Final Paper Outline Juvenile Law Criminal Justice

7 Juveniles and Community Corrections Two boys collect trash in a field as part correctional community service. PhotoAlto/SuperStock Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives: Analyze the community-based corrections goals of punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. Describe how probation is organized and the population it serves. Explain the two basic functions of a probation officer. Summarize the goals of probation supervision. Outline the factors influencing the effectiveness of probation. Explain the circumstances in which probation can be revoked. Evaluate the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions. The officers walk the hallways chatting with kids. They make informal contacts with youth throughout the day and meet one on one with those who have been involved with the juvenile court. They may visit classrooms, give students advice, or attend school events. These people aren't police officers charged with keeping the school safe. Rather these officers are probation officers. School-based probation has become a popular option in many jurisdictions. It began to take hold in the 1990s in Pennsylvania and now exists in several states nationwide. For example, more than one third of the school districts in Georgia now have a probation officer in the school system (Badertscher & Tagamittagami, 2011). The benefits of these programs range from decreased disciplinary infractions, decreased truancy, increased academic achievement, and decreased school dropout rates. Moreover, an evaluation of Pennsylvania's school-based probation program found that youth exposed to probation officers in the schools were also more likely to have lower rearrest rates (DeAngelo, 2005). These programs are seen as an effective way to place probation officers into the community where the youth spend most of their time. Noted as an intervention that moves the "courtroom to the classroom," these programs mirror many of the defining principles of the restorative justice movement. Specifically, repairing and rebuilding relationships with the offender and community requires that the youth be served in the community through a variety of avenues and approaches. School-based probation officers meet youth and work with school officials to enhance the youth's commitment to school. The officers are given access to grades and classroom behavior reports and can often address problems before they start. Although some observers are concerned that having probation officers in the schools can disrupt the learning environment, others suggest this intervention can make a significant difference and should be expanded. 7.1 Introduction In this chapter we discuss community corrections for juveniles. The correctional system is considered the third component of the American criminal justice system. The term is really a label to describe the sanctions used by the court system to punish or "correct" criminal behavior. At its core, the corrections system is the agent or body that carries out the sentence given to individuals once they are adjudicated by the court system. However, the correctional system can also serve those not yet convicted of a crime (e.g., those in jail awaiting trial or in treatment as part of drug court requirements). The sanctions available to judges vary widely across the country; however, common sanctions exist on a continuum. At one end of the continuum is the least restrictive sanction (basic probation); at the other end is the most restrictive (institutional or residential placement). Services along this continuum, also referred to as intermediate sanctions, include community service, house arrest, day treatment, and a range of treatment programs. The majority of juveniles adjudicated by the court system serve their sentences in the community rather than in residential placement. In fact, according to Puzzanchera and Hockenberry (2018), "In 2015, formal probation was the most severe disposition ordered in 63% of cases in which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, and 26% of cases were ordered to residential placement as the most severe disposition" (p. 3). Our focus begins with community-based corrections for juveniles. 7.2 The Goals of Community-Based Corrections The social and political climate is always a factor in juvenile justice policy. For example, during the social turmoil of the 1960s, the court system concerned itself with the due process rights of juveniles. When the political climate changed in the 1980s, juvenile justice policies became more punitive, as evidenced by the popularity of boot camps and the increased use of transfers to adult criminal court (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2012). The correctional system was not immune to these influences. Although the social climate may be the driving force behind some of the policy developments, it would be too simplistic to assume the system can be categorized so easily. To Punish or to Rehabilitate? Both the adult and juvenile correctional systems experience goal conflict. Goal conflict refers to the struggle faced by many correctional agencies in deciding which philosophical path to choose: punishment or rehabilitation (Urban, Cyr, & Decker, 2003). The struggle exists for several reasons. First, it would be naïve to assume that every juvenile correctional system in the country could follow one goal (e.g., rehabilitation versus punishment). For example, Florida may adopt a particular policy that supports rehabilitation for juveniles in the community, whereas Texas may have a more punitive philosophy. Just as likely, however, is that Austin, Texas, may be different than Dallas, Texas, or that two judges in Austin may have very different ideas of what services or sanctions are most appropriate for juveniles. In addition, a survey of juvenile court probation officers found that even an individual officer's attitude can have a significant impact on whether he or she uses rehabilitative or punitive approaches with their caseload (Ward & Kupchik, 2010). Many officers did not hold an exclusively punishment or rehabilitative focus; instead officers responded situationally. Second, resource limitations inevitably influence what services (or rewards) the system can offer. It may be, for example, that the judge in rural Ohio would like to offer community-based drug treatment to a juvenile; however, those services may simply be unavailable in that county. Third, the correctional system requires a significant degree of interagency coordination. The coordination may need to include probation, day treatment staff, and the school system. How these agencies communicate forms the basis for how any individual case is handled. For example, the probation officers may be most concerned with public safety and see themselves in a law enforcement role. But the treatment agency may be reluctant to work with probation because they do not want to interrupt their therapeutic relationship with the client by telling probation that a client admitted to criminal behavior during the treatment session. In another example, probation may require the youth to attend school, but the school system may find it easier to expel the student because it lacks the resources to manage the juvenile in a traditional school setting. In short, many variables affect the goals, methods, and resources of any single agency, which in turn are influenced by the goals, methods, and resources of other agencies. Fourth, punishment and rehabilitation are not always in conflict and can coexist in some circumstances. Both rewards and consequences shape behavior. Behavior that is rewarded is more likely to be repeated. However, consequences or punishment for behavior is a part of this equation. Removing rewards or privileges, while perhaps seen as a punishment by the individual, is also a way to change behavior. People are less likely to repeat behavior that has led to a perceived negative consequence (Spiegler, 2015). In other words, sometimes punishment can have rehabilitative effects. A young woman avoids the eyes of her substance therapist during a private session. Laurence Mouton/ès/SuperStock Substance abuse therapy is a risk reduction strategy. Finally, some observers argue that the system's philosophy can be characterized in terms of the difference between risk control and risk reduction (O'Leary & Clear, 1997). Risk control refers to a set of policies or interventions designed to control a juvenile's risk of criminal behavior. Let's take the example of a juvenile who is at high risk for substance abuse. Being at high risk for substance abuse means there is a high probability the juvenile will continue to use drugs or alcohol unless the system intervenes. The system must respond in this circumstance in order to reduce the chance that high-risk people will reoffend. In simple terms, the system can respond to high-risk juveniles in two ways. The system (e.g., probation) can monitor the client's behavior through random drug tests or frequent meetings. If clients know they are being monitored, they may be less likely to use drugs for fear of being caught and punished. At the same time, O'Leary and Clear (1997) argue that once clients are no longer under the control of