1. Reduce Crime & Save Money Switching from Lower to Higher Return–on–Investment Programs and Policies:  Washington State’s (Evolving) Approach  Smart Justice Summit Anchorage, Alaska October 3, 2011 Steve Aos Director Washington State Institute for Public Policy Phone: (360) 586-2740 E-mail: saos@wsipp.wa.gov Institute Publications: www.wsipp.wa.gov 1 of 15

2. Accountability Doing Them Passing Them Picking Them Overview 2 of 15 Washington State Institute for Public Policy Nature of the Institute Non-partisan, created by 1983 Legislature General purpose legislative research unit Projects assigned by legislative bills Legislative & executive Board Recent Specific Directions to WSIPP from the WA Legislature What works? What are the costs & benefits of policies to improve these outcomes? Crime (1994, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2009), Education, Early Ed. (2003, 2006, 2009), Child Abuse & Neglect (2003, 2007, 2009), Substance Abuse (2003, 2005, 2009), Mental Health (2005, 2009), Developmental Disabilities (2008), Teen Births (1994), Employment (2009), Public Assistance (2009), Public Health (2009), and Housing (2009) WSIPP CapitolOlympia Seattle My House

3. Accountability Doing Them Passing Them Picking Them Overview 3 of 15 To Reduce Crime & Save Money, the “smart” state or local government will recognize that it is (increasingly) possible to… Identify a sound portfolio of crime fighting policies. Evidence based. High return on investment to taxpayers. Do the math: you can lower crime rates & save tax dollars. Focus resources on higher-risk offenders. Assessment tools to align offenders with the right evidence-based resources. Implement the policies with “quality control.” To assure better adherence to the funded policies. Tie the strategy directly to state budgets. To monitor and deliver the results to taxpayers.

4. Accountability Doing Them Passing Them Overview Picking Them 4 of 15 1.What works (to improve outcomes); what doesn’t? We analyze ALL, RIGOROUS evaluations of REAL WORLD ways to improve the key public outcomes. Washington legislature has asked WSIPP this question: “Are There Evidence-Based Policy Options That Improve Public Outcomes, but at Less Cost?” Our 3-Step Research Approach: Three Tests 2.What are the economics? We compute benefits, costs, and risk ( return on investment ) to the people of Washington for each policy option. 3.How would a “portfolio” of options affect statewide outcomes? How much risk of failure?

5. Accountability Doing Them Passing Them Overview Picking Them 5 of 15 Our “Consumer Reports” Lists: What Works? What Doesn’t? What Can Give Washington Taxpayers a Good Return on Their Money? Given the Current Level of Rigorous Research, What Don’t We Know?

6. Accountability Doing Them Passing Them Overview Picking Them 6 of 15 Crime: The Big Picture Keeping Track of Crime Rates & Taxpayer Costs in Washington: 1980 to 2009 In 2009, crime rates were 43% lower than they were in 1980. In 1980, taxpayers spent $575 per household on the criminal justice system in WA. Today they spend $1,250 per year. A 117% increase. Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Data are for Washington State. Monetary values in 2008 dollars. Crime rates cover major felony crimes as reported to police. 1980198519901995200020052010 Crime Rates Are Down Percent Change Since 1980 0% +20% -20% -40% -60% +40% +60% +80% +100% +120% +140% Taxpayer Costs Are Up (Inflation-adjusted, total state & local criminal justice dollars per household) 201520202025

7. Accountability Doing Them Passing Them Overview Picking Them 7 of 15 Change In Crime (# of EB Studies) Benefits Minus Costs, per-person, life cycle (Probability: you lose $) Adult Drug Courts-13% (67)$7,651 (<1%) Education Prgs., Prison-12% (17)$18,821 (<1%) Cog-Behavioral Treatment-6% (36) $10,524 (1%) ISP: surveillance only+1% (23)-$4,606 (90%) ISP: treatment focus-10% (11)$9,809 (4%) Multisystemic Therapy -12% (10)$22,096 (9%) Aggression Repl. Trng -20% (4)$34,566 (7%) Adult Offenders Juvenile Offenders Pre-School* (low income) -17% (8) $19,060 (<1%) Nurse Family Partnership*-12% (2) $20,905 (11%) Prevention* Functional Family Thpy -22% (7)$34,549 (<1%) Drug Tx in Prison (TC or out-patient) -9% (21) $10,456 (<1%) We located and meta-analyzed 36 reasonably rigorous outcome evaluations conducted in the United States, Canada, and UK. We find, on average, they reduced recidivism rates 6 percent. Without CBT, an offender has a 63% chance of being reconvicted for a new felony or misdemeanor after 15 years; With CBT, the odds drop to about 59%. The reduced recidivism = a NET gain of $10,524 per participant. We estimate CBT, which is done in groups, costs $217 per participant; benefits of reduced recidivism total $2,588 to taxpayers (lower criminal justice costs) and $8,153 to crime victims (reduced victimization). A total benefit-to-cost ratio of $50 to $1 Risk: About 1% of the time you lose money (costs exceed benefits). We ran the model 500 times testing the expected bottom line for the known or estimated risk and uncertainty in our findings. Family Int. Transitions -6% (1)$16,052 (14%) MDT Foster Care -9% (3)$33,047 (15%) What Works to Reduce Crime? * Programs have a number of other non-crime benefits; all benefits reported here. (July 2011 Results)

