Week 3 Assignment: Final Paper Outline

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 1 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

6

The Juvenile Court Model

Ashlee Culverhouse/Chattanooga Times Free Press/Associated Press

Learning Objectives

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 2 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

In the fall of 2002, two men terrorized the Washington, D.C., area by randomly killing 10 people over the course of three weeks. The pair earned the name "Beltway Snipers" because of the shooting method used to kill their victims. In most circumstances, the victims were shot sniper-style from a long distance without the shooters being seen by the victims or others around them. The victims were chosen at random while they were simply going about their everyday lives.

During the three-week period, the police had many leads but no real suspects. Then an anonymous tipster directed police to a previous shooting in Alabama. In that case, the police found fingerprint evidence, eventually linking the suspects and identifying the make and model of the car they were driving. Shortly thereafter, the police apprehended the assailants sleeping in their car at a rest stop near where the crimes were committed. After the assailants were caught, the police found the weapon used in many of the shootings as well as a hole in the trunk apparently used to conceal the sniper's gun. The two individuals eventually convicted of the crimes were John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. John Allen Muhammad, a 43- year-old man, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He was executed by lethal injection in November 2009.

The public was shocked to learn that the second assailant, Lee Boyd Malvo, was only 17 at the time of the shootings. He is currently serving six life sentences without the possibility of parole for his role in the crimes (Horwitz & Ruane, 2004). Prosecutors in Virginia contemplated trying him for additional capital crimes, which could have resulted in the death penalty. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty

After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

Explain the purpose and primary features of the

juvenile court.

Summarize the jurisdiction of juvenile court,

especially with regard to cases of abuse and

neglect.

Describe the traditional juvenile court process.

Evaluate the different types of problem-solving

courts.

Summarize the laws used to transfer juveniles to

adult court.

Analyze the legal issues surrounding the death

penalty for juveniles and the recent Supreme Court

decision on mandatory sentences of life without the

possibility of parole.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 3 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

is unconstitutional for juvenile defendants.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 4 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

6.1 Introduction

The juvenile justice system has changed over time in many ways. By most accounts, the creation of the first juvenile court is one of the most significant changes in the history of the juvenile justice system. The juvenile court model, created in 1899, developed with the recognition that juveniles are different from adult offenders. As such, the juvenile court concept adopted a less formal role of processing cases. In effect, the court embraced a caretaking role toward juveniles. At the same time, however, we have seen political and social forces shape the current juvenile court model.

There is a great deal of variation in how juvenile courts are organized throughout the United States. For example, juvenile courts nationwide differ in terms of who they serve, the interactions among the courtroom workgroup, and sentencing options available to judges. As noted by Bilchik (1999),

There is much variation in the way state statutes define the purposes of their juvenile courts. Some declare their goals in exhaustive detail, even listing specific programs and sentencing options; others mention only broad aims. Most states seek to protect the interests of the child, the family, the community, or a combination of the three. (p. 3)

Although differences exist, the juvenile court model is organized around several core features:

The judge should act as a parent or advocate for the child rather than rely simply on punishment. Juveniles and adults should be separated for all proceedings. Juveniles and adults should be kept in separate institutions. Probation officers should be appointed who will investigate the youth's background and provide case management services.

The first juvenile court was established in 1899. In 1999, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) published a series of articles to commemorate the 100th anniversary of its establishment; however, questions remain whether the core concepts of the juvenile court system have ever been fully realized. In the late 1990s, Cindy Lederman (1999) concluded that the courts were more punitive and lacked the resources needed to achieve their intended goal: the prevention of juvenile delinquency. She argued that juvenile courts should not simply mirror the adult criminal court system. Rather, they should be organized around the founding principles of rehabilitation and advocacy.

Political and social forces play an important role in shaping juvenile justice policy. The juvenile court model is not immune to these types of influences. As the number of juvenile courts grew, several significant changes occurred. For example, as more juveniles were subjected to the court system, reformers advocated for the protection of juveniles' due process rights. The focus on due process rights was advocated as a way to protect, not punish, juveniles who were involved in the system. However, as the "get tough" movement of the 1980s and 1990s spread through the country, reformers advocated for a punitive shift in the handling of juvenile offenders. One example of this punitive shift is the increased number of youths treated as adults as shown by the increased use of transfer waivers to the adult court. Many states broadened the criteria for transferring juvenile offenders to the adult criminal court system based on deterrence theory—that is, harsher treatment and punishments would discourage, or deter, would-be offenders in the future.

By the early 2000s, though, trends reversed, and juvenile courts began adopting more policies congruent with the original goals of rehabilitation. For example, alternative courts such as juvenile drug courts, teen courts,

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 5 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

and even juvenile mental health courts have become popular options. These courts, which have spread rapidly throughout the country, pair the court and the treatment provider to address juveniles' various needs. Raising the age of jurisdiction (the age at which youth convicted of certain crimes will be sent to adult criminal court for processing) is a topic that has gained support in recent years. Finally, three major Supreme Court rulings since 2005 have affected the juvenile justice system in terms of death penalty eligibility and sentences of lifetime without parole. As we examine the current juvenile court system in this chapter, we discuss these issues as well as many others.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 6 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

6.2 Jurisdiction of the Court

Although many people may consider anyone under the age of 18 as a "youth," courts vary in how they treat 16- and 17-year-old offenders. The majority of the states in this country set the age of original jurisdiction at 17 years of age; five states set it at 16 (see Figure 6.1). This issue continues to evolve because of research calling into question the effectiveness of transferring youth to adult court.

Figure 6.1: Number of states by age of original jurisdiction*

*South Carolina's Act 268 raised the age through age 17, effective 7/1/19; Louisiana's Act 501 raised the age through 17 for some youth effective 7/1/18, and others effective 7/1/20; New York's A3009C raised the age through 16 effective 10/1/18, and through age 17 effective 10/1/19; North Carolina's SL2017-57 raised the age through 17, effective 12/1/19.

"Delinquency upper age, 2016," from "OJJDP statistical briefing book," by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.ahttps://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.a sp?qaDate=2016&text=no&maplink=link2sp?qaDate=2016&text=no&maplink=link2 (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/s tructure_process/qa04102.asp?(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/s tructure_process/qa04102.asp? qaDate=2016&text=no&maplink=link2) qaDate=2016&text=no&maplink=link2) and "Recent changes," from "Jurisdictional boundaries," by Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice, & Statistics, 2017, Retrieved from http://www.jjgps.org/jurisdictional-boundarieshttp://www.jjgps.org/jurisdictional-boundaries (ht tp: / /www.j jgps.org/ jurisdict ional-boundaries)(ht tp: / /www.j jgps.org/ jurisdict ional-boundaries)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 7 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

The juvenile court system intervenes in cases of abuse and neglect and often must determine custody of juveniles.

Axiom Photographic Limited/SuperStock

Certain charges influence when a juvenile is automatically transferred. For example, Georgia Senate Bill 440, titled the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, gives the adult court exclusive jurisdiction over the trial of juveniles 13–17 years of age who have committed any offense categorized as the "seven deadly sins." They are

Murder Rape Aggravated robbery with a firearm Aggravated child molestation Aggravated sodomy Aggravated sexual batter Voluntary manslaughter (Georgia Department of Corrections, 2016)

Age aside, the juvenile court also serves youth from various backgrounds and offense types. For example, in addition to more serious criminal cases, the juvenile court is in charge of status offenders and abuse and neglect cases. In some states, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over child custody disputes, youth with mental illnesses, protection orders, and child support.

