Ongoing community-based program implementation, successes, and obstacles: The National Youth at Risk Program Sustainability Study

Lydia I. Marek, Jay A. Mancini, G. Erik Earthman, & Donna-Jean P. Brock; Department of Human Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Publication Number 350-804, Posted January 2003

Table of Contents

Introduction

Methods

Results

Summary and Next Steps

References

The Authors

Appendix A

Introduction

http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-800/350-800.html (1998)
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-801/350-801.html (1999)

The reports are also available from the authors.

Findings from the past YAR reports suggest that there are a number of questions that are important for understanding project sustainability. These include:

• Is the project meeting its original goals?
• Is the project maintaining or expanding rather than reducing efforts to meet its goals?
• Does the project have secure future funding?

There are a number of factors that facilitate program sustainability and are incorporated into this report. These factors include: Program flexibility, Adequate and qualified staff, Collaboration within communities and involvement by the communities, Adequate and long-term funding, and the Ability to demonstrate impact. The central questions addressed in this report are:

• What is the current status of the 94 Youth at Risk projects four years after funding ended?
• What are the present roles of Cooperative Extension and community collaborators in supporting these community-based projects?
• What has facilitated or impeded the sustainability of these projects?

The results of the study are organized into seven sections:

1. Descriptions of project status and goals,
2. Project flexibility in terms of programming modifications, and changes in programming, project sites and participants;
3. Staffing patterns of both paid staff and volunteers;
4. Collaborations including community involvement, Cooperative Extension's current role in projects, and project leadership;
5. Funding plans and current sources of funding;
6. Current evaluation efforts and uses of evaluation results; and
7. Obstacles to project survival.

Return to Table of Contents

Methods

Surveys were mailed to project leaders at each of the 84 projects that were active 2 1/2 years post-USDA/CSREES CYFAR funding. Surveys were sent to two contacts at nine projects because two project leaders were identified-these data were combined where applicable. Therefore, a total of 93 surveys were sent to the projects. In order to maximize the response rate, follow-up emails, post-cards, telephone calls, and follow-up surveys were sent to non-respondents. In all, at least one completed survey was returned from each of the 84 active projects, yielding a project response rate of 100%. [Some level of data was collected from all projects, including those that became inactive since the last assessment.]

Data Analysis
Data were entered in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and frequencies were run for each survey item. The frequencies reported in the Results section vary depending on the number of responses for any item that were provided. With the exception of reporting on project status, all analyses were conducted only on active projects and valid percentages are provided.

In addition to descriptive statistics, a variety of bivariate analyses were conducted including chi-square (*) and one-way analysis of variance (**). In addition, linear regression (***) analysis was also conducted. Throughout the report the asterisk designation indicates which analysis was used. Most of the analyses focused on the impact of various project characteristics on perceived sustainability and the extent of current programming for at risk youth.

Return to Table of Contents

Results

Project Activity
The majority of projects (76%) still remain active four years post USDA/CSREES CYFAR funding (see Table 1). The current status of each of the 94 projects, including leadership patterns and collaborators involved, is shown in Appendix A.

Perceived Sustainability of Projects
Respondents from 65 of the active projects indicated how much they perceived their project to be sustained since the end of USDA/CSREES CYFAR funding. As shown in Figure 1, nearly all respondents (97%) reported that their projects were at least partially sustained, with 26% (n=17) identifying their projects as „Completely¾ sustained. Twenty-seven respondents (42%) perceived their projects as „Mostly¾ sustained, 19 projects (29%) perceived their projects as "Partially" sustained, and two respondents (3%) perceived their projects as "Not at All" sustained.

Project Goals
Respondents were asked about their current goals and whether these goals had changed over the past year. For the majority of projects (73%), goals remain unchanged from the previous year. Eighteen projects (26%) experienced a change in their goals. The most common reasons for goals changing were changes in community needs (n=8) or changes in funding requirements (n=6).

Goals of meeting needs of at risk youth and families
One of the original goals of all CYFAR funded projects was to address the needs of at risk youth and families. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent that their project currently meets this goal. As shown in Table 2, only 28% of respondents believe their projects are fully meeting the needs of at risk youth and families. It is noteworthy that respondents reporting that their projects were more fully meeting the needs of at risk youth were also more likely to perceive their projects as sustained***.

