What Do Juvenile Probation Officers Think of Using the SAVRY and YLS/CMI for Case Management, and Do They Use the Instruments Properly?

Abstract

Juvenile probation officers (JPOs; n = 71) in the United States were interviewed three and ten months after the SAVRY or YLS/CMI was implemented in their office. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to explore their experiences using the instruments and adherence to practice guidelines. JPOs typically perceived the instruments as being ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ helpful for guiding their case planning decisions. A frequently cited barrier to using both instruments in practice related to the increased length of time it took to complete reports; yet, at the same time, some JPOs also acknowledged that use of the measures forced them to gather important information about the youth's background and current situation that proved useful. Most JPOs (77 %, n = 33 of 43) using the SAVRY expressed preference for a risk assessment model that emphasized use of appropriate professional discretion rather than a score-based approach. “Buy-in” for the instruments and the reported difficulties varied across sites. The present findings may inform recommendations specifically for delivering training on the SAVRY and YLS/CMI and, more broadly, strategies to promote their effective implementation in juvenile justice settings.

Keywords:

• juvenile probation
• risk assessment
• implementation
• SAVRY
• YLS/CMI

Notes

¹ Although Shook and Sarri (2007) examined risk assessment and needs assessment separately, contemporary risk assessment instruments such as the SAVRY and YLS/CMI contain criminogenic needs/dynamic risk factors. Although some argue for the separation of risk and need assessments (see Baird, 2009), such a distinction is moot when using the newer generation risk assessment instruments developed to directly inform risk management efforts, which contain criminogenic need factors as part of the risk assessment.

² These 71 subjects were the subsample of JPOs from the RNAJP study (N = 111; 88 JPOs and 23 administrators) who completed the last of three interviews. Administrators were excluded from the present analyses because they typically did not conduct the risk assessments, and so many of our research questions were not applicable to them.

³ The revised YLS/CMI manual (Hoge & Andrews, 2010) was published at the end of this project.

⁴ Additional steps addressing formulation, scenario planning, and risk management are key components of newer SPJ instruments (Douglas et al., 2013; Douglas et al., 2014; Guy et al., in press; Hart et al., 2003).

⁵ To maximize power, we report data from any JPO who completed the particular post-implementation interview. Thus, ns for interviews 1 and 2 vary.

⁶ Although a few JPOs noted that the SRR is easier to make when there is a wide distribution on item ratings, most SAVRY users did not provide a detailed answer when asked to elaborate regarding the ease with which they felt able to arrive at a SRR or about any information or procedure that could be helpful for making the process easier.