At-Risk Youth Study

1. At-Risk Youth Study Preliminary Report Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee Cynthia L. Forland September 14, 2005

2. What We Found • Research identifies prevention and early intervention programs that are cost-effective. • Programs addressing child welfare and juvenile crime that are cost-effective and that are not cost-effective have been locally implemented. • Efforts to encourage local spending on proven cost-effective programs are underway. At-Risk Youth Study

3. Funding and Research of Prevention Programs • In 2003-05, Washington State budgeted approximately $212 million for prevention programs targeting seven at-risk youth behaviors specified in statute. • In July 2004, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy identified prevention and early intervention programs nationally as proven cost-effective programs addressing the at-risk youth behaviors. At-Risk Youth Study

4. Study Mandate • 2003 Legislation (SHB 1028) • Interim Report (December 2004) • Final Report • Two Study Objectives: • Identify and describe programs operating in Washington that have been proven effective at preserving families and reducing youth crime, AND that produce savings or are cost neutral to state budget • Evaluate and recommend mechanisms to encourage local investment in effective programs At-Risk Youth Study

5. Identifying Locally Implemented Programs Is Difficult • JLARC conducted a survey of cities, counties, and juvenile court administrators. • Responses may not be comprehensive, but they provide a starting point. • Responses were received from: • Eastern and Western Washington • 10 most populous cities, or the counties in which they are located At-Risk Youth Study

6. Local Implementation of Cost-Effective Programs • 2 of 3 proven cost-effective programs impacting child welfare have been locally implemented. • 10 of 14 proven cost-effective programs impacting juvenile crime have been locally implemented. • These programs account for $5.18 million in spending and 5,617 cases served in 2004. • $2.19 million in state funds At-Risk Youth Study

7. Local Implementation of Programs That Are Not Cost-Effective • 3 prevention programs proven not to be cost-effective have also been locally implemented: • 2 programs addressing child welfare • 1 program addressing juvenile crime • These programs account for $2.67 million in spending and 1,528 cases served in 2004. • $1.46 million in state funds At-Risk Youth Study

8. Spending on Locally Implemented Programs among Survey Respondents Child Welfare Programs Juvenile Offender Programs Cost- Effective $533,942 25% Not Cost- Effective $1.05M 18% Cost-Effective $4.65M 82% Not Cost-Effective $1.62M 75% At-Risk Youth Study

9. Few Outcome Evaluations Received for Locally Implemented Programs • Outcome evaluations are a crucial part of successful implementation of proven cost-effective programs. • JLARC only received 2 outcome evaluations from survey respondents, but received a number of process reports. At-Risk Youth Study

10. Incentives for Local Investment in Proven Cost-Effective Programs • In December 2004, a JLARC Interim Report found the following: • Incentive mechanisms for local investment are available: • Match • Reimbursement • Investment mechanisms must be based on the respective benefit to state and local governments, and must be calculated for each program. At-Risk Youth Study

11. Pilot Incentive Programs Addressing Juvenile Crime • Redeploy Illinois Program • Redirect state juvenile correctional funds to counties for community-based sanctions and treatment alternatives • Washington’s Reinvesting in Youth Pilot Program • Provide funding to counties for three proven cost-effective juvenile offender programs At-Risk Youth Study

12. 2005-07 Budget Requires Prioritizing Child Welfare Spending “. . . priority shall be given to proven intervention models, including evidence-based prevention and early intervention programs identified by the Washington Institute for Public Policy and the Department.” (ESSB 6090) At-Risk Youth Study

13. Points to Consider in Focusing State Spending on Proven Prevention Programs • Rigorous research to expand the field of available proven cost-effective programs takes both time and money. • Effective implementation of proven cost-effective programs requires up-front investments. • Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of implemented programs is necessary to ensure that they produce more benefits than costs. At-Risk Youth Study

14. Points to Consider in Focusing State Spending on Proven Prevention Programs Investing in proven cost-effective programs involves up-front and ongoing costs. However, the costs of investing in proven programs may still beless than current spending on programs whose ultimate outcomes are not known. At-Risk Youth Study

15. Findings Concerning Spending on Not Cost-Effective Programs JLARC’s survey of local jurisdictions documented $2.67 million in spending in 2004 on programs addressing child welfare and juvenile crime that are not cost- effective. State funds made up $1.46 million of that total. At-Risk Youth Study

16. Recommendation The Department of Social and Health Services should provide an annual report to the fiscal committees of the Legislature, itemizing the amount of spending on prevention and early intervention programs that the Washington State Institute for Public Policy has determined are either not cost- effective or for which a cost-benefit estimate cannot be made. At-Risk Youth Study