1 Building Community Collaboration to Promote Healthy Youth Development: Social Development Research...

1

Building Community Collaboration to Building Community Collaboration to Promote Healthy Youth Promote Healthy Youth

Development:Development:

Social Development Research GroupSocial Development Research GroupSchool of Social WorkSchool of Social Work

University of WashingtonUniversity of Washingtonwww.sdrg.org

J. David Hawkins Ph.D.J. David Hawkins Ph.D.

Melissa Institute Melissa Institute May 1, 2008May 1, 2008

http://www.sdrg.org/

2

The Challenge for The Challenge for Community Prevention Community Prevention

•To address those risk factors most prevalent in a community with tested, effective policies and programs.

•To address protective factors most depressed in a community with tested, effective policies and programs that strengthen those protective factors.

3

The The Communities That Communities That CareCare Prevention System Prevention System

• Helps communities apply the advances of prevention science to guide youth development and prevention work.

• Measures community levels of protection and risk by surveying young people.

• Matches the community’s profile of risk and protection with tested, effective programs and policies.

4

The The Communities That Communities That CareCare

Prevention SystemPrevention System• Local control builds ownership to

create sustainable change.

• Focuses on outcomes to insure success: Are fewer teens using drugs? Fewer smoking? Fewer committing violent acts?

5

The CThe Communities That Care ommunities That Care Operating SystemOperating System

Creating Communities

That Care

Get Started

Get Organized

Develop a ProfileCreate a Plan

Implement andEvaluate

6



That Care

Get Started

Get Organized



• Community readiness assessment.

• Identification of key individuals, stakeholders,

and organizations.

7



That Care

Get Started

Get Organized



• Training key leaders and board in CTC

• Building the community coalition.

8



That Care

Get Started

Get Organized



• Collect risk/protective factor and outcome data.

•Collect information on community resources

• Construct a community profile

from the data.

9Diffusion Consortium ProjectSocial Development Research Group, University of Washington

Madison Middle School Risk Profile 8th Grade

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

At

Ris

k

School 2002 District 2002

Community Family School

Survey Participation Rate 2002: 87.4%

2002

Estimated National Value

Peer-Individual

10



That Care

Get Started

Get Organized



• Define outcomes.•Prioritize factors to be

targeted.• Select tested, effective

interventions.• Create action plan.

• Develop evaluation plan.


Addressing Barriers with Addressing Barriers with Effective ActionEffective Action

3-5Early Childhood Education

prenatal-2Prenatal/Infancy Programs

6-14Family Therapy

prenatal-14Parent Training

Family Management Problems

Developmental PeriodProgram Strategy Factor Addressed


Effective Training for Effective Training for Middle School ParentsMiddle School Parents

• Guiding Good Choices (Spoth et al., 1998)• Adolescent Transitions Program (Dishion and

Andrews, 1995)• Parenting Adolescents Wisely (Gordon et al.,

1998)• Creating Lasting Connections (Johnson et al., 1996)• Strengthening Families 10 to 14 Program (Spoth,

1998)• Focus on Families (Catalano et al., 1999; 1997)

13



That Care

Get Started

Get Organized



• Form task forces.• Identify and train

implementers.• Sustain collaborative

relationships.• Evaluate processes and

outcomes.• Adjust programming.

14

What is required to install What is required to install CTC? CTC?

•A coalition of community stakeholders.•A coordinator for the CTC process.•Manuals and curriculum materials.•Training from certified trainers.•Technical assistance when difficulties

are encountered.•A monitoring system to provide routine

feedback on progress and outcomes.

