

Interpretation 

Examining Fayette County’s approaches to implementing the Title V/CTC initiative reveals both 

successes and challenges, and the factors influencing each. Overall, the project coordinators, who were 

the key staff of the initiative, displayed considerable commitment to the model and were key factors in 

the successes the initiative did experience. However, the coordinators experienced significant challenges 

in almost all phases of the initiative and ultimately were not able to institutionalize it the way they had 

hoped. 

During the grant period, one of the areas of greatest success for the Title V initiative involved 

community mobilization. A representative, community-based prevention board was formed and 

sustained. Significant efforts were made to include community members, and these efforts proved 

successful. The CTC Prevention Council remained active during the initiative, providing input and 

support for the project coordinator’s activities. Council members also carried the “message” back to 

their own agencies and communities. But the council relied heavily on the project coordinator, and it did 

not continue beyond the grant period without a coordinator to guide it. 

The initiative’s assessment and planning activities were mostly consistent with the Title V model. The 

council conducted a data-based comprehensive risk assessment and developed a plan to address the 

priority risk factors. The risk assessment was commendable in that it contained objective data for 

indicators on all 19 risk factors as identified in the Communities That Care curriculum. A significant 

challenge, though, was that the plan was too ambitious. Among the three priority risk factors, there were 

nine objectives and 52 proposed activities. In addition, most of the strategies selected were not based on 

promising programs; they were uniquely designed strategies that would require significant efforts to 

refine and implement. In reviewing the plan, it seems impossible for a community to have implemented 

it as stated with the resources that were available. 

In fact, the focus of implementation seemed to be quite different from the plan laid out in the grant 

application. Although some efforts were made to implement many of the planned strategies, the project 

coordinators also directed much of their attention on diffusing the Communities That Care principles 

and social development strategy throughout local human services agencies and community groups. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 130 
While this is admirable, it was not approached in an organized fashion and was, therefore, challenging to 

document, evaluate, and sustain. 

In the end, there were some successes in diffusing Communities That Care principles throughout the 

community. Interviews with stakeholders indicate that some agencies embraced concepts such as 

targeting programs to protective factors and evaluating program effectiveness. But it also seems that 

time ran out for this community, and without the project coordinator to guide the efforts, it is not known 

how firmly or how widespread these concepts were embedded. 

One factor hindering the efforts to diffuse the model was the turnover in project coordinators. Perhaps if 

one person had held the position from beginning to end, these efforts would have resulted in more 

success. Another hindering factor may have been a lack of focus. One project coordinator supported 

many programs serving youth and families in the county that seemed to be worthwhile without regard to 

their anticipated impact on the priority risk factors. This resulted in a fragmented approach to service 

delivery that ultimately bore little resemblance to the original plan. 

The fragmented approach also proved challenging to evaluate. Although the former project coordinator 

expresses strong commitment to evaluation, few attempts were made to evaluate Title V/CTC-supported 

programs and none of the overall initiative. As a result, it is unknown if these programs may actually 

have had meaningful outcomes; nor is it known how successful the project coordinator’s efforts were to 

diffuse Communities That Care principles and the social development strategy among community 

agencies. 

Two factors emerge as influencing the lack of success in evaluation. Although the former project 

coordinator believes strongly in evaluation, she may lack the necessary knowledge and skills to 

implement such activities may have been lacking. In addition, it appears the state was not requiring 

evaluation as the project was continued for its full 3 years without reporting meaningful evaluation 

results. 

Another major challenge for Fayette County’s Title V/CTC initiative was institutionalization, which was 

ultimately unsuccessful, for the most part. The primary factor appears to be the loss of the project 

coordinator position on which the initiative was based. Without this foundation, almost none of the key 

activities continued. 

Summary 

Although the Fayette County Title V/CTC initiative experienced a number of significant challenges, it 

had true commitment to and passion for the Communities That Care principles of effective delinquency 

prevention approaches. It wanted to ingrain the Communities That Care concepts communitywide and 

achieve lasting change in the community’s delinquency prevention planning efforts. Many of Fayette 

County’s successes were in the community mobilization and assessment activities, both of which 

conformed to the Title V model. However, an overly ambitious plan, unfocused implementation, and 

lack of meaningful evaluation resulted in the end of the initiative when Title V funds ran out. Although 

the prevention policy board and the initiative are no longer active, some evidence exists that the 

Communities That Care concepts have been adopted by some area agencies, and therein lies some 

promise of achieving a lasting impact. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 131 
National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 132

Northampton County (Easton) 

This case study documents the Title V initiative in 

Easton, Northampton County, from its initial planning 

in 1996 through the end of its Title V initiative in 2001. 

The Title V initiative in Northampton County achieved 

success in each stage of the Title V model, particularly 

in terms of assessment, planning, and implementation. 

The presentation begins with a brief community 

description and discussion of the role of Title V in Northampton County. It continues with presentations 

and discussions of the five stages of the Title V model as implemented in Northampton County: 

community mobilization and collaboration, initial assessment and planning, implementation of 

prevention strategies, monitoring and evaluation, and institutionalization. It concludes with the 

evaluation team’s interpretation of the data. 

Brief Community Description 

The city of Easton, in Northampton County, lies 90 minutes north of Philadelphia in the Lehigh Valley. 

Easton is home to Lafayette College and Binney and Smith, the makers of Crayola products. 

In 2000, Easton had a total population of 26,263 residents, approximately the same number as in 1990. 

The racial breakdown of city residents indicates that 78 percent are Caucasian, 13 percent are African 

American, and 9 percent are other races. These figures represent a 9-percent reduction in the proportion 

that are Caucasian and a corresponding increase in the proportion that are minorities from the 1990 

census data. The median age of Easton residents is 32; 23 percent of the population are children. The 

median household income is $33,162; this is lower than the median household income for Northampton 

County ($45,234) and the state of Pennsylvania ($40,106). Eighteen percent of families with children 

live in poverty. 

Interviews with community members provided insight into their perspective of the Easton community. 

Easton’s proximity to New York City and Philadelphia was seen as a strength in terms of employment 

and cultural and educational opportunities, but its location between the two cities also is seen as 

contributing to Easton’s drug problems. Other reported problems include shootings, teen pregnancy, 

illiteracy, truancy, poor parenting, and not enough quality childcare. However, people felt that Easton 

residents care about and look out for each other; the Block Watch program, for example, is strong. One 

resident said that a strength of Easton is that it is a small, enclosed community that can’t grow because 

of geographical boundaries; this helps Easton to remain a manageable size. 

