Breaking Cycles Evaluation - San Diego Health Archives

Transcription

BREAKING CYCLES EVALUATION:
A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
TO YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS
NOVEMBER 2001
Cynthia Burke, Ph.D.
Susan Pennell
401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 595-5300
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum
for regional decision-making. The Association builds consensus, makes
strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides information on a
broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.
CHAIR: Hon. Ramona Finnila
VICE CHAIR: Hon. Ron Morrison
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gary L. Gallegos
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Hon. Hal Martin, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Pia Harris-Ebert, Vice Mayor
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Hon. Ramona Finnila, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor
(A) Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember
CITY OF SANTEE
Hon. Jack Dale, Vice Mayor
(A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Jim Bartell, Councilmember
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Hon. Shirley Horton, Mayor
(A) Hon. Patty Davis, Deputy Mayor
(A) Hon. Mary Salas, Councilmember
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
Hon Joe Kellejian, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Marcia Smerican, Deputy Mayor
(A) Hon. Doug Sheres, Councilmember
CITY OF CORONADO
Hon. Chuck Marks, Mayor Pro Tem
(A) Hon. Thomas Smisek, Mayor
(A) Hon. Phil Monroe, Councilmember
CITY OF VISTA
Hon. Judy Ritter, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember
CITY OF DEL MAR
Hon. Richard Earnest, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Crystal Crawford, Mayor
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Bill Horn, Supervisor
(A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor
CITY OF EL CAJON
Hon. Richard Ramos, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(Advisory Member)
Jeff Morales, Director
(A) John A. Boda, Interim District 11 Director
CITY OF ENCINITAS
Hon. Dennis Holz, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Maggie Houlihan, Councilmember
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor
(A) Hon. June Rady, Mayor Pro Tem
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(Advisory Member)
Leon Williams, Chairman
(A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
Hon. Diane Rose, Mayor
(A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(Advisory Member)
Hon. Julianne Nygaard, Chair
(A) Hon. Christy Guerin, Board Member
CITY OF LA MESA
Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor
(A) Hon. Barry Jantz, Vice Mayor
(A) Hon. Rick Knepper, Councilmember
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
(Liaison Member)
CAPT Gary Engle, CEC, USN
Commander, Southwest Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(A) CAPT Ken Butrym, CEC, USN
CITY OF LEMON GROVE
Hon. Mary Sessom, Mayor
(A) Hon. Jill Greer, Councilmember
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Hon. Ron Morrison, Councilmember
(A) Hon. George H. Waters, Mayor
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
(Advisory Member)
Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner
(A) Frank Urtasun, Commissioner
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
Hon. Terry Johnson, Mayor
(A) Hon. Esther Sanchez, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
(Advisory Member)
Bud Lewis, Director
CITY OF POWAY
Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor
(A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember
TIJUANA/BAJA CALIFORNIA/MEXICO
(Advisory Member)
Hon. Rodulfo Figueroa Aramoni
Consul General of Mexico
(A) Hon. Robert Emery, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Dick Murphy, Mayor
(A) Hon. Jim Madaffer, Councilmember
Revised December 11, 2001
ii
ABSTRACT
TITLE:
AUTHOR:
DATE:
SOURCE OF
COPIES:
NUMBER OF
PAGES:
ABSTRACT:
Breaking Cycles Evaluation: A Comprehensive Approach to
Youthful Offenders
San Diego Association of Governments
November 2001
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 595-5300
208
This final report describes the program and evaluation
efforts that took place in San Diego County for the
Breaking Cycles project to address juvenile crime. This
effort was funded by the State Legislature through the
California Board of Corrections (BOC).
Administered through the San Diego County Probation
Department, this collaborative effort incorporates a twopronged approach to prevent at-risk youth from entering
the system and hold juvenile offenders accountable
through a comprehensive system of graduated sanctions.
To meet the evaluation requirements of the BOC, the
Criminal Justice Research Division of SANDAG conducted a
process and impact evaluation of the program.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are extended to the numerous individuals whose time and efforts contributed to this
report. This list includes staff from the San Diego County Probation Department and the CATs,
especially Lesley McClelland, John Hensley, Karen Malfara, Carol Winters, and Jane Peterson who
reviewed this report. The production of this report also was possible with the assistance of
numerous SANDAG staff who collected, cleaned, analyzed, and reviewed the data presented here.
These individuals include Donna Allnutt, Gwen Andry, Ami Caldwell, Debbie Correia, Shannon
Courtney, Jackie Esterly, Michelle Gonnam, Darlanne Hoctor Mulmat, Lisbeth Howard, Lori Jones,
Sandy Keaton, Nancy Kerry, Mara Libuser, Roni Melton, Erin Oliver, and Deana Piazza.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction and Program Background...................................................................................
Program Description .................................................................................................................
Prevention Component ..................................................................................................
Graduated Sanctions Component..................................................................................
Evaluation Methodology ..........................................................................................................
Overall Program ..............................................................................................................
Hypothesis Testing Results........................................................................................................
Overall Program ..............................................................................................................
Process Evaluation Activities and Findings ..............................................................................
Overall Program ..............................................................................................................
Recommendations.....................................................................................................................
Breaking Cycles Work................................................................................................................
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
8
9
9
11
12
13
14
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Introduction...............................................................................................................................
Theoretical Framework of Breaking Cycles .............................................................................
Principles of Prevention and Intervention ....................................................................
Protective Factors............................................................................................................
The Graduated Sanctions Approach..............................................................................
Implementing the Model ...............................................................................................
Completing the Local Action Plan............................................................................................
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council ...........................................................................
Identifying Local Service Gaps .......................................................................................
Recommendations and Strategies .................................................................................
Organization of the Report ......................................................................................................
17
17
18
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
v
CHAPTER 2
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Introduction...............................................................................................................................
Program Components ...............................................................................................................
Program Implementation .........................................................................................................
Lessons Learned.........................................................................................................................
27
27
27
30
38
38
38
39
39
40
CHAPTER 3
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Introduction...............................................................................................................................
Prevention Component.............................................................................................................
Process Evaluation...........................................................................................................
Impact Evaluation ...........................................................................................................
Graduated Sanctions Component ............................................................................................
Overall Program ........................................................................................................................
Summary ....................................................................................................................................
45
45
45
48
51
51
53
60
60
61
62
CHAPTER 4
HYPOTHESIS TESTING RESULTS
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 65
Prevention Component............................................................................................................. 65
CAT Client Sample........................................................................................................... 65
Graduated Sanctions Component ............................................................................................ 74
Adjudicated Youth Sample ............................................................................................ 74
Overall Program ........................................................................................................................ 99
Effect of Both Program Components on Systemwide Measures................................. 99
Summary .................................................................................................................................... 102
vi
CHAPTER 5
BREAKING CYCLES VIGNETTES
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 105
Their Stories ............................................................................................................................... 105
CHAPTER 6
PROCESS EVALUATION ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS
Introduction...............................................................................................................................
Prevention Component.............................................................................................................
Number, Nature, and Scope of CAT Staffing, Training, and Outreach.......................
CAT Clients and the Interventions Received .................................................................
Client Perceptions of CAT Services.................................................................................
Nature and Scope of Service Provider and CAT Interactions .......................................
Graduated Sanctions Component ............................................................................................
Breaking Cycles Adjudicated Youth Assessment Information .....................................
Breaking Cycles Customer Satisfaction Questionnaires ...............................................
Overall Program ........................................................................................................................
Service Provider Knowledge of and Commitment to Breaking Cycles .......................
Summary ....................................................................................................................................
121
121
121
123
135
139
140
140
142
143
143
145
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................
Overall Program ..............................................................................................................
Recommendations.....................................................................................................................
149
149
150
150
150
APPENDICES
A
Staffing, Training, and Outreach Tables .......................................................................
B
Client Tables ....................................................................................................................
C
JCIP Assessment Tables ...................................................................................................
D
CAT Client Survey Tables ................................................................................................
157
171
189
205
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 4.1
CAT Clients and Comparison Group Characteristics, CAT Sample
Data Collection, 1999 ................................................................................................
50
Contact and Interventions Provided to CAT Clients and the
Comparison Group, CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999 .........................................
51
Graduated Sanctions and Comparison Group Characteristics,
Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection, 1995–1999 .....................................
65
Commitment Length by Sample, Graduated Sanctions Sample
Data Collection, 1995–1999 ......................................................................................
56
Average Number of Program Days Served by Adjudicated
Youth by Sample, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1995–1999 ...............................................................................................
56
Graduated Sanctions Sample’s and Comparison Group’s Prior
Criminal History and Instant Offense Information, Graduated
Sanctions Sample Data Collection, 1995–1999 ........................................................
57
Contact and Interventions Provided to Graduated Sanctions
Clients and the Comparison Group, Graduated Sanctions Sample
Data Collection, 1995–1999 ......................................................................................
58
Average Number of Days at Home During Commitment Period
Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection, 1995–1999 .....................................
59
Reassessment, Commitment Extensions, and Administrative
Release of Graduated Sanctions Youth, Graduated Sanctions
Sample Data Collection, 1999 ...................................................................................
59
Summary of Graduated Sanctions Youth Recidivism Data at 18
Months by Commitment Length, Graduated Sanctions Sample
Data Collection, 1999 ................................................................................................
87
ix
Appendix A
Table A1
Current Staffing Level, San Diego County Community Assessment
Teams, June 2001....................................................................................................... 157
Table A2
Staff Training Hours by Type, 1998, San Diego County Community
Assessment Teams...................................................................................................... 158
Table A3
Table A4
Table A5
Table A6
Staff Training Hours by Type, 1998-2001, San Diego County
Community Assessment Teams ................................................................................. 162
Table A7
Numbers of Individuals Contacted by Site, San Diego County
Community Assessment Teams, 1998 ....................................................................... 163
Table A8
Table A9
Table A10
Table A11
Community Assessment Teams, 1998-2001.............................................................. 167
Appendix B
Table B1
Total Referrals and Average Client Family Size, San Diego County
Community Assessment Teams, March 1998 - June 2001 ....................................... 171
Table B2
Exited Versus Continuing Services, San Diego County Community
Assessment Teams, March 1998 - June 2001............................................................ 171
Table B3
Client Age, San Diego County Community Assessment Teams,
March 1998 - June 2001 ............................................................................................ 172
Table B4
Client Gender, San Diego County Community Assessment Teams,
March 1998 - June 2001 ............................................................................................ 172
x
Table B5
Client Ethnicity, San Diego County Community Assessment Teams,
March 1998 - June 2001 ............................................................................................ 173
Table B6
Client Primary Language, San Diego County Community Assessment
Teams, March 1998 - June 2001................................................................................ 173
Table B7
Client Educational Level, San Diego County Community Assessment
Teams, March 1998 - June 2001................................................................................ 174
Table B8
Cases Received by Referral Reason, San Diego County Community
Table B9
Cases Received by Referral Source, San Diego County Community
Table B10
Primary Clients Eligible for Services, San Diego County Community
Table B11
Appropriate Client Service Type, San Diego County Community
Table B12
Case Status at Program Exit for Not Appropriate/Ineligible Clients,
San Diego County Community Assessment Teams, March 1998 June 2001 ................................................................................................................... 176
Table B13
Average Length of Stay in Program, by Type of Client,
Table B14
Average Length of Time to Complete Assessments, by Type of
Client, San Diego County Community Assessment Teams,
March 1998 - June 2001 ............................................................................................ 178
Table B15
Eligible Clients Who Received Referrals or Services, San Diego
County Community Assessment Teams, March 1998 - June 2001 .......................... 179
Table B16
Referrals Made to Outside Agencies by Type, San Diego County
Table B17
Services Provided by Type, San Diego County Community
Table B18
Proportions of Clients Completing Different Types of
Assessments, San Diego County Community Assessment Teams,
March 1998 - June 2001 ............................................................................................ 182
xi
Table B19
Proportion of Clients With No New Referrals to Probation,
Table B20
Case Status at Program Exit for Eligible Clients, San Diego
Table B21
Proportion of Successful Clients by Referral Reason, San Diego
Table B22
Proportion of Clients Enrolled in School or Employed at
Program Exit, San Diego County Community Assessment
Teams, March 1998 - June 2001................................................................................ 184
Table B23
Average Number of School Days Missed, San Diego County
Appendix C
Table C1
Ethnicity and Gender, Breaking Cycles Risk Assessment,
September 1996 to June 2001 .................................................................................. 189
Table C2
Ethnicity, by Gender, Breaking Cycles Risk Assessment,
January - June 2001 ................................................................................................... 189
Table C3
Highest True Finding Charge for Instant Offense, Breaking
Cycles Risk Assessment, September 1996 to June 2001........................................... 190
Table C4
Highest True Finding Charge for Instant Offense, by Ethnicity
and Gender, Breaking Cycles Risk Assessment, January - June 2001 ..................... 190
Table C5
Prior History with Justice System, Breaking Cycles Risk
Assessment, September 1996 to June 2001 ............................................................. 191
Table C6
Age at First Adjudication, by Ethnicity and Gender, Breaking
Cycles Risk Assessment, January - June 2001 ........................................................... 192
Table C7
Prior Criminal Behavior, by Ethnicity and Gender,
Breaking Cycles Risk Assessment, January - June 2001 ........................................... 193
Table C8
Prior Institutional Commitments, by Ethnicity and Gender,
Table C9
Alcohol or Drug Use Problems, Breaking Cycles Risk
Assessment, September 1996 to June 2001 ............................................................. 195
Table C10
Alcohol Problems, by Ethnicity and Gender, Breaking
xii
Table C11
Drug Use Problems, by Ethnicity and Gender, Breaking
Table C12
Relational and School Problems, Breaking Cycles Risk
Assessment, September 1996 - June 2001................................................................ 198
Table C13
Parent Control, by Ethnicity and Gender, Breaking Cycles
Risk Assessment, January - June 2001 ...................................................................... 199
Table C14
Peer Relationships, by Ethnicity and Gender, Breaking
Table C15
School Problems, by Ethnicity and Gender, Breaking Cycles
Risk Assessment, January - June 2001 ...................................................................... 200
Table C16
Recommendation for Placement, by Type, Breaking Cycles
Risk Assessment, September 1996 - June 2001 ........................................................ 201
Table C17
Recommendation for Placement Type, by Ethnicity and Gender,
Appendix D
Table D1
Knowledge of Services, CAT Client Intake and Exit Matched
Surveys, 1999-2001..................................................................................................... 205
Table D2
Family’s Ability to Communicate and Solve Problems, CAT
Client Intake and Exit Matched Surveys, 1999-2001 ............................................... 206
Table D3
Parent and Juvenile Perception of Peers, CAT Client Intake
and Exit Matched Surveys, 1999-2001 ...................................................................... 207
Table D4
Juvenile Employment, School Enrollment, CAT Client Intake
and Exit Matched Surveys, 1999-2001 ...................................................................... 208
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
CAT Clients and the Comparison Group with a Referral to Probation
in the During Period or Follow-up, CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999 ................
66
CAT Clients and Comparison Group with a True Finding in the
During Period or Follow-up, CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999 ...........................
67
CAT Clients’ and the Comparison Group’s Alcohol Use Pre and
Post Participation, CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999............................................
68
CAT Clients’ and the Comparison Group’s Drug Use Pre and Post
Participation, CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999....................................................
69
CAT Client and Comparison Group Enrollment Status Pre and
Post Participation, CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999............................................
70
Percent of CAT Clients and the Comparison Group Enrolled in a
Regular School Pre and Post Participation, CAT Sample Data
Collection, 1999 .........................................................................................................
71
CAT Client and the Comparison Group Suspended or Expelled
Pre and Post Participation, CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999..............................
72
CAT Client and the Comparison Group at the Appropriate Grade
Level Pre and Post Participation, CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999 ....................
73
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a Referral
During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection,
1995–1999 ..................................................................................................................
75
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a Referral
for a Felony During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1995–1999 ...............................................................................................
75
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a Referral for a
Violent Offense During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample
Data Collection, 1995–1999 ......................................................................................
76
xv
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.15
Figure 4.16
Figure 4.17
Figure 4.18
Figure 4.19
Figure 4.20
Figure 4.21
Figure 4.22
Figure 4.23
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a True Finding
1995–1999 ..................................................................................................................
77
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a True Finding
for a Felony During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1995–1999 ...............................................................................................
77
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a True
Finding for a Violent Offense During Follow-up, Graduated
Sanctions Sample Data Collection, 1995–1999 ........................................................
78
150-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a Referral
During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1997–1999 ...............................................................................................
79
150-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a Referral for a
Felony During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1997–1999 ...............................................................................................
79
Data Collection, 1997–1999 ......................................................................................
80
150-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a True Finding
1997–1999 ..................................................................................................................
81
for a Felony During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample
Data Collection, 1997–1999 ......................................................................................
81
150-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a True Finding for
a Violent Offense During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample
Data Collection, 1997–1999 ......................................................................................
82
90-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth with a Referral During
Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection, 1995–1999 ..................
83
Felony During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1995–1999 ...............................................................................................
84
Data Collection, 1995–1999 ......................................................................................
84
xvi
Figure 4.24
Figure 4.25
Figure 4.26
Figure 4.27
Figure 4.28
Figure 4.29
Figure 4.30
Figure 4.31
Figure 4.32
Figure 4.33
Figure 4.34
Figure 4.35
1995–1999 ..................................................................................................................
85
for a Felony During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions Sample
Data Collection, 1995–1999 ......................................................................................
86
for a Violent Offense During Follow-up, Graduated Sanctions
Sample Data Collection, 1995–1999 .........................................................................
86
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Wardship Status
1995–1999 ..................................................................................................................
88
150-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Wardship Status
1997–1999 ..................................................................................................................
89
90-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Wardship Status
1995–1999 ..................................................................................................................
90
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Use of Alcohol
Pre and Post Commitment, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1995–1999 ...............................................................................................
91
240/365-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Use of Drugs Pre
and Post Commitment, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1995–1999 ...............................................................................................
92
150-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Use of Alcohol Pre
Collection, 1997–1999 ...............................................................................................
93
150-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Use of Drugs Pre and
Post Commitment, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection,
1997–1999 ..................................................................................................................
93
90-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Use of Alcohol Pre
Collection, 1995–1999 ...............................................................................................
94
90-Day Commitment Adjudicated Youth’s Use of Drugs Pre and
Post Commitment, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection,
1995–1999 ..................................................................................................................
95
xvii
Figure 4.36
Figure 4.37
Figure 4.38
240/365-Day Commitment Graduated Sanctions and Comparison
Group School Enrollment, Graduated Sanctions Sample Data
Collection, 1995–1999 ...............................................................................................
96
150-Day Commitment Graduated Sanctions and Comparison
Collection, 1997–1999 ...............................................................................................
97
90-Day Commitment Graduated Sanctions and Comparison
Collection, 1997–1999 ...............................................................................................
98
Figure 6.1
Client Age, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001............................................................. 124
Figure 6.2
Client Race/Ethnicity, CAT Client Records, 1998-2001............................................. 125
Figure 6.3
Client Educational Level, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001 ...................................... 126
Figure 6.4
Initial Reason for Client Referral, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001 ........................ 127
Figure 6.5
Source of Client Referral, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001 ..................................... 128
Figure 6.6
Reason for Client Ineligibility, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001.............................. 129
Figure 6.7
Types of Referrals for Clients, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001 .............................. 130
Figure 6.8
Types of Services Provided to Clients, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001.................. 131
Figure 6.9
Client Status at Successful Program Exit, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001............. 132
Figure 6.10
Reasons for Unsuccessful Program Exit, CAT Client Records, 1998–2001 .............. 133
Figure 6.11
Successful Program Exit by Initial Reason for Referral,
CAT Client Records, 1998–2001................................................................................. 134
Figure 6.12
Juvenile Awareness of Community Resources at Intake
and Exit, CAT Client Surveys, 1999–2001 ................................................................. 136
Figure 6.13
Adult Awareness of Community Resources at Intake
and Exit, CAT Client Surveys, 1999–2001 ................................................................. 136
Figure 6.14
Juvenile and Adult Clients Reporting Poor Communication
at Intake and Exit, CAT Client Surveys, 1999-2001 .................................................. 137
Figure 6.15
Adult Perception of Their Child’s Peers at Intake and Exit,
CAT Client Surveys, 1999–2001 ................................................................................. 138
xviii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(Insert blank page)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND PROGRAM BACKGROUND
The San Diego County Probation Department started the Breaking Cycles program in July 1997.
Program implementation followed a lengthy planning process. Individuals representing the
community (e.g., line staff, managers, and policy makers) from diverse agencies and interests
worked together to identify the needs of children and families in the San Diego region, as well as
develop strategies for addressing these needs. Inspired by nationally recognized research indicating
that youthful offending is best addressed through prevention and programs that hold young
people accountable for their actions, these key community leaders developed a long-term plan: the
San Diego Comprehensive Strategy for Youth, Family, and Community.
To facilitate implementation of this plan, the Probation Department successfully competed for and
received a Challenge I grant through the California Board of Corrections (BOC) to establish the
Breaking Cycles program. The funding for the Challenge grants was made available through the
State Legislature when SB 1760 was enacted. The philosophy of the program is that the needs of
children and families are best met within the community by linking families to programs and
expanding and enhancing existing services. Therefore, the majority of grant funding, administered
by the Probation Department, was contracted to community-based agencies for service provision.
The Breaking Cycles framework reflected the synthesis of research on juvenile crime, as presented in
the Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile
Offenders (Howell, 1995), published by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP). The implications of this landmark research suggest that resources must be
targeted appropriately and earlier for the juvenile justice system to be both effective and efficient
in its dual mission to rehabilitate youthful offenders and protect the public. Further, the studies
strongly argue for prevention programs that can intervene before the risk factors multiply and the
pathways become more difficult to interrupt. For those older youth that exhibit chronic and serious
offending, the system has an obligation to hold them accountable through swift and certain
sanctions.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Prevention Component
The Community Assessment Teams (CATs) target youth exhibiting high-risk behaviors (e.g., poor
school attendance, runaway behavior, substance abuse, aggression, etc.) before those juveniles
become involved in the justice system. The goals of the prevention component are to reduce the
number of youth entering the justice system by supporting and empowering families to access and
receive community resources in a timely fashion.
3
Law enforcement, schools, health centers, and other service providers refer youth and families to
CAT. There are five CAT centers in the county, serving all geographic areas. The multi-disciplinary
teams (i.e., case manager, probation officer, and other experts) assess the strengths and needs of
the youth and family, develop a case plan building on strengths to address needs, and collaborate
with other agencies in service provision. Through this process, CATs provide services that previously
did not occur, or were provided by school staff or the police. With the CAT program in place, both
school and police personnel can focus more resources on other responsibilities.
Graduated Sanctions Component
The graduated sanctions component of Breaking Cycles is a critical feature of the program because
it represents a new way of handling juvenile offenders that offers alternative sanctions and swift
and certain consequences. The research literature on juvenile delinquency has documented that an
approach that holds youthful offenders accountable for misbehavior and also addresses their
problems, such as drug abuse, is likely to be effective in reducing recidivism and encouraging
healthy and productive behavior.
By directly linking behavior and consequences, rather than ignoring less serious delinquency until
more serious violations occur, the graduated sanctions component seeks to reduce delinquency. This
link is achieved through in-depth assessment of underlying factors contributing to delinquent
behavior, utilization of interventions within the offender’s neighborhood to address these factors,
and careful monitoring. Compliance results in reduced sanctions, while intervention is escalated for
non-compliance. Implementing this philosophy requires constant monitoring and supervision, as
well as involvement with families through a multi-disciplined approach.
The evaluation design reflects the comprehensiveness of the project by addressing both the
prevention portion and the graduated sanctions component of the program. Also included is the
impact of the Breaking Cycles project over time on systemwide indicators that reflect the well being
of youth. The evolution of this collaborative project is documented through the process evaluation.
Process Evaluation
Data for the process evaluation include information gained by research staff through a variety of
methods. Outreach efforts, staffing, and staff training for the CATs were tabulated for the
prevention component and each site collected data regarding client characteristics and service
delivery. Data were entered into a common database by the staff at each CAT site and data files
were transferred to the research team on a monthly basis. Customer satisfaction and other input
regarding the CATs were gathered through self-administered surveys at program entry and exit.
Since 1998, an annual survey to service providers included questions specific to the prevention
component.
4
Impact Evaluation
A matched comparison group design examined the impact of the prevention component. Cases
referred to the CATs were compared to a group of youth that were referred to Probation but had
their cases counseled and closed. The sample selection period for both the experimental and the
comparison group was January through June 1999. Information was collected for both groups that
pertained to risk factors prior to and following program assignment, services received during
program participation and criminal activity one year prior to and up to 18 months after program
exit. Data sources included program files, interviews with parents/guardians, and Probation
Department computer records.
Process Evaluation
The graduated sanctions philosophy is based upon the premise that juvenile delinquency can be
reduced through swift and certain consequences for non-compliant behavior as well as a reduction
in sanctions for acceptable behavior. With this philosophy, one could expect to find that a greater
proportion of youth assessed by Breaking Cycles staff has a true finding for a probation violation.
To determine if the graduated sanctions philosophy targeted appropriate youth, data from an
assessment instrument conducted with all adjudicated youth between 1996 and 2001 were analyzed
and compared over time.
Impact Evaluation
A retrospective quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the impact of the graduated
sanctions component. A random sample of cases, stratified by commitment length, that was
assigned to Probation prior to the initiation of Breaking Cycles serves as the comparison group. The
experimental sample was randomly chosen from cases assigned to Probation caseloads during the
same time period in 1999, after Breaking Cycles was implemented. The focus of the comparison was
the processing of youth before and after the implementation of Breaking Cycles and the behavior
of youth subsequent to the intervention.
Overall Program
Process Evaluation
The collaborative nature of Breaking Cycles requires the involvement of several agencies and
departments, including community-based agencies, the criminal justice system, social services,
mental health, and alcohol and drug treatment. The level of interaction, coordination, and
cooperation required is relatively new and challenging given an historically single issue, single
agency focus. To measure the level of knowledge and commitment to this philosophy, a service
provider survey was distributed annually since 1997.
5
Impact Evaluation
A program effort of this magnitude required that the evaluation also be comprehensive and
systemwide to determine the extent to which the program impacted overall indicators. For this
reason, the evaluation of Breaking Cycles included monitoring a number of regional indicators
within a comparison period that started before the advent of the program and continued through
the four-year span for which the project was funded. Because Breaking Cycles encompasses the
entire county and targets both at-risk youth and juvenile offenders, the expectation was that, over
time, there would be systematic changes in indicators that reflect the well being of youth.
As the following section describes, Breaking Cycles works. The significant changes implemented in San Diego County in the past several years by the Probation Department and their
partners have already resulted in measurable outcomes that show that prevention and the concept
of graduated sanctions are making a difference in the region. It also should be noted that the full
effect of these changes probably has not yet been realized.
Long-term CAT clients are less likely to be referred to Probation
compared to other at-risk juveniles.

Ninety-three percent (93%) of long-term CAT clients did not receive a referral to Probation
resulting in a true finding up to 18-months after they exited the program.

Less than one in five long-term CAT clients received a referral to Probation during participation
or up to 18 months after program participation. In comparison, over one-quarter of at-risk
juveniles in the other sample had a referral and these youth were more likely to have a referral
for a felony-level offense.
Long-term CAT clients are less likely to use alcohol
and drugs after program participation.

While approximately one-third of long-term CAT clients were documented as using or abusing
alcohol or other drugs in the one-year period prior to participation, less than one-quarter were
using in the one year follow-up period.
6
Compared to other at-risk juveniles, long-term CAT clients are more likely to
perform better in school in the one year following program participation.

Almost all of the long-term CAT clients were enrolled in school both prior to and after program
participation. In contrast, the percentage of the comparison group enrolled in the post time
period declined eight percent.

Long-term CAT clients were more likely to be enrolled in a regular school, rather than an
alternative in the follow-up period (77%), compared to other at-risk youth that were sampled
(66%).

While an almost equal proportion of the CAT and comparison groups were at the appropriate
grade level in the pre period (96% and 97%, respectively), only 84 percent of the comparison
group was at the appropriate grade level in the follow-up period, compared to 94 percent of
long-term CAT clients.
Despite, being more at-risk at program entry, youth committed to Breaking Cycles,
regardless of commitment length, are less likely to be involved in the
criminal justice system in the follow-up period.

Regardless of commitment length, youth adjudicated in 1999 were less likely to have a referral
to Probation for a felony offense during the 18-month follow-up period, compared to those
adjudicated in the mid-1990s.

Youth committed to Breaking Cycles also were less likely to have a true finding during
follow-up, as well as a felony true finding. Those with 90-day and 150-day commitments also
were less likely to have a true finding for a violent crime.

Youth committed to Breaking Cycles successfully completed probation more quickly than wards
previously.

Probation Department statistics reveal that 25 percent of youth committed to Breaking Cycles
for longer than 90 days had a sustained petition for a new offense in the 12 months following
their January to June 2000 program exit. In comparison, 35 percent of those who exited STOP in
the same time period recidivated.
7
Completing a Breaking Cycles commitment is related to
less alcohol and drug use in follow-up.

Youth who participated in Breaking Cycles were less likely to use alcohol or drugs in the one
year following the end of their commitment. This positive change in behavior was realized for
individuals committed to Breaking Cycles for 240 or 365 days, as well as those committed for
shorter amounts of time.

Probation Department statistics show that fewer youth in the Community Unit tested positive in
the first half of 2001 (6%), compared to 1999 (19%), suggesting that Breaking Cycles youth are
making a sober transition from custody to the community.
Breaking Cycles youth are more likely to be enrolled
in school during follow-up.

Compared to youth adjudicated in 1995 and 1997, youth committed to Breaking Cycles in 1999
were more likely to be enrolled in school during the 12 months following their commitment
period.
Youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 240 or 365 days are less
likely to be committed to the California Youth Authority.

Youth in Breaking Cycles who received the maximum commitment time were more likely to be
placed locally and in group facilities where their other needs, such as drug and alcohol abuse,
could be met, and less likely to be committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA) after
their commitment, compared to the historical samples.
Overall Program
Systemwide indicators suggest that the Breaking Cycles philosophy
may already have had a positive impact on our community.

Regional indicators suggest that there are fewer first time youthful drug users in San Diego
County and that those with serious problems are seeking and obtaining the treatment assistance they need.

The Probation Department has received fewer referrals since the implementation of the
Breaking Cycles approach, and fewer of these referrals are for more serious offenses.

As reflected in the graduated sanctions sample data collection effort, fewer San Diego youth
are receiving commitments to CYA and fewer are receiving out-of-home placements, thus
realizing one of the program goals. Positive impacts associated with reducing out-of-home
placements include improved outcomes for youth and their families, and cost savings for the
community, as well as increased public safety.
8
The goal of the CATs is to prevent youth from becoming delinquent by focusing prevention
programs on at-risk youth and their families through community centers in neighborhoods around
the county. The sites provide direct services and link clients to social supports in their community.
The CATs were staffed with highly trained individuals since the program began.

Each CAT site maintains at least one site coordinator, a probation officer, several case managers,
and also receives clerical support or assistance from staff or volunteers.

Staff turnover occurred, but positions were filled as quickly as possible.

CAT staff and volunteers were highly skilled and received over 4,000 hours of training since
1998. Specific topics included conducting assessments, counseling, substance abuse, and areas of
wrap-around services.
The CATs provided a great deal of outreach to community members to educate them
about the services available through the Breaking Cycles prevention component.

As a result of CAT outreach, over 30,000 individuals learned about the Breaking Cycles prevention component.

Outreach efforts targeted a variety of potential referral sources across the county, including law
enforcement, School Attendance Review Boards (SARB), school administrators, probation intake
officers, school study teams, and local collaboratives.
The CATs provided services countywide to a large
number of individuals in the target population.

Between March 1998 and June 2001, 7,844 primary clients were referred to the five CAT sites.
When one considers that the average family size was estimated to be 4.1 individuals, this translates to approximately 32,000 people served overall.

Overall, the “typical” client served by the CATs is 13 years old and is most likely to have been
referred by a school due to school-related issues or family issues. Females represent 40 percent
of all CAT clients, the greatest proportion of this gender compared to all other populations at
any other point in the justice system.

Almost two-thirds (65%) of CAT referrals were categorized as being eligible for services. Of
every five clients who were eligible, two received long-term services, and three were considered
short-term, which means they were provided referrals to other agencies. The average length of
program participation for long-term clients was a little longer than three and one-half months
and short-term clients typically received assistance for five to six weeks.
9

The primary reason for ineligibility was refusal of service. Despite the fact that these clients
were never engaged in the services, a considerable amount of time and effort was spent trying
to do so.

In addition to providing referrals (e.g., counseling, parent training, after-school programs,
family conferencing, and mentoring) to all eligible clients, intensive case management services
also were provided to long-term clients. These services included intake and assessment, phone
contact, consultation, records checking, developing service plans, and tracking clients.
The CATs provided services countywide and were responsive to
the varied needs of the communities they served.

The types of clients served varied across the CATs on such characteristics as race or ethnicity,
family size, referral reason, and referral source. For example, the South Bay site typically had a
larger Hispanic population and the Central site had the largest average family size at 4.7. The
Coastal CAT was more likely to receive referrals for truancy, compared to the other sites, while
South Bay was more likely to receive referrals related to family issues. The Coastal Site was more
likely to receive referrals from schools and Child Protective Services, compared to the other
regions.

Variation across the five CAT sites in the types of referrals and services that were provided are
indicative of the level of responsiveness of each site to the specific needs of the populations
they serve.
The vast majority of eligible clients successfully exited the CAT
program and demonstrated positive behavior in such areas
as school attendance and refraining from delinquency.

Over three-quarters (79%) of eligible clients completed what was required of them by the CAT
and were judged “successful.”

More than nine out of ten clients were enrolled in school at the end of their CAT program and
the average number of unexcused absences was reduced from 3.9 to 1.3 days.

Ninety-nine percent (99%) of clients did not have a referral to Probation during the time they
were receiving services from the CATs.
CAT clients reported a high degree of satisfaction with the services they received,
as well as increased knowledge about community resources.