15

CTC TrainingsCTC Trainings

1.1. Key Leader OrientationKey Leader Orientation

2.2. Community Board TrainingCommunity Board Training

3.3. Community Assessment TrainingCommunity Assessment Training

4.4. Community Resource Assessment Community Resource Assessment TrainingTraining

5.5. Community Planning TrainingCommunity Planning Training

6.6. Community Program Implementation Community Program Implementation TrainingTraining

16

Assess risk,

protection and resources

Implement and evaluate

tested prevention strategies

Increase in priority

protective factors

Decrease in priority risk

factors

Increase in positive youth

development

Reduction in problem

behaviors

Vision for a healthy

community

ProcessMeasurable Outcomes

6-9 mos. 1 year 2-5 years 5-10 years

Communities that CareCommunities that CareProcess and TimelineProcess and Timeline

17

The Community Youth The Community Youth Development Study Development Study

(CYDS)(CYDS)

•A 24 community randomized controlled trial to test the Communities That Care system started in 2003.

The Community Youth The Community Youth Development Study TeamDevelopment Study Team

Funded by:National Institute on Drug Abuse

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Cancer Institute

National Institute on Child Health and DevelopmentNational Institute on Mental Health

Robert D. Abbott Michael W. ArthurMegan M. Baldwin John S. Briney Blair Brooke-WeissEric C. BrownRick Cady Richard F. Catalano

Abigail A. FaganJohn GrahamKevin HaggertyKoren HansonJ. David HawkinsDavid M. MurraySabrina OesterleM. Lee Van Horn

19

CYDS State CollaboratorsCYDS State Collaborators

• Colorado Alcohol & Drug Abuse Division • Illinois Division of Community Health &

Prevention • Kansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Services • Maine Office of Substance Abuse • Oregon Office of Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Programs • Utah Division of Substance Use • Washington Division of Alcohol &

Substance Abuse

20

CYDS Primary CYDS Primary AimAim

To test the efficacy of the Communities That Care system in

• reducing levels of risk

• increasing levels of protection

• reducing health and behavior problems among adolescents

using a true experimental design.

21

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized Controlled Trial

2003-2008

Randomize

5-Year Baseline

1997-2002

98 99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02

CKICRD

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Control

Intervention

CTCYS

CKICRD

CKICRD

CKICRD

CKICRD

YDS YDS YDS

CTCBoar

d

CTCBoar

d

CTCBoar

d

CTCBoar

d

CTCBoar

d

CTCYS: Cross-sectional student survey of 6th-, 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students using the CTC Youth SurveyCKI: Community Key Informant InterviewCRD: Community Resource Documentation measuring effective prevention programs and policies in the community CTC Board: CTC Board Member InterviewYDS: Longitudinal Youth Development Survey of students in the class of 2011 starting in 5th grade in spring 2004

Planning Implement selected interventions

CTCYS CTCYS

CTCYS CTCYS CTCYS

CTCYS CTCYS CTCYS

CKICRD

YDSYDS

YDS YDSYDSYDSYDS

22

Demographics of 24 Demographics of 24 CYDS CommunitiesCYDS Communities

Mean Minimum Maximum

Total Population 14,616 1,578 40,787

Percent Caucasian 89.4% 64.0% 98.2%

Percent Hispanic Origin

Percent African-American

Percent Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch

9.6%

2.6%

36.5%

0.5%

0.0%

20.6%

64.7%

21.4%

65.9%

23

Panel-Panel-Youth Development Youth Development

Survey (YDS)Survey (YDS)

• Annual survey of panel recruited from the Class of 2011 (5th grade in 2004)

• Active, written parental consent

24

Youth Development Youth Development SurveySurvey

• Participants recruited in grades 5 and 6.

• Final consent rate = 76.4%

Sixth Grade Eligible Population

Percent Consented

Percent Surveyed

Total Surveyed

Experimental

3170 76.2% 75.4% 2391

Control 2621 76.7% 76.3% 1999Total 5791 76.4% 75.8% 4390

25

2006 YDS2006 YDS

7th Grade Eligible Populatio

n

Percent Surveyed

Total Surveyed

Experimental 2406 95.5% 2298Control 2001 97.0% 1941Total 4407 96.2% 4239

• 96.2% Overall Student Participation• 10.3% (n=454) had moved out of

project schools

26

2007 YDS2007 YDS

8th Grade Eligible Populatio

n

Percent Surveyed

Total Surveyed

Experimental 2406 95.6% 2300Control 2001 96.9% 1940Total 4407 96.2% 4240

• 96.2% Overall Student Participation• 11.9% (n=525) have moved out of

project schools

27

Communities That CareCommunities That CareLogic ModelLogic Model

Adoption of Science-based Prevention Framework

CollaborationRegarding Prevention Issues

Appropriate Choiceand Implementationof Tested, Effective

Prevention Programs & Adoption of Social Development Strategy as Community’s Way of

