INTENSIVE PAROLE MODEL

FOR HIGH RISK JUVENILE OFFENDERS:

Interim Outcomes for the First Cohort of Youth

Robert Barnoski

November 2000

Washington State
Institute for
Public Policy
 INTENSIVE PAROLE MODEL
FOR HIGH RISK JUVENILE OFFENDERS:
Interim Outcomes for the First Cohort of Youth

Robert Barnoski

November 2000

Washington State Institute for Public Policy

110 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 214
PO Box 40999
Olympia, WA 98504-0999

Phone: (360) 586-2677

Fax: (360) 586-2793
URL: http://www.wa.gov/wsipp

Document No. 00-11-1201

WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Mission
The Washington Legislature created the Washington State Institute for Public Policy in 1983. A
Board of Directors—representing the legislature, the governor, and public universities—governs
the Institute, hires the director, and guides the development of all activities.

The Institute’s mission is to carry out practical research, at legislative direction, on issues of
importance to Washington State. The Institute conducts research activities using its own policy
analysts, academic specialists from universities, and consultants. New activities grow out of
requests from the Washington legislature and executive branch agencies, often directed
through legislation. Institute staff work closely with legislators, as well as legislative, executive,
and state agency staff to define and conduct research on appropriate state public policy topics.

Current assignments include projects in welfare reform, criminal justice, education, youth
violence, and social services.

Board of Directors
Senator Karen Fraser Dennis Braddock, Department of Social and Health Services
Senator Jeanine Long Marty Brown, Office of Financial Management
Senator Valoria Loveland Douglas Baker, Washington State University
Senator James West David Dauwalder, Central Washington University
Representative Ida Ballasiotes Marsha Landolt, University of Washington
Representative Jeff Gombosky Thomas L. "Les" Purce, The Evergreen State College
Representative Helen Sommers Ken Conte, House Office of Program Research
Representative Steve Van Luven Stan Pynch, Senate Committee Services

Staff
Roxanne Lieb, Director
Steve Aos, Associate Director
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................1

Background..................................................................................................................................5

Evaluation Design........................................................................................................................7

Section I: Population Description................................................................................................9

Section II: Supervision Status...................................................................................................13

Section III: Parole Revocations ................................................................................................17

Section IV: Unauthorized Leaves .............................................................................................21

Section V: Conclusions.............................................................................................................23

Appendix A: Regional Differences............................................................................................25

Appendix B: JRA Implementation Summary ............................................................................29

i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1997, the Washington State Legislature determined that the system for transitioning the
highest-risk youth from state institutions to parole did not provide adequate rehabilitation and
public safety.1 The Legislature found the intensive parole model promoted by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to be a promising strategy for reducing
recidivism rates for these juvenile offenders.2 Intensive parole was funded for up to 25 percent
of the highest-risk youth committed to state Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA)
custody.3

Elements of Intensive Parole

The intensive parole model employs a case management system to facilitate the transition of
high-risk delinquents from secure confinement to community supervision. Case management
starts when the juvenile first enters an institution, spans confinement, and extends through
community supervision. This model is based on the work of David Altschuler and Troy
Armstrong4 and was adopted in 1994 by OJJDP as a "promising strategy." Outcome research
supporting the program's effectiveness in reducing recidivism is still pending.

Washington is the only location in the country where the program is implemented statewide.
The following are elements of intensive parole:
• Information management and program evaluation;
• Assessment and selection criteria;
• Individual case planning;
• A mixture of intensive surveillance and services;
• A balance of incentives and graduated consequences;
• Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks; and
• Transition services.

Staged Evaluation
JRA contracted with the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to evaluate the
program's implementation, determine whether the program reduces recidivism, and analyze its
costs and benefits to taxpayers and crime victims. To determine whether intensive parole
reduces recidivism, the Institute compared intensive parole youth with a similar group of youth

1
RCW 13.40.212
2
David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, September 1994).
3
RCW 13.40.210
4
David M. Altschuler and Troy L. Armstrong, "Intensive Aftercare for the High-Risk Juvenile Parolee: Issues and
Approaches in Reintegration and Community Supervision," in Intensive Interventions with High-Risk Youths: Promising
Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole, ed. Troy Armstrong, (Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press, 1991).

1
who did not receive intensive parole. The Legislature specified that JRA report annually on the
status of intensive parole beginning December 1, 1999. Institute reports will be completed to
meet the legislative schedule. The final report will be completed by 2003. This is the second in
the series of annual reports.

1999 Report. The Institute's first report described the intensive parole model and its
implementation as of October 1999.5 The report found that JRA was implementing the
OJJDP intensive parole model as specified in the 1997 legislation in a comprehensive
and thorough manner.

2000 Report. This report analyzes interim outcome data for the first cohort of youth
placed on intensive community supervision.

Summary of Questions Answered in This Report

The Institute is evaluating JRA’s intensive parole program to determine whether it reduces
recidivism. However, sufficient time has not elapsed to measure recidivism outcomes. This
report takes advantage of interim outcome measures which provide initial information on how
the program is changing the behavior of youth. These measures are available from JRA’s
administrative database for youth placed on intensive parole and a similar group of youth not
given intensive parole. The interim outcomes in this report examine problem behaviors of
youth. A subsequent report will describe positive behaviors available from JRA’s Intensive
Parole Supervision Assessment (IPSA).

Group Comparisons

Are the program and control groups similar? Yes, there are only minor differences between the
intensive parole (program) and control group youth. The evaluation will statistically adjust for
these differences.

Are intensive parole program youth completing their parole supervision within 24 weeks of
placement on the parole? Few intensive parole youth (11 percent) were discharged from
supervision after 24 weeks. Forty-six percent were on active status, and 39 percent had been
placed on inactive status, where there is a new offense pending, their whereabouts is unknown,
their parole is revoked, or they are confined in prison, jail, detention, or a mental health facility.

During what time period of parole are comparisons between the groups valid? The program
and control groups can be compared during the first 12 weeks on parole. The two groups
cannot be compared at the 24-week point because few control group youth remained on
parole.

5
Robert Barnoski, Evaluating the Washington State Intensive Parole Model for High Risk Juvenile Offenders (Washington
State Institute for Public Policy, November 1999).

2
Supervision Status Changes and Revocations

How does intensive parole affect the likelihood that youth will experience supervision difficulties
during the first 12 weeks on parole? Intensive parole does not significantly influence whether
youth experience supervision difficulties that place them on inactive status during the first 12
weeks of parole.