Juvenile clients, as well as their parents/guardians, were more aware of specific resources
available to them at program exit, compared to when they entered the program.

After CAT participation, more parents/guardians of CAT clients reported that they had better
communication with their child, and that their child was interacting with peers who are a
10
positive influence. Juveniles were less likely to report that their peers use drugs or that there
was a likelihood their friends would be arrested.

More than nine out of every ten clients reported being satisfied with the services received
through the CAT program.
Service providers were knowledgeable about the services of the
CATs and reported satisfaction with the referral process.

More than nine out of ten service providers surveyed had heard about the CATs and many were
familiar with the characteristics of their target population: families with children who have
chronic behavioral problems that place these children at risk of becoming wards of the juvenile
court.

More than four out of every five service providers could accurately identify all of the goals of
the CAT program.

Service providers were aware of the variety of services provided by the CATs, including
conducting assessments, providing referrals, and doing short-term intervention.

Over three-quarters of service providers reported they refer clients to the CATs, and the vast
majority of these agencies had received feedback on these clients. This feedback was timely and
helpful.

Service providers agreed that the CATs fills a needed gap. For example, one survey respondent
notes that “The CAT has been an asset to our agency in overall service delivery. Families in crisis
have been assisted to take charge of their lives and respond to their children’s needs. They have
become more self-sufficient by learning how to access services.”
Breaking Cycles is targeting appropriate youth for intervention – youth who require
the intensive types of interventions and sanctions employed by the program.

Since July 1997, 4,778 juveniles were committed to Breaking Cycles. Based upon an estimated
family size of 4.1, this means that over 19,000 individuals in the county, including parents and
siblings, were potentially reached through the graduated sanctions component.

Since the inception of the program, more youth began the Breaking Cycles program having had
prior contact with the juvenile justice system. In addition, a greater proportion was committed
to Breaking Cycles for less serious offenses and probation violations. This shows that the Probation Department is intervening with youth at an earlier point in their criminal activity and that
these individuals are being held accountable for their actions. In addition, it appears that the
program may not only be reducing juvenile crime, but utilizing resources wisely.
11

Proportionately, Breaking Cycles youth were adjudicated for the first time at an earlier age than
youth in prior years. Conversely, the percentage of cases involving youth age 16 and older
declined over time. This age shift may be reflective of the comprehensive strategy for youth
that suggests swift and certain interventions early on, rather than the historical approach that
tended to avoid justice intervention until the offenses increased, either in frequency or severity.

Youth assessed during the Breaking Cycles period seemingly had more severe problems with
school, substance abuse, and lack of parental control than youth before Breaking Cycles. While
this pattern could be related to assessors becoming more skilled or the assessments becoming
more standardized over time, it also could be related to evidence that suggests that the
pressures on youth are greater than ever before and that the network of family support has
diminished.

Breaking Cycles youth served a greater percentage of commitment time, had more contact with
their probation officer, received more services, and spent less time in institutional commitments
compared to wards with institutional commitments in earlier time periods. In addition, reassessments and administrative removals were used to meet the changing needs of these
individuals and move them up and down the continuum of graduated sanctions.
Breaking Cycles families report extremely high levels of satisfaction with the
program, as well as positive behavior changes following participation.

Three-quarters or more of parents surveyed reported satisfaction with the program overall, as
well as with staff and particular program components, including family counseling, drug and
alcohol services, and education.

Many parents described positive changes in their child’s behavior that included having a better
attitude, doing well in school, communicating with their families, not using alcohol and other
drugs, and interacting with more positive peers.
Overall Program
San Diego service providers are knowledgeable about Breaking Cycles
and committed to collaboration with community partners.

Almost nine out of ten service providers surveyed in 2000 knew about the Breaking Cycles
philosophy, the highest percentage since the survey was first conducted in 1997. Almost four
out of five could identify specific goals.

Approximately three-quarters reported frequently sharing goals and case management with
other organizations, including Probation.

Almost all service providers reported receiving referrals from other agencies, and approximately three-quarters provided referrals to their clients.
12

Over two-thirds of service providers reported interaction between their line staff and management personnel and those at other community-based agencies, schools, and law enforcement
departments. In addition, many also shared a common Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with other agencies, and many had a common release-of-information form. These mechanisms
allowed for client information sharing between agencies.

More than two-thirds of service providers reported having frequent contact with Probation
staff, most often on the phone or in person, and many expected that this level of communication would continue to increase in the future.

Fewer barriers to multi-agency collaboration appeared to exist in 2000, compared to three years
earlier.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following program recommendations were made at the end of the Breaking Cycles evaluation
period.

Continue to conduct outreach and education.

Continue to use intensive efforts to engage parents.

Invest in a more reliable database to track prevention statistics.

Expand the graduated sanctions program.

Provide additional aftercare services to youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 150 days.

Continue to evaluate outcomes.
13
BREAKING CYCLES WORKS
PREVENTION

Over 32,000 individuals in San Diego
County have potentially received
prevention referrals and services
from the CATs, and 80 percent of
eligible clients successfully exited the
program.

GRADUATED SANCTIONS

The Probation Department is
intervening with high-risk youth
earlier, and these youth are receiving
the services they need and are being
held accountable for their actions.

OVERALL PROGRAM

The San Diego community understands the philosophy of Breaking
Cycles and is committed to working
together to implement it. Positive
changes regionally already have been
realized.

14
High level of client satisfaction with services
received
Improved parent-child communication
Positive changes in peer groups
Less likely to use alcohol and other drugs
More likely to be enrolled in school
More likely to be at the appropriate grade
level
Very small percentage involved with the
juvenile justice system up to 18 months later
Less likely to have a true finding up to 18
months later
Less likely to have a true finding for a felony
up to 18 months later
More likely to successfully complete
probation sooner
Less likely to use alcohol and other drugs
More likely to be enrolled in school
Less likely to receive a commitment to the
California Youth Authority
San Diego service providers share goals and
case management responsibilities, and fewer
barriers to collaboration now exist
Fewer youth are experimenting with alcohol
and other drugs, and those with serious
problems are seeking treatment
Fewer youth are being referred to Probation
Fewer adjudicated youth are receiving out-ofhome placements
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND
PROGRAM BACKGROUND
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
This final report for the Breaking Cycles project was to meet the evaluation requirements of the
California State Board of Corrections (BOC). The BOC administered a number of State Challenge
grants funded by the legislature to address delinquency. This chapter provides information
regarding the theoretical framework for the Breaking Cycles program and the local effort to
identify service gaps in the community.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF BREAKING CYCLES 1
Through a planning grant provided by State legislation, San Diego County Probation staff
requested the assistance of national experts to develop a comprehensive and systematic response to
juvenile crime and youth at risk for juvenile delinquency. The planning process provided opportunities for community leaders to become informed about “best practices” and relevant research
about appropriate prevention and intervention strategies for youth. The conceptual framework for
this comprehensive strategy is described in a document entitled Guide for Implementing the
Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Howell, 1995),
published by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). This
document includes the results of several longitudinal studies about the nature and causes of
juvenile crime. Several important conclusions followed from these studies that did not surprise
practitioners working with youth and their families. In essence, some of these significant findings
include:

A small percentage of youth commit most of the serious and violent crime. This finding has
implications for allocating resources and determining service levels to target youth.

The juvenile justice system, historically, does not see most juvenile offenders until it is too late
to intervene.

Youth involved in violent behavior at an early age have increased potential for becoming
chronic violent offenders.
These conclusions suggest that youth could be identified earlier as potentially at risk of becoming
delinquent.
1
Please note: The sources for the material in this section are incorporated in the following document: Guide
for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (June
1995), edited by James C. Howell, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC.
17

The studies showed compelling evidence that youth who engage in chronic violent behavior are
likely to become involved in other problem behaviors, such as dropping out of school, substance
use, weapon use, and early sexual activity. While no single factor can accurately predict subsequent violent behavior, multiple risk factors tend to be cumulative and interactive. In
addition, youth exhibiting several risk factors also are likely to have additional background
factors related to their family, their peers, and their schools that further contribute to serious
offending behavior.

The research revealed that many children have protective factors that strengthen their capacity
to avoid negative influences and be resilient. Collectively, these protective factors in the same
domains as above, (e.g., individual, family, peers, and community) have an impact on delinquency reduction.
The implications of this landmark research suggest that resources must be targeted appropriately
and earlier for the juvenile justice system to be both effective and efficient in its dual mission to
rehabilitate youthful offenders and protect the public. Further, the studies strongly argue for
prevention programs that can intervene before the risk factors multiply and the pathways become
more difficult to interrupt. For those older youth that exhibit chronic and serious offending, the
system has an obligation to hold them accountable through swift and certain sanctions.
Principles of Prevention and Intervention
The comprehensive strategy document states the following: “The emerging professional consensus
is that communities need comprehensive strategies to combat crime.” The report describes the
principles that frame the strategy, including the commitment by communities to:

strengthen the family unit to provide guidance and support;
support core social institutions such as schools and community agencies in their roles to nurture
and develop mature, caring adults;
promote delinquency prevention at all levels within core institutions;
intervene immediately and effectively when delinquency occurs and include the family and
other institutions in the intervention; and
identify and control the small number of chronic, serious offenders.
It should be clear that a comprehensive approach to juvenile crime, based upon the above principles, incorporates two primary components: 1) prevention, that identifies and targets youth at risk
with appropriate programs; and 2) improving the system response to delinquent offenders through
a system of graduated sanctions and a continuum of treatment alternatives.
It becomes apparent that multiple risks require multiple solutions. This rationale also recognizes
that the problems that contributed to the risks must be addressed. Emphasis on the influence of
individual characteristics, family, school, and community suggests that a comprehensive strategy is
not the sole responsibility of the juvenile justice system, but involves the collaboration and
cooperation of families, communities, schools, and other agencies, such as mental health. A
balanced approach incorporates the features of accountability, competency development, and
community protection. Addressing the five spheres of risk (individual, family, peers, school, and
community) has been proven to reduce future delinquents. These efforts, in turn, provide the
means and the resources to concentrate on the more serious offenders to learn what works best to
reduce continued offending in adulthood.
18
Extensive research by many scholars has identified the primary risk factors for crime. Within each
domain, (e.g., individual, family, peers, school, and community) fall a number of problems that
place youth and families at risk. For example, within the community domain, according to the
comprehensive strategy report, availability of weapons in a community is associated with higher
rates of crime. Another community factor is that of norms or laws that might be unclear regarding
use of alcohol and drugs so that youth receive mixed messages. Extreme economic hardship
characterized by poverty and poor living conditions also can be considered a community risk factor.
With regard to risk factors in the family, these might include substance abuse, and criminal activity,
including domestic violence, poor family management characterized by unclear expectations for
behavior, and failure to supervise children. Children raised in environments with several risk factors
have a greater probability to engage in anti-social and self-destructive behavior in adolescence.
Overall lack of commitment to school can result in poor attendance, discipline problems, and
academic failure on the part of youth. These, in turn, can lead to delinquent behavior and dropping
out of school. These factors can severely hamper the self-confidence and competence necessary to
become a productive adult.
These examples of the risk factors within each domain clearly show the imperative need for early
prevention and intervention programs for youth and families. In addition, the principles underpinning the research demonstrate that one system or agency cannot provide the array of services
needed to address all domains.
Protective Factors
A discussion about risk factors is meaningful only when information is known about how to address
these factors. As the research suggests, understanding protective factors is the key to effectively
reducing the impact of risk factors. Many, if not most, youth progress through childhood and
adolescence with minimal risk factors. Another group of youth may be exposed to multiple risk
factors, yet are able to resist and avoid the behavior problems. According to the research, this
delinquency avoidance is because of protective factors that insulate the youth against the impact of
the risks. These factors are grouped into three categories:

individual factors;
factors related to social bonding; and
healthy beliefs and clear behavioral standards.
The comprehensive strategy document explains the protective factors. When families, schools, and
communities have clearly stated policies and expectations for young people’s behavior, children are
less likely to become involved in crime and delinquency. Individual protective factors include female
gender, high intelligence, a positive social orientation, and a resilient temperament that helps a
child bounce back in adverse circumstances. Research indicates that one of the most effective ways
to protect young people from risk exposure is to strengthen their bonds with positive, prosocial
family members and adults outside the family (including teachers, coaches, youth leaders, and
friends).
19
The Graduated Sanctions Approach
The previous section outlined the research that supports the need for prevention that identifies and
addresses the risk factors faced by youth and families. The comprehensive strategic approach
developed by a consortium of national experts and researchers and synthesized by OJJDP also
describes “best practices” for managing those youth who have already offended and are at high
risk for continued recidivism in adulthood. This section describes the theory that frames the
approach to hold youth accountable for behavior through rehabilitation and preserving community
safety. It is based upon the culmination of research on delinquent careers and programs that has
proven effective to reduce further crime.
Similar to the prevention approach, the concept of graduated sanctions is based upon core
principles, within a model that combines treatment and rehabilitation with reasonable, fair,
humane, and appropriate sanctions, as stated in the strategy document:

immediate sanctions within the community for first-time, nonviolent offenders;
intermediate sanctions within the community for more serious offenders;
secure care programs for the most violent offenders; and
aftercare programs that provide high levels of social control and treatment services.
The model suggests that youth move along a continuum of phases that address both their needs
and the safety of the community. Appropriate sanctions and treatments along the phases should be
based upon an objective risk assessment, and the family should be involved in the development of
an individualized case plan. Similar to the prevention program, the structure of the graduated
sanctions approach must include a multi-disciplined team to identify risks, protective factors,
academic needs, mental health issues, etc., for the appropriate sanctions and services to be
considered. The research supporting the concept reveals that community-based sanctions programs
appear to be at least as successful as traditional incarceration in reducing recidivism, and well
structured graduated sanctions programs appear to be more effective than incarceration.
The graduated sanctions component enhanced and expanded the four-month pilot Juvenile
Correctional Intervention Program (JCIP). JCIP was originally designed as a relief valve for institutional crowding by expediting the release of youth from camp programs. JCIP was the catalyst that
connected the previously separate correctional treatment programs through an assessment center
located at Juvenile Hall. The program monitored target youth placed at home, but did not provide
the necessary treatment services for youth or their families. Breaking Cycles took the JCIP pilot to
scale as a fully-integrated, multi-agency, geographically-diverse, service delivery system providing
for intervention, supervision, treatment, and incarceration of juvenile offenders.
Implementing the Model
To effectively implement a comprehensive strategy that incorporates both prevention and
accountability (i.e., graduated sanctions) requires the following elements if it is to be successful:

include the whole community;
create ownership;
reach diverse groups in the community;
include elected officials and grassroots community leaders; and
give priority to risk factors that cause the most problems in the community.
20
In building and implementing the principles and practices underlying the Breaking Cycles program,
the San Diego County Probation Department’s approach was based upon the suggestions in the
comprehensive strategy. Specifically, the approach involved the entire San Diego region. It
developed a broad base of support and teamwork so that no single agency had the burden for
solving the issues involving youth. Also, their approach attempted to institutionalize prevention by
integrating services and activities within existing organizations and agencies. The Probation
Department also successfully mobilized key leaders and elected officials who control the resources
and direct policy. Ultimately, comprehensive prevention strategies require collaboration and
resource sharing, and long-term commitment by the entire community. The San Diego County
Probation Department, with support from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, can take
pride in their efforts to implement this strategy. Their efforts have been recognized and lauded by
the former United States Attorney General, as well as by the OJJDP.
The implementation of the Breaking Cycles program in San Diego County represents a significant
change in addressing youth at risk for juvenile crime. It involves several agencies in collaboration
willing to share information and case management. It requires acknowledgement that all agencies
have a role and responsibility in caring for our youth. It represents a new way of doing business in
the San Diego County juvenile justice system. Given the enormity of this change among and across
agencies, it may be some time before its true value and impact to the entire community are
realized.
COMPLETING THE LOCAL ACTION PLAN
In 1996, the California State Legislature made great strides in addressing juvenile crime. This
progress was the result of establishing the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability
Challenge Grant Program through SB 1760. The goal of this demonstration program was to provide
funds to assist counties in identifying and implementing ways to address juvenile crime that would
best meet the needs of that particular community. The BOC awarded planning grants totaling $1.7
million to 53 counties in December 1996, and demonstration grants totaling $45.7 million to 16
counties in May 1997. The Breaking Cycles program was one of the Challenge I grants, initiated in
1997, and funded for three years. In June 2000, the BOC granted an extension for one year and, in
August, made additional funds available to the counties to continue program operation through
2001.
Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council
As an eligibility requirement for applying for SB 1760 funds, a multi-agency group was formed to
develop a comprehensive plan that would “identify the resources and strategies for providing an
effective continuum of responses for the prevention, intervention, supervision, treatment, and
incarceration of juvenile offenders.” This group, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC),
brought together key leaders in the community to identify the strengths and the weaknesses within
the community that either helped or impeded the area’s capacity to effectively address youth and
families. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors appointed twenty-two members to the JJCC in
November 1996, which allowed for community representation beyond the minimum eleven
mandatory appointments specified in SB 1760.
21
Identifying Local Service Gaps
With the assistance of OJJDP, the JJCC and its task forces compiled information about local service
gaps through existing discussions with group members, a telephone survey of law enforcement
jurisdictions, and reviews of resource directories. In order to interpret this information and assess
what resources were lacking, a structured decision-making approach was used by the JJCC to
develop consensus on those service gaps and needs deemed most critical to implementation of the
local action plan (LAP). As a result of these efforts, critical gaps and needs were categorized as
either being programmatic, geographic, or related to program infrastructure.
Through a follow-up written survey, JJCC members prioritized their top five program concerns,
which included:

substance abuse treatment for youth and families at all steps of the continuum;
after-school/critical hours programs and latency age programs;
parent training, support, and home visitation;
vocational/technical training; and
programming for girls.
In addition, a number of geographic concerns (e.g., lack of drug and alcohol services for adolescents
and correctional facilities in North County), support service needs (e.g., basic housing necessities,
childcare, and clothing), and infrastructure needs were identified and described.
Recommendations and Strategies
In the final LAP, 19 recommendations and 53 strategies were presented that called for new levels of
coordination, program initiatives, and management across the entire continuum from prevention
through graduated sanctions. Underlying this plan was a number of themes or attributes that the
community sought to implement throughout the demonstration project. These included:

providing a full continuum of care;
being comprehensive and multi-disciplinary;
including members of the community;
utilizing a case management approach;
building on youth’s strengths, rather than deficiencies;
holding families accountable;
being family-focused;
being gender-specific and culturally and linguistically appropriate;
being intensive;
offering comprehensive alcohol and other drug treatment, recovery, and aftercare services;
having a combination of solid focus on job readiness, skills training, and employment;
utilizing comprehensive community risk and resource models;
adopting common definitions, referral and response protocols and instruments, development
information systems;
providing on-going evaluation; and
adopting a systemwide resource allocation strategy.
22
Since the first LAP was completed in 1997, it was revised twice, demonstrating the community’s
commitment to working together to identify needs in the community as they change and be
responsive to them through the provision of a network of integrated services.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report is structured and organized to be consistent with the final report outline provided by
the BOC. Chapter 2 follows with a description of both the prevention and graduated sanctions
components of the project. An overview of the evaluation effort is presented in Chapter 3. This
section includes a description of the research approach, as well as a list of the research questions
being addressed for both the process and impact evaluations, and a description of data collection
methods. The report continues with the results of the impact evaluation, which are presented in
Chapter 4. Chapter 5 includes vignettes regarding Breaking Cycles youth that were compiled by
program staff. In Chapter 6, data are presented to answer the process evaluation questions. The
seventh and final chapter includes conclusions and recommendations.
23
CHAPTER 2
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 2
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
Breaking Cycles is a multi-agency, geographically-diverse project designed to deter youth from
becoming delinquent by focusing prevention programs on at-risk youth and their families, and by
improving the juvenile justice and community response to juvenile offenders through a system of
graduated sanctions. The philosophy upon which the program was based assumes that needs are
most efficiently met when they are addressed within the community rather than by remote
government agencies. Therefore, the funding, administered locally by the Probation Department,
reflects the underlying philosophy of the program because the majority of the revenue has been
contracted to community-based agencies.
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
The Breaking Cycles program has three specific goals: (1) reduce the number of at-risk minors who
become delinquent by involving them in a prevention program; (2) improve the juvenile justice
system through the implementation of a system of graduated sanctions with a focus on communitybased treatment; and (3) break the cycle of substance abuse and family problems that fosters crime
and violence.
The prevention component demonstrates adherence to sound research that suggests that specific
risk factors, such as poor school attendance or substance abuse, can be potential harbingers of
future anti-social and delinquent behaviors. The theory is that if the risk behaviors can be reduced,
the likelihood for entering the justice system will be reduced as well. Therefore, the prevention
piece targets youth that have not yet entered the justice system, but who may be exhibiting some
of the behaviors noted. The prevention network includes law enforcement, drug and alcohol
treatment, vocational training, the faith community, mentors, parenting training, recreational
programs, schools, after-school programs, and clinical services.
Community Assessment Teams
The Community Assessment Teams (CATs) address the prevention goal of Breaking Cycles through
the provision of direct services and by linking clients to social supports in the community. Initially,
through a Challenge I grant mandated by California Senate Bill 1760, two sites were piloted, one in
the central region of the county and one in the South Bay area. In December 1997, additional funds
were received through Senate Bill 1050 to fund centers in the eastern and northern regions. Due to
the large geographic area and population base in the northern region, two sites were established,
27
one in the coastal area (Coastal site) and one further inland (Inland site). The eastern portion of the
county is served by a fifth center (East County site). As a result, CAT services are available countywide. The following sections present site-specific information about each of the CATs.
Central Site
CAT services are provided in central San Diego by Social Advocates for Youth, or SAY. Since 1998,
the Central CAT has provided culturally diverse and linguistically competent services in Hmong, Lao,
Cambodian, Vietnamese, Somali, Spanish, English, Russian, and French. These capabilities are critical
as there are 23 languages spoken in the local neighborhood. As an extension of these services, the
CAT also has developed the Cambodian Culture and Dance Group and a Latino soccer team to
respond to some of the cultural/recreational needs of the families in the central region. The site
offers an anger management group, in addition to school-based groups for girls focusing on
healthy relationships and decision-making. Due to high numbers of families in the central area that
are struggling with poverty and disenfranchisement, the CAT staff has been required to develop
expertise in specialized areas, including: providing information about how to best access the
county’s complicated homeless shelter system, teaching families how to interact with school staff to
enable a student to find appropriate educational placement, and encouraging families to advocate
for their child when interacting with service providers within the medical system. Many families in
the central region have never had the opportunity to learn how to effectively advocate for the
needs of their family. This area is one in which the CAT is helping families make positive life-long
changes. Staff members periodically go on ride-alongs with the San Diego Police Department,
responding to calls involving juveniles and domestic violence where there are children present.
South Bay Site
The South Bay site is operated by South Bay Community Services (SBCS) and takes part in many
collaboratives, such as the School Attendance Review Board (SARB), student study teams, and the
Chula Vista Coordinating Council. A permanent on-site probation officer participates as a board
member in the SARB process for five different school districts, thus allowing the CAT to coordinate
closely with local schools. In an effort to enhance law enforcement collaborations, the CAT has outstationed two case managers at the police stations in National City and the Southern Division of the
San Diego Police Department. In addition, the CAT has developed male and female support groups
that are facilitated by CAT staff. The South Bay CAT also has introduced an anger management
group and, due to the needs of the community, opened a new position, the CAT school advocate.
The CAT school advocate provides members of the CAT Youth Group an opportunity to have their
own personal tutor and school advocate/mentor. The school advocate meets with the teachers and
school counselors to advocate for CAT clients. Another new program developed out of the needs of
the community is a support group for parents of runaway youngsters.
North Coastal Site
Lifeline Coastal Community Services is the agency providing services to the north coastal communities of San Diego County. This CAT site participates on both the Oceanside and Carlsbad Unified
School Districts’ SARBs. The Coastal CAT team also serves as a gateway to mental health services.
This team was instrumental in the formation of a group designed specifically for adolescent
females. In addition, in collaboration with the Partners Mentorship Program, the site established an
effective and much needed mentoring program. This team has provided a link with a local church,
28
which offers free karate classes to Oceanside youth, a two-week summer camp, as well as afterschool tutoring and homework assistance. A member of the CAT sits on the Vista Townsite Board,
whose mission is to revitalize the Townsite District of Vista. The CAT’s Probation representative
formed a strength-based, problem-solving class in collaboration with a middle school remedial
campus in Oceanside and is developing a Regional Delinquency Prevention Network of providers to
serve at-risk youth and their families. This Probation representative also has created an “Interests
and Abilities Inventory” that is being used as an assessment tool to help caseworkers recognize
needs and focus services based upon the strengths of each youth. In addition, the probation officer
also is responsible for developing “Integrity Development” – an eight-week curriculum designed for
middle school students who have committed petty theft that utilizes educational content and group
processing activities to address drug experimentation and other presenting problems. The group,
which will be expanded and adapted to older ages, offers youth a variety of cognitive and
behavioral tools with which to approach decision-making and also provides CAT case managers with
valuable additional insight into the strengths and needs of participating youth. The Coastal team is
beginning its second cycle of this curriculum. Other activities include on-site programs for female
clients, a sailing regatta for youth, participation with local boards, giving presentations on gangs,
and off-site assessments at Oceanside schools.
North Inland Site
The North Inland site is operated by EYE Counseling and Crisis Services and is involved with many
community organizations and other networking efforts. Because the Probation representative is
shared by both the Inland and Coastal sites, the work listed previously by this individual extends to
this site. The Inland site is represented on a number of focus groups, committees, and advisory
boards, as well as the Escondido Juvenile Incident Review Committee, which audits incidents of
juvenile violence occurring in Escondido. CAT representatives have served as guest speakers for a
community college criminal justice class. Links have been established with the Escondido Police
Department that involve the CAT receiving referrals for all juvenile runaway cases and from the
North County Teen Court. The CAT also has been involved in extensive program development,
which is described under the Coastal site description section, including completing three cycles of
the “Integrity Development” curriculum (with a third beginning in mid-2001). An example of an
innovative program is the equine-assisted group therapy project in which wrap-around funds are
used to sponsor a gender-specific service. For that project, young women with extensive histories of
sexual abuse are selected and subsequently engaged in a combined horseback riding instruction
and group therapy program. This program will soon be expanded to include boys. This site also has
collaborated with the Escondido Salvation Army for three years to provide a Summer Challenge
Program for at-risk middle school age youth. CAT staff members participate as activity leaders,
trainers, and speakers at this month-long day camp. Also, outreach services have been provided to
local schools and parent groups offering support in dealing with youth involved in gang activity
and/or substance abuse. The youth, accompanied by CAT staff, also visited Donovan State Prison.
East County Site
San Diego Youth and Community Services (SDYCS) provides CAT services to east San Diego County.
This site has standing members in all of the East County Collaboratives and staff members have
chaired these collaboratives, as well as other groups, such as a committee dedicated to developing a
teen center in Lakeside. The mayor of Santee has asked the CAT to develop a teen center in that
city, as well. Other community involvement includes participation in task forces in Lemon Grove and
29
Lakeside directed toward combating racism and hate crimes. Team members also sit on the
Interagency Law Enforcement Council, which deals with school racial issues. The CAT is represented
on the Safe Schools Advisory Boards in El Cajon and Santee, and have staff out-stationed in several
schools throughout the East County. Through CAT efforts, “tough love” and anger management
groups have been formed with wrap-around funds and local community support. Recently, the CAT
also received praise from the San Diego Superior Court for their program “Every 15 Minutes,” which
discusses the effects of drinking and driving. The East County CAT also has participated in a number
of community events. CAT staff was able to respond to two school shooting incidents in their region
in the Spring of 2001 and provided crisis intervention within hours of the incidents. In the aftermath
of these tragedies, staff provided numerous schools, as well as the local teen center, with counseling services and referrals and continued to provide outreach to a community in need.
Referral Process
Youth may be referred to the CATs if they are at risk of referral to the justice system due to chronic
disobedience to parents, curfew violations, repeated truancy, incidents of running away from home,
experimentation with drugs and alcohol, or other serious behavior problems. A juvenile also may
self-refer due to parental neglect or abuse or because he/she is having conflicts at home.
The CATs receive the bulk of their clientele through referrals made by local agencies. A youth may
be referred to the CATs by a parent, guardian, or caretaker, a law enforcement officer, probation
officer, Health and Human Services agency worker, or school personnel. Each of the CATs continually conducts outreach with these referral sources to ensure that they remain current about the
services provided by the CATs. Each team has trained its staff in cultural and linguistic issues and all
outreach materials utilized by the CATs are available in most of the languages spoken by members
of their respective communities.
Assessment and Service Provision
The teams are comprised of a coordinator, probation officer, case managers, and other experts.
After an initial assessment with the youth and family, a case plan for addressing the presenting
strengths and issues is mutually developed (long-term clients) or the family is referred to other
resources in the community (short-term clients). The staff of the CATs has collaborated with other
agencies to provide the necessary services and also has received extensive training with respect to
issues faced by families that place them at risk. A corollary goal of the prevention piece is to provide
families with the knowledge and skills that will enable them to access resources in their neighborhood.
The graduated sanctions component of Breaking Cycles provides a fluid, seamless continuum of
services from placement at home to incarceration that weaves the thread of substance abuse
treatment and family intervention throughout each level of response. The theory is that this
program will prevent further involvement in delinquency for program participants by providing a
direct link between behavior and consequences, while also promoting intensive therapeutic
intervention. Graduated sanctions, defined, is a system of treatment and rehabilitation of delin-
30
quent offenders that combines accountability and sanctions with increasing treatment and
rehabilitative services. This philosophy reflects a departure from the traditional processing of youth
in which less serious violations may have been overlooked or ignored until a future, more serious
action resulted in a reaction from the system. This component of Breaking Cycles also reduces the
“delinquency intervention response” of incarceration as a sole mode of response by increasing
community-based intervention options (day treatment centers, residential community care, etc.) and
providing more intensive in-home support and addressing youth and family treatment needs (e.g.,
chemical dependency, family management, negative peer association, school issues, etc.) from a
comprehensive and integrated approach.
Receiving a Breaking Cycles Commitment
The graduated sanctions aspect of the Breaking Cycles program is accessed only through a valid
Juvenile Court order. Length of program participation is currently approved for commitment tracks
of 90, 150, 240, or 365 days. While a judge could theoretically sentence any juvenile to Breaking
Cycles who is at-risk for out-of-home placement, this decision is based at least in part upon the
recommendations of a Probation Department screening committee. This committee, consisting of
subject matter experts on juvenile institutions, residential treatment facility (RTF) placements, the
Breaking Cycles program, and mental health evaluations, meets prior to the disposition hearing
with case management Deputy Probation Officers (DPO) who are considering recommending to the
Juvenile Court placement of a ward in an out-of-home program. The Probation Department’s
Screening Committee must provide the stamp of approval to an out-of-home placement recommendation prior to its formal offering to the Juvenile Court at the ward’s dispositional court
hearing. Approval decisions are made only after the committee has reviewed with the case
management DPO the appropriateness of the ward for out-of-home placement. This “appropriateness review process” includes assessments of the ward’s current offense, prior criminal history, and
other personal, social, and family characteristics. The Screening Committee, which was reinstituted
in September 1998, has helped to ensure that appropriate cases are being referred to the
Graduated Sanctions component of Breaking Cycles.
Assessment Process and Case Plan Development
All wards committed to Breaking Cycles for a period of more than 90 days undergo an individualized assessment conducted by a multi-agency, multi-discipline team. The goal of the assessment
process is to evaluate ward/family risk and resiliency and to develop a Breaking Cycles case plan that
is family-centered, strength-based, and designed to promote ward accountability and rehabilitation
as well as community protection. As an end product, the Breaking Cycles family case plan serves as
an individualized road map for program participation, including placements and services to be
rendered to each ward. It additionally focuses the treatment services provided at each Breaking
Cycles program level (institutional, community, and home) in an effort to provide the ward and
family with a fluid and seamless system of service delivery.
The assessment process begins almost immediately with the issuance of the Breaking Cycles order of
commitment by the Juvenile Court and the subsequent physical transfer of the ward to the
Breaking Cycles institutional assessment centers located in Juvenile Hall (unit-100 boys, unit-400
girls). Upon transfer to an institutional assessment center, the ward will undergo a battery of
individual assessments conducted by Probation, school, and community-based professionals (Alcohol
31
and Drug Specialists, Youth and Family Counselors, and Clinical Psychologists). Areas covered by the
assessment staff include evaluations of educational performance, mental health needs, drug/alcohol
dependence, ward/family resiliency, ward institutional adjustment, and ward strengths and future
goals. This initial gathering of baseline assessment information generally takes place within a 10-14
day period, following the ward’s commitment to Breaking Cycles.
Following completion of the multi-disciplinary information-gathering phase, the ward’s case is
scheduled for review and case plan development by the Breaking Cycles Assessment Team. It is at
this scheduled review that recommendations for ward/family program participation and treatment
planning are made.
Assessment meetings and case plan development sessions are conducted three days per week and
the average length of time from case disposition to assessment is two to three weeks. Participants in
the assessment meeting include members of the multi-agency assessment team (probation officers,
school, and community-based professionals), parents, and ,on occasion, other community members
invited by the parents. The assessment meeting and development of the case plan are a collaborative process that invites input from all present. Based upon the information gained through this
process, and an inventory of the youth’s and family’s strengths, risks, and needs, a case plan for
Breaking Cycles ward/family participation is made. The case plan will identify ward/family strengths,
service needs (e.g., family counseling, educational enrollment, drug/alcohol treatment, vocational
training, etc.), and include action plans for meeting these needs. In addition, the multi-disciplinary/
parent assessment team case plan also will determine levels of program supervision, focus of
treatment interventions, and initial and transitional program placements (e.g., institutional,
community, and home).
Parents and other family member involvement is expected in all phases of a child’s participation in
the Breaking Cycles program. This participation begins with their involvement in the assessment
process and development of their child’s case plan. Great effort is extended by Breaking Cycles staff
to involve parents in this initial phase of program involvement. Parents are notified of the assessment process at court disposition through an informational letter and are personally contacted by a
Breaking Cycles parent advocate, who invites them to attend a weekly orientation meeting about
Breaking Cycles and the assessment process. Parents also receive information about assessment and
the overall program during child visitation hours at the Breaking Cycles Assessment Centers at
Juvenile Hall. Parents additionally receive a copy of the case plan when it is complete to cement
ownership over the case plan and objectives. If a parent is unable to attend, the parent advocate for
the program solicits his/her input ahead of time, represents their interests at the assessment
meeting, and provides follow-up contact on the case plan that was developed.
Continuum of Responses
Prior to the implementation of Breaking Cycles, youth under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile
Delinquency Court were committed directly to institutional programs. Under this simplistic
commitment format, the reliance upon incarceration as the primary intervention was heightened,
with wards being required to complete a measured time of incarceration prior to being returned
home. Intermediary programs such as those with a community and/or treatment focus were either
non-existent, or poorly integrated into the institutional commitment system. Commitment time,
while responsive to good behavior, was as likely to be influenced by conditions of overcrowding. It,
therefore, was not uncommon for a ward to typically serve far fewer program days than actually
32
ordered by the Juvenile Court. Additionally, a rehabilitative focus, while certainly important at this
earlier stage, was not easily articulated to parents, wards, and the community and did not enjoy an
integrated focus throughout probation.
Under the Breaking Cycles program, the simplistic commitment format has been radically altered.
Today the Breaking Cycles ward is committed to an integrated system of graduated sanctions and
likely will complete his/her entire commitment time in program placement, but with less reliance
upon incarceration. Accountability and rehabilitation share an equal spotlight in the ward’s travel
through the Breaking Cycles continuum of responses. Programs and staffing patterns are as likely to
be reflective of community-based professionals as their counterparts in law enforcement.
The Breaking Cycles continuum of responses consists of an array of placements and intervention
services under the umbrella of one commitment program. Placement programs include institutional (e.g., Juvenile Ranch Facility, Girls Rehabilitation Facility, and the Short Term Offenders
Program), community-based (e.g., Youth Day Center-Central and North, Reflections–Central and
North, School Academy, and Community Assessment Centers) and own home (Community Unit)
settings. Program services are equally multi–faceted, ranging from community protection (institutional commitment) and drug and alcohol treatment, to intensive youth and family counseling on a
variety of personal and social issues. These and other services are delivered to the community,
Breaking Cycles wards, and their families through a collaborative effort that partners Probation
with community resources throughout San Diego County. Additionally, treatment services are for
the first time-focused interventions woven into each of the Breaking Cycles continuum of
graduated sanctions.
Use of the continuum of Breaking Cycles responses and interventions is linked to specific issues of
public safety, ward rehabilitation, and subsequent compliance with the Breaking Cycles case plan
developed in the assessment phase. Most youth begin their rehabilitative process in highly
structured institutional settings and, through goal attainment (e.g., completion of treatment plans,
prosocial behavior, etc.), become eligible to step down to lower levels of program structure and
supervision (e.g., community and home-based programs). Likewise, poor compliance with program
expectations can result in return to higher levels of program structure and supervision. This
continuum of responses and use of graduated sanctions assists in the critical transition phase from
custody to non-custody status and provides a mechanism to responding (negatively or positively) to
changes in ward behavior, thereby ensuring greater success in producing and maintaining prosocial, crime, and drug-free lifestyle behavior patterns.
The continuum of graduated sanctions includes the following programs linked under the umbrella
of Breaking Cycles:

Juvenile Ranch Facility: JRF is a minimum-security custody program for males ages 13 to 18.
The focus of the JRF program is to provide ward accountability and to initiate behavior modification through exposure to substance abuse treatment, anger management, and personal
responsibility programs. Wards at JRF are supervised by Probation staff seven days per week, 24
hours per day, and are assigned to age appropriate dorms. All participants are expected to
engage in its comprehensive educational, vocational, and social treatment programs. The
physical plant typically accommodates on average 150 to 200 wards. In addition to Probation
staff, JRF has on hand a medical team, psychologists, and substance abuse specialists.
33

Girls’ Rehabilitation Facility: GRF is a minimum-security custody program for females ages 13
to 18. The focus of GRF is to provide ward accountability and to initiate behavior modification
through exposure to gender-specific programming, substance abuse treatment, and personal
responsibility programs. Wards at GRF are supervised by Probation staff seven days per week, 24
hours per day, and are housed together under a group living arrangement. All participants are
expected to engage in its comprehensive educational, vocational, and social treatment programs. In addition to Probation staff, GRF has access to Juvenile Hall medical and psychological
services and has its own in house counselors and substance abuse specialists. Program participation is limited to 36 girls.