Title V in Northampton County 

Easton had had many years of experience with prevention programming and collaboration before the 

introduction of Title V. Its grant application lists almost 80 prevention programs addressing issues such 

as substance abuse, delinquency, and teen pregnancy. In addition, nine collaborative groups were active 

Northampton County (Easton) 

Funding period: February 1998–January 2001 

Amount of Title V funding: $179,365 

Unit of local government: City of Easton 

Lead agency: ProJeCt of Easton
at the time of their Title V grant application, focusing on issues such as empowering children, 

empowering neighborhoods, and preventing substance abuse and teen pregnancy. 

In spite of the number of active collaborative groups, interviews with prevention policy board members 

revealed that many felt Easton human services agencies had a history of competition rather than 

collaboration. Many spoke of long-standing “turf battles” among agencies that prevented any real 

progress toward collaborative ventures. 

Northampton County’s Title V initiative is based on the Communities That Care approach to 


delinquency prevention, as this is the strategy that the state has been promoting for some time. Leaders 


in Easton identify their initiative as “CTC,” and only recognize Title V as the funding source supporting


implementation of Communities That Care principles and strategies. For this reason, Easton’s Title V 


efforts will be referred to as “CTC” or “Title V/CTC.” Title V, or rather Communities That Care, was 


the impetus for the community’s delinquency prevention strategy. A timeline of Northampton County’s 


Title V initiative is presented in figure 5.2. 


Figure 5.2: Northampton County Timeline for the Title V Initiative 

1996


1997


1998


1999


2000


2001


Planning and prevention policy board (PPB) begin 

RRA conducted 

Application submitted 

TV grant begins 

First community mobilizer hired 

Initiative supports community policing efforts and Interactive Reading and Playtime (IRP) 

First mobilizer leaves; second mobilizer hired 

Initiative ceases support of community policing, continues with IRP, and adds Snuglies and 

Adopt A Class (AAC) 

Title V grant ends 

PPB, community mobilizer, AAC, and ECP continue 

Second mobilizer leaves; third mobilizer hired 

Initiative continues support of IRP, Snuglies, AAC, and adds Educating Children for Parenting 

(ECP) 

Continuation grant received 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 133 
Community Mobilization and Collaboration 

The process of community mobilization includes introducing community prevention to key leaders, 

forming a prevention policy board, and participating in prevention training. The process of community 

mobilization for the Title V/CTC initiative in Northampton County from 1996 through 2000 is described 

below. 

Introducing Community Prevention to Key Leaders 

A number of community collaborative groups existed in Easton at the time it learned about the Title V 

opportunity. One of these groups was the Pro-Kids Alliance of Easton, an informal group of children’s 

service agencies sponsored by the wife of the Lafayette College president. The director of the ProJeCt of 

Easton, a member of the Pro-Kids Alliance, introduced the Title V opportunity to the group in mid-1996 

and solicited support. From this effort arose Easton’s Title V initiative. 

Prevention Policy Board 

In Easton, the prevention policy board is known as the Northampton County Communities That Care 

Prevention Board. The board came into existence in 1996 in order to undertake the Title V process. Key 

community leaders and prevention board members attended the three-stage Title V/CTC training series 

to prepare for the Title V initiative. A community mobilizer manages the board. This person is 

responsible for convening meetings, setting agendas, taking and distributing minutes, and maintaining 

contact with members between meetings. The overall structure and functions of the Title V/CTC 

prevention board are as follows: 

• The key leaders group. This group consists of six members identified as leaders in the community, 

such as the school superintendent, the county executive, and a state representative. Although they do 

not meet regularly, these members are called on as needed. 

• The executive committee. This group is composed of selected members of the prevention board, 

including all committee chairs. It provides overall policy guidance for the Communities That Care 

process, reviews and approves the initiative’s budgets and quarterly reports, and sets agendas for 

prevention board meetings. 

• The prevention board. This board consists of approximately 25 to 30 members, primarily public 

and private nonprofit service agency representatives. Other collaborative groups, the faith 

community, the police department, juvenile probation, the hospital, a local college, and youth are 

also represented. The board oversees all of the Title V/CTC programs, reviewing the program 

activities and offering suggestions. At the end of the third year, there were 29 active prevention 

board members; more than half of them had been involved in the board for the full 3 years. 

• Program committees. Committees were formed for each program implemented. Each committee 

chair participates in the larger prevention board and the executive committee. In general, the 

committees propose ideas and provide guidance for program activities, and the community mobilizer 

coordinates the actual work. 

The prevention board maintained the same structure and functions throughout the Title V grant period. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 134 
Community Prevention Training 

In November 1996, a team of five key community leaders went to the Key Leader Orientation in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Teams of people were also sent to Risk and Resource Assessment and 

Promising Approaches trainings. Staff in the community mobilizer position have attended all three 

trainings as well. They have also participated in a series of trainings entitled “Training the Trainer,” a 

series of community organizer trainings, and a Search Institute training on the 40 assets. 

Factors That Influenced Mobilization and Collaboration 

Overall, prevention policy board members felt that Title V/CTC has been the first truly successful 

collaborative group in Easton. This group has sustained itself and seems to have achieved lasting, 

positive relationships among agencies whose staff participate. Although some members struggled to 

identify why this effort has succeeded when others have failed, others offered some insight. 

Some stakeholders mentioned that a facilitating factor may have been the early training received by key 

community leaders that provided step-by-step guidance in how to conduct such an effort. Others 

discussed the timing as another facilitating factor. Before the onset of Title V/CTC, a local hospital had 

tried to convene a community collaborative group that was unsuccessful. Some members felt that people 

had been frustrated by this and were determined to do it right this time. Another factor identified as 

critical to the board’s success was the community mobilizer position. One stakeholder stated, “As far as 

having a mobilizer position, I think it’s been the very pin to holding the whole effort together . . . . I 

don’t think the board could have stayed together without a central person.” Finally, another facilitating 

factor may have been the structure of the group; having regular meetings with agendas and minutes 

provided a “sense of order” and continuity. 