Bringing Up Children Positive Youth

Outcomes

Decreased Risk and Enhanced Protection

CTC Training and Technical Assistance

28

Adoption of Adoption of Science-Based PreventionScience-Based Prevention

Stage 0:Stage 0: No AwarenessNo Awareness

Stage 1:Stage 1: Awareness of Prevention Science Terms and ConceptsAwareness of Prevention Science Terms and Concepts

Stage 2:Stage 2: Using Risk and Protection Focused Prevention Using Risk and Protection Focused Prevention Approach as a Approach as a Planning Strategy.Planning Strategy.

Stage 3:Stage 3: Incorporation of Community Epidemiological Data on Incorporation of Community Epidemiological Data on Risk and Risk and Protection in Prevention System.Protection in Prevention System.

Stage 4:Stage 4: Selection and Use of Tested and Effective Preventive Selection and Use of Tested and Effective Preventive Interventions to Address Prioritized Interventions to Address Prioritized

Risk and Protective Risk and Protective Factors. Factors.

Stage 5:Stage 5: Collection and Feedback of Process and Outcome Collection and Feedback of Process and Outcome Data and Adjustment of Preventive Data and Adjustment of Preventive

Interventions Based on Data.Interventions Based on Data.Note. Community Key Informant Survey (CKI).

29Stage of Adoption in 2001

Pro

bab

ilit

yBaseline Stages of Adoption Baseline Stages of Adoption

by Intervention Statusby Intervention Status

Control Communities CTC Communities

Note. Community Key Informant Survey (CKI); N = 534; γ001 = .037, SE = .395, df = 20, p > .05 .

30Stage of Adoption in 2004

Pro

bab

ilit

yPost-Intervention Stages of Adoption Post-Intervention Stages of Adoption

by Intervention Statusby Intervention Status


Note. Community Key Informant Survey (CKI); N = 534; γ101 = -1.311, SE = .355, df = 20, p < .002 .

31

Collaboration onCollaboration onPreventionPrevention

• Prevention Collaboration

Assessed by 9 items measuring prevention-specific collaborative activities.

There is a network of people concerned about prevention issues who stay in touch with each other.

Organizations in [community] share money or personnel when addressing prevention issues.

Organizations in [community] participate in joint planning and decision making about prevention issues.

1=strongly agree, 2=somewhat agree, 3=somewhat disagree, 4=strongly disagree

Note. Community Key Informant Survey (CKI).

32

Change in Prevention Collaboration Change in Prevention Collaboration by Intervention Statusby Intervention Status

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

Year

Pre-Int (2001) Post-Int (2004)

Facto

r S

core


Note. Community Key Informant Survey (CKI); N = 530; γ001 = -0.123, SE = .118, df = 20, p > .05; γ101 = 0.237, SE = .094, df = 20, p < .022.

33

Communities That CareCommunities That CareTheory of ChangeTheory of Change






Outcomes



34

Program SelectionProgram Selection CTC Community Board members

selected prevention programs from a menu* of programs that:~ Showed significant effects on

risk/protective factors, and drug use, delinquency, or violence

~ Involved at least one high-quality research study

~ Targeted children or families in grades 5-9~ Provided materials and training

* Communities That Care Prevention Strategies Guide

35

Programs Selected in 2004-Programs Selected in 2004-20072007

PROGRAM 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

All Stars Core 1 1 1

Life Skills Training 2 4* 5* Lion’s-Quest Skills for Adolescence 2 3 3 Project Alert - 1 1

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program - 2* 2* Program Development Evaluation Training 1 1 -