Center City and North County Youth Day Center: YDC is a community-based day reporting
center operated by Probation in partnership with the County Office of Education and local
community-based organizations. YDC‘s two program sites are often utilized as a transition
program for boys and girls graduating from JRF or GRF and returning home. YDC has an on-site
school and provides the youth with a variety of services ranging from substance abuse treatment to youth and family counseling. Job training and independent living skills training also are
available. At YDC, youth attend school and other program activities during the day and return
home to their families during the evening hours. YDC’s hours of operation are from 7:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., seven days per week. In addition, extended hours coverage is available through an
on-call officer 24 hours per day. Average daily attendance at the two YDC sites combined is
approximately 60 wards. Participating staff includes probation officers, substance abuse specialists, youth and family counselors, a community mental health coordinator (Tower program),
and staff from community based program providers.

Reflections Central and North County: Reflections is a community-based MEDI-CAL certified
(Central site only) day treatment center operated by the Probation Department in partnership
with the County Office of Education, County Mental Health, and several community-based
agencies. Reflections targets delinquent youth that have mental health and/or significant family
management issues. Reflections’ focus is on promoting family stability, community safety, and
youth rehabilitation through exposure to an intensive day treatment program and supportive
family intervention services (e.g., family counseling, parenting classes, chemical dependency and
anger management groups). At Reflections, youth attend school and program activities during
the day (7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and return home during the evening hours. Programs and
services are available Monday through Saturday. Family Preservation Officers also are available
to Reflections families after hours, seven days per week. Average daily attendance at the two
Reflection sites combined is approximately 75 wards. Participating staff includes probation
officers, youth and family counselors, a community mental health coordinator, substance abuse
specialists, a part-time psychiatrist, and staff from community-based program providers.

Community Unit: The Community Unit is an intensive, in-home, step-down program following
incarceration and is generally the last phase of a ward’s participation in Breaking Cycles. This
home-based program partners probation officers with community-based agency staff who
specialize in youth and family counseling and substance abuse treatment. The program focus is
providing in-home services to wards and their families, while also attending to community
safety through intensive supervision services. The Community Unit is comprised of seven
regional teams operating throughout San Diego County. Each regional team includes a case
managing Deputy Probation Officer, (DPO), a field supervision probation officer known as a
Community Family Monitor (CFM), a youth and family counselor (YFC), and an alcohol and other
34
drug specialist (AOD). The Community Unit assists wards and their families in meeting court
required conditions of probation and obtaining community services. This team also provides
intensive supervision of school attendance, substance abuse treatment, and aggressive monitoring of drug/alcohol use. Approximately 150 families receive Community Unit services on a
daily basis. Service provision is seven days per week and extends into the evening hours
(7:00 p.m.).
The Short Term Offender Program (STOP) was included under the umbrella of Breaking Cycles
services between January and October 1998. At the time, STOP was in place at Juvenile Hall for lowrisk juveniles with either a first offense or a misdemeanor charge. During this time, all youth
sentenced to Breaking Cycles for 90 days were supervised by Breaking Cycles case work DPOs and
were provided the services of the Community Unit following completion of their short-term
incarceration in Juvenile Hall. However, due to the large increase in caseload, coupled with the fact
that 90 days is a relatively short time to work with a youth, 90-day commitments were removed
from direct supervision by Breaking Cycles after ten months. Since that time, youth are still
committed to Breaking Cycles for 90 days and continue to participate in STOP, but they no longer
automatically receive other Breaking Cycles services. Instead, following their incarceration, they are
placed under the supervision of a level one (general supervision) probation officer. Additional
services from Breaking Cycles are available to 90-day commits through the special request of their
DPO. These special requests are generally reviewed through a special process called reassessment.
From reassessment, 90-day wards can access Home Supervision, short-term commitment to Juvenile
Hall, and Community Unit in-home treatment and intensive supervision services. The STOP program
also remains a part of the continuum of responses for Breaking Cycles 150, 240 and 365 wards that
meet a low-risk, high-resiliency profile.
Multi-Disciplinary Team Approach
A multi-disciplinary team approach is the essence of the Breaking Cycles experience. This approach
is present in all facets of the program from the initial completion of the assessment process and case
plan development, to subsequent service provision and linkages to the community after program
participation ends. Team members include:

Probation Department Staff: Probation officers provide case management, family preservation, role modeling, mentorship, and ward supervision services for youth and their families
assigned to the Breaking Cycles program. Probation officers make frequent contact with youth
to ensure public safety and that the Breaking Cycles case plan is being followed. Monitoring
levels vary depending on program participation and behavior, with frequencies ranging from
several times daily to weekly. Probation staff is present in all of the Breaking Cycles programs.

Alcohol and Drug Specialists: Alcohol and other drug specialists (AOD) are in place in each
stage of the continuum of Breaking Cycles graduated sanctions. AODs perform comprehensive
substance abuse assessments, assist in case plan development, and provide crisis intervention
and referrals to appropriate community-based treatment services. They also provide intensive
in-home family intervention and coordinate project and community treatment resources.
Currently, eleven specialists work with the different program components of Breaking Cycles,
including JRF, GRF, Reflections, YDC, and the Community Unit, and this number may be increasing in the future. This increase reflects the fact that approximately 85 percent of the youth
35
committed to Breaking Cycles have major issues with substance abuse. AOD services are not
limited to only wards, but extend to all family members, including parents and siblings.

Mental Health Practitioners: Mental health practitioners are present in most of the Breaking
Cycles program today. They are prominent figures in assessments, at JRF/GRF, and in the day
treatment programs. Their services are becoming increasingly more in demand as more wards
and families enter Breaking Cycles with mental health histories and needs. Mental health practitioners in Breaking Cycles include a part-time psychiatrist, clinical psychologists, and LCSWs with
mental health backgrounds. Additionally, a community mental health referral program called
TOWER also is operating at each of the community-based transition programs. Plans also are on
the board to add mental health services, particularly in the North County. Breaking Cycles
mental health practitioners provide an array of services to Breaking Cycles participants. They sit
on the program’s assessment committees, provide mental health evaluations, monitor medication, and provide individual and crises intervention counseling and community referral service.

Youth and Family Counselors (YFC): Family workers provide family-centered, home-based
family treatment and support services that include counseling, home-based case management,
crisis intervention, and stabilization assistance. YFCs are present in the day treatment sites and
the Community Unit. YFCs are active in the ward/family assessment process and in parent training programs. They additionally are important sources for the development of community
resources. The typical case size for youth and family counselors is approximately 1:12.
Parent Participation
One of the goals of the graduated sanctions component is to invite and involve parents to
participate in all aspects of their child’s program, from beginning to end. Parent participation in
Breaking Cycles begins in the courtroom as soon as the child is committed to the Breaking Cycles
program. At that moment, parents are provided with an information packet on the Breaking Cycles
program and given instructions to attend a Breaking Cycles orientation meeting that is held every
Saturday morning in both English and Spanish. While parent involvement begins in the court and in
program orientation, it also is extended through participation in their child’s assessment, the Parent
Advisory Board, and in the parent education workshops. Participation in the child assessment is one
of the most crucial aspects of the Breaking Cycles program and every effort is expended to have the
parents present (over 80% do attend). The Parent Advisory Board, which was formed in June 1999
and meets the third Wednesday of each month, provides parents with a forum to provide program
input and seek solutions to problems. The parenting workshops provide on-going program
involvement for the parents, especially during the time their child is in an institutional program. The
parent workshop programs prepare parents for their child’s return home and serve as a primer for
accessing Breaking Cycles services. The parent workshops include seven core classes that cover a
variety of topics, including:

Using Breaking Cycles: This workshop, which is offered approximately once per month,
prepares parents for their upcoming involvement in the program by teaching them how to form
a working partnership with Probation and who to call when they need assistance. Parents are
given the tools to implement a behavioral plan, the development of which is discussed in a
separate workshop.
36

Drugs and Alcohol: This class teaches parents the warning signs and symptoms of drug use,
what to do if a child is using drugs, and information about new drugs.

Court Orders and Legal Issues: This class provides parents with information regarding their
child’s court orders and duties to the court. It also prepares parents for proactive involvement in
family life and informs them of the requirements for successful completion of probation by
their child.

Pre-Release: This class provides information on what to expect when a child returns home from
an institutional program. The focus is on the “honeymoon” period that typically follows from
transition from custody to the expectations in the home, school, community, and peer associations. Details also include instructions to parents on how to pick-up their child from JRF/GRF
and how to transition to the next Breaking Cycles program.

Back in Control: This workshop provides basic information on how to parent difficult children.
Based upon the curriculum developed by Gregory Bodenhamer, it teaches parents how to set
limits, avoid manipulation, and gain positive results.

Education: During this class, parents learn how to provide an environment conducive to
completing homework and are provided with information about the Individual Education Plan
(IEP) process and alternative schooling options available in Breaking Cycles and the community.
Additional focus is on how parents can use educational laws and their school system to meet
the needs of their child.

Gangs and Negative Peer Associations: In this class, parents are taught warning signs for
gang involvement and what they can do to keep their child safe from gangs and violence.
To help encourage parent participation, a full-time parent advocate contacts parents/guardians to
further educate them about the program’s operation, encourage their active participation in the
assessment process, and provide assistance in scheduling meetings. Probation Department staff
estimates that approximately two-thirds of parents attend the orientation meeting and that about
three-quarters attend the assessments. Program staff knows that parental involvement in Breaking
Cycles is important to promote positive change with youth. Over time, the staff has developed
creative ways to encourage parent attendance and their numbers have correspondingly increased.
Such examples include having parent workshops placed directly in the community and assigned to
parents in assessment. Additionally, Breaking Cycles also has forged relationships with Juvenile Hall
and the Juvenile Court to have their program information disseminated directly to parents with
children assigned to the program. Breaking Cycles also is active in community outreach to parents
and has an annual Spring Fair event, which in 2001 brought in over 225 families for a community
social gathering with the Breaking Cycles collaborative staff.
A parent handbook also was developed as a guide for parents through their child’s involvement in
the program and a customer satisfaction survey is given to every parent/guardian as their child exits
Breaking Cycles to solicit their feedback on program strengths and weaknesses. All materials
prepared for parents are available in Spanish and English and interpreter services also are available.
37
Reassessment
Reassessment is the dynamic process that allows Breaking Cycles to be responsive to changes in the
ward/family’s social and/or behavioral environment. Through reassessment, a ward’s case plan can
be altered or reaffirmed. Reassessment is the process that responds to changes in transition plans
between Breaking Cycles programs, changes in program status (AWOL, family relocation), changes
in legal status (new charges, probation violations), changes in ward behavior (drug/alcohol relapse,
refusal to participate, completion of goals), and requests for program change. Reassessment can be
initiated by any multi-disciplinary team member, as well as by parents and wards. Parents and/or
family members are encouraged by the multi-disciplinary team to attend the reassessment.
Reassessments are held on a weekly basis and are an integral activity in the Breaking Cycles
continuum of responses. Through the process of reassessment, ward accountability is heightened
for anti-social behavior as consequences are provided with swiftness and with parent involvement.
Reassessment allows Probation to move wards between and through its graduated sanctions
without returning to court. Anti-social behavior, minor probation violations, and even some lowlevel misdemeanor offenses can be referred to this process for resolution. Through the process of
reassessment, the concept of graduated sanctions passes from a static state to a dynamic process of
collaborative, multi-disciplined intervention.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Exceeding BOC expectations, all five CAT sites (Central, East, South Bay, Coastal, and Inland) were
operational and receiving referrals by May 1998. The first to receive clients was the Central location
(March 1998), followed by Inland and South Bay in April 1998, with the last two sites receiving
referrals in May. The Coastal, East County, and Inland sites began receiving clients within one
month of being awarded the contract with the Probation Department.
Ensuring Open Channels of Communication
Throughout the implementation of the graduated sanctions component, Probation Department
staff has remained committed to ensuring that adequate communication exists between involved
parties. This commitment has included different program staff, as well as other team members who
may be working with Breaking Cycles through a contract with their parent agency. This openness
was extremely important to avoid barriers to collaboration that could result over confusion
regarding staff supervision, different expectations or protocols at different organizations, willingness to share client information, and the potential conflicting roles of Probation and communitybased agencies. Open communication was maintained, in part, through monthly manager meetings,
as well as through updating contact logs so that all staff have access to client records, rather than
the probation officer and counselor keeping separate ones.
38
Staff Development Activities
In 1998, over 120 staff members attended a day-long workshop of “visioning.” This activity
accomplished a number of important tasks, including facilitating communication and bonding
among staff, and brainstorming to develop a plan and future vision for Breaking Cycles. Recognizing the importance of reviewing the program at various stages, a number of management retreats
have been held for program staff since. The purpose of these retreats was to celebrate the
successes, as well as brainstorm ways to increase efficiency. In addition, individual staff also were
provided with a variety of training opportunities, including special sessions on gender-specific
programming, motivational interviewing, wrap-around services, collaborative casework, detecting
substance abuse, and conducting case assessments.
Education and Outreach
Program staff also made outreach activities a priority, both with Probation Department staff and
outside agencies. These efforts have included widespread distribution of a professionally produced
Breaking Cycles brochure, a regularly published newsletter, “The Latest,” and training on the
program to juvenile court judges, district attorneys, Probation Department staff, and staff at
community agencies.
LESSONS LEARNED
As a program develops, certain lessons are learned. When possible, changes can be made to modify
the program that will increase its efficiency and effectiveness. In other instances, this knowledge
can be utilized during the implementation stages of other programs. The current section outlines
some of the lessons learned by Breaking Cycles program managers and service providers.
Necessity for Standardization
At the beginning of the program, a deliberate decision was made by the Probation Department, in
concert with the CATs, to allow each of the sites to develop many of its own procedures. The reason
for this decision was to give each of the CATs the opportunity to best reflect the needs and wishes
of their particular community. However, in hindsight, one disadvantage of this flexibility, according
to CAT staff, was dealing with these different procedures during the start-up and early operational
phases of the program. As a consequence, there have been a number of ambiguities regarding
which procedures have been standardized and which have not. For example, activity codes in the
database were not well defined until 1999 or later, leading some sites to complete such tasks as
“records check,” while others did not because they did not understand it was required. In addition,
ambiguity led sites to interpret “intake date” in different ways (e.g., date of first phone contact,
date assessment was started or completed), resulting in variability across sites in the length of
program participation and length of time between intake and assessment completion. The
Probation Department, learning from this experience, attempted to resolve these issues as they
became apparent, and determined that future contracts will involve a greater standard of program
uniformity.
39
Importance of a Reliable Database
Another ongoing issue since program implementation was the database that was created to track
client-related statistics. Designed by one of the community-based organizations providing CAT
services, the database was sufficient to meet the minimum requirements for this research-based
project, but it was not designed to manage the high number of cases as the program grew. As a
result, all sites sporadically lost data, which resulted in wasted staff time, as well as incorrect
reporting. In hindsight, program managers realized the importance of making a greater investment
initially in the area of information management.
Realistic Timelines for Engaging Families
The CATs had a number of goals regarding service provision to long-term clients. These included
completing a risk assessment with 45 percent of clients within three days of intake, completing a
family assessment with 60 percent of clients within 15 days of initiation, and developing a service
plan within 15 days after intake for 90 percent of clients. However, while extensive effort was
placed in attempting to achieve these goals, the CATs found that these timelines were not realistic.
For instance, case managers found that they often have to make several phone calls and send
written communication before a family will respond. Even after this outreach, families still might
not respond. Often, once an appointment is made, a client may not show or reschedule for a later
time. In other situations, phone numbers are disconnected, making communication even more
difficult. Finally, the flow of referrals fluctuates, and an influx of new ones can put a large burden
on case management staff, who are unable to deal with all referrals in a timely fashion.
Time Required for Implementation
According to the Probation Department, the greatest barrier to program implementation was the
extended period of time necessary to firmly establish the program. Because of the size of the
project, staff reported that additional time should have been allocated to implement the program
and that the evaluation period should have been for a longer period of time to allow for “start-up”
and stabilization of services during the first two years of the program.
Appropriate Caseload Size
When Breaking Cycles was first implemented in January 1998, four Deputy Probation Officers
(DPOs) were assigned to supervise the anticipated caseload. The underlying assumptions at the time
were that the majority of juveniles would be in custody, that juveniles in custody require little
contact, and that the appropriate caseload was one probation officer to 150 juveniles. However,
with a large number of cases transferred to Breaking Cycles supervision immediately, program staff
quickly learned that many of the Breaking Cycles youth were high risk, not in custody, and required
a higher level of supervision. Another unanticipated factor was the added responsibility of
communicating with parents, especially when youth are in custody. An additional DPO was assigned
to the unit in July 1998, and two more came on board in January 1999. These additions, which were
possible through realignment of department funding and resulted in an approximate probation
40
officer caseload of approximately 1:75 or 100, were deemed more manageable. In 2000, a consultant hired by the Probation Department offered additional feedback regarding caseload size and
suggested that it was still too large to provide the appropriate level of supervision and service
delivery. As a result, the number of DPO positions increased again to ten, which allowed for a 1:50
probation officer to youth ratio as of August 2000. While this still did not meet the consultant
recommendation of 1:25, it did allow all Breaking Cycles juveniles who are in an institution to be
seen by their probation officers once per month, on average, while those in the community or day
treatment are seen approximately twice per month.
Need for Regionalized Services
The graduated sanctions component implemented regionalized services in February 1999 to
increase the program’s ability to provide consistent, community-based services throughout a
commitment. Under this plan, one officer serves as a case manager and is assigned a case from
commitment until the maximum release date, based upon where in the county the family and youth
reside. Staff members are experts on available services in the region and provide families with
linkages to the community for their service needs and aftercare. In addition, this regionalization
effort was taken one step further in 2000 by stationing team members directly in the communities
so that integrated services can be provided directly to clients where they reside.
Importance of Consistency Across Programs
A new case plan and progress report were developed and implemented in September 1998 to
provide consistency across programs. The case plan is strength-based and focuses on issues,
objectives, and actions to meet identified needs. The progress report is completed when the minor
exits a program and provides information about the status of the juvenile in areas of education,
training/employment, peer relations, substance use, family, staff/authority relations, medical and
mental health issues, objectives, behavior adjustment, and probation compliance. The implementation of these forms resulted in improved documentation over time, providing useful information to
both practitioners and researchers.
Communicating with the Client
A review of the Breaking Cycles program by a private consultant in 2000 revealed some confusion
on the part of adjudicated youth regarding program components, as well as trepidation regarding
particular program components. To alleviate these types of misunderstandings, the Probation
Department produced and began to distribute youth-generated brochures that provided information about Breaking Cycles, including what they need to do to successfully complete their commitment, in an easy-to-read question and answer type format. These brochures have been well
received by juveniles, as well as their families. Specific program brochures (e.g., Reflections, YDC)
also have been produced and are a helpful source of information. In addition, staff at Juvenile Hall,
JRF, and GRF also have been trained to serve as a liaison with youth and their families by providing
information about Breaking Cycles and easing the transition from placement back to the community.
41
Individual program components within the Breaking Cycles continuum of services also have
demonstrated their willingness to incorporate the feedback of program participants into their
program. For example, during the second half of 2000, a Community Group was established in
North County to obtain input from the youth about the YDC and Reflections and ways to make
improvements.
Two Spring Fairs also were held during the evaluation period (2000 and 2001). Hosted by Breaking
Cycles, Volunteers in Probation, and SAY San Diego, the purpose of the event is to promote
community awareness and facilitate cooperation among youth, parents, and Breaking Cycles staff.
Over 200 youth attended the most recent event.
Flexibility While Maintaining Program Integrity
Implementing Breaking Cycles has been an enormous challenge for the Probation Department with
respect to policies and procedures and managing the myriad agencies and programs within the
project. Other changes in other parts of the system have impacted the project, such as overcrowding
in the Juvenile Hall. During the course of the project, the administration of Breaking Cycles was
moved from the department’s institutional services to the juvenile services division. The project staff
did not anticipate the high level of family need. Staff have been promoted and transferred to other
positions. The administrative staff have adapted the project to these external factors and retained
the integrity of the approach. Additional steps taken during the course of the program include
having probation officers provide the orientation and training to the new members of the
assessment team for the graduated sanctions component. Probation officers who are new to the
program are given a “walking tour” through the system, just as a parent receives in his/her
orientation. Probation members are responsible for monitoring the day-to-day activities of all the
team members. These refinements serve to ensure the continuity of the program and reinforce the
philosophy of strength-based family involvement and youth accountability.
42
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION
The evaluation design reflects the comprehensiveness of the project by addressing both the
prevention component and the graduated sanctions portion of the program, as well as the impact
of the project over time on systemwide indicators that reflect the well being of youth. In addition,
the process aspect of the evaluation describes the evolvement of the collaboration effort. As part of
the cross-site evaluation effort, data specific to the Board of Corrections (BOC) common data
elements were collected. To supplement these primarily justice-oriented measures, additional
efforts were made to capture information that would be useful for local practitioners. Similar to the
program, the evaluation process has evolved as well.
The remainder of this section outlines the procedures used to assess the effectiveness of the
program components. Within each component, the research procedures are described for both the
process and impact assessments, along with the research questions or hypotheses examined. Also
included are the settings, data measures, and types of analyses (e.g., correlational versus comparison) employed.
PREVENTION COMPONENT
Process Evaluation
Background and Process
This component involves the Community Assessment Teams (CATs) throughout the county that
provide direct services and referrals to youth at risk for entry into the juvenile justice system. To
describe the progress, activities, and various efforts of the CATs, the following research questions
are addressed.
Hypothesis I:
The CATs will meet predetermined staffing levels and will perform adequate training and
outreach throughout the course of the project.
Specific Research Questions

What types of staff positions were filled at the CATs and how did staffing levels vary across
sites?

What was the amount and type of training provided to CAT staff and how did training topics
vary across sites?
45

What was the scope and type of outreach conducted by the CATs and how did outreach
methods vary across sites?
Data Sources
As part of the evaluation, each agency reported the number of staff hours, by position, on a
monthly basis. These reports included a list of staff positions, whether the position was funded by
CAT, and the number of hours worked (full-time, part-time, or other hours) during that month. In
addition, positions that were new, vacant, or currently being filled were noted and explanations
were provided for staff turnover, unfilled positions, special circumstances, and any other reasons
why a CAT was not fully staffed and operational during a particular month.
In addition, information about staff training also was maintained by the CATs and forwarded to the
evaluators. CAT staff members are involved in training efforts on a continuous basis. Trainings are
designed to address current client issues and specific circumstances that arise, as well as professional
development and larger social issues affecting the communities the CATs serve. Each team was
responsible for documenting the type, length, and number of attendees at all training sessions
conducted at each site.
Finally, each month the scope of outreach efforts conducted was reported by the number of people
contacted. These reports further broke down the type of outreach as personal or non-personal.
Attendance at local meetings and social functions, as well as public presentations where information about the CATs was shared, was documented as outreach efforts. Personal outreach efforts
included, but were not limited to, contact with local law enforcement, School Attendance Review
Boards (SARB) personnel, school administrators, probation intake officers, and local parent/teacher
associations, as well as business community individuals and group members. Brochures, flyers,
posters, media spots, advertisements in local and school newspapers, and other types of presentations were tracked as non-personal contacts.
Analyses
The analyses of these data are purely descriptive, using measures of central tendency and frequency
distributions.
Hypothesis II:
The CATs will target the intended youth population and will provide interventions to
meet their needs.

How many youth were referred to the CATs and what were their socio-demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, race/ethnicity, primary language, initial referral reason, referral source)?

How are client eligibility and service needs determined?

What types of referrals and services do the CATs provide to eligible clients?

What proportion of eligible clients successfully exited the program?
46
Data Source
On a monthly basis, each of the five CAT sites provided updated statistics compiled into the Access
database designed at the start of the program. Data were entered for each client referred to the
CATs. A case referral was defined as an at-risk youth and his/her immediate family who resided in
the community, with the entire family being served. Information captured in this database included
client characteristics, referral sources, services provided, and circumstances of program completion/termination.
Analyses
Descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions and measures of central tendency, are used
to answer the research questions. In addition, cross-tabulations by site also are conducted.
Hypothesis III:
Youth and families served by the CATs will become more knowledgeable about community services and will report improvement in family functioning.

Was CAT participation associated with an increased awareness of community resources?

Was CAT participation related to improved family communication and problem-solving?

Was CAT participation related to increased interaction with positive peers?

How satisfied were CAT clients with the services they received?
Data Source
As part of the program evaluation, youth and parents served by the CAT program were asked to
complete a brief self-administered survey, upon program entry and again at exit, to obtain their
perspective over time about knowledge of services, program success, changes in family dynamics,
and program satisfaction. Surveys were available in both Spanish and English, and were customized
to reflect unique aspects of each CAT site. To ensure a high completion rate, follow-up meetings,
phone interviews with the clients, and interpreter services took place. Administration of the surveys
began on February 3, 1999.
Analyses
Pre and post surveys are matched by assigned client ID number and are presented in the aggregate.
Comparisons are made over time.
Sample Description
Between February 3, 1999, and June 30, 2001, 1,761 juvenile pre surveys and 820 post surveys, and
1,849 adult pre surveys and 759 post surveys, were submitted for analysis. Data are presented in the
current report for those families who returned both a pre and post survey: 717 juveniles and 750
adults. Thus, it is important to remember when interpreting these results that clients who are
47
currently active were not included in this sample. Similarly, short-time clients also were excluded
because they did not complete a post survey.
Hypothesis IV:
Service providers will be knowledgeable about CAT and will be satisfied with their
interactions with the teams.

Did service providers in the community know about the CAT component of Breaking Cycles and
did they understand its goals?

Under what circumstances did service providers refer clients to the CATs and what was their
level of satisfaction with this process?
Data Source
Specific questions regarding the prevention component were added to a service provider survey
during the second year of its administration (1998) because the CATs were implemented after the
administration of the first survey. The purpose of these questions was to examine knowledge about
the CAT program and the referral process. Data are available for 1998, 1999, and 2000.
Analyses
These data are described using frequencies and comparisons are made over time.
Sample Description
In October 1997, 125 surveys were mailed by SANDAG to agencies providing services to youth and
families. Mailing lists were obtained from the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC). The 1997
survey yielded 43 surveys, for a 34 percent response rate. Similarly, a 33 percent response rate was
received from a second survey distributed in December 1998, when 260 surveys were mailed to
service providers and 87 completed surveys were returned to SANDAG. The larger distribution in
1998 was due to the inclusion of additional service providers participating in the project through
the CAT prevention component, which became operational in early 1998. The response rate for the
third survey (which was distributed in November 1999) dropped to 20 percent (53 surveys sent to
the same 260 service providers). The fourth and final survey was distributed in November 2000 and
resulted in a 26 percent response rate (82 surveys returned of the 315 distributed).
Impact Evaluation
To determine what effect the prevention component had on the clients served, a sample was
selected from each of the sites and was tracked over time and compared to a sample of youth not
served by the CATs. The following section outlines the research questions that were addressed
through the impact evaluation.
48
Hypothesis V:
Youth served by the CATs will be less likely than those not served to enter the juvenile
justice system and engage in high-risk behavior.
Specific Research Questions:

Was receiving CAT services related to a lower probability of at-risk youth becoming involved in
the juvenile justice system?

Was receiving CAT services related to a lower probability of alcohol and other drug abuse in the
follow-up period?

Was receiving CAT services related to increased school performance?
Data Sources
To determine if CAT services were effective in preventing at-risk youth from delinquent behavior, a
sample of individuals who received CAT services was selected and compared to a sample of youth
that did not receive these services, but who were similarly at risk. Data for both groups were
collected from three different sources when possible: program/probation files, telephone interviews
with a parent or guardian of the juvenile, and criminal history checks using automated data
contained in the Probation Department’s Regional Juvenile Information System (REJIS) computer
system.
Analyses
Frequencies and measures of central tendency are calculated to measure changes over time within
groups and within the same time periods across groups.
Sample Description
For the CAT sample, all eligible clients referred to one of the CATs between January 1 and
June 30,,1999, who received services for a minimum of 60 days (long-term clients), were eligible to
be in the sample. Because the South Bay CAT had almost double the number of clients in this time
frame, compared to the other CATs, 58 cases were randomly sampled from this pool. The comparison group was comprised of cases referred to the Probation Department during the same time
period that resulted in the case being counseled and closed. To ensure their comparability with the
CAT sample, juveniles who were referred to Probation for criminal offenses, were over the age of
16, or were wards at the time of or prior to the instant offense, were excluded. This group was
chosen after a lengthy process to select the appropriate comparison group of at-risk youth. Other
samples that were considered but not used, either because of a lack of access to the data or large
differences in baseline characteristics, included youth referred to SARB and informal probation
cases.
Information was available regarding 208 CAT cases and 184 comparison group cases. As Table 3.1
shows, the two groups were comparable in terms of their gender, ethnicity, and average age. In
addition, the CAT sample statistics closely resemble those from the population of all clients,
presented in Chapter 6.
49
Table 3.1
CAT CLIENTS AND COMPARISON GROUP CHARACTERISTICS
CAT Sample Data Collection, 1999
CAT
Comparison
Gender
Male
Female
58%
42%
67%
33%
Ethnicity
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White
4%
10%
52%
3%
31%
5%
9%
46%
2%
37%
Average Age
13.3
14.1
205-208
183-184
TOTAL
NOTE:
Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. Cases with missing information not included.
Additional descriptive information for the two samples that were collected for both groups as part
of the cross-site evaluation at baseline included:

Ten percent of the CAT group and five percent of the comparison group were gang members;

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the CAT group and 93 percent of the comparison group lived
with at least one natural parent;

Eighty-six percent (86%) of the CAT group and 79 percent of the comparison group lived with
at least one sibling; and

Forty-seven percent (47%) of the CAT group and 53 percent of the comparison group had
changed residences at least once in the year prior to the instant offense or referral to the CAT
(not shown).
Table 3.2 presents information regarding the type of contact and treatment interventions provided
to CAT clients and comparison group in the during-period. Comparison group cases were more
likely to involve contact with a probation officer and the provision of alcohol or drug counseling/treatment, but CAT cases were more likely to receive other types of intervention, including
mental health counseling, after-school activities, family counseling and conferencing, school-related
services (e.g., tutoring), and financial assistance. It should be noted that some of the differences
between the two groups could be partially related to the level of documentation that was
completed.
50
Table 3.2
CONTACT AND INTERVENTIONS PROVIDED TO CAT CLIENTS
AND THE COMPARISON GROUP
CAT
Comparison
Contact
Probation Officer Contact
Other Service Provider Contact
11%
91%
50%
0%
Interventions
Mental Health Counseling
After-School Activities
Family Counseling/Conferencing
School-Related Services
Financial Assistance
Other Interventions
Anger Management
Mentoring
Medical Services
Parent Training
Peer Counseling
Alcohol/Drug Counseling/Treatment
44%
30%
28%
24%
21%
20%
20%
18%
15%
14%
11%
10%
1%
0%
7%
3%
0%
10%
3%
1%
0%
1%
0%
24%
TOTAL
208
184
On average, the “during” time period for the CAT cases (time between program intake and exit)
was 117.2 days. For the comparison group, it was 179.9 days (not shown).
GRADUATED SANCTIONS COMPONENT
Process Evaluation
The graduated sanctions philosophy is based upon the premise that further involvement in
delinquency can be prevented by providing a direct link between behavior and consequences,
coupled with a focused treatment plan. For Breaking Cycles, this goal is achieved through in-depth
assessment of underlying factors contributing to delinquent behavior, utilization of interventions
within the offender’s neighborhood to address these factors, careful monitoring, and the use of
institutional commitment. To describe the youth adjudicated since this change in philosophy, the
following research questions are addressed.
51
Hypothesis VI:
Assessments of Breaking Cycles youth will reveal that noncompliance results in a higher
level of supervision by Probation.

