Demand objective review of juvenile justice program

From its inception, King County’s juvenile diversion program, Restorative Community Pathways, was controversial — partly by its own words and strategies.

In July, King County penned a $248,000 contract with a Bay Area consulting group to determine RCP’s effectiveness in keeping youth out of detention and on a better path. However, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office raised red flags about the evaluation, which were revealed in communications obtained by the editorial board through public disclosure requests.

Those concerns effectively render the report tainted before it’s even been released.

Residents deserve to know whether the millions of tax dollars spent on RCP is making a positive difference. As juvenile crime spikes, King County must engage in a rigorous, unbiased review of its youth programs. That’s not happening.

The county’s Department of Community and Human Services, which signed the contract, says all is fine. It ought to reconsider.

A collective of small nonprofit organizations that includes jail abolitionists, RCP accepts youth referred by the King County Prosecutor’s Office and offers “healing and restoration” instead of traditional punishment.

Youth charged with certain crimes are eligible for RCP, including possession of a stolen vehicle, residential burglary and unlawful display of a weapon.

Young people who “substantially complete” self-identified goals are considered to have successfully completed the program. According to the RCP website: “This work is about removing power from the County and returning it to communities — it is a move towards getting rid of the criminal system.”

In 2023, about 182 youth accepted RCP services. Of those, 31 had new criminal case referrals during their time with RCP.

The Department of Community and Human Services signed a contract over the summer with Oakland-based Impact Justice to evaluate RCP. Impact Justice touts itself as a national center “for new ideas and solutions for justice transformation.”

Yet, two years ago, Impact Justice wrote an open letter to express its “support for Restorative Community Pathways and the vital services and resources that all members of the consortium provide to King County youth, their families, survivors of harm and many other members of the community.”

That sparked prosecutors’ concerns about Impact Justice’s impartiality.

“Given their close connection to the project, there is an appearance that Impact Justice may have an interest in a successful evaluation,” wrote a manager in the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office juvenile division in an email to the county’s DCHS.

In emails turned over to The Times about the Impact Justice contract, prosecutors continued to voice alarm. “We were hoping another provider would be selected after our valid concerns were raised. The statistical methodology is still unknown,” wrote a manager in the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office this week.

King County’s human services department defended the decision to contract with Impact Justice. “DCHS is committed to producing objective evaluations of our programs,” said a spokesperson. “Through our intensive screening process in partnership with the County’s Procurement Office, Impact Justice meets DCHS’ standard of objectivity.”

For a program as well-funded and controversial as this, that standard ought to be higher. Lingering questions over RCP don’t serve youth, providers, prosecutors or the public.