Participate and Learn Skills (PALS) 1 1 1 Big Brothers/Big Sisters 2 2 2 Stay SMART 3 3 1 Tutoring 4 6 6 Valued Youth Tutoring Program 1 1 1 Strengthening Families 10-14 2 3 3 Guiding Good Choices 6 7* 8*

Parents Who Care 1 1 - Family Matters 1 1 2

Parenting Wisely - 1 1

TOTAL 27 38 37

*Program funded through local resources in one or two communities

36

Exposure in the Exposure in the Community Community

Program Type 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

School Curricula

1432 3886 5165

After-school*

546 612 589

Parent Training

517 665 476

*Includes PALS, BBBS, Stay SMART, and Tutoring programs

Note: Total eligible population of 6th, 7th, and 8th-grade students in2005-06 was 10,031.

Participant AttendanceParticipant Attendance

Program Type 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

School Curricula

96% 91% 95%

After-school*

77% 81% 65%

Parent Training

79% 78% 79%

*Includes PALS, BBBS, Stay SMART, and Tutoring programs

Percentage attending >60% of the total number of sessions

Fidelity Assessment Fidelity Assessment ChecklistsChecklists

• Obtained from developers (9) or created by research staff (7)

• Provided similar information across all programs to measure 4 elements of fidelity

• Over 6,000 checklists were completed by program implementers and coordinators

~ Minimal missing data (8.2% in 2004-05 and 2.1% in 2005-06)

• Checklists were collected and reviewed by communities, then sent to SDRG

Adherence RatesAdherence Rates 2004-05 and 2005-062004-05 and 2005-06 school school

yearsyears

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LST AS SFA Alert BPP PDE SS Tutor VY BBBS PALS SFP GGC PWC FM

Percentage of material taught or core components achievedPercentage of material taught or core components achieved

AdherenceAdherence

• Average adherence rate were high: 91% in 2004-05 and 94% in 2005-06

• “Problematic” modifications were infrequent (1.2 reported per cycle)~ Deletions reported twice as often as

additions

• Implementer reports of challenges: ~ Lack of time (14-20% of checklists)~ Participant misbehavior (9-11%)~ Trouble engaging participants (4-9%)

Delivery of LessonsDelivery of Lessons2004-05 and 2005-062004-05 and 2005-06 school school

yearsyears((number, length, and frequency of required number, length, and frequency of required

sessions)sessions)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LST AS SFA Alert BPP SMART Tutor VY BBBS PALS SFP GGC PWC FM

Percentage of delivery requirements met

Delivery of LessonsDelivery of Lessons

• Delivery scores were high: 91% and 92% in 2004-05 and 2005-06

• “Problematic” deviations in delivery requirements were infrequent

• Deviations most likely to occur in school-based programs ~ e.g., 30 vs. 45-minute sessions ~ e.g., deleting 1 of 12 required sessions

Program ObservationsProgram Observations

• Observed 10-15% of sessions in 10 of 16 programs

• Completed fidelity checklists to verify adherence information ~ Rate of agreement between observers and

implementers was 93% (range: 77%-100%)

• Observers also rated the quality of delivery and participant responsiveness

Quality of DeliveryQuality of Delivery• Observers rated the quality of delivery on

10 items (alpha = .83-.88) using a 5-point scale (higher scores indicate better quality)

• Example Items: ~ In general, how clear were the program implementer’s

explanations of activities?~ To what extent did the implementer keep on time

during the session and activities? ~ Rate the implementer on the following qualities:

• Level of enthusiasm

• Rapport and communication with participants

• Effectively addressed questions/concerns

Quality of Delivery Quality of Delivery 2004-05 and 2005-062004-05 and 2005-06 school school

yearsyears

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

LST AS SFA BPP SMART PALS SFP GGC PWC

Average score on 10 items reported by program observersAverage score on 10 items reported by program observers

Quality of Delivery Quality of Delivery Diversity of Teaching Diversity of Teaching

TechniquesTechniques• Observers rated the percentage of the

session in which each teaching technique was used

2004-05 2005-06

Lecture 29% 30%Practice 34% 28%Discussion 31% 36%Video 6% 4%

Participant Participant ResponsivenessResponsiveness

• Observers rated participant responsiveness on two items, using a 1-5 scale (higher scores indicate better responsiveness):~ To what extent did the participants

appear to understand the material? ~ How actively did group members

participate in discussions and activities?

