Many states have criminalized “revenge porn,” an increasingly common form of online sexual abuse. Yet, we know little regarding attitudes toward these laws. Through an original survey of nearly 500 U.S. residents, we find widespread public support for criminalization, but support varies by respondent’s self-identified gender and revenge porn type. Women favor criminalization more than men, but support falls among women and men when the subject created the media, colloquially known as “selfies” or “noodz.” Results suggest that women expressing their sexuality are deemed less deserving of protection, reinforcing feminist legal critiques of criminal law as insufficient to prevent sexual abuse.

Whereas research has shown improvements in decision-making shortly after the introduction of risk/need assessment (RNA) tools, studies of routine practice nonetheless show shortcomings in RNA utilization. The current study uses an experimental survey-based vignette method to assess juvenile probation officer decision-making several years into a sustained evidence-based effort to implement an RNA in Pennsylvania. Consistent with the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model, results show officer decisions correspond with clients’ risk and need. Moreover, adherence to the RNR model was found for clients across risk levels and offense categories. However, officers often relied on services for low-risk clients, and made decisions about interventions based on offense characteristics. Results suggest a discretionary form of decision-making, taking cues from within and beyond the RNR model, including from punitive and traditional welfare-oriented approaches. Findings highlight the challenges of producing RNR-consistent decision-making, even when using a sustained scientific RNA implementation strategy.

We examined implementation outcomes several years after rollout of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) risk/need assessment (RNA) tool in five diverse Pennsylvania county juvenile probation offices. Offices had policies to direct the use of the YLS/CMI, and officers tended to view the tool favorably, complete it, and apply it in their work. However, there were also variations in the extent of implementation. These seemed related to differences in office leadership and climate, implementation and quality assurance strategies, probation officers’ support for reforms, and the broader stakeholder environment. Results are largely consistent with implementation science principles.