CTC Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible - Community Profile and Action Plan

Endorsed by Funded by Coordinated by
Funded by Supported by
Supported by Supported by Sponsored by
This project has been funded under the Victorian Government’s Community Crime Prevention Programme.
Prevention
is Possible
22nd
Feb 2016 Version 1
Community profile and action plan
to improve the healthy development
of children and young people

Communities That Care Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible: community profile and action planPage 2Communities That Care Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible: community profile and action plan Page 2
Produced by Brophy Family and Youth Services for Communities That Care Warrnambool.
February 2016
Prepared by
Cameron Price
Communities That Care Coordinator
Brophy Family and Youth Services
cprice@brophy.org.au
Suggested citation
Price, C. (2016) Communities That Care Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible: community profile and action plan to
improve the healthy development of children and young people. Warrnambool: Brophy Family and Youth Services.
© Brophy Family and Youth Services
This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of
the Copyright Act 1968.
Acknowledgements
The primary source for the Youth Survey results is Hall, J., Smith, R., & Toumbourou, J. (2015). 2015 Communities
That Care Profile Report: Warrnambool. Geelong: Deakin University. I would like to acknowledge the authors of that
report: Jessica Hall, Research Fellow, Deakin University, Rachel Smith, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, and
Professor John Toumbourou, Chair in Health Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University. I would particularly
like to thank Jessica Hall for her role in administering the Youth Survey and Heidi Cooney for her assistance.
Essential to the success of Communities That Care Warrnambool has been the expert advice of Dr Bosco Rowland,
Alfred Deakin Post-Doctoral Fellow with the School of Psychology, Deakin University, Associate Professor in
Epidemiology Jo Williams, School of Health & Social Development, Deakin University, and Professor John
Toumbourou, Chair in Health Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University.
Thank you to Amber Osborn, Deborah Wagner and Tina Hosseini, Community Relations Officers with Communities
That Care Ltd (Australia), for responding patiently to my relentless questions.
I would like to acknowledge the service of the CTC Key Leaders and the members of the Beyond The Bell
Warrnambool Local Action Group, which functions as the Communities That Care Warrnambool Board. Your
guidance, strategic advice, connections and advocacy have been of great value.
The quality of decision making in the selection of priority risk and protective factors, subsequent decisions around
the selection of programmes and ultimately the effectiveness with which our prevention effort will curtail
adolescent health and behaviour problems is largely underpinned by the efforts of the CTC volunteer team and
Brophy staff that supervised Youth Survey sessions. Thank you for your contribution. You have played a significant
role in improving the lives and welfare of many young people in Warrnambool, their families and the community as a
whole.
Thank you to those participating in the Data Working Group for grappling with complex information to distil it down
to a short list of priority factors to focus the prevention efforts in Warrnambool. Thanks also to those participating in
the Resource Assessment and Evaluation Working Group who assisted with reviewing existing programmes and
assessing gaps.
Thank you to Nicola Coffey for your assistance in developing this Community Profile and Action Plan.
Thank you to Kathy Sanderson, Francis Broekman and Leeona Van Duynhoven from Brophy Family and Youth
Services for your supervision, support and guidance.

Communities That Care Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible: community profile and action plan Page 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................5
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................6
Communities That Care ....................................................................................................................................................6
Risk and Protective Factors...........................................................................................................................................7
Social Development Strategy........................................................................................................................................7
Understanding Local Needs ..........................................................................................................................................9
CTC Youth Survey..........................................................................................................................................................9
Evidence-based Programmes........................................................................................................................................9
Youth Survey Results.......................................................................................................................................................10
Health and Behavioural Problems ..................................................................................................................................11
Substance Abuse.........................................................................................................................................................11
Antisocial Behaviour ...................................................................................................................................................12
Depression / Anxiety...................................................................................................................................................13
Risk Factors .....................................................................................................................................................................14
Community Risk Factors..............................................................................................................................................14
Family Risk Factors......................................................................................................................................................16
School Risk Factors......................................................................................................................................................17
Peer / Individual Risk Factors......................................................................................................................................18
Risk Factors Incline with Age.......................................................................................................................................20
Risk Factors by Domain...............................................................................................................................................20
Protective Factors ...........................................................................................................................................................20
Community Protective Factors ...................................................................................................................................20
Family Protective Factors............................................................................................................................................21
School Protective Factors............................................................................................................................................22
Peer/Individual Protective Factors .............................................................................................................................23
Protective Factors Decline with Age...........................................................................................................................25
Protective Factors by Domain.....................................................................................................................................25
Principles Influencing the Selection of Priority Factors ..................................................................................................26
Malleability .................................................................................................................................................................26
Domains ......................................................................................................................................................................26
Number of Priority Factors .........................................................................................................................................26
Risk vs Protective Factors............................................................................................................................................26
Prevalence...................................................................................................................................................................27
Recommendations in the Youth Survey Report..........................................................................................................27
Relative Prevalence of Factors........................................................................................................................................27
Selection of Priority Risk and Protective Factors............................................................................................................29
Inventory of Existing Programmes..................................................................................................................................30

Communities That Care Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible: community profile and action planPage 4
Programme Selection......................................................................................................................................................30
Logic Model.....................................................................................................................................................................30
Selected Programmes.....................................................................................................................................................32
Social marketing and community mobilisation to reduce alcohol-related harms......................................................32
Reducing access to alcohol for young people under age 18.......................................................................................33
Reducing access to tobacco for young people under age 18 .....................................................................................34
Resilient Families / Parenting Adolescents: A Creative Experience (PACE)................................................................35
The Good Behaviour Game.........................................................................................................................................36
You Can Do It! Education ............................................................................................................................................37
Programmes for Consideration.......................................................................................................................................38
Friendly Schools and Families/ Friendly Schools Plus.................................................................................................38
FRIENDS for Life ..........................................................................................................................................................39
The Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 ..........................................................................................................40
Prevention Planning for 2017 .........................................................................................................................................41
Research and Evaluation Consultancy ............................................................................................................................41
Further Information........................................................................................................................................................41