It is the processing of abuse and neglect cases and status offenders, however, that continues to be the subject of great debate in the field of juvenile justice. Both groups are considered vulnerable populations, and studies suggest that, without careful consideration, the court's involvement could exacerbate the problem.

Cases of Abuse and Neglect

Abuse and neglect cases can present a number of unique challenges to the juvenile court system. For example, the juvenile court must be mindful of how the court's involvement in the youth's life could exacerbate existing problems (e.g., negative labeling, exposure to delinquents). In other circumstances, the youth's family may be involved in the criminal justice system and be resistant to engage in the process. In still other circumstances, the youth may be involved in the system both in an abuse and neglect case and in a criminal case on a different matter. The complexity of these situations is illustrated in numerous studies that link exposure to violence (including child abuse) to criminal behavior. Consider the following facts:

Abused children are significantly more likely to be involved in criminal behavior compared to those who were not abused. Abused children are more likely to be arrested both as juveniles and adults. Abused children are three times more likely to use drugs and alcohol and to exhibit aggressive

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 8 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

behavior (Earle, 1995). Studies show that abused and neglected youth may also experience other forms of victimization, making their trauma more complex and the effects longer lasting (Finkelhor, Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011).

The court's responsibility for the child in an abuse and neglect case rests with the concept of inin loco loco parentisparentis. In loco parentis means "in place of the parent" and implies that the juvenile court will maintain responsibility for the care of the juvenile in cases where the parents' rights are terminated. Juveniles in this circumstance are referred to as wards of the state. In some circumstances, the juvenile court will decide whether criminal prosecution of the parent is necessary.

However, in many abuse and neglect cases, the parental rights are not terminated. In these cases, the purpose of the court's involvement is to intervene and determine whether family reunification is possible. Regardless, the court will examine the needs of the youth and decide placement and custody issues for the child's safety.

Child Protective Services

Child Protective Services (CPS) is often involved in the disposition and investigation of abuse and neglect cases. Many states created CPS agencies in response to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, which mandates that states provide services to investigate allegations of child maltreatment. The court's involvement in child abuse and neglect cases often results from the findings of a CPS investigation. A typical investigation begins with a complaint to a CPS agency by a teacher, neighbor, police officer, or other concerned citizen. The CPS worker will investigate the allegation and decide whether to invoke a court filing on behalf of the youth. Although CPS agencies developed to investigate and care for the youth, these agencies have been the subject of intense criticism and scrutiny (see Spotlight: Does Child Protective Services Really Protect the Child? for further discussion).

Spotlight: Does Child Protective Services Really Protect the Child?

The news article was titled "Me and My Stick, We Gonna Have Some Fun." Those were the alleged words of an irate father who beat his sons, one of them to death. All of the children in the home were regularly beaten, burned, and forced to live in filthy conditions in the basement. The family had been under the investigation of Child Protective Services (CPS), which said they found nothing wrong even when critics argued there were clear signs of abuse and neglect in the home (Stopczynski, 2012).

Child Protective Services agencies (sometimes known as the Department of Child and Family Services or the Department of Social Services) are under continual scrutiny either for failing to protect children, as in the example just noted, or for keeping children away from their families for too long. These agencies have a difficult job to do and often lack the resources and staff training for adequate intervention.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 9 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Critics argue that CPS is unable to protect children and should be disbanded, because it has, in one author's words, "outlived its usefulness"; others argue that the system of investigation is broken (Bergman, 2010). CPS workers are torn between being skeptical of the parents or caregivers who may have something to hide and being mindful of keeping families intact for the benefit of the child. Still others argue that we may need to revise our expectations of CPS, that CPS is simply an investigative body and can do little to change the circumstances and risk factors in families. That change will come only with a larger effort toward identifying and managing the underlying causes of child abuse and neglect (Campbell, Cook, LaFleur, & Keenan, 2010).

Some effort to remedy these issues is being seen in the states. For example, the Texas legislature recently passed four measures to help increase oversight, efficiency, and communication between various departments. The state adopted a community-based care model that was developed in the city of Fort Worth with positive results. The hope is that the program will prove just as effective on a broader scale (Star-Telegram, 2017).

In most jurisdictions, the juvenile court judge will hold a hearing to examine the case, assess the child's safety, and determine whether the child needs alternative placements. In some jurisdictions, the case may be mediated pretrial. In this circumstance, the parents, attorneys, and child protection advocate may be able to establish an agreement prior to an adjudication hearing with the court. Youth may be appointed a guardian ad litem as well. The guardian ad litem's role is to provide another voice in the process to advocate for the youth's best interest.

The formal adjudication process often results in a specific course of action for the youth and sometimes for the parents. For example, if the youth needs services, the judge will order those at this time. The judge may also provide specific instructions or steps that the parents must follow in order to regain full custody of the youth. The court will remain involved in the case and review the progress of the youth and the parents in achieving reunification. In the end, the judge will decide permanent placement, whether with the biological parents, another relative, a foster parent, or someone else (Jones, 2006).

Critics worry that the court could have a negative impact on youth by pulling kids away from protective factors such as school, sports, and prosocial friends. As a result, some judges believe it is best to leave youth out of the courtroom process. However, others argue that youth should play an active role in the process, which includes notification of the court hearings, representation, and the opportunity to advocate for their own behalf (Jones, 2006). These same concerns play out in cases where juveniles are adjudicated criminally.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 10 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

6.3 Traditional Juvenile Court Process

The traditional juvenile court process is designed to be nonadversarial. In other words, the court system is designed to serve the best interest of the child. As such, the system differs in many ways from the adult criminal justice system. How the Miranda warning applies to juveniles is one example of how the systems differ. For example, police are required to issue a Miranda warning for both adults and juveniles. In the case of juveniles, however, the police are more likely to indulge youth by repeating the warning, rephrasing or even simplifying the language of the warning, or asking youth probing questions to make sure they understand their rights. At the same time, the juvenile justice system may choose to handle cases informally through a variety of channels—diversion, alternative courts (e.g., teen courts), police diversionary programs, etc.—rather than through formal processing.

Figure 6.2: The juvenile justice system process

"Figure: Case flow diagram," by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, n.d., Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/case.htmlhttps://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/case.html (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/s tructure_process/case.html)(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/s tructure_process/case.html)

The majority of cases handled by the juvenile court are referred to law enforcement agencies after an arrest. Note, however, that a juvenile's delinquent behavior could come to the attention of the court from other sources (e.g., probation officers, social service agencies, victims). The decision to arrest is complex, and the youth may be released to his or her parents, diverted to an alternative agency (e.g., shelter), or referred for prosecution.

More than 680,000 juveniles were arrested in 2016 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017). Of those juveniles, just slightly over 41,000 were arrested for violent offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), and more than 147,000 were arrested for property offenses

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 11 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Law enforcement officials record and catalogue the fingerprints of arrested juvenile offenders.

Comstock/©Getty Images/Thinkstock

(burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). We also see some differences by age; the pattern suggests that older youth are arrested more frequently than younger youth. For example, if we focus on the crimes committed by youth under age 15, we see that only 2.2% of all arrests in 2016 were committed by those in that age category.

