Found 608 results
In the spring of 1998, the Board of Directors for the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) requested staff to examine whether teachers are obtaining the knowledge and skills they need to help students meet the state's new academic standards. The Institute selected three teacher preparation and development programs covering the early stages of a teacher's career to examine in-depth: 1) Pre-service Teacher Preparation (Residency Certificate); 2) Beginning Teacher Assistance; 3) Professional Certification.
The Institute relied on case studies, surveys, and interviews to obtain information on Washington's teacher education programs, beginning teacher assistance programs, and pilot projects for professional certification. Surveys were conducted of all new teachers hired in public schools between 1996 and 1998 and all principals in public schools. The Institute also reviewed research literature on teacher quality, analyzed data on certification and employment of teachers in Washington's public schools, and summarized activities related to teacher quality in other states.
An analysis of outcomes associated with Job Search services provided by the Washington State WorkFirst program. After statistically controlling for client characteristics, local economic conditions, and other factors, this analysis shows that females participating in WorkFirst Job Search have higher employment rates, higher earnings, and lower welfare use than females with no recorded WorkFirst activity. The report is part of a legislatively mandated evaluation of WorkFirst prepared by the Institute under contract with the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee.
This report describes the "bottom-line" economics of various programs that try to reduce criminal behavior. We identify the types of programs that can, as well as those that apparently cannot reduce criminal offending in a cost-beneficial way. Among other uses, this information can assist decision-makers in allocating scarce public resources.
Risk Level Classification Form of the State of Washington, Department of Corrections, Revised 1999.
The 1997 Washington State Legislature provided intensive parole funding for up to 25 percent of the highest-risk youth placed in the custody of the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA). The legislation directed that intensive parole be implemented by January 1, 1999, and include: 1) a case management system, 2) transition services (multi-agency), and 3) plans for information management and program evaluation. The JRA contracted with the Institute to evaluate the implementation of intensive parole, determine whether the program reduces recidivism, and analyze its costs and benefits to Washington State taxpayers.
In 1977, Washington State enacted a major reform of its juvenile justice system, becoming the first state to rely on a sentencing grid for juvenile offenders. This article traces the history of the state's juvenile justice system reform.
This addendum to the Institute’s 1998 report, Community Facilities for Juvenile Offenders in Washington State, discusses barriers faced by court and agency personnel in assessing the risk of juvenile offenders prior to sentencing. Based on interviews, the document covers the procedural and financial obstacles to sharing information about juvenile offenders
The 1997 Community Juvenile Accountability Act (CJAA) specified that the Washington State Department of Social and Health Service’s Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, in consultation with the Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators, the State Law and Justice Advisory Council, and the Family Policy Council, establish guidelines for the Community Juvenile Accountability Programs. These requirements necessitated the development of a comprehensive assessment designed to meet the requirements of the Washington State Association of Juvenile Court Administrators and the 1997 CJAA. This report is the manual for this assessment, called the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA).
In the late 1980s, with the number of drug-related cases on the rise, several courts in the United States began to experiment with new ways to process defendants charged with drug-related offenses. A key innovation was the “drug court.” Due to the more intensive monitoring by the court, as well as the provision of drug treatment, drug courts are more expensive than regular court processing. A typical program costs about $2,000 more per participant. Are drug courts worth this extra cost? Do participants commit fewer subsequent crimes and thereby reduce future costs to taxpayers and crime victims? In short, what is the bottom line?