This quasi-experimental, pre-post study investigated the sustainability of risk-needs assessment (RNA) and the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) practices in five juvenile probation offices across two states 7 years after rigorous implementation. The study evaluated adherence to practices and facilitators of sustainability via interviews with leadership (N = 10) and probation officers (N = 84) and a seventh-year cohort of youth propensity score matched to a cohort from the first year of implementation (n = 730 per state cohort). Probation officers in both states reported relatively high adherence to RNR-based practices, and one state significantly improved adherence to its RNA administration policies and the risk principle. Adherence to the risk principle in placement and service referral decisions regressed in the other state. Essential ingredients for sustainment included maintaining staff training and monitoring, evolving RNR practices through the adoption of complementary evidence-based practices, and having court personnel who enable best practices.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362
2.
BorumR.BartelP.ForthA. (2006). Manual for the structured assessment for violence risk in youth (SAVRY). Psychological Assessment Resources.
3.
BrookhartM. A.SchneeweissS.RothmanK. J.GlynnR. J.AvornJ.StürmerT. (2006). Variable selection for propensity score models. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163(12), 1149–1156. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj149
4.
CarrollC.PattersonM.WoodS.BoothA.RickJ.BalainS. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40
5.
DrawbridgeD.TodorovicK.WintersG.VincentG. M. (2019). Implementation of risk-need-responsivity principles into probation case planning. Law and Human Behavior, 43, 455–467. https://doi:10.1037/lhb0000351
6.
DyckH. L.CampbellM. A.WershlerJ. L. (2018). Real-world use of the risk-need-responsivity model and the level of service/case management inventory with community-supervised offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 258–268.
7.
FabeloT.ArrigonaN.ThompsonM. D.ClemensA.MarchbanksM. P. (2015). Closer to home: An analysis of the state and local impact of the Texas juvenile justice reforms. Council of State Governments Justice Center.
8.
FixsenD. L.BlaseK. A.NaoomS. F.WallaceF. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509335549
9.
FixsenD. L.BlaseK. A.Van DykeM. K. (2019). Implementation practice & science. Active Implementation Research Network.
10.
HaasS. M.DeTardo-BoraK. A. (2009). Inmate reentry and the utility of the LSI-R in case planning. Corrections Compendium, 34(1), 11–16.
11.
HaqaneeZ.Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT. (2014). Making “what works” work: Examining POs’ experiences addressing the criminogenic needs of juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.980485
LomanS. L.RodriguezB. J.HornerR. H. (2010). Sustainability of a targeted intervention package: First step to success in Oregon. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18(3), 178–191.
19.
MillerJ.MaloneyC. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 716–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812468883
20.
MillerJ.PalmerK. (2020). Juvenile probation officer decision-making in a reforming state: Assessing the application of evidence-based principles. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(9), 1136–1155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820925112
21.
MooreJ. E.MascarenhasA.BainJ.StrausS. E. (2017). Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implementation Science, 12(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0637-1
22.
MoullinJ. C.SklarM.GreenA.DicksonK. S.StadnickN. A.ReederK.AaronsG. A. (2020). Advancing the pragmatic measurement of sustainment: A narrative review of measures. Implementation Science Communications, 1(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00068-8
23.
National Research Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. The National Academics Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/14685
24.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809331457
25.
ProctorE.SilmereH.RaghavanR.HovmandP.AaronsG.BungerA.GriffeyR.HensleyM. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
26.
ProctorE. K.PowellB. J.McMillenJ. C. (2013). Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139
27.
RocqueM.WelshB. C.GreenwoodP. W.KingE. (2014). Implementing and sustaining evidence-based practice in juvenile justice: A case study of a rural state. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(9), 1033–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13490661
28.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
29.
RubinD. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2(3–4), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020363010465
30.
SchaferJ. L.KangJ. (2008). Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods, 13(4), 279–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014268
31.
StirmanS. W.KimberlyJ.CookN.CallowayA.CastroF.CharnsM. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science, 7(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-17
32.
StuartE. A.KingG.ImaiK.HoD. (2011). MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i08
33.
TaylorJ. E. (2005). Sustainability: Examining the survival of schools’ comprehensive school reform efforts. American Institutes for Research.
34.
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(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808331249
35.
ViglioneJ. (2019). The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(5), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818807505
36.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548447
37.
ViljoenJ. L.ShafferC. S.MuirN. M.CochraneD. M.BrodersenE. M. (2019). Improving case plans and interventions for adolescents on probation: The implementation of the SAVRY and a structured case planning form. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818799379
38.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.FuscoS. L.GershensonB. G. (2012). Field reliability of the SAVRY with probation officers: Implications for training. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-011-9284-2
39.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.GrissoT. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. www.NYSAP.us
40.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.PerraultR. T.GershensonB. G. (2016). Risk assessment matters, but only when implemented well: A multi-site study in juvenile probation. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 683–696.
41.
VincentG. M.Paiva-SalisburyM.CookN. E.GuyL. S.PerraultR. (2012). Impact of risk/needs assessment on juvenile probation officers’ decision-making: Importance of implementation. Psychology, Public Policy, & the Law, 18, 546–576.
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.