The juvenile courts, however, do not necessarily see all of these cases. In 2010, for example, approximately 23% of the juveniles who came into formal contact with the police were released to their parents. The remaining would likely be sent to the juvenile court for formal or informal processing (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). Informal processing might include diverting the youth to an alternative program (e.g., teen court) or might even result in a dismissal of the case. Those who are sent to the juvenile court for formal processing go through what is referred to as an intake process.

Intake

The intake stage is considered a pivotal part of the process. At this stage the youth can be processed formally, diverted to an alternative agency or specialty court, or released from the system due to insufficient evidence. Typically, the intake process includes a review of the case and the youth's history and suitability for the juvenile court. The intake review may result in a number of outcomes. For example, intake agents may decide there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the case and drop the charges. In other circumstances, the juvenile may enter into a diversion program, where the case is handled informally. But in other situations, the case may be transferred to the adult system for processing.

Who performs this intake review varies by jurisdiction. In some cases, the prosecutor's office is responsible for reviewing the legal merits of the case. In other areas, the court may have its own intake unit that reviews the case. And in still other cases, the probation department may handle the review (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014).

According to the latest statistics shown in Figure 6.2, approximately 55% of the cases referred to court will be handled formally. In these cases, a petition (similar to an indictment in adult court) would be filed with the court for formal processing. A petition is a court document detailing the charges against the youth. The prosecutor examines the evidence against the youth at this stage and determines whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the case.

Figure 6.3: Expected juvenile court case processing of every 1,000 cases in 2015

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 12 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

From "Juvenile court processing for a typical 1,000 delinquency cases, 2015," in OJJDP statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/JCSCF_Display.asp?https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/JCSCF_Display.asp? ID=qa06601&year=2015&group=1&estimate=1ID=qa06601&year=2015&group=1&estimate=1 (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/court /JCSCF_Display.asp?(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/court /JCSCF_Display.asp? ID=qa06601&year=2015&group=1&est imate=1)ID=qa06601&year=2015&group=1&est imate=1)

The youth's background will be assessed to better inform the court of the various issues or problems the youth faces. In some cases, the assessment process is very involved; other times the judge may simply examine the youth's criminal background. As discussed in Chapter 4, a number of factors are correlated with criminal behavior. Those factors include education, peers, substance addiction, family, personality, and criminal attitudes (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). If youth are skipping school, hanging around with antisocial friends, and using drugs and alcohol, they have a greater likelihood of committing another crime in the future. Investigating these factors at the intake stage is important, as what is learned about the youth's situation can give the judge a sense of what types of services the juvenile may need.

On average, 45% of the cases referred to juvenile court are handled informally or diverted from formal processing (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). As mentioned earlier, informal processing can take several different routes including referral to an alternative court (e.g., teen court), informal probation, community service, restitution, or some other diversionary service. We discuss diversion later in this section, but let's first examine the use of pretrial detention.

Detention

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 13 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Critics often argue whether the benefits of detaining juveniles before adjudication outweigh the costs.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Once youth are arrested and a petition has been filed, they may be detained prior to their first court hearing. The benefits of detaining youth can include ensuring that they will appear for their court hearing or giving them some time for stabilization (e.g., to address mental health issues or safety). Critics have argued against the pretrial detention of juveniles on due process grounds; however, the Supreme Court did not agree. In SchallSchall v. v. Martin Martin (1984), the Court ruled that the detention of juveniles for preventive reasons (i.e., to prevent them from committing more crimes while awaiting adjudication) is justifiable in the interest of public safety.

Although detaining youth prior to trial does have some benefits (e.g., ensuring safety if the youth is in harm's way at home), a number of issues or problems have arisen with this sanction. For example, studies suggest that detained youth are

At greater risk for suicide At greater risk for physical and sexual victimization More likely to be convicted of the offense More likely to receive a more severe disposition (Hayes, 2004; McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001)

Another criticism of detention arises from concerns regarding the racial and gender inequities in detention decisions. For example, with regard to race, studies suggest that African American youth are substantially more likely to be detained pretrial than are white youth,

even when arrested for the same charge type (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2003). When we examine gender, we see that boys are more likely to be detained than girls; however, girls are more likely to be detained for less serious offenses. For example, studies find that, compared to boys, girls are more likely to be detained for status offenses and more likely to be sent back to jail for minor technical offenses. Some girls are detained to protect them from violence in their environment. We often see this in status offenses such as running away, when the youth may be running away to escape abuse at home or school.

Concerns regarding the detention of girls for less serious crimes have led to several reforms. For example, proponents of these reforms recommend that the system be more responsive to the needs of girls in the system. That responsiveness includes educating those in the system that detention is not an appropriate therapeutic option for girls. If the girl is struggling with compliance due to abuse or school issues, judges may decide to use detention as a means of removing her from the negative environment. However, the detention environment can simply exacerbate the problem. As such, advocates argue that gender-responsive approaches for managing delinquent girls are needed, given the complexity of their situation (Sherman, 2005).

Efforts to reduce the problems associated with detention exist as well. For example, in the early 1990s the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) created standards dictating the procedures and conditions surrounding the detention of juveniles. The initiative set forth a number of goals for participating sites, including ensuring that only high-risk youth would be detained, reducing the length of detention, and reducing the number of minorities kept in detention facilities. An evaluation of the sites utilizing these

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 14 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

approaches found that "sites had reduced their reliance on secure detention [jails] without increasing arrest or failure to appear rates" (Sherman, 2005, p. 9).

Adjudication and Disposition

The court hearing, which determines the juvenile's guilt or innocence, is referred to as an adjudication hearing. The adjudication hearing follows some of the same procedures found in the adult court system. Juveniles are afforded certain due process rights at this hearing. For example, the standard of evidence dictates that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the youth of the crime. In addition, there must be a written petition, juveniles have the right not to self-incriminate, and the attorneys may cross- examine witnesses.

At this point in the process, both sides of the case will be presented to the judge. In many circumstances, the parents may be asked to testify on the youth's behalf. If a pretrial agency or probation officer conducted the pretrial assessments, those results will be submitted to the judge for consideration. The charges against the youth may be dismissed or the case may be continued to another time. If the evidence supports the charges, the judge will typically set a date for the disposition hearing, which is also referred to as the sentencing phase.

The judge typically sets the disposition hearing for a different time than the adjudication hearing. The separation, also called the bifurcation, of the two hearings is beneficial for several reasons. Most notably, the judge can consider factors not necessarily admissible in the determination of guilt. For example, the judge may consider the youth's living circumstances, school history, family supports, and other factors during the sentencing process. If the youth is considered low risk for future delinquency, that could reduce the severity of the sentence given.