the system, they may be likely to use again. They argue that controlling the individual is a short-term strategy because the "control" model did little to address why the person began using drugs. Alternatively, a risk reduction approach would focus on reducing the probability of reoffending by changing why the person began using drugs. Risk reduction strategies address the underlying causes of the client's addiction in an effort to reduce future use. The most common risk reduction approach includes treatment services such as substance abuse therapy. The two methods of risk control and risk reduction need not be mutually exclusive. In other words, probation would likely still engage in control strategies (e.g., drug testing); however, this would be in conjunction with treatment strategies. Beyond the basic philosophy of punishment versus treatment, however, is a third goal referred to as restorative justice. Restorative Justice The restorative justice approach became popular in the 1980s with critics arguing that the system focused entirely on the juvenile delinquent with little to no attention paid to the victims of the crime (Braithwaite, 2002). The restorative justice approach argues that crime should be viewed not only from the juvenile offender's point of view (e.g., the offender needs punishment or treatment) but also from the perspective of the victim or the community. If criminal behavior is viewed as harm inflicted on the victim or the community, then the sanctions should have a purpose of repairing this damage. Bringing all three parties together is beneficial for the victim and the community but also has restorative effects on the delinquent. According to the restorative justice.org website, the foundation of restorative justice rests on the following principles: Justice requires that we work to restore those who have been injured. Those most directly involved and affected by crime should have the opportunity to participate fully in the response if they wish. Government's role is to preserve a just public order, and the community's is to build and maintain a just peace. Restorative justice programs can vary; however, popular programs include victim-offender mediation/meetings, community service, restitution, and circle sentencing. Victim-offender mediation programs are popular in many jurisdictions. These programs bring together the victim, the juvenile defendant, and a professional mediator to discuss the impact of the crime. The youth is given the opportunity to apologize for the crime. The victim is given the opportunity to discuss the impact of the crime on his or her life. In most circumstances, a restitution plan is developed during the mediation session and agreed upon by both parties. The approach is meant to benefit both the juvenile and the victim. Community service can include activities such as picking up trash alongside the road, removing graffiti from buildings, or a variety of other service-type projects. Community service is seen as a way for juvenile delinquents to give back to the community for the damage their criminal behavior inflicted on the community. Restitution is typically a monetary fine the court will order to be paid to the victim. However, it may also include services to the victim or the community. For example, if a youth vandalized a storefront, the judge may require the youth to clean up the damage to the store. Of course, the restitution activity in this example requires that the victim is willing to have the youth participate in this type of activity. Circle sentencing, as its name implies, includes a circle of people who can give input into the type of sanction the youth receives. The circle will typically include the juvenile, the victim, the family, and any interested or impacted community members. The process is designed to provide people with the opportunity to speak uninterrupted and share their opinions about or experiences with the crime. The judge then takes into account all of the information provided by each of the members of the circle when deciding the appropriate sanction for the youth. Restorative justice practices have been implemented recently in the schools. School-based restorative justice programs use conflict resolution strategies. For example, one school in Peoria, Illinois, implemented peacemaking circles as a way to reduce conflict in school. Peacemaking circles bring teachers and students together to talk through important issues, giving the students an opportunity to voice their concerns. The same school system also implemented a peer/teen jury program. In this program, a youth who has broken a rule appears before a jury of peers to discuss the situation and determine the course of action to repair the harm. Results of both initiatives were positive, with an improvement in student-teacher relationships and a reduced need for formal discipline (Brown, Synder, Hurst, & Berry, 2010). As mentioned earlier, restorative justice policies became popular in the 1980s and have persisted in many jurisdictions. The question, however, is whether these programs and services are effective. The problem with answering this question rests with how effectiveness is measured. For example, measuring effectiveness by how well an intervention or sanction reduces future criminal behavior is common. In the earlier example, when we discussed reducing the risk level of a juvenile with a substance abuse problem, effectiveness might be measured by the reduced probability that the juvenile will continue using drugs or alcohol. With restorative justice programs, effectiveness might mean increasing community engagement, reducing the psychological impact of crime on victims, or increasing the satisfaction level among community members, victims, and juveniles. Studies find that juveniles who participate in restorative justice programs feel connected to the process and are more likely to complete their restitution. Victims report feeling less fearful of repeat victimization and experiencing greater levels of satisfaction with the process (Umbreit, 1994; Umbreit, Coates, & Kalanji, 1994). A review of the research by Bouffard, Cooper, and Bergseth (2017) found that, overall, juveniles who participated in these programs tended to do better on a variety of outcomes than juveniles who were exposed to the traditional court process. 7.3 Probation: Organization and the Population Served Probation began in the United States in the late 1800s; it became a popular option for juveniles in the mid-1920s. Since that time, probation continues to be the most frequently used sanction. As noted by Patricia Torbet (1996), "Juvenile probation is the oldest and most widely used vehicle through which a range of court-ordered services is rendered" (p. 1). Probation is used at a rate similar to that found in 1985, which indicates that the sanction remains popular (Sickmund, 2009). In fact, Torbet (1996) referred to probation as the "workhorse of the juvenile justice system." Probation is used frequently for a variety of reasons. Most notably, probation is cost effective and considered a valuable community-based option, particularly when compared with residential placement. How Is Probation Organized? As with most features of the juvenile justice system, how probation is organized varies by state. Juvenile probation tends to be administered at the state level or local level. As shown in Figure 7.1, in the majority of states, probation is operated by local officials rather than the state. The logic of placing probation at the local level rests with the notion that the probation department should be under the authority of local officials, including courts and planning boards. Judges in local courts tend to have the best view of the case and are more effective when they can follow the case and make adjustments to supervision plans. Consider, for example, the drug court model. In that model, both the judge and the probation officer are seen as important team members in the rehabilitation of juveniles. Planning boards at the local level also have a better sense of the needs of probation and often readily attend to those needs without having to work within the state bureaucracy. Figure 7.1: Administration of probation in the United States, 2017 Map of the United States indicating how each state and Washington, D.C. administer probation. In 22 states, probation administration is state operated; in 19 states and Washington, D.C. it is locally operated; and in 9 states it is mostly state operated. From "Administration of community supervision (probation), 2017," in "OJJDP statistical briefing book," by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04203.asp?qaDate=2017 Others argue that probation services are better provided at the state level, which often includes public administrators. Public administrators may be more in tune with state budget issues and can create standardized policies that create uniformity across the state. The situation can be even more complex given that probation can be handled "mostly" at the state level but with some local authority. Only nine states place juvenile probation "mostly" under state jurisdiction. Who Is Served by Probation? If we examine the profile of juveniles served by probation postadjudication, we can see some differences