The primary challenging factor identified was the demand on board members’ time. One member stated 

“It’s hard for them to justify spending their time doing this when they have their own agencies to run, 

understandably so.” Although the board has continued its functions throughout the Title V grant period, 

there have been periods of more and periods of less momentum. 

Initial Assessment and Planning 

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

a comprehensive 3-year delinquency prevention plan. The assessment and planning activities for the 

Title V/CTC initiative in Northampton County during the planning phase in 1996 and 1997 are 

described below. 

Planning for Title V and Communities That Care began in the late summer of 1996. Community teams 

attended the series of required trainings in late 1996 and early 1997. There they received information 

and manuals about the Communities That Care process. A planning grant of $25,000 was requested and 

received for February through June of 1997. Meeting minutes from the planning period indicate that the 

prevention board focused on expanding the membership of the group, conducting a risk and resource 

assessment, and selecting strategies to implement. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 135 
Board members conducted the initial assessment and wrote the comprehensive plan—the Title V grant 

application—in 1997. They gathered data from child services agencies and incorporated data from the 

Easton Youth Survey to measure all 19 risk factors identified in the Title V model. Using these data, 

they selected a number of strategies to address unmet needs. The director of the ProJeCt of Easton, a 

local nonprofit human services agency, took the lead in the planning/grant writing process. 

Identifying Risk Factors, Resources, and Prevention Programs 

Based on data gathered during the assessment process, four risk factors were identified: availability of 

drugs, extreme economic deprivation, early initiation of problem behaviors, and family management 

problems. Two of these were selected as priority risk factors for the Title V initiative: early initiation of 

problem behaviors and family management problems. 

Two of the indicators discussed in the risk and resource assessment for early initiation of problem 

behaviors were: 

• The school dropout rate was 3.8 percent in the 1994–95 school year; this was the 13th highest rate 

out of 501 school districts in Pennsylvania. 

• Seventeen youth ages 10–14 were arrested for violence and 4 for alcohol or other drug crimes in 

1992. 

The indicators discussed in the risk and resource assessment for family management problems included: 

• A 13-percent increase in the number of out-of-home placements from 1990 through 1995. 

• A total of 154 runaways in 1996. 

In addition to identifying the priority risk factors using objective data, the board also listed existing 

programs addressing the issues and identified gaps in services based on geographical location of the 

services, demographics of the targeted populations, and the targeted domains (community, family, 

school, and individual/peer). 

Developing a Comprehensive Prevention Plan 

Easton’s Title V grant application served as its comprehensive prevention plan. The application 

proposed to hire a director to oversee the prevention efforts. Based on the data from the needs and 

resource assessment, strategies were then selected to address the unmet needs. 

The strategies identified in the Title V grant application to address the risk factor of early initiation of 

problem behaviors were: 

• Peer tutoring, for which the initiative intended to employ “America Reads” and expand existing 

peer tutoring opportunities to make the service available to all students in the Easton Area School 

District. This strategy is based on a promising approach. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 136 
• Adopt A Class, in which the services would be targeted to all fifth graders in the Easton Area 

School District. These services included wraparound services, involving students in tobacco 

compliance checks being conducted by the Coalition for a Smoke Free Valley, and other strategies to 

be developed. This strategy is loosely based on a promising approach. 

• Opportunities for policymaking and monitoring, which included developing a community 

awareness campaign to promote alternatives to child abuse, establishing “drug free” playground 

zones, and maintaining block watch groups. 

The objectives for these strategies were to decrease early use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; 

decrease the rate of early sexual activity; decrease the rate of early school dropout; and decrease the 

number of arrests of juveniles related to alcohol, other drugs, and violence. 

The strategies selected to address the risk factor of family management problems were: 

• Snuglies, which involves giving all mothers of newborns in the Easton area a softcloth baby carrier 

to enhance bonding between mother and child (a Promising Approach). 

• Teen parenting classes, to teach parenting skills to adolescent parents. 

• Interactive Reading and Playtime, which encourages parents to read and play with their children 

(based on a promising approach). 

• Educating Children for Parenting, which teaches “young children the skills needed to be caring 

individuals and nurturing adults.” 

The objectives for these strategies were to decrease the rate of child abuse and neglect; decrease the 

number of children living outside their families; and decrease the number of runaways. 

Factors That Influenced Assessment and Planning 

Overall, the Easton Title V/CTC initiative’s assessment and planning process was consistent with the 

Title V model. The initiative conducted a data-based needs assessment and listed existing resources 

available to meet identified needs. This information led to identification of priority risk factors that were 

not being adequately addressed, and selected strategies to address those factors. 

A key facilitating factor was the participation of board members in gathering, analyzing, and reporting 

data. A key challenging factor was a lack of cooperation from some agencies in providing necessary 

data. One board member spoke about agency staffs’ fear of publicizing data that might be viewed 

negatively. That member also mentioned that before strong relationships had been developed among 

agencies, some agency staffs did not put forth much effort to assist in the data collection process. As the 

prevention board’s reputation grew, and as trust developed among the agencies, these factors have been 

minimized. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 137 
Implementation of Prevention Efforts 

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

identifying and leveraging other resources for prevention. The remainder of this section describes the 

implementation process for the Title V/CTC initiative in Northampton County from 1998 through 2000. 

The city of Easton was the official Title V applicant, and the lead agency was the ProJeCt of Easton 

(whose director led the planning efforts), a local nonprofit human services agency. Northampton County 

was awarded a 3-year Title V grant for the period February 1998–January 2001 in the amount of 

$168,000. This was matched by $100,545 in local funds for a total budget of $268,545. In Northampton 

County, the initiative funded by Title V was identified as the Communities That Care initiative. The 

initiative did not identify with the term “Title V.” 

The Northampton County Title V/CTC initiative is summarized in project documents as follows: 

Title V Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Funds through the Pennsylvania Commission 

on Crime and Delinquency will support a full-time project director who is responsible for 

the organizing efforts of the prevention board. It is anticipated that the organizing efforts 

will lead to a more effective use of current local resources and will be able to attract and 

effectively utilize additional funding. Also, this position will provide outcome-based 

evaluations for current drug, alcohol and delinquency prevention efforts. 

This approach seems to be based on the community mobilization strategy described in Communities 

That Care’s promising approaches training manual, although this is not explicitly stated in project 

documents. 