Table 1: Project activity four years post USDA/CSREES funding
	1 1/2 years post funding		2 1/2 years post funding		4 years post funding
Project Status	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	Percent
Active	81	86%	84	89%	71	76%
Inactive	13	14%	10	11%	23	24%

Table 2. Extent project meets needs of at risk youth and families
Extent project meets needs of at risk youth	Number	Percent
Not at all	0	0%
Somewhat	14	20%
Moderately	35	52%
Fully	19	28%

II. Program Flexibility
This section reports on program flexibility evidenced by programming additions and modifications as well as changes in the number of sites and/or participants.

Program modifications
Overall, 52 respondents (73%) reported adding at least one new program over the past year. The reasons for adding new programs are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Reasons for the establishment of new programming
Reasons	Number	Percent
Change in community needs	24	46%
Changing participant needs	21	40%
New sites/communities added	15	29%
Required by funding source	15	29%
Change in program goals	5	10%

Among active projects, 52 (73%) of respondents reported modifying their existing programming (expanding some programs, reducing some programs, or both). Reasons for program expansion and/or reduction are reported in Table 4. Changes in community needs, funding, participant needs, and insufficient staff were factors most commonly mentioned as catalysts for modifications in programming efforts.

Table 4: Reasons for expansion and reduction
Reasons	Number	Percent
Changing Community Needs	24	43%
Change in Funding	21	38%
Change in Participant Needs	18	32%
Insufficient Staff	16	29%
Changing Program Goals	5	9%
Stable and Adequate Staffing	4	7%

In addition to program expansion and reduction, it was sometimes necessary to eliminate programs. Overall, 32 (45%) active projects reported that at least one program had been eliminated. The most common reasons for program elimination (see Table 5) were insufficient staffing and lack of funding.

Table 5: Reasons for program elimination
Reasons	Number	Percent
Insufficient staff	16	50%
Lack of funding	13	41%
Change in program goals	7	22%
Too few participants	4	13%
Change in community needs	4	13%
Lack of receptivity/support	3	9%

Number and Changes in Sites and Participants
Respondents were asked to indicate what kind of changes had taken place in the number of sites and participants of their projects. Most respondents (57%) reported that the projects maintained the same number of sites over the previous year, 32% reported an increase in their number of sites, and 11% reported a decrease in their number of sites. The majority of respondents also reported the number of participants served by their projects were either the same as (45%) or greater than (45%) the number of participants served in the previous year. Only 10% reported a decrease in the number of participants. Increased number of sites and/or participants was significantly related to greater perceived project sustainability*.

Respondents were also asked to indicate why changes in sites or participants occurred. Obtaining new or additional funding (n=13), strong community receptivity and support (n=12), changing community needs (n=7), and program replication (n=6) were identified as reasons for increased sites. The most commonly cited reasons for increased participants was an increase in the number of programs to offer (n=21) or having an increase in the number of sites offering programs (n=12).

III. Staffing Patterns
Respondents were asked to indicate the status of their paid staff and volunteers, whether this had changed from the past year, and if so, the reason(s) for these changes. They were also asked to report on how qualified their staff and volunteers were for the positions they hold within their projects and how much staff and volunteers were involved in suggesting programming ideas.

Paid Staff

• Over half (52%) of the respondents reported that they have the same number of paid staff as last year; and 28% reported having more and 20% reported having less than last year.
• For those indicating an increase in the number of staff, the most common reasons were increased funding (n=15), increased resources for training, supervision and/or recruiting (n=6), and increased number of collaborators (n=5).
• For those indicating a decrease in the number of staff, the most common reason was decreased funding (n=10).
• A large proportion of respondents (76%) reported that paid staff were very involved in suggesting new and creative programming ideas.

Volunteers

• A majority (68%) of the respondents indicated that the number of volunteer staff for their projects remained the same as last year. Of those experiencing a change in the number of volunteers, 21% reported an increase and 11% reported a decrease.
• For those indicating an increase in the number of volunteers, the most common reasons were successful marketing (n=9), increased resources (n=8), increased number of collaborators (n=8), and increased visibility in the community (n=5).
• For those indicating a decrease in the number of volunteers, the most common reasons were lack of resources (n=6), lack of marketing (n=3), and decreased number of collaborators (n=2).
• The majority of respondents reported that volunteers where either "Very Involved" (39%) or "Somewhat Involved" (49%) in suggesting new and creative programming ideas.