How often do intensive parole program youth have their parole revoked within the first 24
weeks on parole? Almost half (47 percent) had at least one parole revocation with youth
averaging 1.1 revocations during the first 24 weeks. The average stay in a JRA facility or local
detention was 28.4 days.

How does intensive parole affect parole revocations during the first 12 weeks on supervision?
The program group had a slightly higher number of revocations to local detention, but not to a
JRA facility, than the control group. Intensive parole youth spent slightly more days confined in
local detention, but not in JRA facilities, during the first 12 weeks of supervision.

Unauthorized Leaves

How often do intensive parole program youth go on unauthorized leave within the first 24
weeks on parole? Fifty-five percent of the youth had at least one unauthorized leave within the
first 24 weeks on parole. Youth averaged 1.0 unauthorized leaves lasting 35 days.

How does intensive parole affect unauthorized leaves during the first 12 weeks of parole?
There are no statistically significant differences between the program and control groups
regarding the number of times a youth goes on unauthorized leave or the average number of
days spent on unauthorized leave—the control group averaged 17.9 days and the program
group 21.7 days.

Summary

Overall, the interim outcomes of parole status, revocations, and unauthorized leaves during the
first 12 weeks on parole are the same for both the intensive parole and control groups.
Previous national research on intensive parole programs has found that the higher levels of
supervision can increase these problem behaviors possibly as the result of increased detection.
This is not the case with JRA’s intensive parole program.

3
BACKGROUND

In 1997, the Washington State Legislature determined that the system for transitioning the
highest-risk youth from state institutions to parole did not provide adequate rehabilitation and
public safety.6 The Legislature found the intensive parole model promoted by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to be a promising strategy for reducing
recidivism rates for these juvenile offenders.7 Intensive parole was funded for up to 25 percent
of the highest-risk youth committed to state Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA)
custody.8

The intensive parole model employs a case management system to facilitate the transition of
high-risk delinquents from secure confinement to community supervision. Case management
starts when the juvenile first enters an institution, spans confinement, and extends through
community supervision. This model is based on the work of David Altschuler and Troy
Armstrong9 and was adopted by OJJDP in 1994 as a "promising strategy." Research findings
on the program's effectiveness in reducing recidivism are pending; studies are underway in
Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and New Jersey. Washington is the only location in the country
where the program is implemented statewide.

JRA contracted with the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) to evaluate the
program's implementation, determine whether the program reduces recidivism, and analyze its
costs and benefits to taxpayers and crime victims.

State Policy and Funding Shifts: 1997 to 2000

The intensive parole program became operational on October 1, 1998, three months ahead of
the legislatively-directed date. Each intensive parole counselor works with 12 paroled youth
and 16 institutionalized youth. A community assistant supports two intensive parole caseloads.
Standard parole was not funded during fiscal year 1999 but was reinstated the next fiscal year
(2000) with 20 youth per counselor.

6
RCW 13.40.212
7
David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, September 1994).
8
RCW 13.40.210
9
David M. Altschuler and Troy L. Armstrong, "Intensive Aftercare for the High-Risk Juvenile Parolee: Issues and
Approaches in Reintegration and Community Supervision," in Intensive Interventions with High-Risk Youths: Promising
Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole, ed. Troy Armstrong, (Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press, 1991).

5
During the implementation of this program, the state policy on juvenile parole and JRA activities
has undergone changes.

1997 Legislation Intensive parole authorized for 25 percent of the highest-risk JRA youth.
July 1, 1998 Funding for regular parole discontinued except for sex offenders.
October 1, 1998 Intensive parole started.
1999 Legislation Funding for regular parole re-established.
July 1, 1999 Regular parole reinstated.
February 2000 Regions start research-based services for youth on parole.
July 2000 Maple Lane and Echo Glen institutions start research-based services.

Appendix B includes a summary of program activities and perspectives from JRA's Intensive
Parole Program Manager.

6
EVALUATION DESIGN

The strongest research design would identify eligible youth and then randomly assign each to a
control or program group. Any outcome differences between the two groups could be attributed
to the treatment since it is the sole difference between the groups. This approach is not
feasible with the intensive parole program because JRA cannot release a high-risk youth
without supervision.

Since random assignment is not possible, a pre-program control group method is used to
measure program effectiveness. The control group consists of youth placed on regular parole
supervision between October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, who would have met the intensive
parole criteria had the program existed at that time.

Two types of program groups are involved in the evaluation:

• Youth who were admitted to JRA before October 1, 1998, when the residential phase of
intensive parole was started but who were released to intensive parole in the community
after October 1, 1998.
• Youth admitted to JRA after October 1, 1998, who went through the residential phase of
intensive parole before being released to intensive parole in the community.

Youth who have received both the residential and community service components of intensive
parole will be the subjects of the 2001 report. JRA continues to adjust the program and has
enhanced the services to intensive parole program youth. To evaluate the impact of these
enhanced services requires tracking another cohort of youth placed on parole after October
31,1999.

A description of the intensive parole evaluation is detailed in the Institute's March 1999 report,
Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration Intensive Parole: Program Evaluation Design. The final
outcome measure will be the comparison of recidivism rates between the control and program
groups.10 Preliminary 6-month and 12-month recidivism rates will be calculated, as well as the
final 18-month rate. The Washington State Office of the Administrator for the Courts' (OAC)
Justice Information System will be the source for estimating recidivism rates. The Legislature
specified that JRA report annually on the status of intensive parole beginning December 1,
1999. Institute reports will be completed to meet the legislative schedule. The final report will
be completed by 2003.

This report focuses on the first cohort of intensive parole program youth who did not participate
in the residential phase of the program. These youth were released from a JRA facility to
intensive parole between October 1, 1998, and October 31, 1999.

10
Robert Barnoski, Standards for Improving Research Effectiveness in Adult and Juvenile Justice (Olympia, WA:
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, December 1997).

7
SECTION I: POPULATION DESCRIPTION

The evaluation compares youth placed on intensive parole (program group) with similar youth
who met the intensive parole criteria but were placed on parole prior to the start of the program
(control group). Criteria for intensive parole include the following:
• High-risk youth with an Initial Security Classification Assessment11 (ISCA) score of at
least 32 before July 1, 1999, and a revised ISCA score of at least 45 since July 1, 1999; or
• Basic Training Camp (BTC) graduate with at least 120 days in basic training camp; or
• Sex offender with a Level III score on the Sex Offender Screening Tool (SOST); or
• Youth committed for murder and released before July 1, 1999.