What is the level of the instant offense that resulted in assessment and how did the proportion
of youth with a true finding for a felony change over time?

What is the extent of the youths’ prior experience with the criminal justice system and how did
this pattern change for youth assessed between 1996 and 2001?

What proportion of Breaking Cycles youth have an alcohol or drug use problem and how did
these percentages change over time?

What proportion of Breaking Cycles youth have peer and school problems and how did these
percentages change over time?

What is the current placement recommendation for these youth and how did this recommendation change over time?
Data Sources
In late 1996, when JCIP began, Probation staff developed an assessment instrument to assist in
placement decisions for youth adjudicated by the juvenile court that were eligible for placement
outside of the home or home supervision. The assessment form could be scored so that youth could
be given short- or long-term placement based upon their score. Copies of the actual forms, without
personal identifiers, were sent to SANDAG researchers for data entry and analysis. Review of these
data over six intervals of time provides another measure to assess the efforts of the philosophy of
graduated sanctions.
Analyses
Frequencies by year of assessment are presented, along with cross-tabulations by individual
characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.
Sample Description
Between September 1996 and June 2001, 3,859 assessments were completed, with 347 of these
done in the first half of 2001. Because an individual could be adjudicated for separate offenses at
different points in time, multiple assessments could be included for one person. Socio-demographic
data for these youth are consistent with arrest statistics presented in Chapter 6.
The percentage of Whites showed little change over time, with about one in five youth assessed in
each year 1996 through 2001. Proportionately, more Hispanics were assessed over time and, in 2001,
reflected the majority of Breaking Cycles youth at 51 percent. Blacks, proportionately, have declined
since 1996 (26%), but have remained fairly constant at about 20 percent. Youth who comprise other
ethnic groups, including Asian and Pacific Islander, comprised eight percent of assessed youth in
2001, up from around four or five percent in earlier years.
52
Following the arrest statistics, young males dominate the juvenile justice system, but females have
increased their proportionate involvement in recent years, representing about one-quarter (24%) of
all Breaking Cycles youth in 2001. In the five other time periods, girls represented from 14 percent
to 23 percent.
In 2001, the ethnicity of the girls fairly paralleled that of the boys, with slightly more females being
White and Black, and fewer likely to be Hispanic.
Hypothesis VII:
Parents of adjudicated youth committed to Breaking Cycles will be satisfied with the
services received and will report positive changes in their children’s behavior.
Specific Research Question:

How satisfied are parents of adjudicated youth with the Breaking Cycles program?

Do parents of adjudicated youth report positive changes in their child’s behavior after program
participation?
Data Sources
Because customer feedback is an integral part of the Breaking Cycles Program, Probation staff
began administering a customer satisfaction survey to parents of adjudicated youth in January 1999.
To ensure that feedback was received, a probation student worker was assigned to encourage
return of the surveys and all respondents were assured that their responses were confidential and
anonymous. Questions on the survey pertained to program satisfaction as well as changes in the
youth’s behavior after program participation. Statistics from 534 surveys returned to Probation are
presented in this report.
Analyses
The proportion of respondents reporting that they “strongly” or “somewhat agreed,” the highest
two ratings on the five-point response scale for the close-ended questions, are presented.
Impact Evaluation
To determine if the approach of graduated sanctions was successful in addressing the needs of
adjudicated wards, a sample of individuals committed to Breaking Cycles was tracked and compared
to cases adjudicated in an earlier time period. The current section presents the specific research
questions and the methods being employed to address them.
Hypothesis VIII:
Youth committed to the Breaking Cycles program will be less likely than other at-risk
youth to engage in high-risk behaviors and have continued involvement with the juvenile
justice system for new offenses.
53

Was the graduated sanctions approach related to a decreased probability of having a true
finding for a new criminal offense, a felony level crime, or a violent offense in follow-up?

Was the graduated sanctions approach related to a lower probability of being continued a ward
in the follow-up period?

Was the graduated sanctions approach related to a lower probability of alcohol and other drug
use in follow-up?

Was the graduated sanctions approach related to an increased probability of being enrolled in
school in follow-up?

Was the graduated sanctions approach related to a lower institutional commitment rate in
follow-up?
Data Sources
Data regarding risk factors, interventions received, school performance, and criminal activity were
collected through reviewing probation officer files for all cases, as well as institutional files for the
1999 sample (information in institutional files was not reliability documented prior to the implementation of Breaking Cycles). In addition, criminal activity for the third follow-up period (i.e.,
between 12 and 18 months after program exit) was collected from the Probation Department’s
REJIS computer system, as well as local adult records, for any youth who turned 18 prior to the end
of the follow-up period. Placement information for the one-year follow-up was obtained from the
Probation Department. In addition, more recent Probation Department statistics regarding
recidivism and drug use also are presented to supplement the research findings.
Analyses
Frequencies and measures of central tendency are calculated to measure changes over time within
groups and within the same time periods across groups.
Sample Description
The effectiveness of the graduated sanctions component of the project was measured using a
retrospective quasi-experimental design. Since the program intended to impact all youth committed
to local custody (except for juvenile hall or the Youth Correctional Center) through its approach, a
comparison group in the same time period was not feasible. Cases assigned to juvenile Probation
supervision during the first four months of 1995 and 1997 were randomly chosen for the comparison group and were compared to another randomly chosen sample of cases served through the
Breaking Cycles program in 1999. Cases adjudicated in 1995 were before the implementation of
Breaking Cycles and those adjudicated in 1997 were after the implementation of JCIP. Because the
1995 sample represents the pure baseline, comparisons are made primarily with this group. On the
recommendation of the Probation Department, commitment length was added to the research
design as a factor by which to stratify the samples. The purpose of stratifying was to test if there are
differences in outcome measures across commitment lengths of 90, 150, or 240/365 days. Because a
150-day commitment was not an option in 1995, the 1997 sample serves as the comparison group
for this time length.
54
As Table 3.3 shows, more than three-quarters of both samples (86% of the 1999 sample and 85% of
the comparison group) were comprised of males, and Hispanics were the most common ethnic
group in both groups also (56% of the 1999 sample and 47% of the comparison group). Blacks
represented approximately one-fifth of each sample, as did Whites. The average age of the samples
was around 15 years, with no significant differences across samples, or across commitment length.
Table 3.3
GRADUATED SANCTIONS AND COMPARISON GROUP CHARACTERISTICS
Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection, 1995-1999
NOTE:
1999 Sample
Comparison
GENDER
Male
Female
86%
14%
85%
15%
Ethnicity
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Other
White
5%
18%
56%
2%
19%
8%
21%
47%
2%
21%
Average Age
15.5
15.4
TOTAL
264
490-493
Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. Cases with missing information not included
Additional characteristics of the sample include:

A little more than one-half (56%) of the comparison group were gang members, as were over
two-thirds (68%) of the 1999 sample;

Ninety percent (90%) of the comparison lived with at least one natural parent, as did 90 percent
of the 1999 sample;

Forty-two percent (42%) of both samples had been abused or neglected;

Approximately four in five of each of the samples (80% of the comparison group and 81% of
the 1999 sample) had at least one sibling; and

Approximately one-quarter (28% of the comparison group and 30% of the 1999 sample) had
moved at least once in the past year (not shown).
55
Table 3.4 presents the percent of cases with specific commitment lengths for the 1999 Breaking
Cycles group, as well as the comparison group. Four percent of the cases in the comparison group
had unspecified commitment lengths and were not included in analyses that were done by
commitment length.
Table 3.4
COMMITMENT LENGTH BY SAMPLE
1999 Sample
Comparison
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
240/365-Day Commitment
Unspecified Commitment Length
32%
20%
48%
0%
39%
20%
38%
4%
TOTAL
264
493
NOTE:
Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding
As Table 3.5 shows, the 1999 sample was more likely to serve a greater percentage of their
commitment time, on average, regardless of their commitment length. This is related to the
philosophy of Breaking Cycles and the fact that youth could move in and out of custody during the
commitment time. Specifically, the 1999 sample 90-day commitment group received supervision and
services for almost the double number of days (86.8), compared to the comparison group (41.5).
Similarly, the 150-day commitment group was involved 50 percent longer (151.5 days) than the
comparison group (104.1), and the 240/365-day group was involved approximately 100 more days
(257.4), on average. It also is important to note that the 1999 sample could receive extensions to
their original commitment length, which the comparison group did not.
Table 3.5
AVERAGE NUMBER OF PROGRAM DAYS SERVED
BY ADJUDICATED YOUTH BY SAMPLE
1999 Sample
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
86.8
151.6
257.6
56
Comparison Group
41.5
104.1
150.4
Table 3.6 presents information regarding prior criminal history, including the instant offense, of the
three samples by commitment length. As one might expect, there was a positive correlation
between the number of referrals and sustained petitions and the commitment length, with more
extensive histories resulting in a longer commitment. More than four in five of the youth in each
sample, regardless of commitment length, had received a referral for a felony level offense and
two-thirds or more had a true finding for an offense that was a felony. Individuals with a 240/365day commitment were more likely to have a referral for a violent offense in 1999, compared to
those with shorter commitment lengths.
Table 3.6
GRADUATED SANCTIONS SAMPLE’S AND COMPARISON GROUP’S PRIOR
CRIMINAL HISTORY AND INSTANT OFFENSE INFORMATION
1999 Sample
Comparison
3.0
3.7
4.5
3.1
3.3
4.4
95%
94%
98%
87%
92%
100%
25%
35%
48%
31%
46%
49%
1.4
2.1
2.5
1.5
1.8
2.3
73%
77%
94%
68%
87%
92%
25%
27%
40%
25%
35%
29%
Referral Information
Average Number of Referrals
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
Any Referrals for a Felony Offense
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
Any Referrals for a Violent Offense
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
Sustained Petition Information
Average Number of Sustained Petitions
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
Any True Findings for a Felony Offense
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
Any True Findings for a Violent Offense
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
TOTAL
264
57
226-267
Of the 1999 sample, approximately one-third (34%) of those with a 240/365-day commitment had a
prior Breaking Cycles commitment, as did 31 percent of those with a current 150-day commitment,
and 6 percent of those with a 90-day commitment (not shown).
The 1999 sample also was more likely to have probation officer contact and to receive a greater
variety of services (Table 3.7). In 1999, 88 percent had probation officer contact, either at home,
school, or with their family at the Probation office, compared to approximately one-half (48%) in
the earlier sample. In 1999, 86 percent adjudicated youth received alcohol/drug counseling or
treatment, approximately two-thirds received anger management, and around one-half received
mental health counseling and family counseling or conferencing, demonstrating adherence to the
Breaking Cycles model of addressing underlying risk factors. Other interventions included, but were
not limited to, mentoring and peer counseling.
Table 3.7
CONTACT AND INTERVENTIONS PROVIDED TO GRADUATED
SANCTIONS CLIENTS AND THE COMPARISON GROUP
1999 Sample
Comparison
Contact
Probation Officer Contact
Other Service Provider Contact
88%
32%
32%
>1%
Interventions
Alcohol/Drug Counseling/Treatment
Anger Management
Other Interventions
Family Counseling/Conferencing
Gang Treatment
Life Skills/Health Education
School-Related Services
Leadership Training
After-School Activities
Parent Training
86%
64%
48%
46%
42%
27%
25%
23%
20%
13%
9%
38%
27%
16%
50%
18%
12%
32%
10%
0%
1%
13%
264
226-267
TOTAL
NOTE:
Percentages based upon multiple responses
It is important to note that, while the 1999 sample served a longer proportion of their commitment
(Table 3.5), they were not institutionalized for as many days, compared to the earlier sample. As
Table 3.8 shows, the average number of days a juvenile spent at home during the commitment
period was higher for the 1999 sample, regardless of the commitment length.
58
Table 3.8
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS AT HOME DURING COMMITMENT PERIOD
Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection, 1995–1999
90-Day Commitment
150-Day Commitment
TOTAL
1999 Sample
Comparison
59.1
54.7
103.9
3.1
17.3
25.8
264
226-267
Because youth adjudicated after the implementation of the graduated sanctions philosophy did not
need to be returned to court for probation violations, additional statistics were compiled for the
1999 sample regarding reassessment, commitment extensions, and program administrative removals
to juvenile hall. As described in Chapter 2, Breaking Cycles youth are typically reassessed after a
change in their status has occurred. As Table 3.9 shows, approximately one-fifth (19%) of the
240/365-day commitment group was reassessed during their commitment, as was twelve percent of
the 150-day group and one percent of the 90-day group. As a result of this reassessment, six percent
of the 240/365-day group, eight percent of the 150-day group, and one percent of the 90-day group
received an extension to their initial Breaking Cycles commitment. When the probation officer
discovers the youth has violated his or her probation, the youth may be administratively removed
from placement (either in the community or in a juvenile institution) and detained in juvenile hall.
As Table 3.9 shows, this option was utilized as designed (52% of the 240/365-day group, 38% of the
150-day group, and 13 percent of the 90-day group), demonstrating the high level of supervision
that is a part of the program.
Table 3.9
REASSESSMENT, COMMITMENT EXTENSIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE
RELEASE OF GRADUATED SANCTIONS YOUTH
Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection, 1999
Reassessed
Commitment Extended
Administrative Removal
TOTAL
90 Days
150 Days
240/365 Days
1%
1%
13%
12%
8%
38%
19%
6%
52%
85
52
126
59
OVERALL PROGRAM
Process Evaluation
Because the success of both the prevention and graduated sanctions components was dependent, in
part, on a variety of agencies working together, efforts were made to document the level of
collaboration achieved regionwide and analyze how it changed over time.
Hypothesis IX:
Service providers in the community will be familiar with the Breaking Cycles program and
committed to working collaboratively toward its goals.

Did service providers in the community know about the Breaking Cycles program and understand its goals?

Did service providers in the community share common goals?

Did service providers in the community refer clients to one another, collaborate, and communicate with one another and with the Probation Department?

What barriers to multi-agency collaboration existed in the community?
Data Source
As part of the process evaluation, a survey was sent to service providers located throughout the
community to measure providers’ awareness of the Breaking Cycles program and to assess each
agency’s expectations for program outcomes. These surveys were distributed for four consecutive
years, from 1997 through 2000, as previously described. Survey questions addressed staff perceptions and opinions of project progress and impact, barriers to implementation, staff training issues,
information sharing protocols, case management procedures, and opinions about provider roles,
responsibilities, and philosophies.
Analyses
These data are described using frequencies and comparisons over time.
60
Impact Evaluation
A program effort of this magnitude required that the evaluation also be comprehensive and
systemwide so as to determine whether specific programs and interventions work. For this reason,
the evaluation of Breaking Cycles included monitoring a number of regional indicators within a
comparison period that started before the advent of the program and continued throughout the
four-year span for which the project was funded. Indicators associated with drug use and criminal
behavior, countywide, along with identified risk factors of youth entering the justice system, were
examined on a regular basis.
Hypothesis X:
The Breaking Cycles program will have a positive effect in the San Diego region on such
measures as substance abuse, violence, and other delinquent behavior, as well as
reducing the use of institutional commitments.

Did fewer juveniles use alcohol and other drugs?

Did a greater number of juveniles seek treatment over time?

Did juvenile arrest rates decline over time, and did the severity of the offenses also decline?

Did referrals to Probation decline over time?

Did the number of youth detained in juvenile hall for a new offense decline over time?