by gender, age, and race. As illustrated by Figure 7.2, the majority of juveniles on probation are boys. This fact is not necessarily surprising given that boys commit a greater proportion of crime. With regard to race, Figure 7.3 indicates that the majority of clients on probation are white; however, black youth make up 36% of the clients served. Finally, with regard to age (Figure 7.4), the age groups are fairly evenly distributed, with the greatest percentage (26%) among 16-year-olds. Figure 7.2: Gender and probation, 2015 Pie chart showing that 77% of juveniles on probation in 2015 were boys, and the remaining 23% of juveniles on probation for that year were girls. From "Table: Demographic characteristics of cases handled by juvenile courts," in "Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015," by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp Figure 7.3: Race and probation, 2015 Pie chart showing juvenile race and probation data for the year 2015. Forty-one percent of juveniles adjudicated and placed on probation were white, 36% were black, 2% were American Indian, 1% were Asian, and 19% were identified as Hispanic with an unknown race. From "Table: Demographic characteristics of cases handled by juvenile courts," in "Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015," by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp Figure 7.4: Age at referral and probation, 2015 Pie chart showing juvenile age at referral and probation data in the year 2015. Twenty-one percent of youth on probation were 17 years of age and older, 26% were 16 years of age, 24% were 15 years of age, 16% were 14 years of age, and 13% were under 14 years of age. From "Table: Year of disposition by age at referral," in "Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015," by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/display.asp It is a myth that the only youth placed on probation are those who have been adjudicated for minor crimes. For example, as noted in Figure 7.5, 29% of the youth on probation are adjudicated for person-related offenses (which includes violent crimes), compared to 25% for public-order offenses, and 12% for drug offenses. Juveniles adjudicated for property offenses make up the greatest proportion of juvenile offenders on probation. Figure 7.5: Most serious offense and probation, 2015 Pie chart showing youth who committed serious offenses and received probation in 2015. Thirty-four percent of juvenile offenders were adjudicated for property-related offenses, 29% for person-related offenses, 25% for public-order-related offenses, and 12% for drug-related offenses. From "Table: Analyze delinquency cases" in "Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015," by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/selection.asp Finally, Figure 7.6 illustrates that there have been significant differences over time with regard to charge type for those served on probation. For example, in 1990, the greatest proportion of cases served on probation was, by far, property offenses. In contrast, the differences we see now are less distinct. Even though property offenses make up the highest proportion of cases, they represent a smaller share of the overall cases. The overall rate of delinquency has declined significantly in the past decade, and we see this same decline in the number of youth on probation across all charge types. Figure 7.6: Trends in those served on probation by charge type, 1985–2015 Property-related cases have had the highest number of individuals served on probation over the 30-year span between 1985 and 2015 when compared to person-, drug-, or public-order-related crime. However, after 1995, person-, drug-, and public-order-offense probation rates rose while property offense probation rates fell, making differences in charge type less distinct. Although property-related offenses still have the highest number of offenders served probation, all of the rates have declined significantly since 2005. This line graph shows the trends in person, property, drugs, and public order offenses served on probation over a span of 30 years (1985 to 2015). From "Demographic characteristics of cases handled by juvenile courts," in "Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015," by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp 7.4 Probation Officer Functions Probation officers serve the juvenile justice system in various ways, but their functions fall primarily into two categories: investigation and supervision. For example, in some jurisdictions probation officers conduct intake screenings to help decide whether the case should be formally processed. In this investigative function, probation officers are often called upon to examine the case prior to adjudication. Their primary role, however, is to supervise the juveniles who are formally adjudicated by the court. Let's examine each of these functions in detail. A probation officer interviews a teenage girl. iStockphoto/Thinkstock Probation officers assess youths' arrest records, family relations, and other important information during the presentence investigation interview. Investigation Investigating the juvenile's record prior to sentencing is a useful part of a probation officer's job. The investigation is commonly referred to as a presentence investigation (PSI). The PSI is a summary report created by the probation officer detailing the juvenile's criminal history and social situation (e.g., family, peers, school). The report often concludes with a recommendation to be given to the sentencing judge prior to the adjudication hearing. In some jurisdictions, however, the PSI is not completed until after the youth is adjudicated onto probation. In this circumstance, the investigation is completed for purposes of deciding supervision and treatment services but will not be utilized during the disposition phase. If conducted preadjudication, the information contained in the PSI will assist the judge in deciding what services or sanctions might be appropriate for the juvenile. The judge has the discretion to decide whether to adhere to the PSI recommendation. Although many studies find that judges do consider the probation officer's recommendation when sentencing, the recommendation is not the only factor considered (Norman & Wadman, 2000). The PSI is most often conducted in a face-to-face interview with the youth. The probation officer will often collect as much information as possible from the youth in terms of criminal history, school achievement/attendance, peers, substance use, family relations, mental illness, or other personal history. The probation officer will likely collect what is referred to as collateral information as well. Collateral information can include interviews with parents, reports from school, or results from any formal assessments that may have been completed. All of the information is combined in the probation officer's assessment of the youth. At this stage, the probation officer is simply gathering information. The type and breadth of information varies considerably depending on the expectations of the judge and/or probation agencies. As such, the focus of the PSI may be offender based or offense based. For example, if the judge or probation officer places more weight on criminal history than on any other risk factor, then the PSI may be based on the offense and the juvenile's prior criminal history. Alternatively, if risk reduction is the focus, the PSI may be offender need based, and other sections such as family, addictions, and school will be detailed in breadth and scope. If the focus is treatment and rehabilitation, the probation officer must know detailed information about the client's social situation. In order to decide, for example, whether the youth needs family-based services, the probation officer may spend considerable time uncovering issues such as abuse in the home, relationships with the mother and father, supervision levels, discipline practices, and so on. One of the other issues influencing the PSI is the probation officer's skill as an interviewer. Arguably it is fairly straightforward to assess the youth's criminal history. The probation officer may interview the youth to determine the context behind the youth's arrest record or prior sanctions; however, the information itself is a matter of public record. By contrast, examining the youth's relationship with his or her family requires a more elaborate set of interviewing skills. This task is made even more difficult given that the probation officer conducting the PSI often has limited contact with the youth prior to the interview and has a finite amount of time to complete the assessment, particularly when it is being conducted preadjudication. Some jurisdictions assign probation officers to conduct PSIs as their primary job. They are sometimes referred to as PSI writers. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. Dedicated PSI writers may be better prepared in terms of interview skills. Additionally, these probation officers may feel less pressure to rush a PSI because they don't also have a full caseload to maintain. In terms of disadvantages, if the supervising officer is not the one who completes the PSI, the supervising officer may feel the need to reinterview the client to gather information that will assist in the supervision or treatment plan. The process of reinterviewing the youth is inefficient and takes up more valuable time and resources. Supervision and Control Probation Supervisor Juvenile probation officers have one of the toughest jobs in corrections. They are expected to play the role of both the social worker and the law enforcer. Which role, social worker or law enforcer, do you think the probation officer should favor, and why? What type of person is best suited to be a probation officer? The officer begins supervision once the youth is placed on probation. An individual can be placed on probation preplea or preadjudication. Preadjudication probation is part of the diversionary court process. Although the rules and processes vary by state, pretrial probation allows the youth to complete certain probationary requirements in exchange for a dismissal of charges. The level of supervision required (such as the number of times the youth is required to meet with a probation officer or judge) is decided on a case-by-case basis (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2017). Probation supervision postadjudication can vary and often ranges from intensive (multiple meetings per week) to low-level supervision (one meeting per month or less). The intensity of supervision can be dictated by many factors; for example, the offense or the juvenile's criminal history, whether the juvenile is placed on a specialized caseload, or whether the juvenile is assessed as higher risk and in need of services. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), there are three types of probation services: traditional probation, intensive supervision probation, and school-based probation. First, traditional probation supervision occurs at different levels depending on the officer, the client's needs, and agency standards. The supervision may include face-to-face visits with the juvenile, during which the probation officer will complete a check-in. The check-in often includes a series of questions about such things as the juvenile's performance in school, relationship with parents, involvement with drugs or alcohol, or other high-risk situations. The face-to-face meeting may also include a drug test, which involves the juvenile client submitting to urinalysis to check for any substance use. At the other end of the spectrum, the contact may simply include a check-in by phone, in which case the juvenile provides similar information (without urinalysis, of course) via a phone call to the probation officer. Second, with intensive supervision probation (ISP), the client is required to meet more frequently with a probation officer. The ISP model that was initially developed for adults became a popular option for juvenile probation by the late 1980s (Barton & Butts, 1990). ISP typically involves more rigorous supervision standards, lower client-officer ratios, and increased levels of treatment services. As can be seen in Spotlight: An Intensive Supervision Juvenile Probation Program, some ISP programs even target specific groups. The basic premise assumes that probation officers who are working with smaller caseloads are able to dedicate more time to supervision and services. Studies find that ISP can be an effective option for reducing recidivism rates if the services offered are rehabilitative in nature (Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger, Makarios, & Latessa, 2010). However, studies suggest that if the focus is purely supervision oriented, ISP can increase the rate of technical violations (Petersilia & Turner, 1993). Spotlight: An Intensive Supervision Juvenile Probation Program The OJJDP has identified an intensive supervision probation (ISP) program in Illinois as an exemplary or "model" program. The ISP program, begun in 1997 and known as the Peoria County Anti-gang and Drug Abuse Unit, is designed to last six months. Juveniles served include those probationers who have been assessed as having a history of gang involvement and substance abuse issues. The program includes the following five phases with the intended goal of reducing recidivism: Planning and movement control Counseling, treatment, and programming Community outreach Reassignment Tracking and discharge In the planning and movement control phase, the probation office will conduct a needs assessment to identify issues for treatment and will begin the intensive supervision requirements. The second phase will include referrals to substance abuse programs, counseling, anger management, or other needs exhibited by the client. The third phase, community out-reach, involves requiring the youth to complete community service or restitution services. The fourth phase, reassignment, begins working with the client to reduce the level of super-vision to ready the juvenile for a transfer back to a standard caseload that requires fewer meetings with the officer. Finally, the tracking and discharge phase involves planning for the successful completion of the program. According to Wassenberg, Gransky Dorman, McGahey, Syrcle, and Ball (2002), the program was intended to be six months in length and serve 100 youth at any given time. However, probation officers found that the number of youth served needed to be reduced to 80 (40 per officer) and clients would need longer than six months to complete the program. Preliminary evaluation results suggest that the program is effective at reducing recidivism rates. The intervention shows that the intersection between probation and treatment is very strong in many jurisdictions. Third, school-based probation is a recent innovation that has been adopted in several states, including Arizona, California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. As noted earlier, the probation officer and the school system often act in partnership to assist the youth. The probation officer is placed directly within the school setting or within a school district. By meeting with the youth within the school, the probation officer is able to have informal contact with the youth and access important information regarding attendance, academic performance, and the like. School-based probation is not available in all schools, and critics assert that the programs must be wary of widening the probation officer's reach too far into the school system. Specifically, the probation officer's presence should be used not to manage all disciplinary infractions among students, but instead to provide contact only with youth adjudicated onto probation by the court system. Although these typical models of probation exist to varying degrees throughout the country, the goals of probation can vary dramatically from program to program. 7.5 Goals of Probation Supervision A probation officer interviews a juvenile in session. DC/Casper Star-Tribune/Associated Press Probation officers aim both to protect the community from criminal activity and to help troubled youth offenders. As we discussed earlier in this chapter, correctional agencies commonly experience goal conflict. Probation officers are often pulled in two competing directions. First, the probation officer must be concerned with maintaining community safety. If a youth on probation is arrested for a violent crime, the public may be outraged that the agency did not do more to control its client's behavior. In this case, probation officers must see themselves in a law enforcement role. At the same time, the probation officer is responsible for providing services for the youth. To provide these services, the probation officer must establish a helping role with the youth. Officers may find it difficult to strike a balance between the law enforcement and social worker orientations. Probation services in the 1960s and 1970s were often fairly service oriented. This was sometimes referred to as the justice model. Probation officers were seen as advocates for the clients and often focused on being service brokers, especially acting as the liaison for services to be delivered to the youth. However, when the system began to take a more punitive stance toward juvenile crime in the 1980s, we saw a direct influence on probation supervision. Probation officers were seen as possessing too much discretion in deciding what services and supervision were appropriate for youth. At the same time, advocates lobbied for restitution programs to "pay" victims or society for the harm that crimes caused. ISP became popular in the late 1980s in part because of this movement to a more accountable probation office with increased levels of supervision (Byrne, 1986). In the 1990s, however, others advocated for a balanced approach to juvenile probation supervision. The balanced approach follows many of the restorative or community justice components discussed earlier. In particular, Dennis Maloney (1998) advocated for a balanced approach that gives equal attention to the offender, the victim, and the community (which can include schools). Within that context, the services should hold juveniles accountable for their crimes through sanctions but also provide services and skills to the client so that he or she can contribute to society in a productive way. Unfortunately, the wide range in the types and intensity of services provided by probation officers can limit the potential effectiveness of these services. 