• Across all programs, rates were high: 4.38 and 4.52 in 2004-05 and 2005-06







Outcomes



Prioritized Risk Factors in Prioritized Risk Factors in CTC CommunitiesCTC Communities

• Family management problems • Parental attitudes favorable to problem

behavior• Family conflict• Low commitment to school• Favorable attitudes toward problem behavior• Friends who engage in problem behavior• Academic failure• Rebelliousness• Laws and norms favorable toward drug and

alcohol use

50

Pre-post Change inPre-post Change inTargeted Risk FactorsTargeted Risk Factors

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25


Ave

rage

Lev

el o

f R

isk

Note. Values are model-fitted levels of standardized average risk for students in the Youth Developmental Study panel sample, N = 4404. For Grade 7: γ010 = .111, SE = .043, df = 11, p < .026.

Grade 5 Grade 7

51







Outcomes



52

Youth OutcomesYouth Outcomes

• Initiation of Delinquent Behaviors

Nine items measuring delinquent behaviors.

• Initiation of Substance Use

Alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, inhalants, non-prescribed use of prescription drugs, other illicit drugs.

53

Delinquency ItemsDelinquency ItemsHow many times in the past year (12

months) have you...5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade

stolen something worth more than $5? √ √ √

purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not belong to you (not counting family property)?

√ √ √

taken something from a store without paying for it?

√ √ √

attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them?

√ √ √

been arrested? × √ √

beat up someone so badly that they probably needed to see a doctor or a nurse?

× √ √

sold illegal drugs? × × √

stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle such as a car or motorcycle?

× × √

taken a handgun to school? × × √

54

0.00

0.21

0.36

0.17

0.31

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7


Delinquency InitiationDelinquency InitiationBetween Grades 5 and 7Between Grades 5 and 7

Note. Youth Developmental Study panel sample. Excludes students whoinitiated delinquent behavior by Grade 5. ω0001 = .237, SE = .103, df = 11, p < .05.

Initi

atio

n R

ate

55

0.00

0.24

0.39

0.22

0.36

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7


Substance Use InitiationSubstance Use InitiationBetween Grades 5 and 7Between Grades 5 and 7

Note. Youth Developmental Study panel sample. Excludes students who

initiated substance use by Grade 5. ω0001 = .142, SE = .122, df = 11, p > .05.

Initi

atio

n R

ate

56

SummarySummary

• Adoption of science-based prevention and collaboration are higher in CTC communities than in control communities.

• CTC communities and schools are adopting tested & effective programs.

• The new programs are being implemented with fidelity.

• Targeted risk factors are increasing less rapidly in CTC than in control communities.

• The rate of initiation of delinquent behaviors is significantly lower in CTC than in control communities.

57

The Communities That Care Prevention Operating System is available at:

http://preventionplatform.samhsa.gov/

58

Published PapersPublished PapersArthur, M.W., Briney, J.S., Hawkins, J.D., Abbott, R.D., Brooke-Weiss, B. &. Catalano, R.F. (2007). Measuring community risk and protection using the Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 197-211.

Brown, E.C., Hawkins, J.D., Arthur, M.W., Briney, J.S., & Abbott, R.D. (2007). Effects of Communities That Care on prevention services systems: Findings from the Community Youth Development Study at 1.5 years. Prevention Science. 8, 180-191.

Fagan, A. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (in press). Using community epidemiologic data to improve social settings: The Communities That Care prevention system. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fagan, A.A., Van Horn, M.L., Hawkins, J.D., & Arthur, M.W. (2007). Using community and family risk and protective factors for community-based prevention planning. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 535-555.

Hawkins, J.D. (2006). Science, social work, prevention: Finding the intersections. Social Work Research, 30(3), 137-152.