Executive Summary
Communities That Care Warrnambool aims to improve the healthy development of children and young people and
prevent antisocial behaviour, alcohol and drug abuse and school dropout. It works to prevent health and social
problems by addressing the factors that increase the likelihood of positive development and decrease the likelihood
of adverse outcomes for children and young people.
Brophy Family and Youth Services has agreed to partner with Communities That Care Ltd in a Department of Justice
and Regulation funded project to coordinate Communities that Care in Warrnambool.
The Communities That Care Youth Survey asked 326 questions of 1,215 year 6, 8 and 10 students from 13 schools.
 One in five year 6 students have had alcohol; one in 16 within the last four weeks.
 One in every 45 year 6 students binge drank (five or more drinks in a single session) within the last fortnight.
 Two in five year 8 students have had alcohol; one in five within the last four weeks.
 One in every 18 year 8 students binge drank within the last fortnight.
 Two in three year 10 students have had alcohol; one in three within the last four weeks.
 One in five year 10 students binge drank within the last fortnight.
 On average, for every year 8 class of 25 students, eight have been bullied.
 One in ten year 10 students have been suspended.
 Three in four year 10 students have a low commitment to school.
 Three in five year 10 students believe that laws and norms in the community support alcohol and drug use.
 A third of year 8 and 10 students are in family environments with high levels of conflict.
 Four in seven year 10 students have attitudes favourable to alcohol and drug use.
 Three in five year 6s see opportunities for prosocial involvement in school; this is halved by year 10.
 Three in five year 6s see rewards for prosocial involvement in schools; but only three in 16 year 10s see this.
 Three in four year 6s are affirmed by their families for prosocial involvement; this is halved by year 10.
 One in five year 6 students and two in five year 8s and 10s have symptoms of depression and anxiety.
The following risk/protective factors were selected as priorities to target:
 Low commitment to school (School risk factor)
 School opportunities for prosocial involvement (School protective factor)
 Family opportunities for prosocial involvement (Family protective factor)
 Laws/norms favourable to substance use (Community risk factor)
 Favourable attitude towards drug use (Peer/individual risk factor)
Fifteen specific objectives have been set, five for each of the target outcomes:
 Outcome 1: Improve education attainment
 Outcome 2: Reduce alcohol and other drug use
 Outcome 3: Reduce antisocial behaviour
This report specifies which evidence-based prevention programmes to implement in Warrnambool across the
domains of community, school, family and peer/individual.
Our vision is that every child and young person who lives or attends school in Warrnambool has the environment,
connections and opportunities to build physical, mental and social wellbeing.
If you have any questions or would like to support Communities That Care Warrnambool, please contact the
Communities That Care Coordinator Cameron Price on 5561 8877 or email cprice@brophy.org.au.
For further information go to http://ctcwarrnambool.com.

Introduction
The cost of crime in Australia from the impact on victims and the cost of the justice system and operating prisons
runs into the billions every year. Every dollar invested in evidence-based prevention programmes reduces the long-
term cost of crime many times over. It is for this reason that the Department of Justice and Regulation has funded
Communities That Care in Warrnambool.
The level of attainment of year twelve or equivalent in Warrnambool is extremely low. Only 61% of 20 – 24 year olds
have attained year 12 or equivalent, compared to a Victorian average of 75%. This does not bode well for those
individuals or for local economy and community as a whole.
Alcohol and other drugs are a major public health concern contributing to many injuries and fatalities from road
accidents, assaults and family violence and chronic health problems. Youth who regularly consume alcohol by age 14
are nearly half as likely to complete high school education as those who do not.
Communities That Care Warrnambool adopts a "public health" approach. In its submission to the Senate Inquiry on
Domestic Violence in Australia, the Australian Women's Health Network gave a great explanation of the public
health model:
Public Health has been defined as an organised response to the protection and promotion of human
health…It is concerned with the health of entire populations, which may be a local neighbourhood or an
entire country. Public health programs are delivered through education, promoting health lifestyles, and
disease and injury prevention. This is in contrast to the medical approach to health which focuses on treating
individuals after they become sick or injured.
Communities That Care
Communities That Care (CTC) is an evidence-based, community-change process for reducing youth problem
behaviours, including harmful substance use, low academic achievement, early school leaving, sexual risk-taking and
violence.
The CTC approach applies the most up-to-date knowledge and research to foster healthy behaviour and social
commitment among children and youth.
The CTC process uses an early intervention and prevention framework to guide communities towards understanding
their local needs, identifying and setting priorities and implementing effective evidence-based strategies to address
those needs.
Using prevention science as its base, CTC promotes healthy youth development, improves youth outcomes and
reduces problem behaviours. The 5-phase CTC process uses an early intervention and prevention framework to
guide communities towards identifying and understanding their local needs, setting priorities and implementing
tested effective strategies to address those needs.
Phase 1 – Get Started
Communities prepare for action by working to identify and recruit relevant community stakeholders and key
decision-makers to the Communities That Care process.
Phase 2 – Get Organised
The Community Board, Key Leader Group and relevant governance structures are established to guide decision
making and planning for the CTC effort in the community.
Phase 3 – Develop a Profile
A Community Profile Report is prepared using data gathered from the CTC Youth Survey, public data, and
assessments of existing community resources and strengths. The Community Board finalises priorities for action.

Phase 4 – Create a Plan
The Community Board develops a comprehensive Community Action Plan to guide prevention work in the
community. This plan outlines chosen evidence-based programmes, relevant outcomes and allocates roles and
responsibility for implementation.
Phase 5 – Implement and Evaluate
Implementation of the Community Action Plan begins and the Community Board and Key Leader Groups ensure that
evidence-based programmes and strategies are implemented with fidelity and evaluated as planned.
Risk and Protective Factors
The Communities That Care process creates awareness of the risk and protective factors impacting on the healthy
development of children and adolescents. Throughout the process, communities target their prevention efforts to
reduce risk factors and strengthen protective factors in the four domains of community, family, school and
peer/individual.
What are risk factors?
Risk factors are those elements in a young person’s environment that increase the likelihood of them engaging in
health compromising behaviours. They exist in all domains of social development – community, family, school and
peer/individual. Risk factors are identifiable throughout the developmental continuum, and are consistent in effects
across races and cultures.
The risk factors used in CTC have been shown in multiple longitudinal studies to be reliable predictors of at least one
of six adolescent health and social problems – alcohol and drug abuse, antisocial behaviour, youth violence, school
failure, anxiety/depression and teenage pregnancy. A risk and protective factor chart maps the relationship with
health and social outcomes. The CTC process provides communities with tools for measuring local risk factor levels in
order to select risk factor priorities on which a strategic plan can be focused.
What are protective factors?
Protective factors buffer against risk in otherwise adverse circumstances by either reducing the impact of risk or
changing the way a child or young person responds to it. The Social Development Strategy provides a framework
that explains to communities how to increase protective factors through everyday interactions with children and
adolescents. Protective factors used in CTC are derived from a research base and occur in all four social development
domains.
Most of the risk and protective factors targeted in the Communities That Care process are measured using the
Communities That Care Youth Survey.
Social Development Strategy
Communities that Care is underpinned by the Social Development Strategy - an evidence-based framework which
organises protective factors into a simple strategy for action to promote positive youth development.
The Social Development Strategy identifies the following key components to increase protective factors for young
people in the community:
Healthy beliefs and clear standards for behaviour: Young people are more likely to engage in healthy, socially
responsible behaviour when parents, teachers and the community around them communicate healthy beliefs and
clear standards.
Bonding: Strong, attached relationships with those who hold healthy beliefs and clear standards are an important
protective influence. To create these bonds, young people need opportunities, skills and recognition.
Opportunities: Provide opportunities for active participation and meaningful involvement with prosocial others,
including families, schools, communities and peer groups.

