Improving Agreement About Intervention Plans in Probation by Decision Support

Abstract

Reliability in decision making about intervention plans is a necessary condition for evidence-based probation work and equal treatment of offenders. Structuring decision making can improve agreement between clinical decision makers. In a former study however, we found that in Dutch probation practice structured risk and needs assessment did not result in acceptable agreement about intervention plans. The Dutch probation services subsequently introduced a tool for support in decision making on intervention plans. This article addresses the question whether the use of this tool results in better agreement between probation officers. A significant and meaningful improvement in agreement was found on all domains of the intervention plan. Implications for probation practice are discussed.

Improving Case Plans and Interventions for Adolescents on Probation: The Implementation of the SAVRY and a Structured Case Planning Form

“…Instead, we believe that increased needs match may be due, in large part, to the structured plan. A couple of studies indicate that structuring case plans yield better agreement about the criminogenic needs to target in plans (Bosker & Witteman, 2016; Bosker et al, 2015). Furthermore, in this study, the structured form directly instructed YPOs to consider youths’ needs, thus providing a plausible mechanism between structured plans and the needs principle, and sending a clear and consistent reminder to YPOs on the importance of targeting needs.…”

“…The first of these studies used a vignette design, wherein probation officers developed case plans using either a risk assessment tool alone (i.e., Recidivism Risk Assessment Scale) or a version of this tool that also included a case planning form with questions and suggested interventions (i.e., a structured decision support protocol; Bosker, Witteman, Hermanns, & Heij, 2015). Plans that were developed with a case planning form showed better agreement about the intensity of supervision and criminogenic needs to target than those developed with the risk assessment tool alone.…”

Prediction of Recidivism With the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (Reduced Version) in a Sample of Young Spanish Offenders

“…The reduced inventory requires considerably less time to be administrated and, as such, could be used in settings with a high flow of youth offenders and limited resources for complete evaluation (Chu et al, 2014). However, it is essential that practitioners are prepared and qualified to administer this tool to obtain an objective assessment of each minor and to be able to evaluate all of them using the same procedure (Bosker, Witteman, Hermanns, & Heij, 2015).…”

Bridging Risk Assessments to Case Planning: Development and Evaluation of an Intervention-Planning Tool for Adolescents on Probation

“…Decision support systems have been found to improve decision making in a variety of health care settings (Hunt, Haynes, Hanna, & Smith, 1998; Moja et al, 2014). In addition, several studies have found that such protocols improve probation officers’ case plans (Bosker & Witteman, 2016; Bosker, Witteman, Hermanns, & Heij, 2015; Viljoen et al, 2019). For instance, Bosker and Witteman (2016) compared the quality of plans that were developed with a risk assessment tool alone versus a tool plus a decision support system.…”