Karl Moline

Bio: Karl Moline is an academic researcher from University of Maryland, College Park. The author has contributed to research in topics: Information technology & Best practice. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 44 citations.

Best Implementation Practices: Disseminating New Assessment Technologies in a Juvenile Justice Agency

Abstract: Much has been written in recent years about advances in assessment technologies designed to aid decision making in the juvenile justice system. Adoption and implementation of this latest generation of actuarial tools, however, have lagged behind their development. Assessment in juvenile justice exemplifies the “science-practice gap” that has spurred a growing national interest in technology transfer. This article describes and assesses efforts in one jurisdiction to close the assessment technology gap through a progressive series of research-based strategies introducing field supervisors and staff to best practices concepts and tools while gauging their capacity for assimilating change, participative decision making and peer training, and integration of the technology with existing, related practices. Researchers’ use of various data-driven monitoring reports for enhancing staff accountability and implementation fidelity, addressing resistance to the use of dynamic need factors in assessment protocols, an...

Performance indicators of the structured professional judgment approach for assessing risk for violence to others: a meta-analytic survey

Abstract: Tremendous advancements have been realized during the past several decades in the science and practice of the field now known as violence risk assessment. Whereas in the 1970s and 1980s estimates (dichotomous predictions) of individuals' potential to act violently tended to be based on unstructured clinical judgment, new technologies, or risk assessment tools, were developed during subsequent decades to assist professionals conducting such assessments. Initial technologies available were actuarial in nature; these efforts were followed by clinically based tools developed according to the stmctured professional judgment (SP1) model with the intent of overcoming the perceived limitations of the actuarial approach. Throughout the field's metamorphosis, a steadfast theme has been impassioned commentary regarding the relative merit of actuarial and clinical approaches. Although much research has examined specific SPJ tools, to date, a comprehensive evaluation of the SPJ decision making model has not been conducted. This dissertation applied meta-analytic techniques to examine the predictive validity of the SPJ model using 113 disseminations. Results supported the utility of the SPJ model (especially when summary risk ratings were used) and indicated no distinct superiority for either the actuarial or SPJ model among the 44 samples in which direct comparisons of both approaches were made. It is concluded that both types of technologies perfonn at comparably good levels of predictive accuracy, but that additional factors are relevant when selecting an approach for clinical practice. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review.

Abstract: Although it is widely believed that risk assessment tools can help manage risk of violence and offending, it is unclear what evidence exists to support this view. As such, we conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis. To identify studies, we searched 13 databases, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts. Through this review, we identified 73 published and unpublished studies (N = 31,551 psychiatric patients and offenders, N = 10,002 professionals) that examined either professionals' risk management efforts following the use of a tool, or rates of violence or offending following the implementation of a tool. These studies included a variety of populations (e.g., adults, adolescents), tools, and study designs. The primary findings were as follows: (a) despite some promising findings, professionals do not consistently adhere to tools or apply them to guide their risk management efforts; (b) following the use of a tool, match to the risk principle is moderate and match to the needs principle is limited, as many needs remained unaddressed; (c) there is insufficient evidence to conclude that tools directly reduce violence or reoffending, as findings are mixed; and (d) tools appear to have a more beneficial impact on risk management when agencies use careful implementation procedures and provide staff with training and guidelines related to risk management. In sum, although risk assessment tools may be an important starting point, they do not guarantee effective treatment or risk management. However, certain strategies may bolster their utility. (PsycINFO Database Record

Does Risk Assessment Make a Difference? Results of Implementing the SAVRY in Juvenile Probation

Abstract: An effective approach to reducing recidivism is, first, to identify a youth's risk of reoffending and then to match the intensity of interventions to that risk level. This pre-post quasi-experimental, prospective study compared 247 (pre) with 217 (post) adjudicated youths to examine the implementation of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and its effects on case management practices in Louisiana's Caddo parish probation office. The results indicated that placement rates dropped by 50%, use of maximum levels of supervision dropped by almost 30%, and use of community services decreased except for high-risk youths, but only after the SAVRY was properly implemented. This shift towards more appropriate allocation of resources that are matched to risk level occurred without a significant increase in reoffending. The implications for implementation and for use of risk/needs assessment in juvenile probation are discussed. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Language: en

Impact of risk/needs assessment on juvenile probation officers' decision making: Importance of implementation.

Abstract: The adoption of risk assessment tools has increased in popularity in the juvenile justice system due, in part, to recommendations by the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). However, very little is known about whether adoption of these tools actually effectuates change in the way young offenders are handled. Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered from 111 juvenile probation officers (JPOs) from six probation offices before and twice after standardized, rigorous implementation of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth (SAVRY) or the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). The purpose of this study was to examine JPOs' changes in attitudes and case management decisions following implementation of a risk/needs assessment (RNA) tool. There was a significant reduction in JPOs' perceptions of the proportion of young offenders who would reoffend. There were many shifts in JPOs' decision-making to be more consistent with Risk-Need-Responsivity practices, such as (a) making service referrals based on the fit between youths' criminogenic needs and services, and (b) assigning levels of supervision based on youths' level of risk. There was a shift in attention to more evidence-based dynamic risk factors. These changes occurred regardless of which RNA tool was used. Juvenile justice agencies are encouraged to adopt an evidence-based RNA tool using a sound implementation model in order to meet the objectives of the JJDPA and RNR practices. Benefits and barriers to adoption of RNA tools by juvenile probation departments are discussed. KW: Juvenile justice; Juvenile delinquency; Language: en

Making “What Works” Work: Examining Probation Officers’ Experiences Addressing the Criminogenic Needs of Juvenile Offenders

Abstract: This study qualitatively explored frontline perspectives on the challenges of addressing youths’ criminogenic needs within a risk–need–responsivity (RNR)-based case management framework. Twenty-nine probation officers from Toronto, Canada participated in semistructured interviews. Emergent themes included the importance of targeting “high impact” criminogenic needs (needs that—when effectively addressed—also have an impact on other need domains in addition to a direct impact on criminogenic risk), the salience of specific responsivity factors in case management, the lack of evidence-based programming available to youth, and respondents’ uncertainty regarding their role in addressing criminogenic needs. Results highlight the need for research examining the interrelationship of criminogenic needs, specific responsivity factors, and educational outcomes of youth on probation. Findings also support recent initiatives that provide concrete training to probation officers around implementation of the need and re...