For this analysis, the intensive parole program group consists of youth placed in the community
on intensive parole between October 1, 1998, and October 31, 1999. These youth did not
participate in the residential phase of the intensive parole program. The control group consists
of youth placed on parole supervision between October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1998, who
would have met the intensive parole criteria had the program existed at that time.

This research step compares the program and control groups along demographics and risk
levels and is critical in a strong evaluation. We need to ensure that the program and control
groups are similar so differences can be attributed to the intervention.

Table 1 displays the percentage of youth in the program and control groups by the four eligibility
criteria.12 There are 441 youth in the control group and 454 youth in the program group. Most
youth become eligible for the intensive parole program because of a high-risk score. There are
few sex offenders and murderers in either the program or control group. In the control group, 8
percent are from the basic training camp. The program group has slighter more youth than the
basic training camp (19 percent).

Table 1
Percentage of Youth in Program and Control Groups
BTC SEX OFFENDER
PAROLE TOTAL
PAROLE PAROLE
ELIGIBILITY CONTROL PROGRAM CONTROL PROGRAM CONTROL PROGRAM CONTROL PROGRAM
CRITERIA GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP
HIGH RISK* 85% 72% 5% 4% 1% 2% 91% 78%
BTC**
GRADUATE 0% 0% 8% 19% 0% 0% 8% 19%
SOST*** 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2%
MURDER 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
TOTAL 85% 74% 13% 23% 2% 4% 100% 100%
* High Risk = ISCA score above the cut-off
** BTC = Basic Training Camp
*** SOST = Sex Offender Screening Tool
Totals may not add to 100 due to rounding.

11
The Initial Security Classification Assessment includes a risk level developed by JRA to predict the likelihood of a youth
re-offending once released into the community. ISCA scoring was revised in July 1999.
12
Source: JRA administrative data system, MAPPER, as of October 2000.
9
Appendix A, Table A-1, shows the number of youth in the program and control groups by the
four eligibility criteria for each of JRA’s six regions.

The ISCA is a validated measure of the risk for re-offending that underwent a change in
scoring.13 Eligibility for intensive parole is based on two versions of the ISCA. The older
version uses a cutoff score of 32 points, and the new version uses a cutoff of 45 points.
Because there is not perfect correspondence between the old and new scores, youth eligible
by the 32 point cutoff now have revised scores below 45 points. Table 2 displays the
percentage distribution of ISCA score categories for the program and control groups based
on the revised ISCA scoring.

Table 2
ISCA Score Comparison

ISCA SCORE CONTROL PROGRAM

CATEGORY GROUP GROUP
UNDER 45 24% 39%
45 TO 49 46% 31%
50 TO 54 25% 24%
OVER 54 6% 6%
TOTAL 100% 100%
AVERAGE ISCA 46.8 45.9
Totals may not add to 100 due to rounding.

The program group has an average ISCA score of 45.9—a statistically significantly lower risk than
the control group average of 46.8. Although statistically significant, this difference is slight.
Analyses of the individual items on the ISCA reveal that program group youth have significantly
different scores on two items:

• Prior Adjudications: the program group has slightly fewer prior adjudications.
• Age at Admission: the program group consists of slightly younger offenders.

Because the program group has a slightly lower average risk for re-offense, comparisons between
the two groups require additional statistical procedures. These procedures will statistically adjust
for this difference and allow valid comparisons.

13
Robert Barnoski, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration Assessments: Validity Review and Recommendations
(Washington State Institute for Public Policy, September 1998).
10
Table 3 presents the types of offenses for both groups recorded in MAPPER, JRA’s
administrative data system, and JUVIS, OAC's juvenile court database. There is very close
agreement between the JRA and OAC data concerning the types of offenses in these youths’
criminal histories.

The distribution of offense types is nearly identical for the program and control groups. Five out
of every ten youth in both the control and program groups has an against-person14 felony
offense in their backgrounds. More than eight out of ten youth have been convicted of a
property offense. Approximately 15 percent have been convicted of a drug offense, and nearly
all have been convicted of a misdemeanor offense.

Table 3
Offense History
15 16
TYPE OF OFFENSE(S) JRA OFFENSE HISTORY OAC OFFENSE HISTORY
IN HISTORY CONTROL GROUP PROGRAM GROUP CONTROL GROUP PROGRAM GROUP
AGAINST PERSON 50% 50% 51% 51%
PROPERTY 88% 85% 85% 81%
DRUG 14% 14% 17% 20%
OTHER FELONY 18% 16% 21% 19%
MISDEMEANOR 97% 93% 96% 93%

Table 4 shows the age of the youth when placed on parole. Very few youth are under the age
of 14. The majority of youth placed on parole are between 15 and 18 years old. The difference
in age between the program and control groups is statistically significant. Because the program
group consists of slightly older youth, future comparisons of the two groups will statistically
adjust for this difference.

Table 4
Age at Start of Parole
AGE AT START OF PAROLE CONTROL GROUP PROGRAM GROUP
UNDER 14 3% 1%
14 10% 6%
15 20% 14%
16 20% 26%
17 24% 26%
18 18% 20%
OVER 18 6% 6%
TOTAL 100% 100%
AVERAGE AGE 16.3 16.5

14
An against-person offense includes homicide, sex offense, assault, and robbery.
15
This criminal history is based on the offense data within JRA’s MAPPER.
16
This criminal history is based on the offense data within OAC’s JUVIS (Juvenile Information System).
11
Table 5 shows that approximately nine out of ten youth in the program and control groups are
males. There is no statistically significant difference in gender between the two groups.

Table 5
Gender
GENDER CONTROL GROUP PROGRAM GROUP
FEMALE 7% 11%
MALE 93% 89%
TOTAL 100% 100%

Over half of the youth in the program and control groups are European American.
Approximately 20 percent are African American, and fewer than 10 percent are either Native
American or Asian American. After excluding the unknown category, there is no statistically
significant difference in ethnic background between the two groups.

Table 6
Ethnic Background
ETHNIC BACKGROUND CONTROL GROUP PROGRAM GROUP
EUROPEAN AMERICAN 52% 52%
AFRICAN AMERICAN 23% 19%
NATIVE AMERICAN 6% 8%
ASIAN AMERICAN 3% 6%
OTHER/UNREPORTED 16% 15%
TOTAL 100% 100%

Summary
There are no statistically significant differences between the program and control groups on the
nature of offense history, gender, and ethnic background. There are minor but statistically
significant differences on two ISCA items (prior adjudications and age at admission) and age at
start of parole. More specifically, the program group youth have slightly fewer prior
adjudications, are slightly younger at admission, and slightly older at the start of parole. The
control group has a slightly higher risk of reoffending. Future comparisons of the two groups
during the course of this evaluation will statistically adjust for these minor differences.

