The following paper illustrates cost effective assessment of a program designed to give justice to juvenile offenders and programmed treatment services to youths who are vulnerable and have tendency to use drug and other substance abuse. Elaborate cost effective is spelt out in this work. The analysis was conducted through interview and administration of data. A six month follow ups and twelve month follow up interview programs were conducted.
Cost Benefit Analysis
To determine the cost effectiveness of this program, the methodology applied has to be examined. Juvenile Breaking the Cycle program was put in place by the County Department of Youth Services of Oregon. The program was expected to be more enhanced than the already developed programs concerning rehabilitation and treatment of the youths involved in drug abuse. The program held the opinion that all juvenile delinquents have similar behavioral and psychological tendencies that required diagnostic approaches to address the whole problem. This increased the cost effectiveness of the program. The program bases its involvement on the studies which had been conducted previously. The program interventions concentrated on the impacts and implementation measures that had previously tried to incorporate substance and drug abuse treatment with other interventions and monitoring measures. The study has the obligation of assessing effects and impact of this program on the short and long term bases analysis (Cowell & Krebs, 2010).
In the design aspect of the study, the program analysis is conducted by assessing the results of the sample participants of 306 youths risk assessed by Oregon Department of Youth Services. Out of these 306 juveniles, the program recruited only 49 percent of them and enrolled them into the program; the other 51 percent is not admitted. In the recruitment section the program was not fully involved; it rather used other channels to do this. The youths were identified by the police who led to their arrest. After the arrest, these young people were taken to the Department of Youth Service which cited or released them. Those admitted by DYS were interviewed through administration of risk assessment questionnaire. If the juveniles were proved to have been involved in alcoholism and other drug abuse, or had high risk in abuse of these substances, they were referred to the program (JBTC). They were termed as to be in high risk if the total risk marks were above during the assessment interview, though the staff had the authority to overlook the scores and determine the fate of these juveniles (Cowell & Krebs, 2010). In the admission process of juveniles, the JBTC obtained the administrative data, risk assessment marks, and criminal records from DYS. The information concerning treatment, mental status and counseling sessions for juveniles was obtained from Oregon Client Process Monitoring System (CPMS). This information was used to examine the juveniles history concerning treatment, mental status and counseling sessions. The information from Oregon Youth Authoritys Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) provided information concerning justice system of the applicant. The program survey contained information that excluded the offenses the juveniles had committed at the time of arrest resulting to their admission in the program (Cowell & Krebs, 2010).
In sampling, the program used virtual experimental design incorporating nonequivalent matching with the cluster that was used in evaluation of the effects of the program. In the recruitment process, DYS interviewed 925 youths concerning risk assessment. Out of this subtotal, 306 participants were requested and they approved their participation in the program of evaluation analysis. Of those interviewed 50 percent were youths who were already in the program, while 25 percent were not enrolled yet into the program. The participants of this differed from others in the sense that the recruitment process captured an effective sample for the study and was not associated with high rate of substance abuse as other programs were. All these aspects contributed to a large extent to the cost effectiveness of the study (Cowell & Krebs, 2010).
The information carries demographic variables concerning the participating sample. These variables include gender, age, race, participants residential places, who they reside with, and income of their guardians. The program had also the participants score on substance abuse, subtotal risk score and DYS status of risk assessment. The recruits were asked questions concerning their history of substance and drug use in a span of six months and analysis of the use of the same in last four weeks. The study also sought to know whether the participants have ever been diagnosed the illness concerning the use of those substances. In addition, the program wanted to know if at any given time the respondents have approached justice system. The family history concerning substance abuse was also sought (Cowell & Krebs, 2010).
The program should continue because the results of the study could be used by other organizations to determine prevalence and the most critical measures to undertake in addressing this situation. The study is one of its kind, because it has incorporated the relevant organizations measures and considered them while undertaking its analysis. Discontinuing the program will deny the institutions and the society at large to the most appropriate measures to be undertaken to improve the already existing rehabilitation and treatment centers for the youths and other people affected by abuse of drug and other substances. The program would give the community effects of drug and substance abuse by juveniles and the long term scope of juvenile offenders who have a bigger risk to use the substance in relation to their history of the usage of drugs and other substances.