Juvenile inal assignment

A youth writes on the walls in the junior high school locker room with a permanent marker. Another youth damages a neighbor’s professionally landscaped flower garden. Are these cases worthy of a prosecution in a juvenile court?

This chapter will examine a broad range of dispositional options available to juvenile courts. These options include nominal sanctions, diversion, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). These types of sanctions or dispositions are applied in cases where juveniles pose the least risk to others or are considered to be low-risk first-offenders who are unlikely to recidivate.

The first part of the chapter defines nominal dispositions. Nominal dispositions are typically verbal warnings issued by judges in lieu of any formal adjudication for either status offending or delinquency.

The second part of the chapter discusses how many juveniles are diverted from the juvenile justice system through deferred prosecution and diversion. Various types of diversion programs will be defined and discussed. These programs attempt to constructively intervene in the lives of youth and hold them accountable for their actions without the formality of juvenile court processing. The use of teen courts, youth courts, or peer courts, for example, is increasing not only in the United States but internationally. In 2005, there were over 1,000 teen courts in the United States, and by 2007, there were approximately 1,250 (Schneider, 2007). Teen courts will be described in detail, including their respective strengths, weaknesses, and applications, and several specific teen courts will be illustrated to show how the youth court process functions.

The next section of this chapter describes day reporting centers. Located in one’s community, day reporting centers offer an array of services and assistance to youth. The goals and functions of day reporting centers will be described, and several examples of day reporting centers will be provided, together with information on their success in treating and supervising juveniles involved in less-serious delinquent behavior.

The chapter concludes with an examination of ADR and restorative justice. These types of programs are known collectively as victim–offender mediation programs. These programs unite victims and youthful offenders for constructive purposes, and they offer youth the opportunity to face their victims and accept responsibility for their actions. The functions, uses, and operations of victim–offender mediation programs will be examined.

Nominal dispositions are verbal and/or written warnings issued to low-risk juvenile offenders, often first-offenders, for the purpose of alerting them to the seriousness of their acts and their potential for receiving harsher conditional sanctions if they reoffend. These sanctions are the least-punitive alternatives.

Nominal dispositions may be imposed by police officers in their encounters with juveniles. These verbal warnings or reprimands are often in the form of station-house adjustments, in which youth are taken into custody and released to their parents later, without any formal record of the incident.

Juvenile court judges are also encouraged to utilize the least restrictive sanctions after adjudicating juveniles as delinquents, status offenders, or children in need of supervision (CHINS). The use of incarceration as a sanction is within the judicial powers of juvenile courts, but state statutes and juvenile justice policy stipulate and encourage juvenile courts to identify and employ other options. As a result, secure confinement as a disposition has been used less frequently in recent years. There has been an increasing emphasis on allowing juveniles to remain at home in their communities, where a more therapeutic milieu exists for them to be rehabilitated. One such community-based option is the Delaware Bay Marine Institute (DBMI), a program that emphasizes sea-related activities and underwater skills, as discussed in Chapter 6. While the results of research on the DBMI were inconclusive, they illustrate that there are viable alternatives to incarcerating juveniles that may work as well as or better than simply placing them in secure residential facilities (Brandau, 1992).

Diversion can involve participation in community-based programs where professionals work with youth.

(Courtesy of Dean John Champion)

For some juveniles, alternatives include doing little other than issuing certain verbal warnings or reprimands. For example, intake officers use nominal dispositions for juveniles if they determine that the youth referred merits only verbal warnings instead of more formal sanctions. If petitions are filed against juveniles, depending upon the circumstances, judges may find them to be delinquent in the adjudicatory process. However, these delinquent adjudications do not bind judges to implement conditional or custodial sanctions. Thus, judges may simply issue verbal warnings to adjudicated juveniles. These warnings are serious, however, especially after a finding that the juvenile is delinquent. Juveniles with prior records can face tougher dispositional options if they reoffend in the same juvenile court jurisdiction and reappear before the judge.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 and its subsequent amendments were intended, in part, to deinstitutionalize status offenders and remove them from the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. Another provision of this Act was to ensure that adjudicated delinquent offenders receive the least-punitive sentencing option from juvenile court judges in relation to their adjudication offenses. In 1980, the National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention declared that juvenile court judges should select the least restrictive sentencing alternatives, given the nature of the offense; the age, interests, and needs of the juvenile offender; and the circumstances of the conduct. Thus, judicial actions are influenced, in part, by federal mandates or national recommendations.