The role of the defense attorney is important here as well. The defense attorney's role as an advocate for the juvenile came under intense scrutiny in the 1990s. The OJJDP created the Due Process Advocacy Project in 1993. The purpose of the project was to provide a national review of how well juvenile delinquents were being served by their defense attorneys. On the one hand, the juvenile's defense attorney needs to be a zealous advocate for his or her client, which may lead to an adversarial relationship with the prosecutor. On the other hand, the defense attorney must understand the needs of the client and maintain a helping role. The project included surveys and interviews with juvenile justice professionals. The recommendations are as follows:

Juvenile defenders must: understand child and adolescent development to be able to communicate effectively with their clients, and to evaluate the client's level of maturity and competency and its relevancy to the delinquency case; have knowledge of and contacts at community-based programs to compose an individualized disposition plan; be able to enlist the client's parent or guardian as an ally without compromising the attorney-client relationship; know the intricacies of mental health and special education law, as well as the network of schools that may or may not be appropriate placements for the client; and communicate the long- and short-term collateral consequences of a juvenile adjudication, including the possible impact on public housing, school and job applications, eligibility or financial aid, and participation in the armed forces. (Sterling, 2009, p. 4)

In many circumstances, the juvenile's case may be eligible for a diversion.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 15 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Diversion Programs

Diversion programs are usually for first-time offenders who have committed minor offenses.

1. How are diversion programs beneficial? 2. How do the police department's diversion programs

work with the community?

Diversion

Diversion refers to moving or routing a case from formal processing in the juvenile justice system. The logic behind diverting cases from the juvenile justice system rests on several grounds, most notably that processing juveniles through a formal system could potentially do more harm than good (Lundman, 1993; Mears, 2017). The concern surrounding the formal processing of juveniles through the court system is the impact that exposure to the system might have on future criminal behavior. Studies emerged in the 1960s suggesting that youth who were formally labeled as criminals were more likely to have worse outcomes. It was during this time that labeling theory was popularized.

A wide range of services fall under the label "diversion program." As a result, assessing the features or effectiveness of diversion programs is difficult. Several issues come into play in this regard. First, programs vary in terms of types and intensity of the services offered. For example, a diversion program may consist of only community service for a few weekends in one jurisdiction, whereas another diversionary program may be much more intensive and require the youth to attend treatment and complete restitution over a series of months. Second, deciding which juveniles to target is a source of debate. For example, in many circumstances, diversion programs are reserved for those who commit less serious offenses (e.g., shoplifting, status offenses like truancy); however, studies have found that diversion programs could work for those who commit more serious crimes and have targeted those juveniles as well (Davidson, Redner, Blakely, Mitchell, & Emshoff, 1987). As such, some jurisdictions send youth from a variety of backgrounds through diversion programs.

Given the difficulty in deciding whom to divert and what services to offer, it is not surprising that studies have found mixed results in terms of effectiveness. Some studies showed that diverting youth from formal processing is an effective way to reduce future criminal behavior (Wilson & Hodge, 2013), but others found it has no effect or even increases the recidivism rates of juveniles (Lipsey, Cordray, & Berger, 1981; Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer, and Ibrahim, 2012). However, a more recent meta-analysis of

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 16 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Katie Edwards/Ikon Images/SuperStock

diversion programs found benefits, with those diverted from official processing experiencing lower recidivism rates (Wong, Bouchard, Gravel, Bouchard, & Morselli, 2016).

In the 1990s, problem-solving courts for juveniles emerged as an intensive diversionary-type program. Problem-solving courts, also referred to as specialty courts, developed more from an organizational crisis created by an increase in court caseloads than from pure interest in diversion. However, these courts can serve youth in some of the same ways as more traditional diversion programs. Several specialty or alternative courts have developed for juveniles; however, the most common are teen/youth courts, drug courts, and mental health courts (described in the next section). See the Featured Program box for a closer look at one of these programs.

Featured Program: The Beat Within

209 Ninth St., San Francisco, CA 94103

http://beatwithin.org/ (http://beatwithin.org/)

Mission: The Beat Within's mission is to provide incarcerated youth with consistent opportunities to share their ideas and life experiences in a safe space that encourages literacy, self-expression, critical thinking skills, and healthy, supportive relationships with adults and their community. Outside of the juvenile justice system, The Beat Within partners with community organizations and individuals to bring resources to youth both inside and outside of detention. We are committed to being an effective bridge between youth who are locked up and the community that aims to support their progress toward a healthy, nonviolent, and productive life.

My motivation is The Beat Within

It helps me through these rough days.

It's a place where I can be myself and write

All the pain away.

—Pretty Kevy, Alameda, CA (Issue 17.39/40, Volume A/B)

David Inocencio knows how far a little respect can go. As a youth advocate, David worked in the community, providing alternatives to incarceration. What he found was simple— when these youth were treated like human beings worthy of respect they opened up. Their answers became less guarded, and, perhaps for the first time in their lives, they felt heard. They felt like they had something valuable to say.

It was this concept that motivated David to team up with Pacific News Service, a nonprofit media/communications organization, to create The Beat Within—a series of writing work-shops for youth detained in San Francisco's Youth Guidance Center. The Beat's first publication was created out

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 17 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

of the exigency that followed the murder of rapper Tupac Shakur, when David noticed a need for the teens he worked with to publicize their intense feelings of loss. Originally, their work was printed in a six-page magazine, which was brought back to them the following week. From there, the workshops have only grown, seeking to empower young people by affirming their unique voice.

At a Beat Within writing workshop, a volunteer facilitator meets with 10–20 youth who are given several writing prompts and encouraged to tell their story. The writings and art composed in the workshops are then transcribed by Beat staff to review for publication. Each entry selected to be published receives a response from one of the Beat's staff or volunteers. Responses like the following examples offer the writers praise, encouragement, advice, or questions to prompt further thinking:

"It takes a lot of courage and independence to say what you did. What are some of your sources for strength?" "Truly great work. You have submitted some really lovely poems this week! We think you are finding your strength as a writer and a poet."

For the staff at the Beat, this is their chance to show writers that at least one person in the world sees them and recognizes the situation they're in. For some youth, being published is the first positive recognition they have ever received. Many of these teens have been marginalized since they were old enough to remember, living on the fringes of a society that judges them in one glance. For these teens, the affirmation that they are worthy to be heard can be life changing. All writers are encouraged to continue writing after they are out of detention, wherever life takes them.

Today, The Beat Within staff and volunteers serve more than 5,000 youth annually through workshops in 12 California county juvenile halls: Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Solano. Outside of California, Beat workshops occur in Arizona, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington, D.C. The Beat Within has also partnered with education and criminal justice programs at the University of California, Berkeley; Stanford University; the University of Hawaii; the University of Redlands; and Portland State University. Currently, The Beat Within is 80 pages and is printed biweekly.

For the latest issue of The Beat Within, check out the "Archives" link on their website. For more information on The Beat Within, visit the following websites:

Watch the story of The Beat Within (received Honorable Mention at the BEA Festival of Media Arts, 2011): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKrQ52SQQ1c&feature=play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKrQ52SQQ1c&feature=play) SF Gate article ("An underground railroad of artistry"): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Release-The-Beat-is-a-magazine-newsletter- 2661082.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Release-The-Beat-is-a-magazine-newsletter- 2661082.php) Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, "Healing Words: Creative Writing Programs for Kids in Detention": https://jjie.org/2012/11/29/healing-words-creative-writing -programs-as- therapy-for-kids-detention/ (https://jjie.org/2012/11/29/healing-words-creative-writing- programs-as-therapy-for-kids-detention/)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 18 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 19 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Diversion Program: Youth Court

Under the parens patria model, the juvenile court should be designed to help youth. One way they do that is through diversion programs.