The project director, known in Easton as the community mobilizer, coordinated the implementation of 

the entire Title V initiative. The prevention board was also integrally involved in this phase. Program 

committees provided both guidance and assistance to the designated programs, while the full prevention 

board provided general oversight for all programs. The following sections describe the activities of the 

community mobilizer and the prevention strategies that were implemented. 

Community Mobilizer 

The Northampton County Title V/CTC initiative centered around the position of the community 

mobilizer. This position carried out functions related to: 

• Board management, including recruiting members, preparing agendas and meeting minutes, and 

facilitating meetings. 

• Program collaboration, including representing Title V/CTC on other community coalitions. 

• Program coordination, including sharing Title V/CTC risk and resource assessment data with other 

agencies to facilitate better program planning. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 138 
• Program activities, including overseeing all Title V/CTC programs and assisting with various 

program tasks. 

• Public relations, including writing press releases and creating brochures. 

• Evaluation, including gathering data and consulting with the evaluation contractors. 

The first community mobilizer worked in the position from March 1998 (one month after the award) 

through March 1999 and remained a member of the prevention board afterward. The second worked in 

the position from March 1999 to April 2000, remained as a member of the prevention board, and has 

returned periodically to work part-time on the Adopt A Class project. The third community mobilizer 

(formerly a Title V program staff member) took the position in May 2000 and has remained since then. 

Prevention Strategies 

The Northampton County community proposed to implement a number of prevention strategies to 

address identified risk factors. Not all planned activities were implemented, and one activity that had not 

been originally planned was implemented. An implementation timeline and descriptions of their 

programs are presented in figure 5.3. 

Figure 5.3: Implementation Timeline for Title V Programs in Northampton County 

Programs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 

Community policing (other/unplanned) 

Interactive Reading and Playtime 

Snuglies 

Adopt A Class 

Educating Children for Parenting 

Interactive Reading and Playtime 

Interactive Reading and Playtime included two components: communitywide, 1-day events and Project 

L.E.A.P. Services began within a few months of receiving the grant award and were generally 

implemented as planned. 

Three communitywide, 1-day events were held between June 1998 and March 2000. These events were 

implemented with the cooperation of many agencies and businesses that donated staff time, money, 

materials, and gifts. The events were free to area residents and focused on providing interactive 

activities for parents and children. Each event served between 100 and 150 participants, for a total of 

300 to 450 participants. Project L.E.A.P., which stands for Literacy Embraced Actively by Preschoolers, 

comprised two three-event series held between the fall of 1998 and the summer of 2000. These events 

were targeted toward children in local daycare centers, primarily those that serve lower income 

residents. Books were given to the children, and fun activities were provided. Each event served 

between 25 and 45 preschoolers, for a total of 150 to 270 participants. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 139 
Snuglies 

Two community clinics began distributing Snugli baby carriers to mothers of newborns in early 1999, 1 

year after receipt of the grant. That spring, the manufacturer recalled the product due to a defect. New 

Snuglies were received, and distribution began again near the end of 1999. Approximately 140 Snuglies 

were distributed altogether. 

Adopt A Class 

Adopt A Class is the largest of the Title V/CTC programs in Easton. It did not begin providing services, 

though, until the fall of 1999, more than a year and a half after the award was received. The program 

provided services to almost all fifth graders in one of the public middle schools during the 1999–2000 

school year, and has continued providing services to this Class of 2007. The intent is to follow through 

with them through graduation from high school. 

The largest component of Adopt A Class has been group mentoring for all students in the Class of 2007 

for one class period per week. Volunteer mentors are recruited from community businesses, churches, 

social services agencies, and the general population. The Lehigh Valley Coalition for Children 

developed the Adopt A Class mentoring curriculum based on the Search Institute’s Developmental 

Assets. During the first year of the program (the second year of the Title V grant), approximately 450 

students in 25 classrooms were served. This model continued in the second year when the students were 

in sixth grade. 

Peer Tutoring 

In 1999, it was reported that Peer Tutoring, rather than being a separate program, would be considered a 

component of Adopt A Class. This did not occur during the Title V grant period, but occurred later. No 

mention has been made of involving the students in tobacco compliance checks as indicated in the grant 

application. 

Educating Children for Parenting 

Educating Children for Parenting is a pre-designed curriculum that involves teaching young students 

about child development to encourage them to grow up to be nurturing adults. Parents with infants are 

recruited as volunteers to visit classrooms once per month to talk about the development of their infants 

and the care required to raise them appropriately. Classroom teachers also incorporate these issues into 

other classroom activities. The curriculum was first used in one elementary school in the third year of 

the Title V grant, serving approximately 180 children in 10 kindergarten and first grade classrooms. 

Other Strategies 

Although not mentioned in the grant application, community policing was discussed in quarterly reports 

as a Title V/CTC activity during the first year of the grant period. The community mobilizer sat on a 

board meant to coordinate and publicize community policing efforts and helped organize and host a 

community forum to discuss this issue in early 1999. After that, however, no further mention was made. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 140 
Interviews indicate that the city mayor took this project under his auspices and no longer requested 

involvement from others. 

Although Teen Parenting and Opportunities for Policymaking had been identified as strategies in the 

grant application, no activities occurred in these areas during the project’s first year. Early in 1999, the 

timelines were revised to indicate that those activities would begin in the spring of that year, but nothing 

more happened. In the fall of 1999, the prevention board recommended postponing Teen Parenting 

indefinitely due to the demands of the work on the existing initiatives. Also in the fall of 1999, the 

committee chair of the Interactive Reading and Playtime program indicated that beginning some of the 

opportunities for policymaking activities during the third year had been considered; however, no 

activities occurred. 

Identifying and Leveraging Other Resources for Prevention 

Matching funds for Title V came from a variety of agencies, including the ProJeCt of Easton, 

Northampton County Children and Youth Services, Northampton County Drug and Alcohol Services, 

the Coalition for a Smoke-Free Valley, and the Easton Area School District. In addition, a Pennsylvania 

Commission on Crime and Delinquency grant was obtained to hire a mentor coordinator for Adopt A 

Class, and another commission grant under the Blueprints for Violence Prevention funded a life skills 

training program, which complements the Adopt A Class services, at the middle school. 