Diversion is not new. It is regarded as a form of deferred prosecution in which offenders, especially low-risk ones, are afforded an opportunity to prove that they are law-abiding persons. An early instance of diversion was created by Conrad Printzlien, New York’s first chief probation officer. Printzlien was concerned that many youth were stigmatized by rapid prosecution and conviction, and he was determined to identify an alternative to unnecessary and unwarranted incarceration of juveniles. The result was the Brooklyn Plan, a deferred prosecution program that provided a way to distinguish situational offenders from more-serious chronic and persistent juvenile delinquents. Between 1936 and 1946, a total of 250 youth were handled in the Brooklyn Plan (U.S. District Court, Pretrial Services Agency, 2011). The program proved to be successful at decreasing recidivism among youth who were diverted and eventually was available in other cities.

A primary or intended consequence of diversion is to remove large numbers of relatively minor offenders from juvenile court processing as quickly as possible. However, other professionals caution that one unintended consequence of diversion is the development of wider, stronger, and different nets. This means, in simplest terms, that youth diverted from the formal juvenile justice system are captured in the nets of community-based agencies. Thus, if we view social control in its broadest terms, then more, as opposed to fewer, children will fall under some form of social control through diversionary programs.

Some advocates contend that diversion of offenders should be aimed at the client population that would otherwise have received formal dispositions if diversion had not occurred (Gavazzi et al., 2000). This client population consists of youth who have committed delinquent acts and not simply status offenses. However, critics suggest that status offenders may escalate to more-serious offenses if left untreated by the system. Therefore, intervention of some sort is thought to be necessary to prevent their involvement in more-serious offending. Status offenders, however, do not necessarily progress to more-serious offenses. Sometimes, their apparent involvement in more-serious offenses is a function of relabeling the same acts differently by police. On other occasions, status offenders may be upgraded to delinquents by juvenile court judges if they fail to obey valid court orders. If a status offender is ordered to attend school and does not, this action can provide judicial grounds for issuing a contempt of court citation, which can result in a formal delinquency proceeding. This particular use of juvenile court contempt power, especially against status offenders, is unpopular. Regardless of whether they are status offenders or have committed serious delinquent acts, youth who are diverted can engage in subsequent offending.

Diversion has various benefits and functions. First, it decreases the caseload of juvenile court prosecutors by referring less-serious cases to probation departments. Of course, this also increases the supervisory responsibilities of probation departments, which must manage larger numbers of youth who were diverted in addition to juvenile probationers. A second function of diversion is that it seems to reduce recidivism in those jurisdictions where it has been used. A third intended consequence is to minimize juvenile institutionalization or placement in either secure or nonsecure residential facilities. A fourth function is that diversion is potentially useful as a long-range crime prevention measure. Finally, diversion can eliminate certain youth risks, such as suicide attempts that result from being confined in adult jails or lockups for short periods. The stress and anxiety generated from even short-term confinement for certain juveniles, including their propensity to commit suicide, has been described (Hayes, 2009). For some youth, diversion assists in avoiding the stresses of confinement or prosecution (Gallagher and Dobrin, 2007).

One of the consequences of diversion is that it may widen the net by including youth who otherwise would have received stationhouse adjustments by police or warnings from juvenile court judges. Much of this net-widening occurs through changes in police discretion and relabeling of juvenile behaviors as more serious. Another limitation is that some youth may develop perceptions that the juvenile justice system is lenient and will tolerate relatively minor lawbreaking.

One problem with utilizing diversion on a large scale is that not all status offenders or low-level delinquent offenders are suitable for diversion programs. Professionals cannot contend that all status offenders are alike or that all minor delinquent offenders share the same characteristics. For diversion programs to maximize their effectiveness, they target those offenders most amenable to having minimal contact with the juvenile justice system. Ideally, this necessitates the ability to identify certain youth who are at risk of becoming more-serious delinquent offenders or dangerous adult criminals. Clearly, it would be useful to identify particular factors that categorize certain youth as being at risk (Bernat, 2005). Thus, diversion could be selectively applied, depending upon whether specific youth possess more identifiable risk characteristics than others (Loukas, Suizzo, and Prelow, 2007).

Police have an important role in the prevention, intervention, and suppression of youth offending. As Lawrence (2007) contends, police are the most “visible” officials who respond to youth, and they play a significant role in influencing youth perspectives and attitudes (p. 204).

