The Communities That Care Youth Survey<\/a> (CTC-YS) is an epidemiological, public-health-oriented self-report instrument developed by Michael W. Arthur, J. David Hawkins, John A. Pollard, Richard F. Catalano, and A. J. Baglioni Jr. (2002) at the Social Development Research Group (SDRG), University of Washington. Engineered to assess the prevalence of adolescent problem behaviors alongside the specific risk factors<\/a> and protective factors<\/a> that predict them, the CTC-YS operationalizes the Social Development Strategy across four fundamental ecological domains: Community, Family, School, and Peer-Individual. The comprehensive questionnaire contains 197 items that measure 31 distinct risk and protective factor constructs, alongside adolescent substance use patterns (including 30-day and lifetime prevalence for alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and illicit drugs), delinquent behaviors<\/a>, gang involvement, and school absenteeism. The instrument employs diverse response scales, notably including 4-point Likert scales, frequency counts over specified recall periods (e.g., 30 days, 12 months, lifetime), age-of-onset escalations, and branching anchored response choices (e.g., strong capitalized anchors such as NO!, no, yes, YES!<\/em>). Psychometric investigations across multi-state statewide cohorts exceeding 70,000 students have repeatedly corroborated its exceptional measurement precision. Internal consistency reliabilities for the multi-item risk and protective factor subscales generally range from α = .65 to α = .89, with mean reliabilities typically surpassing .78 across diverse demographic sub-populations. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations demonstrate robust structural validity, showing stability across sex, race, ethnicity, and grade levels (specifically grades 6 through 12). By delivering reliable epidemiological community profiles, the CTC-YS allows municipal leaders, prevention coalitions, school districts, and public health practitioners to direct formula-funded resources toward empirically validated prevention systems that curb youth substance use, violence, and school dropout<\/span>.<\/p>\n Communities That Care Youth Survey, CTC-YS, Social Development Model, risk factors, protective factors, adolescent substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, prevention science, psychometric evaluation, epidemiological surveillance<\/p>\n The Communities That Care Youth Survey was engineered and standardized by leading prevention scientists affiliated with the Social Development Research Group (SDRG), School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States:<\/p>\n Institutional oversight and updates are managed via the Social Development Research Group (SDRG)<\/a> at the University of Washington and distributed in collaboration with state behavioral health authorities and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)<\/a>.<\/p>\n The principal objective of the Communities That Care Youth Survey is to provide community coalitions, school districts, public health authorities, and prevention scientists with an empirically sound, localized, and actionable epidemiological assessment profile of adolescent health and behavior. In traditional public health models, surveillance systems often measure outcome disparities—such as hospitalizations, juvenile court referrals, or overdose rates—long after severe dysfunctions have crystallized. The CTC-YS shifts public health surveillance from reactive tracking to proactive, developmentally informed intervention by measuring the underlying causal and correlative conditions: specifically, the risk factors that elevate the probability of negative psychosocial outcomes and the protective factors that buffer against adversity.<\/p>\n From a research application perspective, the CTC-YS was designed to evaluate the Communities That Care (CTC)<\/a> operating system, an evidence-based prevention model that assists communities in selecting and implementing targeted, empirically supported interventions. To achieve this, the survey captures behavioral endpoints such as the frequency of alcohol consumption, binge drinking, cigarette and smokeless tobacco use, cannabis use, illicit prescription drug misuse, physical violence, weapon carriage, school truancy, and arrest history. Concurrently, it gauges individual vulnerabilities, peer group norms, familial dynamic deficits, and community-wide environmental conditions.<\/p>\n In community and clinical practice, the tool serves three critical functions: Needs Assessment, Resource Allocation, and Longitudinal Evaluation. During needs assessments, the survey quantifies which specific risk factors (e.g., perceived availability of drugs, community disorganization, parental attitudes favorable toward antisocial behavior) are elevated within a school district or township compared to state or national normative benchmarks. In resource allocation, policy stakeholders utilize these localized risk profiles to choose validated programs specifically targeted at those elevated dimensions—avoiding generic or ineffective prevention strategies. Finally, for evaluation, repeated cross-sectional or cohort-sequential administrations allow communities to gauge long-term trajectory changes across population-level adolescent cohorts, establishing whether the deployment of environmental strategies, family interventions, and school-wide positive behavioral programs produce measurable declines in antisocial behavior and substance abuse.