Factors That Influenced Implementation of Prevention Strategies 

Northampton County’s experience with implementing strategies was fairly consistent with the Title V 

model. Although some strategies were research-based and some were not, all selected strategies were 

designed to meet unique needs as identified in the assessment. They implemented a combination of a 

system-level strategy (the community mobilizer) with direct programs to address both the coordination 

of services and to provide needed services. The following information discusses the factors that 

facilitated and hindered the community mobilizer’s efforts and the initiative prevention strategies. 

Universally, stakeholders mentioned the community mobilizer position as a primary factor in the 

successful implementation of the programs. “None of this would have happened if we hadn’t had a 

community mobilizer.” 

One community mobilizer stated that key facilitating factors were the support of the lead agency and the 

prevention board’s executive committee. “The administrative agency and the leadership here and the 

support and flexibility here to accommodate what I need, for me, has been the best factor to getting my 

job done.” 

One factor mentioned by board members that may have affected the efforts of the community mobilizer 

was the turnover in this position. They stated that some disruptions in work flow occurred, but otherwise 

the transitions were actually quite smooth. The fact that former community mobilizers have remained 

involved in the project has provided continuity and is seen as a testament to the dedication people feel to 

the Communities That Care process. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 141 
One challenging factor mentioned by some staff and prevention board members was the idea that the 

scope of proposed activities was too ambitious. Not all of the proposed activities were implemented, and 

many felt that to be successful, the resources of the initiative should be focused on a few of the most 

promising strategies. In addition to all of the planned activities, one community mobilizer said she was 

also presented with opportunities for other interesting projects: “. . . there’s so much fun stuff happening 

and I’d say ‘Yeah, I’d love to do that.’ And then . . . I’ve got to keep coming back to the focus . . . . And 

saying ‘Now, what are the prioritized things I want to do?’” 

Factors identified as facilitating the success of the programs included adequate funding and community 

support, the latter of which was identified as particularly meaningful. Adopt A Class (and, to a lesser 

extent, Interactive Reading and Playtime and Educating Children for Parenting) relied heavily on 

volunteers and collaboration among agencies. These efforts resulted in widespread support for the 

programs. 

The support of the school administration was mentioned as a particularly important factor in the success 

of Adopt A Class and Educating Children for Parenting—two school-based programs. Speaking about 

Adopt A Class, one key stakeholder stated: 

the positive involvement of the school district from day one . . . . From the top down, the 

superintendent, the director of pupil services, building-level principals, guidance 

departments—all at the table. That kind of commitment to staff time for this project has 

been unheard of. Years ago, . . . the school district’s philosophy was “We’re here to 

educate the students. You social service types are over here to do your work” . . . So 

we’ve seen a complete turn about with that. 

Challenging factors related to program implementation included mobilizing community support and 

logistics. Although they were ultimately quite successful in recruiting the necessary community 

volunteers and agency collaborators for the programs, community mobilizers stated that this effort 

initially required significant time and effort. In addition, coordinating the logistics for all of the 

programs proved challenging—scheduling meetings and events, obtaining needed resources and staff 

support, marketing the programs, and other logistical issues proved to be very complex tasks. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation activities include conducting an evaluation of prevention strategies and of the 

whole initiative, and reassessing community indicators. The processes for the Title V/CTC initiative in 

Northampton County from 1998 through 2000 are described below. 

The Easton Title V/CTC prevention board, lead agency, and community mobilizers were very 

supportive of evaluation efforts. Using matching funds from the Title V lead agency, the Easton Title 

V/CTC initiative contracted with two local evaluators in October 1998. The evaluation activities focused 

on the specific programs being implemented rather than on the entire process. The evaluators worked 

with the prevention board and the community mobilizer to develop program evaluation plans and 

instruments and did some analysis of survey results. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 142 
Monitoring and Evaluating Program Activities 

Overall, attempts at program evaluation involved setting objectives and gathering and analyzing data. A 

description of the evaluation efforts for the programs implemented as part of the Title V/CTC initiative 

follows. 

Interactive Reading and Playtime 

No evaluations were conducted on the communitywide 1-day events, but process evaluations were 

conducted for the Project L.E.A.P. activities. These surveys found that all children who were given a 

book liked the book, read the book with their parents, and would like to read the book again. 

Snuglies 

Five goals had been set for the Snugli program. These goals were evaluated using postcard surveys 

delivered to the participants. Data were collected during three quarters (January–March 1999, April– 

June 1999, and January–March 2000). Four of the five goals were generally achieved. The results were 

as follows: 

• Goal: 90 percent of infants in the program will not visit the hospital emergency room. 

Result: Between 60 and 77 percent of the infants did not visit the emergency room. 

• Goal: 95 percent of infants in the program will not be admitted to the hospital. 

Result: Between 94 and 100 percent were not admitted. 

• Goal: 95 percent of infants in the program will have appropriate height, weight, and head 

circumference measures. 

Result: Between 93 and 100 percent had appropriate measures. 

• Goal: 80 percent of infants in the program will have appropriate Early & Periodic Screening, 

Diagnosis & Treatment (EPSDT) exams. 

Result: Between 87 and 100 percent had appropriate exams. 

• Goal: 80 percent of infants in the program will have appropriate immunizations. 

Result: Between 83 and 100 percent had appropriate immunizations. 

Additional questions were asked during the last quarter of measurement. In this survey, 82 percent of 

mothers reported they felt closer to their newborn due to the Snugli use, and 50 percent of mothers with 

more than one child reported that they felt a difference in the level of closeness to the baby due to Snugli 

use. 

Adopt A Class 

Most evaluation resources were dedicated to the Adopt A Class program. The prevention board set 

desired outcomes for Adopt A Class in May 1999. There were 15 goals in all, including decreased 

suspension, expulsion, and dropout rates; decreased alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; decreased teen 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 143 
pregnancy and juvenile violence; increased youth asset counts; increased student achievement scores; 

increased levels of extracurricular and community activities; increased attendance rates; and increased 

parental involvement in the children’s education. 

In January 2001, near the end of the Title V grant period, a number of data collection activities were 

conducted that provided some evidence of the Adopt A Class program’s success. These included 

implementation of the Pennsylvania Youth Survey and data from schools’ grade, attendance, and 

volunteer activity records. Results included: 

• Adopt A Class participants, during their fifth and sixth grade years, had fewer absences and higher 

GPAs compared to students in the same grade who did not participate in the program. 