Recently, the police department and concerned citizen groups in Peoria, Illinois, established a Community Peace Conferencing program. Police are referring first-offenders who are involved in nonviolent behavior to a volunteer community program that focuses on restorative justice. By bringing together victims, offenders, and their families, youth have an opportunity to restore the harm that was done, demonstrate that they are accountable, and avoid formal prosecution (Griffin, 2010). These kinds of diversion initiatives are viewed as promising.

A recognized example of police work with youth is the Operation SHIELD in the Westminster Police Department in California, as discussed in Chapter 5 (Wyrick, 2000). In this program, patrol officers identify “at-risk youth” they encounter in the course of calls for service and then refer them to community programs and resources (Wyrick, 2000). The process begins with the Shield Resource Officer, who conducts a risk assessment and decides whether further action is appropriate and, if so, which agencies are suitable (Merlo and Sozer, 2009). This program demonstrates the important role of police officers in identifying youth who may be at risk and in preventing their victimization or delinquency.

Youth programs may involve learning skills such as home remodeling and handiwork.

(Courtesy of Dean John Champion)

Another area in which diversion and the identification of alternatives occur is in detention. In 2006, New York City juvenile court officials were concerned about the lack of alternatives for youth other than traditional detention. At that time, detention costs exceeded $450 per day. In a collaborative effort with the Vera Institute, a risk assessment instrument was developed to determine which youth were in danger of not appearing for subsequent court proceedings. Youth were classified as low, medium, or high risk in terms of their likelihood to appear for further court dates. At the same time, professionals and interested individuals identified community-based alternatives to detention at three different levels of supervision that would provide the appropriate level of monitoring and treatment for youth (Fratello, Salsich, and Mogulescu, 2011). Preliminary analysis has found that by incorporating “risk assessment instruments” (RAIs) and identifying “alternatives to detention” for eligible youth at various risk levels, fewer youth have been incarcerated in detention, and recidivism has decreased (Fratello, Salsich, and Mogulescu, 2011, p. 4). This approach could serve as a model for other jurisdictions.

The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) model emphasizes offender accountability, community protection, and competency development (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1995). In BARJ, the offender, the victim, and the community are involved in the process. It is anticipated that the participation of these diverse groups will aid in the successful reintegration of the youth and restore the community. Although there is variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in implementation, BARJ is often used for youth on probation or unofficial supervision (Merlo and Benekos, 2009). These kinds of programs have been utilized in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries for many years (Bazemore and Umbreit, 2001). Although the research on their effectiveness has been limited, Rodriguez (2005) found that youth in Arizona who were involved in BARJ had lower recidivism rates than youth in traditional supervision programs.

One innovation introduced by the Vermont juvenile courts is the Reparative Probation Program, which is a civil mediation mechanism. This program involves first- and second-time juvenile offenders who have been charged with minor offenses, often property offenses, where damage to or loss of property was sustained by one or more victims. The Community Board Program uses volunteers to meet with offenders and their victims as an alternative to a full juvenile court adjudicatory hearing (Karp, 2001). Mediation is conducted, and a mutually satisfactory solution is arranged by the mediator.

One of the positive aspects of this program is that victims can meet and interact with the offenders. As a result, victims may become involved and empowered. Their face-to-face encounters with youth who victimized them enable victims to relate details of the harm the youth caused. Some juveniles have also directly benefited from their confrontation experience. However, this type of mediation program does not seem to work well with particularly young offenders. Older juveniles have higher maturity levels and are more responsive to mediation (Bannan, 2008).

As mentioned, one result of the JJPDA of 1974 was to deinstitutionalize status offenders and to attempt to remove them from the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. This has been done in some jurisdictions, but not in all of them. Thus, there is variation among jurisdictions about how juvenile offenders are processed and treated. In recent years, however, an increasing number of juvenile courts have imposed dispositions according to offender needs after a careful review of the youth using risk assessment instruments.

Overall, Mulvey and Iselin (2008) found that “juvenile justice professionals still make limited use of existing standardized instruments” and rely instead on “intuition” in responding to each case. In brief, using standardized risk assessment instruments seems to be contrary to the “principle of individualized justice” (Mulvey and Iselin, 2008, p. 38). Nonetheless, more sophisticated and reliable classification instruments for offenders are being devised. Additional information is needed about offender characteristics, their backgrounds, and specific circumstances for proper sanctions and treatments to be imposed by juvenile court judges. For diversion programs to be successful, they must target the most successful juvenile candidates, who most frequently are low-risk or first-offenders. These kinds of tools might be especially beneficial to intake officers and prosecutors who decide to use diversion for specific youth.

