Preliminary Report

Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee

Cynthia L. Forland

September 14, 2005

At-Risk Youth Study

At-Risk Youth Study 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.

Report p. 1 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.

Report pp. 1-2 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

Report p. 4 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

Report pp. 4-7 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

Report pp. 4-7 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

Report pp. 6-7 At-Risk Youth Study 8

Spending on Locally Implemented Programs among Survey Respondents

Cost-Effective$533,942

25%

Not Cost-Effective$1.62M

75%

Not Cost-Effective$1.05M

18%

Cost-Effective$4.65M

82%

Child Welfare Programs Juvenile Offender Programs

Report p. 8 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.

Report p. 8 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.

Report pp. 9-10 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

Report p. 10 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)

Report pp. 11-12 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.

Report p. 12 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 be less than current

spending on programs whose ultimate

outcomes are not known.

Report p. 12 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.

Report p. 12 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.