| by Risk Factor |  |
by Protective Factor | |
by Keyword | |
All Programs |
San Diego County (Calif.) Breaking Cycles has components of both prevention and graduated sanctions.
The prevention component targets youths who are not yet involved in the juvenile justice system but who exhibit problem behavior such as disobeying their parents, violating curfew, repeated truancy, running away from home, or experimenting with drugs or alcohol. Youths can also self-refer if they experience parental neglect or abuse or they have other problems at home. Community Assessment Teams (CATs)—consisting of a coordinator, case managers, probation officers, and other experts—assess the needs of the youth and his or her family and then provide direct services or referrals to resources in the community to reduce the high-risk behaviors. CATs speak many different languages to communicate directly with their clients. Whenever possible, services are brought directly to the client and family.
The graduated sanctions component tries to prevent further involvement in delinquency by combining sanctions with treatment. A juvenile who is at risk of an out-of-home placement can be referred to Breaking Cycles through a Juvenile Court Order, then a screening committee determines whether the juvenile will enter the program by examining his or her current offense, prior criminal history, and other personal, social, and family characteristics. A youth is brought to Breaking Cycles, put into Juvenile Hall, and begins a 10- to 14- day evaluation of educational performance, mental health needs, drug/alcohol dependencies, self and family resiliency, institutional adjustment, and strengths and future goals. A case plan is developed for each youth by a multidisciplinary team, with the family’s input. A youth can be placed in a community-based institution or a home. Many youths start in a highly structured environment and, through goal attainment, step down to a lower level of commitment. Reassessments are performed weekly on the basis of public safety, the youth’s rehabilitation, and subsequent compliance with the program’s case plan developed in the assessment plan.
The prevention component of this program was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design with a matched comparison group. The treatment group (n=208) consisted of a random sample of clients who received services for a minimum of 60 days between Jan. 1 and June 30, 1999. The control group (n=184) consisted of a matched sample of juveniles referred to the Probation Department during the same time period whose cases were referred to counseling then closed. A case was eliminated from inclusion if the juvenile was referred for a criminal offense, was over 16, or had ever been a ward. Data was collected using program/probation files, telephone interviews with a parent or guardian, and criminal history checks at 4 time periods: during the intervention, 1 to 6 months after the intervention, 7 to 12 months after the intervention, and 13 to 18 months after intervention. Average age for the treatment group was 13.3, and for the control group it was 14.1. The treatment group was 58 percent male, the control group 67 percent male. The ethnicity varied slightly between the treatment and control groups: Hispanic (52 percent in the treatment group, 46 percent in the control), white (31 percent and 37 percent, respectively), African-American (10 percent and 9 percent, respectively), and Asian-American (4 percent and 5 percent, respectively).
The graduated sanctions component was evaluated using a retrospective quasi-experimental design with a nonequivalent comparison group. The treatment group (n=264) consisted of a random sample of Breaking Cycles cases in 1999. The control group consists of a random sample of cases assigned to juvenile probation supervision during the first 4 months of 1995 (before Breaking Cycles was implemented) and 1997 (after the implementation of the Juvenile Correctional Intervention Program). The sample was divided and data was analyzed by commitment length: 240 days (out of 365), 150 days, and 90 days. The average age for both groups was 15, and 85 percent were male. The groups had similar ethnic compositions: 56 percent versus 47 percent Hispanic, 19 percent versus 21 percent white, 18 percent versus 21 percent African-American, and 5 percent versus 8 percent Asian-American. Data regarding risk factors, intervention received, school performance, and criminal activity was obtained by reviewing probation and institutional files. Criminal activity was tracked through the Probation Department’s computer system and through adult records. Placement after 1 year was obtained through Probation. Data was collected at 6, 12, and 18 months after treatment/release.
The evaluation of the prevention component found that the treatment group was less likely to receive a referral to probation (19 percent versus 27 percent); however, there was no real difference between the two groups in the amount of true findings (7 percent versus 9 percent). The treatment group was significantly less likely to use alcohol and drugs both preintervention and postintervention. There was virtually no change in school enrollment status for the treatment group after the intervention (97 percent versus 96 percent), while there was a decrease in enrollment for the control group (99 percent versus 91 percent). Both groups showed a decrease in the amount of juveniles suspended or expelled. The treatment group dropped from 54 percent to 38 percent, while the control group dropped from 57 percent to 39 percent. School performance was measured by being at the appropriate grade level in school. At pretest almost all juveniles were at the appropriate grade level (96 percent of the treatment group, 97 percent of the control), but by posttest the percentage for the control group dropped to 84 percent while the treatment group only dropped to 94 percent.
The evaluation of the graduated sanctions component for youths committed 240 days of a year found that the treatment group was less likely than the control group to have a referral to probation or a true finding during each of the time periods, but the differences decreased over time. Youths in the treatment group were continually less likely to be wards of the court; at 18 months, 37 percent were wards compared with 58 percent of controls. The treatment group was significantly more likely before the program to have used alcohol (95 percent versus 73 percent) and drugs (95 percent versus 80 percent). After the program the differences were no longer significant for alcohol use (64 percent versus 73 percent) and were significantly less likely for drug use (55 percent versus 75 percent). The treatment group was proportionally more likely to be enrolled in school 1 year after their commitment.
The evaluation of the graduated sanctions component for youths committed 150 days found that after the first 6 months the treatment group was more likely to receive a referral to probation, after 12 months were less likely, and after 18 months were again more likely. However, the treatment group was always less likely than the control group to have a true finding. Youths in the treatment group were significantly less likely to be wards of the court at 12 months and were still less likely at 18 months (47 percent versus 63 percent). Both groups showed a decrease in the use of alcohol and drugs; however, the drop was less substantial for the control group (95 percent to 55 percent versus 80 percent to 75 percent). The treatment group was significantly more likely to be enrolled in school 1 year after commitment.
The evaluation of the graduated sanctions component for youths committed 90 days found that at the beginning of the study there was little difference in the amount of referrals, then at 12 months the treatment group had more and at 18 months the treatment group had less. At each time period the treatment group was less likely to have a true finding.
Youths in the treatment group were less likely than the control group to be wards of the court at all time periods, though none were statistically significant. The treatment group was significantly more likely to have used drugs and alcohol before the program (96 percent versus 72 percent), but after the program the difference was no longer significant (68 percent versus 67 percent). There were no differences between the two groups in school enrollment 1 year after commitment.
Burke, Cynthia, and Susan Pennell. 2001a. Breaking Cycles Evaluation: A Comprehensive Approach to Youthful Offenders. San Diego, Calif.: San Diego Association of Governments.
———. 2001b. What Works: San Diego County’s Breaking Cycles Program. San Diego, Calif.: San Diego Association of Governments.
Howell, James C. 2003. Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Kim Allen, Probation Director
San Diego County Probation
7798 Starling Drive, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 32123
Phone: (858) 492-2328
Fax: (858) 492-2339
E-mail: kim.allen@sdcounty.ca.gov
Web site: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/probation/jfs/bcaboutus.html