Over two thirds of respondents (69%) reported that, to some degree, their projects used volunteers instead of paid staff for program delivery.

IV. Collaboration
This section provides information on who is collaborating with these Youth at Risk projects, how the community is involved in these projects, the resources collaborators provide, the role of Cooperative Extension in these projects, and leadership patterns for these projects.

When asked to identify the various collaborators involved in their projects, respondents indicated a broad spectrum of participating organizations. These collaborators are listed in Table 6. More than three-quarters of the projects reported schools and Cooperative Extension as collaborators.

Table 6: Types of collaborators
Collaborators	Percent
Schools	89%
Cooperative Extension	80%
Community Service Agencies	64%
Land Grant Universities	59%
Government Agencies	59%
Civic Organizations	44%
Local Colleges	38%
Local Businesses	35%
Religious Institutions	33%
YMCA/YWCA	16%
Boys and Girls Club	13%

Respondents also indicated that over half (52%) of project collaborators remained the same as last year while 40% of respondents reported an increase and 8% reported a decrease in their number of collaborators. For those reporting an increase in the number of collaborators, the most frequently cited reasons were increased community awareness of the project (n=17) and increased emphasis on recruitment (n=15). Those projects that had an increase in the number of collaborators reported significantly greater levels of perceived sustainability*.

Community Involvement and Participation
As previously indicated in Table 6, a variety of different collaborators continue to be involved in these projects. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of involvement and resource provision by these collaborators. Community collaborators took on a leadership role for the majority (79%) of the projects while serving in an advisory or resource capacity for 19% of the projects (see Figure 2). All but one project had at least some involvement by the community (outside of CES). Resources provided by these community collaborators are shown in Table 7. Overall, when community collaborators had a more prominent role in project leadership, they were also significantly more likely to be involved in the provision of training and workshops, the provision of personnel, supervision of personnel, and program implementation*.

Table 7: Resources provided by collaborators
Resources provided	Projects receiving resources from community collaborators
Provision of Materials/Equipment	97%
Program Implementation	93%
Provision of Space	92%
Provision of Personnel	86%
In-Kind Support	86%
Involved in a Coalition	85%
Evaluation of Programs	85%
Curriculum Development	82%
Provides Training/Workshops	81%
Advisory Board Membership	78%
Direct Cash Funding	77%
Supervision of Staff/Volunteers	75%
Fiscal Management	64%
Grant Proposal Writing	63%

In addition to community collaborators, program participants and the parents of program participants have also been involved in planning, implementation, and to a lesser extent, administration of these projects. Table 8 demonstrates the involvement of youth participants and their parents in these projects.

Cooperative Extension
Cooperative Extension, whether at the state, county, or local level, continues to be actively involved in most projects. Cooperative Extension provides leadership to over half (58%) of the active projects while serving in an advisory or resource capacity to 25% of the projects (see Figure 3). The remaining 17% of respondents indicated that Cooperative Extension was no longer involved in their project. As indicated in Table 9, Cooperative Extension is involved in a wide range of project management and technical assistance activities. Overall, when Cooperative Extension provides leadership to projects, they are significantly more likely to provide all of those resources listed in Table 9*.

Table 8: Community role in projects
Community group	Program Planning	Program Implementation	Program Administration
Youth Participants	84%	87%	17%
Parents of Participants	73%	70%	28%

Table 9: Resources Provided by Cooperative Extension
Resources provided	Projects receiving resources from Cooperative Extension
Provides Training/Workshops	75%
Provision of Materials/Equipment	72%
Evaluation of Programs	68%
Curriculum Development	67%
In-Kind Support	65%
Involved in a Coalition	63%
Grant Proposal Writing	63%
Program Implementation	62%
Advisory Board Membership	57%
Supervision of Staff/Volunteers	51%
Provision of Personnel	51%
Fiscal Management	50%
Provision of Space	40%
Direct Cash Funding	37%

For those respondents that identified themselves as Cooperative Extension agents (n=44), the vast majority (92%) agreed that working on their Youth at Risk project was a part of their ongoing work responsibilities. Furthermore, 60% of these respondents "Strongly Agreed" and 32% "Agreed" that serving at risk youth is an expectation of Cooperative Extension in their county and state.