Some diversion programs, especially for youthful sex offenders, include some rather stringent conditions and may even involve participation in intervention projects designed to remedy certain manifested problems. Participants may receive individual, group, and family counseling and other therapies. Youth may also be exposed to psycho-physiological assessments and various testing procedures (Bouhours and Daly, 2007).

Teen courts attempt to divert youth from the system. Juveniles may be asked to participate in classes on various issues.

(© Mikael Karlsson/Alamy)

Career Snapshot

(Courtesy of Dean John Champion)

Name: Chanda Galloway Miller

Position: Coordinator, City of Holland Teen Court, Holland, Michigan

Colleges Attended: Hastings College and University of South Dakota

Degrees: B.A. in English Education and J.D.

Background

I did not set out to become an attorney. My goal was to teach English to middle-school students, and I did that. I have a heart for teens. They are in a vital stage of development and discovery, full of energy, and terribly vulnerable, unknown to themselves.

Twelve years after receiving my B.A., I entered law school. By then, my son was in elementary school. After law school, I began my legal career in private practice in South Dakota. After several years, we moved to Michigan, and I joined another private practice. While there, I heard of an opportunity to teach business law part-time at a local college. I applied and was selected. After a move to Iowa, I chaired a paralegal program at a community college. This was an excellent combination of teaching and law that I enjoyed enormously.

As my husband’s career evolved, we began working internationally. Our first assignment was in Jakarta, Indonesia, and it was for five years. I joined an international law office and worked with attorneys to improve their English and their writing and case management skills. Our next assignment was in Beijing, for three years. I taught business law to university students. Then, we decided to return to the United States.

We settled in Michigan since our son was living here. I decided to change to a lifestyle of volunteering. I responded to an announcement in the newspaper for the position of Teen Court Coordinator, and I was fortunate to be offered the position.

Our Teen Court program is one of the oldest in the country, having started in 1991. It is also entirely operated by volunteers. The police and the prosecutor’s office make referrals to the program. Since participation in the program is voluntary, one of my first responsibilities is to meet with the teen offender and his or her parents/guardians to review the process and obtain signatures on a consent form. Since we require the offenders to plead guilty and not use lawyers, they opt to give up some important rights.

One of the most interesting parts of the interview is talking with the teen about the offense committed. There are times when the youth’s account is quite eye-opening for the parents and for me. I also review the court process to be certain that everyone is clear on what will happen, what the consequences may be, and to stress the confidentiality of the proceedings.

We conduct trials in a regular county courtroom. Sitting in on the trials and listening to the questions of the teen jurors is one of the best parts of this work. While a teen offender may be capable of misleading an adult or presenting dishonest answers to an adult’s questions, this does not happen with other teens. The teen jurors seek information to know more about the offenders than just what they did wrong, inquiring about school, after-school activities, relationships with friends and family, and the impact their arrest has had not only on them but on their families. This is often another moment of considerable impact on the offenders, as they quite often have not really considered the effects of their action, especially on younger siblings.

Once the sentence is announced, I follow up with the offenders to provide them information on where they can apply to perform community service hours, always a part of our sentences, as well as other details. We are fortunate to be in a community with a number of not-for-profit organizations, making it easier for the students to locate placement.

It is wonderful to witness an offender seize this opportunity to clear his or her record, carry out the disposition in a timely manner, and move forward with a different attitude. We have had a number of participants who found locations for their community service where they enjoyed serving and continued volunteering there. When an offender make positive changes, such as becoming involved in after-school activities, it greatly increases the likelihood of success and makes all of us smile. The most difficult times are when an offender gets back into trouble immediately after going through our process. We offer a wonderful opportunity for teens to start fresh, and when they fail to do so, it is disappointing to all of us who are involved.

Advice to Students

There are no magic bullets when working with juveniles. Positive peer pressure can be significant. Youth courts throughout the country are built on that principle. Statistics are instructive, but they are no substitute for actually seeing a youth grow and change. Juveniles often make poor decisions but must be responsible for the consequences. After working in this field for a while, it is easy to become jaded. Try to view each offender individually. You can make a difference. Each time you reach a young person and help change his or her behavior pattern, you also reach everyone in that teen’s sphere of influence. The ripple effect is amazing. There is no stereotype for juvenile offenders. Do not think of them in clichés.

