Facilitators of Practitioner Adherence to a Risk/Need Assessment Tool: Hypothesis Testing on a Survey of Juvenile Probation Officers

• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20936188
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020
• Author: Carrie Maloney,Joel Miller
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20936188

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2020, Vol. 64(16) 1757 –1778

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20936188

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Facilitators of Practitioner

Adherence to a Risk/Need

Assessment Tool: Hypothesis

Testing on a Survey of

Juvenile Probation Officers

Joel Miller1 and Carrie Maloney2

Abstract

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.

Keywords

risk/need assessment, implementation science, juvenile probation, risk-need-responsivity

model, evidence-based policies

The implementation of evidence-based policies in correctional settings is challenging

(Viglione, 2017). While organizational reform almost always requires effort and time

1Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA

2East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, USA

Corresponding Author:

Joel Miller, School of Criminal Justice, Center for Law and Justice, Rutgers University, 123 Washington

Street—Suite 549, Newark, NJ 07102, USA.

Email: joel.miller@rutgers.edu

This project was supported by Award No. 2015-R2-CX-0015, awarded by the National Institute of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recom-

mendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the

Department of Justice.

936188IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20936188International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyMiller and Maloney

research-article2020

1758 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 64(16)

(Bertram et al., 2015; Damschroder et al., 2009; Fixsen et al., 2005) in community

corrections settings, reforms are often further impeded by a legacy of enforcement-

oriented goals, risk aversion, and resistance to change (Burrell & Rhine, 2013;

Viglione, 2017; Viglione et al., 2015b).

Research that examines strategies for implementing evidence-based practices in

these settings is therefore important. A body of implementation science literature (e.g.,

Bertram et al., 2015; Damschroder et al., 2009; Fixsen et al., 2005; Nilsen, 2015) has

produced insights about organizational changes in a range of contexts, including in

community corrections settings (e.g., Portillo et al., 2016; Taxman & Belenko, 2011;

Viglione, 2017), among which are a few focusing on RNR implementation (Ferguson,

2002; Vincent et al., 2012, 2018; Young et al., 2006).

The current article contributes to knowledge of RNA implementation by quantita-

tively testing hypotheses relating to officers’ adherence to the Youth Level of Service/

Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), a juvenile risk/need assessment (RNA) tool.

Using a survey of juvenile probation officers, conducted several years after the YLS/

CMI roll-out in Pennsylvania, it statistically tests relationships between YLS/CMI

adherence and measures of potential facilitators that relate to: office leadership and

climate, local policy and implementation strategy, officers’ support for reforms, and

the stakeholder environment. Notably, while prior survey studies have statistically

examined predictors of RNA adherence (Miller & Maloney, 2013; Schaefer &

Williamson, 2018), the current study breaks new ground by quantitatively testing pre-

dictors not previously assessed by these or other published studies. These include

facilitators relating to office climate, implementation and quality assurance strategies,

and the stakeholder context. This article is also the first to assess how far office leader-

ship and climate variables affect RNA adherence indirectly through their effects on

more proximate facilitators of RNA adherence.

Literature Review

Risk/Need Assessment Tools

Risk/Need assessment tools (RNAs) are widely used in community corrections agen-

cies across the country (Solomon et al., 2008), and the juvenile justice system is no

exception (Wachter, 2014). These tools represent the cornerstone of decision-making

within the “Risk-Needs-Responsivity” (RNR) model, which constitutes the dominant

evidence-based framework for contemporary correctional rehabilitation (Andrews

et al., 2011; Bonta & Andrews, 2017), and are central to a range of related evidence-

based community corrections models (e.g., Bogue et al., 2004; Solomon et al., 2008).

Central to this model, and directly supported by RNAs, are the risk, need and

responsivity principles (Andrews et al., 2011; Lowenkamp et al., 2006). According to

the risk principle, the intensity of services should be matched to the client’s risk of

recidivism. The need principle requires interventions to target the specific crimino-

genic needs of the client. Finally, the responsivity principle asserts the superiority of

cognitive and social learning interventions (“general responsivity”) and requires