Skills: Teach young people the skills they need to succeed.
Recognition: Provide consistent recognition and praise for their effort, improvement and accomplishments.
The Social Development Strategy also recognises the important influence of individual characteristics on the capacity
to take advantage of other protective processes. Characteristics such as positive social orientation, resiliency and
intellect can facilitate bonding and, in some cases, can be nurtured by communities and adults.

Understanding Local Needs
The Communities That Care process provides communities with a unique approach to identifying and understanding
the issues experienced by local children and adolescents.
CTC makes it possible to map factors that are influencing the likelihood that young people in the community will
experience outcomes such as school failure and mental health problems or become involved in behaviours such as
alcohol and drug abuse, violence and antisocial behaviour.
Communities follow a step-by-step process of collecting and collating local data, including administering a local
youth survey, to create a profile of risk and protective factors and health and problem behaviours affecting young
people in the community. This profile is a powerful tool for planning prevention strategies where genuine priorities
are targeted for action. The community can use this information to make informed decisions about how to improve
existing prevention-focused services that benefit children and adolescents. Gaps in service provision can also be
identified and filled by introducing new interventions as necessary.
CTC Youth Survey
The CTC Youth Survey is administered to students attending local primary and secondary schools. The survey is
suitable for students in Grade 5 through to Year 12. CTC Ltd. work with communities to determine the most suitable
year levels to survey. The survey has been designed to provide a snapshot of issues for young people, particularly in
the areas of substance abuse, antisocial behaviour, youth violence and mental health. It also investigates risk and
protective factors for these health and problem behaviours within the domains of community, school, family and
peer/individual.
Evidence-based Programmes
The Communities that Care process assists communities to select and implement evidence-based programmes and
strategies to promote healthy youth development in accordance with the community’s identified priorities.
“Evidence-based” on this definition refers to a documented project logic that has been evaluated and shown positive
results in one or more experimental or good quality evaluation studies.
The Communities that Care Guide to Australian Prevention Strategies (2012) includes detailed information on
evidence-based programmes which have been selected based on the following criteria:
 Evidence of effectiveness from good quality evaluation studies in preventing youth health and social
problems by reducing developmental risk factors, while also enhancing protective factors;
 Feasibility for implementation and monitoring by Communities that Care coalitions;
 Availability of support and advice to assist Australian implementation.
Prevention strategies are being rapidly developed and increasingly evaluated using experimental designs.
Communities are encouraged to take a responsible approach to seeking out and promoting the dissemination of
evaluated prevention strategies. Where previously unevaluated strategies are implemented, communities can
request good quality evaluations.
Communities are also encouraged to access the ARACY Nest What works for kids. This Australian-based online
resource provides a searchable database of relevant evidence-based programmes, practices and tools and provides
opportunities for users to contribute to the database, with information about additional programmes, practices and
tools.

Youth Survey Results
The Communities That Care Youth Survey asked 326 questions of 1,215 year 6, 8 and 10 students from 13 schools.
Some of the notable results from the Youth Survey follow:
 One in five year 6 students have had alcohol; one in 16 within the last four weeks.
 One in every 45 year 6 students binge drank (five or more drinks in a single session) within the last fortnight.
 Two in five year 8 students have had alcohol; one in five within the last four weeks.
 One in every 18 year 8 students binge drank within the last fortnight.
 Two in three year 10 students have had alcohol; one in three within the last four weeks.
 One in five year 10 students binge drank within the last fortnight.
 Three in every 23 year 10 students smoked within the last four weeks.
 One in six year 10 students have had marijuana; one in 13 within the last four weeks.
 One in 17 year 6 and 8 students have used solvents to get high.
 On average, for every year 8 class of 25 students, eight have been bullied.
 For every 25 year 8 students, three carry a weapon with the intent to use it if they felt the need.
 For every 25 year 8 students, two have attacked someone.
 One in nine year 8 students have stolen something worth more than $10.
 One in ten year 10 students have been suspended.
 One in 18 year 10 students have been drunk or high at school.
 Three in four year 10 students have a low commitment to school.
 Three in five year 10 students believe that laws and norms in the community support alcohol and drug use.
 A third of year 8 and 10 students are in family environments with high levels of conflict.
 Four in seven year 10 students have attitudes favourable to alcohol and drug use.
 Almost half of year 10 students have at least one of their four best friends who use alcohol or drugs.
 Three in five year 6 students see opportunities for prosocial involvement; this is halved by year 10.
 Three in five year 6 students see rewards for prosocial involvement; but only one in five year 10s see this.
 Three in four year 6s are affirmed by their families for prosocial involvement; this is halved by year 10.
 One in five year 6 students have symptoms of depression and anxiety.
 Two in five year 8 and 10 students have symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Health and Behavioural Problems
Substance Abuse
19.4
6.1
2.2
42.5
19.5
5.6
67.9
37.5
21.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ever drank alcohol Drank alcohol in last 30 days Binge drank in past 2 weeks
Alcohol
Year 6 Year 8 Year 10
2.5
0.1 0.6 0
6.2
1.7 1.3 0
29.7
13.1
17
7.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ever smoked cigarettes Smoked in the last 30 days Ever used marijuana Used marijuana in last 30
days
Smoking

Antisocial Behaviour
5.7 3.8
0 0 0.3
5.8
1.9 0.2 0 0.4
4.6
0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ever used solvents to
get high
Used solvents in last
30 days
Ever used illegal
drugs
Used illegal drugs in
last 30 days
Ever used
methamphetamines
Other Drugs
25.8
7.6 9.6
3.5 1.9
31.5
9.9 11.8
7.9
4.1
29.2
8.8 7.3
3.9 2.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Been bullied recently Bullied another
student recently
Carried a weapon Attacked someone Threatened
someone with a
weapon
Anti-social Behaviour

Depression / Anxiety
6.7
2.2 0.6 1.6 0.3
10.9
7.9
0.6 1.3 0.4
6.8
9.7
5.6
0.2 1.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Stolen something
worth more than $10
Suspended from
school
Been drunk or high
at school
Stolen a motor
vehicle
Sold illegal drugs
Anti-social Behaviour
21.3
41.2 44.1 40.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Depressive Symptomology
Year 6 Year 8 Year 10 Year 8 Australia