1. Why is it important to have diversion programs for first-time offenders?

2. Why is it important to involve the community and parents in diversion programs?

6.4 Alternative Processes: Problem-Solving Courts

Alternative courts, often referred to as problem-solving courts, are a fairly recent and popular innovation. Problem-solving courts are popular in both the adult and juvenile justice systems. In fact, as we will discuss in this section, drug courts and mental health courts for juveniles emerged from the adult system. Teen courts are an example of a problem-solving court designed specifically for juvenile delinquents.

Teen Courts

The rapid growth of teen courts suggests that they are popular in many jurisdictions. For example, in 1994 only 78 teen courts were in operation (Butts & Buck, 2000; Herman, 2002). Currently, approximately 1,400 youth or teen courts are operating in the United States (OJJDP, 2012). Typically, teen courts are designed for first-time nonviolent offenders. The courts are considered diversionary programs given their use of an informal courtroom process. The courts typically handle juveniles who have committed status offenses, but they can handle misdemeanor offenses including drug possession, assault, and disorderly conduct. One of the core features of the teen court is the involvement of youth peers. Having juveniles' peers involved in the process rests on the logic that teens will respect their peers' opinion of their behavior. It also provides a forum for the community to become involved in addressing juvenile delinquency. According to Butts and Buck (2000), there are five common teen court models:

Adult judge. In this model the judge is an adult; however, the other "courtroom" members (e.g., prosecutor, defense attorney, jury) are youth. Youth judge. In this model the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and jury are youth. Adults would typically oversee this court and assist with facilitating the dispositions (e.g. community service options). Peer jury. An adult is typically involved in a limited capacity as a judge in this model; however,

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 20 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

there are no attorneys, and the peer jury may ask the youth questions directly before deciding the sanction. Youth tribunal. Three youth act as a tribunal, or panel of judges, in this model. There are youth attorneys; however, there is no jury. The panel of youth decides the sanctions. Mixed model. Some courts choose to utilize two or more of the court models discussed above.

As can be seen in Figure 6.4, a national survey of teen courts found that nearly half of the courts utilize an adult judge model, and most are relatively small. More than half of the programs serve fewer than 100 clients per year. Two-thirds (66%) served youth under the age of 16, and nearly all (98%) indicated that they rarely or never accept youth with a prior felony record.

Figure 6.4: Typical features of teen courts

From "Teen courts: A focus on research," by J. 05-11-2018 and J. Buck, 2000 (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice).

Teen courts can utilize various consequences or sanctions. The sanctions are designed not only to punish the youth for the misbehavior but also, in theory, to act as a learning tool to reduce future arrests. For example, restitution or community service is often used to allow youth to "repair" the damage caused by their crimes. However, other sanctions, including victim apology letters, essays, teen court duty, victim awareness classes, or other relevant classes (drug and alcohol, driving/traffic, etc.), are commonly used.

The effectiveness of the teen courts is the subject of debate given that some studies suggest they do not lower recidivism (Gase, Schooley, DeFosset, Stoll, & Kuo, 2016). Other studies, however, support their use. A study of teen courts across four states found that, overall, teen court participants have lower recidivism rates as compared to a similar group of juveniles who did not participate in a teen court. Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall (2002) concluded that teen courts seem like a viable option for juveniles not only because of the

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 21 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

lower recidivism rates but also because they tend to operate at lower costs due to the involvement of volunteers who work for the program. Other alternative courts have been developed to handle juveniles convicted of more serious crimes. For example, the drug court model has become popular for juveniles who are involved with drugs and alcohol.

Youth Court Success Stories

Youth courts have become a popular option for juveniles.

1. Why is important to showcase successful alumni to promote a program?

2. Why might it also be important to focus on the failures?

Juvenile Drug Courts

More than 20 years after it began, the drug court model continues to enjoy tremendous support and popularity. Although variations exist between courts, the basic drug court model relies on a treatment- and accountability-oriented court approach used to relieve the backlogged judicial system created by the "war on drugs" (see Irwin & Austin, 2011). Virtually every state has implemented an adult drug court, and most have implemented a juvenile drug court. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (2015), as of June 2015, more than 3,100 drug courts were operating in the United States. Of those, 409 (13%) were juvenile drug courts.

As drug courts expanded, efforts were made to identify the essential strategies for effectively processing and managing drug-abusing offenders. Although drug courts varied by location, common strategies set these courts apart from traditional criminal case processing. These strategies included placing the client in

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 22 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

treatment near the point of arrest, providing ongoing assessment of clients' needs, offering intensive treatment services for longer periods of time, developing a continuum of rewards and consequences to reinforce desired behavioral change, and offering aftercare and alumni options to sustain the impact of the primary treatment phase(s). In addition, drug courts emphasized close monitoring of required drug and alcohol abstinence; continuing and direct judicial interaction with each participant; and a multidisciplinary, coordinated team approach to addressing participant noncompliance issues.

In the mid-1990s, juvenile drug courts emerged to specifically address juvenile delinquency involving substance abuse issues or addiction. Juvenile drug courts emanated from the popularity of the adult model. However, it quickly became apparent that involving juvenile offenders in treatment and services often involves a more complex set of dynamics. The complexity includes a number of factors. First, juvenile drug courts must involve the family. The family can be a tremendous resource and support system for the youth, but they can also be a barrier if they are not invested in helping the youth or if they enable the youth's substance use. Moreover, the family may not be a traditional biological mother or father but can be other relatives, others residing in the home, or foster parents. The courts need to integrate these individuals into the youth's treatment plan, which can be difficult. In some circumstances, this integration may mean working with family members who are also in treatment for their own substance abuse issues. As a result, parents may be involved in the adult drug court simultaneous to the juvenile's involvement in the juvenile drug court.

Second, youth involved in juvenile court often lack the maturity of adults and may justify their drug or alcohol use as being a normal ritual of adolescence. The notion of abstaining from drugs and alcohol forever is nearly unfathomable for a 16-year-old. As such, drug courts need to do more than simply tell youth that they may not have contact with their peers and must abstain from alcohol and drug use. Rather, the courts must develop positive peer networks for youth and motivate them in alternative ways. Finally, the court must also coordinate with the school system to ensure youth are attending and engaged.

The complexity of the juvenile court model led the National Drug Court Institute to gather a panel of experts to develop the 16 core components for juvenile drug courts (see Table 6.1). As you can see, the components are similar to the adult model but include important components such as family engagement, educational linkages, and developmentally appropriate services (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003).

Table 6.1: Juvenile drug courts: Key components

1. Collaborative planning

2. Teamwork

3. Clearly-defined target population and eligibility criteria

4. Judicial involvement and supervision

5. Monitoring and evaluation

6. Community partnerships

7. Comprehensive treatment planning

8. Developmentally-appropriate services

9. Gender-appropriate services

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 23 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

10. Cultural competency

11. Strength focused

12. Family engagement

13. Educational linkages

14. Drug testing

15. Goal-oriented incentives and sanctions

16. Confidentiality From Juvenile drug courts: Strategies in practice, by U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Washington, DC, 2003.

