Polly Phipps, Gregg Gagliardi - May 2003

In 1999, the Washington State Legislature enacted Substitute Senate Bill 5011, which mandates improving the process of identifying and providing additional mental health treatment for mentally ill offenders being released from the Department of Corrections (DOC) who pose a threat to public safety. This interim report describes the ongoing process of identifying and selecting “dangerous mentally ill offenders” (DMIOs); provides a profile of DMIOs; and documents the type of pre- and post-release services, treatment, and supervision received by DMIOs. Finally, it focuses on program improvements that have been accomplished and summarizes continuing program challenges.

Robert Barnoski - April 2003

The 1996 Washington State Legislature appropriated $2.35 million for a program called the juvenile court “Early Intervention Program” (EIP). The program’s goal was to prevent high-risk, first-time juvenile offenders from becoming further entrenched in the court system. Funds were awarded to 12 juvenile courts for the 1996 biennium on a competitive basis. At the request of the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) conducted a study to determine if the EIP resulted in reduced recidivism. In early 1998, the Institute examined six-month outcomes and found that EIP produced no significant difference in recidivism rates. In the 1998 session, the Legislature discontinued funding the EIP, shifting the funds to research-based programs in Washington’s newly enacted Community Juvenile Accountability Act. This report confirms the Institute’s earlier findings that the Early Intervention Program did not show a statistically significant reduction in recidivism.

Robert Barnoski, Steve Aos - March 2003

The 2002 Washington State Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to “report on the cost-effectiveness of existing drug courts in Washington and their impacts on reducing recidivism.” Developed during the 1990s, drug courts use frequent courtroom activity and drug treatment resources in an attempt to modify the criminal behavior of certain drug-involved defendants. The questions for this evaluation are whether drug courts—when compared with regular criminal courts—reduce recidivism and produce more benefits than costs. We found that five of the six adult drug courts we evaluated appear to be cost-beneficial additions to Washington’s criminal justice system. The Institute’s report is contained in two documents: a 12-page report and a technical appendix. A separate executive summary is also provided.

Steve Lerch - March 2003

Although persons with severe disabilities comprise about 15 percent of individuals receiving Medicaid services in Washington, they account for about 27 percent of all Medicaid expenditures. A major component of these expenditures is for outpatient services, such as prescription drugs and physician office visits. In this report, we focus on three key factors: i) change in price; ii) change in utilization; and iii) change in caseload size, to explain why expenditures on outpatient services provided to Medicaid recipients with severe disabilities have increased between 1999 and 2001.

Steve Lerch - March 2003

The caseload for the Medicaid program providing health care services to persons with severe disabilities has been growing faster than the overall population in Washington State. This report examines factors that may contribute to caseload growth in this program and the characteristics of individuals who qualify for Medicaid on the basis of a severe disability. Some of the key findings are that the number of individuals qualifying for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) due to mental disorders is growing faster than the overall SSI caseload and that likely contributors to caseload growth include changes in the mix of occupations and industries in Washington, the rising value of Medicaid benefits, and the declining numbers of nursing home beds in the state.

Roxanne Lieb - January 2003

This chapter describes the approach used in the United Kingdom to assess and monitor released sex offenders in the community. The chapter was originally published in Sex Offenders in the Community: Managing and reducing the risks. (2003) Amanda Matravers, Ed. Cullompton, English: Willan, pp. 207-232.

Steve Aos - January 2003

In 1999, the Washington Legislature passed, and Governor Locke signed into law, the Offender Accountability Act (OAA). The Act primarily affects how the Department of Corrections (DOC) provides community supervision to adults convicted of felony crimes. The OAA directs DOC to classify all felony offenders according to the risk they pose to re-offending in the future and the amount of harm they have caused society in the past. The OAA then directs DOC to allocate more of its community-based resources to the higher-risk offenders. The primary goal is to reduce the subsequent criminal behavior of these offenders when they are back in the community. In this report, we present the first information on how well DOC’s risk assessment tool—the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R)—predicts actual recidivism. We also describe some of the technical statistical steps we are taking to ensure that the OAA’s outcomes can be reliably evaluated.

Steve Aos - January 2003

This report reviews basic information on Washington’s criminal justice system and the level of crime in the state. The purpose is to provide policymakers with a “big picture” summary of long-term trends and relationships.

Robert Barnoski - January 2003

The 1994 Violence Reduction Act transferred jurisdiction of 16- and 17-year-old youth charged with certain violent felonies from juvenile to adult court. The 1997 Legislature revised the juvenile sentencing system and expanded the crimes that automatically transfer juvenile cases to adult court. The 1997 legislation also directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to “examine the impact and effectiveness of changes made in the exclusive original jurisdiction of juvenile court over juvenile offenders.” This report analyzes the law’s impact and effectiveness by comparing similar cases filed before and after the law’s enactment. Because of inaccuracies in the state administrative databases, this report cannot be considered an audit of practice.