The Economic Downturn and Implementation of Science-Based Prevention by Coalitions in the Community Youth Development Study

Background/Purpose: The economic downturn that started in November 2007 had the potential to affect implementation of science-based prevention activities by coalitions in the CYDS because of diminishing funding sources and rising unemployment. Community support and political will may also have declined in the wake of scarce resources. CTC’s strong prevention infrastructure, including key community leader support and emphasis on evidence-based programs, could buffer CTC coalitions to economic downturn effects. We examined whether economic conditions were associated with science-based prevention implementation in 2009, two years after the downturn began, and whether CTC communities were better able to maintain implementation compared to control communities in a period of economic distress.

Methods: Community economic conditions in 2009, two years after the downturn began, were measured using annual unemployment, home loan performance, poverty, and income data as well as reports of key community leaders. Prevention coalition leaders (N = 11 CTC coalitions, 14 control coalitions) were surveyed in 2007, before the downturn began, and again in 2009 about the degree to which they had implemented 15 benchmarks indicating the use of science-based prevention (e.g., Has the coalition assessed risk and protective factors in the community?; implementation score range: 1-15). We expected that implementation of science-based prevention would decline from 2007 to 2009, that 2009 implementation scores would be negatively related to problematic economic conditions, but that CTC coalitions would better maintain implementation of science-based prevention than control coalitions under these conditions. Differences in implementation levels were evaluated by F-tests. Other hypotheses were evaluated using multiple regression analysis.

Conclusions: Implementation of science-based prevention declined in both CTC and control communities from 2007 to 2009, but CTC coalitions scored significantly higher than control coalitions at each point. However, deteriorating economic conditions challenged the ability of some CTC coalitions to maintain high levels of science-based prevention. The four CTC coalitions in communities with unemployment rates exceeding 10% lost ground in science-based implementation in 2009 compared to 2007. Economic conditions did not predict implementation of science-based prevention by control coalitions, but these coalitions were not doing much science-based prevention even when economic conditions were favorable.

Implications: CTC coalitions were better able to sustain science-based prevention implementation during the economic downturn, but implementation of science-based prevention was vulnerable to very high rates of economic distress. Compared to control coalitions, CTC coalitions’ strong prevention infrastructure may have contributed to greater sustainability of science-based prevention as economic conditions worsened.