DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37974.v1
title: Long-Term Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Needs Assessment and Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Reforms in Juvenile Probation: The Long-Term RNR-Impact Study, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, 2008-2017
title: Version 1

description: The Long-Term Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Impact Study was a pre-post, quasi-experimental study of the impact of the implementation of risk-needs assessment (RNA) and risk-need-responsivity-related (RNR) case management in 5 juvenile probation offices in 2 states. This study used 3 time points (pre-implementation, 1st year post-implementation, and 7th-year post-implementation) to examine the 7-year sustainability of impacts on system-responses (rates of informal processing, different dispositions, and out-of-home placements), youth outcomes (school and employment), and recidivism; as well as cost-effectiveness. This study also examined whether there was a significant difference in the impacts of implementation after 7 years between probation offices that were effective versus ineffective in their first year of implementation.
description: This was an experimental study of the impact of the implementation of risk-needs-assessment (RNA) and risk-need-responsitivity-related (RNR) case management in 5 juvenile probation offices in 2 states. It examined the 7-year sustainability of impacts on system-responses (rates of informal processing, different dispositions, and out-of-home placements), youth outcomes (school and employment), and recidivism; as well as cost-effectiveness. This study also examined whether there was a significant difference in the implementation after 7-years between probation offices that were effective versus ineffective in their 1st year of implementation. This study built on existing data from the Risk/Needs Assessment in Juvenile Probation: Implementation Study (RNAJP) (Vincent et al., 2012) of the changes in case processing effectuated by implementing an RNA instrument with RNR in 6 juvenile probation offices in 2 states. The current study (the Long-Term RNR Impact Study) gathered data from a new cohort of youth from 5 of the original probation offices. The intention of this Long-Term RNR-Impact Study was to extend the RNAJP study by gathering an additional wave of data to examine the 7-year sustainability of the impacts of implementation of a risk-needs assessment instrument (RNA) and risk-need responsitivity-based (RNR) practices.
description: The RNAJP study involved researcher-engaged, comprehensive implementation of the following policies and procedures in 6 juvenile probation offices: a) administration of a valid RNA by probation officers (POs) to every youth referred to the court or every youth adjudicated (depending on the site); b) making disposition, placement, and diversion recommendations in accordance with youths' risk levels; c) giving low risk youth fewer services and high risk youth more; d) designing case plans that addressed only youth's criminogenic needs and essential responsivity factors; and e) supervising low risk youth less and high risk youth more. Researchers trained POs in the RNA, the RNR approach, and in their new office policies (which were based on RNR principles) in the beginning of the study and again in a 6-month booster training. The study tracked outcomes for up to 1 year for 2 cohorts; a pre-implementation cohort of youth processed in the jurisdiction the year prior to implementation of the RNA and RNR process, and a post-implementation cohort of youth processed in the jurisdiction during the year following implementation of the RNA and RNR Sites with good adherence to their RNA administration procedures and RNR practices had significant changes in at least 3 of 4 of the system-response outcomes studied. These sites were considered effective implementers. There were 2 sites that had poor adherence to the RNA administration procedures and RNR practices. These sites had few to no changes in their outcomes (ineffective implementers). The current study extended the RNAJP study for another 7 years. RNAJP was a quasi-experimental, pre-post study of the changes in case processing occurring after implementing an RNA and RNR in 6 juvenile probation offices in 2 states.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Structured Assessment of Violent Risk in Youth (SAVRY), Borum et al. (2006) Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), Hoge and Andrews (2006)
description: The final youth sample included the propensity-score matched pre- and 1st-year post-implementation cohorts (pre-implementation and 1st year cohorts) gathered for the RNAJP study (Vincent et al., 2016) along with a new cohort of youth obtained seven years later (7-year cohort). The 7th year cohort was generated by obtaining all continuous youth cases who should have received a risk-needs assessment according to the current probation offices' policies (i.e., all youth referred to the court or all youth adjudicated, depending on the site) starting January 1st, 2017 onward, until a sufficient number of cases were obtained. For Louisiana Site 1, the pre-implementation cohort was randomly selected adjudications from April to October 2008. The 1st Year Post-Implementation cohort was all consecutive adjudications for 6 months. The 7th year post-implementation cohort was all consecutive adjudications for 13 months. For Louisiana Site 2, the pre-implementation cohort was all consecutive adjudications in 2008. The 1st Year Post-Implementation cohort was all consecutive adjudications for 11 months. The 7th year post-implementation cohort was all consecutive adjudications for 10 months. For Pennsylvania Site 1, the pre-implementation cohort was randomly selected referrals from April to October 2008. The 1st Year Post-Implementation cohort was all consecutive referrals for 6 months. The 7th year post-implementation cohort was all consecutive referrals for 8 months. For Pennsylvania Site 2, the pre-implementation cohort was all consecutive referrals in 2008. The 1st Year Post-Implementation cohort was all consecutive referrals for 9 months. The 7th year post-implementation cohort was all consecutive referrals for 11 months. For Pennsylvania Site 3, the pre-implementation cohort was all consecutive adjudications for 6 months in the control unit. The 1st Year Post-Implementation cohort was all consecutive adjudications for 6 months in the implementation unit. The 7th year post-implementation cohort was all consecutive adjudications for 8 months in the implementation unit.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Youth Demographic and Case Processing DS2: Youth Outcomes DS3: SAVRY All LA Combined Initial DS4: YLS/CMI All PA Combined Initial DS5: Placement DS6: Services DS7: Termination & Cost DS8: Recidivism DS9: PO Interview & Knowledge Test DS10: Cost Appendix - LA Site 1 DS11: Cost Appendix - LA Site 2 DS12: Cost Appendix - PA Site 1 DS13: Cost Appendix - PA Site 2 DS14: Cost Appendix - PA Site 3
description: Probation offices in the United States.
description: mixed mode; telephone interview