Washington State

1
Washington States Experience With Evidence-Based
Juvenile Justice Programs and Their
Effectiveness With Minority Youth
December 4, 2007 Robert Barnoski,
Ph.D. (Barney) Retired from Washington State
Institute for Public Policy www.wsipp.wa.gov
2
Washington State Institute for Public Policy

• Created in 1983 by the state Legislature.
• Mission Carry out non-partisan research on
  projects assigned either by the legislature or
  the Institutes Board of Directors.
• 8 legislators
• 4 higher education provosts or presidents
• 4 state agency directors

3
Presentation Outline

• Research that supported the selection of
  Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and
  Functional Family Therapy (FFT)
• evidence-based programs for Washington
  State juvenile courts.
• the ethnicity of the participants in the
  studies.
• Washington State Results for ART and FFT.
• Washington State Results by Ethnicity.

4
Definition of Evidence-Based Programs for
Juvenile Courts

• A program having the positive result of reducing
  recidivism
• in two or more studies with a rigorous research
  design
• which compare the outcomes for a group of youth
  who received the program
• to the outcomes for a group of similar youth who
  did not receive the program.

5
Aggression Replacement Training(700 per youth)

• Group training of 12 youth by two instructors.
• Classes meet for one hour three times per week
  for 10 weeks
• Aggression cycle
• Skill development
• Moral reasoning
• Training, not therapy, that uses guided group
  discussion, modeling, role play, and homework.

6
Functional Family Therapy(2,100 per youth)

• Blueprint Program University of Colorados
  Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
• Structured family-based intervention to enhance
  protective and reduce risk factors in the family.
  
• FFT is a three-phase program
• Motivate family toward change
• Teach family how to change a specific critical
  problem
• Help family generalize their problem-solving
  skills.
• Trained therapists have caseloads of 10 to 12
  families.
• Involves about 12 visits during a 90-day period.

7
Ethnicity of Participants in ART Research Studies

• 1995 Goldstein Glick, Annsville Youth Center,
  NY 50 African American 40 European American
• 1995 Goldstein Glick, MacCormac Secure Center,
  NY 60 African American, 36 Hispanic American
• 1995 Gibbs, Ohio 32 African American 67
  European American
• 2004 Barnoski, Washington 11 African American,
  4 Native American, 3 Asian American, and 82
  European American

8
Ethnicity of Participants in FFT Studies

• 1973 Alexander and Parsons, Salt Lake City Utah
  ethnicity of participants not reported,
  presumably predominately European American youth.
• Klein, et. al., Salt Lake City Utah ethnicity
  of participants not reported, presumably
  predominately European American youth.
• 1985 Barton, North Carolina 35 non-European
  American, 65 European American.
• Gordon, Ohio 100 European American, and second
  study predominantly European American.
• 1998 Hannson, Sweden predominantly European.
• 2004 Barnoski, Washington 13 African
  American, 4 Native American, 5 Asian American,
  and 78 European American.

9
In addition to knowing the ethnicity of the youth
in these studies

• how would matching provider and client by
  ethnicity influence effectiveness?
• There is one study involving MultiSystemic
  Therapy (MST).

10
Effect of Therapist Ethnicity on MultiSystemic
Therapy Outcomes1

• Youth, whose therapists ethnicity was the same
  as the familys, demonstrated
• greater decreases in symptoms,
• longer times in treatment, and
• increased likelihood of successful completion,
• compared with youth having therapists of
  different ethnicity.

The effect was equivalent across ethnic groups.
1 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
2005. Vol. 73, No. 5. 808-818
11
However, the study did not deliberately match the
ethnicity of the therapist to that of the family.

• 1,711 families
• 405 therapists
• Families assigned to next available therapist
• 64 European 86 matched
• 19 African Am. 29 matched
• 6 Asian 36 matched
• 5 Latino 10 matched

Could be a stronger design if match is random and
more deliberate - closer to 50.
12
Washington State's Results for ART and FFT
Outcome Evaluation of Washington State's
Evidence-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders,
January 2004. Washington State Institute for
Public Policy, Report 04-01-1201.
13
Evaluation Design

• Youths eligibility for program is based on risk
  assessment
• Level of risk for re-offending
• Profile of risk factors
• A rigorous test
• Not enough funding for everyone, so Waiting
  List youth assigned to a control group by court
  staff
• Includes completers and non-completers

14
ART Results Washington State
18-Month Recidivism Percentage
15
FFT Results Washington State

18-Month Unadjusted Felony Recidivism Percentage




















Washington State Institute for Public Policy
16
Clear Lessons

• The key to reducing recidivism with
  evidence-based programs is delivering the service
  according to the model.
• The key to on-going good outcomes is an
  infrastructure to maintain model-adherent program
  delivery.

17
Washington State's 2004 Results by Ethnicity
18
ART Study Sample Sizes1
ART Comparison Not Adherent ART Adherent ART Percent Adherent ART
Total 503 194 487 72
European American 423 128 398 76
Not European American 80 66 89 57
African American 38 49 45 48
Native American 30 6 28 82
Asian American 12 11 16 59
1 The ethnicity of 41 youth was unknown.
19
ART and Ethnicity 18-Month Felony Recidivism
Comparison
40
Not Adherent
36
Adherent
35
35
33
35
32
29
30
27
26
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
18-Month Unadjusted Felony Recidivism Percentage
20
20
15
128
10
66
49
6
11
80
38
423
45
30
398
89
28
12
16
5
0
European American
Non-European American
African American
Native American
Asian American
20
FFT Study Sample Sizes
FFT Comparison Not Adherent FFT Adherent FFT Percent Adherent FFT
Total 306 197 174 47
European American 248 146 136 48
Not European American 58 51 38 43
African American 30 33 24 42
Native American 15 7 7 50
Asian American 13 11 7 39
21
FFT and Ethnicity 18-Month Felony Recidivism
Comparison
Not Adherent
50
47
46
Adherent
45
40
40
36
36
33
33
35
32
30
18-Month Unadjusted Felony Recidivism Percentage
25
25
25
21
18
20
14
14
15
11
146
33
51
7
10
15
58
38
30
24
13
7
7
248
136
5
0
0
European American
Non-European American
African American
Native American
Asian American
22
Summary of Evidence to Date

• Both European and non-European American youth can
  benefit from FFT and ART if service delivery
  adheres to the program model.
• There is some evidence that matching the
  ethnicity of the provider to the family may
  increase program effectiveness.

23
The End