As with teen courts, one of the biggest debates over these specialty courts is related to their effectiveness. These types of programs are often fairly long and intensive. As such, they can be more time consuming and sometimes more costly than other interventions. Supporters argue that the costs are neutralized by keeping the youth out of the system in the future (e.g., reduction in recidivism); however, studies of juvenile drug courts find mixed results (Tanner-Smith, Lipsey, & Wilson, 2016; van Wormer & Lutze, 2011). According to Huddleston and Marlowe (2011), juvenile drug courts that rely on the following best practices are more likely to show significant positive outcomes:

Requiring parents or guardians to attend status hearings Holding status hearings in court in front of a judge Avoiding overreliance on costly detention sanctions Reducing youths' associations with drug-using and delinquent peers Enhancing parents' or guardians' supervision of their teens Modeling consistent and effective disciplinary practices (p. 6)

Another variation on this drug court model is the family drug court. According to the Office of Justice Programs (1998), the family drug court is

a drug court that deals with cases involving parental rights in which an adult is the party litigant, which comes before the court through either the criminal or civil process, and which arise out of the substance abuse of a parent, and include custody and visitation disputes; abuse, neglect and dependency matters; petitions to terminate parental rights; guardianship proceedings; or other loss, restriction or limitation of parental rights.

The goal of the family drug court is to treat the parent's addiction and substance use in a holistic manner. The treatment may focus primarily on the adult but will also take into account family issues (e.g., parenting skills, coping, family reunification). As mentioned earlier, given the complexity of family drug use, the juvenile's drug use may also come to the attention of the court, and treatment referrals can be made.

Mental Health Courts

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 24 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Juvenile mental health courts are the newest of the specialty courts, originating in California in 2001 (Cocozza & Shufelt, 2006). They are designed to provide services similar to the juvenile drug court; however, the target population includes those with significant mental illnesses, which typically include bipolar disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), clinical depression, anxiety, and so on. The courts may also accept youth who have certain developmental disabilities or autism.

Juvenile drug courts may accept youth with minor forms of mental illness if the juvenile has co-occurring disorders, in which case the individual has both a substance abuse problem and a mental health disorder. For instance, a juvenile drug court may accept a youth with a substance addiction who exhibits what is considered a more minor mental health issue such as depression or anxiety. Juvenile mental health courts, however, will typically target youth with more significant mental health issues such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The treatment services also have to take into consideration the youth's mental illness. As such, the treatment will often need to include medication management, support services for mental illness that include school- based interventions, and family support that includes coping with youth who have mental illnesses.

Studies of juvenile mental health courts are more difficult to come by. Preliminary research on these courts shows some improved outcomes among participants (Behnken, Arredondo, & Packman, 2009; Ramirez, Andretta, Barnes, & Woodland, 2015); however, more research is needed before we can say for sure whether this type of court is a good choice for juveniles. And as noted by Cocozza and Shufelt (2006),

Given that the juvenile justice system is treatment and rehabilitation oriented, there is some question about the need for specialized courts in the juvenile justice system at all. Some have suggested that the same mechanisms could be established and the same services provided within a regular juvenile court setting. (p. 5)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 25 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

6.5 Alternative Processes: Transferring Youth to Adult Court

Various sentencing options are available to the juvenile court judge. Examples include probation, community service, residential treatment, and incarceration (see Chapter 7). The dispositions available to the judge vary just as they do in the adult court. However, a unique disposition option in juvenile court is referred to as the blended sentence. 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 in the intensive supervision probation. In this example, if the juvenile fails to abide by the conditions of probation, the adult sentence may be invoked. Another option is to transfer the case to the adult criminal court. In some states, the transfer of the case is automatic; in others, the judge makes the decision.

Transfer laws changed dramatically by the early 1990s. As noted earlier, the get-tough movement and the fear that the juvenile crime rate would rapidly increase led to a number of tougher policies for juvenile justice. One such get-tough approach was to make it easier to transfer juveniles to the adult criminal court.

An automatic transfer policy dictates that certain offenses will trigger a youth's being sent to the adult system. To give some perspective of how these policies were driven by the social and political climate of the 1980s and 1990s, let's consider their rapid expansion during this time. In the 1970s, only eight states had enacted automatic transfer laws, and those were primarily for capital offenses or murder. However, as noted by Griffin, Addie, Adams, and Firestine (2011), by the 1980s, 20 states had adopted automatic transfer laws, and by the end of the 1990s, 30 states had adopted these types of laws. Today, nearly every state has laws allowing for the transfer of juveniles to the adult court system for certain offenses. Although the juvenile violent crime rate did not increase at the rate predicted, states have not reversed their transfer laws.

Transfer Laws

As we discussed earlier, states vary in terms of how they define the age of original jurisdiction for juvenile court. However, all states have passed laws that allow for the adult court to handle juvenile cases in exceptional circumstances. The decision to transfer typically takes into consideration the defendant's age, the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's prior history, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Some states also have adopted laws requiring transfer for certain types of crimes.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (2017), transfer laws fall under three basic categories:

Judicial waiver laws. The case starts in juvenile court, and the juvenile court judge decides to send the case to adult court after weighing the evidence and a formal hearing. Sixteen states have some form of judicial waiver laws. Prosecutorial discretion or concurrent jurisdiction laws. The types of eligible cases or crimes are identified, and the prosecutor is granted the discretion to transfer the case. No formal hearing is necessary. Fifteen states have some form of prosecutorial discretion or concurrent jurisdiction laws. Statutory exclusion laws. Here the adult court has automatic jurisdiction over a set of cases or crimes. Twenty states have some form of statutory exclusion laws.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 26 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Amanda Myers/Associated Press

Most states also set forth a minimum age for transfer decisions. For example, three states allow juveniles as young as 10 years of age who are accused of murder to be transferred to the adult criminal court system (see Table 6.2 for the minimum age by state). Twenty-four states also allow for a petition to reverse the waiver to juvenile court. Thirty-four states have a provision referred to as "once an adult, always an adult," which means that if the juvenile has been convicted in adult criminal court before, he or she will continue to be transferred to the adult system for processing in the event of future crimes. There are few exceptions to this law, however, as a few states require only certain felonies or youth of a certain age (16 years or older in most cases) to be eligible for the once an adult, always an adult law.

Table 6.2: Youngest age at which a juvenile can be transferred to the adult criminal court system

Age State

10 Kansas, Vermont, Wisconsin

12 Missouri, Montana

13 Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming, New Hampshire

14 Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia

15 New Mexico From "Figure: Minimum transfer age specified in statute, 2009," in OJJDP statistics briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2011, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04105.asp?qaDate=2009https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04105.asp?qaDate=2009 (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/s tructure_process/qa04105.asp?qaDate=2009)(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/s tructure_process/qa04105.asp?qaDate=2009)

A recent review of the rate of transfers to adult court showed some interesting findings. First, when we look at judicial transfers, the number of transfers dropped significantly since the practice became popular in the mid-1990s. Moreover, few cases are transferred to adult court, with less than 2% of cases being transferred on average. Finally, not all of the transfers to adult court are for violent offenses (Bishop, Frazier, & Henretta, 1989). These issues as well as others have led to a number of criticisms of the transfer laws.

Criticisms of Transfer Laws

First, some observers argue the statutory exclusion laws take the discretion away from the judge or prosecutor to decide whether the juvenile may be better served in the juvenile court. By examining the youth's social history and life circumstances, the judge or prosecutor may deem the juvenile worthy of a rehabilitative approach more commonly found in the juvenile justice system.

Second, research suggests that juveniles' brains are not fully developed until they are in their mid-20s (Steinberg & Scott, 2003). The prefrontal cortex, which controls

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 27 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Many criticisms challenge the effectiveness of juvenile transfer laws.

rational thought and decision making, does not fully develop until around age 25. Although juveniles may be able to distinguish between right and wrong before this age, their ability to make decisions may be considered a mitigating circumstance in deciding responsibility, particularly in an adult court.