Were fewer San Diego County youth committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA)?
Data Sources
Systemwide indicators include:
California Healthy Kids Survey: This survey and other similar surveys have been conducted in
schools at different grade levels. The type of survey, the number of schools participating, and the
types of questions all have varied over time. In this report, data are presented from a survey
completed in 1998–1999 regarding drug and alcohol use.
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program: The ADAM program is an objective measure of drug
use obtained through analysis of data from both interview and urinalysis results of a sample
number of individuals booked into local detention facilities.
Department of Alcohol and Drug Services Treatment Records: Records were maintained
regarding the number of youth admitted to publicly-funded drug treatment.
61
Arrest Statistics: Regional arrest data are obtained from the state and allow for comparisons over
time of the number of juvenile arrests, arrest rates per 1,000 population, and the level and type of
arrests. The expectation here was that fewer youth would be arrested and that those arrested
would commit less severe offenses.
Probation Department System Records: The Breaking Cycles program provides interventions
that are expected to reduce the number of crimes committed by juveniles, as measured by referrals
to Probation. These statistics, as well as ones pertaining to youth detained in juvenile hall and
committed to the CYA, were compiled by the Probation Department and forwarded to SANDAG
staff.
Analyses
Descriptive frequencies are used and comparisons are made over time.
SUMMARY
The evaluation design for Breaking Cycles reflects the comprehensiveness of the project by testing a
number of hypotheses related to the process and impact of the prevention component, the
graduated sanctions component, and the project as a whole. As described in this chapter, a number
of different methods were used to answer the research questions, including review of program
records, administration of client and service provider surveys, compilation of regional indicators,
interviews, and review of client files and computer records. The results of these efforts are
presented in Chapters 4 and 6.
62
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCTION
The impact evaluation for Breaking Cycles addresses the prevention and graduated sanctions
components, as well as the effect of the overall program on systemwide measures. The current
section focuses on the outcome measures collected as part of the prevention and graduated
sanctions sample data collection efforts. All statistically significant results are noted. In addition,
systemwide measures that have been updated since the previous report are presented and include
data from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, treatment admissions, arrests,
and Probation Department statistics.
CAT Clients Sample
The following hypothesis questions regarding the effectiveness of the prevention component were
answered by comparing a sample of eligible long-term CAT clients to a sample of other at-risk
youth: those who received a referral to Probation that had been counseled and closed. As previously described, a substantial amount of time was spent trying to select the most valid comparison
group of at-risk youth, but difficulties, including a lack of comparability and inability to access data,
prohibited the use of other groups. To ensure comparability of the current comparison group to the
CAT sample, any juveniles in this sample who were or had been wards in the past were excluded.
Data were collected from case files as well as interviews with the parents of the juveniles whenever
possible. When interpreting these results, it should be noted that, despite extensive effort to obtain
it, information regarding some variables was not consistently available for all clients in all timeperiods. Therefore, to ensure valid comparisons, the statistics presented here are limited to those
whose status could be documented reliably.
Was receiving CAT services related to a lower probability of at-risk youth becoming
involved in the juvenile justice system?
To answer this research question, information regarding criminal activity was collected for four time
periods: during the intervention period, one to six months after this intervention period ended,
seven to 12 months post intervention, and 13 to 18 months post intervention 1 . Information that
was collected included the number, level, and type of referrals made to Probation, as well as the
number, level, and type of sustained petitions for new offenses.
1
Information regarding the third follow-up period was not collected for ten individuals in the CAT group
because this time period extended past June 30, 2001.
65
CAT clients were proportionately less likely to receive a referral to Probation, less likely to receive a
referral for a felony offense, and slightly less likely to receive a referral for a violent offense,
compared to the other sample. As Figure 4.1 shows, less than one in five (19%) CAT clients received
a referral during and up to 18 months following participation, 15 percent received a referral for a
felony-level offense, and seven percent received one for a violent offense. In comparison, 27
percent of the counseled and closed cases received at least one referral for a new offense, 20
percent received at least one for a felony, and eight received one for a violent offense.
Figure 4.1
CAT CLIENTS AND COMPARISON GROUP WITH A REFERRAL TO PROBATION
IN THE DURING PERIOD OR FOLLOW-UP
35%
27%
30%
25%
20%
20%
19%
15%
15%
8%
7%
10%
5%
0%
CAT (n=208)
Any Referral
Comparison (n=184)
Felony Referral
66
Violent Referral
However, while there were differences in the referral rate to Probation, there was less of a
difference in the percentages in both groups with a true finding, with less than ten percent of
either group having a sustained petition up to 18 months after participation. As Figure 4.2 shows,
only seven percent of the CAT group had at least one true finding in the during or follow-up
periods, compared to nine percent of the comparison group. The comparison group was slightly
more likely to have a true finding for a felony level offense (9%) compared to the CAT clients.
Figure 4.2
CAT CLIENTS AND COMPARISON GROUP WITH A TRUE FINDING
IN THE DURING PERIOD OR FOLLOW-UP
9%
10%
8%
7%
9%
7%
6%
3%
4%
3%
2%
0%
CAT (n=208)
Any Petition
Comparison (n=184)
Felony True Finding
67
Violent True Finding
Was receiving CAT services related to a lower probability of alcohol and other drug abuse
in the follow-up period?
Fewer CAT youth used alcohol after program participation, compared to the one year prior. As
Figure 4.3 shows, while one-third (33%) of CAT clients had documented use in the one year prior,
less than one-quarter (24%) did afterward. The comparison group was more likely to have a
problem in the pre period (57%) and in the follow-up period (50%). The differences between the
two groups was significant both pre X2 (1, N = 136) = 7.20, p < .01 and post participation X2 (1, N =
136) = 8.91, p < .01.
Figure 4.3
CAT CLIENTS’ AND THE COMPARISON GROUP’S ALCOHOL USE
PRE AND POST PARTICIPATION
57%
60%
50%
50%
40%
33%
24%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CAT (n=80)
Comparison (n=56)
Pre
Post
68
CAT clients also were less likely to use drugs after receiving services from the CATs. As Figure 4.4
shows, while one-third (33%) used drugs prior to participation, less than one-quarter (23%) did in
the year following exit. In comparison, a greater proportion of the comparison group used drugs in
the pre period and one-half still used at follow-up, although the decline was substantive. The
differences between the two groups also were significant pre X2 (1, N = 138) = 29.87, p < .0001 and
post participation X2 (1, N = 138) = 10.13, p < .0001.
Figure 4.4
CAT CLIENTS’ AND THE COMPARISON GROUP’S DRUG USE
81%
90%
75%
50%
60%
33%
45%
23%
30%
15%
0%
CAT (n=80)
Comparison (n=58)
Pre
Post
Was receiving CAT services related to increased school performance?
A number of different measures of school performance were collected for the one-year period prior
to program participation or Probation Department involvement, as well as for the one year
following completion. These included enrollment status, type of school attended (i.e., regular or
alternative), suspensions or expulsions, being at or below the appropriate grade level for one’s
chronological age, and having attendance problems. With one exception, the CAT group exhibited
more positive behavior than the comparison group for each of these measures in the post period.
69
CAT clients were almost equally likely to be enrolled in school before and after receiving services
from CAT. This is noteworthy because the percent of the comparison group that was enrolled
decreased during the same time frame. As Figure 4.5 shows, almost all (97%) of the CAT clients and
99 percent of the comparison group were enrolled during the pre period. However, during the post
period, 96 percent of the CAT group were enrolled, compared to only 91 percent of the comparison
group.
Figure 4.5
CAT CLIENT AND COMPARISON GROUP ENROLLMENT STATUS
97%
99%
96%
91%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CAT (n=75)
Comparison (n=70)
Pre
Post
70
Attending a regular, rather than an alternative, school can be interpreted as a positive outcome
measure for these at-risk youth. Prior to CAT participation, 90 percent of youth were enrolled in a
regular school and approximately three-quarters (77%) maintained this status in follow-up (Figure
4.6). In comparison, 89 percent of the counseled and closed case sample were enrolled in a regular
school in the pre period, compared to only two-thirds (66%) in the post.
Figure 4.6
PERCENT OF CAT CLIENTS AND THE COMPARISON GROUP ENROLLED
IN A REGULAR SCHOOL PRE AND POST PARTICIPATION
100%
90%
89%
77%
66%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CAT (n=73)
Comparison (n=64)
Pre
71
Post
As Figure 4.7 shows, there was little difference between the groups with respect to the amount of
change in the proportion suspended or expelled. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the CAT sample was
suspended or expelled in the pre period, as was 57 percent of the comparison. In the post period,
these percentages were 38 percent and 39 percent, respectively.
Figure 4.7
CAT CLIENT AND COMPARISON GROUP SUSPENDED OR EXPELLED
100%
80%
57%
54%
60%
39%
38%
40%
20%
0%
CAT (n=70)
Comparison (n=58)
Pre
Post
72
CAT program participation also was associated with improved school performance as measured by
being at one’s appropriate grade level. As Figure 4.8 shows, more than nine out of ten individuals in
both groups (96% of the CAT group and 97% of the comparison group) were described as being at
the appropriate grade level in the pre period. In the post period, this percentage dropped for the
counseled and closed cases to 84 percent in the post period, compared to 94 percent for the CAT
clients.
Figure 4.8
CAT CLIENT AND COMPARISON GROUP AT
THE APPROPRIATE GRADE LEVEL PRE AND POST PARTICIPATION
96%
97%
94%
100%
84%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
CAT (n=70)
Comparison (n=58)
Pre
Post
73
Adjudicated Youth Sample
To determine how successful the graduated sanctions approach was in breaking the cycle of youth
delinquency, a retrospective quasi-experimental design was used. Specifically, a sample of 1999
adjudicated youth (after Breaking Cycles was implemented) was compared to a sample of youth
adjudicated prior to any Probation Department changes (for the 90-day and 240/365-day commitment groups) or after the JCIP risk assessment procedure was implemented (150-day group). In
addition, to determine if there was a difference in outcomes as a function of commitment length,
data were further analyzed by this variable: 240/365-day commitment, 150-day commitment, or
90-day commitment.
Was the graduated sanctions approach related to a decreased probability of having a
true finding for a new criminal offense, a felony level crime, or a violent offense in
follow-up?
240/365-Day Commitment 2
Youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 240/365 days in 1999 were less likely to have a referral to
Probation for a new offense at each of the six-month follow-up points, compared to the comparison group, but this difference decreased somewhat as time passed. As Figure 4.9 shows, individuals
in the 1999 sample were less likely to have a referral to Probation six months after their commitment ended (25%), compared to the youth adjudicated prior to Breaking Cycles (35%). After 12
months, this difference continued with 41 percent of the 1999 group having a referral, compared to
49 percent of the comparison group. By 18 months follow-up, 52 percent of the 1999 group had a
referral, as did 54 percent of the comparison group.
Further analysis by referral offense level revealed that 1999 adjudicated youth were less likely to
receive a referral for a felony level offense, compared to the comparison group, at all follow-up
points (Figure 4.10). This difference was significant at both six months X2 (1, N = 233) = 4.38, p < .05
and 12 months X2 (1, N = 233) = 4.38, p < .05. At 18 months, approximately one-third of the 1999
sample (35%) had a referral for a felony, compared to almost one-half (46%) of the comparison
group.
2
Criminal history information for the third follow-up period was not available for three individuals in the 1995
sample and one in the 1997 sample because the juvenile records had been sealed.
74
Figure 4.9
240/365-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH WITH
A REFERRAL DURING FOLLOW-UP
52%
55%
49%
50%
41%
45%
35%
40%
35%
30%
54%
25%
25%
20%
15%
10%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=126)
18 Months
Comparison (n=104-107)
Figure 4.10
A REFERRAL FOR A FELONY DURING FOLLOW-UP
46%
50%
41%
45%
35%
40%
35%
28%
28%
30%
25%
20%
16%
15%
10%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=126)
18 Months
75
Compared to the historical comparison group, the 1999 sample also was less likely to have a referral
for a violent offense at each of the follow-up points, although this difference was smaller at 18
months compared to earlier in the period. As Figure 4.11 shows, 17 percent of the 1999 sample had
a referral for a violent offense at 18 months, compared to 18 percent of the comparison group.
Figure 4.11
A REFERRAL FOR A VIOLENT OFFENSE DURING FOLLOW-UP
20%
16%
17%
18%
14%
15%
11%
10%
6%
5%
0%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=126)
18 Months
Youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 240/365 days were less likely to have a true finding for a
new offense during the follow-up period, compared to 1995, when the Probation Department had
not implemented the graduated sanctions approach. As Figure 4.12 shows, by the six-month followup period, 17 percent of the 1999 had a petition that resulted in a true finding, compared to almost
one-quarter (23%) of the comparison group. At twelve months, these percentages had increased to
approximately one-quarter (28% of the 1999 group) and one-third (34% of the comparison group).
At 18 months, the 1999 and the comparison group were still less likely to have a true finding (33%),
compared to the other group (37%).
In addition to being less likely to have a true finding in follow-up, the 1999 sample also was less
likely to have a sustained petition for a felony. As Figure 4.13 shows, only 19 percent had a true
finding for a felony at 18 months, compared to 27 percent of the comparison group.
76
Figure 4.12
A TRUE FINDING DURING FOLLOW-UP
37%
40%
34%
33%
35%
28%
30%
23%
25%
20%
17%
15%
10%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=126)
18 Months
Figure 4.13
A TRUE FINDING FOR A FELONY DURING FOLLOW-UP
27%
30%
22%
25%
20%
17%
16%
19%
15%
9%
10%
5%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=126)
18 Months
77
While there was a difference in the proportion of youth with a true finding for a felony, there was
little or no variation in the percentage with a sustained petition for a violent offense, with less than
ten percent of both samples having a true finding at 18 months (Figure 4.14).
Figure 4.14
A TRUE FINDING FOR A VIOLENT OFFENSE DURING FOLLOW-UP
10%
9%
8%
8%
7%
8%
6%
4%
4%
4%
2%
0%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=126)
18 Months
150-Day Commitment 3
As Figure 4.15 shows, 1999 cases were more likely to have received a referral to Probation for a new
offense in the first six-month follow-up period, slightly less likely to have received one at 12
months, and slightly more likely to have received one at 18 months. Not surprisingly, increased
supervision frequently leads to an increased likelihood of discovering additional offenses, which
may partially explain this pattern of results.
Those with 150-day commitments in 1999 were slightly more likely to receive a referral (58%),
compared to those with a 240/365-day commitment youth in the same year (52%) (Figure 4.9).
Despite the fact that 1999 youth had more referrals in the follow-up period, they were less likely to
have a referral for a felony level offense at all of the three follow-up periods. As Figure 4.16 shows,
only 38 percent of these youth had a referral for a felony at 18 months, compared to 46 percent of
the comparison group.
3
Criminal history information for the third follow-up period was not available for one individual in the 1997
sample because the juvenile record had been sealed.
78
Figure 4.15
150-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH WITH
58%
60%
44%
50%
40%
55%
45%
33%
26%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=52)
18 Months
Figure 4.16
46%
50%
37%
40%
38%
31%
30%
20%
20%
15%
10%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=52)
18 Months
79
In addition, the 1999 cases also were less likely to have a referral for a violent offense, compared to
the youth adjudicated before Breaking Cycles was implemented (Figure 4.17). At 18 months, less
than one-quarter (21%) of the 1999 sample had a referral for a violent offense, compared to 30
percent of those in the comparison group.
Figure 4.17
30%
35%
30%
22%
25%
20%
13%
15%
10%
21%
13%
8%
5%
0%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=52)
18 Months
Despite the fact that the 1999 group had more referrals than the comparison group in the followup period, they were less likely to have a petition that resulted in a true finding at the end of the
follow-up period. As Figure 4.18 shows, at 18-months, 40 percent of the 1999 sample had a
sustained petition, compared to 49 percent of the comparison group.
A greater proportion of 150-day commits in 1999 had a sustained petition at 18 months, compared
to the 240/365 day-commitment length group (33%) (Figure 4.12).
With the exception of the first follow-up point, where the two groups were almost equal, the 1999
group also was less likely to have a true finding for a felony level offense at 12 months (19%
compared to 27%) and at 18 months (27% compared to 38%)(Figure 4.19).
80
Figure 4.18
49%
50%
40%
45%
40%
34%
35%
29%
30%
25%
20%
18%
17%
15%
10%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=52)
18 Months
Figure 4.19
38%
40%
35%
27%
30%
27%
19%
25%
20%
15%
12%
10%
10%
5%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=52)
18 Months
81
Additionally, the 1999 group also was less likely to have a true finding for a violent offense at all
three follow-up points. As Figure 4.20 shows, 15 percent of the 1999 sample had a sustained
petition for this type of offense at 18 months, compared to 24 percent of the comparison group.
Figure 4.20
24%
25%
20%
16%
15%
11%
15%
10%
10%
4%
5%
0%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=52)
18 Months
90-Day Commitment 4
Because youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 90 days in 1999 did not receive the same level of
service as those committed for longer periods of time, it was not expected that the differences from
the 1995 and 1997 groups would be as extensive. However, as the following sets of figures show,
positive changes associated with the graduated sanctions philosophy also were apparent with this
length of commitment.
4
Criminal history information for the third follow-up period was not available for four individuals in the 1995
sample and four in the 1997 sample because the juvenile records had been sealed.
82
At the end of the follow-up period, youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 90 days were less likely
to have a referral to Probation for a new offense, compared to the comparison group (Figure 4.21).
At 18 months, 53 percent of the 1999 group and 57 percent of the comparison group had a new
referral.
Compared to the 240/365-day commits in 1999, youth committed for 90 days were almost equally
likely to receive a referral during follow-up (52%) (Figure 4.9). Compared to the 150-day group
(58%), they were less likely to receive a referral (Figure 4.15).
Figure 4.21
57%
60%
53%
46%
50%
42%
40%
30%
27%
27%
20%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=85)
18 Months
While there was little difference among the samples in the percentage with a referral for a felony
at the beginning of the follow-up period, there was a considerable difference at the end, with the
1999 youth less likely to have one. As Figure 4.22 shows, at 18 months, only one-third (34%) of the
1999 group had a referral for a felony, compared to 42 percent of the comparison group.
Youth committed in 1999 for 90 days also were less likely to have a Probation referral for a violent
offense during the entire follow-up period. This difference was significant at 6 months X2 (1, N =
196) = 4.00, p < .05 and 12 months X2 (1, N = 196) = 5.33, p < .05. At 18 months, 13 percent of the
1999 group had a referral for a violent offense, compared to 22 percent of the comparison group
(Figure 4.23).
83
Figure 4.22
42%
45%
40%
32%
31%
35%
34%
30%
25%
19%
19%
20%
15%
10%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=85)
18 Months
Figure 4.23
25%
22%
18%
20%
13%
15%
11%
10%
5%
6%
2%
0%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=85)
18 Months
84
In terms of having a true finding on a petition, the 1999 sample was less likely to have one at six,
12, and 18 months (Figure 4.24). At 18 months, a little more than one-third (39%) of the 1999
sample had a sustained petition, compared to 45 percent of the comparison group.
Compared to the other Breaking Cycles youth, those with a 90-day commitment were more likely to
have a sustained petition than the 240/365-day group (33%) (Figure 4.12), and slightly less likely to
have one compared to the 150-day group (40%) (Figure 4.18).
Figure 4.24
45%
50%
39%
45%
35%
40%
31%
35%
30%
23%
25%
20%
16%
15%
10%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=85)
18 Months
Additionally, the 1999 sample was less likely to have a true finding for a felony at each of the
follow-up points, as Figure 4.25 shows. This difference approached statistical significance at 12
months X2 (1, N = 196) = 3.22, p = .073 and 18 months X2 (1, N = 192) = 3.19, p = .074. At 18 months,
22 percent had a sustained petition for a felony, compared to approximately one-third (36%) of the
comparison group.
The 1999 sample also was less likely to have a true finding for a violent offense during the followup period, compared to the other sample (Figure 4.26). This difference was significant at 12 months
X2 (1, N = 196) = 3.93, p < .05. At 18 months, only seven percent of the graduated sanctions group
had a true finding for a violent offense, compared to 14 percent of the comparison group.
85
Figure 4.25
45%
36%
35%
27%
22%
25%
16%
15%
15%
9%
5%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=85)
18 Months
Figure 4.26
20%
14%
13%
15%
10%
7%
5%
4%
5%
1%
0%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=85)
18 Months
86
Table 4.1 presents a summary of these recidivism statistics at the 18-month follow-up point for the
experimental group by commitment length.
Table 4.1
SUMMARY OF GRADUATED SANCTIONS YOUTH RECIDIVISM DATA
AT 18 MONTHS BY COMMITMENT LENGTH
Graduated Sanctions Sample Data Collection , 1999
90 Days
150 Days
240/365 Days
Any Referral
Felony Referral
Violent Referral
53%
34%
13%
58%
38%
21%
52%
35%
17%
Any Sustained Petition
Felony Sustained Petition
Violent Sustained Petition
39%
22%
7%
40%
27%
15%
33%
19%
9%
126
52
85
TOTAL
More Recent Probation Statistics
The Probation Department has maintained separate recidivism statistics since program implementation for all Breaking Cycles youth. These statistics were updated in each bi-annual report to the BOC
and allowed program staff to see how these numbers were changing over time. According to the
Probation Department, 25 percent of youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 150, 240, or 365 days
who exited the program between January and June 2000 had a sustained petition for a new charge
in the 12 months following program exit. In comparison, 35 percent of those committed for 90 days
who exited during the same time period had a sustained petition for a new offense during this
follow-up period (not shown).
87
Was the graduated sanctions approach related to a lower probability of being continued
a ward in the follow-up period?
Youth in the 1999 sample were significantly less likely to be continued wards of the court at each of
the follow-up points, which is indicative of the fact they successfully complied with the conditions
of their probation and were released from supervision (6 months X2 (1, N = 233) = 5.77, p < .05; 12
months X2 (1, N = 233) = 4.66, p < .05; and 18 months X2 (1, N = 230) = 8.38, p < .01)). As Figure 4.27
shows, only around one-third (37%) of the 240/365-day youth remained wards at 18 months
following the end of their commitment, compared to over one-half (58%) of the comparison group.
Figure 4.27
240/365-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH’S WARDSHIP STATUS
DURING FOLLOW-UP
84%
90%
80%
70%
63%
70%
58%
60%
48%
50%
37%
40%
30%
20%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=126)
18 Months
88
150-Day Commitment
The 1999 150-day commitment group was significantly less likely to be continued a ward at 12
months, compared to youth adjudicated in 1997, X2 (1, N = 149) = 5.09, p < .05. At 18 months, this
difference approached significance, X2 (1, N = 148) = 2.89, p = .09. As Figure 4.28 shows, at 18
months, less than one-half (47%) of the 1999 group were still wards, compared to almost two-thirds
(63%) of the comparison group.
Figure 4.28
150-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH’S WARDSHIP STATUS
DURING FOLLOW-UP
100%
93%
92%
90%
75%
80%
63%
70%
56%
60%
47%
50%
40%
30%
20%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=52)
18 Months
89
90-Day Commitment
The 90-day 1999 group was less likely to be a ward after their commitment was served, compared to
the other sample. This difference approached significance at both 6 months, X2 (1, N = 196) = 3.38, p
= .07 and 18 months, X2 (1, N = 192) = 3.25, p = .07. As Figure 4.29 shows, 59 percent of the 1999
group was a ward at the end of the follow-up period, compared to 72 percent of the comparison
sample.
Figure 4.29
90-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH’S
WARDSHIP STATUS DURING FOLLOW-UP
110%
105%
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
100%
89%
83%
72%
71%
59%
6 Months
12 Months
1999 Sample (n=85)
18 Months
90
Was the graduated sanctions approach related to a lower probability of alcohol and
other drug use in follow-up?
Breaking Cycles youth were less likely to use alcohol and other drugs during the follow-up period,
compared to the period prior to the commitment, as well as compared to youth adjudicated in the
earlier time periods.
As Figure 4.30 shows, youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 240/365 days were significantly more
likely to have used alcohol previously (95%), compared to youth adjudicated before this philosophy
was implemented (73%) X2 (1, N = 106) = 7.66, p < .01. This difference could be real, or alternatively,
reflect the more comprehensive assessments that were initiated with Breaking Cycles. Regardless,
while there was no change in alcohol use for the comparison group, there was a decrease in use for
the 1999 group (to 64%), and the difference between the two was no longer statistically significant.
Figure 4.30
240/365-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH’S
USE OF ALCOHOL PRE AND POST COMMITMENT
100%
95%
95%
90%
85%
73%
80%
75%
70%
73%
64%
65%
60%
55%
50%
1999 Sample (n=44)
Comparison (n=62)
Pre
Post
91
Breaking Cycles youth were significantly more likely to use drugs prior to their commitment,
compared to those committed at an earlier point in time, X2 (1, N = 154) = 6.31, p < .05, and were
significantly less likely to use drugs during follow-up, X2 (1, N = 154) = 5.83, p < .05. As Figure 4.31
shows, while almost all of the youth had experimented or used drugs in the pre period (95%), only
55 percent had documented use in the post. In comparison, 75 percent of the comparison group
used drugs during follow-up.
Figure 4.31
240/365-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH’S USE OF DRUGS
PRE AND POST COMMITMENT
95%
100%
80%
90%
75%
80%
70%
55%
60%
50%
40%
1999 Sample (n=78)
Comparison (n=76)
Pre
Post
150-Day Commitment
Demonstrative of the fact that these improvements in substance abuse were not particular to the
240/365-day commitments group, Figures 4.32 and 4.33 present the percentage of 150-day
commitment youth that had used alcohol and drugs pre and post commitment. In the pre period, 87
percent of the 1999 sample had used alcohol, compared to less than three-quarters (70 percent) in
the post period. In addition, the percentage using drugs also decreased, from 90 percent in the pre
period to 61 percent post commitment. While the proportion of comparison group cases using
alcohol and other drugs also decreased over time, the drop was less substantive compared to the
1999 cases.
92
Figure 4.32
150-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH’S USE
OF ALCOHOL PRE AND POST COMMITMENT
87%
90%
85%
77%
80%
70%
75%
65%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
1999 Sample (n=23)
Comparison (n=43)
Pre
Post
Figure 4.33
OF DRUGS PRE AND POST COMMITMENT
90%
95%
90%
80%
85%
80%
70%
75%
70%
61%
65%
60%
55%
50%
1999 Sample (n=31)
Comparison (n=64)
Pre
Post
93
90-Day Commitment
Compared to the comparison group, youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 90 days in 1999 were
significantly more likely to have documented alcohol drug use, X2 (1, N = 92) = 5.00, p < .05. They
were far less likely to use alcohol and other drugs during the follow-up period, compared to the
time prior to their commitment (Figures 4.34 and 4.35). Additionally, the decrease in alcohol and
drug use over time was greater for this sample, with the difference between the two groups no
longer significant at follow-up.
Figure 4.34
OF ALCOHOL PRE AND POST COMMITMENT
96%
100%
90%
80%
72%
68%
67%
70%
60%
50%
40%
1999 Sample (n=25)
Comparison (n=67)
Pre
Post
94
Figure 4.35
90-DAY COMMITMENT ADJUDICATED YOUTH’S USE OF DRUGS
PRE AND POST COMMITMENT
86%
90%
79%
72%
80%
68%
70%
60%
50%
40%
1999 Sample (n=50)
Comparison (n=78)
Pre
Post
Probation Department Statistics
Additional evidence that targeted efforts to address alcohol and other drug use have been effective
is available through Probation Department drug test result statistics. Specifically, the percentage of
positive results has decreased from 19 percent in the first half of 1999 to six percent in the first six
months of 2001. These data suggest that youth are making a sober transition from custody to
home.
95
Was the graduated sanctions approach related to an increased probability of being
enrolled in school in follow-up?
Youth committed to Breaking Cycles for a period of 240/365 days were proportionately more likely
to be enrolled in school in the one-year period following their commitment, compared to youth
adjudicated in 1995 and 1997. As Figure 4.36 shows, while only around two-thirds of the 1999
sample were enrolled in the pre period, more than three-quarters (84%) were in the post period.
Figure 4.36
240/365-DAY COMMITMENT GRADUATED SANCTIONS AND
COMPARISON GROUP SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
84%
90%
73%
80%
68%
64%
70%
60%
50%
1999 Sample (n=92)
Comparison (n=75)
Pre
Post
96
150-Day Commitment
The 1999 150-day commitment group showed the same positive change as the 240/365-day group in
school enrollment. As Figure 4.37 shows, the proportion of this group enrolled changed by eleven
percentage points to 89 percent in the follow-up period. In comparison, there was only a four point
change for the comparison group, with approximately two-thirds (67%) enrolled at 12-months post
commitment. This difference between the two groups during follow-up was significant, X2 (1, N =
127) = 6.23, p < .05.
Figure 4.37
150-DAY COMMITMENT GRADUATED SANCTIONS AND
89%
90%
78%
80%
67%
63%
70%
60%
50%
1999 Sample (n=45)
Comparison (n=82)
Pre
Post
97
90-Day Commitment
The proportion of 90-day commitment youth enrolled in school similarly increased over time, from
81 percent in the pre period to 92 percent post commitment (Figure 4.38). The comparison group
also showed positive change over time.
Figure 4.38
90-DAY COMMITMENT GRADUATED SANCTIONS AND
92%
100%
90%
91%
81%
74%
80%
70%
60%
50%
1999 Sample (n=72)
Comparison (n=97)
Pre
Post
98
Was the graduated sanctions approach related to a lower institutional commitment rate
in follow-up?
One of the key goals of Breaking Cycles was to reduce the reliance upon incarceration by decreasing
the amount of time spent in custody. As noted in Chapter 3, youth adjudicated after Breaking
Cycles was implemented spent a smaller percentage of their commitment time in placement, and a
greater proportion in their own homes. In addition, during the 12 months following the end of
their commitment, a greater proportion of the 240/365-day group resided for some period of time
in a group facility (e.g., residential treatment facility) (17%), compared to the comparison group
(6%). This difference may be reflective of efforts of Breaking Cycles to properly assess and address
underlying risk factors. In addition, fewer individuals in the 240/365-day 1999 group were committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA) (9%) during follow-up, compared to the comparison
group (16%).
OVERALL PROGRAM
Effect of Both Program Components on Systemwide Measures
As a supplementary measure to the Breaking Cycles evaluation, researchers monitored a number of
regional indicators that describe the well being of youth and reflect various high risk behaviors,
including substance abuse, arrests for law violations, referrals to Probation, and commitments to
the California Youth Authority. Since Breaking Cycles is a regional program, it was presumed that it
might have an impact on regional trends. A couple of caveats may guide the interpretation of these
results.
First, only a small percentage (about 7%) of all youth ages 10 to 17 have any contact with the
juvenile justice system with respect to getting arrested or referred to Probation. Similarly, a
relatively small proportion of youth shows up in statistics that describe admissions to publicly
funded drug treatment services. Given the relatively small proportion of youth in either of these
sub-groups, the effect of Breaking Cycles may be less noticeable. In addition, other factors such as
state legislation and local policies affect how youth are targeted and managed by agencies, thereby
creating difficulty in attributing regional changes to Breaking Cycles. A concrete example is the
expansion of drug courts for youthful drug users. Finally, changes in the composition of the
population, such as proportionate sub-groups within specific age categories, can affect trend
indicators describing youth behaviors. With these caveats in mind, the following systemwide data
are presented.
Did fewer juveniles use alcohol and other drugs?
ADAM Statistics
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM), on a quarterly basis, conducts interviews
with youth taken to Juvenile Hall upon arrest. After answering questions about their drug use (or
non-use), participants are asked to provide a voluntary, confidential urine sample for analysis. It is
important to note that this data set reflects a very select group of youth, not only of those arrested,
but of those arrested, the proportion that were brought to Juvenile Hall. The ADAM program does
not test for alcohol.
99
Reviewing ADAM data over time suggests that from 55 percent to 65 percent of youth brought to
Juvenile Hall during the years from 1995 through 1999 showed recent use of illicit drugs, based
upon urinalysis tests. Not until 2000 is there a slight downward turn, with half or less each quarter
exhibiting drug use. Marijuana is the illicit drug used most often, and 44 percent of the juveniles
tested positive for marijuana in 2000. There are no ADAM data yet available for 2001.
Juveniles Arrests for Drug and Alcohol Violations
Although a relatively small proportion of youth are arrested for drug and alcohol violations, the
arrest data are presented to supplement the other indicators of drug use. Using 1995 as the base
year before the initiation of Breaking Cycles, felony-level drug arrests of juveniles have dropped 27
percent, but rose from 1999 to 2000 by five percent. Of interest in the one-year period was a 13
percent rise in arrests for dangerous drugs, the category that includes various stimulants such as
methamphetamine and Ecstasy. For misdemeanor-level drug offenses, there was a slight increase
from 1995 to 2000 (1%) and a four percent decrease from 1999 to 2000. Of interest in the five-year
period are the significant increases in the numbers of violations of driving under the influence and
liquor laws. Fluctuations in arrest figures over time are impacted by law enforcement focus on
specific types of offenses.
Student Surveys of Drug and Alcohol Use
A number of different surveys about drug use and other risky behaviors have been administered to
students over a period of several years. The type of survey and the level of participation by school
district have varied. Most recently, the California Healthy Kids Survey was combined with another
California Student Survey and administered in 1998-1999 to students in 28 of the 43 school districts
in the region, including San Diego Unified. Since the questions on the two surveys were not the
same or worded differently, any comparisons are not appropriate. This most recent survey is
considered the “new” baseline to assess drug use trends among students. The next survey is taking
place in 2001-2002. Highlights from this survey about alcohol use are presented below, comparing
San Diego students with students statewide. (Source: First Biennial San Diego County California
Healthy Kids Survey 1998-1999 and 8th Biennial The California Student Survey 1999-2000, Report to
the San Diego County Office of Education, WestEd, Los Alamitos, CA. (September 2000))

Alcohol use by students statewide has declined. In San Diego County, alcohol use has remained
consistently high. Twenty-one percent (21%) of 7th graders, 37 percent of 9th graders, and 45
percent of 11th graders reported having at least one drink of alcohol within the previous 30
days.

Binge drinking was reported by seven percent of the 7th graders, 18 percent of the 9th graders,
and 27 percent of 11th graders in San Diego County. These figures are consistent with those
reported by the state.

In San Diego County, 17 percent of the 9th graders and 41 percent of the 11th graders reported
either driving when drinking or riding with friends who were drinking.