12
SECTION II. SUPERVISION STATUS

This section answers the following questions:

• Are intensive parole program youth completing their parole supervision within 24 weeks
of placement on supervision?
• Can we compare the behavior of these program youth with that of youth in a control
group?
• How does intensive parole affect the likelihood that youth will experience supervision
difficulties?

Legislation directed that program youth be on parole supervision for 24 weeks. Previous to
intensive parole, JRA placed youth on parole supervision for 12, 16, or 24 weeks depending on
their length of confinement in an institution. Youth are on the caseload but on inactive status
when they have a new offense pending, their whereabouts is unknown, their parole is revoked,
or they are confined in prison, jail, detention, or a mental health facility. As a result, it may take
more than 24 weeks for a youth to complete 24 weeks of parole supervision.

Are intensive parole program youth completing their parole supervision within 24 weeks
of placement on supervision?

Table 7 shows the status of intensive parole program youth 24 weeks after being placed on
supervision. At this point, 11 percent of the program group were discharged, 2 percent had
been transferred out-of-state, and 2 percent were transferred to adult corrections. This left 85
percent of the program group still on the caseload after 24 weeks. Forty-six percent were on
active status, and 39 percent were placed on inactive status.
Table 7
Program Group Supervision Status
24 Weeks After Release to Parole

NUMBER OF YOUTH 454

DISCHARGED FROM PAROLE 11%
TRANSFERRED OUT-OF-STATE 2%
TRANSFERRED TO ADULT CORRECTIONS 2%
ON PAROLE CASELOAD 85% ACTIVE STATUS 46%
TOTAL 100% INACTIVE STATUS 39%
New Offense Pending 8%
Whereabouts Unknown 11%
Revoked Parole 8%
Detention/Jail 12%
Mental Health 0%

13
Can we compare the behavior of these program youth with that of youth in a control
group?

The control group consists of similar youth17 on regular parole between October 1, 1997, and
October 1, 1998. Figure 1 illustrates the differences in duration of parole for youth in the
control and program groups. One day before the end of the twelfth week on supervision, 91
percent of the control and 95 percent of the program groups were still on the parole caseload.
This date was used to have as many control group youth as possible on supervision for
comparing the two groups. At 24 weeks, only 39 percent of the control group was on the
caseload compared with 85 percent of the program group.

Figure 1
Percentage of Youth on Caseload Since Placement on Parole

100%
Percentage on Parole Caseload

90%
Control Program
80% Group Program
Group
70% Group
(91%) (95%)
60%
(85%)
50%
40%
30% Control
20% Group
10% (39%)
0%
12 Weeks 24 Weeks
Weeks Since Placement on Parole

The two groups cannot be meaningfully compared at the 24-week point because few control
group youth remained on parole. The groups can, however, be compared before the end of 12
weeks.

17
Youth who would have met the intensive parole criteria had the program existed at that time.

14
How does intensive parole affect the likelihood that youth will experience supervision
difficulties?

Table 8 displays the status of both the program and control group youth one day before the end
of their twelfth week on parole. At that time, 32 percent of the control group and 37 percent of
the program group experienced supervision difficulties that placed them on inactive status.

Table 8
Comparison of Supervision Status
One Day Before 12 Weeks on Parole

12 Week Status
CONTROL PROGRAM
NUMBER OF YOUTH 441 454
DISCHARGED FROM PAROLE 7% 2% CONTROL PROGRAM
TRANSFERRED OUT-OF-STATE 2% 3% ACTIVE STATUS 59% 58%
ON PAROLE CASELOAD 91% 95% INACTIVE STATUS 32% 37%
TOTAL 100% 100% New Offense Pending 3% 4%
Whereabouts Unknown 13% 16%
Revoked Parole 9% 9%
Detention/Jail 8% 8%
Mental Health 0% 0%

As reported in the first section, the program and control groups differ significantly on three
variables (ISCA, time on parole, and age at placement on parole). After statistically controlling
for these three variables, analyses18 revealed that both groups were equally likely to have
parole difficulties that would place them on inactive status 12 weeks after release from a JRA
facility. That is, intensive parole did not significantly influence whether a youth was on inactive
status just before the end of the twelfth week of parole.

As a side note, the chances that a youth's status was inactive at 12 weeks increased by 5
percent for every one point increase in the ISCA score and 3 percent for every week under
supervision. This finding validates the accuracy of the ISCA score in accessing risk for
supervision difficulties as well as re-offending. Age when placed on parole was not significantly
related to having an inactive status 12 weeks after placement on supervision.

Appendix A, Tables A-2 and A-3, contain parole status data for each of the six JRA regions.

18
In the logistic regression model, being on inactive status is a function of the intensive parole group, ISCA score, length
of time on supervision, and age at parole placement.

15
SECTION III. PAROLE REVOCATIONS

This section answers the following questions about parole revocations:

• How often do program youth have their parole revoked?
• How does intensive parole affect parole revocations?

Washington State statute defines the conditions of parole. The intensive parole legislation
added three new parole conditions:
(1) Obey all laws and refrain from any conduct that threatens public safety;
(2) Report at least once a week to an assigned community case manager; and
(3) Meet all other requirements imposed by the community case manager related to
participating in the intensive supervision program.

Intensive parole uses a system of graduated sanctions for violations of parole conditions tied to
the seriousness of the violation.19 More serious violations can result in a revocation of parole.
JRA has two options of confinement for parole revocations: revocations resulting in a return to
a JRA facility for up to 30 days, and those resulting in a stay in a county detention facility. In
this section, both options of confinement for revocations are examined for program youth during
the first 24 weeks after placement on supervision.

How often do intensive parole program youth have their parole revoked?

Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of program youth with at least one revocation within the first
24 weeks on supervision. Overall, 47 percent had at least one parole revocation. Thirty-eight
percent of the youth had at least one parole violation that resulted in a return to a JRA
institution, and 40 percent had a revocation resulting in a stay in detention.
Figure 2
Intensive Parole Program Youth
With at Least One Revocation Within First 24 Weeks

100%

80%

60%
47%
38% 40%
40%

20%

0%
Returns to JRA Returns to Detention Total Revocations

19
Robert Barnoski, Evaluating the Washington State Intensive Parole Model for High Risk Juvenile Offenders
(Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA, November 1999).