<\/p>\n The CTC-YS operationalizes an extensive multidimensional architecture of risk and protective factors nested within the four ecological domains defined by developmental systems theory. Each subscale within the instrument reflects an established psychological or sociological construct with documented links to adolescent problem behaviors:<\/p>\n The conceptual foundation of the Communities That Care Youth Survey is anchored in the Social Development Model (SDM)<\/a>, an overarching, integrative developmental framework formulated by J. David Hawkins and Richard F. Catalano (1996). The SDM synthesizes key tenets from three dominant sociological and psychological paradigms: Social Learning Theory<\/a> (Bandura, 1977), Differential Association Theory<\/a> (Sutherland, 1947), and Social Control Theory<\/a> (Hirschi, 1969).<\/p>\n The SDM asserts that youth become bonded to social units (family, school, peer groups, and community) through a developmental sequence initiated by four core conditions: (1) available opportunities<\/em> for active involvement in prosocial units; (2) actual skills<\/em> possessed by the youth to successfully participate; (3) clear reinforcement<\/em> or recognition returned by the social environment; and (4) the formation of affective bonds<\/em> (attachment and commitment) characterized by a belief in the unit’s shared moral code. When these four elements are oriented toward prosocial institutions, the resulting social bond acts as a protective mediator that promotes prosocial behaviors and curbs delinquent urges.<\/p>\n Conversely, if developmental opportunities, reinforcements, and modeling emanate from antisocial or deviant environments—such as substance-using parents, dislocated neighborhoods, or delinquent peer groups—the youth forms antisocial bonds. These bonds cultivate norms and behavioral repertoires favorable toward substance misuse, aggression, and institutional detachment. The SDM posits that risk factors heighten vulnerabilities by interrupting prosocial bonding or providing reinforcement for antisocial pursuits. Meanwhile, protective factors serve as buffers, moderating the detrimental impacts of environmental stress and high-risk exposures.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the survey integrates Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory<\/a>. This perspective highlights that youth development is shaped across nested contextual layers, ranging from the immediate microsystem (caregiver-child dynamics, peer dyads) to the mesosystem (family-school coordination), exosystem (neighborhood structural disorganization, drug markets), and macrosystem (societal laws, commercial availability, cultural norms). By constructing psychometric subscales mapped to each of these ecological tiers, the CTC-YS enables researchers to assess adolescent risk and protection comprehensively across the developmental ecology.<\/p>\n Extensive psychometric investigations have established the construct, criterion-related, predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of the Communities That Care Youth Survey across diverse geographical and socioeconomic demographics:<\/p>\n Arthur, Hawkins, Pollard, Catalano, and Baglioni (2002) evaluated the survey’s construct validity across a six-state standardization sample of more than 72,000 public school students enrolled in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12. Criterion-related validity was confirmed through structural equation modeling and multivariate logistic regressions. Significant, dose-response correlations emerged between elevated scores on CTC-YS risk factor subscales and self-reported 30-day substance consumption, weapon carriage, violent altercations, and juvenile justice contact. Conversely, protective factor scales displayed pronounced negative relationships with delinquency, verifying their hypothesized buffering role.<\/p>\n The predictive validity of the CTC-YS was reinforced by findings from the multi-site Community Youth Development Study (CYDS), a randomized controlled trial involving 24 matched communities across seven states (Hawkins et al., 2008, 2009). Baseline CTC-YS scores effectively predicted longitudinal behavioral trajectories: students who reported elevated peer delinquency, perceived availability of drugs, and poor family management in the 6th grade demonstrated statistically significant increases in substance initiation, persistent polydrug use, and school suspension rates when evaluated in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades (Brown et al., 2009).<\/p>\n Convergent validity has been evaluated against gold-standard epidemiological instruments, including the Monitoring the Future (MTF)<\/a> survey and the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS; CDC). Cross-comparisons demonstrate robust concordance between CTC-YS lifetime and 30-day prevalence estimates and corresponding MTF substance use indicators, with Pearson correlation coefficients frequently exceeding $r = .75$<\/span> for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis measures. Discriminant validity has been demonstrated through the empirical separation of constructs across the four domains: exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses show that items measuring distinct risk facets (e.g., family conflict vs. academic failure) load cleanly onto their designated dimensions with negligible cross-loadings, demonstrating that the tool captures independent ecological influences rather than general, undifferentiated adolescent distress.