Whereas research has shown improvements in decision-making shortly after the introduction of risk/need assessment (RNA) tools, studies of routine practice nonetheless show shortcomings in RNA utilization. The current study uses an experimental survey-based vignette method to assess juvenile probation officer decision-making several years into a sustained evidence-based effort to implement an RNA in Pennsylvania. Consistent with the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model, results show officer decisions correspond with clients’ risk and need. Moreover, adherence to the RNR model was found for clients across risk levels and offense categories. However, officers often relied on services for low-risk clients, and made decisions about interventions based on offense characteristics. Results suggest a discretionary form of decision-making, taking cues from within and beyond the RNR model, including from punitive and traditional welfare-oriented approaches. Findings highlight the challenges of producing RNR-consistent decision-making, even when using a sustained scientific RNA implementation strategy.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38(2), 247–266.
2.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauP.CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.
3.
BechtelK.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. (2007). Assessing the risk of re-offending for juvenile offenders using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45(3–4), 85–108.
4.
BertramR. M.BlaseK. A.FixsenD. L. (2015). Improving programs and outcomes: Implementation frameworks and organization change. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(4), 477–487.
5.
BlancaM. J.AlarcónR.ArnauJ.BonoR.BendayanR. (2018). Effect of variance ratio on ANOVA robustness: Might 1.5 be the limit?Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 937–962.
6.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
7.
BridgesG. S.SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554–570.
8.
ButtsJ. A.MearsD. P. (2001). Reviving juvenile justice in a get-tough era. Youth & Society, 33(2), 169–198.
9.
CochranD.CorbettR. P.Jr.ByrneJ. M. (1986). Intensive probation supervision in Massachusetts: A case study in change. Federal Probation, 50(2), 32–41.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
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, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
12.
DrassK. A.SpencerJ. W. (1987). Accounting for pre-sentencing recommendations: Typologies and probation officers’ theory of office. Social Problems, 34(3), 277–293.
13.
EisensteinJ.JacobH. (1991). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. University Press of America.
14.
Eno LoudenJ.SkeemJ. L. (2013). How do probation officers assess and manage recidivism and violence risk for probationers with mental disorder? An experimental investigation. Law and Human Behavior, 37(1), 22–34.
15.
ErezE. (1989). Gender, rehabilitation, and probation decisions. Criminology, 27(2), 307–327.
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
17.
FeeleyM.SimonJ. (1994). Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law. In NelkenD. (Ed.), The futures of criminology (pp. 173–201). SAGE.
18.
FergusonJ. L. (2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice an organizational perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 472–492.
19.
FixsenD.NaoomS.BlaseK.FriedmanR.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the research. University of South Florida.
20.
FreiburgerT. L.HilinskiC. M. (2011). Probation officers’ recommendations and final sentencing outcomes. Journal of Crime and Justice, 34(1), 45–61.
21.
FultonB.StichmanA.TravisL.LatessaE. (1997). Moderating probation and parole officer attitudes to achieve desired outcomes. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 295–312.
22.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
23.
GeorgeD.MalleryP. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 17.0 Update (6th ed.). Pearson.
24.
GreenwoodP. W.WelshB. C. (2012). Promoting evidence-based practice in delinquency prevention at the state level: Principles, progress, and policy directions. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(3), 493–513.
25.
GunnisonE.HelfgottJ. B. (2011). Factors that hinder offender reentry success: A view from community corrections officers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(2), 287–304.
26.
HaasS. M.DeTardo-BoraK. A. (2009). Inmate reentry and the utility of the LSI-R in case planning. Corrections Compendium, 34(1), 11–16.
27.
Hannah-MoffatK.MauruttoP.TurnbullS. (2009). Negotiated risk: Actuarial illusions and discretion in probation. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 24(3), 391–409.
28.
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(1), 37–59.
29.
HarrisA. (2009). Attributions and institutional processing: How focal concerns guide decision-making in the juvenile court. Race and Social Problems, 1(4), 243–256.
30.
HaynesE. A.LicataJ. W. (1995). Creative insubordination of school principals and the legitimacy of the justifiable. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(4), 21–35.
31.