17
Table 9 displays the distribution of parole revocations for the program group during the first 24
weeks on parole. Of these youth, 26 percent had one parole violation that resulted in a return
to a JRA institution, and 27 percent had a single revocation resulting in a stay in detention.
Because some youth had revocations resulting in both confinement options, total revocations
do not equal the sum of revocations to JRA and detention. As a result, only 12 percent had
one revocation that resulted in either JRA or detention confinement, but 20 percent had two
revocations, and 14 percent had three or more total revocations.

Table 9
Parole Revocations During First 24 Weeks
NUMBER OF RETURNS TO RETURNS TO TOTAL REVOCATIONS
REVOCATIONS JRA FACILITY DETENTION FACILITY (JRA AND DETENTION)
0 62% 60% 53%
1 26% 27% 12%
2 8% 8% 20%
3 OR MORE 3% 4% 14%
AVERAGE NUMBER* 0.5 0.6 1.1
AVERAGE DAYS** 25.9 8.7 28.4
* The number of revocations per youth.
** The average number of days confined in a JRA facility or detention as the result of a revocation.

During the first 24 weeks from placement on parole, program youth averaged 0.5 revocations
resulting in a return to a JRA facility and 0.6 revocations resulting in detention for a total of 1.1
revocations of either type. For those who had a revocation, the average stay in a JRA facility
was 25.9 days, and the average stay in local detention was 8.7 days. Youth averaged 28.4
days in JRA and/or local detention during the first 24 weeks when they had their parole
revoked.

How does intensive parole affect parole revocations?

As reported in the first section, the program and control groups differ slightly, yet significantly,
on three variables—ISCA, time on parole, and age at placement on parole. The control group
is of slightly higher risk. The second section found that nearly all members of both groups were
still under supervision up to one day before the end of their twelfth week on parole. As a result,
the behavior of the two groups can be compared during the first 12 weeks of parole as long as
the appropriate statistical adjustments are made to allow for the slight differences.

After statistically controlling for the three variables, analyses20 revealed that the program group
had a significantly higher number of revocations resulting in local detention but not JRA facility
confinement than the control group during the first 12 weeks after placement on parole.
Program group participation increased the average number of revocations to local detention
within the first 12 weeks by 40 percent, from 0.20 to 0.28 relative to the control group. Prior
national research on intensive supervision shows increases in revocations can be the result of
heightened detection of problem behaviors.

20
Negative Binomial Regression: Number of revocations is a function of Program Group, ISCA score, length of time
under supervision, and age at parole placement for youth with at least 83 days since program placement.

18
Figure 3 illustrates how the two groups' parole revocations differ within the first 12 weeks of
supervision. Twenty-three percent of the program group had at least one revocation to local
detention compared with 18 percent of the control group. Although statistically significant, this
difference is not large. The percentage of youth with at least one revocation to a JRA facility
was 20 and 22 percent, respectively, for the control and program groups. That is, intensive
parole slightly increased the number of youth with at least one revocation to local detention but
did not affect the number of youth with revocations to a JRA facility during the first 12 weeks of
parole.

Figure 3
Youth With at Least One Revocation
Within First 12 Weeks of Parole
50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25% 23%
22%
20%
20% 18%
Program
Program
Group Control
15% Control Group
Group
Group
10%

5%

0%
Revocation to Local Detention Revocation to JRA Facility
WSIPP 2000

Next we examined the number of days spent in confinement as a result of a revocation. Within
the first 12 weeks, the average number of days in detention was 4.3 for the control group and
6.2 for the program group. This is a statistically significant difference. For revocations to a JRA
facility, the control and program groups were confined an average of 15.9 and 17.5 days,
respectively. This is not statistically significant. Intensive parole slightly increased days spent
in local detention but did not affect days spent in JRA facilities during the first 12 weeks of
supervision

Appendix A, Figures A-4, A-5, and A-6, shows parole revocation data in each of JRA’s six
regions.
.

19
SECTION IV: UNAUTHORIZED LEAVES

This section answers the following questions about unauthorized leaves:

• How often do intensive parole program youth go on unauthorized leave?
• How does intensive parole affect unauthorized leaves?

The parole conditions defined in Washington State statute require parole counselors to monitor
each youth’s whereabouts. Intensive parole supervision added the requirement that youth
meet at least once a week with their parole counselors. When a youth’s whereabouts becomes
unknown, the youth is on unauthorized leave.

How often do intensive parole program youth go on unauthorized leave?

Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of unauthorized leaves within the first 24 weeks on
supervision. Forty-five percent of the youth had no unauthorized leaves. Thirty percent of the
program group had one unauthorized leave, 14 percent had two, and 11 percent had at least
three unauthorized leaves.

Figure 4
Intensive Parole Program Youth With
Unauthorized Leaves Within First 24 Weeks

100%
Average Number = 1.0
90% Average Number of Days = 35.0
Percentage of Intensive Parole Group

80%
70%
60%
50% 45%
40%
30%
30%
20% 14%
11%
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 or more
Number of Unauthorized Leaves

Over 50 percent of the program youth had at least one unauthorized leave. The youth
averaged 1 unauthorized leave lasting 35 days during the first 24 weeks on parole.

21
How does intensive parole affect unauthorized leaves?

As previously mentioned, the behavior of youth in the program and control groups can be
compared during the first 12 weeks of parole as long as the appropriate statistical adjustments
are made to allow for the slight differences on three ISCA variables (ISCA, time on parole, and
age at placement on parole). After statistically controlling for these variables, analyses
revealed there are no statistically significant differences between the program and control
groups regarding the number of times a youth goes on unauthorized leave. Within the first 12
weeks, the average number of times on unauthorized leave was 0.5 for both the program and
control groups. That is, intensive parole does not significantly influence the number of times a
youth is on unauthorized leave just before the end of the twelfth week of parole.

Figure 5 illustrates how similar the two groups are with regard to unauthorized leaves within the
first 12 weeks of supervision.