Project Leadership
Projects were almost evenly divided between being led by a single agency or organization (52%), or having shared leadership by two or more entities (48%). It is important to remember, however, that although an agency, coalition, or Cooperative Extension may have taken primary responsibility for project leadership, they did not manage the project alone. In all but one, project community collaborators appeared to contribute to project longevity.

V. Funding

Funding Plans
Respondents were asked to determine whether or not they have enough funding to maintain their projects over the next one, two, and three years. The majority (81%) of projects stated they had enough funding to sustain programming through the upcoming year while 52% had enough funding for the next two years, and 37% had enough funding in place for the next three years. Furthermore, 77% of respondents reported that were actively working on obtaining new funding. Projects that reported they had enough funding to sustain their projects up to three years were significantly more likely to perceive their project as sustained ***.

Funding Sources
When respondents were asked to identify the sources of cash funding they received (see Table 10), the majority (77%) reported receiving grants to fund their projects, while almost half (46%) reported receiving user fees. In addition, Cooperative Extension, and local businesses were prominent sources of funding for these projects.

Table 10: Sources of Hard Cash Funding
Source of Funding Support	Number	Percent
Grants	52	77%
User Fees	31	46%
Cooperative Extension	26	41%
Local Businesses	19	30%
Schools	18	28%
Foundation Funding	18	27%
Fundraising	18	27%
Contracts	14	21%
United Way	10	15%
Religious Institutions	10	15%

VI. Demonstrating Impact
This section provides information on current evaluation efforts of the projects, who conducts these evaluations, and how evaluation results are used.

Current Evaluation Efforts
The majority (88%) of active projects have been conducting some type of evaluation, including participant/parent/staff satisfaction, informal assessments, and/or change in knowledge or personal indicators (see Table 11). These efforts were most often conducted by project staff, including directors and coordinators, and Cooperative Extension personnel (see Table 12). When Cooperative Extension was involved in evaluation, the projects were significantly more likely to assess knowledge gained through pre and post- testing*. Even though the majority of projects reported conducting some type of evaluation, only 8 projects (12%) indicated that they had funding specifically targeted towards these efforts.

Table 11: Project Evaluation Efforts
Evaluation Effort	Number	Percent
Assessments of youth, parents, and/or staff satisfaction with programs	46	69%
Informal assessment through testimonials or other forms of communication	41	62%
Assessments of knowledge gained by participants through pre- and post-testing	34	52%
Assessments of personal indicators, such as well-being, self esteem, or school achievement	31	47%

Table 12: Who Conducts Project Evaluations
Evaluators	Number	Percent
Project Staff	33	56%
Project Coordinator/Director	29	49%
Cooperative Extension Personnel	29	49%
Collaborators	17	29%
Outside Consultants	12	20%

Uses for Project Evaluation
As indicated in Table 13, evaluation results were used in a variety of ways. Over three-fourths of respondents indicated that evaluation results were used to inform programming and report writing.

Table 13: Evaluation Uses
Uses for Evaluation	Number	Percent
To assess program effectiveness	53	88%
Program modification	48	80%
Program planning	47	78%
Reports to collaborators and funders	47	78%
Documentation for grant proposals	37	62%
Market to community	35	58%
Market to potential funders	32	53%
Support program replication	25	42%

Additionally, 45 projects (63%) reported using the results of needs assessments for documentation of program efforts for grant proposal writing (n=30), modification of current programming (n=29), and replication of programs (n=14).

VII. Obstacles to Project Survival
Respondents were asked to identify obstacles faced by their projects. Only 7 (11%) of the 64 projects responding to this item reported no obstacles; the remaining 57 projects (89%) identified one or more obstacles. Obstacles reported by at least a third of the projects are listed in Table 14. Projects that reported they had enough funding to sustain their projects up to three years were less likely to report funding as an a obstacle to their project's sustainability***.

