Objective: Research indicates moderate-to-limited integration of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) principles in probation case planning. Efforts to improve implementation are important targets for research, policy, and practice. This study examined the ability of two juvenile probation departments to implement RNR principles with fidelity following a comprehensive implementation protocol that included RNRrelated policies, creation of a service matrix for criminogenic need-to-service matching, and extensive staff training. Hypotheses: The researchers anticipated fidelity to the risk and need principles would be stronger than previous studies. Method: This implementation study involved secondary data analysis of services received over 10 months for 254 adolescent offenders (76.80% male, 72.40% White, M age ϭ 16.13 years) from two probation departments following adoption of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Results: Probation departments evidenced strong fidelity to the risk principle, such that higher risk youth were assigned more services with higher intensity. Fidelity to the need principle was moderate at best (an average 24.61% to 29.38% need-to-service match) and varied by criminogenic need, overall risk level, and the operational definition of criminogenic need. Conclusions: Comprehensive implementation practices are associated with strong fidelity to the risk principle, but it may take longer for probation departments to achieve strong fidelity to the need principle. Researchers should identify more feasible methods for implementing the need principle and strive for a consensus on methods for measuring need-to-service match that are also consistent with probation policies. Public Significance StatementProbation departments can achieve fidelity to some aspects of evidence-based case planning practices for youth following use of a comprehensive implementation protocol for these practices. Adherence to criminogenic risk reduction practices (need-to-service matching) is an important aspect of case planning where fidelity is limited, and which may require longer periods of implementation (e.g., 3 years) to achieve. Researchers should use implementation science methods to create and test decision-making supports that could improve fidelity to risk reduction practices.

No abstract

Objective: There is increasing recognition in the justice system that transition-age youth (TAY) are in a unique developmental period that may require tailored policies and practices. This study investigated the differential predictive validity and potential for disparate impact of both juvenile (the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory) and adult risk assessment instruments (the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management–20 [HCR-20] and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide [VRAG]) with this age group (ages 16–24), relative to adolescents (ages 12–15) or older adults (ages 25–40). Method: The authors obtained secondary data sets for the 4 instruments totaling 3,353 cases. The final samples for each instrument after exclusions ranged from 1,181 cases for the VRAG to 290 cases for the HCR-20. Results: Age group generally did not moderate the prediction of any recidivism or of violent recidivism. The only exception was on the HCR-20, which significantly predicted recidivism regardless of age but operated better for TAY than adults. The VRAG was the only instrument with significant mean age–related differences in risk scores. Conclusions: The potential for an unfair impact of risk assessments on TAY is minimal regardless of whether they are processed in the juvenile or adult justice systems. This preliminary evidence suggests well-validated instruments used in either system should accurately quantify the likelihood of recidivism for TAY; however, this does not necessarily translate into effective risk management for this developmental period. More research using study designs developed specifically for examining age-related differences is needed.

The Four Preconditions Model asserted that four preconditions needed to be met in order for child sexual abuse to occur: (1) an offender with a predisposition to sexually abuse a child; (2) the ability overcome any internal inhibitions against acting on that predisposition; (3) the ability to overcome external barriers, such as lack of access to the child or supervision of the child by others; and (4) the ability to overcome any resistance or reluctance on the part of the child. The offender predisposition was itself conceptualized as comprising three components, which were also to some extent preconditions: someemotional congruenceto the act of sexual abuse with this particular child, the capacity forsexual arousalto this child and this activity, and someblockageof his ability to get his emotional and sexual needs met in another way that would not involve a criminal activity. This chapter tries to make an assessment of the current status of the model based on research evidence and clinical practice.

This study examined the feasibility of and fidelity to risk/needs assessment, mental health screening, and risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-based case planning within juvenile probation in two states. The researcher-guided implementation effort included the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-2 (MAYSI-2), Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and policies to prioritize criminogenic needs while using mental health services only when warranted. Data from 53 probation officers (POs) and 553 youths indicated three of five offices had high fidelity to administration and case planning policies. The interrater reliability ( n = 85; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC][A, 1] = .92 [Northern state] and .80 [Southern state]) and predictive validity ( n = 455; Exp[B] = 1.83) of SAVRY risk ratings were significant. There was an overreliance on mental health services; 48% of youth received these referrals when only 20% screened as having mental health needs. Barriers to fidelity to RNR practices in some offices included assessments not being conducted before disposition, lack of service availability, and limited buy-in from a few stakeholders.