Risk Factors
Community Risk Factors
Low community attachment
Neighbourhoods where residents report low
levels of bonding to the neighbourhood have
higher rates of juvenile crime, violence and drug
use.
Community disorganisation
Neighbourhoods with high population density,
lack of natural surveillance of public places,
physical deterioration and high rates of adult
crime have higher rates of juvenile crime,
violence and drug use.
Personal transitions & mobility
Young people without stability and strong
personal relationships are more likely to use
drugs and become involved in antisocial
behaviours.
22.7
28.3
37.1 33.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
7 9.3 7.2
16.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
4.6
9.6 8.4
14.3
0
20
40
60
80
100

Laws/norms favourable to drug use
Communities where laws regulating alcohol and
other drug use are poorly enforced have higher
rates of youth alcohol and drug use, violence
and delinquency. Further, rates of youth alcohol
and drug use and violence are higher in
communities where adults believe it is
normative or acceptable for minors to use
alcohol or other drugs.
Perceived availability of drugs
The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana
and other illegal drugs is related to a higher risk
of drug use and violence among adolescents.
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each community risk factor for adolescents in Warrnambool
(derived by averaging the prevalence of each age class).
14.2
33.7
58.9
35.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Laws/norms favourable to substance use
6.2
19.4
51.3
23.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Laws/norms favourable to substance use
Prevalence of Risk Factors

Family Risk Factors
Poor family management
Parents’ use of inconsistent and/or unusually
harsh or severe punishment with their children
places the children at higher risk for substance
use and other problem behaviours.
Family conflict
Children raised in families high in conflict are at
risk for violence, delinquency, school dropout,
teen pregnancy and drug use.
Parental attitudes favourable to drug use
In families where parents are tolerant of their
children’s alcohol or drug use, children are
more likely to become drug abusers. The risk is
further increased if parents involve children in
their own drug or alcohol using behaviour.
Parental attitudes favourable to anti-social
behaviour
In families where parents are tolerant of their
children’s misbehaviour, including violent and
delinquent behaviour, children are more likely
to become involved in violence and crime
during adolescence.
22.4
26.7
38
28.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
26
33.9 34.9 38.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
Family conflict
12.5
22
41.8
19.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
13.5
28.2 29.7 28.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Parental attitudes favourable to anti-social behaviour

Communities That Care Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible: community profile and action plan Page 17Communities That Care Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible: community profile and action plan Page 17
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each family risk factor for adolescents in Warrnambool (derived by
averaging the prevalence of each age class).
School Risk Factors
School failure
Beginning in the late primary school grades
(grades 4-6), children who fall behind
academically for any reason are at greater risk
of drug abuse, school dropout, teenage
pregnancy and violence.
Low commitment to school
Factors such as not liking school, spending little
time on homework and perceiving coursework
as irrelevant are predictive of drug use,
violence, delinquency and school dropout.
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each school risk factor for adolescents in Warrnambool (derived by
averaging the prevalence of each age class).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Parental attitudes favourable to anti-social behaviour
Family conflict
Prevalence of Family Risk Factors
10.4
27.4
36.3
22
0
20
40
60
80
100
School failure
37.2
71.3
76.8
60.1
0
20
40
60
80
100

Peer / Individual Risk Factors
Favourable attitudes to drug use
Youth who express positive attitudes toward
drug use are at higher risk for subsequent drug
use.
Friends’ use of drugs
Young people who associate with peers who
engage in alcohol or substance use are much
more likely to engage in the same behaviour.
Rewards for antisocial behaviour
Where young people gain kudos for antisocial
behaviour, they are more likely to engage in
that behaviour.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
School failure
Prevalence of School Risk Factors
4.2
23.1
56.8
23.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Favourable attitude towards drug use
1.3
12.1
45.3
17
0
20
40
60
80
100
2 5.1 6.2 8.3
0
20
40
60
80
100

Rebelliousness
Individuals with rebellious attitudes are more
likely to engage in problem behaviour.
Sensation seeking
Young people who seek adrenaline experiences
are more likely to engage in substance use and
antisocial behaviour.
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each peer/individual risk factor for adolescents in Warrnambool
6.5
14
19.1 17.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rebelliousness
16.7
25.3
30.5
24.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sensation seeking
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Rebelliousness
Sensation seeking
Favourable attitude towards drug use
Prevalence of Peer/Individual Risk Factors

Risk Factors Incline with Age
There is a concerning increase in the prevalence
of risk factors moving from grade 6 to year 8
and a further rise to year 10. This means that
older adolescents are much more exposed to
risk factors, increasing the likelihood of adverse
outcomes. This is compounded by a
corresponding reduction in protective factors
with age, exacerbating the prevalence of
problematic behaviours.
Risk Factors by Domain
The average prevalence of the risk factors in the
school domain are much higher than all the
other domains. This means that a much higher
proportion of young people are exposed to risk
factors in the school domain.
Protective Factors
Community Protective Factors
Community opportunities for prosocial
involvement
When opportunities for positive participation
are available in a community, children are more
likely to become bonded to the community.
13.0
24.3
36.1
25.8
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Average prevalence of risk factors
21.2
27.5
43.2
17.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Average prevalence of risk factors
Community Family School Individual/peer
71.8
66.9 65.8 65.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Community opportunities for prosocial involvement

Community rewards for prosocial involvement
Recognition for positive participation in
community activities helps children bond to the
community, thus lowering their risk for problem
behaviours.
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each community protective factor for adolescents in Warrnambool
Family Protective Factors
Family attachment
Young people who feel strongly bonded to their
family are less likely to engage in substance use
and other problem behaviours.
Family opportunities for prosocial involvement
Young people who have more opportunities to
participate meaningfully in the responsibilities
and activities of the family are more likely to
develop strong bonds to the family.
82.6
78 76.1 77.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Community opportunities for prosocial involvement
Prevalence of Community Protective Factors
90.1
72.6
62.4
72.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Family attachment
76.5
49.1
42.5
48.8
0
20
40
60
80
100

Family rewards for prosocial involvement
When parents, siblings, and other family
members praise, encourage and recognise
things done well by their child, children are
more likely to develop strong bonds to the
family.
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each family protective factor for adolescents in Warrnambool
School Protective Factors
School opportunities for prosocial involvement
When young people are given more
opportunities to participate meaningfully in the
classroom and school, they are more likely to
develop strong bonds of attachment and
commitment to school.
75.2
50.9
37.5
50.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Family attachment
Prevalence of Family Protective Factors
62.9
40.1
29.5
37.1
0
20
40
60
80
100

