Premium
Risk–need–responsivity: Evaluating need‐to‐service matching with reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance
Author(s) -
Drawbridge Dara C.,
Truong Debbie,
Nguyen Ngoc T.,
Lorenti Vincent L.,
Vincent Gina M.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
behavioral sciences and the law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.649
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1099-0798
pISSN - 0735-3936
DOI - 10.1002/bsl.2502
Subject(s) - service (business) , matching (statistics) , economic justice , referral , medicine , service provider , needs assessment , population , applied psychology , psychology , medical education , computer science , nursing , business , environmental health , pathology , marketing , social science , sociology , neoclassical economics , economics
Abstract With a sample of 125 adults under community supervision (71.20% male, 76.00% White, mean age = 33.17 years), this study evaluated need‐to‐service matching using an evaluation framework from implementation science. Need‐to‐service matching is a case management strategy intended to align service referrals in case plans with justice‐involved persons' criminogenic needs. The results indicated that need‐to‐service matching reached a high percentage of its target population at 81.70%. Within criminogenic need areas, good match frequencies ranged from 80.00% in family/marital problems to 98.29% in alcohol/drug problems. Clinical staff also met the adherence benchmark applied by the current study, which required a 75.00% match between individuals' criminogenic needs and the services they received. Justice‐involved persons had, on average, 90.46% of their criminogenic needs matched with at least one service referral. Over‐prescription of services (i.e., recommendation of services that were not needed) was high, with frequencies in need areas ranging from 60.98% in education/employment to 82.21% in antisocial patterns. Methods from implementation science are useful for structuring evaluations of need‐to‐service matching, understanding implementation success and failure, and generating recommendations for improving implementation practice. The field would benefit greatly from benchmarks for need‐to‐service matching evaluation elements.