Figure 5
Percentage of Youth With At Least One Unauthorized Leave
Within First 12 Weeks of Parole

100%
90%
80% Program Group
70% Control Group
Percentage of Group

60%
61% 61%
50%
40%
30%
30%
20% 26%
10% 3%
7% 10% 1%
0%
0 1 2 3 or more
Number of Unauthorized Leaves

Next we examined the number of days spent on unauthorized leave. Within the first 12 weeks,
the average number of days on unauthorized leave was 17.3 for the control group and 21.1 for
the program group. Multivariate analysis indicates this is not a statistically significant
difference. Intensive parole increased slightly, but not significantly, the days spent on
unauthorized leave during the first 12 weeks of supervision for those who went on unauthorized
leave at least once.

Appendix A, Figures A-7 and A-8, shows unauthorized leave data in each of JRA’s six regions.

22
SECTION V: CONCLUSION

This report finds it is possible to compare youth participating in the intensive parole program
with a group of similar youth not participating in the program. As a result, differences between
the two groups can be attributed to the intensive parole program, especially when statistically
controlling for minor differences using the Initial Screening Classification Assessment (ISCA).

The analyses also indicate that problem behaviors during the first 12 weeks on parole can be
compared between the two groups. After 12 weeks, too many of the control group youth are
discharged and no longer under supervision to allow comparisons.

Three behaviors on parole are examined: parole status at the end of the twelfth week,
revocations, and unauthorized leaves during the first 12 weeks on parole. We find that there
are no major differences in these behaviors between the intensive parole program and control
groups. Previous national research on intensive parole programs has found that the higher
levels of supervision can increase detection of these problem behaviors. This is not the case
with JRA’s intensive parole program.

The next report will include an examination of data from the Intensive Parole Supervision
Assessment for this cohort. Since these assessment data are available only for the program
group, no comparisons with the control group are possible. Rather, changes between the initial
and final assessment data will be examined.

23
 APPENDIX A: REGIONAL DIFFERENCES

Table A-1
Youth in Program and Control Groups
Within Each of the Six JRA Regions
SEX OFFENDER TOTAL NUMBER OF
PAROLE BTC PAROLE
PAROLE YOUTH
CONTROL PROGRAM CONTROL PROGRAM CONTROL PROGRAM CONTROL PROGRAM
REGION GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP
Region 1 Spokane 79% 66% 19% 27% 1% 7% 73 70
Region 2 Yakima 87% 80% 13% 19% 0% 1% 62 74
Region 3 Everett 89% 85% 9% 12% 2% 2% 65 81
Region 4 Seattle 86% 83% 12% 14% 3% 3% 104 122
Region 5 Tacoma 92% 74% 8% 23% 0% 3% 85 108
Region 6 Olympia 75% 73% 19% 22% 6% 5% 48 101

25
 Table A-2
Program Youth in Each Status Category
24 Weeks After Release: Regional Variation
REGIONS (BY PERCENTAGES)
STATUS 1 - SPOKANE 2 - YAKIMA 3 - EVERETT 4 - SEATTLE 5 - TACOMA 6 - OLYMPIA
Discharged From Parole 16% 3% 10% 9% 16% 8%
Transferred Out-of-state 0% 1% 2% 2% 0% 5%
Transferred Adult Corrections 1% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4%
On Parole Caseload 83% 96% 89% 85% 84% 84%
Active Supervision 36% 48% 49% 39% 43% 48%
Inactive Supervision 47% 48% 39% 46% 41% 36%
New Offense Pending 7% 4% 16% 8% 6% 5%
Whereabouts Unknown 7% 13% 10% 15% 12% 5%
Revoked Parole 10% 7% 2% 8% 5% 9%
Detention/Jail 13% 16% 8% 7% 13% 9%
Mental Health 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table A-3
Program and Control Group Youth in Each Status Category
One Day Before 12 Weeks on Parole: Regional Variation
REGIONS (BY PERCENTAGES)
STATUS 1 - SPOKANE 2 - YAKIMA 3 - EVERETT 4 - SEATTLE 5 - TACOMA 6 - OLYMPIA
Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program
Discharged From Parole 4% 2% 5% 2% 14% 3% 2% 1% 7% 2% 10% 1%
Transferred Out-of-state 4% 3% 2% 3% 0% 3% 1% 2% 4% 0% 6% 7%
Transferred Adult Corrections 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 1%
On Parole Caseload 90% 95% 93% 95% 86% 93% 97% 93% 88% 98% 83% 90%
Active Supervision 66% 65% 53% 58% 54% 48% 59% 50% 60% 60% 60% 71%
Inactive Supervision 25% 30% 40% 38% 32% 45% 38% 44% 28% 37% 23% 19%
New Offense Pending 1% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1%
Whereabouts Unknown 11% 13% 12% 19% 11% 13% 18% 26% 9% 13% 8% 8%
Revoked Parole 4% 10% 12% 9% 9% 15% 12% 8% 6% 11% 13% 5%
Detention/Jail 8% 3% 12% 5% 8% 12% 7% 6% 11% 10% 0% 4%
Mental Health 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

26
 Table A-4
Revocations During First 24 Weeks of Supervision:
Program Youth in Each Region
PAROLE REVOCATIONS
YOUTH REVOKED WITHIN EACH REGION
DURING FIRST 24 WEEKS
1 – SPOKANE 2 – YAKIMA 3 – EVERETT 4 – SEATTLE 5 – TACOMA 6 – OLYMPIA
JRA Detention JRA Detention JRA Detention JRA Detention JRA Detention JRA Detention
0 73.4 51.6 75.0 70.3 66.7 53.3 60.4 61.4 48.4 51.6 57.5 72.6
1 20.3 28.1 20.3 21.9 23.3 30.0 27.7 28.7 33.0 29.7 27.4 23.3
2 6.3 14.1 4.7 4.7 6.7 11.7 9.9 6.9 12.1 11.0 8.2 2.7
3 OR MORE 0.0 6.3 0.0 3.1 3.3 5.0 2.0 3.0 6.6 7.7 6.8 1.4
AT LEAST ONE 26.6 48.4 25.0 29.7 33.3 46.7 39.6 38.6 51.6 48.4 42.5 27.4
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
AVERAGE NUMBER* 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.3
AVERAGE DAYS** 23.0 11.4 22.2 18.7 21.7 12.9 23.3 5.9 32.8 4.4 25.2 4.4
NUMBER OF YOUTH 64 64 60 101 91 73