School rewards for prosocial involvement
When young people are recognised for their
contributions, efforts and progress in school,
they are more likely to develop strong bonds of
attachment and commitment to school.
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each school protective factor for adolescents in Warrnambool
Peer/Individual Protective Factors
Belief in the moral order
Young people who have a belief in what is
‘right’ or ‘wrong’ are less likely to use drugs or
engage in delinquent or other problem
behaviours.
Interaction with pro-social peers
Young people who interact with other young
people who display pro-social behaviour are
less likely to engage in substance use and other
problem behaviours.
61
26.4
18.7
34
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Prevalence of School Protective Factors
81.4
53.7 54.5
68.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Belief in moral order
83.7
72 69 69.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Interaction with prosocial peers

Coping with stress - Adaptive
When young people demonstrate positive
coping strategies in stressful situations they are
less likely to engage in substance use and other
problem behaviours.
Emotional control
Young people who demonstrate emotional
control are less likely to engage in substance
use and problem behaviours and experience
less depression.
Social competencies
Young people with strong social competencies
are more likely to resist peer pressure to
engage in substance use and antisocial
behaviour.
Religiosity
Young people who follow a religion are less
likely to engage in problem behaviour.
71.5
53.9
45.4
53.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
70.4
58.4
49.6
62.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Emotional control
61.9
41.6
37.2
47.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Social competencies
59.7
53 52.5 55.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Religiosity

The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each peer/individual protective factor for adolescents in
Warrnambool (derived by averaging the prevalence of each age class).
Protective Factors Decline with Age
There is a concerning drop in the prevalence of
protective factors moving from grade 6 to year
8 and a further drop to year 10. This means that
older adolescents are much less protected from
risk factors, increasing the likelihood of adverse
outcomes. This is compounded by a
corresponding increase in risk factors with age,
exacerbating the prevalence of problematic
behaviours.
Protective Factors by Domain
The average prevalence of the protective
factors in the school domain are much lower
than all the other domains. There is an
opportunity to increase the proportion of young
people benefiting from protective factors in the
school domain.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Interaction with prosocial peers
Belief in moral order
Emotional control
Religiosity
Social competencies
Prevalence of Peer/Individual Protective Factors
73.0
55.1
49.3
57.2
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Average prevalence of protective factors
77.2 80.6
62.0
71.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Average prevalence of protective factors
Community Family School Individual/peer

Principles Influencing the Selection of Priority Factors
Malleability
Funds invested in delivering evidence-based prevention programmes would be better spent on programmes which
have been demonstrated to be effective in addressing the priority risk and protective factors. Conversely, it would
make sense to consider selecting as a priority those factors which have been shown to be subject to influence from
prevention programmes. While a factor may indeed be strongly associated with an adverse health or behaviour
problem we are trying to address, there is no point selecting it as a priority if no evaluation has concluded that it has
been changed through prevention efforts.
To address this only those risk and protective factors which have been identified in the Guide to Australian
Prevention Strategies as being subject to change from one of the listed evidence-based programmes will be
considered.
Domains
In the framework used, risk and protective factors exist within four domains: community, school, family and
individual/peer. If prevention efforts ignore one or more domains, high risk factors and low protective factors can
undermine and negate efforts in the other domains. For example efforts to address school failure (school domain)
would be undermined unless poor family management (family domain) where children were going to school without
breakfast was also addressed. Therefore the spread of priority factors across domains would be more effective than
the same effort targeting factors in limited domains.
Number of Priority Factors
Theoretically a community could attempt to address all risk and protective factors equally. This would most likely
lead to such a diffuse effort that it would be unlikely to significantly change any factor, and therefore the resultant
health and behavioural outcomes would remain unaffected despite all the effort. If the prevention effort is focused
on a small number of factors and most prevention efforts in the community are mutually reinforcing and rally
around the goal of shifting a handful of factors, then those efforts are much more likely to be effective. Adolescents
with the reduced number of risk factors and/or greater number of protective factors are then less likely to develop
preventable health and behavioural problems, reducing the rate of those problems at a population level.
At the extreme, a community could select only one factor. However, this would result in such a narrow focus that
the prevention effort would not adequately address the breadth and complexity of the system that gives rise to the
range of adolescent problems we are endeavouring to address.
The optimum is to select between three and five factors (inclusive). Invariably other factors will end up being
addressed anyway, as programmes selected to address the priority factors often also positively impact on a range of
other factors.
Risk vs Protective Factors
There is a complex interaction between the number of risk factors in a young person’s life, the number of protective
factors and the likelihood of them going on to develop preventable health or behavioural problems. The adverse
impact of additional risk factors is not just additive: as the number of risk factors increases, the probability of
problems increases exponentially. Also, for any given number of risk factors, increasing the number of protective
factors progressively reduces the probability of adverse outcomes. However, beyond a threshold number of risk
factors, this moderating effect of protective factors does not hold. In fact, those with a very high number of risk
factors are not likely to have any protective factors. This has implications for the balance of risk versus protective
factors included in the set of priority factors. While building protective factors is effective in reducing the likelihood
of adverse outcomes, particularly for those with few risk factors, it is most important to reduce the total number of
risk factors.

Prevalence
The most important consideration in comparing risk factors to prioritise for targeting with evidence-based
prevention programmes is the proportion of adolescents in the local community subject to the influence of each
factor. In order to reduce the proportion of adolescents in the community with any particular health and behavioural
problem, it makes sense to focus on those risk factors with a high prevalence, as a reduction in that factor will
impact more people. For example if two risk factors were the driving influence behind an adverse outcome for young
people we were trying to change and risk factor A was present in the lives of 4% of adolescents and risk factor B was
present in 80% of the adolescent population, if prevention efforts could successfully remove a risk factor for one in
four people, focusing on risk factor B would help twenty times more people than focusing on risk factor A. Of course
it is more complex than that, as there are interactions between the factors and various factors can impact outcomes
to varying degrees, however the principle is still valid that to have an impact on adolescent health and behavioural
problems at a population level it is more effective to target risk factors with the higher prevalence.
Comparisons to Victorian or Australian averages are interesting and serve to provide some context to understanding
how we are going as a community, however even if the local levels are statistically significantly different to State or
national averages, that has no bearing on what the local levels mean for our community and how they inform
choices about how we address local problems with locally implemented programmes. For this reason comparisons
(where available) are included in the initial overview of risk and protective factors and are subsequently excluded
from consideration in the selection of factors to prioritise for targeting.
While the data disaggregated to year level is available and corresponding figures in the Profile Report are referred
to, as each factor has a different profile with different prevalence level for each year level, this makes it difficult to
compare factor against factor. Factors are selected for prioritising overall as opposed to sets being selected
differentially for each year level. Therefore for the purpose of generating a rank order list with the relative
prevalence across the combined adolescent cohort, for each factor the prevalence levels for years 6, 8 and 10 were
averaged. This would be indicative of the proportion of adolescents influenced by each factor.
Recommendations in the Youth Survey Report
Another variable that was taken into consideration were the recommendations in the Youth Survey Report for which
factors to prioritise. Based on the results, the authors of the report make the following recommendations:
1. Set risk factor targets to reduce early age alcohol use: consider prioritising reduced favourable attitudes to
substance use and availability.
2. Set risk factor targets to improve school commitment.
3. Set risk factor targets to increase the effectiveness of parents and families: consider targets to reduce family
conflict and favourable family attitudes to substance use.
Relative Prevalence of Factors
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each risk factor for adolescents in Warrnambool (derived by
averaging the prevalence of each age class). Those not listed as subject to change by any of the programmes in the
Guide to Australian Prevention Strategies have been excluded. Those with a prevalence of less than 25% of the
population have been excluded.