Murray, D.M., Van Horn, M.L., Hawkins, J.D., & Arthur, M.W. (2006). Analysis strategies for a community trial to reduce adolescent ATOD use: A comparison of random coefficient and ANOVA/ANCOVA models. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 27, 188-206.

59

Papers In PressPapers In PressBrooke-Weiss, B., Haggerty, K. P., Fagan, A. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Cady, R. (in press). Creating community change to improve youth development: The Communities That Care (CTC) system. The Prevention Researcher.

Brown, E.C., Hawkins, J.D., Arthur, M.W., Van Horn, M.L., & Abbott, R.D. (in press). Multilevel analysis of a measure of prevention collaboration. American Journal of Community Psychology.

Fagan, A.A., Hanson, K., Hawkins, J.D., & Arthur, M.W. (in press). Bridging science to practice: Achieving prevention program implementation fidelity in the Community Youth Development Study. American Journal of Community Psychology.

Fagan, A.A., Hawkins, J.D. and Catalano, R.F. (in press). Using community epidemiologic data to improve social settings: The Communities That Care Prevention System. In M. Shinn, and H. Yoshikawa, (eds). Improving Social Settings to Facilitate Positive Development among Adolescents. New York: W.T. Grant Foundation.

Fagan, A.A., Hanson, K., Hawkins, J.D., & Arthur, M.W. (in press). Implementing effective community-based prevention programs in the Community Youth Development Study. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice.

Hawkins, J.D., Brown, E.C., Oesterle, S., Arthur, M.W., Abbott, R.D., & Catalano, R.F. (in press). Early effects of Communities That Care on targeted risks and initiation of delinquent behavior and substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health.

Quinby, R.K., Fagan, A.A., Hanson, K., Brooke-Weiss, B., Arthur, M.W., & Hawkins, J.D. (in press). Installing the Communities That Care prevention system: Implementation progress and fidelity in a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Community Psychology.

Van Horn, M.L., Fagan, A.A., Jaki, T., Brown, E.C., Hawkins, J.D., Arthur, M.W., Abbott, R.D., & Catalano, R.F. (in press). The use of mixture models to evaluate differential intervention effects in group randomized trials. Multivariate Behavioral Research.

60

Building Community Collaboration to Building Community Collaboration to Promote Healthy Youth Promote Healthy Youth

Development:Development:

Social Development Research GroupSocial Development Research GroupSchool of Social WorkSchool of Social Work

University of WashingtonUniversity of Washingtonwww.sdrg.org

J. David Hawkins Ph.D.J. David Hawkins Ph.D.

Melissa Melissa Institute:Institute:Reducing Reducing Violence Violence

May 1, 2008May 1, 2008

http://www.sdrg.org/

61

Risk Factors Addressed in CTC CommunitiesRisk Factors Addressed in CTC Communities

Community Targeted Risk Factors A Parental attitudes favorable to problem

behaviorLow commitment to schoolFavorable attitudes toward problem behavior

C Family management problemsLow commitment to schoolFriends who engage in problem behaviorFavorable attitudes towards problem behavior

G Poor family management Low commitment to school

H Poor family managementAcademic failureLow commitment to school

I Low commitment to schoolFriends who engage in problem behavior

J Academic failureLow commitment to schoolFriends who engage in problem behavior Favorable attitudes toward problem behaviorRebelliousness

62

Community Targeted Risk Factors N Academic failure

Friends who engage in problem behavior

O Laws and norms favorable toward drug and alcohol useLow commitment to school Friends who engage in problem behaviorRebelliousness

Q Family conflictFriends who engage in problem behaviorFavorable attitudes towards problem behaviorRebelliousness

T Family conflictLow commitment to school Friends who engage in problem behavior

W Poor family managementAcademic failure Friends who engage in problem behavior Favorable attitudes towards problem behavior

X Academic failure Low commitment to schoolFriends who engage in problem behavior

Risk Factors Addressed in CTC CommunitiesRisk Factors Addressed in CTC Communities

Date post:	15-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kylie-fenley
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

1 Building Community Collaboration to Promote Healthy Youth Development: Social Development Research...

Documents