Table 14: Commonly Reported Obstacles
Funding Obstacles	Number	Percent
Lack of funding for adequate staffing	34	50%
Lack of funding for program expansion	34	50%
Lack of predictable funding	33	49%
Lack of funding for current programming	29	43%
Lack of funding for qualified staff	24	35%
Community Obstacles
Lack of parent involvement	30	44%
Community's economy won't support project funding needs	28	41%
Competition for local resources	26	38%
Staffing Obstacles
Staff turnover	27	40%
Cooperative Extension staff overload	24	35%
Program staff overload	23	34%

Return to Table of Contents

Summary and Next Steps

Current Status
Over three-fourths (76%) of the originally funded YAR projects remain active four years post USDA funding. The vast majority of respondents from these active projects believed they were at least "Somewhat" able to meet the needs of at risk youth. The majority of the projects experienced some program, participant, or staffing change over the past year, with program expansion and program reduction being the most common forms of change. Furthermore, the establishment of new programming was more commonly reported than the elimination of programs. Due in part to program expansion, almost half of the respondents reported an increase in the number of participants they serve.

Overall, the remaining active YAR projects appear to be either maintaining or expanding their level of activity. The most prominent reasons for program expansion were changes in community needs, participants' needs, and increases in funding. In addition, community receptivity and support were cited as reasons for increasing the number of sites and participants. For the respondents that reported program reduction and program elimination, the most prominent reasons were lack of funding and consequently insufficient staff.

The vast majority of respondents reported that they are conducting some type of program evaluation, with informal assessment and the evaluation of participant satisfaction being more commonly utilized than formal pre- and post-testing. Evaluation data was most commonly used to assess program effectiveness, to modify current programming, to plan future programs, and to report to funders and collaborators.

Collaborator Involvement
The data suggests that collaboration has been essential to the continuation of these YAR projects. The most prominent collaborators were Cooperative Extension, schools, community service agencies, land grant universities, and government agencies. Cooperative Extension continues to serve in a leadership capacity for over half of the active projects. When Cooperative Extension has a leadership role in the project, they tend to be involved in a wide range of program activities (e.g., providing training and workshops, providing materials and equipment, program evaluation, and curriculum development). In addition to Cooperative Extension, other community agencies also retain a leadership role in the projects. In these cases, community collaborators tended to be more involved in providing training and workshops, supervision and provision of personnel, and program implementation. Overall, both Cooperative Extension and community collaborators continue to contribute to these projects, making collaboration a likely facilitator of project success and continuance.

Sustainability
The primary goal of this research was to examine the sustainability of YAR projects after the ending of USDA/CSREES CYFAR funding. While a number of obstacles (lack of funding, staffing difficulties, lack of parent involvement, and limited community resources) remain problematic for many of these YAR projects, it is impressive that so many have been able to continue and expand. Several factors were significantly related to respondents' greater perceptions of program sustainability, including: 1) increasing program sites and participants, 2) increasing collaborator involvement, and 3) securing funding for a known period of time. Interestingly, respondents reporting greater perceived sustainability were more likely to report that their projects were fully meeting the needs of at risk youth and families. This is an encouraging finding in that the primary purpose of the YAR project was to create and sustain programming for at risk youth and families.

Next Steps in the Sustainability Research
This is the latest report in a series of analyses focused on program sustainability as it pertains to community-based Youth at Risk projects funded from 1991-1998 by the CYFAR Initiative. Over the course of this research program we have monitored the ebb and flow of projects and their program components. Our understanding of these projects has been incremental, and each data collection period has provided greater depth in the nuances of program sustainability. There are several avenues that our future work will take in this area. First, there is the matter of developing an instrument or set of measures that can be easily and efficiently used by community-based programs to assess their own sustainability. We have field tested a first version of such an instrument and will continue to refine it. Second, a parallel task is to continue to refine our sustainability framework. With the completion of this most recent data collection period we are at a place where the data can better inform the framework (at earlier phases in our research program, the conceptual framework tended to inform the research); at this point the framework and the data provide an important dialectical setting for improving both concept and measurement. Third, consistent with our applied orientation, we will translate the theory and the research that has emerged from this research program into program planning tools for community-based programs. These will complement the sustainability assessment measure. Data will be collected from these same YAR projects at the point six years post USDA/CSREES funding and will be reported at a future date. In addition, sustainability research is in progress on those projects funded through the USDA/CSREES State Strengthening funding.

