Operationalizing Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles in Local Policy: Lessons From Five County Juvenile Probation Departments

• DOI: 10.1177/0032885519882312
• Author: Carrie Maloney,Joel Miller
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Date: 01 January 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519882312

The Prison Journal

2020, Vol. 100(1) 49 –73

© 2019 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032885519882312

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

Operationalizing Risk,

Need, and Responsivity

Principles in Local

Policy: Lessons From

Five County Juvenile

Probation Departments

Joel Miller1 and Carrie Maloney2

Abstract

We examined the operationalization of risk, need, and responsivity

principles (RNRP) in local policy in five Pennsylvania county juvenile

probation departments. “Core” policies focused on officers’ assessment;

decision-making about client services and supervision; engagement with

system stakeholders; and intervention with clients. “Supporting” policies

focused on competency development; management and supervision; and

performance measurement. Policy variations highlighted innovations and

dilemmas in operationalizing RNRP. Dilemmas included the extent to

which officers are cast as change agents; how needs are prioritized; how

risk and needs are tied to decisions; and how officers advocate about

assessment results with system stakeholders.

Keywords

juvenile justice, probation, YLS/CMI, policy, risk–need–responsivity model

Funding: 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 recommendations expressed in this publication are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

1Rutgers University–Newark, NJ, USA

2East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, USA

Corresponding Author:

Joel Miller, School of Criminal Justice, Center for Law & Justice, Rutgers University–Newark,

123 Washington Street, Suite 549, Newark, NJ 07102, USA.

Email: joelmi@rutgers.edu

882312TPJXXX10.1177/0032885519882312The Prison JournalMiller and Maloney

research-article2019

50 The Prison Journal 100(1)

Introduction

Risk, need, and responsivity principles (RNRP) are fundamental to evidence-

based community correctional practice (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011).

Unlike some “manualized” evidence-based programs (e.g., Henggeler,

Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland, & Cunningham, 2009; Robinson &

Porporino, 2003), however, they offer no rigid protocols for practitioners to

follow when implementing them locally, even though there are some helpful

guidelines (Guevara et al., 2011; Vincent, Guy, & Grisso, 2012). This means

that while local policy-makers can adapt the RNRP to local institutional con-

texts, there is a risk of jurisdictions “reinventing the wheel” or making policy

choices inconsistent with evidence or best practice. Research that increases

the field’s knowledge of protocols for operationalizing RNRP in local con-

texts is therefore of value.

Against this backdrop, this article presents case study research that high-

lights examples and dilemmas relevant to administrators seeking to develop

RNRP policies in local contexts. Specifically, it examines probation policies

in five local Pennsylvania county juvenile probation departments, participat-

ing in a state-wide juvenile justice reform program involving the implemen-

tation of the Youth Level of Service/Case-Management Inventory (YLS/

CMI) risk/needs assessment tool.

RNRP and Juvenile Probation Policy

The Elements of RNRP

The risk principle indicates that the intensity of service should be matched

to the offender’s risk. The need principle indicates that interventions

should target the specific needs of an offender that lead to criminal behav-

ior. And the responsivity principle affirms the superiority of cognitive and

social learning interventions (“general responsivity”) and asserts that

interventions should be tailored to the characteristics of offenders (“spe-

cific responsivity”), for example, their strengths, motivation, learning

ability, and demographic characteristics (Andrews et al., 2011; Andrews &

Dowden, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990; Dowden & Andrews, 2004). These

principles have their roots in a variety of evaluation studies and meta-

analyses that demonstrate reduced recidivism rates for interventions that

follow these principles (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Andrews et al.,

1990; Dowden & Andrews, 1999; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Holsinger

2006).

The successful application of RNRP relies on practitioners’ use of struc-

tured “risk/need assessment (RNA) tools” that use validated criteria, in place