Updated Inventory of Evidence-based, Research-based, and Promising Practices For Prevention and Intervention Services for Children and Juveniles in the Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and Mental Health Systems

The 2012 Legislature passed E2SHB 2536 with the intention that “prevention and intervention services delivered to children and juveniles in the areas of mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice be primarily evidence-based and research-based, and it is anticipated that such services will be provided in a manner that is culturally competent.”

The bill directs the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) and the University of Washington Evidence-Based Practice Institute (UW) to publish descriptive definitions and prepare an inventory of evidence-based, research-based, and promising practices and services, and to periodically update the inventory as more practices are identified. This is the fifth update to the September 30, 2012 publication. The accompanying report describes the inventory update process, as well as the ongoing technical assistance process by UW.

Sexual Predator Commitment Laws

Nine states have statutes that authorize the confinement and treatment of highly dangerous sex offenders following completion of their criminal sentence: Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. These laws are commonly referred to as “sexual predator” laws. Other statutes authorize commitment and treatment for sex offenders as an alternative to sentencing. This paper reviews the four principle categories of civil commitment laws for dangerous sex offenders. Summaries of individual state statutes are also included.

Juvenile Sex Offenders Recommended for Commitment Under Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Law, Where No Petition Was Filed

Washington’s Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) statute permits the civil commitment of adult and juvenile sex offenders found to be a high risk to the public. Since the law’s enactment in 1990, to the end of 2003, 31 juvenile sex offenders were identified as possibly meeting the statutory criteria for civil commitment. These individuals represent approximately 1 percent of the total juvenile sex offenders paroled in this 13-year period.

The attorney general or prosecuting attorney declined to file on two-thirds (21) of these referrals; the individuals were released to the community. Follow-up data were available for all 21 juveniles through December 31, 2005.

Prison, Police, and Programs: Evidence-Based Options that Reduce Crime and Save Money

Since the 1990s, the Washington State legislature has directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to identify policies with an “evidence-based” track record of improving certain public policy outcomes. Outcomes of interest have included, among others, education, child welfare, crime, and mental health.

This report updates and extends WSIPP’s list of well-researched policies that reduce crime. We display our current tabulation of evidence-based prevention, juvenile justice, and adult corrections programs, and we include our initial reviews of prison sentencing and policing.

As with our previous lists, we find that a number of public policies can reduce crime and are likely to have benefits that exceed costs. We also find credible evidence that some policies do not reduce crime and are likely to have costs that exceed benefits. The legislature has previously used this type of information to craft policy and budget bills. This updated list is designed to help with subsequent budgets and policy legislation.

Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment Manual Version 2.0

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).

Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment Manual, Version 2.1

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).

Washington State's Aggression Replacement Training for Juvenile Court Youth: Outcome Evaluation

In 2018, WSIPP’s Board of Directors approved a contract with the Washington State Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration in conjunction with the Community Juvenile Accountability Act Oversight Committee to evaluate a juvenile court evidence-based program. The contract required WSIPP to evaluate the effectiveness of the Washington State Aggression Replacement Training (WSART) program at reducing recidivism for court-involved youth. In addition to evaluating the overall effects, WSIPP was asked to evaluate for whom the program was most effective and under what conditions the program was most effective. This report evaluates the effects of WSART in Washington State juvenile courts from 2005 to 2016. To the extent possible, we evaluated the varying effects of WSART for subpopulations including males and females; White, Black, and Hispanic youth; younger youth and older youth; high-risk youth and moderate-risk youth; and youth assessed using the BOT and youth assessed using the PACT. Finally, we evaluated differences in the effects of WSART by characteristics of WSART program participation including trainer competence and program completion.

Evaluating Early Intervention in Washington State Juvenile Courts: A Six-Month Progress Report

The 1996 Washington State Legislature appropriated $2.35 million to 12 juvenile courts for early intervention programs targeting youth placed on probation for the first time and considered at high risk to re-offend. At the request of the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy evaluated the program. The primary outcome measure is whether there is a reduction in subsequent court adjudications for those youth in the program. The program will be evaluated to determine the level of program success necessary for the state's investment to be cost-effective.

Juvenile Offenders: What Works? A Summary of Research Findings

This document can assist policymakers in understanding the major research findings in juvenile delinquency. It summarizes key findings and offers an overview of various topics, including: juvenile delinquency risk factors, program effectiveness, juvenile detention, and delinquency prevention.

Inventory of Evidence-Based, Research-Based, and Promising Practices

Inventory of Evidence-Based, Research-Based, and Promising Practices
For Prevention and Intervention Services for Children and Juveniles
in the Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and Mental Health Systems

The 2012 Legislature passed E2SHB 2536 with the intention that “prevention and intervention services delivered to children and juveniles in the areas of mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice be primarily evidence-based and research-based, and it is anticipated that such services will be provided in a manner that is culturally competent.”

The bill directs the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) and the University of Washington Evidence-Based Practice Institute (UW) to publish descriptive definitions and prepare an inventory of evidence-based, research-based, and promising practices and services, and to periodically update the inventory as more practices are identified. Under E2SHB 2536, the inventory, published here, will be used by Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the Health Care Authority (HCA) to complete a baseline assessment to determine whether their current programs and services are evidence-based or research-based. By December 30, 2013, DSHS and HCA will report to the Governor and the legislature on strategies to increase the use of evidence-based and research-based practices.