Juvenile Probation Officer Decision-Making in a Reforming State: Assessing the Application of Evidence-Based Principles

• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820925112
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Author: Krissinda Palmer,Joel Miller
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 9, September 2020, 1136 –1155.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820925112

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1136

JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER DECISION-

MAKING IN A REFORMING STATE

Assessing the Application of Evidence-Based

Principles

JOEL MILLER

KRISSINDA PALMER

Rutgers University

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.

Keywords: risk-need-responsivity; juvenile; probation; risk/need-assessment; decision-making

In recent decades, evidence-based principles have become a key reference point for crimi-

nal and juvenile justice policy. Holding the promise of effective rehabilitation, they have

formed the foundation of a wave of reform efforts (Greenwood & Welsh, 2012; Pew

Charitable Trusts, 2019). Central to this movement is the risk-need-responsivity (RNR)

model that directs decision-making based on clients’ actuarial risk, criminogenic needs, and

AUTHORS’ NOTE: 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 conclu-

sions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

those of the Department of Justice. The authors would like to thank all the partners and participants in this

project, including all the Pennsylvania juvenile probation officers and supporting staff who gave their time to

assist with this research, the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, and the Pennsylvania Council

of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joel

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

549, Newark, NJ 07102; e-mail: joelmi@rutgers.edu.

925112CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820925112Criminal Justice and BehaviorMiller, Palmer / Assessing Probation Officer Decision-Making

research-article2020

Miller, Palmer / ASSESSING PROBATION OFFICER DECISION-MAKING 1137

styles of learning, and is underpinned by contemporary risk/need assessment (RNA) tools

(Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Even with the best intentions, however, agency leaders often

struggle to reshape organizations according to evidence-based ideals. Frontline practitio-

ners are often resistant to new policy mandates, continuing to exercise discretion that is

shaped by the rigors of frontline practice and their broader professional orientations (Haynes

& Licata, 1995; Kelly, 1994; Lipsky, 1980). Studies focused on community corrections

echo these findings (Lynch, 1998; Viglione, 2017), including those that focus on the use of

RNAs (Haas & DeTardo-Bora, 2009; Hannah-Moffat et al., 2009; Miller & Maloney, 2013;

Viglione et al., 2015).

Notwithstanding, the science of policy implementation offers hopes of improving work-

ers’ adherence to new organizational strategies (Bertram et al., 2015; Damschroder et al.,

2009), including in community corrections settings (Taxman & Belenko, 2011). This litera-

ture emphasizes leadership, staff engagement, training, data systems, and relationships with

internal and external stakeholders. Literature focusing on RNA implementation echoes

these insights (Vincent et al., 2012).

However, whereas quantitative studies have found improvements in decision-making

shortly after pilot RNA efforts (Vincent et al., 2016; Young et al., 2006), studies of routine

practice have consistently identified shortcomings in adherence to RNAs (Miller & Maloney,

2013; Viglione et al., 2015). The current article fills a gap in the literature. It does so by

testing the proposition that a sustained effort to implement an RNA, which has paid atten-

tion to implementation science principles, has resulted in juvenile probation officers mak-

ing decisions that are consistent with the RNR model several years later.

LITERATURE REVIEW

THE RNR MODEL AND RNAS

The RNR model is central to decision-making in evidence-based correctional practice

(Andrews et al., 1990; Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Key features of the model include (a) the

risk principle, which demands that the intensity of services (including correctional supervi-

sion) be matched to a person’s level of risk; (b) the need principle, which indicates interven-

tions should target the specific needs of the person that lead to criminal behavior; and (c)

the responsivity principle, which affirms the superiority of cognitive and social learning

interventions (“general responsivity”) and requires interventions to be tailored to relevant

characteristics of the person (“specific responsivity”), such as strengths, motivation, or

learning ability (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). While the model allows for occasional devia-

tions from these core principles, these should be exceptional and happen only for clearly

specified reasons (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). These principles are underpinned, in practice,

by RNA tools. Based on a range of tool items, these tools classify system clients into recidi-

vism risk categories, indicate criminogenic needs that might be changed through interven-

tion, and may highlight responsivity factors to be taken into account in case management

(Bonta & Andrews, 2017).

UNDERSTANDING PROBATION OFFICER DECISION-MAKING

Empirical Studies of Probation Officer Decisions

The use of the RNR model to organize decision-making must confront a broader set of

dynamics that may also shape practitioner decision-making. Studies of enforcement-oriented