We used a statewide survey to test hypotheses about the predictors of juvenile probation officers’ adherence to the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) risk/need assessment (RNA) tool, focusing on (1) the consistency and quality with which officers completed the tool, and (2) the extent to which they used it in decisions. While some hypotheses had been tested in prior quantitative studies, others were based on insights from case studies. Results showed that leadership and climate variables were consistently important in predicting adherence, though these tended to operate indirectly through their effects on other facilitators. Probation officer attitudes, either toward the YLS/CMI or to evidence-based practices, were also important across adherence measures. Although inconsistent in their effects across dependent variables, quality assurance of officer decision-making, external office relationships, and county YLS/CMI policies also predicted adherence.
AaronsG. A. (2004). Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: The Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Mental Health Services Research, 6(2), 61–74.
2.
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(7), 735–755.
3.
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(1), 88–100.
4.
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(6), 1173–1182.
5.
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.
6.
BogueB.CampbellN.CareyM.ClawsonE.FaustD.FlorioK.WassonB.WoodwardW (2004). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective intervention. National Institute of Corrections.
7.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
8.
BurrellW. D.RhineE. E. (2013). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections: A review essay. Justice Research and Policy, 15(1), 143–157.
9.
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.
10.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (2004). The importance of staff practices in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analysis of core correctional practices. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203–214.
11.
FarrellJ. L.YoungD. W.TaxmanF. S. (2011). Effects of organizational factors on use of juvenile supervision practices. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(6), 565–583.
12.
FergusonJ. L. (2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice an organizational perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 472–492.
13.
FixsenD.NaoomS.BlaséK.FriedmanR.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the research. University of South Florida.
14.
FriedmannP. D.TaxmanF. S.HendersonC. E. (2007). Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 267–277.
15.
FultonB.StichmanA.TravisL.LatessaE. (1997). Moderating probation and parole officer attitudes to achieve desired outcomes. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 295–312.
16.
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.
17.
HaasS. M.DeTardo-BoraK. A. (2009). Inmate reentry and the utility of the LSI-R in case planning. Corrections Compendium, 34(1), 11–16.
18.
Hannah-MoffatK.MauruttoP.TurnbullS. (2009). Negotiated risk: Actuarial illusions and discretion in probation. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 24(3), 391–409.
19.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A. (2002). Youth level of service/case management inventory: User’s manual. Multi-Health Systems.
20.
HoweM.JoplinL. (2005). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections: Quality assurance manual. National Institute of Corrections.
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.
23.
LiC. C. (1975). Path analysis: A primer. Boxwood Press.
24.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
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.
26.
MillerJ.MaloneyC. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 40(7), 716–736.
27.
MillerJ.MaloneyC. (2015, November). Organizational determinants of practitioner compliance with a juvenile risk-needs assessment tool. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting, Washington, DC.
28.
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.
29.
NilsenP. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models, and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(1), 53.
30.
PortilloS.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2016). The transportability of contingency management in problem-solving courts. Justice Quarterly, 33(2), 267–290.
31.
RudesD. S.ViglioneJ.MeyerK. S. (2017). Risky needs: Risk entangled needs in probation supervision. In TaxmanF. S. (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need assessment: Theory and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 406–428). Taylor & Francis.
32.
SchaeferL.WilliamsonH. (2018). Probation and parole officers’ compliance with case management tools: Professional discretion and override. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(14), 4565–4584.
33.
ShookJ. J.SarriR. C. (2007). Structured decision making in juvenile justice: Judges’ and probation officers’ perceptions and use. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(10), 1335–1351.
34.
SolomonA. L.OsborneJ. W. L.WinterfieldL.ElderbroomB.BurkeP.StrokerR. P.BurrellW. D. (2008). Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes. Urban Institute.
35.
TaxmanF. S.BelenkoS. (2011). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. Springer.
36.
TaxmanF. S.YoungD. W.WiersemaB.RhodesA.MitchellS. (2007). The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices survey: Multilevel survey methods and procedures. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 225–238.
37.
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.
38.
ViglioneJ.BlaskoB. L.TaxmanF. S. (2018). Organizational factors and probation officer use of evidence-based practices: A multilevel examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(6), 1648–1667.
39.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015a). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263–285.
40.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015b). The myriad of challenges with correctional change: From goals to culture. European Journal of Probation, 7(2), 103–123.
41.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.GrissoT. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. MacArthur Foundation.
42.
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.
43.
VincentG.SullivanC. J.SullivanC.GuyL.LatessaE.TysonJ.AdamsB. (2018). Studying drivers of risk and needs assessment instrument implementation in juvenile justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
44.
WachterA. (2014). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
45.
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 Journal, 75(2), 7–12.
46.
WhiteacreK. (2004). Case manager experiences with the LSI-R at a federal community corrections center. Corrections Compendium, 29(6), 1–5.
47.
YoungD.MolineK.FarrellJ.BierieD. (2006). Best implementation practices: Disseminating new assessment technologies in a juvenile justice agency. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 135–158.
