Robert Barnoski - March 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.

Roxanne Lieb, Megan E. Brown - March 1999

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.

Christopher Murray - February 1999

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

Robert Barnoski - January 1999

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).

Steve Aos - January 1999

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? 

Steve Aos - January 1999

The Washington State legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to evaluate the costs and benefits of certain criminal justice policies and violence-prevention programs.  As part of this activity, the Institute analyzes the overall level of crime in Washington.  This report highlights those “big picture” trends.

Polly Phipps, Kim Korinek, Steve Aos, Roxanne Lieb - January 1999

At the request of the Washington State Department of Corrections, the Institute for Public Policy summarized what is known about the effectiveness of adult correctional programs in reducing recidivism. The report covers programs in seven areas: substance abuse treatment, education, employment, sex offender treatment, cognitive behavioral treatment, life skills training, and intensive supervision. The focus is on fairly recent programs that have been evaluated using a control or comparison group design. Each program area is summarized and individual programs are reviewed in light of their effectiveness in reducing criminal recidivism.

Robert Barnoski - January 1999

The 1997 Washington State Legislature significantly altered this state’s juvenile offender sentencing laws and intervention policies (E2SHB 3900). One portion of the legislation established the Community Juvenile Accountability Act (CJAA). The Act changed the way some local court programs are funded—only programs shown to reduce recidivism cost-effectively are funded under the CJAA. In the Act, the Institute was charged with measuring whether the CJAA programs cost-effectively reduce recidivism in Washington State.

Edie Harding, Laura Harmon - January 1999

During the 1998 session, legislators examined the Washington State Need Grant program and the increasing loan debts of students in higher education institutions. As a next step to understanding how students pay for college, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy was directed to compile information on students who worked while enrolled in a post-secondary institution. This study is the first comprehensive look at reviewing the off-campus employment status of students attending colleges and universities across the state.

Kay Knapp - January 1999

This review examined ten community networks to gauge their understanding of the outcome measurement approach and legislative expectations.  The interviews revealed substantial progress by the networks in defining and measuring results connected to community projects.  By legislative direction, the networks are expected to focus on prevention with respect to violence, especially youth violence.  Preventative efforts take time to show their effects; thus, the Legislature directed that an external evaluation of the networks and their programs occur after five years of network operation.  The Legislature assigned the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to conduct this evaluation.