Washington State s Experience With Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice Programs

3. What We Will Talk About Today This presentation describes Washington State's experiences implementing evidence-based programs in juvenile court. Some History Outcome Evaluations Cost Benefit Quality Assurance

4. History of Legislation and Institute Reports 1995 Funding of intensive probation program. 1996 Preliminary outcomes are not good. 1997 Determine if evidence-based programs exist and can be implemented in Washington State juvenile courts. 1998 Switch funding from intensive probation to evidence-based programs in juvenile courts. 2002 Preliminary evidence-based program outcomes are positive and point to competent delivery. 2003 Develop adherence and outcome standards for evidence-based programs. Cost-benefit analyses of prevention and intervention programs beyond juvenile offenders.

5. History of Legislation (Cont.) 2004 Final Outcome Evaluation Report. Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Reinvesting in Youth legislation State reimburses counties for implementing evidence-based programs. Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. 2007 Expanded Funding for Evidence Program

6. Find evidence-based programs scientifically shown to work. Develop an assessment for identifying appropriate program for a youth. Implement quality assurance to ensure services are delivered as designed. Conduct a valid outcome evaluation.

7. Functional Family Therapy (FFT) Aggression Replacement Training (ART) Coordination of Services Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) Multidimensional Therapeutic Foster Care Adolescent Diversion

8. Screen for level of risk: more intensive service to higher risk youth and families; minimal services for lower risk. Motivational process to engage youth and family.

9. Third Thing: Quality Assurance Infrastructure Policy committee Statewide program expert Regional consultants Initial training On-going consultation, feedback, and training Training of trainers Assessment of adherence to program design

10. A �rigorous� test Not enough funding for everyone, so �Waiting List� youth assigned to a control group Includes completers and non-completers Youth�s eligibility for program is based on risk assessment Level of risk Profile of risk factors

16. Research Question

18. Clear Lessons� Evidence-based programs can be implemented with good outcomes in the �real world� for a variety of youth. The key to good outcomes with evidence-based programs is closely adhering to the program model.

19. Washington State ART Quality Assurance - the Beginning December 1998 & January 1999 Massive Training of Trainers February 1999 Implementation in 26 Jurisdictions

20. Washington State ART Quality Assurance - the Beginning Program Issues: Sustainability Adherence

21. Washington State ART Quality Assurance - the Beginning Sustainability: Develop Training Capacity

22. Washington State ART Quality Assurance - the Beginning Initial Training Capacity Designed Training of Trainers Developed Washington State Manual Developed Master Trainer Program Fall 1999 Initiated Training Program

23. Washington State ART Quality Assurance - the Beginning Adherence: Establish Quality Assurance

24. Washington State ART  Initial Quality Assurance Half-Time Quality Assurance Specialist Lead Trainer in Every Jurisdiction Regular Quality Assurance Meetings Class Observation

25. Washington State ART Initial Quality Assurance Monthly Meetings First 6 Months Quarterly Meetings After 6 Months Direct Trainer Observations First 3 Years Annual Program Environment Assessments

26. Washington State ART WSIPP Preliminary Findings 2002 Adherent, Competent Delivery = Effective Non-Adherent or Not Competent Delivery = Ineffective

27. Washington State ART Quality Assurance WSIPP Findings Implications: Further Develop Quality Assurance Structure

28. Washington State ART Enhanced Quality Assurance New QA Design: Full-Time Quality Assurance Specialist Job Descriptions Contracted Consultants Telephone and On-Site Consultation Video Tape Reviews Trainer Rating Scales

29. Washington State ART Enhanced Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Specialist: On Policy Committee Lead Quality Assurance Process Provide Suggestions for System Improvements Monitor Sites for Environmental Support Guide Consultants in QA Process Final Authority on Programs and Trainers

30. Washington State ART  Enhanced Quality Assurance Program Environment Issues: Political Support for Quality Assurance Resistant Staff Physical Plant Geography/Population Timing

31. Washington State ART  Enhanced Quality Assurance Consultant Team Considerations: Team Size Big Courts versus Small Courts Geographic Location

32. Washington State ART  Enhanced Quality Assurance Consultants: Monthly Telephone Consultations Quarterly Quality Assurance Meetings Annual Site Visits Annual Video Tape Review of Trainers

33. Washington State ART  Enhanced Quality Assurance Video Tape Review Issues: Non-compliant Trainers (No Tapes) Court Administrator Support Right of Appeal

34. Washington State ART  Enhanced Quality Assurance Trainer Tape Rating Levels: Highly Adherent Adherent Borderline Adherent Not Adherent

35. Washington State ART  Enhanced Quality Assurance Trainer Improvement Plans: Informal Improvement � Consultant Formal Improvement � QA Specialist

36. Washington State ART  Enhanced Quality Assurance Trainer Assessment Instruments: Initially Simple Increasingly Complex Essential Elements Self-Assessment and Formal Assessment Needs validation with youth outcome data

37. Enhanced Quality Assurance Design