Title: An act relating to investments in cost-effective intervention programs for juvenile justice-involved youth.

Brief Description: Establishing a reinvesting in youth program.

Sponsors: House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Dickerson, McDonald, Moeller, Darneille, Jarrett, Simpson, Morrell, Sommers, Kenney, McDermott, Kagi, Chase and Clibborn).

Brief History: Passed House: 3/10/05, 85-0.

Committee Activity: Human Services & Corrections: 3/28/05, 3/31/05 [DPA-WM].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES & CORRECTIONS

Majority Report: Do pass as amended and be referred to Committee on Ways & Means.Signed by Senators Hargrove, Chair; Regala, Vice Chair; Stevens, Ranking Minority Member; Brandland, Carrell and McAuliffe.

Staff: Edith Rice (786-7444)

Background: In 2003 the Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to review research assessing the effectiveness of prevention and early intervention programs concerning children and youth. In particular, the legislature was interested in having the WSIPP identify programs which had demonstrated ability to: reduce crime; lower substance abuse; improve educational outcomes; decrease teen pregnancy; reduce teen suicide attempts; lower child abuse or neglect; and reduce domestic violence. The WSIPP published the results of its review and related issues in a report entitled, Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth, in September 2004.

The WSIPP found that some prevention and early intervention programs for youth can give taxpayers a good return on their dollar. These programs are listed, with others, in the report. The WSIPP raised the following points for the legislature to consider: selecting a state entity to develop a blue chip prevention program list; developing program selection criteria; determining methods for reimbursement; and monitoring quality control and outcome.

Summary of Amended Bill: The Family Policy Council (the council) will establish a reinvesting in youth grant program to award funding to counties engaged in implementation of research based early intervention services that target juvenile justice involved youth and reduce crime. The council and the WSIPP are to develop guidelines for implementation. Counties must meet the criteria described.

A pilot program is developed to run from July 2005 until June 2007, involving three counties and the following three programs: functional family therapy; multi-systemic therapy; and aggression replacement therapy. The method to estimate and distribute payment to counties is described.

Beginning in July, 2007 any county can apply to participate in the reinvesting in youth program. The criteria for funding eligible programs are set out. WSIPP will publish a list of eligible service models developed with input from a technical advisory committee. Membership in the technical advisory group is described. WSIPP will review and update how cost savings are calculated every four years in consultation with the technical advisory group.

The council will establish a distribution formula every four years with assistance from the technical advisory group. The council will report the initial cost savings calculation methodology and distribution formula by October, 2006.

An investing in youth fund is created in the State Treasury.

The Family Policy Council will establish a state quality assurance program to monitor implementation of services funded by the reinvesting in youth program. The program will evaluate adherence to service model design and service completion rates.

The bill is null and void if not funded, creates no entitlements to counties, and takes effect July 1, 2005.

Amended Bill Compared to Original Bill: The amended bill substitutes the Family Policy Council for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration everywhere it was referenced in the original bill.

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Requested on March 23, 2005.

Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.

Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect on July 1, 2005.

Testimony For: There is no incentive for local governments to invest in these programs without this bill. We should focus funds where they are most effective with evidence and research based programs. Juvenile justice filings are down. Prevention works. We need to continue this work with proven programs. We have a good infrastructure to do this and we have the need. We should expand.

Testimony Against: None.

Who Testified: PRO: Representative Dickerson, prime sponosr; Representative Roberts; Senator Kohl-Welles; Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor; Pete Peterson, Clallam County Juvenile Court; Bruce Knutson, Washington Assoc. of Juvenile Court Administrators; Jim Street, Reinvesting in Youth; Ed Sterner, King County Community Network.