The risk and protective factors selected for targeting.
The following is an estimate of the prevalence of each protective factor for adolescents in Warrnambool (derived by
averaging the prevalence of each age class). Those not listed as subject to change by any of the programmes in the
Guide to Australian Prevention Strategies have been excluded. Those with a prevalence of greater than 60% of the
population have been excluded.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Parental attitudes favourable to drug use (F)
Perceived availability of drugs (C)
Favourable attitude towards drug use (P/I)
Poor family management (F)
Low community attachment (C)
Family conflict (F)
Laws/norms favourable to substance use (C)
Low commitment to school (S)
Prevalence of Risk Factors
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Emotional control
Religiosity
Social competencies
Prevalence of Protective Factors

Selection of Priority Risk and Protective Factors
Given the Youth Survey results, and taking account of each of the principles influencing the selection, the following
risk/protective factors have been selected to target with evidence-based prevention programmes:
 Low commitment to school (School risk factor)
 School opportunities for prosocial involvement (School protective factor)
 Family opportunities for prosocial involvement (Family protective factor)
 Laws/norms favourable to substance use (Community risk factor)
 Favourable attitude towards drug use (Peer/individual risk factor)
These were endorsed by the Beyond The Bell Warrnambool Local Action Group meeting on 7th
August 2015.
Objectives
A series of specific objectives have been set for each target behavioural outcome.
Outcome 1: Improve education attainment
 To decrease the percentage of people aged 17 years not attending any educational institution from 18% (2011
Census) to 13% by the 2021 Census.
 To decrease the percentage of year 8 students with the risk factor low commitment to school from the baseline
of 71% (2015) to 59% by 2017 and 47% by 2019.
 To decrease the percentage of year 10 students with the risk factor low commitment to school from the baseline
of 79% (2015) to 65% by 2017 and 51% by 2019.
 To increase the percentage of year 8 students with the protective factor opportunities for prosocial involvement
(school domain) from the baseline of 40% (2015) to 50% by 2017 and 60% by 2019.
(school domain) from the baseline of 30% (2015) to 42% by 2017 and 54% by 2019.
Outcome 2: Reduce alcohol and other drug use
 To decrease the percentage of year 8 students who drank alcohol within the 30 days prior to the CTC Youth
Survey from baseline 20% (2015) to 18% by 2017 and 16% by 2019.
 To decrease the percentage of year 10 students who drank alcohol within the 30 days prior to the CTC Youth
 To decrease the percentage of year 10 students who smoked tobacco within the 30 days prior to the CTC Youth
 To decrease the percentage of year 10 students with the risk factor favourable attitudes to drug use (peer/
individual domain) from the baseline of 57% (2015) to 48% by 2017 and 38% by 2019.
 To decrease the percentage of year 10 students with the risk factor laws/ norms favourable to drug use
(community domain) from the baseline of 59% (2015) to 49% by 2017 and 39% by 2019.
Outcome 3: Reduce antisocial behaviour
 To decrease the percentage of year 6 students who report being bullied recently from baseline 29% (2015) to
25% by 2017 and 21% by 2019.
27% by 2017 and 23% by 2019.
25% by 2017 and 22% by 2019.
(family domain) from the baseline of 49% (2015) to 57% by 2017 and 65% by 2019.
(family domain) from the baseline of 43% (2015) to 52% by 2017 and 62% by 2019.

Inventory of Existing Programmes
CTC Warrnambool conducted an inventory of existing programmes that address the wellbeing of children and young
people who live or go to school in Warrnambool. Two hundred programmes were identified. A gap analysis was
conducted. This process is detailed in Communities That Care Warrnambool Community Resources Assessment
Report.
Programme Selection
There are evidence-based prevention programmes currently running targeting early childhood or parents with young
children. The Youth Survey results indicated that this cohort have relatively low risk and high protection. This is in
stark contrast to the adolescents, who have high levels of risk and low protection, particularly in the family and
school domains. In order to get a substantial change in risk/protective factors over the next one to three years, it
was decided that this round the focus would be on those who will be moving into year 8 or 10 sometime over the
next three years. So the primary target group is 10-14 year olds. Programmes run locally or which have run
successfully elsewhere have been selected which:
 are evidence-based (evaluation in a peer-reviewed journal which concludes the programme is effective)
 are prevention-focused (not intervention-focused)
 universal (rather than targeted or selected)
 directly address priority risk/protective factors
 target the 10 – 14 year old cohort
Logic Model
Priority Risk /Protective Factors Target Behavioural Outcomes
Decrease laws and norms
favourable to substance use
(Community risk factor)
Decrease favourable attitudes
towards drug use (Peer/
individual risk factor)
Increase family opportunities
for prosocial involvement
(Family protective factor)
Improve education attainment
Reduce alcohol and other drug
use
Reduce antisocial behaviour
Decrease low commitment to
school (School risk factor)
Increase school opportunities
(School protective factor)

Programmes / Strategies Priority Risk /Protective Factors
Social Marketing and
Community Mobilisation to
Reduce Alcohol-Related Harm
Reducing Access to Alcohol for
Young People Under 18
Decrease laws and norms
favourable to substance use
(Community risk factor)
Reducing Access to Tobacco for
Young People Under 18
Decrease favourable attitudes
towards drug use (Peer/
individual risk factor)
Research and Evaluation
Consultancy
Increase family opportunities for
prosocial involvement (Family
protective factor)
Prevention Planning for 2017
Decrease low commitment to
school (School risk factor)
Resilient Families / PACE
Increase school opportunities
(School protective factor)
The Good Behaviour Game
You Can Do It! Education

