Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Created in 1983 by the state LegislatureMission: Carry out non-partisan research on projects assigned either by the legislature or the Institute's Board of Directors 8 legislators4 higher education provosts or presidents4 state agency directors . w
3. What We Will Talk About Today This presentation describes Washington State's experiences implementing evidence-based programs in juvenile court.
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.
Functional Family Therapy (FFT)
Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
Coordination of Services
Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)
Multidimensional Therapeutic Foster Care
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
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
Implementation in 26 Jurisdictions
20. Washington State ART Quality Assurance - the Beginning
21. Washington State ART Quality Assurance - the Beginning
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
Establish Quality Assurance
24. Washington State ART Initial Quality Assurance
Half-Time Quality Assurance Specialist
Lead Trainer in Every Jurisdiction
Regular Quality Assurance Meetings
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
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
31. Washington State ART Enhanced Quality Assurance Consultant Team Considerations:
Big Courts versus Small Courts
32. Washington State ART Enhanced Quality Assurance
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:
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:
Self-Assessment and Formal Assessment
Needs validation with youth outcome data
37. Enhanced Quality Assurance Design