• Adopt A Class participants, during their sixth grade year, had higher GPAs than students from the 

previous sixth grade year, but they had more absences than the previous sixth grade students. 

• Students who had participated in Adopt A Class for 2 years scored better on three measures of 

community involvement compared with students who had participated in the program for 1 year: a 

higher proportion of 2-year participants were doing volunteer work in the community, participating 

in community activities, and participating in sports activities. 

• The Class of 2007 (which is served by Adopt A Class) scored lower on seven measures of antisocial 

activity in the Easton Youth Survey compared with the Class of 2006. These measures were the 

proportion of students who had attacked someone with intent to harm them, had been drunk or high 

at school, sold drugs, used marijuana, used tobacco, used alcohol, and been suspended from school. 

In addition to these results, the math and reading scores from the Pennsylvania System of School 

Assessment test for the Class of 2007 were the highest in the past 5 years, and the participating middle 

school received a monetary award from the state for significantly increased attendance rates for the 

Class of 2007. Although these two accomplishments cannot be directly linked to the Adopt A Class 

program, they are notable achievements that may be related. 

Educating Children for Parenting 

No outcomes were set for this program during the Title V grant period. The long-term objectives are to 

decrease violence and increase sensitivity among youth. 

Ongoing Assessment 

In 2000, the community mobilizer gathered data to update the community needs and resources 

assessment for use in a continuation grant application. This was a considerable effort for one person, but 

it has provided the community with more current data regarding the needs of its youth. The findings 

from this effort resulted in the same priority risk factors being selected as were identified in the 1997 

assessment, namely family management problems and early initiation of problem behaviors. The 

rationale for these selections is stated in the continuation grant application: 

As CTC training sessions and personal experience make us aware, risk factors are not 

easily addressed in a few years. The process of identifying, addressing and reducing risk 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 144 
factors—while improving protection factors—can be a long-term one. With this in mind, 

and with the risk and resource data presented herein, the community has identified the 

same risk factors as it did in its 1997 assessment. 

In addition to this effort, data gathered from the Pennsylvania Youth Survey have provided the Easton 

Title V/CTC initiative with valuable information for use in ongoing program planning. 

Community-Reported Impacts 

Although no local evaluation of the entire Title V/CTC evaluation was conducted, interviews with 

stakeholders revealed their perspectives about the initiative’s impact on the community. Almost all 

prevention board members that were interviewed said the most exciting aspect of the initiative has been 

the success in achieving true collaboration, in contrast to earlier, failed attempts. They talked about how 

board members have set aside their turf issues and have truly acted as a collective body to address the 

common concerns and issues of Communities That Care. Members said agency staff are more likely to 

consult with one another when developing new programs. One board member stated “the singular best 

thing that having a prevention board did for Easton was to eliminate the sense of isolation that the 

individual member agencies would have had . . . . Definitely now there is a sense that the community 

has to do it all together or none of it is going to work.” 

Stakeholders also reported higher levels of collaboration among agencies (especially the schools) and 

community members, primarily due to the involvement of community volunteers in the Adopt A Class 

and Educating Children for Parenting programs. They felt that Communities That Care was key to 

encouraging the school system’s commitment to community involvement. One stakeholder stated the 

new spirit of collaboration this way: 

I really strongly think that Communities That Care has changed this community in the 

way people work together . . . . “Let’s help each other.” I think the mentality has 

changed. Which is big. I think that’s really, really big. And that’s the single biggest thing 

I think Communities That Care has done, is really the way people work together here. 

Members who attended Title V/CTC trainings felt they were very helpful not only in teaching 

participants about the Title V model, but in encouraging commitment to it. One member stated “The 

board members . . . who went to any of those trainings or got involved in that early process understand 

what we’re about a lot more and are more likely to be involved. So those trainings are important.” 

Some stakeholders also discussed the impact of the assessment activities. They stated that more agencies 

are now using data to target programs to identified needs. For example, the YMCA reviewed data from 

Title V/CTC’s needs assessment and determined that youth leadership activities were needed to address 

gaps in services. A number of stakeholders mentioned that staff in local agencies are increasingly aware 

of the value of needs assessments and are requesting the data gathered by the prevention board. One 

person stated: 

Several times people have called us for [the data] because they’re beginning to 

understand that . . . assessing the problems within your community and then addressing 

those is the way that is going to be most effective . . . . People use it. People ask for it a 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 145 
lot . . . . They’re using it for grant applications . . . . And people want to share their own 

now. 

One prevention board member reported that data gathered through the board were a facilitating factor in 

the successful citywide Weed & Seed grant application, some funds of which are supporting 

continuation of Title V strategies. 

Factors That Influenced Evaluation and Monitoring 

The Easton Title V/CTC staff and board members have expressed considerable interest in conducting 

meaningful program evaluations. They have made attempts to do so, but have struggled. One 

community mobilizer stated that, in retrospect, one thing that should have been done differently is to 

have stronger program evaluation strategies from the beginning—it has been difficult to document 

program achievements without strong evaluations from the start: “A lot of concern about evaluation, 

actually. That was a big one. We were having trouble deciding proper evaluation for a lot of our 

programs . . . . We wish we could do better.” 

The local evaluators were helpful in accomplishing the program evaluation activities. Their assistance 

was sought in planning for program evaluations, designing survey instruments, and gathering and 

analyzing data. 

One of the key factors facilitating the reassessment of communitywide risk factors was the strengthening 

of cooperation among agencies and the relationship between the prevention board and local agencies. 

The community mobilizer who completed the updated needs and resource assessment spoke of how easy 

it was for her to obtain data in comparison to the difficulties the earlier effort had posed: 

when I called the chief of police and left a message on his machine saying “Could you 

please get these and give me a call back and tell me what officer to speak with?” . . . . he 

had it for me within two days. I spoke to the woman who did the original risk and 

resource assessment. She said it took her five months to get the information from the 

police. They didn’t know us . . . . Now they have it ready . . . . So I had several instances 

like that where people understood why we wanted the data now, and they didn’t think it 

was so much of a hassle to find it for us. 

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. Northampton County’s experiences with institutionalization during 2001, the 

first year after the termination of their Title V grant, are described below. 