Table A-5
Revocations During First 12 Weeks of Supervision:
Youth Placed in Detention
PAROLE REVOCATIONS
YOUTH REVOKED AND PLACED IN DETENTION WITHIN EACH REGION
DURING FIRST 12 WEEKS
1 – SPOKANE 2 – YAKIMA 3 – EVERETT 4 – SEATTLE 5 – TACOMA 6 – OLYMPIA
Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program
0 88% 75% 83% 83% 68% 70% 83% 81% 82% 66% 83% 88%
1 11% 14% 13% 13% 28% 25% 16% 17% 15% 27% 17% 12%
2 1% 11% 3% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 2% 7% 0% 0%
3 OR MORE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AT LEAST ONE 12% 25% 17% 17% 32% 30% 17% 19% 18% 34% 17% 12%
AVERAGE NUMBER* 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1
AVERAGE DAYS** 6.2 9.6 7.3 13 4.8 9.7 3.3 3.2 3.5 3 1.1 1.6

Table A-6
Revocations During First 12 Weeks of Supervision:
Youth Returned to JRA
PAROLE REVOCATIONS
YOUTH REVOKED AND RETURNED TO JRA WITHIN EACH REGION
DURING FIRST 12 WEEKS
1 - SPOKANE 2 - YAKIMA 3 - EVERETT 4 - SEATTLE 5 - TACOMA 6 - OLYMPIA
Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program
0 95% 89% 83% 89% 69% 82% 81% 80% 79% 64% 73% 74%
1 5% 11% 17% 11% 29% 15% 19% 18% 18% 31% 21% 23%
2 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 1% 4% 5% 4% 1%
3 OR MORE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1%
AT LEAST ONE 5% 11% 17% 11% 31% 18% 19% 20% 21% 36% 27% 26%
AVERAGE NUMBER* 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3
AVERAGE DAYS** 18.8 13.3 16.2 19.9 16.8 13.9 13.3 14.4 18.4 21.8 16.3 15.9
* The number of revocations per youth.
** The average number of days spent confined in a JRA facility or detention as the result of a revocation.
27
 Table A-7
Unauthorized Leaves During First 24 Weeks of Supervision:
Intensive Parole Program Youth in Each Region
UNAUTHORIZED YOUTH WITH UNAUTHORIZED LEAVES WITHIN EACH REGION
LEAVES DURING
1 - SPOKANE 2 - YAKIMA 3 - EVERETT 4 - SEATTLE 5 - TACOMA 6 - OLYMPIA
FIRST 24 WEEKS
0 52% 38% 38% 37% 51% 58%
1 34% 39% 38% 29% 21% 26%
2 9% 11% 13% 18% 16% 12%
3 3% 6% 8% 11% 5% 1%
4 2% 3% 2% 5% 4% 3%
5 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0%
6 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
AT LEAST ONE 48% 63% 62% 63% 49% 42%
AVERAGE NUMBER* 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.7
AVERAGE DAYS** 33.4 37.5 28.2 41.3 33.1 31.0
NUMBER OF YOUTH 64 64 60 101 91 73

Table A-8
Unauthorized Leaves During First 12 Weeks of Supervision
Program and Control Group Youth in Each Region
UNAUTHORIZED YOUTH WITH UNAUTHORIZED LEAVES WITHIN EACH REGION
LEAVES DURING 1 - SPOKANE 2 - YAKIMA 3 - EVERETT 4 - SEATTLE 5 - TACOMA 6 - OLYMPIA
FIRST 24 WEEKS Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program Control Program
0 71% 63% 62% 63% 60% 53% 45% 52% 68% 65% 69% 73%
1 23% 33% 28% 23% 32% 33% 42% 30% 26% 20% 23% 18%
2 5% 5% 7% 11% 8% 12% 12% 13% 5% 10% 6% 7%
3 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% 1% 4% 1% 5% 2% 3%
4 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
AT LEAST ONE 29% 38% 38% 38% 40% 47% 55% 48% 32% 35% 31% 27%
AVERAGE NUMBER* 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4
AVERAGE DAYS** 17.1 16.9 15.4 26.8 12.1 17.1 18.6 25.5 19.6 17.7 19.3 20.3

* The number of unauthorized leaves per youth.

** The average number of days spent on unauthorized leave.

28
APPENDIX B: JRA IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
by Bob Salsbury, Intensive Parole Program Manager

The Intensive Aftercare Program Model

Two bulletins from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the past
year cover implementation issues regarding intensive aftercare programs (Altschuler, Armstrong,
and MacKenzie, 199921) and the OJJDP-funded multi-site Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)
demonstration project (Wiebush, McNulty, and Le, 200022).

As the Washington State JRA intensive parole (IP) program is the first full-scale attempt to
replicate the IAP model, it is important to note some key issues and findings discussed in these
bulletins and compare them with the ongoing JRA implementation.

Armstrong and Altschuler identify three desired components of juvenile aftercare initiatives:
• Institutional services that are reintegrative and designed for application and reinforcement in
the community.
• Highly structured, smooth transitional experiences at the point of community re-entry.
• Intensive multimodal and multiphased programming during community aftercare.

These components, while linked and interdependent, can be a useful way to separate the primary
areas and phases of JRA implementation. Subsequent descriptions in this document will describe
the phased implementation of the JRA intensive parole program across (a) institutional
programming, (b) transitional programming, and (c) community programming.
In the same bulletin, Armstrong and Altschuler hold that intensive aftercare programs must be
critically examined across three dimensions:
• A program model and philosophy that makes sense and specifies how the program design
and strategy induces change.
• A program that actually implements its model and philosophy per the requirements.
• The program’s impact.

They also note: "stated simply, when requirements for implementing the basic program design are
not met, success is unlikely." The strengths and challenges of JRA’s implementation of the IAP
model will be described in further detail in the next sub-section.

A critical dimension to consider when change occurs in a major systemic manner, as with the re-
configuration of JRA parole to the IAP model, is the length of time necessary to fully implement all
components of the model. According to Wiebush et al. (2000), the OJJDP-funded IAP

21
D.M. Altschuler, T.L. Armstrong, and D.L. MacKenzie (1999). "Reintegration, Supervised Release, and
Intensive Aftercare." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
22
R.G. Wiebush, B. McNulty, and Thao Le (2000). "Implementation of the Intensive Community-Based Aftercare
Program." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.

29
demonstration projects underwent a 6- to 18-month planning period prior to implementation. Then,
the first two to three years of each project involved "an ongoing process of incremental steps and a
series of refinements to program components, policies, and procedures." They also elaborate on
"lessons learned" from the IAP implementation, including key sets of factors that facilitate
implementation as well as factors that can impede facilitation. These are mentioned below, as
issues JRA should be aware of, although not all necessarily apply to JRA’s implementation efforts
to date.

