We examined the operationalization of risk, need, and responsivity principles (RNRP) in local policy in five Pennsylvania county juvenile probation departments. “Core” policies focused on officers’ assessment; decision-making about client services and supervision; engagement with system stakeholders; and intervention with clients. “Supporting” policies focused on competency development; management and supervision; and performance measurement. Policy variations highlighted innovations and dilemmas in operationalizing RNRP. Dilemmas included the extent to which officers are cast as change agents; how needs are prioritized; how risk and needs are tied to decisions; and how officers advocate about assessment results with system stakeholders.
AlaridL. F.SimsB. A.RuizJ. (2011). Juvenile probation and police partnerships as loosely coupled systems: A qualitative analysis. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9, 79-95.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. D., (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735-755.
5.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC., (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
6.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauP.CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
7.
AntleB. F.ChristensenD. N.Van ZylM. A.BarbeeA. P. (2012). The impact of the Solution Based Casework (SBC) practice model on federal outcomes in public child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 342-353.
8.
BertramR. M.BlaseK. A.FixsenD. L. (2015). Improving programs and outcomes: Implementation frameworks and organization change. Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 477-487.
9.
BontaJ., (1996). Risk-needs: Assessment and treatment. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1-22.
11.
BourgonG.GutierrezL.AshtonJ. (2012). The evolution of community supervision practice: The transformation from case manager to change agent. Federal Probation, 76, 27.
CroweA. H. (2000). Jurisdictional technical assistance package for juvenile corrections (Report). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
15.
DamschroderL. J.AronD. C.KeithR. E.KirshS. R.AlexanderJ. A.LoweryJ. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 50.
16.
DevaneyC.ByrneP. (2015). The value of family welfare conferencing within the child protection and welfare system. Child Care in Practice, 21, 340-356.
17.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21-24.
18.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A., (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203-214.
19.
EisensteinJ.JacobH. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
20.
FergusonJ. L. (2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice: An organizational perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 472-492.
GuevaraM.Loeffler-CobiaJ.RhyneC.SachwaldJ. (2011). Putting the pieces together: Practical strategies for implementing evidence-based practices. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
24.
HaganJ.HewittJ. D.AlwinD. F. (1979). Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces, 58, 506-527.
25.
HartleyR. D.MaddanS.SpohnC. C. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion: An examination of substantial assistance departures in federal crack-cocaine and powder-cocaine cases. Justice Quarterly, 24, 382-407.
26.
HealyK.DarlingtonY.FeeneyJ. (2011). Parents’ participation in child protection practice: Toward respect and inclusion. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 92, 282-288.
27.
HenggelerS. W.SchoenwaldS. K.BorduinC. M.RowlandM. D.CunninghamP. B. (2009). Multisystemic therapy for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A., (2011). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0 (YLS/CMI 2.0): User’s manual. Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
29.
Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, & Pennsylvania Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers. (2012). Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy: Achieving our balanced and restorative justice mission through evidence-based policy and practice. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
30.
Kentucky Department of Corrections. (2015). House Bill 463 implementation: Evidence-based practices and programs. Frankfort: Author.
31.
KlockarsC. B. (1972). A theory of probation supervision. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 63, 550-557.
32.
LipseyM. W. (2008). The Arizona Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) for assessing the effectiveness of programs for juvenile probationers: SPEP ratings and relative recidivism reduction for the initial SPEP sample. Nashville TN: Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology.
33.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
34.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M., (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77-93.
35.
LynchM. (1998). Waste managers? The new penology, crime fighting, and parole agent identity. Law and Society Review, 32, 839-870.
36.
MakariosM.SperberK. G.LatessaE. J. (2014). Treatment dosage and the risk principle: A refinement and extension. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53, 334-350.
37.
MarroneyG. A.QuinnT.KinneyE.HuffordS. (2010). Colorado probation and evidence-based practices: A systemic view of the past, present, & future of EBP in Colorado Probation. Denver, CO: Division of Probation Services.
38.
MillerJ.MaloneyC. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 716-736.
39.
PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice, 17, 281-335.
40.
Pew Center on the States. (2011). Risk/needs assessment 101: Science reveals new tools to manage offenders. Washington, DC: Author.
41.
RobinsonD.PorporinoF. J. (2003). Programming in cognitive skills: The reasoning and rehabilitation programme. In RobinsonD.PorporinoF. J. (Eds.), The essential handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 63-78). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
42.
RudesD. S.LerchJ.TaxmanF. S. (2011). Implementing a reentry framework at a correctional facility: Challenges to the culture. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 467-491.
43.
SchwalbeC. (2004). Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 561-576.
44.
SmithP.SchweitzerM.LabrecqueR. M.LatessaE. J. (2012). Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 189-199.
45.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763-798.
46.
TaxmanF. (2009). Effective community punishments in the United States: Probation. Faye Taxman outlines a radical “shared decision” model of probation that operates to empower offenders. Criminal Justice Matters, 75, 42-44.
47.
TaxmanF. S. (2014). Second generation of RNR: The importance of systemic responsivity in expanding core principles of responsivity. Federal Probation, 78, 32.
48.
TaxmanF. S.BelenkoS. (2012). Implementation of evidence-based community corrections and addiction treatment. New York, NY: Springer.
49.
TaxmanF. S.CaudyM. S. (2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 71-103.
50.
UlmerJ. T., (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
51.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015a). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 263-285.
52.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015b). The myriad of challenges with correctional change: From goals to culture. European Journal of Probation, 7, 103-123.
YoungD.MolineK.FarrellJ.BierieD. (2006). Best implementation practices: Disseminating new assessment technologies in a juvenile justice agency. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 135-158.