7.6 Effectiveness of Probation Studies suggest that probation has mixed effectiveness. To understand the studies, however, we must examine how they are conducted. For instance, most studies of probation use other probation samples as a comparison. Let's consider an example to illustrate why using this comparison is problematic. If we decide to study whether an intervention like a drug court is effective in reducing drug use and future criminal behavior among its participants, we would need to compare the outcomes of the drug court group (e.g., drug test results, arrest rates) to juveniles who did not participate in the drug court. The logic is that you are comparing the impact of the drug court to not having a drug court. But most probation studies compare certain probation services to other probation services. For example, studies on caseload size and probation effectiveness compared probationers who were served on lower caseloads to probationers who were served on higher caseloads. The research suggested that caseload size by itself didn't influence recidivism (DeMichele, 2007). This may be surprising in that we might expect that probation officers with lower caseloads have more time to spend with each case, which we would expect could increase their effectiveness. However, if we really think about what a probation officer does, the personality traits they bring to the job, the agency's priorities, and so on, we can see that probation supervision is more complex than simply caseload size. The reality is that most probation officers are overworked and not given sufficient resources to complete the job. Their contact with their clients, even when face to face, is often limited to check-ins during which they ask the youth how things are going without the time needed for meaningful interactions about changing the issues that brought the youth onto probation in the first place. A teenage girl talks to a psychologist. Burger/Phanie/SuperStock Evidence-based probation approaches, like cognitive-behavioral treatments and interventions, work to reduce the rate of recidivism among juvenile offenders. As a result, probation agencies are increasingly required to rely on evidence-based approaches to investigation and supervision. Evidence-based practices, sometimes referred to as "best practices" or "what works," are services, programs, or interventions that have been shown to be effective, most often measured by reductions in recidivism (Gendreau, 1996). The term best practice tends to be used when referring to treatment programs. For example, best practices might include intensive interventions that target juveniles at higher risk for recidivism, that target issues related to the juveniles' criminal behavior (e.g., parental relationship, school truancy, antisocial peers), and that use certain approaches over others (e.g., cognitive-behavioral versus punitive approaches such as boot camps) (Gendreau, 1996). There are certain best practices that can be utilized by various correctional agencies and settings. For example, with regard to a probation officer's investigative function, some probation agencies now augment the PSI interview with a standardized risk and need tool. One criticism of the PSI process had often been that probation agencies did not use a standardized process or instrument. Consequently, the recommendation given to the judge was often based on the probation officer's judgment of the youth. Studies show that interview-based clinical assessments of a client's overall risk of recidivism tend to be inaccurate (Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson, 2000). Even though the probation officer is collecting a wealth of information, the officer's assessment of the youth's issues and need for a particular sentence (e.g., remaining in the community on probation versus being sent to an institution) would still be based on the agency's review of a narrative report. So a best practice in this area is to adopt a standardized assessment of the youth's risk and needs. These standardized tools use scoring rubrics that produce an overall score or rating of the youth's risk of committing future delinquency. This process is followed in Ohio, where juvenile probation officers complete a formal and standardized instrument of the youth's criminal history and social background. The assessment tool, referred to as the Ohio Youth Assessment System, asks the youth many of the same questions that can be found in a traditional PSI. The difference is that the assessment tool scores each item. For example, the probation officer would assess the youth's family relations. When a problem exists in that area, the probation officer would assign a youth a certain point value (e.g., 3 points for a negative relationship versus 0 points for a positive relationship). The more issues the client has, the higher the score. In the end, the instrument produces an overall score that gives the probation officer (and judge) the youth's probability of future criminal behavior. Using tools to structure decision making has been shown to be a much more effective approach than relying on officer judgement (Baglivio, Greenwald, & Russell, 2015). Another approach adopted in several states is the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model. Edward Latessa and colleagues at the University of Cincinnati developed the EPICS approach for both juvenile and adult probation agencies (Smith, Schweitzer, Labrecque, & Latessa, 2012). Probation officers are trained to provide targeted, short interventions to probationers during the typical face-to-face meeting with clients. In particular, they argue that each face-to-face meeting should include the following: Check in Review Intervention Homework During the session, the probation officer focuses on issues the client is dealing with that might act as barriers to change. For example, if the youth is struggling with finding prosocial peers to spend time with after school and on weekends, the probation officer can offer suggestions for prosocial activities and work with the youth to develop coping skills to handle high-risk situations. For example, the probation officer would be able to engage in a short role-play with clients about what to say or how to handle the next time an antisocial peer asks them to attend a party or use drugs. The EPICS approach would not be in place of treatment services; rather, it would simply provide a framework for meaningful interactions between the youth and the probation officer. Another model, developed by Faye Taxman of Virginia Commonwealth University, is referred to as Proactive Community Supervision (PCS). Originally developed for adult probation and parole agencies, the PCS model has also been used in juvenile agencies. Like the EPICS model, the PCS model is based on what works or evidence-based practices for offender change. According to Taxman, Yancey, and Bilanin (2006), the PSC model includes "five major components: Identify criminogenic traits using a valid risk and need tool; Develop a supervision plan that addresses criminogenic traits employing effective external controls and treatment interventions; Hold the offender accountable for progress on the supervision plan; Use a place-based strategy wherein individual probation/parole office environments are engaged in implementing the strategy; and Develop partnerships with community organizations who will provide ancillary services to supervisees." (p. 1) Studies suggest that this approach can reduce recidivism among youth supervised by skilled probation officers (Young, Farrell, & Taxman, 2012). The impact of the relationship between the officer and the juvenile is also a critical factor in effective probation, but it was frequently overlooked (Matthews & Hubbard, 2007). Traditionally, probation officers often lacked training in relationship- and rapport-building, instead taking an authoritative style. But skills-based approaches such as EPICS and PCS require communication skills to be effective. 