Marna Miller, Rebecca Goodvin - November 2017

The 2012 Washington State Legislature directed DSHS to create a two-track response system for accepted reports to Child Protective Services, where high risk families receive an investigation (formerly the only response) and low- to moderate-risk families receive Family Assessment Response (FAR). FAR provides a comprehensive assessment of child safety, risk of subsequent child abuse or neglect, and family strengths and needs. The assessment determines the need for services to address child safety and the risk of subsequent maltreatment but does not include a determination as to whether child abuse or neglect occurred.

WSIPP was directed to evaluate the effect of FAR on child safety measures, out-of-home placement rates, re-referral rates, and caseload sizes and demographics. In this final report, we evaluate the outcomes directed in the law, comparing outcomes for families who received FAR to those families who were eligible for FAR but who were served in offices where FAR had not yet been implemented. We also estimate the proportion of the caseload assigned to FAR after full implementation and the effect of FAR on receipt of paid in-home services.

A preliminary report was published in December 2014.

EBPI & WSIPP - September 2017

The 2012 Legislature passed E2SHB 2536 with the intention that “prevention and intervention services delivered to children and juveniles in the areas of mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice be primarily evidence-based and research-based, and it is anticipated that such services will be provided in a manner that is culturally competent.”

The bill directs the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) and the University of Washington Evidence-Based Practice Institute (UW) to publish descriptive definitions and prepare an inventory of evidence-based, research-based, and promising practices and services, and to periodically update the inventory as more practices are identified. This is the seventh update to the September 30, 2012 publication. The accompanying report describes the inventory update process, as well as the ongoing technical assistance process by UW.

Adam Darnell, Kristofer Bitney - September 2017

Initiative 502, passed by Washington voters in November 2012, legalized the limited adult possession and private consumption of cannabis, as well as its licensed production and sale. The initiative directs WSIPP to evaluate the impact of the law in a series of reports between 2015 and 2032.

In this second required report we address preliminary findings from analyses of effects of I-502 on non-monetary outcomes. We used two main analysis strategies. We examined the effect of I-502 enactment on cannabis abuse treatment admissions, comparing Washington to similar non-legalizing states before and after I-502 enactment. We also examined how local differences in the amount of legal cannabis sales affected cannabis abuse treatment admissions, youth and adult substance use, and drug-related criminal convictions.

These analyses represent an intermediate step towards the ultimate benefit-cost evaluation of I-502 that is required by the law.

Chasya Hoagland, Bethanne Barnes, Adam Darnell - June 2017

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy is directed to conduct an evaluation and benefit-cost analysis of the implementation of I-502, which legalizes recreational marijuana use for adults within the state. As a supplemental step, WSIPP's Board of Director's authorized WSIPP to analyze employment and wage data for employees in marijuana businesses.

We used data from The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) combined with Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage data from the Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD) to analyze employment in Washington State businesses that have been issued marijuana licenses.

Eva Westley, Julia Cramer, John Bauer, Stephanie Lee, Michael Hirsch, Mason Burley, Noa Kay - May 2017

WSIPP’s Board of Directors authorized WSIPP to work on a joint project with the MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, with additional support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to extend WSIPP’s benefit-cost analysis to certain health care topics.

We present new benefit-cost findings for interventions in four health care areas: 1) interventions to promote healthy pregnancy and birth; 2) therapies to treat opioid use disorder; 3) collaborative primary care; and 4) patient-centered medical homes. These benefit-cost findings build on our meta-analytic results released in December 2016.

As part of this work, we conducted a primary analysis of Washington State birth certificate and hospital discharge data to estimate the costs related to key birth indicators. This analysis is a new addition to WSIPP’s benefit-cost model and is discussed comprehensively in the Health Care Technical Appendix.

Kristofer Bitney, Elizabeth Drake, Joshua Grice, Michael Hirsch, Stephanie Lee - May 2017

The 2016 Washington State Legislature created the Statewide Reentry Council with the goals of reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes for people who return to the community after incarceration. This legislation also directed WSIPP to examine the effectiveness of reentry programs through a systematic review of the research literature.

Using WSIPP’s standardized procedures, we examined 59 programs to estimate their average effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes. In this report, we describe our meta-analytic and benefit-cost findings for these programs.

Rebecca Goodvin, Marna Miller - January 2017

The 2016 Washington State Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to evaluate the “impact and cost effectiveness” of the hub home model. The hub home model, developed by The Mockingbird Society, is an approach to licensed foster care delivery where an experienced foster “hub home” provides activities and respite care for a group or “constellation” of nearby foster homes. The Mockingbird Society has operated Washington’s only hub home program, frequently referred to as the Mockingbird Family Model, on a small scale since 2004.

In this interim report, we briefly describe The Mockingbird Society’s hub home model operations in Washington State and outline our evaluation approach. A final report is due to the legislature by June 30, 2017. The study will include both an outcome evaluation and benefit-cost analysis to address the cost effectiveness of the hub home model in comparison to traditional foster care delivery.

Mia Nafziger - December 2016

The 2015 Washington State Legislature directed WSIPP to review existing literature and begin a four-year study to evaluate outcomes regarding the cost-effectiveness of FDA-approved long-acting injectable medications, focusing on the benefits to persons in prison when they are released into the community.

We review the research evidence on the effectiveness of these medications in reducing substance abuse and recidivism rates. Where possible, we calculate whether the benefits of administering long-acting injectable medications outweigh the costs.

Danielle Fumia, Catherine Nicolai, Mia Nafziger, Michael Hirsch, Chasya Hoagland - December 2016

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) Board of Directors authorized a collaborative project with the MacArthur Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts to extend WSIPP’s benefit-cost analysis to higher education programs.

This report reviews the evidence on four types of interventions: 1) financial aid, 2) student advising, 3) interventions in the summer before college, and 4) dual enrollment.

John Bauer, Eva Westley, Madeline Barch, Mason Burley, Julia Cramer, Noa Kay - December 2016

WSIPP’s Board of Directors authorized WSIPP to work on a joint project with the MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, with additional support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to extend WSIPP’s benefit-cost analysis to certain health care topics.

We present meta-analytic findings for programs in four health care areas: 1) the promotion of healthy pregnancy and birth; 2) therapies to treat opioid use disorder; 3) the integration of behavioral health and primary care, and 4) patient-centered medical homes.