Evidence-Based Practices in Oregon

Evidence-Based Practices

CRIME VICTIMS UNITED

In 2003, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 267. It mandates the use of “evidenced-based practices” in programs that treat criminals, drug users and people with mental illness. This page provides information on evidence-based practices as implemented in Oregon.

Analyzing Senate Bill 267 - Evidence-Based Programs

In 2003 the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 267. SB 267 requires that state agencies use "evidence-based programs" for drug and alcohol treatment, some mental health treatment, adult recidivism prevention and juvenile crime prevention.

A program is "evidence-based" if it is based on "scientific" research and is "cost-effective".

The law includes a fairly complex yet broad definition of "scientifically based research". "Cost-effective" means that, over time, the program will produce savings greater than the cost of the program.

The agencies affected are the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC), the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA), the Oregon Commission on Children and Families (OCCF), the part of the Department of Human Services that deals with mental health and addiction (DHS), and the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (OCJC).

The bill requires that 25 percent of state tax money spent by the covered agencies for treatment be spent on evidence-based programs during the 2005-2007 biennium. In the 2007-2009 biennium, this goes to 50 percent. In subsequent biennia, it goes to 75 percent. Each agency must submit a report on their SB 267 compliance to the legislature by the 15th month of each biennium. This table shows the timeline:

Time Period	Funds That Must Be Spent on Evidence-Based Programs	Report Due
2003-2007 Biennium	0 percent	September 30, 2004
2005-2007 Biennium	25 percent	September 30, 2006
2007-2009 Biennium	50 percent	September 30, 2008
2009-2011 Biennium	75 percent	September 30, 2010

Senate Bill 267 Provisions

The information in this section is extracted and paraphrased from Senate Bill 267. For a definitive reading, consult the original bill. See also the OCJC FAQ on SB 267.

Senate Bill 267, 2003 - Evidence-Based Practices

Amended ORS 181.620 and 181.637

SECTION 3

Applies to: DOC, OCCF, DHS, OCJC.

Cost effective means: Cost savings realized over a reasonable period of time are greater than costs.

Evidence-based program means: Incorporates significant and relevant practices based on scientifically based research and is cost effective.

Program means: Treatment, intervention or service intended to reduce likelihood of committing a crime or needing emergency mental health services or becoming juvenile offender.

Scientifically based research means: Research that obtains reliable and valid knowledge by:

(a) Employing systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;

(b) Involving rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; and

(c) Relying on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations and across studies by the same or different investigators.

Comments on Section 3:

This definition does not explicitly address the design of experiments. It does not explicitly require that studies use random selection or otherwise ensure scientifically accepted control procedures. The phrase "rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses" comes close to requiring adequate controls but is unclear because it singles out the data analysis stage, which occurs after the experiment is designed and the data is collected.

Part c requires reproducibility, which is good.

SECTION 5

In the 2005-2007 biennium, DOC, OYA, OCCF, DHS and OCJC shall spend at least 25 percent of state moneys that each agency receives for programs on evidence-based programs.

Each agency must submit a report, no later than September 30, 2006, including an assessment of programs, what percentage of state funds were spent on evidence-based programs, what percentage of federal and other funds were spent on evidence-based programs, and a description of the efforts the agency is making to comply with SB 267.

Comments on Section 5:

The September 2008 agency reports can be found here:

Econorthwest 2008 Cost and Participation Report

The agency reports are rambling and mostly general and vague. Lacking is a specific accounting of which programs are evidence-based, what is the evidence basis for these programs, and any indication of specific outcome evaluations that would permit us to know if a given program is living up to its billing.

Appendix C of the DHS report goes into detail on program fidelity, which is good, but this addresses monitoring the process, not the outcome.

SECTION 6

In the 2007-2009 biennium, DOC, OYA, OCCF, DHS and OCJC shall spend at least 50 percent of state moneys that each agency receives for programs on evidence-based programs.

Each agency must submit a report as described above by September 30, 2008.

SECTION 7

In subsequent biennia, DOC, OYA, OCCF, DHS and OCJC shall spend at least 75 percent of state moneys that each agency receives for programs on evidence-based programs.

Each agency must submit a report as described above by September 30 in the second year of the biennium.

SECTION 9

By September 30, 2004, each agency must submit a report including an assessment of programs, what percentage of state funds were spent on evidence-based programs, what percentage of federal and other funds were spent on evidence-based programs, and a description of the efforts the agency is making to comply with SB 267.

Testimony of Dr. Edwin Latessa

Dr. Edward Latessa of the University of Cincinnati Division of Criminal Justice is the “guru” of evidence-based practices. On March 12, 2007, he spoke before Oregon’s Joint Ways and Means Subcommittee on Public Safety. His testimony can be heard here, starting at time 00:33:20. You must have RealPlayer installed on your computer to hear this. This is a free download – you do not need to purchase the paid version of RealAudio.

Evidence-Based Practices and the “Alternative Incarceration Program”

In 1994, the Oregon Legislature created the Summit “boot camp” program that allowed inmates to receive substantial amounts of time off their sentences in exchange for participating in intensive programs. In 2003, the legislature expanded this “Alternative Incarceration Program” (AIP).

The Department of Corrections justifies AIP largely on the basis that it reduces crime by applying evidence-based practices. They released a preliminary report in October of 2006 which says:

“Early data shows that the New Directions AIP at Powder River has a significant effect on reducing recidivism, particularly in the early post-prison supervision period. However, it must be stressed that this data is preliminary.”

After an August 24, 2006 editorial in The Oregonian challenged the large sentence reductions that AIP participants were receiving, State Representative Wayne Krieger responded in a September 4, 2006 op ed defending AIP. He wrote:

“AIP allows a sentence reduction for inmates who complete a rigorous, research-based treatment program designed to reduce the chances that participants will reoffend. In short, AIP reduces crime.”

On April 10^th, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on AIP. Oregon Criminal Justice Commission officials testified that AIP returns $2.86 for every $1.00 spent.

Crime Victims United has advocated for reforms to AIP to on the grounds of justice for victims, truth-in-sentencing and to protect the credibility of the criminal justice system. Crime Victims United has also challenged the validity of the DOC report showing that AIP has caused a significant reduction in recidivism.