Status of Institutionalization 

The Title V/CTC initiative has continued in Northampton County with funding from two grants: a 2­

year grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency through the Governor’s 

Partnership for Children and a 3-year grant from the Weed & Seed initiative. These grants fund the 

community mobilizer position, the Adopt A Class program, and Educating Children for Parenting. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 146 
The prevention board, as it continues beyond the Title V grant, is embarking on a strategic planning 

process to focus its efforts. It is becoming more structured and is developing bylaws to govern itself. In 

addition, the prevention board committees are being restructured to address each of the four domains: 

community, school, family, and individual/peer. 

In general, board members felt that the process was firmly grounded and would continue to play an 

integral role in the community’s prevention efforts. One key community member stated, “From every 

sense I have from watching them in action, I don’t see any signs of cracks. I see them still working 

together in the next year, 2 years, 3 years, whatever.” 

As noted, the community mobilizer position, the Adopt A Class program, and the Educating Children 

for Parenting program have continued beyond the Title V grant period with two additional grants. The 

community mobilizer position continues to function in much the same way it did during the Title V 

grant period—managing the prevention board, overseeing the programs, facilitating evaluation efforts, 

and reaching out to the community. The two continuation programs were selected based on their support 

in the community and their perceived potential for success. The prevention board elected not to seek 

funding to continue the other programs because it was unsure those programs were effective. It also 

believed that resources were better spent focusing on fewer programs. The two programs that were 

chosen have continued at the same level of implementation, and both have the potential for expansion as 

new funds are sought. 

Evaluation of the Adopt A Class program is expected to continue with data gathered from school records 

and periodic youth surveys. With a grant from the Pugh Trust Fund, the Educating Children for 

Parenting program may be a pilot site for evaluation through the Educating Children for Parenting 

national organization. 

Communitywide needs assessments continue with assistance from Lafayette College, a local university. 

The prevention board and a professor at the college have entered into an agreement through which 

students will gather and analyze data as part of their educational activities, and the prevention board will 

assist with this process and with reporting the data. In addition, the school district is now paying for and 

administering the youth survey, which also provides critical data for the assessment. All of these 

activities are coordinated by the community mobilizer. 

Factors That Influenced Institutionalization 

Overall, Easton has successfully institutionalized its Title V/CTC initiative. One key factor in this 

success is the collaboration among agencies. Stakeholders have said that agencies are more interested in 

working together and are more supportive of one another. This has impacted institutionalization of all of 

the phases. For example: 

• The prevention board is continuing with commitment from many local agency staff. 

• The assessment and planning activities are continuing with assistance from a local university. 

• The implementation strategies are continuing with support from the schools, the original Title V lead 

agency, and members of the prevention board. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 147 
• Evaluation activities are continuing with more efficiency due to cooperation from local agencies in 

gathering data. 

Another key to institutionalization is the community mobilizer position. This person is responsible for 

coordinating all activities, which many feel would not continue without this central person. 

Funding has been identified as both a challenging and a facilitating factor. Considerable time and energy 

have been required to prepare grant applications to fund continuation, but the success of those 

applications has resulted in two primary continuation grants that are key to institutionalization. 

Interpretation 

Examining Easton’s approaches to implementing the Title V model reveals that they were successful 

overall. Easton has displayed commitment to comprehensive delinquency prevention planning and 

services and has modified its approaches as needed. It has demonstrated successes in all phases of the 

model. The challenges were primarily in the areas of implementation and evaluation. 

Easton’s commitment to delinquency prevention planning is firmly rooted in the Communities That 

Care approach. Easton identified the Title V initiative as its Communities That Care initiative. This is 

not surprising in that the state of Pennsylvania’s support is fully based on the Communities That Care 

training curriculum. 

The process of community mobilization conducted by the Easton Title V/CTC initiative closely aligns 

with the Title V model. It successfully recruited key community leaders, human services agency staff, 

and others to participate in the initiative, and have continued the mobilization process by modifying the 

activities of the board as the initiative evolved. Members felt that this board and this process of planning 

and coordinating prevention activities had gained solid footing in the community and would continue to 

be an integral part of Easton’s delinquency prevention efforts. 

Of all the factors facilitating the success of the prevention board mentioned by community stakeholders, 

the one that stands out is the role of the community mobilizer. This position has been crucial in 

maintaining the board as an active, engaged group. Underlying this factor, though, are others that seem 

to have also been instrumental. The mobilizer’s efforts may have been facilitated by the early training 

provided to board members—it provided guidance in how to engage in community planning activities. 

Although not all members participated in training, there seems to have been a “culture” among the group 

that involved commitment to the process. Another factor that may have been influential is the ongoing 

role of the board in program implementation. Board members had ongoing responsibilities to guide and 

oversee the strategies and that may have provided them with a sense of purpose and involvement. 

The board experienced periods of both activity and inactivity; however, it has have been able to rekindle 

interest and momentum to continue its work. The board has been involved in the Title V initiative since 

its inception, including assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation, and institutionalization. There 

seems to be enough commitment to this process to overcome challenges and continue these efforts for 

the foreseeable future. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 148 
The Easton community seems to have been quite successful in its assessment and planning activities. Its 

initial needs assessment was objective and thorough. The initial plan (the Title V grant application) was 

solidly based on the priority risk factors and included a number of strategies for promising approaches. 

Easton also updated its community needs assessment 3 years after the first one was completed for the 

Title V grant. 

Factors that may have influenced its success in this area include its commitment to data-based 

assessment and community planning, and the relationships built among agencies through the prevention 

board. The prevention board, Title V lead agency, and community mobilizers seem to understand the 

value of documenting needs using objective data, and they have dedicated the necessary resources to do 

so. This commitment may have begun with the initial training sessions and the community’s subsequent 

dedication to the Communities That Care approach. Updating the necessary data was made easier by the 

relationships developed among local agencies through their participation in the Title V/CTC initiative. 

This experience is consistent with the Title V model’s assumption that mobilizing community members 

to gain “buy-in” for the process will facilitate planning efforts. Agency staffs initially had little to do 

with one another and were reluctant to share their data. After working together for a time on common 

issues (through the prevention board), and coming to understand the value of assessment and to trust the 

people leading the assessment efforts to use the data responsibly, agency staffs willingly shared their 

information. 