Return to Table of Contents

References

Marek, L. I. , Mancini, J.A. & Brock, D. P. (1999). Continuity, success, and survival of community-based projects: The National Youth At Risk Program Sustainability Study. (Publication 350-801). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-801/350-801.html

Mancini, J.A. & Marek, L. I. (2000). Continuity and institutionalization patterns: The National Youth At Risk Program Sustainability Study. (Report to CSREES/USDA.) Available from the authors.

Marek, L. I., Mancini, J.A. & Brock, D. P. (2000). Cooperative Extension-Supported After-School Education Programs: The National Youth At Risk Program Sustainability Study. (Report to CSREES/USDA.) Available from the authors.

Return to Table of Contents

The Authors

Jay A. Mancini is a Professor in the Department of Human Development at Virginia Tech and a Human Development Extension Specialist with Virginia Cooperative Extension. He received his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

G. Erik Earthman was a Research Associate in the Department of Human Development at Virginia Tech. He is a doctoral candidate in Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Arizona.

Donna-Jean P. Brock is a Research Associate in the Department of Human Development at Virginia Tech. She received her M.A. degree in psychology from Wake Forest University.

Return to Table of Contents

Appendix A: 94 Youth At Risk Programs Funded Between 1991-1998

State	Project	Leadership	Collaborators
Alabama	Assess and Address	Inactive	Inactive
Alaska	Kuskokwim 4-H Fisheries	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Alaska	Yukon 4-H Fisheries	Single	Land Grant Universities, CES, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Arizona	Phoenix Coalition	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools
Arkansas	4-H SAILS	Inactive	Inactive
California	EXCEL	Inactive	Inactive
California	4-H AM/PM Club	Single	CES, Schools, Government Agencies
California	SACC and Education Project	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Connecticut	Hartford SACC	Single	CES
Connecticut	Lean and Earn	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, Schools, Local Businesses
Connecticut	New Haven Spaces	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools
Connecticut	STRIVE	Unknown	Local Colleges, YWCA, Religious Institutions, Civic Organizations
Delaware	WCASA	Unknown	Land Grant Universities, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
Delaware	Seaford Collaboration for Youth	Single	Land Grant Universities, CES, Religious Institutions
Florida	Focus on the Future	Inactive	Inactive
Georgia	Kids Advocacy Coalition	Single	Schools, Government Agencies
Georgia	Shuttle School	Single	CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies
Guam	Youth Empowerment Project	Shared	Local Colleges, Community Service Agencies, Civic Organizations, and Government Agencies
Hawaii	A.C.T. & KAMP	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, BGCA, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
Idaho	After School Adventures	Single	Local Colleges, CES, Schools
Idaho	Just for Kids	Unknown	Community Service Agencies
Illinois	ABCD Family Enrichment Program	Shared	CES, YMCA/YWCA, Religious Institutions, Community Services Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Illinois	Computer Assisted Learning	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
Illinois	Lincoln Learning Trails	Single	CES, Schools, Government Agencies
Indiana	Space Stations	Single	Land Grant Universities, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools
Iowa	Comm COA	Inactive	Inactive
Iowa	4-H Special Projects	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, YMCA/YWCA, BGCA, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Iowa	Postville Child Care	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies, Local Businesses, Civic Organizations
Kansas	Caring & Collaborating	Single	CES, Schools, Government Agencies
Kansas	READ	Inactive	Inactive
Kansas	Kids After School	Shared	Local Colleges, CES, YMCA/YWCA, BGCA, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies, Civic Organizations, Local Businesses
Kentucky	TEAM	Inactive	Inactive
Kentucky	HYEP	Inactive	Inactive
Louisiana	4-H Horizon	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, YMCA/YWCA, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies
Maine	Strategies for Developing SACC	Single	Land Grant Universities, CES, Schools, Local Businesses
Maryland	4-H Adventures in Science	Single	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Local Businesses
Massachusetts	Worcester Co. 4-H	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, Schools, Civic Organizations
Michigan	All for One	Inactive	Inactive
Michigan	Exploring Spaces in the Edison Neighborhood	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Schools
Michigan	Youth Alliance for Peace	Shared	CES, Schools, Government Agencies