7.7 Probation Revocation The final issue confronting probation for juveniles is the revocation and termination of probation services. As mentioned in Chapter 6, juvenile courts may invoke blended sentences. In this circumstance, the juvenile is given a disposition in both the juvenile and adult systems. For example, a juvenile may be sentenced to intensive supervision with juvenile probation but also receive a sentence of incarceration in the adult system. The judge will suspend the adult sentence based on the juvenile's behavior on intensive supervision probation. In this example, if the juvenile fails to abide by the conditions of probation, the adult sentence may be invoked. Even when the juvenile is not given a blended sentence, the probation can be revoked and the juvenile sent back to court. However, juveniles have been granted certain due process rights that must be considered in court before probation can be revoked. The case that addressed this was Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), in which a group of appellants claimed that their request for a jury trial was denied under Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court was asked to review whether juvenile defendants are entitled to a formal hearing as would be found in a typical criminal proceeding. The Court ruled that if a juvenile's probation is to be revoked, certain rights must be preserved. Those rights include written notice, disclosure of evidence, opportunity to be heard, a right to cross-examine witnesses, and a written statement of the charges. In addition, a revocation of probation in juvenile court is not an automatic qualifier to be remanded to the adult criminal court system. The judge will reconsider the dispositional options available both to serve the youth and to preserve public safety. There are several concerns regarding revocation, including race impacts and long-term impacts on the youth. For example, a third of the referrals for residential facilities emanate from probation revocations. As we discuss in Chapter 8, residential placement has multifaceted impacts, including reduced social bonds, time away from school, and exposure to high-risk others. There are also concerns regarding whether the probationer's race could influence the judge's decision to revoke a youth's probation in favor of long-term detention (Bishop & Lieber, 2011). Although probation is the most frequently used sanction in the juvenile justice system, various other dispositions are available, including community-based sanctions, also referred to as intermediate sanctions. The intermediate sanctions we discuss in the next section do not represent an exhaustive list, but they provide examples of commonly used interventions. 7.8 Intermediate Sanctions Intermediate sanctions can be applied in conjunction with probation, in place of probation, or as a sanction for noncompliance on probation. Intermediate sanctions provide the judge with a greater menu of options when sentencing the juvenile, particularly if the judge feels the juvenile warrants additional sanctions rather than relying solely on standard probation services. The goal of the sanction may be community safety (e.g., electronic monitoring), restorative justice (e.g., restitution), rehabilitation (e.g., day treatment centers), or a mixture of all three. Although a judge or probation officer may choose from a multitude of sanctions, we focus here on several of the most popular ones. A juvenile with an ankle bracelet opens a door. age fotostock/SuperStock Electronic monitoring devices allow authorities to track the whereabouts of offenders. Electronic Monitoring/House Arrest House arrest can occur with or without electronic monitoring. House arrest, also called home confinement, requires the youth to stay in the community while maintaining a higher level of supervision than found on traditional probation or even ISP. The youth is often required to stay in the home for certain periods of time. The youth may be given the freedom to leave the home during preapproved times and for activities such as school or work; however, he or she often remains in the home the majority of the time. The home confinement can be part of a pretrial condition in an effort to reduce the use of detention or as a sanction postadjudication. The Developmental Services Group (2009) provided a literature review for OJJDP and concluded that home confinement often includes three levels of restriction: Curfew programs: The youth would be required to return home by a certain time each day. Home detention: The youth would be required to remain home unless at school, work, or another approved activity. Home incarceration: The youth would be required to remain in the home virtually 24 hours per day, with the exception of medical and court appointments. Home confinement has its benefits. It retains the juvenile in the community rather than relying on detention or incarceration. It also typically allows the juvenile to continue enrollment in a traditional school setting. Some research has shown that juveniles placed under home confinement have lower recidivism rates while under supervision (Weibush, 1993). Other research, however, indicates that benefits are short term and not seen as promoting long-term behavioral change (Aos, Phipps, Barnowski, & Lieb, 2018). Home confinement may also include electronic monitoring. The two most common types are referred to as "passive" or "active" monitors. The passive monitors require some degree of effort on the client's part. For example, the juvenile may be required to insert a transmitter into a home device at certain intervals. Or the juvenile may be required to answer random phone calls to the residence (it may be an automated system or the probation officer). Typically, active systems transmit signals to a receiver in the client's home, and the signals are then continually relayed to the device-monitoring company. Home devices are typically bracelets worn around the ankle or wrist. More recent technological advancements include global positioning systems (GPS) or voice recognition software. GPS devices provide immediate verification of the client's whereabouts 24 hours a day. The devices can be set up to indicate inclusionary and exclusionary zones. If the offender enters an exclusionary zone, the device will record the violation. The device is touted as particularly useful for offenders charged with domestic violence and sex crimes, and studies suggest it can be an effective option for reducing recidivism (Padget, Bales, & Blomberg, 2006). Voice recognition software, which also could be augmented with a camera, allows the monitoring company to verify that the client is the one inserting the transmitter or answering the phone (a disadvantage of the passive systems). Another recent advancement in electronic monitoring is the inclusion of an alcohol sensor built into the client's bracelet. The sensor is designed to pick up traces of ethanol in the client's body, thereby alerting the monitoring company of possible alcohol use. A newer approach in electronic monitoring leverages smartphone technology to enhance tracking. By monitoring a youth's smartphone, the officer could keep track of the websites the youth is visiting and their patterns of behavior (e.g., school attendance). This method is still in the development stage, and privacy issues have not been worked out; however, agencies such as the National Science Foundation are providing funding to explore the use of phones to enhance behavioral change. As with home confinement, studies examining the effectiveness of electronic monitoring are mixed. Proponents argue that electronic monitoring technology is a cheaper alternative to incarceration and can augment traditional probation supervision. Critics argue that the monitoring devices can be expensive, and given that families are often asked to bear the costs of the devices, it can put an unreasonable burden on poor families. Moreover, studies suggest that electronic monitoring is not superior to ISP probation in terms of recidivism rates (Petersilia, 2018). Finally, long-term follow-up studies of clients on electronic monitoring found no significant reductions in recidivism (Finn & Muirhead-Steves, 2002; Stanz & Tewksbury, 2000). However, given that it is a cheaper option than other forms of incarceration, many jurisdictions continue to use these devices. In more recent years, innovations such as the GPS systems noted earlier have become popular. However, the results are mixed as to whether the addition of GPS technology decreases a person's propensity to reoffend (Turner, Chamberlain, Jannetta, & Hess, 2015). Future technologies might hold more promise. Remember, however, that even though technological advances within the realm of consumer electronics (e.g., smartphones, tablets) might be fairly rapid, advancements involving the monitoring of delinquency evolve much more slowly. Day Treatment Centers Day treatment centers became popular in the 1970s. The centers are nonresidential facilities that typically serve youth during the day; however, they may also offer services in the evening or weekends (some are referred to as evening treatment centers). Day treatment centers provide structured activities and can provide a forum for treatment and general educational development (GED) classes for eligible youth. Day treatment centers offer various services to youth, including individual and group counseling, family interventions, school-based services, and recreation therapy. As with other intermediate sanctions, youth may also be on probation while attending day treatment centers. The centers are seen as a cost-effective alternative to residential treatment or incarceration. Few studies have been conducted on day treatment centers. The studies that have been conducted indicate that these centers can be beneficial for youth (Wilson & Lipsey, 2001). Preliminary findings make sense if we consider that these centers can provide youth with services (e.g., substance abuse treatment, job readiness classes, life skills) designed to address their problems or issues. However, as with many of the community-based alternatives that we have discussed so far, the effectiveness of these centers rests with how well they are resourced and whether the programs use strategies known to reduce recidivism (this topic is explored further in Chapter 10). One of the largest providers of day treatment services is known as the Associated Marine Institute, Kids (AMIKids) program (see the accompanying Spotlight). Spotlight: AMIKids Day Treatment Program The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice conducted an outcome evaluation of Associated Marine Institute, Kids (AMIKids). The study compared both girls and boys who participated in the program to juveniles who received services in a secure residential facility. The authors concluded that the youth who participated in the AMIKids intervention were significantly less likely to be arrested and placed in prison during the follow-up period. They also concluded that the AMIKids program saved Florida taxpayers money, particularly when compared to the cost of incarcerating juveniles (Winokur Early, Hand, Blankenship, & Chapman, 2010). The services, noted below, provide youth with skills they can use when dealing with problems in their homes and communities. AMIKids provides a variety of services to youth in eight states. Services include residential centers, day treatment centers, alternative school programs, a program specifically for delinquent girls, and family services. Program Features Adjudicated youth Program hours, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Serves girls and boys Youth reside at home while in the program Saturday services may be offered Referred by court or schools Average length of stay, 4–6 months Typical Services Academic educational services and GED prep Recreation therapy (e.g., backpacking, wilderness programs) Motivational interviewing Cognitive-behavioral therapy to resolve deviant thoughts Anger replacement training for anger issues Skills streaming to teach youth coping skills for dealing with high-risk situations Students eat pizza during an after-school program. Eyecandy Images/Thinkstock Community after-school programs provide supervision and educational services for youth. After School/Recreation As the name implies, after-school programs (ASPs) are designed to provide services to youth during the time they are most likely to be unsupervised (e.g., 3:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.). The programs may also be offered on weekends or during the summer. The types of services offered vary considerably by program and state. Although many school districts offer ASPs for youth whose parents work or are unable to supervise them, ASPs have been created in many communities to specifically target at-risk youth. The benefits of these programs are twofold. First, the programs keep the youth occupied during what otherwise is considered a high-risk time. Second, supporters argue that by offering educational services after school, these programs can increase participants' academic achievement. Moreover, agencies often receive financial support through the federal government for these types of programs through the Every Student Succeeds Act (formerly the No Child Left Behind mandate). As mentioned earlier, ASPs can vary dramatically by state or program. For example, one nationally recognized program, Be a Star, targets low-income youth ages 5 to 12 and teaches them about the danger of drugs (Pierce & Shields, 1998). Another program, Success for Kids, targets low-income youth ages 6 to 14 and teaches them resiliency skills to overcome adversity (Maestas & Gaillot, 2010). Yet another program, SMART Moves, which is operated by the Boys and Girls Club of America, provides educational services designed to prevent drug use and sexual activity among 13- and 15-year-olds (Kaltreider & St. Pierre, 1995). This chapter's Featured Program box focuses on the literature-based program Reading for Life. Featured Program: Reading for Life Photo of Alesha Seroczynski. Alesha Seroczynski/Reading for Life Alesha Seroczynski, Ph.D., founder and director of Reading for Life. http://www.readingforlife.us/ Mission: Reading for Life exists as an alternative to prosecution for nonviolent offenses. In small groups with trained mentors, young people learn to make more virtuous life choices by recognizing and implementing justice, prudence, temperance, fortitude, fidelity, hope, and charity. What does Harry Potter have to do with juvenile rehabilitation? More than you might think. The idea to pair the two began when Alesha Seroczynski was jogging one day. Having just immersed herself in a Harry Potter novel, she began considering how J. K. Rowling's famous story might enable teens to see the value of good decisions. Little did she know that this thought process would lead to the creation of exactly that: an intervention program in which mentors use the virtues espoused in the Harry Potter novels to teach character development. Working with Bethel College, Alesha began to design curriculum based on Aristotelian and Thomist virtue theory, the result of which became the foundations of her Reading for Life program. According to Alesha, "[v]irtue theory maintains that morality is more than simply doing the right thing" (Seroczynski, 2011). This theory emphasizes the agent over the action, holding that the cultivation of virtue will produce moral action. Alesha believes that virtue theory models a good and simple way to think about life, encouraging one to slow down and think. The pilot program was held in 2004 at the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center in South Bend, Indiana. Alesha, Scott Johnson, and a team of undergraduates held a "story hour" once a week in which they read aloud portions of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone with about 20 students, followed by a 90-minute discussion that involved exploring how virtues were exhibited in the novel. In "The Hidden Virtues of Harry Potter," Seroczynski, Johnson, Lamb, and Gustman (2011) note that "there are multiple moral dimensions in Harry Potter, including the contrast of evil and greed with the virtues of courage, fidelity, and love" (p. 3). The novel's examples of injustice give the program mentors the chance to talk about justice. The friendship among the novel's main characters, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, spurs discussion of the students' own friendships. Harry's relationship with his friends contrasts with several of his conflicted relationships with adults, such as his aunt and uncle or Professor Snape. Mentors take time to talk to the students about their own family relationships, their relationships with authority figures, and various issues of trust. Since the inception of the pilot, many other books have been added to the program's reading list. Mentors work with participants to consider whether or not the actions taken by the characters in a book are virtuous. Mentors also show students why these virtues could be beneficial tools to have in life and how to exercise them in daily situations. There is also a journal component, in which participants write about virtuous and not-so-virtuous actions they have taken themselves. Painting of a tiger. Reading for Life Student painting of Richard Parker from The Life of Pi. Students in the "Heavy Readers" group completed this novel as part of the fall/winter 2011 curriculum. After reading a book, groups complete a community service project that complements the theme of the book. For example, readers of Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book, a novel about an orphaned boy who is raised by ghosts, volunteered at a soup kitchen that serves the homeless. And the group that read Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner spent the afternoon making hygiene care packs for refugees in Afghanistan. In 2005, Alesha was approached by Peter Morgan, then the director of the Youth Justice Project, and together they transformed Reading for Life into a diversion program for first-time offenders at the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center. Participants in Reading for Life are given the opportunity to have their case closed and record expunged after age 18 if they complete the requirements of the program and remain offense-free for three years. So why is Alesha so passionate about leading book discussions as diversion programs? Because she believes that it makes a difference in the lives of its participants. At the time of the study, 99% of Reading for Life graduates had not been prosecuted for reoffending, and 94% had had no further contact with the law. Alesha and the other mentors have seen first-hand the difference the program makes. For example, a discussion on the different types of love helped one of the participants realize the need to break up with an abusive boyfriend (Seroczynski, 2011). Additionally, many of the participants' parents or guardians say that they see behavioral changes in the juveniles as a result of the program. The program's motto is evident on its website: "A caring mentor. A good book. A new life." Alesha's goal is to stop the cycle of violence—to prevent those who come in contact with the law from doing so again. For more information on this program visit the following website: Story on National Public Radio (NPR): http://www.npr.org/blogs/participationnation/2012/08/29/159957406/reading-for-life-in-south-bend-ind Although ASPs are popular, studies on their effectiveness overall are mixed. Some research suggests that these programs can increase participants' educational achievement; however, many others suggest they have no impact (James-Burdumy et al., 2005). Most studies cite difficulties with comparing the programs, given that they are so distinct from one another (Lauer et al., 2006). For example, some programs are loosely organized and simply provide some adult supervision to the youth with few structured activities. Others are more intensive and offer group sessions designed to teach kids a variety of life skills (e.g., budgeting, nutrition, interviewing, job readiness). In addition, in many circumstances these programs are voluntary, and attendance can be difficult to enforce. Finally, the effects of a given program (e.g., increasing resiliency) may be difficult to measure. A summary of the research conducted by Lauer and colleagues did find a small but significant impact on reading and math levels for participants. Critics of ASPs suggest that the programs could increase their effectiveness if they incorporated best practices into their models. Best practices with regard to ASPs include the following: Targeting at-risk youth Conducting an assessment of the youth's risk and needs Matching levels of services to the youth's risk and needs (e.g., targeted services to the areas in which the youth needs the most assistance) Integrating family members when possible Teaching youth coping skills for dealing with high-risk situations Proponents of ASPs argue that they serve an important purpose above and beyond the increase in academic achievement (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005). Although these programs are not necessarily treatment programs, they do provide supervision to youth during a fairly at-risk time (3:00 p.m.–7:00 p.m.). As such, these programs continue to proliferate in many jurisdictions. Regardless of whether the system experiences shifts in social or political policy, community corrections will remain a popular option for juvenile delinquents. Studies support keeping juveniles in the community to remain close to their schools and families, and community corrections remains a cost-efficient way to respond to criminal behavior. With that said, however, institutional corrections remains an important option for some youth. In the next chapter we discuss institutionalizing juveniles and the importance of planning for their eventual reintegration back into society. Summary of Learning Objectives Analyze the community-based corrections goals of punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. Community corrections range from basic probation, community service, intensive supervision probation, house arrest, electronic monitoring, day treatment, after-school programs, and a range of treatment programs. Several forces influence the effectiveness of community corrections with juveniles. Those forces include goal conflict, resource limitations, bureaucracy, and philosophical differences. Restorative justice is a popular approach for juveniles. Restorative justice programs are designed to bring the offender, the victim, and the community together to repair the harm done to society. Popular approaches include victim-offender mediation, community service, restitution, and circle sentencing. Describe how probation is organized and the population it serves. Probation is the most widely used sanction under the community corrections umbrella. Probation can be organized locally or at the state level depending on the jurisdiction. Probationers differ in terms of race, age, gender, and charge type. However, the majority of juvenile delinquents are placed on probation. Explain the two basic functions of a probation officer. Probation officers are often engaged in two core activities: investigation and supervision. The presentence investigation report will detail the results of the investigation of the youth's background. The level and types of supervision activities vary greatly and depend on factors such as the youth's background, supervision level, and resources of the agency. Summarize the goals of probation supervision. The goal of probation supervision is to increase public safety through supervision and service delivery. However, probation officers often have to contend with competing goals. The probation officer must be concerned with maintaining community safety while also being responsible for the provision of services for youth. To provide these services, the probation officer must establish a helping role with the youth. Officers may find it difficult to strike a balance between the law enforcement and social worker orientations. Outline the factors influencing the effectiveness of probation. The effectiveness of probation is mixed; however, newer approaches suggest that probation officers can increase their effectiveness by relying on best practices to guide the supervision activities and face-to-face meetings with clients. Best practices might include intensive interventions that target juveniles at higher risk for recidivism and that target issues related to their criminal behavior, as well as augmenting the PSI interview with a standardized risk and needs assessment tool. Explain the circumstances in which probation can be revoked. The courts ruled that if a juvenile's probation is to be revoked, certain rights must be preserved. Those rights include written notice, disclosure of evidence, opportunity to be heard, a right to cross-examine witnesses, and a written statement of the charges. Evaluate the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions. House arrest and electronic monitoring remain popular options for juvenile delinquents. Recent technological advancements in the area of electronic monitoring such as GPS, voice recognition software, and alcohol monitors have increased its popularity. However, these methods have not been shown to be particularly effective in reducing recidivism. Day treatment centers offer a cost-effective alternative to incarceration and can provide a structured treatment approach with increased levels of supervision. The few studies that have been conducted do show that these centers can be beneficial for the youth. However, the effectiveness of these centers tends to depend on how well they are resourced and whether the programs use strategies known to reduce recidivism. The effectiveness of after-school programs is mixed. Critical Thinking Questions Visit the Officer of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention website (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/probation/index.html) and learn more about the latest trends in probation. Probation is the workhorse of the system; however, it often suffers from a negative image. That negative image emanates from critics who believe that probation is too lenient a punishment. What are your views on probation? Do you think probation officers should act as treatment counselors, as suggested by the EPICS model? What might be the disadvantages of having probation officers act in this role? Do you think that global positioning systems (GPSs) are a reasonable option for monitoring juvenile delinquents? Do you think GPS devices violate juveniles' privacy rights? Why or why not? Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition. Associated Marine Institute, Kids program (AMIKids) One of the largest providers of day treatment services. correctional system Sanctions utilized by the court system to punish or correct criminal behavior. Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) A probation model in which probation officers are trained to provide targeted, short interventions to probationers during the typical face-to-face meeting with clients to focus on issues that might act as barriers to the client's change. evidence-based approach The use of services, programs, or interventions that have been shown to be effective, most often measured by reductions in recidivism. Also referred to as "best practices" or "what works." global positioning system (GPS) A technological device that provides immediate verification of the client's whereabouts 24 hours a day. goal conflict The struggle faced by many correctional agencies in deciding which philosophical path to choose. house arrest Home confinement that requires the youth to stay in the community while maintaining a higher level of supervision than found on traditional probation or even ISP. intensive supervision probation (ISP) A type of probation that requires the client to meet more frequently with a probation officer. justice model A 1980s movement toward a more accountable probation office with increased levels of supervision. Morrissey v. Brewer A 1972 Supreme Court case that ruled that juveniles have been granted certain due process rights that must be considered in court before the individual's probation can be revoked. presentence investigation (PSI) A summary report created by the probation officer detailing the juvenile's criminal history and social situation. Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) A model based on "what works" or evidence-based practices for offender change that includes five major strategies. risk control A set of policies or interventions designed to control a juvenile's risk of criminal behavior. risk reduction A set of policies or interventions focused on reducing the probability of reoffending through changing why the person began engaging in risky behavior.