Third, studies have shown that disparities in transfer decisions sometimes exist. For example, a recent study of 30,000 youth transferred to adult courts in Florida found that African American youth were more likely than whites to be sent to prison posttransfer (Lehmann, Chiricos, & Bales, 2017). Moreover, although the seriousness of the offense is important in nearly all transfer cases, Hispanic and African American youth were more likely to be transferred for nearly all offense categories (Juszkiewicz, 2009).

Finally, another criticism against transfer laws is regarding their effectiveness. The logic behind transferring juveniles to adult court rests with deterrence theory. If juveniles are transferred to the adult court, it sends a message to both the juvenile in question as well as to other juveniles that they better not commit a crime. In theory, we would expect that the juvenile who is given a more severe sanction would be less likely to commit a crime in the future. However, some studies suggest that juveniles transferred to adult court are actually less likely to receive prison time (Clarke, 1996; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004). Perhaps more important is whether the transferred juveniles are more likely to recidivate. Studies have found that juveniles transferred to adult court are more likely to recidivate, less likely to have access to treatment services, and are at greater risk for victimization (Applegate, King Davis, & Cullen, 2009; Bales & Piquero, 2012).

The movement away from the get-tough philosophy for juvenile justice has led to a reduction in transfers to adult court, although this varies by offense. As seen in Figure 6.5, the number of youth transferred to adult court peaked in 1994 and has declined substantially since then.

Figure 6.5: Number of delinquency cases judicially waived to adult criminal court, by charge type

From "National estimates of court processing for delinquency cases, all 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/process.asphttps://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/process.asp (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/process .asp)(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/process .asp)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 28 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 29 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

6.6 Death Penalty for Juveniles

The death penalty for juveniles is another controversial subject for the juvenile justice system. In the late 1960s, the death penalty was challenged for both juveniles and adults under the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. At that time, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty process violated the Eighth Amendment due to the level of discretion given to judges in handling these cases. As a result, states began to revise their procedures and processes for handling death penalty cases, and by 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty in itself did not violate an individual's rights under the Eighth Amendment if states implemented safeguards for handling the cases. According to Lynn Cothern (2000, p. 3), the following safeguards were developed to make sentencing more equitable:

In death penalty cases, the determination of guilt or innocence must be decided separately from hearings in which sentences of life imprisonment or death are decided. The court must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances in relation to both the crime and the offender. The death sentence must be subject to review by the highest state court of appeals to ensure that the penalty is in proportion to the gravity of the offense and is imposed even-handedly under state law.

For juveniles, the death penalty was an option if they were waived to adult court, although the Supreme Court did not take up the issue specifically until the late 1980s in the case of ThompsonThompson v. v. Oklahoma Oklahoma (1988). The Court ruled that youth under the age of 16 at the time of the crime could not be executed unless the state had a minimum age specified.

In subsequent cases (Stanford v. Kentucky [1989] and Wilkins v. Missouri [1989]), the Supreme Court upheld the ruling and argued that for a punishment to be considered cruel and unusual, it must offend society's standard of human decency. The justices in favor of the death penalty argued that executing 16- and 17-year- olds did not offend this standard of decency. By 2000, 38 states allowed for punishment by death. Of these 38, however, 16 set the minimum age for a death-penalty punishment at 18 years of age, effectively removing the death penalty option for juveniles.

In 2003, the Supreme Court reversed its previous decisions on the death penalty for juveniles. In RoperRoper v. v. SimmonsSimmons (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for youth under age 18 did violate the individual's Eighth Amendment rights. In the majority opinion, the justices outlined several basic points to support their position. First, they felt society's opinions on the death penalty had shifted and as a result indicated that the public was not supportive of the death penalty for juveniles. Recent opinion polls combined with the fact that many states did not allow for the death penalty for juveniles were noted. Second, it was the opinion of the Court that youth are amenable to change, and to argue that their character is "irretrievably depraved" would be inaccurate in many cases. Finally, data seemed to show that in many of the cases in which juvenile offenders were sentenced to death, there were histories or circumstances that could have been considered mitigating circumstances in their crimes.

Using similar logic as noted in the preceding examples, the Supreme Court ruled in MillerMiller v. v. Alabama Alabama (2012) that a mandated sentence of life without the possibility of parole is also unconstitutional. In an earlier decision, GrahamGraham v. v. Florida Florida (2010), the Court ruled that a disposition of life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional in cases except homicide. However, the Miller case took on the notion that there can be a mandatory sentence of life without the possibly of parole for homicide cases. The justices in a 5–4

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 30 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Lee Boyd Malvo stands in court during his 2003 trial.

Davis Turner/Associated Press

decision ruled that, under the Eighth Amendment, a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional for juveniles. Justice Elena Kagan, writing the majority opinion, made the following argument:

The mandatory penalty schemes at issue here, however, prevent the sentencer from considering youth and from assessing whether the law's harshest term of imprisonment proportionately punishes a juvenile offender. This contravenes Graham's (and also Roper's) foundational principle: that imposition of a State's most severe penalties on juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children. (p. 5)

This ruling further affirms the view that juveniles are not simply young adults who possess the same set of reasoning skills as adults.

Note, however, that this decision is a fairly narrow one. As mentioned, the Supreme Court has simply ruled in this case that a mandatory life sentence is unconstitutional, meaning that juveniles can be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole if a judge considers the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case. So, what does that mean for Lee Boyd Malvo, whom we showcased at the beginning of the chapter? He was 17 years old at the time of his offense and received sentences of life without the possibility of parole in both Maryland and Virginia. His Maryland sentence will stand at this time because that state does not have a mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentencing structure. However, as of 2018, the sentence he received in a Virginia court has been declared unconstitutional based on Miller v. Alabama. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will eventually rule that all life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for juvenile defendants.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 31 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Summary of Learning Objectives

Explain the purpose and primary features of the juvenile court.

There is a great deal of variation in how juvenile courts are organized, but there are some key similarities: (1) The judge should act as a parent or advocate for the child rather than rely simply on punishment; (2) juveniles and adults should be separated for all proceedings; (3) juveniles and adults should be kept in separate institutions; and (4) a probation officer should be appointed who will investigate the youth's background and provide case management services. Political and social forces play an important role in shaping juvenile justice policy. As a result, the purpose of juvenile courts continues to evolve, sometimes more toward deterrence and other times, rehabilitation.

Summarize the jurisdiction of juvenile court, especially with regard to cases of abuse and neglect.

The juvenile court serves both juvenile delinquency cases and cases of abuse and neglect. Abuse and neglect cases can present a number of unique challenges to the juvenile court system. The complexity of these situations is illustrated in numerous studies that link exposure to violence (including child abuse) to criminal behavior. Most states have the age of original jurisdiction set at 17 years old. A few states have the age set at 16.

Describe the traditional juvenile court process.

The traditional juvenile court process includes arrest, intake review, and adjudication and disposition. Each one of these stages is a critical point in the process. Diversionary programs are popular for juvenile delinquents.

Evaluate the different types of problem-solving courts.

