Street-Level Decision Making: Acceptability, Feasibility, and Use of Evidence-Based Practices in Adult Probation

Abstract

Growing empirical research finds that a correctional system devoted to punishment is ineffective and can produce criminogenic effects. As a result, justice organizations, including probation, are encouraging managers and staff to adopt evidence-based practices (EBPs), supported by scientific evidence, such as validated risk and needs assessments and cognitive-behavioral therapies. Implementation of EBPs falls heavily on street-level workers, such as probation officers (POs) as they implement policy, yet little attention examines whether and how EBPs align within the traditionally authoritarian justice environment. Using over 1,000 hr of observation and interview data with probation staff, the present study examines how probation staff understand and use EBPs. Findings indicate that probation staff continue to make discretionary decisions regarding whom they can use EBPs with and situations in which EBP use is appropriate. Findings have significant implications for the acceptability, feasibility, and transportability of EBPs in criminal justice environments.

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

“…Thus, Hannah-Moffat and colleagues (2009) found that practitioners routinely adjusted RNA scores to downgrade risks for members of socially marginalized racial groups or women who had committed minor offenses, while upgrading them for people committing sexual or violent offenses. Similarly, in examining the implementation of evidence-based practices in probation, Viglione (2017) suggests that probation officers tend not to apply these strategies with higher risk clients because they are seen as less amenable to intervention.…”

“…First, is probation officer decision-making consistent with the RNR model, as we would expect if implementation has been successful? Second, given research suggesting community corrections officers are more resistant to evidence-based decisions for clients with higher risks or more serious offenses (Hannah-Moffat et al, 2009; Lynch, 1998; Viglione, 2017), is adherence to risk and need principles less for these kinds of clients? To assess these questions, we test a series of hypotheses.…”

“…Frontline practitioners 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).…”

Low Risk Offenders Under Probation Supervision: Risk Management and the Risk-Needs-Responsivity Framework

“…Viglione and colleagues (2015) found POs rarely used risk and needs assessments as intended due to issues surrounding the functionality of the tool and believability in assessment tools. This finding was reiterated in more recent research that found challenges in probation staff viewing EBPs more generally, including risk and needs assessments, as feasible and acceptable for use in daily work (Viglione, 2017). As seen in the current study and in previous research (including many other studies regarding correctional reform such as Battalino, Beutler, & Shani, 1996;Ferguson, 2002;Rudes, 2012;Steiner, Travis, & Makarios, 2011), when staff hold negative perceptions regarding the alignment between reform and daily practices, feasibility, and acceptability of an innovation, they are likely to find ways to work around the innovation.…”

From Bright Plots to Blind Spots: Mapping Departures in Case Review Post-Bail Reform in Two New Jersey Courts

“…These “blind spots” are not specific to reforms of pretrial systems. Process remains a critical gap in the implementation of evidence-based policies (Viglione, 2017, p. 1357) and smart decarceration programs (Pettus-Davis & Epperson, 2015), despite studies noting that line-staff or managers condition the transformative potential of new models (Lynch, 1998; Rengifo et al, 2017; Rudes, 2012). The shortage of courtroom-based data and theory is acute in the case of prosecutors and defense attorneys relative to judges (Laskorunsky, 2018), with little known about how new models shape their exchanges and behaviors (Yule & Schumann, 2019).…”