Selected Programmes
Social marketing and community mobilisation to reduce alcohol-related harms
Description
A new social marketing intervention is being developed
and trialled in a partnership between Deakin University
and CTC Ltd. The intervention has been designed using
an evidence-based behaviour change approach called
the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The social marketing
intervention focuses on alerting parents and
adolescents to the National Health and Medical
Research Council (2009) guidelines for safe alcohol use,
and seeks to convince parents and adolescents to set
agreements that adults will not supply alcohol to
underage youth.
Evaluation Evidence
Evidence from community mobilisation interventions
suggest that multi-level, targeted prevention
programmes are effective at reducing adolescent
alcohol use. In the US, Project Northland combined
community-wide taskforce education with peer
leadership and parental involvement/education to
achieve a small but significant reduction in weekly
adolescent alcohol use in those exposed to the
intervention, compared to the control group. Australian
programmes have also achieved success in reducing
alcohol-related harm through a combination of
community mobilisation (evident through increased
media activity, the formation of coalitions and groups
and increased community awareness and concern for
alcohol-related harm) and social marketing strategies
(Cooper, Midford, Jaeger, & Hall, 2001; Midford &
Boots, 1999).
Target Audience
11 – 17 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Community disorganisation
 Perceived availability of drugs (alcohol)
 Laws and norms favourable to drug use
 Parental attitudes favourable to problem
behaviour
 Favourable attitudes to alcohol use
Target Protective Factors
 Community attachment
 Community opportunities for prosocial
involvement
 Community rewards for prosocial involvement
Community Indicators
 High rates on indicators of youth alcohol-
related harm
 High rates of alcohol misuse

Reducing access to alcohol for young people under age 18
Description
A research partnership between Deakin University and
CTC Ltd. is developing and testing an intervention to
check retailer compliance with minimum age laws for
alcohol sales. Purchase attempts are monitored for a
young person who looks to be under the legal age for
alcohol purchase. Retailers receive information about
the purchase attempt and the law.
This strategy is supported through media stories and
public information. In subsequent years the strategy
may be expanded to discourage other community
practices that increase the availability to minors
including secondary supply (adults buying and providing
alcohol to minors) and the promotion of child-friendly
alcohol products such as the discounting of alcopops
(premixed sweetened alcohol products).
Evaluation Evidence
Evidence shows that enforcement of liquor laws can
increase compliance with minimum age laws. A US
intervention to increase retailer compliance with
underage sales laws used a strategy of compliance
checks coupled with media advocacy to deter
retailers from selling alcohol to minors (Scribner &
Cohen, 2001). The evaluation found substantial gains in
compliance (51%) among retailers who were issued
with citations for failing compliance checks, as well as
gains in compliance for those who had not
been cited (35%).
Target Audience
11 – 17 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Perceived availability of drugs (alcohol)
 Alcohol sales to young people
under age 18
 High rates of youth alcohol use

Reducing access to tobacco for young people under age 18
Description
Compliance checks and enforcement of legislation
banning sales to young people under age 18 can reduce
smoking prevalence in this group. Compliance checks
involve a young person that appears to be under the
legal age seeking to purchase tobacco products from a
retailer. Retailers that comply with current legislation
by refusing to sell tobacco receive a letter advising of
the monitoring program and its outcome. Retailers that
fail to comply can receive a warning letter or penalty. In
general, penalties are increased for second and
subsequent offences.
Evaluation Evidence
Evidence suggests that it is possible to reduce tobacco
use in young people through the application of a
combination of regulatory, early-intervention and
harm-reduction approaches. A Cochrane Review of
interventions to reduce tobacco sales to minors found
evidence to support compliance checks and
enforcement of legislation as effective strategies for
restricting tobacco access for minors (Stead &
Lancaster, 2005). A Sydney study which sent retailers a
warning letter threatening prosecution if they failed to
comply with legislation resulted in a second offence
rate of 31% compared to 60% amongst retailers who
had not been warned.
Target Audience
11 – 17 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Perceived availability of drugs (tobacco)
 Tobacco sales to young people
under age 18
 High rates of youth tobacco use

Resilient Families / Parenting Adolescents: A Creative Experience (PACE)
Description
The school-based Resilient Families prevention
programme is designed to develop the knowledge, skills
and support networks of students and their parents in
order to promote adolescent health and wellbeing.
The program consists of the following five intervention
components: 1) a 10-session curriculum for students; 2)
the Parenting Adolescents Quiz (PAQ) evening; 3)
Parenting Adolescents: a Creative Experience (PACE); 4)
policies and processes implemented by the school to
build a community of parents to enhance support for,
and communication with, parents during the early
secondary school years; and 5) parent education
handbooks.
The PACE programme is an 8-week sequential parenting
programme that comprises one of the five components
of the Resilient Families program. This programme is
based on an adult learning model and follows a
curriculum that covers adolescent communication,
conflict resolution and adolescent development (Jenkin
& Bretherton, 1994).
Evaluation Evidence
A Victorian evaluation of the programme found that
students in the intervention schools reported increases
in family attachment and high school rewards
compared to control schools (Shortt, Hutchinson,
Chapman, & Toumbourou, 2007). Students whose
parents attended the extended parent education group
(8 week PACE group) were more than twice as likely as
their peers to report positive problem solving at follow-
up.
The PACE programme demonstrated positive outcomes
in a large quasi-experimental study in Australia. At the
twelve-week follow-up parents and adolescents
reported a reduction in family conflict and adolescents
reported increased maternal care, less delinquency and
less substance use (Toumbourou & Gregg, 2002).
Target Audience
11 – 14 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Poor family management
 Poor discipline
 Family conflict
 Parental attitudes favourable to problem
behaviour
 Low commitment to school
 Low family attachment
 Family attachment
 Family opportunities for prosocial involvement
 Family rewards for prosocial involvement
 Social skills
 Sole parents
 Parental social isolation
 Poor links between schools, families and family
services

The Good Behaviour Game
Description
The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) has been carefully
designed to provide a feasible method for introducing a
positive classroom discipline system. Classroom
disruptions in school can increase aggressive peer
behaviour and trigger early pathways to behaviour
problems such as violence, aggression and attention
and impulsivity problems. Positive discipline practices
are well known to assist in reducing behaviour
problems and are more effective where they can be
reinforced with positive peer support.
Evaluation Evidence
A number of randomised trials support the
effectiveness of the GBG as a strategy for improving
classroom management and reducing student
behaviour problems. Outcomes for GBG students
include reductions in rates of attention-deficit/
hyperactivity problems, oppositional defiant problems
and conduct problems relative to control classrooms
(van Lier, Muthén, van der Sar, & Crijnen, 2004).
Target Audience
5 – 13 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Antisocial behaviour
 Peer rewards for antisocial involvement
 School opportunities for prosocial involvement
 School rewards for prosocial involvement
 Social skills
 Belief in the moral order
 Low parental education
 School suspension
 School truancy
 Low income, poor housing, unemployment
 Bullying