Problem-solving courts have become a popular option for diverting youth from the traditional courtroom process. The most notable such courts are teen courts, drug courts, and mental health courts. Problem-solving courts are designed to provide appropriate sanctions for youth misbehavior, with the ultimate goal of reducing future arrests. Research on the effectiveness of problem-solving courts is complicated and inconclusive, but generally the results appear to be more positive than negative overall.

Summarize the laws used to transfer juveniles to adult court.

Although transferring juveniles to adult criminal court became more popular in the 1980s, support for these policies appears to be waning. The decision to transfer typically takes into consideration the defendant's age, the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's prior history, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and, in some states, the type of crime. Transfers fall into three categories: judicial waiver laws, prosecutorial discretion laws, and statutory

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 32 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

exclusion laws Criticisms of transfer laws focus on issues ranging from the disparities in who is transferred to adult courts to claims that youth are biologically not able to reason as an adult.

Analyze the legal issues surrounding the death penalty for juveniles and the recent Supreme Court decision on mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

The death penalty for juveniles was recently found unconstitutional. The decision noted that juveniles are less cognitively developed than adults. A recent court decision found that sentences of mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles are a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Do you think the philosophy of the juvenile court system should be rehabilitative or punitive? Defend your position.

2. Do you think that Child Protective Services has "run its course" like some critics suggest? Or should it be revamped? How would you revamp such a service?

3. Teen courts have become a popular option for diverting youth. What downsides might there be in involving the youth's peers in the process?

4. Although most states have retained their transfer laws, the rate of transfers to adult court has remained stable. Why do you think this is the case?

5. Do you agree with the Supreme Court regarding the Roper v. Simmons and Miller v. Alabama cases? Why or why not?

Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition.

adjudication hearing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The court hearing that determines the guilt or innocence of the juvenile.

bifurcation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 33 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The separation of the adjudication and disposition hearings.

blended sentence (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

When a disposition is given in both the juvenile and adult court systems.

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A law mandating that states provide services to investigate allegations of child maltreatment.

Child Protective Services (CPS) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Agencies often involved in the disposition and investigation of abuse and neglect cases.

co-occurring disorders (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 34 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

When a person has both a substance abuse problem and a mental health disorder.

disposition hearing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

If evidence supports the charges against the youth, the judge will typically set a date for this hearing.

family drug court (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A variation on the drug court that aims to treat a parent's addiction and substance use in a holistic manner.

GrahamGraham v. v. Florida Florida (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A 2010 Supreme Court case ruling that a disposition of life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional in cases except homicide.

guardian ad litem (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A person appointed in the adjudication process in order to provide another voice to advocate for the youth's best interest.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 35 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

inin loco loco parentis parentis (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

"In place of the parent;" implies that the juvenile court maintains the care and control of the youth.

Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

An effort that created standards dictating the procedures and conditions surrounding the detention of juveniles.

MillerMiller v. v. Alabama Alabama (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A 2012 Supreme Court case ruling that a mandated sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile is unconstitutional.

petition (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A formal court document detailing the charges against the youth.

problem-solving courts

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 36 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Intensive diversionary-type programs that can serve youth in some of the same ways as more traditional diversion programs; also referred to as specialty courts.

RoperRoper v. v. Simmons Simmons (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A 2005 Supreme Court case that ruled the death penalty for youth under the age of 18 violates the individual's Eighth Amendment rights.

SchallSchall v. v. Martin Martin (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A 1984 Supreme Court case that ruled that the detention of juveniles for preventive reasons is justifiable in the interest of public safety.

ThompsonThompson v. v. Oklahoma Oklahoma (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A 1988 Supreme Court case that ruled that youth under the age of 16 at the time of a crime could not be executed unless the state had a minimum age specified.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 37 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

7

Juveniles and Community Corrections

PhotoAlto/SuperStock

Learning Objectives

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 38 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 39 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 40 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 41 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 42 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Substance abuse therapy is a risk reduction strategy.

Laurence Mouton/ès/SuperStock

punishment can have rehabilitative effects.

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 (https://www.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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 43 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 44 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 45 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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

From "Administration of community supervision (probation), 2017," in "OJJDP statistical briefing book," by

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 46 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04203.asp?qaDate=2017https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04203.asp?qaDate=2017 (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/s tructure_process/qa04203.asp?qaDate=2017)(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/s tructure_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

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.https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo. aspasp (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp)(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 47 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Figure 7.3: Race and probation, 2015

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.https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo. aspasp (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp)(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp)

Figure 7.4: Age at referral and probation, 2015

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 48 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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/displahttps://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/displa y.aspy.asp (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/display.asp)(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 49 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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/selecthttps://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/select ion.aspion.asp (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/select ion.asp(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/select ion.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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 50 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.asphttps://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp (ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp)(ht tps: / /www.oj jdp.gov/ojs tatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 51 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Probation officers assess youths' arrest records, family relations, and other important information during the presentence investigation interview.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

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.

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 52 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

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

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)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 53 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

1. Which role, social worker or law enforcer, do you think the probation officer should favor, and why?

2. What type of person is best suited to be a probation officer?

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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 54 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 55 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Probation officers aim both to protect the community from criminal activity and to help troubled youth offenders.

DC/Casper Star-Tribune/Associated Press

7.5 Goals of Probation Supervision

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 56 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Evidence-based probation Burger/Phanie/SuperStock

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.

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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 57 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

approaches, like cognitive-behavioral treatments and interventions, work to reduce the rate of recidivism among juvenile offenders.

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;

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 58 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 59 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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 MorrisseyMorrissey v. v. Brewer 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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 60 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Electronic monitoring devices allow authorities to track the whereabouts of offenders.

age fotostock/SuperStock

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.

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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 61 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 62 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 63 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Community after-school programs provide supervision and educational services for youth.

Eyecandy Images/Thinkstock

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

http://www.readingforlife.us/ (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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 64 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Alesha Seroczynski, Ph.D., founder and director of Reading for Life.

Alesha Seroczynski/Reading for Life

Student painting of Richard Parker from The Life of Pi.

Reading for Life

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.

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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 65 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

Students in the "Heavy Readers" group completed this novel as part of the fall/winter 2011 curriculum.

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 (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

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 66 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 67 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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.

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 68 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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

1. Visit the Officer of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention website (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/probation/index.html (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/probation/index.html) ) and learn more about the latest trends in probation.

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. 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) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 69 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

One of the largest providers of day treatment services.

correctional system (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

Sanctions utilized by the court system to punish or correct criminal behavior.

Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

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 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

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) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

A technological device that provides immediate verification of the client's whereabouts 24 hours a day.

goal conflict (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 70 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

The struggle faced by many correctional agencies in deciding which philosophical path to choose.

house arrest (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

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) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

A type of probation that requires the client to meet more frequently with a probation officer.

justice model (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

A 1980s movement toward a more accountable probation office with increased levels of supervision.

MorrisseyMorrissey v. v. Brewer Brewer (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint

Page 71 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover

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) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

A summary report created by the probation officer detailing the juvenile's criminal history and social situation.

Proactive Community Supervision (PCS) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

A model based on "what works" or evidence-based practices for offender change that includes five major strategies.

risk control (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

A set of policies or interventions designed to control a juvenile's risk of criminal behavior.

risk reduction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section s/cover#)

A set of policies or interventions focused on reducing the probability of reoffending through changing why the person began engaging in risky behavior.