Program Profile: Juvenile Breaking the Cycle (JBTC) Program (Lane County, Oregon)

Using comprehensive assessments, the program identified, provided, and coordinated individualized services for high-risk, drug-involved, justice-involved juveniles. This program is rated Effective. Results suggest that JBTC participants were significantly less likely to recidivate and had statistically significantly fewer arrests, compared with non-JBTC participants. However, the impact on self-reported drug use was mixed.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

The Juvenile Breaking the Cycle (JBTC) Program was a post-arrest effort designed to help substance-using youth by enlisting the aid of county and state organizations. Only youths with alcohol and or other drug (AOD) problems and who had been determined to be high risk were eligible for JBTC. The primary goals of the program were to increase access to treatment, reduce substance use, and reduce delinquency among high-risk, antisocial youths via intensive case-management services. The program was implemented in 1998 in Lane County Department of Youth Services (DYS), Oregon.

JBTC aimed to meet four objectives: 1) immediate identification of youths’ substance abuse problems at the time of arrest; 2) assessment to establish the degree of substance abuse problems and the presence of other psychological or criminogenic risk factors; 3) coordinate and integrate individualized services; and 4) use of sanctions, incentives, and rewards to encourage youths to comply with treatment and abstain from delinquency and substance use.

Target Population

JBTC targeted youths identified as both being involved in serious and chronic offenses and involved in substance use. Following a police–youth encounter, youths were either turned over to the DYS or cited and released by the police. Those sent to DYS were processed by intake personnel, who administered a risk assessment on four dimensions: school, family, crime, and drugs. Those with both AOD problems and assessed as “high risk” for involvement in serious and chronic offenses were eligible for JBTC. Those with only AOD problems or those found to be “high risk,” but without AOD problems were not eligible.

Program Components

Components of the model included judicial oversight (including drug court for some participants), case management that included supervision by a probation counselor and service coordination by a service coordinator as well as urinalysis testing, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services. Service coordination was supported through the Management Information System (MIS), which was designed to collect and store information on JBTC youths.

Judicial Oversight: The judicial oversight included court-mandated intervention plans monitored by the judge, probation counselors, and the service coordinators. Most JBTC youths had a court review hearing every 30 days, yet the timeframe could be changed based on the youth’s progress or lack thereof. Each youth was assigned a service coordinator, who administered assessment protocols and identified and secured the service and/or treatment needed. Based on their assessments, service coordinators made recommendations to the youths’ probation counselors.

Urinalysis Testing: Urinalysis testing allowed DYS to identify and monitor drug use and inform intervention and treatment strategies. Drug tests were regularly administered to all program participants, but the frequency of such testing depended on the program phase in which the youth was involved and could be as frequent as twice a week.

Substance Abuse Treatment: The JBTC program required that youths be screened for substance use and abuse during initial intake. If substance use or abuse issues were identified, the assigned service coordinator was responsible for contacting and referring the youth to a treatment provider whose program matched the youth’s needs. Such services could be provided in an inpatient or outpatient program setting, be gender-specific, and/or culturally relevant.

Mental Health Services: During intake, each youth also received a mental health screening. If mental health issues were identified or suspected, the youth was referred to a specialist for a comprehensive mental health assessment. Such services could be provided in an inpatient or outpatient program setting.

JBTC was designed to last 12 months. However, depending upon needs and services, some youths took longer to complete the program than others. A system of sanctions, incentives, and rewards (SIRs) were used by justice staff and probation counselors, and incorporated into the JBTC strategy to provide swift and appropriate responses to the JBTC youths’ behaviors. Sanctions were defined as punishment for violating conditions of probation and judicial oversight and included detention, reduced privileges, home arrest, or curfews. They were administered in response to non-compliant behaviors such as a positive drug test or a missed curfew. Incentives, such as an increase in privileges, were defined as attempts to motivate appropriate behavior. Rewards, such as a food or clothing voucher, were defined as positive reinforcement for appropriate prosocial behavior.

Study 1

Lattimore and colleagues (2004) used a quasi-experimental research design with a non-equivalent comparison group to evaluate the impact of Oregon’s Juvenile Breaking the Cycle (JBTC) program. The implementation of the JBTC program was evaluated to determine whether youths who participated in the program had increased access to substance abuse treatment, reduced their use of substances, and had lower rates of recidivism, as compared with the comparison group (i.e., youths who opted not to participate or did not qualify for the program). 

Between April 2000 and November 2001, DYS administered the risk assessment at intake to approximately 925 substance-involved youths. One-third (33%) of these youths were recruited for inclusion in the study sample (n=306). Youths in the sample ranged from between the ages of 9 and 18. About half of the sample (n=149) was assigned to the treatment group and the other half (n=157) was assigned to the comparison group. Youths in the treatment group and comparison group were similar at initial assessment. The treatment group was 70 percent male, and the average age was 15.5. About 72 percent of the treatment group identified as white, 4 percent as Black, 6 percent as Hispanic, and 17 percent as another race. The comparison group was 69 percent male and the average age was 15.0. About 80 percent of the comparison group identified as white, 1 percent as Black, 5 percent as Hispanic, and 13 percent as another race. 

Given that the JBTC program specifically targeted youths deemed at highest risk, analysis indicated that JBTC youths differed from non-JBTC youths on several measures traditionally associated with higher rates of recidivism and substance abuse, including having a family member with severe drug and/or alcohol problems, and having a family member with a criminal history. JBTC youths were also more likely to report using alcohol and drugs, receiving substance abuse treatment, having been diagnosed with depression, and having been arrested prior to intake and participation in the program. Analyses controlled for the differences between the two groups. 

Three waves of structured face-to-face interviews were administered to all youths participating in the evaluation. The baseline interview was conducted within 1 month of the initial DYS assessment (n=306). Two additional interviews were conducted, at 6-months (n=208) and 12-months (n=183) after the baseline interview. Data from these interviews included demographic characteristics, school experiences, family background and situation, substance use, criminal behavior, and life-related expectations of all youths. Interview data was augmented by administrative data such as measures of demographic characteristics, risk assessment scores, criminal history, and recidivism (based upon official arrest records). Multivariate statistical models were used to estimate whether participation in the JBTC program was related to outcomes.

The implementation of the Juvenile Breaking the Cycle (JBTC) program in Lane County, Oregon, was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1998. A cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that on average, at the 6-month follow up, a youth in JBTC required $1,535 more taxpayer resources during the previous 6 months than a youth who was not in JBTC. At the 12-month follow up, on average, a youth in JBTC incurred $457 more costs during the previous 6 months than a youth who was not in JBTC. Twelve to 18 months after intake, the difference in system costs between the two groups was found to be negligible. These outcomes suggest that case management and treatment costs may not be offset immediately, but that costs may eventually be comparable to usual care.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Cowell, Alexander J., Pamela K. Lattimore, and Christopher P. Krebs. 2010. “A Cost-Benefit Study of a Breaking the Cycle Program for Juveniles.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(2):241–62.

Krebs, Christopher P., Pamela K. Lattimore, Alexander J. Cowell, and Phillip Graham. 2010. “Evaluating the Juvenile Breaking the Cycle Program’s Impact on Recidivism.” Journal of Criminal Justice 38:109–17.