8. Accountability Doing Them Passing Them Overview Picking Them 8 of 15 1.Risk (for re-offense) Focus on higher risk, not lower risk, populations. 2.Treatment (delivered with fidelity) Focus on research-proven prevention and intervention. 3.Punishment (Sentencing) Strong evidence (for crime deterrence) for certainty, but not for severity of punishment. 4.Diminishing Returns They happen. 5.“Good Cop, Bad Cop” The combo seems to be more effective at crime reduction. 6.Benefit-Cost Economics Needed Benefits and costs need to be computed: not all options that “work” have sound economics. A Cheat Sheet on Six Evidence-Based Principles: What Public Policies Work to Reduce Crime?

9. Accountability Doing Them Picking Them Overview Passing Them 9 of 15 Began funding several evidence-based juvenile justice programs in late 1990s and early 2000s. Less crime, save $. 2002 Legislature cut prison sentences (for drug offenders) and diverted some of the fiscal savings to drug courts (from the WSIPP list). Less crime, save $. 2007 Legislature funded a portfolio of evidence-based criminal justice programs in adult and juvenile corrections, and prevention. 2000 bed, $250 Million, prison avoided. Early childhood education passes the economic test and the legislature has taken steps to include it as part of Washington’s basic education program. 2011 Legislative Session. Some Major Washington Legislative Actions

10. Accountability Passing Them Picking Them Overview Doing Them 10 of 15 Three Evidence-Based Implementation Issues (Completed or Being Completed/Refined) in Washington State Formal Assessment Process (Tools) to align participants with the right programs, and to focus resources on higher risk populations State-Funded Quality/Fidelity System to assure better adherence to the funded:  assessment system, and  the intervention program models Funding Formulas with the Right Incentives to encourage interest, adherence, and innovations in EB programs.

11. Doing Them Passing Them Picking Them Overview Accountability 11 of 15 Key Development  WA now ties, explicitly each year, the official state prison forecast to the expected effects of the funded portfolio. Tying Investments to State Budgets

12. Doing Them Passing Them Picking Them Overview Accountability 12 of 15 Keeping Track of Results: Juvenile Arrest Rates The change since 1990 in the United States and in Washington (WA) State -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 199019921994199619982000200220042006 Year United States Washington State 62% lower for WA 48% lower for US Washington begins evidence- based juvenile justice programs. Washington begins “full fidelity” implementation.

13. Doing Them Passing Them Picking Them Overview Accountability 13 of 15 Keeping Track of Results: the Prison-Crime Relationship Washington’s Crime Rate (non-drug crimes per 1,000 pop) 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Washington’s Incarceration Rate (ADP per 1,000 pop) 1234 2007 2008 2009 ‘89 ‘90 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘00 ‘99 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 2006 If Prison Doesn’t Work If Prison Really Works Each data point is that year's incarceration rate and crime rate. Elasticity: Elasticity: how a percentage change in a state’s incarceration rate leads to a percentage change in its crime rate. ‘85 ‘86 ‘87 ‘88 ‘81 ‘82 ‘83 ‘84 1980 Key Development: The long-term link between incarceration and crime in WA appears to have changed, favorably, around 2006. Crime is now falling without expensive increases in incarceration rates. Improved public policies and other factors are probably responsible.

14. Summary 14 of 15 …It is increasingly possible to… Use rigorous evidence to identify what works. Calculate return on investment information routinely, and consistently. Have the information actually used in policy making. To Improve Key Public Outcomes & Save Money, the “Smart” State or Local Government will Recognize that… …It is important to… Have a baseball hitter’s mentality.

15. ANNUAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUE EXCLUSIVE RATINGS Over 200 Crime–Related Programs and Policies Programs programs taxpayer dollars that reduce crime and save taxpayers money. programs BEST 2011 Crime Policies to Adopt S Institute Publications: www.wsipp.wa.gov Reports Are Available on: Criminal Justice Juvenile Justice Child Welfare Education Mental Health Substance Abuse Prevention …More on the way

16. Thank You!

17. Addendum Limitations of Benefit-Cost Analysis Two “Big Picture” Goals of Criminal Justice Crime Reduction (to achieve less crime in the future) Justice (to address wrongs done in the past) Benefit-cost analyses can help you study policy options for the crime reduction goal, but it is pretty much silent on the justice goal.