Minnesota	FINE	Single	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Minnesota	On the Move	Single	Land Grant Universities, CES, YMCA/YWCA, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Minnesota	YIE	Inactive	Inactive
Mississippi	After School Child Care and Education	Single	Land Grant Universities, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Local Businesses
Mississippi	SOARS	Inactive	Inactive
Mississippi	Project GESTALT	Shared	Reglious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations
Missouri	St. Joseph's Youth Alliance	Shared	YMCA/YWCA, BGCA, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Missouri	STAIRS	Shared	CES, Schools, Civic Organizations, Local Businesses
Missouri	Walbridge 4H Adventure Club	Single	Land Grant Universities, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Montana	NAFEP	Single	Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
Nebraska	Kids Team	Single	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Nebraska	Get SMART	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, Schools, Government Agencies
Nevada	4-H After School Club	Single	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
Nevada	Just Do It Jr.	Single	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
New Hampshire	Youth Opportunities Unlimited	Single	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, YMCA/YWCA, Schools
New Jersey	Bergen-LaFayette	Inactive	Inactive
New Jersey	Camden City Gardening	Inactive	Inactive
New Jersey	Soweto Academy	Unknown	Unknown
New Mexico	Quay Co. Prenatal Partnership	Unknown	Land Grant Universities, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
New York	Youth At-Risk Initiative	Inactive	Inactive
New York	Rural Family Coop	Single	Schools
New York	School Age Child Care Program	Single	YMCA/YWCA, Community Service Agencies
North Carolina	Wayne Co. 4-H Project	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, Religious Institutions, Schools, Government Agencies
North Dakota	Partners in Parenting/School Revitalization	Shared	CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies
Ohio	Athens Co.	Single	CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
Ohio	Cleveland Peer Volunteer Development	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools
Ohio	Community Councils for Youth at Risk	Inactive	Inactive
Ohio	Knox Co. 4H	Inactive	Inactive
Oklahoma	Oklahoma After School Care Program	Single	BGCA
Oklahoma	Home Visitation Program for Adolescent Mothers	Single	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies
Oregon	Kid Konnect	Inactive	Inactive
Oregon	Santiam Canyon Youth and Families Alliance	Single	CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies
Pennsylvania	Youth Education Program ‚ Chester County	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, Religious Institutions, Schools
Puerto Rico	VKASE	Shared	CES, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies
Rhode Island	CE SACC Education	Single	Land Grant Universities, CES, YMCA/YWCA, BGCA, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies
South Carolina	CHOICES	Inactive	Inactive
South Dakota	Sugar Bowl II	Inactive	Inactive
South Dakota	Pine Ridge	Inactive	Inactive
Tennessee	4-H BEST	Single	Land Grant Universities, CES
Texas	CAPITAL 4-H	Single	Land Grant Universities, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies
Texas	Making the Grade	Single	Local Colleges, YMCA/YWCA, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organization, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Texas	Rutabaga	Inactive	Inactive
Utah	CARES	Shared	Local Colleges, CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Local Businesses
Vermont	ECA	Unknown	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies, Civic Organizations, Local Businesses
Virginia	Making the Grade	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Local Businesses
Virginia	Partnership for Excellence in Education	Shared	Local Colleges, CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Virginia	Strong Families	Inactive	Inactive
Washington	ONTU	Shared	CES, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Washington	Spokane Family Focus	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, BGCA, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Civic Organizations, Government Agencies, Local Businesses
Washington	STAR Youth	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, BGCA, Religious Institutions, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
West Virginia	Charleston After School Program	Shared	Land Grant Universities, Local Colleges, CES, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies
Wisconsin	Youth Futures	Single	Unknown
Wyoming	HICAP	Inactive	Inactive
Wyoming	Wind River	Shared	Land Grant Universities, CES, BGCA, Community Service Agencies, Schools, Government Agencies

Return to Table of Contents

View this document in PDF format.

Visit Virginia Cooperative Extension