The Easton Title V initiative enjoyed some successes and challenges with its implementation strategies. 

The employment of a community mobilizer to coordinate the work of the board and oversee the 

programs proved to be very successful. Interviews with board members and community mobilizers have 

indicated that this position has been critical to the success of the initiative. Without it, many do not feel 

that the work would have been accomplished to the degree that it was. It is interesting to note that the 

state recognized the value of the community mobilizer position and began directing its planning grants 

to this strategy. 

One of the primary challenges related to the implementation strategies was the number and complexity 

of programs initially planned. The Title V application identified seven strategies. Only one was begun in 

the first year (Interactive Reading and Playtime); two in the second year (Adopt A Class and Snuglies), 

and one in the third year (Educating Children for Parenting). Two strategies were never implemented 

(Teen Parenting and Opportunities for Policymaking and Monitoring), and one was somewhat 

incorporated into another (Peer Tutoring became a part of Adopt A Class in the year after the Title V 

grant period ended). The result is that the initiative had much less time than 3 years to establish its 

programs, refine its implementation designs, and measure success before it had to start seeking 

additional funding. In retrospect, stakeholders felt that they should not have attempted to implement so 

many programs because they were not able to devote the needed resources and efforts toward any one of 

them. 

In spite of this challenge, two of the programs have gained strong footing—Adopt A Class and 

Educating Children for Parenting. Both are school-based programs, and strong relationships with the 

schools have repeatedly been mentioned as a strength of the initiative. Both also involve recruitment of 

volunteers from the community, which has helped them gain community support. The Title V/CTC 

prevention board is committed to these two programs and is willing to focus its efforts on facilitating 

their success. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 149 
The evaluation component of the Title V model posed some of the greatest challenges for the Easton 

initiative. Challenges included the following: 

• The lack of an evaluation plan for Educating Children for Parenting and the Interactive Reading and 

Playtime communitywide events. 

• The lack of meaningful outcomes for the Interactive Reading and Playtime Project L.E.A.P. 

activities. 

• Difficulties in measuring outcomes for Snuglies. 

• Difficulties in establishing realistic, measurable outcomes for all programs. 

One factor underlying these challenges may be a lack of resources due to the implementation of too 

many programs. Because the initiative had so many programs, it was difficult to provide resources to 

evaluate all of them. Evaluation efforts were primarily focused on the Adopt A Class program, which is 

the only one to produce meaningful, fairly reliable outcomes. 

The primary challenges in evaluating the Adopt A Class program seem to be the high number and 

ambitiousness of the goals. Fifteen goals were identified, covering a wide range of expected behavior 

changes. Obtaining all the necessary data has been difficult, and linking the program activities to 

observed changes has been challenging. 

Although the Easton initiative struggled with program evaluation, it seems to have had success in 

monitoring risk factors and delinquent behaviors on a larger scale. The efforts of the community 

mobilizer, the school’s commitment to conducting the youth survey, and local agencies’ willingness to 

share data all contributed to Easton’s ability to update data on its risk factor indicators. A commitment to 

data-based needs and resource assessment is also a core factor. 

The Easton Title V/CTC initiative has been successfully institutionalized, although it continues to be 

funded with time-limited grant funds. The prevention board continues and is evolving to meet newly 

identified needs. The assessment and planning (and evaluation) activities have been strengthened by a 

collaborative relationship with a local university. And its implementation efforts have been streamlined 

to focus on the community mobilizer and two promising programs. These processes seem to be firmly 

ingrained as Easton’s delinquency prevention approach; the only apparent threat seems to be a possible 

loss of funding. It appears that the community’s commitment to the process would withstand even a loss 

of funding. 

Summary 

Overall, Easton has achieved many successes with its Title V/CTC initiative. The community 

mobilizers, Title V lead agency director, and prevention board members seem to truly understand and 

have commitment to the Communities That Care principles. The successes they have experienced are 

encouraging and are an important factor in motivating them to continue their efforts. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 150 
Title V in Pennsylvania: Concluding Remarks 

Overall, the national evaluation of Pennsylvania’s experience implementing the Title V Community 

Prevention Grants program revealed many areas of strength, as well as some areas for improvement. The 

two communities participating in the national evaluation, Fayette and Northampton Counties, provided 

valuable information about community-level implementation of Title V. 

To truly understand Pennsylvania’s experience with Title V, it must be noted that Pennsylvania has 

remained committed to the Communities That Care curriculum for delinquency prevention strategies in 

spite of the federal Title V program’s switch to a different curriculum. In Pennsylvania, Title V is a 

means to fund Communities That Care initiatives in the local communities. 

In general, Pennsylvania’s Title V request for proposals, required training curriculum, and available 

training and technical assistance provide strong foundations for communities’ implementation of Title 

V/CTC initiatives. They set forth clear expectations and provide the necessary guidance for community 

members to learn about and implement the key principles of effective community-based delinquency 

prevention strategies. Both of the participating communities displayed evidence of their understanding 

of, and commitment to, these principles. Although the communities had different levels of success in 

some areas, stakeholders truly believed in the Title V/CTC ideals. Two common areas of success 

between the two communities are: 

• Mobilizing local agency staff and community members to participate in a prevention policy board, 

incorporate Communities That Care principles into program planning, and get involved in local 

prevention activities. 

• Conducting thorough, objective, data-based risk assessments to document needs and identify priority 

risk factors. 

Both communities’ initiatives centered on a coordinator who provided overall guidance and structure. 

This approach was recognized by the state as influencing success, and the state began formally 

supporting it through the use of planning grants to hire a coordinator during the planning phase who 

could continue into the implementation phase. 

Although the two communities had varied levels of success in many areas, these variations seemed to 

largely rest on one key difference: the extent to which they focused or did not focus their efforts on a 

few targeted strategies. The community that narrowed its focus was more successful in implementation, 

evaluation, and institutionalization, whereas the community that did not was much less successful in 

these areas. Targeting efforts to fewer strategies enabled the more successful community to better define 

its initiative, evaluate and identify its successes, and justify the need for continued funding. The state 

may wish to strengthen its monitoring and feedback to communities to assist them in devising realistic 

plans that target their limited resources in a way that maximizes their opportunities for success. 

National Evaluation of the Title V Community Prevention Grants Program—Pennsylvania 151