FACILITATING FACTORS IMPEDING FACTORS

A belief that the IAP addressed a real need Unstable operating environments
A model that promoted design flexibility Competing agency priorities
Long-term view and multiyear funding by Crowding and aggressive diversion practices
OJJDP to allow sites to implement a complex
Staff selection and training
project
Staff turnover and vacancies
Expert technical assistance
Distance between the community and the
Internal and external support
institution
Committed leadership
Sufficient staff resources
Access to specialized grant funds
Pre-existing agency relationships

JRA Implementation
JRA had a planning and design period of approximately nine months prior to the actual start of
intensive parole implementation efforts on October 1, 1998. With the second year of the
implementation now complete, a clearer picture can be drawn of the primary implementation
phases, tasks completed, tasks in process, and tasks pending.

Institutional Programming

Implementing a comprehensive residential-based program for the high-risk intensive parole

population has been a significant challenge for the JRA program.

On any given day, confined intensive parole youth are residing in placements across the JRA
continuum of care with approximately 80 percent at the three major institutions (Echo Glen
Children’s Center, Green Hill Training School, and Maple Lane School).

The intensive parole youth are distributed throughout the residential programs in the general
populations as opposed to specialized units. Although the OJJDP-funded IAP projects used
specialized units with specialized programming, JRA was unable to configure its institutional
system at the time of IP implementation start-up in this manner. Certain barriers to specialized
housing and programming existed, including the logistical difficulty and disruption of existing

30
programs that would be created by trying to locate so many youth (August 2000 IP residential
census = 471); and the co-occurrence at the time of IP start-up of residential programs creating
specialized mental health units and programming. By not being able to concentrate IP youth in
specialized units, much planning and effort occurred to deal with the barriers to communication,
case planning, and specialized programming.

During the past three months, there have been positive developments in the area of specialized
residential programming. Maple Lane School and Echo Glen Children’s Center are beginning to
implement the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) program with high-risk youth. Green Hill
Training School has declined at this point to employ the ART program. Since August 1999, JRA
has had three intensive parole transition counselors assigned to the three major institutions.
These positions provide intensive parole trainings to institutional staff, parole readiness training to
intensive parole youth, and function as liaisons between residential and community staff around
issues related to intensive parole. Two of the three transition specialists are also trained as ART
providers and help facilitate the implementation of ART at their respective institutions.

Clearly, a major ongoing implementation challenge is to create better penetration of the model in
residential settings around a variety of key issues, including case planning which consistently
includes a community perspective, interventions that target identified risk factors, and a system of
structured transitions to step-down placements. In regards to the last point of transitional
placements, only 19.1 percent of IP youth served any part of their sentence in a community facility
during 1999. As transitional step down placement is a central process component of the IAP
model, this low eligibility/utilization for community facilities is a clear shortcoming. Under the
current system of JRA’s Community Risk Assessment (CRA) eligibility scores, few IP youth
become eligible.

Transitional Programming

Transitional programming begins shortly prior to release and continues for a period after release.
Transitional programming should be configured and delivered so that it is the most intensive phase
of the residential/community IP experience. The JRA model requires youth to transition
immediately into community based services after release to maintain adequate structure in a
youth’s life following release from secure confinement and to continue to meet treatment needs.

The intensive parole transition counselors play a critical role in the support of the release
preparation process, including the delivery of a competency-based curriculum (Parole Readiness
Training), facilitation of community counselor visits with youth in residence, and quality assurance.
JRA has used committees and work groups in the past year to identify weaknesses in the area of
transition communication, plan solutions, and to begin implementing procedures and practices to
improve the quality of the transition process. Included as a proposed improvement is a suggestion
to develop a 64-bed intensive parole-specific unit at one of the major institutions to step-down
youth, receive specialized and intensive programming followed by another step-down placement to
a specialized intensive parole community facility. While barriers may exist to implementing this
improvement, it could hold great promise for filling an obvious implementation gap that exists at
this time.

31
Community Programming

Most focus and effort during the start-up and first year of IP implementation was in building a
comprehensive community system of services and supervision. Creating a supervision program
with clear expectations and a supportive staffing model was the initial thrust of the JRA intensive
parole model coupled with an emphasis on service brokerage with traditional community service
agencies (e.g., mental health, substance abuse, family therapy). JRA also created day reporting
centers and restorative justice work crews to have more structured transitional experiences for
youth following release and before entering schools or work programs.

Since the last IP report to the legislature, JRA has focused on building an intensive research-based
service model to complement and integrate with the intensive supervision component. Aggression
Replacement Training (ART), Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), and Functional Family Therapy
(FFT) have been introduced in community programs. It should be noted that positive
reinforcement incentive programming, also research-based, has been in place since the beginning
of JRA IP.

The table below shows implementation start dates and utilization data for specialized programs.

Table B-1
Program Dates and Participation

AGGRESSION REPLACEMENT FUNCTIONAL FAMILY MULTI-SYSTEMIC

TRAINING THERAPY THERAPY
Date First Number of Date First Number of Date First Number of
REGION
Started Participants Started Participants Started Participants
1-SPOKANE June 2000 2 July 2000 11 0

2-YAKIMA April 2000 17 0 0

3-EVERETT February 2000 10 May 2000 26 0

4-SEATTLE April 2000 4 May 2000 4 0

5-TACOMA June 2000 10 0 April 2000 22

6-OLYMPIA May 2000 14 0 0

Mackenzie (1999) in her commentary on the effectiveness of aftercare programs makes the
cautionary point that "[i]t is also impossible to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of
many of the programs, because they were not implemented as they were designed." It will be
important for future briefing papers and reports to measure how closely JRA implements
supervision, reintegrative, and treatment services per their standards and guidelines. For example,
it should be relatively simple to compare actual rates of contacts by type with the standard
requirements to determine level of implementation of supervision standards.

32
Proposed Program Groups

Referenced earlier were the findings that it took two to three years to fully implement the IAP
demonstration projects. Noting that these projects occurred on much smaller scales, with many
fewer participants than JRA’s statewide program, it is important that final outcome studies are
based on youths receiving fully implemented intensive parole experiences. It is proposed that
separate program groups be delineated for the IP recidivism and interim outcome analyses, based
on the assumption that a youth released in the first year of IP did not receive the identical program
interventions as a youth released the second year or a youth released the third year.

33