Even when probation officers use risk assessment tools, many of their clients’ needs remain unaddressed. As such, we examined whether the implementation of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and a structured case planning form resulted in better case plans as compared with prior practices (i.e., a nonvalidated local tool and an unstructured plan). Our sample comprised 216 adolescents on probation who were matched via propensity scores. Adolescents in the SAVRY/Structured Plan condition had significantly better case plans than those in the preimplementation condition. Specifically, following implementation, adolescents’ high need domains were more likely to be targeted in plans. Plans also scored higher on other quality indicators (e.g., level of detail). These improvements appeared to be due primarily to the structured plan rather than the SAVRY. Overall, our findings highlight that, just as structure can improve risk assessments, so too might structure improve case plans.
AustinP. C. (2011). A tutorial and case study in propensity score analysis: An application to estimating the effect of in-hospital smoking cessation counseling on mortality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 119-151. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.540480
7.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
8.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
BontaJ.RuggeT.ScottT.BourgonG.YessineA. (2008). Exploring the black box of community supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47, 248-270. doi:10.1080/10509670802134085
10.
BorumR.BartelP.ForthA. (2006). Manual for the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
11.
BoskerJ.WittemanC. (2016). Finding the right focus: Improving the link between risk/needs assessment and case management in probation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 221-233. doi:10.1037/law0000075
12.
BoskerJ.WittemanC.HermannsJ. (2013). Do intervention plans meet criteria for effective practice to reduce recidivism? How probation officers forget about social capital and basic needs. European Journal of Probation, 5, 65-85. doi:10.1177/206622031300500105
13.
BoskerJ.WittemanC.HermannsJ.HeijD. (2015). Improving agreement about intervention plans in probation by decision support. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 1459-1473. doi:10.1177/0306624X14539127
14.
Canadian Psychological Association. (2017). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (4th ed.). Ottawa, ON: Authors.
15.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284-290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
16.
Coca-PerraillonM. (2006, September). Matching with propensity scores to reduce bias in observational studies. In Proceedings of Northeast SAS Users Group Conference (NESUG), Philadelphia, PA.
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
18.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
DouglasK. S.HartS. D.WebsterC. D.BelfrageH. (2013). HCR-20 (Version 3): Assessing risk for violence. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
20.
DouglasK. S.SkeemJ. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 347-383. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.347
21.
DyckH. (2016). An empirical evaluation of the RCMP’s youth intervention and diversion strategy in New Brunswick. (PhD Dissertation in Psychology), University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada.
22.
GlackmanW. (1999). Youth Community Risk/Needs Assessment: Rating guidelines for forms A to C. Ministry for Children and Families.
23.
GuyL. S.VincentG. M.GrissoT.PerraultR. (2015). Advancing use of risk assessment in juvenile probation (Technical report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). Worcester: University of Massachusetts.
24.
HanleyJ. A.McNeilB. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839-843. doi:10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708
25.
HaqaneeZ.Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT. (2015). Making “what works” work: Examining probation officers’ experiences addressing the criminogenic needs of juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54, 37-59. doi:10.1080/10509674.2014.980485
26.
HartS. D.KroppP. R.LawsD. R.KlaverJ.LoganC.WattK. A. (2003). The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP): Structured professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University; Pacific Psychological Assessment Corporation; and the British Columbia Institute against Family Violence.
27.
HessK. R. (1995). Graphical methods for assessing violations of the proportional hazards assumption in Cox regression. Statistics in Medicine, 14, 1707-1723.
28.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A. (2011). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0 (YLS/CMI 2.0): User’s manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
HollowayE. D.CruiseK. R.MorinS. L.KaufmanH.SteeleR. D. (2018). Juvenile probation officers’ evaluation of traumatic event exposures and traumatic stress symptoms as responsivity factors in risk assessment and case planning. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 369-384. doi:10.1037/lhb0000283
31.
KoehlerJ. A.LöselF.AkoensiT. D.HumphreysD. K. (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 19-43. doi:10.1007/s11292-012-9159-7
32.
LawingK.ChildsK. K.FrickP. J.VincentG. (2017). Use of structured professional judgment by probation officers to assess risk for recidivism in adolescent offenders. Psychological Assessment, 29, 652-663. doi:10.1037/pas0000414
33.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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, 77-93. doi:10.1177/0011128705281747
35.
LuongD.WormithJ. S. (2011). Applying risk/need assessment to probation practice and its impact on the recidivism of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1177-1199. doi:10.1177/0093854811421596
36.
McGrawK. O.WongS. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
37.
NelsonR. J.VincentG. M. (2018). Matching services to criminogenic needs following comprehensive risk assessment implementation in juvenile probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 1136-1153. doi:10.1177/0093854818780923
38.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 329-353. doi:10.1177/0093854809331457
39.
Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT.HaqaneeZ. (2015). Examining implementation of risk assessment in case management for youth in the justice system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 304-320. doi:10.1177/0093854814549595
40.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
41.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
42.
SAS Institute. (2011). SAS/IML 9.3 user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.
43.
SinghJ. P.DesmaraisS. L.SellersB. G.HyltonT.TirottiM.Van DornR. A. (2014). From risk assessment to risk management: Matching interventions to adolescent offenders’ strengths and vulnerabilities. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.015
44.
SinghJ. P.GrannM.FazelS. (2011). A comparative study of risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 499-513. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.009
45.
StoreyJ. E.GibasA. L.ReevesK. A.HartS. D. (2011). Evaluation of a violence risk (threat) assessment training program for police and other criminal justice professionals. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 554-564. doi:10.1177/0093854811403123
46.
VieiraT. A.SkillingT. A.Peterson-BadaliM. (2009). Matching court-ordered services with treatment needs: Predicting treatment success with young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 385-401. doi:10.1177/0093854808331249
47.
ViljoenJ. L.CochraneD. M.JonnsonM. R. (2018). Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 181-214. doi:10.1037/lhb0000280
48.
ViljoenJ. L.McLachlanK.VincentG. M. (2010). Assessing violence risk and psychopathy in juvenile and adult offenders: A survey of clinical practices. Assessment, 17, 377-395. doi:10.1177/1073191109359587
49.
ViljoenJ. L.NichollsT. L.CruiseK. R.DesmaraisS. L.WebsterC. D. (with, Douglas-BeneteauJ.). (2014). Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV)—User guide. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.
50.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.FuscoS. L.GershensonB. G. (2012). Field reliability of the SAVRY with juvenile probation officers: Implications for training. Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 225-236. doi:10.1037/h0093974
51.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.GershensonB. G.McCabeP. (2012). Does risk assessment make a difference? Results of implementing the SAVRY in juvenile probation. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 30, 384-405. doi:10.1002/bsl.2014
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.PerraultR. T.GershensonB. (2016). Risk assessment matters, but only when implemented well: A multisite study in juvenile probation. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 683-696. doi:10.1037/lhb0000214
54.
WachterA. (2015). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation: JJGPS StateScan. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