KallenbergO. (1997). Foundations of modern probability. Springer-Verlag.
32.
KellyM. (1994). Theories of justice and street-level discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 119–140.
33.
KerbsJ. J.JonesM.JolleyJ. M. (2009). Discretionary decision making by probation and parole officers: The role of extralegal variables as predictors of responses to technical violations. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 424–441.
34.
KleinG. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460.
35.
KrasK. R.MagnusonS.PortilloS.TaxmanF. S. (2019). Tempered radicals: Considering street-level community corrections officers and supervisors’ divergence from policies. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1639789
36.
LeiberM. J.Beaudry-CyrM.PeckJ. H.MackK. Y. (2018). Sentencing recommendations by probation officers and judges: An examination of adult offenders across gender. Women & Criminal Justice, 28(2), 100–124.
37.
LinJ.MillerJ.FukushimaM. (2008). Juvenile probation officers’ dispositional recommendations: Predictive factors and their alignment with predictors of recidivism. Journal of Crime and Justice, 31(1), 1–34.
38.
LipseyM. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 124–147.
39.
LipseyM. W.CullenF. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320.
40.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
41.
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.
42.
LynchM. (1998). Waste managers? The new penology, crime fighting, and parole agent identity. Law and Society Review, 32(4), 839–870.
43.
MillerJ. (2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer?Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 314–336.
44.
MillerJ.MaloneyC. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 716–736.
45.
MillerJ.MaloneyC.HardingC. S.PalmerK.BreyJ.SandovalJ. R. (in press). Assessing Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) implementation outcomes: Lessons from five diverse Pennsylvania counties. The Prison Journal.
46.
MillerJ.TrocchioS. (2016). Risk/need assessment tools and the criminal justice bureaucrat: Reconceptualizing the frontline practitioner. In TaxmanF. S. (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need assessment: Theory and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 394–421). Taylor & Francis.
Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Planning. (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. U.S. Department of Justice.
49.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2019). To safely cut incarceration, states rethink responses to supervision violations: Evidence-based policies lead to higher rates of parole and probation success.
50.
RichardsonR. (2015). Refocusing on gender: Can focal concerns theory explain gender disparities in sentencing outcomes? [Master’s thesis]. University of Maryland.
51.
SchwalbeC. (2004). Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(6), 561–576.
52.
ShermanL. W.GottfredsonD. C.MacKenzieD. L.EckJ.ReuterP.BushwayS. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. U.S. Department of Justice.
53.
SimonH. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. John-Wiley.
54.
SteffensmeierD.DemuthS. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?American Sociological Review, 65(5), 705–729.
55.
SteinerB.TravisL. F.IIIMakariosM. D.MeadeB. (2011). Short-term effects of sanctioning reform on parole officers’ revocation decisions. Law & Society Review, 45(2), 371–400.
56.
TaxmanF. S. (2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.
57.
TaxmanF. S.BelenkoS. (2011). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. Springer.
58.
TaxmanF. S.CaudyM. S. (2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how: Empirical assessment of the complexity of criminogenic needs to inform correctional programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 71–103.
59.
ThompsonC. (1999). A conceptual treadmill: The need for “middle ground” in clinical decision making theory in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(5), 1222–1229.
60.
UlmerJ. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. State University of New York Press.
61.
Van de LuitgaardenG. M. (2007). Evidence-based practice in social work: Lessons from judgment and decision-making theory. British Journal of Social Work, 39(2), 243–260.
62.
ViglioneJ. (2017). Street-level decision making: Acceptability, feasibility, and use of evidence-based practices in adult probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(10), 1356–1381.
63.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263–285.
64.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.GrissoT. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. MacArthur Foundation.
65.
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(6), 683–696.
66.
WhetzelJ.PaparozziM.AlexanderM.LowenkampC. T. (2011). Goodbye to a worn-out dichotomy: Law enforcement, social work, and a balanced approach (a survey of federal probation officer attitudes). Federal Probation, 75(2), 7–12.
67.
YoungD.MolineK.FarrellJ.BierieD. (2006). Best implementation practices: Disseminating new assessment technologies in a juvenile justice agency. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 135–158.
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.