Use of marijuana within the past 30 days was noted by 22 percent of the 11th graders, 15
percent of the 9th graders, and five percent of the 7th graders. Use of other illicit drugs in the
previous 30 days was reported by less than ten percent for all grade levels.
100
Did a greater number of juveniles seek treatment over time?
In 1995, according to data provided by County Alcohol and Drug Services, 393 youth were admitted
to drug treatment services, countywide. In 2000, that figure jumped to 2,346, an increase of 497
percent. Between 1997 and 1998, the increase was more than double. Do these data suggest that
more youth are using drugs? The answer is unknown. Certainly, more youth are being identified.
The justice system is assessing youth as having more drug problems. At the same time, the treatment capacity for youth has increased significantly over time and the juvenile drug courts have
expanded regionwide. Of interest is the substantial increase in youth referred for alcohol problems.
Did juvenile arrest rates decline over time and did the severity of the offenses also
decline?
In 2000, 20,171 youth were arrested in San Diego County, up slightly from 1995 (3%), when 19,630
youth were arrested. A more meaningful indicator of arrests is the rate that accounts for changes in
the youthful population that has increased about two percent each year since 1995.
The arrest rate dropped eleven percent from 1995 to 2000, from 73.0 arrests per 1,000 to 65.2
arrests. The highest rate in the time period was 73.9 per 1000 in 1998. Of greater import is the fact
that the rate of felony-level arrests has declined 29 percent over the five-year period, from 21.7 per
1000 to 15.3. In contrast, the misdemeanor arrest rate has remained relatively stable but showed
increases in 1997 and 1998. Consistent with the data presented earlier reflecting the juvenile
assessments, youth appear to be committing far fewer serious offenses.
When the arrest data are viewed by category, a noteworthy change is revealed. While propertyrelated arrests and arrests for drugs have declined and arrests for violent offenses are up slightly,
arrests in the ‘other’ category are up 45 percent over the time period from 1995 to 2000. This
category of offenses reflects offenses that do not fit into the violent, property, or drug law
groupings and describe all other types of offenses, including probation violations. In 1995, these
offenses represented 35 percent of all juvenile arrests. That proportion has risen steadily each year,
particularly after 1996. By 2000, juvenile arrests in the ‘other’ category accounted for nearly onehalf of all juvenile arrests (49%). This suggests that the Breaking Cycles approach with the focus on
juvenile accountability through the use of graduated sanctions may be associated with this increase,
based upon violations of probation (which are included in the ‘other’ category).
Did referrals to Probation decline over time?
Juveniles are referred to Probation by a number of sources, including law enforcement, schools,
community agencies, and families. These data provide another glimpse at the number of youthful
offenders handled in the system over time. According to the Probation Department, 11,092 youth
were referred to the agency in 2000, down 16 percent from 1995, when 13,212 were referred.
Similar to the arrest statistics, the total has declined each year since the baseline year. Of greater
interest are the changes in the types of offenses for which juveniles are referred. With the exception of the rise in referrals for assault and battery, motor vehicle thefts, and status offenses, all
crime categories are down. The assault and battery referrals rose 17 percent since 1995, and
referrals for status violations jumped 59 percent from 1995 to 2000. In one year (1999 to 2000), the
number of youth referred for status violations rose from 194 to 421. This dramatic leap may be
associated with the emphasis on truancy violations and the many ‘sweeps’ that occurred on school
campuses.
101
After a referral, Probation staff make decisions about how the case will be handled, based upon
offense and individual history. Options include counseling the youth and parents and closing the
case, placing the youth on informal probation, or requesting that a petition be filed in juvenile
court. Over time, fewer youth are handled informally and more youth are having petitions filed. In
2000, 38 percent of the juvenile cases were counseled and closed and seven percent were placed on
informal probation. In 1996, these numbers were 41 percent and nine percent, respectively. These
changes may be reflective of the Breaking Cycles approach of using graduated sanctions as a means
to encourage youthful accountability.
Did the number of youth detained in Juvenile Hall for a new offense decline over time?
The data reflecting youth detained in Juvenile Hall parallel trends mentioned earlier with regard to
fewer younger offenders entering the system and more youth detained for administrative purposes
and probation violations. In 2000, 73 percent of the youth detained in the hall were there for
‘other’ violations, including probation violations, administrative removals from placements,
warrants, and post-dispositional detentions. In 1997, the proportion of youth in this category was
59 percent.
Based upon 12-month averages, 22 percent of the youth in Juvenile Hall in 1995 were age 14 and
younger. That percentage has steadily declined each year, to 16 percent in 2000.
Were fewer San Diego County youth committed to the California Youth Authority?
A challenge to the Probation Department in the mid-90s was to reduce the number of out-ofcounty placement of youth, as mandated by the Board of Supervisors. This challenge became an
adjunct activity to the Breaking Cycles project and was in line with the philosophy that held that
youth should be sanctioned and treated within their community. With respect to commitments to
the California Youth Authority (CYA), it appears that the program was successful in this endeavor.
In 1995, 238 San Diego youth were committed to CYA. The following year (1996), that number
peaked at 240 and has since steadily declined. By 2000, 77 youth were given first time commitments
to CYA, a decline of 53 percent since 1995.
SUMMARY
Results from the impact evaluation show that the components of the Breaking Cycles program have
been effective in realizing stated goals. During a one-year follow-up, youth who received CAT
services were less likely to use alcohol and other drugs, stayed in school, and performed at their
appropriate grade level. Graduated sanctions youth also were less likely to use alcohol and other
drugs and were less likely to have a true finding in follow-up, as well as less likely to have a true
finding for a felony. Those committed for the maximum number of days also were less likely to be
committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA). Systemwide indicators also showed that
Breaking Cycles might be having an impact on the region as a whole, as reflected in youth alcohol
and drug use statistics, treatment admissions, and Probation Department statistics.
102
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 5
INTRODUCTION
The following set of vignettes were provided by San Diego County Probation Department staff and
adds a rich source of information and insight into the experience of youth who have gone through
the Breaking Cycles program. In addition, they demonstrate the multiplicity of issues and problems
the program staff face with youth and families. These youth gave their permission to have their
stories shared and all names have been changed to preserve each individual’s identity.
THEIR STORIES
Daniel
Daniel entered the Reflections Program in June 2000 with many challenges to overcome. Having
experienced past difficulties with school truancies, chronic substance abuse, and issues with
compliance, Daniel appeared motivated to overcome the barriers in his life. Daniel is the middle
child and has two sisters. One is 18 and has two daughters; the other is 14 and also was on
probation, which she successfully completed. His mother is unemployed and is a diabetic. The
family’s only source of income is public assistance.
Daniel and his family had been residing in a one-bedroom motel in San Ysidro upon program entry,
but were soon evicted. This situation made his monitoring difficult. His mother’s lack of initiative to
follow through with the necessary meetings to obtain emergency homeless funds presented Daniel
with the uncertainty of where he would reside. Unfortunately, midway through his program, Daniel
was arrested for being intoxicated in public and shoplifting. Daniel was reassessed through the
Breaking Cycles continuum and returned to Reflections after completing the short-term relapse bed.
Upon his return, the family was assisted with obtaining emergency homeless funds. The family was
first placed in a motel and subsequently placed in a one-bedroom home in San Ysidro. The stability
of his living situation provided the impetus for Daniel to excel in the program and eventually
earned him a graduation from the Reflections program.
Daniel participated in all aspects of the program, including positive peer, men’s group, drug
education, chemical dependency, and gang intervention groups. He attended school regularly and
earned As and Bs. He submitted negative drug test results throughout his program stay, which
attests to his commitment to rehabilitation. Daniel was so motivated he became a kitchen worker
and assisted the staff in painting the group room.
105
Daniel obtained part-time employment while in the program. His employment provided Daniel with
a sense of self-worth that had not been seen when he started the program. He helped his mother
by giving her about $30 for groceries every time he got paid.
Daniel’s consistent compliance with the program rules and court orders earned him his graduation
from Reflections on December 22, 2000. He continues to attend the San Ysidro Adult Education
Center and is working to obtain his GED. He was recently laid off from his job because of staff
layoffs. He is currently interviewing for part-time employment. Overall, Daniel exemplified a true
commitment to redirect his life for the better. Despite the challenges he has encountered, Daniel
has demonstrated a perseverance and strong will that can only be admired. He has remained
steadfast on his academics and, to his credit, has remained arrest free.
Enrique
Enrique, a 14-year-old, and his sister were referred to CAT about one and one-half years ago
because of difficulties staying in school, extreme anger, and acting upon impulses. During the first
few months, it was almost impossible to talk to Enrique for any length of time due to his inability to
stay focused and his lack of trust in adults. This distrust was a prevalent issue in Enrique’s family.
Within his family existed substance abuse, gang involvement, and mental illness. Enrique needed a
role model, someone who would listen to him and find out what his needs were. At school, Enrique
was in a special education class and failing. His continuous anger and impulsivity were getting in
the way of his learning and progressing through the curriculum. He could not connect with teachers
or school staff.
The plan for Enrique was to build communication and trust, not only in an adult, but also in himself.
We met with the principal, counselor, parent, and our program’s probation officer. We worked with
Enrique in all aspects of his life to bring about change. As we talked, we began to find out that he
was interested in the Navy. It was his desire to someday join the military. This goal became our
focus to get him interested in hard work at home, school, and with his own issues.
After much support from his family, especially his mother, who became invested in helping her
children be successful, changes started to occur. Another counselor was added to the team and
Enrique started weekly sessions and had frequent interventions at school when needed. He joined
the Sea Cadets and discovered that he was a leader and had potential he never knew.
At present, Enrique realizes he still has a long way to go. He now attends the Sea Cadets training
weekly. He will be graduating from middle school and going on to high school, perhaps part-time
in a mainstream class. Enrique comes to sessions with his counselor on a regular basis and sometimes brings his mom. He also has learned to ask for help.
Lewis
In August 2000, the Breaking Cycles probation officer began working with Lewis while he was still
in custody at the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF). Initially, Lewis presented as a quiet individual who
was easily angered and would quickly engage in physical altercations at the slightest provocation.
At that time, he also indicated that he wanted to remain in custody until his maximum Breaking
Cycles commitment ended because he felt he had no reason to leave.
106
During his time at JRF, the probation officer would attempt to visit him once per week. Within two
months, the JRF staff reported that the minor had turned around and “really straightened up.” The
minor had opened up to the probation officer and was able to speak about his home life. All of his
family members, with the exception of his younger sister, were either in prison or on parole. He had
never had a stable home life or a positive male role model. The minor was released from JRF in
November 2000 and he was to attend the Reflections program. The probation officer recommended
to the Court that the minor be placed with his mother, but not without reservation. The minor’s
mother had recently been released from prison and had rented a one-room apartment in which she,
her son who was recently released from prison, her youngest daughter, her boyfriend, and Lewis
were expected to live. She also had no job. Probation spoke to the minor indicating that this would
be a challenge to him, but Lewis wanted to live with his mother.
Upon entering the Reflections program, Lewis had some problems attending school and abiding by
curfew. He also admitted to using marijuana one time. The minor was arrested on January 2001 for
probation violations. Upon interviewing the minor, he was reassessed to JRF, followed by attending
the Youth Day Center (YDC) School. The minor was released from JRF in March 2001.
He began to attend YDC. It was apparent that the minor was beginning to come into his own. He
was able to maintain good grades, good attendance, and positive peer and staff relations. He also
attended family counseling and tested negative in all drug screens. He graduated from YDC and
began attending the Marine Science Academy located in Chula Vista. It also was interesting to note
that he would call his probation officer on a daily basis to check in “just to talk.” Not a single day
would pass without Lewis calling his probation officer.
Then in April 2001, the minor suddenly stopped attending school and he was nowhere to be found.
After the first week of his disappearance, Lewis called his probation officer and explained that his
family had been evicted because his mother had not paid rent, his brother had been incarcerated
again, and Lewis had become very ill. The probation officer suspected that Lewis was ill due to
stress. Lewis was now in a situation where the family was homeless, without food, and was living on
the streets. His mother was attempting to relocate with other family members, but most were
unwilling to have the family in their home. This was due to Lewis’ family’s law enforcement history
and the fact that his mother had burned all of her bridges. At this point, Lewis was instructed to
return to school and call the probation officer every evening with a location.
This was the real test. It was time to see what type of an effect all of the efforts and services offered
through Breaking Cycles had on Lewis. Would he maintain contact and complete his responsibility
although his family was in chaos? Or would he succumb and crumble, and commit himself to his
family’s lifestyle?
He attended school the very next day, where he was given breakfast and lunch, and he continued
to call the probation officer daily. Two weeks later, an aunt agreed to have the family in her home.
Currently, Lewis continues to attend the Marine Science Academy and maintains employment. Lewis
is striving toward obtaining his high school diploma and maintains contact with his Breaking Cycles
probation officer, although he has been transferred to regular supervision. Lewis is expected to
terminate successfully from probation at his next review hearing on August 2001. Lewis stated to his
probation officer, “When I get my diploma, you’ll be the first person I invite to my graduation.”
107
Paul
A 35-year old widowed, recovering alcoholic mother with a three-year-old daughter and an eightyear old son, Paul, self referred to the Community Assessment Teams (CATs). She found out about
CATs via her previous treatment at the Family Recovery Center. The mother indicated she was
seeking a “big brother” for her son. Paul had been verbally and physically aggressive at home and
at school. Paul had frequently been asking mom for a big brother who is “brown-colored,” like him,
to play with. He tries to play with his younger sister, but becomes bored and overly aggressive with
her. When he is frustrated, he becomes physically aggressive. School has noted his aggression and
encouraged his mom to provide a male role model for her son. The mother has attempted
relationships with men for this purpose, but has not met with success.
The CATs approached a retired Deputy Probation Officer Volunteer about the possibility of serving
as a mentor for the child. The volunteer responded positively and a meeting between parent, son,
and mentor was arranged. Paul immediately noted the mentor’s similar skin color and identified
positively with him. The mom and the mentor worked out a visiting/phone schedule themselves and
a mentor-mentee relationship began.
The results from this link and continuing relationship, which was monitored by CATs, were that Paul
began to thrive at home, as well as in school. The mother was most appreciative of the arrangement and very pleased with her son’s improvements, both in the school environment and at home.
This was arranged in February 2000 and the relationship continues to flourish.
Madeline
Madeline had been on probation approximately two years and, over those years, she had violated
probation several times. The violations included car theft and weekly methamphetamine use. In
addition, during this time, she lived in a gang-infested area. As a result, most of her friends were
gang members. This gang association and drug use obviously created the perfect atmosphere for
crime, violence, and perpetual drug abuse. Over the past five months, however, one would never
have guessed that Madeline had experienced these conditions.
When Madeline entered the Community Unit from the Girls Rehabilitation Facility (GRF), she was
like most transfers: apprehensive, quiet, and cautious to fully accept the Community Unit and its
claims, yet somewhat motivated to do well since she was just released home. The majority of the
cases either maintained these characteristics, moderately deviated from them in both positive and
negative directions, or exhibited the extreme end of poor behavior, usually by continuing to
commit crimes or violate probation. Madeline, on the other hand, prospered exponentially in all
areas throughout her entire commit. At school, her attendance and behavior were near flawless
and her grades were steadily strong. In fact, the teacher often had commented on how well she
performed in class and stated that she is a type of role model to the other students. Madeline also
was able to work approximately 30 hours per week as an assistant in a building cleaning service and
complete community service hours as well. An example of her day would include:
1)
2)
3)
getting up at 4:15 a.m.
begin work at 5 a.m.
begin school at 9 a.m.
108
4)
5)
6)
complete several hours of community service at school or church
go back to work for evening cleaning jobs
return home and study.
Remarkably, despite this extremely demanding schedule, Madeline always exhibited an energetic,
pleasant, respectful, and positive attitude whether she was contacted during morning, afternoon,
or evening hours. The entire Community Unit team often held discussions, marveling over
Madeline’s incredible progress.
Other agencies also recognized Madeline’s accomplishments. For example, Madeline had recently
completed the YMCA Literacy Program, which is a program designed to increase reading and
writing levels. As a result of her persistence and effort, she was able to increase her reading ability
by three grade levels in just one year. Madeline’s progress and attitude were so impressive to the
YMCA Literacy program that she is currently being solicited to join the YMCA Youth and Family
Services Board of Directors. She would be a voting member involved in decision-making such as
program design, policy development, and funding allotment. This should be considered clear
evidence of Madeline’s professionalism and intelligence, since the YMCA Literacy program appears
obviously confident that Madeline has the capability to hold such a valuable and important role in
their program.
If Madeline accepts the position, this would not mark Madeline’s first involvement in the decisionmaking realm either. On April 28, 2001, over 250 people came together for the Breaking Cycles
Annual Spring Fair. The Spring Fair is a picnic-style celebration for the families involved in Breaking
Cycles, provided by the Breaking Cycles staff. A big part of the success can be attributed to
Madeline. Prior to the actual event, Madeline was among a group of eight youth that, along with
the Breaking Cycles staff, formed a committee to plan the event. They engaged in weekly meetings
over several months. The youth involved were hand selected for their enthusiasm, creativity, ideas,
and leadership. Even among this select group of ambitious youth, Madeline still managed to stand
out, not only through her innovative ideas, but also through her ability to add fun, humor, and
energy to committee meetings. In addition, at the Spring Fair itself, she played an integral role in
motivating the guests to get over any reluctance they had to take advantage of events. I feel the
experience also provided Madeline with a tremendous feeling of accomplishment. Throughout the
event, you could tell in her eyes her astonishment of actually seeing some of her ideas come to
fruition.
Without doubt, Madeline has accomplished many things, whether it’s excelling at school or work,
completing programs, increasing her reading ability, or making people laugh. However, Madeline is
unique in that she possesses these rare and amiable characteristics in spite of her negative history
and having to overcome the obstacles of crime, meth use, and gangs. Madeline’s ability to
overcome this adversity by being strong enough not to succumb to the pressures of her gang ties, to
resist the addictive nature of methamphetamine, and still make accomplishments at the rate she has
demonstrated is truly remarkable. This is the “intangible” that makes Madeline a true success. It
should be noted that Madeline has not produced any positive tests for drugs. Several of Madeline’s
old “friends” state that Madeline ignores them, despite their attempts to contact her.
109
To actually have knowledge of her history of criminal behavior on one side, visualize her accomplishments on the other, and comprehend the obstacles she had to overcome to reach those
accomplishments, illustrates Madeline’s drive, motivation, strength, and will power - characteristics
that anyone should be able to draw inspiration from.
Currently, Madeline continues to work and also is submitting applications for a second job. In
addition, she is on track to gaining her high school diploma before the end of the year. After she
obtains her high school diploma, she plans to attend community college and then on to a university
where she will study business and marketing. After she graduates from college Madeline looks
forward to a career in marketing or advertising. With her passion, sincerity, and charisma, she will
reach this goal.
Nathan
Nathan completed the Rayo II at the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF) in December 2000. He came to the
Community Unit with a positive attitude and a strong desire to get off probation. At the time,
Nathan was 17 years of age, with a sixth-grade education and living with his mother, younger sister,
and older brother.
Nathan’s older brother, Jack, was released from CYA. Jack spent his days at home with Nathan. Jack
smoked marijuana, drank beer, and invited friends to the home. Nathan was trying to stay clean,
but the pressure of his brother influenced him. Nathan claimed his first positive test for methamphetamine was a result of being stuck in the house with nowhere to go. His second reason was
pressure from his brother.
As a result of these two positive drug tests, it was decided to put Nathan in a 21-day detox program
and find a new placement. Nathan was enrolled in the Odessa House, located in Lemon Grove. This
program provided drug education, structure, NA/AA meetings, and basic home economics. The staff
at Odessa House felt that Nathan “was one of most responsive and cooperative students.”
After Odessa House, Nathan was placed with his father. His father is remarried, with a 5-year-old
son. His father provided structure and a healthy loving home. Nathan’s responsibilities at home
included yard work and taking care of his brother. Nathan’s father was aware of his drug history
and knew that if Nathan continued living with his mother, further jail time would result.
Nathan was enrolled in the Marine Science Academy located in Chula Vista. This school focused on
basic education, with an emphasis in Marine Science. Nathan was able to maintain good grades,
positive attendance, and positive peer relations. He attended school daily, participated in two NA
meetings per week, and tested negative on all drug screens.
Today, Nathan is working 30 hours per week at Sea World and is trying to enroll in Chula Vista
Adult School. He is working toward obtaining his High School Diploma so that he can enroll in the
Navy. Nathan looks back at his time with Breaking Cycles as a positive and very helpful experience.
Breaking Cycles provided a life changing experience for him.
110
Carlos
Many times the successes that occur in programs such as the Youth Day Center or Reflections are
subtle and take time. The goal is to work with problem children and to find the formula that works
for them. Sometimes improvements come over time and the child may fall several times before
he/she is able to walk on his/her own. Carlos is such a child and he recently experienced several
months of success after many years of struggle, failure, and problems with the Court.
Carlos first came to the Reflections North almost three years ago, when he was 14 years old. He
lived in one of the worst gang infested areas in North County and associated with gang members
on a daily basis. He committed petty crimes and was a regular user of a variety of street drugs and
alcohol. Over the next two and one-half years, Carlos was committed to our program three times
and failed each time. He would have a good week here and there, but was unable to remain off
drugs for any significant period of time. In the end, he would either go AWOL from the program or
be removed for program violations and truancy. Each time he was recommitted to the program, he
would come with a commitment and enthusiasm that were impressive to staff. He is a very likeable
guy and all of us wanted to see him succeed. Each time he failed, he felt badly. Each time, he
improved slightly and lasted a little longer.
The last time he came to us was November 2000. Staff felt that he needed something that the Drug
Court may be able to supply. He was referred to and accepted by Drug Court. The Alcohol and
Other Drug Counselor and treatment team put in place a comprehensive plan to support and assist
Carlos in his quest to stay off drugs. We also devised a plan with school personnel that would allow
him to graduate from high school while in our program. Staff also worked with his mother. They
encouraged her and found assistance for the family to move to a better area. All of these things
seemed to make a difference and Carlos began to make some remarkable changes. He began to
consistently do well in school. His mother reported that he quit running the streets, became more
helpful at home, and was able to secure a job.
In June, Carlos achieved a milestone that he had previously thought was impossible. He received a
token for six months of sobriety. He has now graduated from high school and was one of a small
group of students who started a daily NA/AA group at our site. Carlos is now 18 years of age. He
feels that he has a much better chance for a happy future than he once did.
All of us are happy and proud of Carlos and we look forward to seeing him come to our formal
graduation in August. Tempering these feelings is the reality that no “success story” is guaranteed.
We all know that sobriety is a daily battle for our young addicts and it requires a strong commitment. He continues to check in with us and he is optimistic about his future. We all wish him well
and thank him for his efforts and the pride that he has brought to our staff and other students.
111
Linda
In June 2000, Linda appeared before the Court for a true finding of burglary, a felony. The offense
occurred when the minor and a co-participant forced entry into a residence and took over $1,000
worth of property. The minor also previously had been referred to juvenile probation for petty
theft and Juvenile Traffic Court for a minor offense. Her maternal grandmother raised Linda since
the age of six. However, Linda was AWOL for nine months prior to her arrest. The minor was
completely out of control and had not been attending school.
Subsequent to the true finding, she was committed to the Breaking Cycles program for a period not
to exceed 240 days. Upon her release from the Girls Rehabilitation Facility (GRF) program in October
2000, she was placed with her grandmother. Within ten days after her release from GRF, she was
rearrested for violating her home supervision contract. She was reassessed to GRF to complete her
240 Breaking Cycles commitment. She failed to change her negative lifestyle and have a successful
transition back into the community. The minor had a very defiant and “whatever” attitude. Linda
was released again from GRF in January 2001.
Upon her release, she began attending the Marine Science Academy School and working at a local
restaurant. Upon speaking with the minor’s teacher, it was evident that Linda was working very
hard toward academic success. Linda had excellent attendance and maintained very high school
grades. She also appeared to be within her grandmother’s control. Although there had been several
companions in the instant offense, the minor paid $910 of the $1,090 restitution.
Linda advanced from being a selfish, defiant, beyond control, truant/runaway to maintaining
excellent school attendance, employment, and a positive home life.
Through the services offered through Breaking Cycles and her willingness to change, Linda
terminated probation successfully in June 2001. Hopefully Linda will continue to strive to achieve
her potential and continue as a law-abiding, successful citizen.
Charles
Charles was committed to the Breaking Cycles Program for 365 days. He and a companion were
charged with attempted arson, a very serious offense. Charles had a history of substance abuse and
out-of-control behavior. This was his first experience with the juvenile justice system. Charles was 17
years old at the time.
After being assessed by the Breaking Cycles multi-disciplinary assessment team, it was determined
he would participate in the substance abuse program at the Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF). Upon
completion of that program, he would return to his parents and be supervised by the Community
Unit. Charles worked very hard at JRF to achieve program goals. He was a role model to his peers
and interacted positively with staff. He obtained his GED while in custody.
Immediately upon returning home, Charles obtained full-time employment with a company that
paints roads, parking lots, etc. Despite his busy schedule, he attended weekly NA meetings and met
with the Breaking Cycles counselors. Incredibly, he never violated his conditions of probation and
never missed an appointment. He was respectful to his parents and abided by their rules. All of his
112
drug tests were negative. Charles took it upon himself to open a checking account with his
earnings. He paid all of his fines and restitution without pressure from the probation officer.
This is an exceptional young man. He was successfully terminated from the jurisdiction of the
juvenile justice system in May 2001. Charles is a true success story.
Tanya
Tanya, a 17-year-old female, was referred to the CAT through a Community Intervention Officer.
She had been fighting and drunk in public. Tanya was required to take anger management, a drug
and alcohol education class, and complete 30 hours of Community Service. During the assessment,
Tanya made it clear that she was very unhappy about having to comply with these requirements.
Tanya and her mother argued openly and loudly through much of the session. At the time, Tanya
was working at a fast food restaurant and was not enrolled in school.
Tanya began her anger management and drug and alcohol group, but soon became inconsistent
with her attendance. Tanya’s demeanor in the groups clearly communicated that she disliked the
CAT and would rather be doing anything besides being there.
The CAT case manager called Tanya’s probation officer and set up a meeting with him, her family,
and the EYE staff that had been working with her. During this meeting, it was made clear to Tanya
that, if she chose not to comply, she would be sent to Juvenile Hall.
Tanya began attending the girl’s anger management group consistently and increased participation. Tanya states that one of her friend’s younger sisters was in the group and she realized that she
was a role model for her and did not want her to make the same mistakes.
By the end of the group cycle, Tanya was clearly a peer leader and said that she actually looked
forward to the group. Part of her service plan included coming to the next cycle of anger management to give a 10-minute speech on what she had learned. Tanya was dreading this and was visibly
nervous about speaking in public. However, as she began talking about her life, she became
passionate about helping the current group members avoid the mistakes that she made. She spoke
of how she would “fight my friends’ battles,” but be the one to get into trouble. She recounted
how hard it was for her to attend what would have been her graduation and watch these same
friends graduate while she was trying to make up credits in adult school. Tanya shared that the
anger management group helped her to realize that she had a lot in common with people. She
learned the skills to communicate her disagreements. She stated that she is now a best friend with
one of her enemies.
What was most interesting was how captivated the group members were. They were so interested
in her story because it was so similar to theirs. They were motivated by Tanya’s words and her
commitment to making something of herself. Tanya is now planning to start the EYE’s AmeriCorps
Program this fall and will have completed her GED by then. Tanya has volunteered to come back to
each subsequent group and speak to them about her story in an effort to continue making a
difference.
113
Vanessa
Vanessa is an 18-year-old white female who received a 240-day commit to Breaking Cycles in
December 2000, when she was 17 years old.
Her drug history was extensive, including the intravenous use of heroin. She began using alcohol
weekly at the age of 12. She used heroin and cocaine approximately three times per day since age
15, and marijuana daily since age 13. Between ages 14 and 16, she used methamphetamines daily
for several months, LSD approximately 20 times, had experimented with ecstasy, mushrooms, and
roches, and had inhaled lighter fluid.
Her current offense involved her and a co-participant stealing over-the-counter drugs and selling
them to a liquor store clerk to get money for drugs.
Vanessa lives with her mother, who is a single parent. Relations were strained between the two
because Vanessa had a history of drug abuse, truancy, and running away. She had not been
enrolled in school for about one year. She often ran away from home for days, sometimes months
at a time. She even stole her mother’s cable box and sold it for $20 in order to buy drugs.
She had previously run away from her placement at the McAllister Institute after only two days in
the program. On a previous occasion, she completed the three-week program at that facility.
Pursuant to her 240-day commit, Vanessa was assessed to the Girls Rehabilitation (GRF), followed by
the Community Unit.
She entered the Community Unit in March 2001. She has attended school at the Teen Recovery
Center at San Diego Youth and Community Services in City Heights, where she has earned her GED,
received family counseling, and continued to participate in drug counseling and treatment daily,
Monday through Friday.
At the time, Vanessa appeared depressed, angry, lacking self-esteem, and unprepared to battle her
severe addiction. She did not have a significant support structure. Admittedly, Vanessa still had the
urge to use drugs.
The Community Unit provided services and referrals to Vanessa that she has used to help her
overcome the urge to relapse and to make an effort to improve communication with her mother.
She has received counseling from all members of the Community Unit: the DPO of record, the Youth
and Family Counselor, the Alcohol and Drug Specialist, the Community Family Monitor, and a
Reserve Deputy Probation Officer who is providing mentorship services. She and her mother also
have participated in counseling at SDYCS, which has been instrumental in helping Vanessa maintain
a drug-free lifestyle and improving the relationship between her and her mother.
There were times when we were worried. One instance was when she was truant from school and
we discovered she had withdrawn a couple hundred dollars from a joint account she had with her
mother. The money was hers, but we were skeptical of her motives and were concerned that she
might relapse and/or run away. She spent about $20 and then repaid her mother for the cable box
she had stolen from her about one year ago. She saved the rest for a planned trip to Disneyland
with her mother.
114
Vanessa continued to surprise us with the positive choices she was making and by remaining drug
free. She and her mother spent more time together, going to the beach and frequenting restaurants on weekends.
She has shown remarkable insight into her own psyche and has demonstrated a capacity to
understand the cycle of dependence. She is aware of the warning signs of pending relapse and has
encountered them frequently, thus far being able to overcome the urge.
She has developed positive short- and long-term goals for herself. She recently became employed
on a part-time basis, and plans to move out of her mother’s home and become self-sufficient. She
will be financially stable and able to do so.
Vanessa still experiences depression and has bouts of anger. She recognizes a need to improve
relations with her mother. Her self-esteem has improved and her determination to succeed has
heightened. She admits that she is at times overwhelmed with thoughts of getting a job, providing
her own living arrangements, and remaining drug free. This lifestyle is new to her. However, she
does have a great deal of fortitude and has shown a remarkable ability to be constant in her efforts
to achieve her goals.
Considering her history and perceived chances for success when I first met her, she has made
incredible progress. Her Breaking Cycles commit ends in August 2001. At that time, a recommendation will be made to the court to terminate jurisdiction.
To her credit, she has decided to continue her participation in the Teen Recovery Center after
Breaking Cycles. She has agreed to become a peer support counselor for their program. The
Community Unit Team offers our total support.
Lupe
Lupe entered the Center City Youth Day Center (YDC) with a very poor attitude. She constantly
challenged staff’s authority and did not like being told what to do. She understood the rules, but
chose not to follow them. She would come to YDC wearing inappropriate clothing and use
profanity on a regular basis. She was a tough girl who did not want to change her way of life.
Lupe had a difficult time getting along with her mother. They constantly got into arguments. In
order to correct this problem, Lupe and her mother attended family counseling at GRF. The family
counseling still did not help their situation. Lupe continued to have problems with her mother. Lupe
decided that she needed to reconstruct her relationship with her mother. She really did want their
relationship to improve. Therefore, she decided to enroll herself in individual counseling at the
Juvenile Probation Center. She met with a counselor on a weekly basis to help her understand why
she was having negative thoughts and feelings toward her mother and how she could improve the
relationship. Lupe really wanted to have a loving relationship with her mother. She did everything
in her power to meet her goal.
Over a few weeks, Lupe’s attitude toward her mother improved tremendously. She was happy at
how their relationship was progressing. Lupe also showed tremendous advancements in her
program at YDC. Her vocabulary greatly improved. She began to maintain respectful conversations
with her peers and Probation staff. She began to wear conservative attire to school. At times she
115
looked very professional. Lupe also showed great improvement in her academic grades. She went
from Cs, Ds, and Fs to making the honor roll. Her attitude and behavior made a complete one
hundred and eighty-degree turnaround. Lupe worked hard to meet her goals and displayed sincere
effort with every task she encountered.
Finally, after nine weeks, she was able to achieve independent status. Independent status is a great
achievement and a privilege. Only a small number of minors are able to obtain this status. In order
to be eligible for independent status, a minor has to perform an outstanding program by obtaining
good grades and good behavior for a minimum of four weeks. Lupe worked hard to achieve this
privilege.
Lupe is definitely a success story. Through determination and hard work, she was able to change her
life for the better. At times she struggled and became frustrated, but she refused to give up. Lupe
was determined to meet her goals and did not let anyone or anything get in her way. We are all
very proud of Lupe and wish her the best of luck in all her future endeavors.
Beth
Beth is a 17-year-old female who was successfully terminated from probation in January 2001. Beth
was first placed in probation for one year. She was true found on a residential burglary in October
1999. She violated probation by testing positive for marijuana and being out of control. She was
given three additional months for her violations in December 1999. She again violated probation by
testing positive for marijuana.
In January 2000, she was given a Breaking Cycles 240 commit. She was assessed to the drug program
at the Girls Rehabilitation Facility (GRF), followed by the Community Unit. She received services such
as drug and alcohol counseling, individual counseling, and family counseling. She participated in
the YMCA Literacy program. Beth completed her Breaking Cycles program with outstanding ratings
and she received no rule violations in the program.
The minor reports that she was 14 years old when she first experimented with marijuana with her
friends, with whom she found acceptance. She would go out drinking and using drugs and would
then run away for days at a time. She lived in a bad neighborhood in Oceanside. She blames her
negative behaviors on her parents’ separation, the bad neighborhood, and being bored. She and
her best friend would take her friend’s mother’s car without permission and would joy ride, pick up
friends, and get drunk. She reports that her mother would tell her not to hang out with the friends,
but she did not care. She also reported that her dad was making a lot of money working for a
design company. Eventually, he started using cocaine and became addicted. This was the reason for
the separation of her parents.
Beth states that she was able to catch up with her credits and is now eligible to graduate from high
school on time. She is currently taking classes at Palomar College. She would like to attend San
Nathan’s California State and pursue a career as an Interior Decorator or major in Business
Administration.
116
She currently volunteers at the Senior Center, helping as a food handler and taking care of the
seniors. She also is in charge of the events and performances that come into the center. She was
awarded volunteer of the month on two different occasions. The North County local paper
recognized her.
On March 2001, Beth was chosen to be a spokesperson for the YMCA Literacy program. She went to
Washington for three days to debate on laws being passed and to speak in front of Legislator Aides
and Congresswoman Susan Davis.
Beth says that her present relationship with her mother is a good one. They make time for one
another no matter how busy they are.
One of Beth’s reasons for staying out of trouble is the scare that she received from being sent to
Juvenile Hall. She believes that the services offered by the Breaking Cycles program helped her to
realize that she was hurting the people she loves. Beth is committed to not hurting her mother or
herself ever again.
117
(Insert blank page)
CHAPTER 6
PROCESS EVALUATION
ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS
CHAPTER 6
INTRODUCTION
This section of the report presents the results of the process evaluation that was designed to answer
questions related to the prevention component of Breaking Cycles, as well as the graduated
sanctions component and the overall program. The research hypotheses were presented in the
previous chapter.
Number, Nature, and Scope of CAT Staffing, Training, and Outreach 1
What types of staff positions were filled at the CATs and how did staffing level vary
across the sites?
While some sites waited until they were fully operational to fill all staff positions, all CATs had
sufficient staffing levels to provide extensive services at the end of the grant period. The following
section provides a summary of current staffing levels by site at the beginning of June 2001.
Central Site
As of June 1, the Central site had all of its staff positions filled. These included one full-time
coordinator, one full-time probation officer, one full-time CAT supervisor, three full-time counselors, three full-time and two-part time case managers, two full-time clerical assistants (50% each
time to CAT), one part-time clinical supervisor (50% time to CAT), and three volunteers who worked
20 hours per week or less. All of these positions were funded in part or totally by Probation
Department funds, except the CAT supervisor, two full-time case managers, and one full-time
counselor.
South Bay Site
At the end of the reporting period, South Bay CAT staff included one full-time coordinator, one
full-time probation officer, five full-time case managers, one part-time clinical supervisor (20% time
to CAT), one part-time intake specialist (20% time to CAT), one part-time counselor, one full-time
clerical assistant, and four full-time and one part-time management positions (10% to 20% time to
CAT). In addition, one part-time volunteer assisted staff. Staff from this site reported that the
probation officer and the management positions were funded through the Probation Department
and that all other positions were funded through other sources. No positions were vacant at the
end of the reporting period.
1
Staffing, training, and outreach data by site are included in Appendix A.
121
North Coastal Site
The North Coastal site also was fully staffed during 2001. Team members here included one fulltime coordinator, one part-time probation officer (shared with the Inland site), and two full-time
and one-part time case managers. In addition, four part-time volunteers also were available on site.
All of these staff positions were funded through the Probation Department.
North Inland Site
Staff at the North Inland site included one coordinator (60% time to CAT), one part-time probation
officer shared with the Coastal site, one team leader (65% to CAT), four full-time and one part-time
case managers (with 20% to 70% of their time devoted to CAT), two counselors (10% time to CAT),
one part-time data entry person, one part-time after-hours crisis response team member, and one
youth director (25% time to CAT). In addition, four part-time volunteers also worked on site. All of
the paid positions were funded in part by the Probation Department, with the exception of the
after-hours crisis response team member, who was funded 100 percent. All of the positions were
filled at the end of June, except one full-time case manager.
East County Site
Due to program expansion in the last six months, the East County CAT added an additional case
manager and an intake specialist to their staff. Current staffing at the East County site included one
coordinator, one probation officer, six case managers, two intake specialists, two team leaders,
three counselors, and one clerical assistant. With the exception of one case manager and the three
counselors, all of the positions were funded in part or completely through Probation funds. In
addition, one volunteer assisted staff on site. During June, the clerical position, one case manager
position, and the drug and alcohol specialist position were all open and the site was in the process
of filling them.
What was the amount and type of training provided to CAT staff and how did training
topics vary across sites?
Since 1998, 4,085 hours of training were provided to CAT staff, with 624 hours of these training
hours completed in the first half of 2001. The most common topics covered included providing
wraparound services, domestic violence, counseling, risk assessments, and team building. In 2001,
staff received 80 hours of domestic violence training, 43 on mental health issues, and 42 on
substance abuse, with the remainder of training focusing on the previously mentioned topics.
While staff at each of the CATs attended training that focused on these specific issues over the
course of the grant, there was some variation in the amount of training provided in other areas. For
example, staff at the Central site was provided with more hours on the topic of child abuse,
proportionately, compared to the other sites. In addition, the Central and Coastal sites were more
likely to emphasize computer training, and the Inland CAT spent a greater proportion of time on
interview skills. The East site spent a greater proportion of its training time on counseling, and the
South Bay site placed a greater emphasis on domestic violence.
122
Approximately one-third of the total training hours were not captured in specific categories
because they were not provided by the majority of the agencies or they were not an ongoing
training emphasis for the teams. Some of the topics included in this “other” category were relapse,
gangs, trauma, cultural diversity, safety for home visitors, grant writing, and treating resistant
clients.
What were the scope and type of outreach conducted by the CATs and how did outreach
methods vary across sites?
The CATs conducted a great deal of outreach to the community over the past three and one-half
years. These efforts included attending conferences, participating in social events, meeting with
community agencies and representatives, and providing written and oral presentations. Since 1998,
the five CATs conducted outreach to over 30,000 individuals. Over 7,000 of these contacts were
made in the first half of 2001.
Since the program began, the CATs conducted outreach to a variety of different groups. Between
1998 and 2001, each of the sites conducted some type of outreach with law enforcement agencies;
School Attendance Review Boards (SARB); administrators of school districts, as well as local
elementary, middle, and high schools; probation intake officers; student study teams; collaboratives;
and other individuals and groups. Several collaborative groups were formed in each community to
bring together individuals from schools, Probation, the business community, law enforcement, and
other agencies that provide services to youth and their families. These groups met to discuss
combining their agencies’ efforts to provide more cost-effective, efficient, and accessible services to
their communities. In addition, all of the sites distributed information to interested individuals. In
2001, one-quarter of all outreach was conducted with collaboratives, nine percent with SARB
coordinators, and five percent with law enforcement.
While there were some similarities in the types of organizations with which the CATs performed
outreach, there also appeared to be different focuses across sites. For example, overall, a greater
proportion of East County’s and South Bay’s outreach was to school administrators, compared to
other sites. The Coastal site focused more of their efforts toward SARB. The East site was most likely
to make contact with the business community, and both the East and Central sites were more likely
to conduct outreach with local collaboratives.
CAT Clients and the Interventions Received
2
How many youth were referred to the CATs and what were their socio-demographic
characteristics?
As of June 30, 2001, the five CAT sites have received referrals for 7,844 clients/families. To provide
more accurate information with respect to the number of clients served and the scope of services
provided, in October 1999, sites began to document the number of clients per referral case. Based
upon the data available at this time, average client family size was estimated at 4.1 members, and
based upon this estimate, the CAT program has been referred approximately 32,000 clients to date.
Fifteen percent (15%) of these clients/families were still receiving services at the end of this
reporting time period.
2
CAT client data by site are included in Appendix B.
123
Age
Youth age 13 and 14 are a significant target population for prevention since they represent a high
degree of vulnerability for risk of entry into the juvenile justice system. The Central and South Bay
sites, funded through Senate Bill 1760, target school age youth (i.e., those 6 to 18 years of age). The
remaining sites (Coastal, Inland, and East County), due to Senate Bill 1050 funding requirements,
were restricted to serving 10 to 17 year-old youth until those funds ended on June 30, 1999. As a
result, on average, the clients served at the Central and South Bay sites were slightly younger (and
in lower grades) compared to North County clients and clients served by the East County site.
As Figure 6.1 shows, the majority of clients were in their teens, with 32 percent between the ages of
13 and 14, and 34 percent between 15 and 17. One-quarter (25%) were between 10 and 12 years of
age, 9 percent were under 10, and one percent were 18 and older. On average, the typical client
referred to the CATs was 13.2 years of age (not shown).
Figure 6.1
CLIENT AGE
CAT Client Records, 1998–2001
18 and Older
1%
Under 10
9%
15 to 17
34%
10 to 12
25%
13 to 14
32%
Total = 7,792
NOTE:
These statistics are presented for all primary clients referred to the CATs, regardless of
eligibility status. Cases with missing information not included. Percentages do not equal
100 due to rounding.
Gender
Proportionately, more male (60%) than female (40%) clients were referred to the CATs, and there
was little variation in these percentages across the sites (not shown). The CAT program referral
population has a higher percentage of females than at any point in the juvenile justice system
based upon such indicators as arrests, referrals to Probation, assessments for the graduated
sanctions component of the Breaking Cycles program, and Juvenile Hall admissions and releases.
124
Race/Ethnicity
Figure 6.2 shows the racial/ethnic 3 composition of individuals referred for CAT services. Overall,
Hispanics represented approximately one-half (51%) of all CAT clients, with individuals who
identified themselves as White representing 30 percent.
Figure 6.2
CLIENT RACE/ETHNICITY
CAT Client Records, 1998-2001
Asian
4%
Other
6%
White
30%
Hispanic
51%
Black
9%
Total = 7,530
NOTE:
eligibility status. Cases with missing information not included.
Clients’ ethnic differences across sites indicated that each team seemed to be reaching distinctly
different populations. These differences were reflective of the general population within which
these sites are located. Almost three-quarters (74%) of South Bay’s clients were Hispanic, compared
to only 23 percent of East County’s, where almost two-thirds (62%) were White. The Inland site had
approximately an equal proportion of Hispanic (47%) and White (42%) clients, while Central had
the most diverse population, with the greatest percentage of Black (19%) and Asian (15%) clients
compared to the other locations (not shown).
3
The ethnic groups in this report are referred to as Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, and Other in the text. While
many people may prefer to identify themselves as African American rather than Black, Latino rather than
Hispanic, or as a member of a particular ethnic group rather than White or Asian, SANDAG uses the
terminology consistent with the 1990 Census questionnaire to ensure comparability with historical data.
125
Primary Language
Language is not a barrier for most individuals referred to the CATs, with 69 percent using English as
their primary language. Interpreters were required in one out of five (20%) cases (not shown). All
sites employ bilingual staff to meet the needs of these clients. Some sites have a greater need for
this service, compared to others, based upon the populations being served. For example, 44 percent
of Central clients required an interpreter, compared to only ten percent of those in East County and
seven percent in South Bay (not shown).
Educational Level
Consistent with client age, the majority of CAT clients were either in high school (42%) or middle
school (41%) (Figure 6.3). Sixteen percent (16%) were in elementary school, and one percent were
in pre-school or kindergarten (other).
Figure 6.3
CLIENT EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
Other
1%
Elementary School
16%
High School
42%
Middle School
41%
Total = 7,193
NOTE:
The Inland and East County sites had the smallest proportion of clients enrolled in elementary
school (11% and 10%, respectively) and the Central site had the smallest percentage of clients
enrolled in high school (36%) (not shown).
126
Referral Reason
Clients were referred to the CATs for a variety of reasons (Figure 6.4). Family issues (e.g., parent in
prison, recent divorce of parents, substance abuse or mental health issue for parent) were among
the most common reasons a client was referred to the program (38%), followed by school-related
issues (e.g., truancy) (34%). Other reasons (8%) included substance abuse and mental health issues.
Referral reason is typically identified by the client, and frequently changes after an assessment is
completed, according to CAT staff.
Figure 6.4
INITIAL REASON FOR CLIENT REFERRAL
CAT Client Records, 1998-2001
Out of Control
11%
Criminal Offense
5%
Other
8%
School Issue
34%
Runaway
4%
Family Issue
38%
Total = 7,696
NOTE:
Client referral reason also varied across sites. For example, the Coastal site was more likely to receive
referrals related to truancy issues (38%) compared to the other sites, while the South Bay site
appeared to receive more referrals for family issues (47%) in comparison to the other CATs.
Approximately one out of five referrals (22%) to the Central CAT was for the juvenile being
categorized as being out of control, while only four percent of referrals to the Coastal site were
made for this reason (not shown).
127
Source of Referral
As Figure 6.5 shows, the most frequent referral source for the CATs overall was schools (32%). Other
referral sources included law enforcement (17%), social service agencies (6%), Probation (5%), the
court (2%), and other sources (12%). Approximately one-quarter (26%) of all referrals were the
clients themselves.
Figure 6.5
SOURCE OF CLIENT REFERRAL
CAT Client Records 1998-2001
Other
12%
Self
26%
Schools
32%
Social Services
6%
Law Enforcement
17%
Court
2%
Probation
5%
Total = 7,697
NOTE:
The referral source for each of the CATs also varied across sites, with 40 percent of Central site
clients being self-referred, in comparison to only 16 percent at the Coastal site and 18 percent at the
South Bay site. At the Coastal site, over one-half (58%) of the referrals were received from schools,
which was consistent with the high number of referrals for truancy, while only four percent came
from law enforcement. In South Bay, approximately one-quarter (27%) came from schools, 26
percent came from law enforcement, and 20 percent came from other sources (not shown).
How are client eligibility and service needs determined?
Clients referred to the CATs are determined to be either eligible or ineligible for services. While
extensive effort is made to engage all that are referred, some clients never complete a service plan
(i.e., ineligible) and others become either short-term or long-term clients (i.e., eligible). Nevertheless, the CATs provide some level of service to all referred clients, regardless of eligibility status.
128
Sixty-five percent (65%) of clients referred to the CATs through June 30, 2001, were eligible for
services. Overall, two of five eligible clients were categorized as long-term, which means they
required intensive CAT services, while the others (three in five) were categorized as short-term,
meaning their needs could be met by providing them with referrals to outside community-based
agencies. The percentage of clients eligible for services varied across the sites, from 55 percent at
the Central CAT, to 91 percent at the Inland site, as did the percent who were long-term (20% at
the Coastal site to 57% in East County) (not shown).
As Figure 6.6 shows, the most common reason for a client being ineligible for services was that
he/she declined them (71%). Since the program is voluntary, families can choose to participate or
not. The second most common reason that services were not provided was that the CAT staffs were
unable to locate the potential clients after the referral was received (18%). Seven percent of clients
were ineligible because they were already a ward of the court, two percent had extensive mental
health needs that were beyond the scope of the services provided by the CATs, and two percent
were referred to another CAT site.
Figure 6.6
REASON FOR CLIENT INELIGIBILITY
Other CAT
2%
Mental health needs
2%
Unable to locate
18%
Ineligible/Ward
7%
Declined services
71%
Total = 2,332
NOTE:
These statistics are presented for primary clients who were ineligible for CAT services.
On average, the length of time between the initiation of the intake and assessment process and the
date of program exit for ineligible CAT clients was 48.9 days. Staff time spent with ineligible
families focused on trying to engage them in the program, locating more appropriate services
based upon their needs, and linking them to community-based services. For those who were
eligible, the average length of participation was 40.8 days for short-term clients and 108.1 for longterm ones (not shown). This difference was expected since short-term clients are linked to community-based services rather than being served directly by CAT staff.
129
What types of referrals and services do the CATs provide to eligible clients?
The most frequently provided referral for eligible CAT clients (both short- and long-term clients)
was to counseling (40%), followed by parent training (23%), family conferencing (18%), afterschool programs (14%), and mentoring (11%) (Figure 6.7). Other referrals, provided to ten percent
or less of clients, include anger management, substance abuse treatment, crisis intervention,
juvenile diversion, mediation, psychiatric services, job training, and school-related services (not
shown).
Figure 6.7
TYPES OF REFERRALS FOR CLIENTS
50%
40%
40%
30%
23%
18%
14%
20%
11%
10%
0%
Counseling
Parent Training
Family
Conferencing
After School
Mentoring
Total = 2,940
NOTE:
These statistics are presented only for eligible long-term and short-term
CAT clients.
The types of referrals to CAT clients also varied across sites:
•
For Central, almost one-half (49%) of all clients received a referral to family conferencing;
•
More than one-third (36%) of South Bay’s clients received a referral for parent training, and
more than one-quarter (28%) received one for after school activities; and
•
Sixteen percent (16%) of Coastal’s clients were referred to substance abuse treatment.
130
In addition to providing referrals, a wide variety of services was provided to clients directly through
the CATs (Figure 6.8). The CAT program is designed to provide timely assessment and connection to
services for at-risk youth and their families. Given this mission, it is not surprising that a majority of
families received both intake (66%) and assessment (76%) services, most of which are conducted in
the client’s home. Other services that were provided to or performed on behalf of one-quarter or
more of the clients included phone contact, consultation, records checks, development of a service
plan, tracking the client, and counseling. These services are demonstrative of the extensive case
management provided by the teams. Other services (39%) included, but were not limited to, job
training and mentoring.
Figure 6.8
TYPES OF SERVICES PROVIDED TO CLIENTS
76%
Assessment
57%
Consultation
Counseling
27%
16%
Family Conference
Follow-Up
13%
24%
Home Visits
Intake
66%
Introduction Letter
16%
39%
Other
Parent Training
18%
Phone Contact
66%
Records Check
50%
School Visits
11%
Service Plan
32%
Tracking
28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Total = 4,403
NOTE:
These statistics are presented only for eligible long-term and short-term
CAT clients.
Variation in service delivery did exist across sites and was related to the different needs of families
in these different areas. For example, of the five CAT centers, the East County site provided the
highest percentage of in-home services due to transportation needs across this large geographic
area.
131
What proportion of eligible clients successfully exited the program?
The majority of CAT clients successfully exited the program. Successful was defined as situations in
which both the youth client and family completed the service plan, when the client completed the
plan alone, when the family was supportive though the plan was incomplete, or when the client
was referred for more specific services. Using these criteria, 79 percent of eligible CAT clients were
successful. Figure 6.9 presents the percentage of individuals in each of these success categories. Over
one-half (57%) of clients exited with a referral to another service, almost one-third (30%) completed their service plan, seven percent received a referral for additional services that were needed,
and six percent involved a family that was supportive but failed to complete the service plan.
Figure 6.9
CLIENT STATUS AT SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM EXIT
Family Supporive
6%
Additional Service
Referral
7%
Completed Plan
30%
Referral Made
57%
Total = 3,496
NOTE:
These statistics are presented only for eligible long-term and short-term CAT clients who
had successfully exited the program.
132
The primary reasons why an eligible client did not successfully exit the program was because he/she
did not complete the service plan (41%) or because he/she did not follow-up on a referral that was
provided by the CAT (47%) (Figure 6.10). Others were unsuccessful because they were runaways
(8%) or were arrested (4%).
Figure 6.10
REASONS FOR UNSUCCESSFUL PROGRAM EXIT
Arrested
4%
Runaway
8%
Failed to Complete
Plan
41%
No Referral
47%
Total = 913
NOTE:
These statistics are presented only for long-term and short-term eligible clients who
unsuccessfully exited the program.
133
Sometimes programs are best suited for certain types of clients. While client age was not related to
successful program completion, referral reason was. As Figure 6.11 shows, clients referred for
runaway behavior were least likely to successfully complete the program (58%), while those
referred for a criminal offense (88%), substance abuse (87%), mental health issues (84%), or truancy
(83%) were most likely to be successful.
Figure 6.11
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM EXIT BY INITIAL REASON FOR REFERRAL
100%
88%
87%
83%
90%
80%
78%
78%
77%
84%
80%
70%
58%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Criminal
Offense
Truancy
Issue
Other
Family Issue Runaway
School Issue
Out of
Control
Substance
Abuse
Family
Violence
Mental
Health
Total = 4,347
NOTE:
These statistics are presented only for eligible long-term and short-term CAT clients who
had exited the program.
Approximately nine out of ten (91%) eligible long-term clients, regardless of their completion
status, were enrolled in school or employed at the time of program completion. Since November
1999, data also have been used to compute the average number of school days missed at program
entry and exit. As of June 30, 2001, there were 1,445 cases with school attendance information, and
the number of days missed on average at intake was 3.9, which decreased to 1.3 at exit (not shown).
134
Client Perceptions of CAT Services
4
Was CAT participation associated with an increased awareness of community resources?
Both juveniles and adults report knowing about a greater number of community resources at
program exit, compared to when they began receiving services from the CATs. At program entry,
juveniles were able to identify 2.4 community resources and adults were able to identify 3.3. At
program exit, these averages had increased to 3.7 and 4.5, respectively (not shown).
To determine how many resources clients were aware of, a list of site-specific service providers and
community programs was provided on the client survey. For the purpose of this analysis, this list is
collapsed to eleven categories to aid in summarizing cross-site data:

before- and after-school programs;
community-oriented social services and referral services;
drug and alcohol services;
education and employment;
family support services;
health care services;
individual assistance and aid;
mental health services;
public safety;
shelter and group homes; and
social services on school grounds.
At both intake and exit, respondents were most likely to know about before-/after-school programs
(63% of juveniles and 59% of adults) and community-oriented services (52% of juveniles and 64%
of adults), but the percentages with this knowledge at each time increased for both juveniles (to
77% and 83%, respectively) and adults (to 74% and 88%, respectively) (Figures 6.12 and 6.13).
4
CAT client survey data are presented in Appendix D.
135
Figure 6.12
JUVENILE AWARENESS OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES AT INTAKE AND EXIT
CAT Client Surveys, 1999–2001
83%
77%
90%
80%
63%
70%
51%
52%
60%
37%
50%
37%
31%
40%
21%
30%
22%
18%
12%
20%
10%
0%
School
Community
Drug/Alcohol
Family Support
Intake
Shelter
Health Care
Exit
Total = 717
Figure 6.13
ADULT AWARENESS OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES AT INTAKE AND EXIT
88%
100%
90%
80%
70%
74%
59%
64%
62%
46%
60%
50%
34%
40%
47%
31%
30%
52%
17% 25%
20%
10%
0%
School
Community
Drug/Alcohol Family Support
Intake
Exit
Total = 747-750
136
Shelter
Health Care
Was CAT participation related to improved family communication and problem-solving?
As Figure 6.14 shows, both juvenile and adult CAT clients were less likely to report having poor
communication with their parent/guardian or child at program exit (16% of juveniles and 13% of
adults), compared to program entry (21% of juveniles and 22% of adults). One CAT parent
expressed her feelings about the program and the effect it has had on her relationship with her
son: “It helped me a lot as a mother and it also has helped him. He is now more open to receive
help and is closer to family. The program should be better known and be made more public.”
Figure 6.14
JUVENILE AND ADULT CLIENTS REPORTING POOR COMMUNICATION
AT INTAKE AND EXIT
CAT Client Surveys, 1999-20001
25%
22%
21%
16%
20%
13%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Juvenile
Adult
Intake
Exit
Total = 687-713
137
Was CAT participation related to increased interaction with positive peers?
According to the parents and guardians of CAT clients, after participation in CAT, their child was
more likely to be interacting with peers who are a positive influence (40% at exit, compared to 26%
at intake) (Figure 6.15).
Figure 6.15
ADULT PERCEPTION OF THEIR CHILD’S PEERS AT INTAKE AND EXIT
47%
40%
50%
34%
40%
27%
27%
30%
26%
20%
10%
0%
Negative
Neither
Intake
Positive
Exit
Total = 670-709
NOTE:
Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
How satisfied were CAT clients with the services they received?
Both juvenile and adult clients were satisfied with the services they received through the CATs.
When asked this question on the post survey, 96 percent of adult clients and 94 percent of juvenile
clients answered affirmatively (not shown).
138
Nature and Scope of Service Provider and CAT Interactions
Did service providers in the community know about the CAT component of Breaking
Cycles and did they understand its goals?
Service providers in the community were knowledgeable about the CAT program. In the two most
recent surveys distributed (1999 and 2000), more than nine out of ten respondents reported that
they had heard of the CATs. Most recently, over two-thirds had learned about the CATs through a
CAT staff member, and over one-half had learned about the program through their parent agency,
a presentation, or a flyer or poster (not shown).
In addition, the majority of these service providers demonstrated a clear understanding of the goals
of the CAT program. More than four out of five respondents to the 2000 survey were aware of each
of the goals of the CATs. These included: linking clients to community resources, directing youth
into pro-social behavior, preventing involvement in the criminal justice system, conducting needs
assessments, deterring delinquent behavior, empowering families, and expediting use of community resources (not shown).
The CAT program was designed to assess and serve families with children who have chronic
behavioral problems that place these children at risk of becoming wards of the juvenile court.
Almost all of the 2000 respondents were aware that the CATs serve non-wards and youth between
the ages of 10 through 17. However, there appeared to be some confusion between what needs are
addressed through CAT services and what the actual eligibility criterion are (besides current juvenile
justice system status and age). Specifically, approximately three-quarters or more reported that level
of gang involvement, alcohol/drug involvement, and case management received to date were
eligibility factors, even though those criteria are not formally used. Similarly, less than one-half
(48%) noted that being at-risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system is a screening criterion,
which it is (not shown).
Almost all of those who responded to the 2000 survey accurately described CAT services as
conducting assessments, providing referrals, and doing short-term intervention. In addition, more
than two-thirds were aware that counseling, case management, and educational services are
provided. These numbers remained relatively stable over the last two years (not shown).
Under what circumstances did service providers refer clients to the CATs and what was
their level of satisfaction with the process?
Many service providers in the community refer to CAT and express a high degree of satisfaction
with this referral process. Over three-quarters of service providers reported they referred youth and
families to the CATs. For these 2000 year respondents, the most common referral reasons included
truancy, chronic disobedience, runaway behavior, alcohol and other drug use, other school issues
(e.g., grades), and curfew violations. Over time, issues about school have decreased as a referral
reason, while substance abuse, criminal activity, and curfew violations have increased (not shown).
When asked to describe the positive aspects of referring clients to the CATs, approximately onethird of respondents noted the quick response they received, and another one-quarter were pleased
with the level of knowledge the CATs had regarding referral sources. In addition, over one-half
noted other aspects, including the level of attention and involvement provided to clients, and the
139
variety of options provided to the clients. One respondent stated that “clients are treated with
dignity and can choose to get help from CAT should they desire it. CAT does not push help” (not
shown).
Almost nine out of ten of these respondents noted that they had received feedback from the CATs
on cases that were referred, and almost all of these individuals felt that the feedback was timely as
well as helpful. However, despite this satisfaction, two of five respondents felt the referral process
still could be improved, most frequently noting the need for more staffing and the necessity for
focusing on specific populations, such as runaways or truants (not shown).
One-third of the service providers surveyed in 2000 received referrals from the CATs, a slight
increase from 1998. The most frequently provided services to these CAT clients included family
counseling, individual counseling, mentoring, parenting classes, and gang education (not shown).
According to Probation Department statistics, 4,778 juveniles were committed to Breaking Cycles
between July 1997 and June 2001. Of these, 86 percent had exited the program. Based upon an
estimated family size of 4.0, this means that over 19,000 individuals in the County, including parents
and siblings, were reached through the graduated sanctions component since program inception.
Breaking Cycles Adjudicated Youth Assessment Information
5
What is the level of the instant offense that resulted in assessment and how did the
proportion of youth with a true finding for a felony change over time?
Since the philosophy of Breaking Cycles targets specific offenders, assesses their risks, and determines interventions and sanctions, it is not surprising that fewer Breaking Cycles youth are now
adjudicated with felony-level true findings. Seventy percent (70%) of the adjudicated youth in 2001
and in 2000 had felony-level true findings, compared to a range of 63 percent to 82 percent in the
previous time periods.
In 2001, about one-quarter (24%) of the assessed youth had sustained petitions for misdemeanorlevel offenses, the highest percentage of all six time periods. The range for the previous times was
from 12 percent to 17 percent.
In the peak years of Breaking Cycles (1998, 1999, and 2000), the proportion of youth adjudicated
with probation violations as the highest charge varied from 15 percent to 20 percent, up from one
percent and eight percent in 1996 and 1997. Violations of probation represent a cornerstone of
Breaking Cycles that demonstrates that youth should be held accountable for their behavior with
sanctions, even when they do not commit new offenses.
With the exception of one year (1998), the overall number of youth assessed via the Breaking Cycles
program has declined each year, another positive measure of the efforts of the program.
5
JCIP assessment data are presented in Appendix C.
140
What is the extent of the youths’ prior experience with the criminal justice system and
how did this pattern change for youth assessed between 1996 and 2001?
Juveniles committed to Breaking Cycles entered the justice system at an earlier age compared to
youth assessed in prior years. This may reflect the approach of Breaking Cycles that suggests that
intervention should occur early on.
The percentage of youth assessed that had no prior arrests declined every year since 1996, from 27
percent to 17 percent in 2001. This could suggest that the CATs are being effective in their
prevention efforts because proportionately more adjudicated youth have had contact with the
system. This assumption is corroborated by the proportion of youth with prior arrests that previously did not have formal sanctions. This proportion also has declined over time to nine percent in
2001. In previous years, the percentages ranged from 10 percent to 20 percent.
What proportion of Breaking Cycles youth have an alcohol or drug problem and how did
Review of the level of use and abuse of alcohol over time is difficult to interpret, although the
numbers suggest that there are fewer new alcohol users. In 2001, 18 percent of assessed youth were
perceived to have no known alcohol use. This percent was down from 27 percent in 1996 and 29
percent in 1997. Proportionately, youth assessed as having chronic abuse of alcohol varied little over
time, from 26 percent in 1998 to 31 percent in 2001, with no discernible trend in either direction.
With respect to illicit substances, the data suggest slightly more new users and more chronic users.
In 2001, 58 percent of the youth were assessed as having chronic drug abuse issues, causing
disruption of functioning. This percentage varied from 49 percent in 1996 to 65 percent in 2000. The
proportion of youth assessed to have no known use of drugs was 12 percent in 2001, with 14
percent in 1996 and 14 percent in 1997.
The difficulty in interpretation of incidence and severity of substance abuse is confounded by the
fact that juvenile drug court has expanded over time, as has the treatment capacity for youthful
drug users. This factor also may be more susceptible to subjectivity of the assessors who have
changed over time.
It is worth noting that in 2001, White juveniles were more likely than other juveniles to exhibit
chronic alcohol use, as were females compared to males. This pattern remained for illicit drug use as
well, with 70 percent of the White youth and 67 percent of the females assessed as having chronic
problems. To place these figures in perspective, from 41 percent to 61 percent of the non-Whites
had chronicity issues with illicit drugs, as did 55 percent of the males.
What proportion of Breaking Cycles youth have peer and school problems and how did
The research suggests that youth who are seemingly out of control, do not have positive peers, and
are not committed to school may be at high risk for delinquent behavior. These issues are addressed
with the placement assessment.
141
The percentages of youth perceived to have these issues have increased over the life of Breaking
Cycles, again suggesting that the program is targeting potentially serious offenders. The percentage
of youth with parents viewed as generally effective declined steadily over the time periods to only
four percent in 2001 compared to 12 percent and 17 percent, respectively, in 1996 and 1997. Youth
with parents perceived as having little or no control over them comprised 62 percent of youth
adjudicated in 2001. In 1996, this figure was 55 percent, and in 1997, 33 percent of the parents were
assessed as having little or no control.
Seven percent or less of all youth in each time period from 1996 to 2001 were assessed as having
friends who were a good influence and supportive. The majority of youth (59%) in 2001 had friends
who were negative influences, up from 32 percent and 45 percent (respectively) in 1995 and 1997.
About four in ten youth exhibited severe truancy or behavioral problems associated with school in
2001. This figure varied from 44 percent to 58 percent over the time periods, again demonstrating
that this group of adjudicated youth has serious issues requiring creative and multi-disciplinary
interventions.
What is the current placement recommendation for these youth and how did recommendations change over time?
Over time, proportionately fewer youth were assessed to be placed in the community (at home) and
more youth were recommended to receive long-term placements. This is consistent with the
Breaking Cycles philosophy that recognizes that sanctions are necessary, not only for accountability,
but also as a means to provide appropriate interventions.
Breaking Cycles Customer Satisfaction Questionnaires
How satisfied are parents of adjudicated youth with the Breaking Cycles program?
Parents surveyed by the Probation Department reported extremely high levels of satisfaction with
the Breaking Cycles program. Specifically,

82 percent of parents surveyed were satisfied overall with the services their child and family had
received;
90 percent felt that the staff were courteous, informative, and helpful;
84 percent were satisfied with the family counseling provided;
81 percent were satisfied with the drug and alcohol services provided; and
75 percent were satisfied with the education provided.
When further asked to describe what program component had the greatest impact on the child, the
two most frequent responses over time were Probation Department staff and the counseling staff.
These figures demonstrate the importance of the personal contact and outreach that were done by
Breaking Cycles staff.
142
Do parents of adjudicated youth report positive changes in their child’s behavior after
program participation?
Almost all of the parents surveyed reported some type of positive change in their child’s behavior.
Specific areas of improvement in the youth’s behavior included:

91 percent of parents said that their child’s attitude had improved;
83 percent reported that school performance had improved;
81 percent felt that communication in the family had improved;
76 percent said their child had stopped using alcohol or other drugs; and
64 percent said their child now had relationships with friends that were a better influence.
OVERALL PROGRAM
Service Provider Knowledge of and Commitment to Breaking Cycles
Did service providers in the community know about the Breaking Cycles program and
understand its goals?
Individuals at various levels in local community-based organizations and other groups, including
line-staff, directors, and managers, heard about the Breaking Cycles program. Since 1997, over
three-quarters of respondents said they were aware of the program, with 88 percent in the most
recent survey.
In addition, the majority was familiar with program goals. Over three-quarters of respondents
(79%) to the 2000 survey were able to successfully describe at least one goal of the Breaking Cycles
program. This percentage was approximately equal to the percentage able to do so in the 1997
survey, and represented an increase from the 1998 and 1999 samples. The most commonly recognized goal was “intervention or prevention” with at-risk youth, noted by over one-half of these
respondents, followed by the goals of “reducing delinquency,” implementing the concept of
“graduated sanctions,” “breaking the cycle,” and increasing “community-based involvement” (not
shown).
Did service providers in the community share common goals?
Service providers in the community shared common goals regarding their clients with one another.
Survey respondents were asked to what extent (frequently, seldom, or never) they and the agencies
to which they refer share common goals and outcomes for their clients. The majority (67%) of
respondents to the most recent survey reported that they shared common goals “frequently” with
at least one other agency. In fact, the percentages reporting “frequently” increased for each type of
agency since the first survey in 1997 (ranging from 3 to 29 percentage points). In 2000, goal sharing
“frequently” occurred between community-based agencies, schools, and Probation, and approximately one-half also reported frequent contact with social services, mental health, law enforcement, and drug and alcohol programs (not shown).
143
Did service providers in the community refer clients to one another, collaborate, and
communicate with one another and with the Probation Department?
In addition to sharing goals, local service providers also share case management responsibilities.
Specifically, two-thirds of the 2000 year respondents noted that they frequently share case
management with schools, social service agencies, mental health organizations, drug and alcohol
programs, Probation, law enforcement, and community-based agencies (not shown).
Almost all (94%) of the respondents to the 2000 service provider survey reported that they refer
their clients for other services, and approximately three-quarters (73%) reported that they also
receive referrals from other agencies. These percentages have remained relatively consistent over
the past four years. The most common referral sources, according to respondents, include schools,
law enforcement, Probation, social services, and community-based agencies. The most common
agencies to which the respondents provide referrals are community-based agencies, drug and
alcohol services, social services, and mental health services. One-half (50%) reported that they have
a formal mechanism for following up with referrals they make for their clients, and 41 percent
reported having a formal mechanism for providing client feedback to their referral sources (not
shown).
The majority of service providers who responded to the 2000 survey reported that interaction
occurred between both line-staff and management of their organization and staff and management at a variety of other organizations. Specifically, over two-thirds reported interacting with
community-based agencies, schools, and law enforcement, and approximately one-half or more
interacted with Probation, social services, mental health, and drug and alcohol services. Since the
first survey was conducted, the percentages for those reporting contact with Probation, mental
health services, drug and alcohol services, and law enforcement increased (not shown).
A high percentage of service providers also reported having mechanisms in place that allowed them
to share client information with one another. For example, 56 percent had signed a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with at least one agency which outlined what type of information they
could share, and 65 percent shared a common release of information form with other agencies.
Compared to the first survey in 1997, 2000 respondents were more likely to be sharing an MOU with
schools, law enforcement, Probation, drug and alcohol services, as well as mental health services. In
addition, a greater percentage reported sharing a common release of information form with each
type of agency in 2000, compared to 1997 (not shown).
Because one of the goals of the Breaking Cycles program is to utilize community resources to
address the needs of juvenile delinquents, as well as in preventing future delinquency for at-risk
children, a number of questions were included on the service provider survey regarding interaction
with the Probation Department. In 2000, over two-thirds of those surveyed reported having contact
with Probation Department staff, either on a weekly or more frequent basis (56%) or a couple of
times per month (14%). These levels of contact were impressive given that almost one-half (47%)
reported that less than ten percent of their clients are currently under Probation supervision. Over
time, a greater proportion reported weekly or more frequent contact, despite the fact that their
number of clients on probation had not increased (not shown).
144
Contact with Probation usually involved phone calls (42%) or face-to-face interactions (38%) with
the primary purpose to discuss specific problems (65%). Since 1997, the percentage reporting
written contact decreased from 49 percent to eight percent. Approximately two-thirds of the most
recent sample of service providers reported that they expected their level of contact with Probation
to increase in the future, which was the highest percentage across all four surveys (not shown).
What barriers to multi-agency collaboration existed in the community?
Fewer barriers to multi-agency collaboration appeared to exist in 2000, compared to three years
prior. The most frequently reported problems noted in the most recent survey included misunderstanding regarding roles and responsibilities, limited capacity to track families’ progress due to lack
of automation, and an unwillingness to share information due to confidentiality. Less than two out
of five felt that duplication of services, inadequate staff training, and an unwillingness to share case
management were problems (not shown).
SUMMARY
Results of the process evaluation for the prevention and graduated sanctions components and the
overall program suggest that the project was implemented as planned, that interagency collaboration occurred, and that the target population was reached. CATs were fully staffed by highly
trained individuals who were dedicated to educating potential referral sources about their
program. At the same time, they were committed to following through with referral sources and
engaging both long-term and short-term clients to enable them to obtain the assistance they need.
In terms of service provision, interventions were targeted to meet the needs of the particular
individuals and an overwhelming majority of clients reported satisfaction with the assistance they
received. Some measures of program success included self-reported improvements in family
functioning and a high program completion rate. Analysis of assessments conducted with Breaking
Cycles youth revealed that the graduated sanctions component was targeting appropriate youth for
intervention and that these youth require the intensive types of interventions and sanctions
employed by the program. In addition, graduated sanctions customer satisfaction questionnaires
with parents revealed that the majority were extremely pleased with the services their child
received as well as the positive changes that were made as a result of the Breaking Cycles program.
145
(Insert blank page)
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Breaking Cycles works. The significant changes implemented in San Diego County in the past
several years by the Probation Department and their partners have already resulted in measurable
outcomes that show that prevention and the concept of graduated sanctions are making a
difference in the region. It also should be noted that the full effect of these changes has probably
not yet been realized.
•
Long-term CAT clients are less likely to be referred to Probation compared to other at-risk
juveniles.
•
Long-term CAT clients are less likely to use alcohol and drugs after program participation.
•
Compared to other at-risk juveniles, long-term CAT clients are more likely to perform better in
school in the one year following program participation.
•
The CATs were staffed with highly trained individuals since the program began.
•
The CATs provided a great deal of outreach to community members to educate them about the
services available through the Breaking Cycles prevention component.
•
The CATs provided services countywide to a large number of individuals in the target population.
•
The CATs provided services countywide and were responsive to the varied needs of the
communities they served.
•
The vast majority of eligible clients successfully exited the CAT program and demonstrated
positive behavior in such areas as school attendance and refraining from delinquency.
•
CAT clients reported a high degree of satisfaction with the services they received, as well as
increased knowledge about community resources.
•
Service providers were knowledgeable about the services of the CATs and reported satisfaction
with the referral process.
149
•
Despite being more at-risk, youth committed to Breaking Cycles, regardless of commitment
length, are less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system in the follow-up period.
•
Completing a Breaking Cycles commitment is related to less alcohol and drug use in follow-up.
•
Breaking Cycles youth are more likely to be enrolled in school during follow-up.
•
Youth committed to Breaking Cycles for 240 or 365 days are less likely to have an out-of-county
placement in the year following their commitment.
•
Breaking Cycles is targeting appropriate youth for intervention – youth that require the
intensive types of interventions and sanctions employed by the program.
•
Breaking Cycles families report extremely high levels of satisfaction with the program, as well as
positive behavior changes following participation.
Overall Program
•
Systemwide indicators suggest that the Breaking Cycles philosophy may already have had a
positive impact on our community.
•
San Diego service providers are knowledgeable about Breaking Cycles and committed to
collaboration with community partners.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue to Conduct Outreach and Education
Because the philosophy of graduated sanctions differs greatly from the traditional way of managing wards, it is important that efforts continue to educate all Probation Department staff about the
strategy and to get their buy-in from the beginning. While system integration has been challenging
to Breaking Cycles staff, they are encouraged to continue their efforts to educate their counterparts
about graduated sanctions and how they fit into Probation’s mission as a whole.
Continue to Use Intensive Efforts to Engage Parents
During the course of the evaluation period, the Probation Department placed a greater emphasis
on supporting and strengthening parents. As a result of these efforts, parent involvement increased
from approximately one in five parents to four out of five, according to Probation staff. This success
can be attributed in part to the hard work of the parent advocate. These efforts should continue in
the future.
150
Invest in a More Reliable Database to Track Prevention Statistics
The prevention component of Breaking Cycles should invest in a more reliable database that can be
used to track statistics for the numerous youth and families they assist countywide. In addition, ongoing training on the system should be offered to ensure it is being used reliably across sites and by
staff who will inevitably turn over.
Expand the Graduated Sanctions Program
The graduated sanctions component of Breaking Cycles should be expanded both geographically
and in terms of the types of services it currently offers. Probation Department staff have identified a
need for day treatment services in the South Bay area and for a day reporting center in Central San
Diego. In addition, conducting better testing for youth with educational disabilities, providing more
mental health services for juveniles and their families, and continuing to offer alcohol and drug
counseling and treatment would help address underlying risks. Finally, stronger job development,
life skills, and parent training programs would provide beneficial skills to youth as they exit the
program.
Provide Additional Aftercare Services to Youth Committed to Breaking Cycles for
150 Days
Results from the impact evaluation suggest that youth committed to Breaking Cycles for a period of
150 days did not do as well in follow-up as those committed to the programs for 240 or 365 days.
Because youth who received a Breaking Cycles commitment for these lengths of time are eligible for
the same number of incarceration days, the only treatment plan difference between them is the
number of days of aftercare they receive, either in the community, through day treatment, or at
home. Program staff members feel that youth committed for 150 days could have benefited from
more intensive services that would have been available with additional aftercare services.
Continue to Evaluate Outcomes
Because programs are dynamic, it is important that outcome measures continue to be collected.
Understanding the characteristics of youth entering a program, the types of services they are
receiving, and the outcomes that result can provide important feedback to program staff regarding
what is working and what could be improved.
151
(Insert blank page)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
STAFFING, TRAINING,
AND OUTREACH TABLES
Table A1
CURRENT STAFFING LEVEL
San Diego County Community Assessment Teams, June 2001
Coordinator
Probation officer
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
4.00
Team leader 2
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
Clinical supervisor
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
Counselor
3.00
0.50
0.00
2.00
3.00
8.50
Full time
3.00
5.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
20.00
Part time
2.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
4.00
Intake specialist
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.50
Clerical
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
4.50
Volunteer
1.50
0.50
4.00
4.00
1.00
11.00
Other 3
0.00
4.50
0.00
1.50
0.00
6.00
TOTAL POSITIONS
13.50
14.00
4.50
11.50
16.00
59.50
OPEN POSITIONS
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
Case manager
1
North County Coastal and Inland sites share the same probation officer.
2
Includes CAT supervisor.
3
Other staff include: four full-time administrative and one part-time administrative positions at
South Bay, and one part-time after-hours crisis response person and one full-time YCTIS director
at Inland.
157
Table A2
STAFF TRAINING HOURS BY TYPE, 1998
San Diego County Community Assessment Teams
Central
Anger management
Child abuse
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
7
0
0
1
0
1
Total
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
CBO presentation
0
11
1
16
4
32
Computer training
21
17
7
2
19
66
4
3
0
8
29
44
18
5
3
36
11
73
Counseling
County agency presentation
Crisis intervention
0
3
0
0
0
3
Domestic violence
2
6
0
0
4
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gang
1
Interview skills
0
0
4
0
8
12
Mediation
0
6
0
0
0
6
Mental health
0
7
0
2
0
9
Risk and resiliency
60
40
40
25
30
195
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
15
2
2
16
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
28
4
30
6
80
14
53
21
20
33
141
137
201
141
161
722
Substance abuse
Team building
Time management
1
Wrap-around services
Other training topics
TOTAL
2
82
1
Tracking this type of training was initiated in 1999.
2
Other includes training on the following subjects: child abuse, substance abuse, relapse, gang, collaborative,
interagency interfacing, strategic planning, phone therapy, cultural diversity, and safety for home visits.
158
Table A3
Central
Anger management
Child abuse
1
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
2
18
0
0
1
21
4
16
1
2
1
24
CBO presentation
1
7
2
4
8
22
Computer training
31
16
22
6
12
87
Counseling
8
25
12
5
64
114
1
11
1
0
4
17
Crisis intervention
0
0
3
10
4
17
Domestic violence
8
26
2
40
22
98
Gang1
0
29
7
0
8
44
Interview skills
0
0
3
5
6
14
Mediation
0
0
0
0
2
2
Mental health
2
5
1
0
23
31
Risk and resiliency
33
2
8
2
12
57
1
0
8
6
19
21
54
Team building
8
33
11
9
13
74
Time management 1
0
2
1
0
4
7
2
19
11
16
27
75
79
191
39
53
130
492
179
408
130
171
362
1,250
Substance abuse
TOTAL
1
2
2
Tracking of this specfic training category began in January 1999. Prior to that time, this category was grouped
with "other training topics."
Other includes training on the following subjects: relapse, gang, trauma, interagency interfacing, strategic
planning, phone therapy, cultural diversity, safety for home visits, ADHD, juvenile laws, grant writing, treating
resistant clients, and safe and drug free schools.
159
Table A4
Central
Anger management
Child abuse
10
1
CBO presentation
South Bay
0
Coastal
Inland
17
0
East County
Total
0
27
31
9
5
2
0
47
5
14
19
0
26
64
Computer training
11
0
10
1
0
22
Counseling
10
0
23
13
46
92
1
0
22
0
25
48
Crisis intervention
0
42
21
1
8
72
Domestic violence
8
62
8
19
7
104
Gang 1
0
6
3
4
8
21
Interview skills
0
6
6
117
0
129
Mediation
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mental health
33
24
17
8
22
104
Risk and resiliency
4
3
5
0
0
12
1
3
0
5
0
10
18
14
42
9
6
32
103
0
0
3
0
0
3
25
44
24
3
42
138
54
107
118
108
98
485
209
359
315
282
324
1,489
Substance abuse
Team building
Time management 1
TOTAL
1
2
2
Tracking of this specfic training category began in January 1999. Prior to that time, this category was grouped with
"other training topics."
Other includes training on the following subjects: relapse, gang, trauma, interagency interfacing, strategic planning,
phone therapy, cultural diversity, safety for home visits, ADHD, juvenile laws, grant writing, treating resistant clients,
and safe and drug free schools.
160
Table A5
Central
Anger management
Child abuse
1
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
0
0
0
0
East County
Total
0
0
8
11
10
2
5
36
CBO presentation
5
0
0
0
12
17
Computer training
18
4
10
0
7
39
Counseling
8
0
16
5
5
34
2
0
0
0
0
2
Crisis intervention
0
0
0
0
6
6
Domestic violence
0
72
8
0
0
80
Gang 1
0
21
0
8
0
29
Interview skills
0
13
1
8
0
22
Mediation
0
3
0
0
1
4
Mental health
8
19
7
6
3
43
Risk and resiliency
2
0
0
0
6
8
1
1
0
0
41
0
42
13
0
2
0
4
19
0
0
22
0
0
22
0
10
5
1
1
17
12
54
37
45
56
204
77
207
118
116
106
624
Substance abuse
Team building
Time management 1
TOTAL
2
1
2
Other includes training on the following subjects: immigration policy, legal liabilities, probation/new employee
training, vicarious training, CAT policies and procedures, Healthy Families, Reflections, SDG&E energy saving tips,
diversity training, RDPO orientation and training, school terrorism, case management, mentoring, law and ethics,
SARB law and court procedures, human sexuality, gay and lesbian sensitivity, PTSD, leadership/supervision skills,
parenting, juvenile law, ADHD youth, and cultural competency.
161
Table A6
STAFF TRAINING HOURS BY TYPE, 1998-2001
Central
Anger management
Child abuse
1
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
43
36
16
6
6
107
11
32
22
20
50
135
CBO presentation
81
37
49
9
38
214
Computer training
30
28
51
31
144
284
Counseling
22
16
26
36
40
140
0
45
24
11
18
98
Crisis intervention
18
166
18
59
33
294
Domestic violence
0
56
10
12
16
94
0
19
14
130
14
177
Gang
1
Interview skills
0
9
0
0
3
12
Mediation
43
55
25
16
48
187
Mental health
99
45
53
27
48
272
Risk and resiliency
4
8
11
60
31
114
1
41
90
24
17
65
237
Substance abuse
Team building
Time management 1
TOTAL
2
0
2
26
0
4
32
39
101
44
50
76
310
159
405
215
226
317
1,322
602
1,175
645
710
953
4,085
1,192
2,325
1,273
1,420
1,904
8,114
1
2
See individual years' tables for training topics included under "Other."
162
Table A7
NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED BY SITE
San Diego County Community Assessment Teams, 19981
Central
Law Enforcement Officers
78
SARB Coordinators
Elementary Principal/Vice
Middle School Principals/Vice
High School Principals/Vice
Other School Administrators
Probation Intake Officers
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
59
35
63
66
301
32
6
86
32
9
165
29
17
11
0
4
61
35
5
50
8
19
117
9
5
20
5
15
54
12
106
125
0
24
267
6
0
0
0
37
43
Parent-Teacher Association
36
0
37
0
10
83
Business Community
86
5
17
0
75
183
Student Study Teams
Collaboratives
Information and referral 2
Elected officials
2
23
8
0
22
8
61
319
117
115
345
58
954
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other 3
125
6
80
196
47
454
Total
790
334
576
671
372
2,743
1
Outreaching tracking began at different times during 1998. Central began in June, South Bay began in April, Coastal began
in May, Inland began in April, and East County began in June.
2
Tracking of these specific types of outreach did not begin until 1999.
3
Other includes meetings with Girl Scout leaders, the Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT), Critical Hours and Head
Start program staff, and local church leaders.
163
Table A8
Central
52
SARB Coordinators
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
46
5
8
364
475
26
0
345
68
85
524
1
84
10
2
57
154
1
0
13
0
35
49
2
14
10
0
119
145
1
78
7
0
125
211
28
0
10
47
26
111
0
0
20
0
21
41
Business Community
0
0
227
0
452
679
Student Study Teams
Collaboratives
Information and referral
Elected officials
Other 1
Total
1
23
8
0
30
140
201
543
195
45
533
1,847
3,163
34
2
11
146
132
325
21
0
0
0
42
63
418
140
1,273
395
1,712
3,938
1,150
567
1,976
1,229
5,157
10,079
Other includes meetings with San Diego County prosecutors, San Diego County Parks and Recreation officials, Parent Support
Groups at local high schools, Boy Scout Explorers, the Advisory Group to the Commission on Youth and Families, and Girls'
Group Coalition, as well as presentations at the Vista Town Site Resource Fair, California State University at San Marcos Open
House, Community Truancy Forum, North County Drug and Alcohol Recovery Celebration, and Career Day at Mountain
Empire High School.
164
Table A9
Central
SARB Coordinators
253
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
332
Total
153
227
4
969
66
60
509
208
90
933
6
160
8
0
36
210
16
0
26
0
64
106
20
60
40
0
118
238
312
180
103
0
197
792
14
10
29
20
10
83
0
23
0
0
11
34
Business Community
1
50
78
0
260
389
Student Study Teams
20
0
10
0
83
113
Collaboratives
247
22
125
31
1,862
2,287
100
10
2
0
363
475
18
3
1
0
47
69
1,031
292
109
613
1,926
3,971
2,104
1,023
1,267
876
5,399
10,669
Elected officials
Other
Total
1
1
Other includes presentations at Parent/Youth Advisory Board meetings, the Escondido Juvenile Incident Committee, Juvenile
Hall, Children's Disability Council, International Friendship Festival, and the Celebrate the Family Festival.
165
Table A10
Central
301
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
64
100
61
East County
Total
264
790
SARB Coordinators
31
9
753
296
77
1,166
Elementary Principals/Vice
15
77
0
4
151
247
6
0
92
0
116
214
2
1
0
1
144
148
6
220
1,046
2
133
1,407
3
0
1
0
18
22
0
0
0
212
15
227
Business Community
0
46
0
231
24
301
Student Study Teams
Collaboratives
Information and Referral
Elected Officials
12
0
0
0
30
42
423
22
1,051
94
1,378
2,968
54
500
90
35
327
1,006
1
0
0
0
72
73
Other 1
2,517
353
1,620
549
521
5,560
Total
3,371
1,292
4,753
1,485
3,270
14,171
1
Other includes forums to discuss CPA 2000, funding and gap analysis, Partners for Peace, Southwestern College, CPS, SBCS
Shelter Team, Anti-Defamation League, Headstart, YMCA, ESL classes, church meeting, Lincoln Middle School Outreach,
Donovan Prison CROP, VMS/books special event, youth enrichment services, job fairs/career days, interagency planning,
Children's Youth Family Network presentation, town meeting at Lincoln Elementary, Boys/Girls Clubs, Salvation Army
Advisory Board, truancy sweep, Santee Opportunity School, crisis intervention and miscellaneous services following
Santee school shooting, Sheriff's "Every 15 Minutes Program" at Mountain Empire, presentation to Board of Supervisors,
parenting class for Sheriff's mentoring program, Court TV, and Child Coalition of East County planning meeting.
166
Table A11
San Diego County Community Assessment Teams, 1998 - 2001
Central
South Bay
Coastal
SARB Coordinators
51
338
29
6
248
672
58
5
181
8
234
486
261
Total
75
604
East County
155
1,693
Inland
2,788
33
80
70
6
396
585
331
584
1,281
2
479
2,677
51
10
40
67
91
259
36
23
57
212
57
385
87
101
322
231
811
1,552
Business Community
78
16
10
52
261
417
Student Study Teams
1,532
356
1,336
1,003
5,145
9,372
188
512
103
181
822
1,806
Collaboratives
40
3
1
0
161
205
Elected officials
4,091
791
3,082
1,753
4,206
13,923
Other 1
7,415
3,216
8,572
4,261
14,198
37,662
14,146
6,110
16,777
8,386
27,370
72,789
Total
1
See individual years' tables for contacts included under "Other."
167
blank page
APPENDIX B
CLIENT TABLES
Table B1
TOTAL REFERRALS AND AVERAGE CLIENT FAMILY SIZE
1
San Diego County Community Assessment Teams, March 1998 - June 2001
Total Referrals (Primary Clients)
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
1,501
2,601
1,339
1,093
1,258
7,792
4.7
4.4
4.3
3.5
3.8
4.1
7,055
11,444
5,758
3,826
Average Family Size
TOTAL
2
4,780
31,947
1
These statistics are presented for all primary clients referred to the CATs, regardless of their eligibility status.
2
To estimate the total number of clients, the average family size is applied to the number of primary clients referred.
NOTE: Cases with missing information are not included.
Table B2
EXITED VERSUS CONTINUING SERVICES
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
1,204
2,366
1,126
Exited
79%
91%
Still receiving services
21%
1,524
Total Terminated
TOTAL
1
Inland
East County
Total
929
1,059
6,684
84%
89%
84%
85%
9%
16%
11%
16%
15%
2,609
1,342
1,109
1,260
7,844
171
Table B3
CLIENT AGE
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
Under 10 years of age
11%
11%
9%
6%
4%
9%
10 - 12 years of age
24%
25%
26%
22%
26%
25%
33%
31%
31%
29%
36%
32%
32%
33%
34%
41%
33%
34%
18 years of age
<1%
<1%
<1%
2%
<1%
1%
Mean Age of Primary Clients
13.1
13.1
13.2
13.7
13.5
13.2
1,501
2,601
1,339
1,093
1,258
7,792
TOTAL
1
East County
Total
NOTES: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. Cases with missing information are not included.
Table B4
CLIENT GENDER 1
Central
South Bay
Male
59%
59%
62%
62%
58%
60%
Female
41%
41%
38%
38%
42%
40%
TOTAL
1,524
2,609
1,342
1,109
1,260
7,844
1
Coastal
Inland
East County
These statistics are presented for all primary clients referred to the CATs, regardless of eligibility status.
172
Total
Table B5
CLIENT ETHNICITY
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
16%
33%
47%
East County
Total
White
15%
Black
19%
5%
10%
5%
6%
9%
Hispanic
44%
74%
46%
42%
23%
51%
Asian
15%
2%
1%
1%
1%
4%
Other
8%
3%
9%
5%
9%
6%
1,493
2,422
1,338
1,076
1,201
7,530
TOTAL
1
62%
30%
Table B6
CLIENT PRIMARY LANGUAGE
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
57%
59%
71%
82%
90%
69%
Spanish
28%
40%
29%
17%
10%
28%
Spanish/English
<1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
Other
15%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1%
3%
1,507
2,437
1,338
1,087
1,249
7,618
No
56%
93%
71%
80%
90%
80%
Yes
44%
7%
29%
20%
10%
20%
1,515
2,575
1,338
1,109
1,251
7,788
Primary Language
English
TOTAL
Interpreter Required
TOTAL
2
1
2
Percentages are based upon multiple responses. in some cases, both youth and parent required an interpreter.
173
Table B7
CLIENT EDUCATIONAL LEVEL 1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
Elementary school
18%
18%
17%
11%
10%
16%
Middle school
45%
38%
38%
36%
46%
41%
High school
36%
42%
44%
53%
44%
42%
2
1%
2%
<1%
0%
1%
TOTAL
1,398
2,335
1,218
7,193
Other
1,324
<1%
918
1
2
"Other" includes pre-school and kindergarten.
Table B8
CASES RECEIVED BY REFERRAL REASON 1
Central
Criminal offense
Truancy issue
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
7%
2%
4%
10%
3%
5%
10%
11%
38%
4%
5%
14%
Other school issue
20%
20%
18%
28%
19%
21%
Family issue
29%
47%
27%
39%
39%
38%
5%
7%
2%
1%
3%
4%
Runaway
Out of control
22%
8%
4%
8%
16%
11%
Substance abuse
2%
2%
3%
6%
4%
3%
Family violence
2%
1%
1%
0%
2%
1%
Mental health
4%
2%
2%
4%
8%
4%
1,451
2,568
1,335
1,099
1,243
7,696
TOTAL
1
174
Table B9
CASES RECEIVED BY REFERRAL SOURCE
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County Total
Self - Family
40%
16%
16%
35%
28%
25%
Self - Youth
<1%
2%
<1%
5%
0%
1%
Health and Human Services Agency/CPS
2%
7%
12%
4%
3%
6%
Juvenile Justice/Probation Officers
6%
1%
3%
11%
6%
5%
Court/Department A
4%
<1%
1%
4%
1%
2%
Law Enforcement
20%
26%
4%
10%
15%
17%
School/School Attendance Review Board
18%
27%
58%
26%
36%
32%
Other
10%
20%
5%
5%
12%
12%
TOTAL
1,454
2,557
1,336
1,107
1,243
7,697
1
Table B10
PRIMARY CLIENTS ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICES
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
Eligible
55%
58%
72%
91%
63%
65%
Ineligible
45%
42%
28%
9%
37%
35%
1,204
2,366
1,126
986
1,059
6,741
TOTAL
1
These statistics are presented for all primary clients who have exited the program.
175
Table B11
APPROPRIATE CLIENT SERVICE TYPE
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
Short-Term
75%
45%
80%
65%
43%
60%
Long-Term
25%
55%
20%
35%
57%
40%
TOTAL
658
1,376
815
895
665
4,409
1
These statistics are presented only for eligible clients referred to the CATs (short-term and long-term) who exited the
program.
Table B12
CASE STATUS AT PROGRAM EXIT FOR NOT APPROPRIATE/INELIGIBLE CLIENTS
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Declined services
69%
78%
Ineligible/Ward
11%
6%
Unable to locate
14%
14%
East County
Total
62%
75%
62%
71%
6%
10%
8%
7%
27%
14%
29%
18%
Other CAT
2%
2%
1%
0%
1%
2%
Mental health needs
4%
1%
4%
1%
1%
2%
546
990
311
91
394
2,332
TOTAL
1
Inland
These statistics are presented for primary clients referred to the CATs who were determined ineligible.
176
Table B13
AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY IN PROGRAM, BY TYPE OF CLIENT 1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
Average Days
88.3
56.3
39.1
83.6
80.9
66.6
TOTAL
541
1,095
815
736
659
3,846
Average Days
60.5
50.4
22.7
37.6
42.1
40.8
TOTAL
395
541
656
491
286
2,369
164.4
62.1
106.7
175.6
110.7
108.1
145
554
159
245
373
1,476
Average Days
63.9
30.5
49.2
152.7
36.3
48.9
TOTAL
440
599
311
89
385
1,824
Eligible Clients
2
Short-Term
Long-Term
3
4
Average Days
TOTAL
Ineligible Clients
5
1
These statistics are presented for all primary clients who have exited the program.
2
Incomplete or inaccurate data entry skewed the means for average length of stay for eligible/appropriate clients at
South Bay, Inland, and East County sites. The total region figure is affected as well.
3
Incomplete or inaccurate data entry skewed the means for average length of stay for short-term clients at the South Bay
site. The total region figure is affected as well.
4
Incomplete or inaccurate data entry skewed the means for average length of stay for eligible/appropriate long-term
clients at all sites. The total region figure is affected as well.
5
Incomplete or inaccurate data entry at each site skewed the means for average length of stay for clients deemed to be
not appropriate/ineligible to receive services. The total region figure is affected as well.
177
Table B14
AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENTS, BY TYPE OF CLIENT 1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
9.2
5.3
4.0
-0.4
-0.5
3.1
134
542
143
245
368
1,432
27.2
18.5
9.0
8.2
9.7
13.1
80
245
62
237
312
936
18.1
23.2
9.1
24.7
13.8
18.8
95
329
55
115
299
893
Initiation of Risk
and Resiliency
2
Average Days
TOTAL
Completion of
Family Assessment
Average Days
TOTAL
3
Completion of
Service Plan
4
Average Days
TOTAL
1
These statistics are presented for all eligible, long-term clients who have exited the program.
2
Incomplete or inaccurate data entry skewed the means for average number of days to initiation of the Risk and Resiliency
assessment for eligible/appropriate long-term clients at the Central, South Bay, Inland, and East County sites. The total
region figure is affected as well.
3
Incomplete or inaccurate data entry skewed the means for average number of days to completion of Family Risk Assessment
for eligible/appropriate long-term clients at the South Bay, Inland, and East County sites.The total region figure is affected
as well.
4
Incomplete or inaccurate data entry skewed the means for average number of days to completion of Service Plan for
eligible/appropriate long-term clients at the South Bay, Inland, and East County sites. The total region figure is affected
as well.
178
Table B15
ELIGIBLE CLIENTS WHO RECEIVED REFERRALS OR SERVICES
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
Received Referrals
54%
61%
94%
45%
86%
69%
Received Services
99%
99%
100%
93%
100%
100%
TOTAL
660
1,376
815
895
668
4,409
1
These statistics are presented only for eligible clients CATs (short-term and long-term) who exited the program.
179
Table B16
REFERRALS MADE TO OUTSIDE AGENCIES BY TYPE 1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
After School/Weekend
7%
28%
8%
Anger Management
4%
9%
Assessment
0%
1%
Inland
East County
Total
5%
16%
14%
8%
6%
6%
7%
0%
1%
0%
<1%
Community Service
1%
1%
3%
<1%
1%
1%
Consultation/Case Management
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
Counseling-Adult
1%
6%
2%
<1%
5%
3%
Counseling-Youth
15%
40%
34%
41%
45%
36%
CPS Report
1%
1%
1%
0%
2%
1%
Crisis Intervention
3%
4%
1%
0%
8%
4%
Family Conference
49%
12%
13%
10%
20%
18%
Female Programming
0%
4%
3%
1%
8%
4%
Follow-Up
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
Gang Education
1%
<1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
Home Visits
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
<1%
Intake
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Job Training
8%
11%
1%
<1%
2%
5%
Juvenile Diversion
5%
3%
3%
7%
4%
4%
Letter Requesting Involvement
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Limited Phone Contact
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
6%
<1%
<1%
5%
3%
Mediation
2%
4%
1%
<1%
9%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Male Programming
Mentoring
No Show
Parent Training
Pregnancy Prevention/Care
Probation
Psychiatric-Adult
17%
19%
4%
6%
7%
11%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
11%
36%
24%
0%
24%
23%
1%
1%
<1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
<1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
Psychiatric-Youth
4%
2%
3%
3%
5%
3%
Records Check
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
Referral
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Reopen Closed Case
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
<1%
1%
0%
0%
<1%
School
SARB
3%
11%
1%
0%
1%
4%
School Visits
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Service Plan
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Substance Abuse Treatment-Adult
1%
2%
1%
0%
2%
1%
Substance Abuse Treatment-Youth
1%
4%
15%
10%
8%
8%
Termination
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Tracking
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Tutoring
1%
17%
2%
0%
2%
6%
357
834
764
411
574
2,940
TOTAL
1
These statistics are presented only for eligible clients (short-term and long-term).
NOTES: Clients can receive multiple services. Cases with missing information are not included.
180
Table B17
SERVICES PROVIDED BY TYPE 1
Central
After School/Weekend
Anger Management
6%
South Bay
Coastal
8%
3%
Inland
2%
East County
6%
Total
5%
6%
2%
1%
9%
4%
4%
Assessment
54%
73%
69%
86%
97%
76%
Community Service
<1%
<1%
1%
0%
2%
1%
Consultation/Case Management
43%
65%
64%
49%
57%
57%
Counseling-Adult
6%
13%
3%
1%
32%
11%
Counseling-Youth
21%
14%
8%
9%
37%
16%
CPS Report
3%
2%
2%
3%
4%
3%
Crisis Intervention
9%
6%
2%
2%
11%
6%
Family Conference
16%
16%
19%
4%
19%
23%
Female Programming
5%
2%
1%
6%
6%
4%
Follow-Up
4%
4%
7%
20%
38%
13%
1%
1%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
Home Visits
Gang Education
33%
24%
5%
3%
65%
24%
Intake
71%
56%
92%
29%
97%
66%
3%
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
Juvenile Diversion
5%
<1%
13%
2%
1%
4%
Letter Requesting Involvement
9%
29%
13%
6%
12%
16%
61%
78%
60%
49%
77%
66%
1%
1%
<1%
2%
3%
1%
Job Training
Limited Phone Contact
Male Programming
Medi-Cal Approved
1%
1%
<1%
1%
<1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
3%
1%
1%
Mediation
4%
4%
1%
3%
8%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medi-Cal Assessment
Mentoring
3%
1%
1%
4%
3%
2%
12%
25%
10%
14%
5%
15%
Parent Training
15%
27%
6%
2%
40%
18%
Pregnancy Prevention/Care
<1%
1%
<1%
<1%
2%
1%
No Show
Probation
<1%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
<1%
Psychiatric-Adult
<1%
<1%
<1%
0%
0%
<1%
Psychiatric-Youth
<1%
1%
<1%
2%
0%
1%
Records Check
75%
68%
42%
32%
22%
50%
Reopen Closed Case
SARB
School
2%
6%
6%
2%
9%
5%
<1%
2%
10%
<1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
School Visits
15%
14%
12%
1%
12%
11%
Service Plan
20%
41%
10%
29%
54%
32%
Substance Abuse Treatment-Adult
<1%
1%
<1%
0%
1%
<1%
Substance Abuse Treatment-Youth
<1%
2%
2%
5%
4%
3%
Termination
94%
97%
99%
100%
96%
97%
Tracking
25%
41%
14%
32%
18%
28%
Tutoring
1%
2%
<1%
3%
0%
2%
656
1,369
815
895
668
4,403
TOTAL
1
These statistics are presented only for eligible clients (short-term and long-term) who have exited the program.
NOTES: Clients can receive multiple services. Cases with missing information are not included.
181
Table B18
PROPORTIONS OF CLIENTS COMPLETING DIFFERENT TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS 1
Goal
Central South Bay Coastal
Inland East County
Total
Including Time Constraints
100%
87%
90%
100%
87%
98%
92%
Risk and Resiliency Assessment
within 3 Days
45%
28%
25%
42%
53%
37%
35%
Bruner Family Assessment
within 15 Days
60%
16%
25%
32%
77%
68%
44%
Service Plan within 15 Days
90%
28%
29%
28%
22%
52%
33%
n/a
87%
97%
90%
95%
98%
95%
Initial Screening and Assessment
Excluding Time Limits
Risk and Resiliency Assessment
Bruner Family Assessment
n/a
52%
44%
39%
93%
84%
63%
Service Plan
n/a
61%
59%
35%
49%
80%
60%
n/a
166
615
159
315
379
TOTAL
1
1,634
These statistics are presented only for eligible long-term clients.
NOTES: Incomplete or inaccurate client intake and exit date data are causing the percentages on this table to be skewed.
Cases with missing information are not included.
Table B19
PROPORTION OF CLIENTS WITH NO NEW REFERRALS TO PROBATION
No Referrals
TOTAL
1
Goal
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
95%
98%
99%
99%
100%
99%
99%
660
1,376
815
895
668
4,414
182
Table B20
CASE STATUS AT PROGRAM EXIT FOR ELIGIBLE CLIENTS
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland East County
Total
Client & Family Completed Plan
16%
45%
8%
32%
32%
27%
Client Completed Referral
61%
29%
83%
64%
44%
57%
Client Completed Plan w/o Family
4%
4%
1%
0%
8%
3%
Family Supportive but
No Plan Completion
4%
9%
1%
1%
14%
6%
14%
13%
6%
2%
2%
7%
543
845
789
742
577
3,496
Successful
Referred for More Specific Services
Total Successful
Unsuccessful
No Service Plan Completion
28%
49%
27%
30%
34%
41%
No Referral Completion
47%
43%
46%
67%
35%
47%
Runaway
16%
5%
4%
1%
26%
8%
Client Arrested w/True Finding
10%
3%
23%
1%
5%
4%
Total Unsuccessful
115
531
26
153
88
913
TOTAL
658
1,376
815
895
665
4,409
1
183
Table B21
PROPORTION OF SUCCESSFUL CLIENTS BY REFERRAL REASON
1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
Criminal Offense
89%
58%
98%
95%
89%
Truancy Issue
80%
58%
96%
79%
79%
83%
Other School Issue
84%
61%
99%
83%
94%
80%
Family Issue
81%
67%
98%
78%
88%
78%
Runaway
77%
37%
87%
88%
79%
58%
Out of Control
79%
61%
92%
87%
79%
77%
Substance Abuse
100%
64%
96%
88%
87%
87%
Family Violence
73%
46%
100%
100%
100%
78%
Mental Health
84%
40%
95%
85%
92%
84%
TOTAL
633
1,354
813
885
662
4,347
1
88%
Table B22
PROPORTION OF CLIENTS ENROLLED IN SCHOOL OR EMPLOYED AT PROGRAM EXIT 1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
In School/Employed
90%
89%
94%
90%
94%
91%
No School/Unemployed
10%
11%
6%
10%
6%
9%
153
470
154
282
356
1,415
Status at Termination
TOTAL
1
These statistics are presented only for eligible long-term clients who have completed the program.
184
Table B23
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SCHOOL DAYS MISSED 1
Central
South Bay
Coastal
Inland
East County
Total
Entry
2.9
1.6
6.1
4.7
1.6
3.9
Exit
1.0
0.2
3.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
288
377
385
67
274
1,391
Total
1
These statistics are presented only for eligible long-term clients who exited the program.
NOTES: Data documentation for this information began November 1, 1999. Cases with missing information are
not included.
185
blank page
APPENDIX C
JCIP ASSESSMENT TABLES
Table C1
ETHNICITY AND GENDER
Breaking Cycles Risk Assessment, September 1996 to June 2001
Ethnicity
1996
1
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
White
18%
21%
21%
21%
21%
21%
Black
26%
18%
20%
20%
22%
20%
Hispanic
44%
48%
49%
48%
49%
51%
Pacific Islander
5%
9%
6%
5%
7%
0%
Other
6%
4%
4%
5%
1%
8%
174
932
955
771
624
346
Male
80%
84%
86%
84%
77%
76%
Female
20%
16%
14%
16%
23%
24%
174
934
955
773
632
347
TOTAL
Gender
TOTAL
1
The Juvenile Correctional Intervention Program began in September 1996; therefore, 1996 only includes the last four
months of the year.
NOTES: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. Cases with missing information not included.
SOURCES: San Diego County Probation Department, SANDAG
Table C2
ETHNICITY, BY GENDER
Breaking Cycles Risk Assessment, January - June 2001
Ethnicity
Male
Female
White
20%
26%
Black
19%
22%
Hispanic
53%
45%
8%
7%
264
82
Pacific Islander
TOTAL
NOTES: Cases with missing information not included.
189
Table C3
HIGHEST TRUE FINDING CHARGE FOR INSTANT OFFENSE
1996
Highest Charge
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Felony
82%
75%
69%
63%
70%
70%
Misdemeanor
17%
12%
15%
16%
14%
24%
Probation violation
1%
8%
15%
20%
15%
5%
Status
0%
5%
1%
1%
1%
2%
173
933
953
767
631
319
TOTAL
1
1
months of the year.
Table C4
HIGHEST TRUE FINDING CHARGE FOR INSTANT OFFENSE,
BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
Highest Charge
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Felony
67%
66%
71%
81%
Misdemeanor
28%
29%
21%
14%
Probation violation
4%
2%
6%
5%
Status
1%
3%
1%
0%
69
65
163
21
TOTAL
Highest Charge
Male
Female
Felony
72%
64%
Misdemeanor
22%
30%
Probation violation
5%
4%
Status
2%
1%
243
76
TOTAL
190
Table C5
PRIOR HISTORY WITH JUSTICE SYSTEM
Age at First Adjudication
19961
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
16 or Older
30%
34%
31%
29%
27%
23%
14 or 15
52%
46%
48%
52%
53%
55%
13 or Younger
18%
20%
21%
19%
21%
22%
173
933
954
773
684
347
No prior arrests
27%
25%
19%
16%
16%
17%
Prior arrest record, No formal sanctions
20%
18%
14%
10%
10%
9%
No offenses classified as assaultive
34%
44%
46%
47%
48%
44%
Offense(s) classified as assaultive
18%
13%
21%
28%
25%
29%
172
934
955
773
634
347
None
52%
60%
53%
40%
49%
60%
One
34%
28%
32%
38%
31%
28%
Two or more
13%
12%
15%
22%
20%
12%
174
931
955
773
633
339
TOTAL
Prior Criminal Behavior
Prior delinquency petition sustained
TOTAL
Prior Institutional Commitments
or Placements of 30 Days or More
TOTAL
1
months of the year.
191
Table C6
AGE AT FIRST ADJUDICATION, BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
16 or Older
18%
26%
26%
14%
14 or 15
67%
50%
50%
61%
13 or Younger
15%
24%
24%
25%
73
68
177
28
Male
Female
16 or Older
22%
29%
14 or 15
55%
52%
13 or Younger
23%
18%
265
82
TOTAL
TOTAL
192
Table C7
PRIOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
18%
15%
18%
21%
8%
7%
10%
11%
49%
38%
45%
46%
25%
40%
28%
21%
73
68
177
28
No prior arrests
TOTAL
Male
Female
15%
23%
8%
12%
46%
38%
30%
27%
265
82
No prior arrests
TOTAL
193
Table C8
PRIOR INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENTS, BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
None
56%
54%
63%
72%
One
30%
35%
25%
20%
Two or more
14%
10%
12%
8%
73
68
172
25
Male
Female
None
60%
61%
One
29%
24%
Two or more
11%
15%
260
79
TOTAL
TOTAL
194
Table C9
ALCOHOL OR DRUG USE PROBLEMS
19961
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
No known use or no interference with functioning
27%
29%
21%
14%
16%
18%
Some substance use
39%
44%
54%
48%
48%
52%
Chronic abuse, serious
disruption of functioning
35%
28%
26%
38%
36%
31%
173
933
954
773
634
347
No known use or no interference with functioning
16%
14%
10%
9%
10%
12%
Some substance use
36%
34%
36%
29%
25%
30%
49%
52%
53%
61%
65%
58%
173
934
955
773
634
347
Alcohol Abuse
TOTAL
Drug/Chemical Use
TOTAL
1
months of the year.
195
Table C10
ALCOHOL PROBLEMS, BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
Alcohol Abuse
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
No known use or no
interference with functioning
12%
32%
14%
14%
Some substance use
44%
51%
55%
54%
44%
16%
31%
32%
73
68
177
28
Male
Female
No known use or no
19%
13%
Some substance use
53%
48%
28%
39%
265
82
TOTAL
Alcohol Abuse
TOTAL
196
Table C11
DRUG USE PROBLEMS, BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
Drug/Chemical Use
White
Black
7%
24%
9%
14%
Some substance use
23%
35%
30%
36%
70%
41%
61%
50%
73
68
177
28
Male
Female
No known use or no
12%
12%
Some substance use
33%
21%
55%
67%
265
82
No known use or no
TOTAL
Drug/Chemical Use
TOTAL
NOTES: Cases with missing information not included.
197
Hispanic
Other
Table C12
RELATIONAL AND SCHOOL PROBLEMS
Breaking Cycles Risk Assessment, September 1996 - June 2001
Parental Control
1996
1
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Generally effective
12%
17%
6%
2%
1%
4%
Inconsistent and/or ineffective
34%
50%
43%
19%
22%
34%
Little or none
55%
33%
51%
78%
77%
62%
173
930
955
773
632
347
6%
6%
7%
2%
1%
6%
TOTAL
Peer Relationships
Good support and influence
Negative influence
32%
45%
45%
58%
54%
58%
Gang member
62%
50%
48%
39%
45%
36%
173
919
954
773
634
347
Attending, graduated, GED equivalence
15%
21%
12%
5%
4%
6%
Problems handled at school level
12%
7%
12%
14%
12%
12%
Severe truancy or behavioral problems
26%
25%
31%
26%
28%
41%
Not attending/expelled
48%
47%
44%
56%
56%
41%
172
920
954
773
634
347
TOTAL
School Disciplinary Problems
TOTAL
1
months of the year.
2
Data included through June 2001.
198
2
Table C13
PARENT CONTROL, BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
Parental Control
White
Generally effective
Black
Hispanic
Other
5%
4%
3%
4%
40%
37%
32%
25%
Little or none
55%
59%
64%
71%
73
68
177
28
Male
Female
4%
4%
TOTAL
Parental Control
Generally effective
35%
29%
Little or none
60%
67%
265
82
TOTAL
Table C14
PEER RELATIONSHIPS, BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
Peer Relationships
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
5%
12%
4%
4%
Negative influence
81%
62%
47%
61%
Gang member
14%
26%
49%
36%
73
68
177
28
Male
Female
TOTAL
Peer Relationships
6%
4%
Negative influence
53%
76%
Gang member
41%
21%
265
82
TOTAL
199
Table C15
SCHOOL PROBLEMS, BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
10%
6%
5%
7%
12%
12%
12%
7%
45%
41%
39%
50%
33%
41%
45%
36%
73
68
177
28
Male
Female
TOTAL
6%
6%
12%
12%
43%
35%
39%
46%
265
82
TOTAL
200
Table C16
RECOMMENDATION FOR PLACEMENT, BY TYPE
Breaking Cycles Risk Assessment, September 1996 - June 2001
19961
1997
1998
Place in community (0-15)
17%
26%
Short-term placement (16-25)
60%
54%
Long-term placement (26-35)
23%
174
Risk Assessment Score
TOTAL
1999
2000
20012
18%
9%
10%
12%
57%
53%
48%
60%
19%
25%
38%
42%
29%
935
955
773
427
345
1
months of the year.
2
Data included through June 2001.
Table C17
RECOMMENDATION FOR PLACEMENT TYPE,
BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER
White
Black
14%
18%
9%
11%
47%
63%
63%
64%
39%
19%
29%
25%
72
68
176
28
Male
Female
11%
15%
62%
54%
28%
32%
263
82
TOTAL
TOTAL
Hispanic
201
Other
blank page
APPENDIX D
CAT CLIENT SURVEY TABLES
Table D1
KNOWLEDGE OF SERVICES
CAT Client Intake and Exit Matched Surveys, 1999-2001
Juvenile
Services Known
Adult
Intake
Exit
Intake
Exit
Before/After school programs
63%
77%
59%
74%
Community oriented social services
52%
83%
64%
88%
Drug and alcohol services
21%
37%
34%
46%
Education and employment
14%
25%
28%
41%
Family support services
18%
31%
31%
47%
Health care services
37%
51%
52%
62%
Individual assistance/aid
5%
12%
10%
16%
Public safety
4%
5%
6%
6%
Mental health services
10%
20%
17%
28%
Shelter/group homes
12%
22%
17%
25%
Social Services on school grounds
3%
5%
3%
5%
TOTAL
717
717
747
750
2.4
3.7
3.3
4.5
Average number of resources known
Number of services used or willing to use
Zero to five
94%
81%
88%
70%
Six to ten
5%
13%
10%
19%
Eleven to 15
1%
3%
1%
4%
16 to 20
0%
1%
0%
1%
More than 20
1%
2%
1%
5%
TOTAL
659
690
673
707
NOTE: Percentages based upon multiple responses. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
205
Table D2
FAMILY'S ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE AND SOLVE PROBLEMS
Juvenile
Intake
Adult
Exit
Intake
Exit
Good
31%
32%
30%
34%
Average
48%
52%
48%
52%
Not Good
21%
16%
22%
13%
TOTAL
687
700
695
713
206
Table D3
PARENT AND JUVENILE PERCEPTION OF PEERS
Adult
Parent Perception of Peers
Intake
Exit
Mostly negative
14%
10%
Somewhat negative
33%
24%
Neither negative or positive
27%
27%
Somewhat positive
15%
23%
Mostly positive
11%
17%
TOTAL
670
709
Juvenile
Juvenile Perception of Peers
Intake
Exit
Strong chance/has been
10%
10%
Moderate chance
29%
34%
Not much or no chance
61%
56%
TOTAL
683
697
Likelihood of Arrest
Peer Drug Use
Most use drugs
5%
6%
Some use, some don't
31%
38%
Most don't use drugs
64%
56%
TOTAL
677
699
NOTE: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
207
Table D4
JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT, SCHOOL ENROLLMENT,
Adult
Juvenile Employment
Intake
Exit
Working full time
2%
3%
Working part time
7%
7%
Not working at all
91%
91%
702
717
TOTAL
Adult
School Enrollment
Intake
Exit
Enrolled full time
89%
89%
Enrolled part time
5%
4%
Not enrolled
6%
6%
TOTAL
700
721
Juvenile
Juveniles' Attitude About School
Intake
Exit
School is important
68%
70%
School is somewhat important
27%
25%
School is not that important
5%
5%
TOTAL
689
702
NOTE: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
208