<\/p>\n The CTC-YS demonstrates strong internal consistency across its various risk and protective factor subscales, as well as consistent stability over time and across diverse demographic strata:<\/p>\n In the foundational psychometric validation paper by Arthur et al. (2002), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated across all 31 multi-item scales across distinct grade cohorts (6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th grades):<\/p>\n The mean internal consistency coefficient across all multi-item scales typically exceeds α = .78. Although a small number of briefer 2- or 3-item subscales yield lower coefficients near the .65 boundary, they remain within acceptable psychometric thresholds for broad population-level screening surveys<\/span>.<\/p>\n Subsequent psychometric evaluations (e.g., Beyers et al., 2004; Glaser et al., 2005) examined the cross-demographic reliability of the CTC-YS. Multigroup analyses confirmed that internal consistency estimates remained stable across sex (males vs. females) and across major racial and ethnic categories (White, African American, Hispanic\/Latino, Native American, and Asian\/Pacific Islander youth). Scale reliabilities rarely varied by more than ±.03 between demographic subgroups, confirming that the questionnaire provides equitable measurement precision across culturally diverse adolescent populations.<\/p>\n The structural validity of the Communities That Care Youth Survey has been rigorously vetted through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA):<\/p>\n Arthur et al. (2002) conducted extensive CFA runs to verify that the theoretical 31-factor measurement model fit the observed covariance matrix. Model estimations typically employ Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted (WLSMV) or Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR) methods, which account for the ordinal and categorical distribution of survey items. The empirical data demonstrated acceptable to good fit across diverse samples:<\/p>\n Standardized factor loadings for individual items across their target constructs are generally strong. For example, within the Peer Delinquency<\/em> scale, standardized loadings for peer cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use items range between λ = .68 and λ = .84. Within the Poor Family Management<\/em> construct, core items assessing whether parents know where the youth is or enforce home rules exhibit loadings from λ = .62 to λ = .79. Items measuring Favorable Attitudes Toward Substance Use<\/em> load onto their primary dimension between λ = .71 and λ = .88, displaying low cross-loadings with generalized antisocial attitudes (λ < .20). Factor analytic investigations confirm that the proposed multidimensional taxonomy reflects the empirical structure of adolescent risk and protective factors<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS) is a comprehensive, structured self-report epidemiological survey designed for group administration in educational or community settings. The scale’s operational details include:<\/p>\n2. Keywords<\/h2>\n
3. Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
4. Purpose<\/h2>\n
5. Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Community Domain<\/h3>\n
\n
2. Family Domain<\/h3>\n
\n
3. School Domain<\/h3>\n
\n
4. Peer and Individual Domain<\/h3>\n
\n
6. Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
7. Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Criterion Validity<\/h3>\n
Predictive and Longitudinal Validity<\/h3>\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
8. Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency<\/h3>\n
\n
Measurement Invariance and Reliability across Subpopulations<\/h3>\n
9. Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Confirmatory Factor Modeling<\/h3>\n
\n
Factor Loadings<\/h3>\n
10. Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\u25a0 NO! \u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/code>), where “NO!” signifies strong disagreement and “YES!” denotes strong agreement.<\/li>\n0 occasions<\/code>, 1 or 2 occasions<\/code>, 3 to 5 occasions<\/code>, 6 to 9 occasions<\/code>, 10 to 19 occasions<\/code>, 20 to 39 occasions<\/code>, 40 or more occasions<\/code>; and 0 Never<\/code> to 40+ times<\/code>).<\/li>\nNever have<\/code>, 10 or younger<\/code>, 11<\/code>, 12<\/code>, 13<\/code>, 14<\/code>, 15<\/code>, 16<\/code>, 17 or older<\/code>).<\/li>\nNot wrong at all<\/code> to Very wrong<\/code>), perceived risk of harm (No risk<\/code> to Great risk<\/code>), availability (Very easy<\/code> to Very hard<\/code>), and subjective peer appraisals (No or very little chance<\/code> to Very good chance<\/code>).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n11. Permissions, Fee, and Test Year<\/h2>\n
\n
12. References<\/h2>\n
\n
13. Items of the Scale<\/h2>\n
\n
Response scale:<\/em> Mostly F\u2019s \/ Mostly D\u2019s \/ Mostly C\u2019s \/ Mostly B\u2019s \/ Mostly A\u2019s<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4-5\/6-10\/11 or more<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> Almost always\/Often\/Sometimes\/Seldom\/Never<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> Very interesting and stimulating\/ Quite interesting\/Fairly interesting\/ Slightly dull\/Very dull<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> Very important\/Quite important Fairly important\/Slightly important\/Not at all important<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> Al most always\/ Often\/ Sometimes\/Seldom\/Never<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> Al most always\/ Often\/ Sometimes\/Seldom\/Never<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> Al most always\/ Often\/ Sometimes\/Seldom\/Never<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> \u25a0 NO!\u25a0 no \u25a0 yes \u25a0 YES!<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n
Response scale:<\/em> None\/1\/2\/3\/4<\/li>\n