You Can Do It! Education
Description
You Can Do It! Education is designed to improve
academic outcomes for late primary students by
encouraging social-emotional and problem solving
skills. The programme aims to:
• Build the social, emotional and motivational capacity
of young people rather than focus on their problems
and deficits.
• Encourage the social and emotional competence of
young people by working with the strengths in their
school, home and community.
Evaluation Evidence
Evidence from a number of small randomised trials
shows support for this programme. Studies have shown
improvements in academic achievement, homework
performance and academic engagement (Pina, 1996 as
cited in Bernard, 2006), including specific
improvements in reading and mathematics (Hudson,
1993 as cited in Bernard, 2006).
Target Audience
10 – 14 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Academic failure (low academic achievement)
 Low social skills
 Low emotional control
 School opportunities for prosocial involvement
 School rewards for prosocial involvement
 Social skills
 Belief in the moral order
 Poor academic achievement in late primary
school

Programmes for Consideration
Friendly Schools and Families/ Friendly Schools Plus
Description
Friendly School and Families is a whole-school bullying
prevention programme that incorporates evidence-
based strategies to manage and prevent bullying in
schools. The programme provides resources to build
school capacity to systematically respond to bullying
and provides strategies to parents, teachers and
students to effectively prevent and manage bullying.
Friendly Schools Plus extends and updates the Friendly
Schools and Families program, incorporating an
additional 6 years of research into best-practice
bullying prevention processes. Friendly Schools Plus
incorporates evidence-based strategies to deal with
cyber-bullying in schools.
Evaluation Evidence
A three year effectiveness trial called Friendly Schools
Friendly Families demonstrated positive outcomes for
students exposed to the intervention. These students
experienced a significant reduction in bullying
behaviour, greater feelings of safety and happiness at
school and an increase in social skills relative to the
students in schools that did not receive the programme
(Cross et al., 2010).
Target Audience
6 – 14 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Favourable attitudes to problem behaviour
 Interaction with antisocial peers
 School and family attachment
 School and family opportunities for prosocial
involvement
 School and family rewards for prosocial
involvement
 Social skills
 School bullying

FRIENDS for Life
Description
FRIENDS for Life (FRIENDS) is a 10-session cognitive
behaviour therapy programme designed to prevent
anxiety and depression in children and young people.
The programme teaches practical behavioural,
physiological and cognitive strategies to identify and
deal with anxiety that children and young people
experience. The programme also builds emotional
resilience and promotes self-development. FRIENDS is
effective as a treatment or as a school-based
prevention course and can be delivered by teachers in a
school system.
Evaluation Evidence
Evaluation evidence supports the benefits of the
FRIENDS programme in preventing and treating anxiety.
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme
with Grade 6 students found reduced symptoms of
anxiety, and increased coping skills, relative to control
students (Lock & Barrett, 2003). A follow up study
showed beneficial effects were maintained at 12
months, 24 months and 36 months. A Grade 9
implementation was less effective. The FRIENDS
intervention is being implemented internationally and
the website reports a number of favourable
evaluations.
Target Audience
10 – 14 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Poor coping skills
 Interaction with antisocial peers
 Social skills
 Emotional control
 Mental health problems in children and
adolescents
 Depressive symptoms in late primary school

The Strengthening Families Programme 10-14
Description
The Strengthening Families Programme for 10 – 14 year
olds (SFP 10-14) is a universal prevention programme
that aims to assist families within late primary
school/early high school. The programme is designed to
increase resilience and reduce risk factors for substance
abuse, depression, violence and aggression,
delinquency and school failure.
SFP 10 – 14 involves seven, 2 hour sessions. Parents
and adolescents are in separate groups for the first
hour and combine to one group to practice skills for the
second hour. Young people’s sessions focus on
strengthening positive goals, dealing with stress and
building social skills. Parent sessions focus on
communication, monitoring and conflict resolution.
Evaluation Evidence
Randomised trial evaluations in the US support the
benefits of this programme for young people and their
parents. Outcomes for young people include reductions
in substance use, reductions in hostile and aggressive
behaviour and fewer problems in school (Spoth &
Redmond, 2000). Outcomes for parents include gains in
specific parenting skills such as setting appropriate
limits and building a positive relationship with their
youth, gains on general child management such as
setting rules and following through with consequences
and an increase in positive feelings towards their child
(Foxcroft, Ireland, Lowe, & Breen, 2002 ; Spoth &
Redmond, 2000). The programme is currently being
implemented and evaluated in the UK and in New
Zealand. It is currently being developed for an
Australian context by Barwon Child Youth and Family.
Target Audience
10 – 14 years old
Target Risk Factors
 Low neighbourhood attachment
 Community transitions & mobility
 Personal transitions & mobility
 Poor family management and discipline
 Family conflict
 Family attachment
 Family opportunities for prosocial involvement
 Family rewards for prosocial involvement
 Social skills
 Sole parents
 Low income and poor housing
 Unemployment
 High aggregation of risk factors from primary
school

Prevention Planning for 2017
During 2016 CTC Warrnambool will work with schools and other agencies to select and plan for programmes to be
implemented in 2017. Programmes for consideration could include those detailed in this Plan or other evidence-
based prevention programmes.
Research and Evaluation Consultancy
One thing that became evident through the inventory of existing programmes and the gap analysis conducted as
part of the Resource Assessment process was that many existing programmes do not have a strong evidence base. In
addition to identifying and scaling up existing evidence-based programmes being run locally and introducing other
evidence-based programmes which have been run successfully elsewhere, there is a need to support existing
programmes to build up the degree to which they are evidence-based. This can be achieved through the provision of
a service providing advice on incorporating evidence-based strategies into existing local programmes and also by
designing and/or implementing evaluation processes. This will result in both building up local capacity and also will
increase the effectiveness of programmes, with the flow-on effect of improved outcomes.
Further Information
Our vision is that every child and young person who lives or attends school in Warrnambool has the environment,
connections and opportunities to build physical, mental and social wellbeing.
Thank you for being part of making this happen.
If you have any questions or would like to support Communities That Care Warrnambool, please contact the
Communities That Care Coordinator Cameron Price on 5561 8877 or email cprice@brophy.org.au.
For further information go to http://ctcwarrnambool.com.

CTC Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible - Community Profile and Action Plan

CTC Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible - Community Profile and Action Plan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to CTC Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible - Community Profile and Action Plan

Similar to CTC Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible - Community Profile and Action Plan (20)

CTC Warrnambool - Prevention is Possible - Community Profile and Action Plan