Increasing numbers of jurisdictions are using teen courts as an alternative to juvenile court for determining one’s involvement in the act and the appropriate sanction. Teen courts are informal proceedings, where juries comprised of teenagers hear and decide minor cases. Judges may divert cases to these teen courts, where adults function only as presiding judges. The presiding judges are often judges or lawyers who perform such services voluntarily and in their spare time. First-offender cases, in which status offenses or misdemeanors have been committed, are sometimes handled with a variation of teen courts involving one’s peers as judges.

The focus of teen courts is upon therapeutic jurisprudence, with a strong emphasis upon rehabilitation. One objective of such courts is to teach empathy to offenders. Victims are encouraged to take an active role in these courts (Peterson, 2005).

Teen courts are also known as youth courts, peer courts, and student courts (Preston and Roots, 2004). In 1994, there were 78 active teen courts. By 2010, there were “1,050 youth-court programs operating in 49 states and the District of Columbia” (National Association of Youth Courts, 2011, p. 1). The 2004 resolution by the American Probation and Parole Association in support of youth courts is presented in Box 10.1.

In 2004, the American Probation and Parole Association adopted the following resolution in support of youth courts:

Whereas, youth courts, also known as teen courts, peer courts, and student courts, are one of the fastest growing crime intervention and prevention programs in the nation.

Whereas, youth volunteers under the supervision of adult volunteers act as judges, jurors, clerks, bailiffs, and counsel for youth who are charged with minor delinquent and status offenses, problem behaviors or minor infractions of school rules, and who consent to participate in the program.

Whereas, youth courts engage the community in a partnership with the juvenile justice system, youth programs, schools, attorneys, judges, and police departments working together to form and expand diversionary programs responding to juvenile crime and problem behavior.

Whereas, youth courts increase the awareness of delinquency issues and problem behavior on a local level and mobilize community members, including youth, to take an active civil role in addressing the problem. Youth courts exemplify the practices of empowering youth through involvement in developing community solutions to problems, teaching decision making and applying leadership skills.

Whereas, youth courts design effective program services and sentencing options that hold youth accountable, repair the harm to the victim and the community, and contribute to public safety.

Whereas, youth courts promote attitudes, activities, and behaviors that create and maintain safe and vital communities where crime and delinquency cannot flourish; and youth court practices provide a foundation for crime prevention and community justice initiatives, as well as embrace the principles of restorative justice.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the American Probation and Parole Association hereby recognizes the importance of youth courts to our communities and recommends that probation, parole, and community supervision agencies support and assist in the formation and expansion of diversionary programs, known as youth courts.

Source: Reprinted with permission from “Resolution in Support of Youth Courts,” APPA Perspectives 28, p. 8 (2004).

States vary in terms of the eligibility requirements, age limits, and offenders that youth courts may consider. Most frequently, first-offenders and youth involved in minor delinquent acts or status offenses are included. More-serious offenses are usually referred at intake for formal processing and adjudicatory hearings. The accountability of participating youth is considerable, because youth must admit guilt before participating in teen courts (Butts and Buck, 2002). Furthermore, they must waive their confidentiality rights in most jurisdictions. An example of a teen court referral form is shown in Figure 10.1.

Source: Reprinted by permission of the ADR Center, Wilmington, North Carolina.

The first cities to implement teen courts were Seattle, Washington, and Denver (Rasmussen, 2004). Subsequently, teen courts have been established in many other jurisdictions. Teen courts are an alternative to traditional juvenile court processing. They are designed to divert youth from the system who are involved in relatively minor offending. Youth who participate usually range in age from 10 to 16.

Teen court dispositions are related closely to community service as well as jury service (Karp, 2004). Thus, juveniles who are found guilty by teen courts may, in fact, serve on such juries in the future as one of their conditional sanctions (Rasmussen, 2004). Alternatively, they may be required to perform community service, such as working at the animal shelter, library, or nursing home; picking up trash in parks or ball fields; or assisting various community agencies.

Teen courts place a priority on educating youth about their responsibilities as individuals, family members, and citizens. As a part of one’s diversion, conditional options, such as restitution, fines, or community service, may be imposed in those cases where property damage was incurred as the result of the juvenile’s behavior (Chapman, 2005). Table 10.1 summarizes some of the data on teen courts based on a national survey conducted by Schneider (2007).

Source: Compiled by authors based on data from J. Schneider (2007), Youth Courts: An Empirical Update and Analysis of Future Organizational Needs. Washington, DC: Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence, The George Washington University, pp. 16–18.

Several variations of teen courts have been described (Butts and Buck, 2002). Four courtroom models of teen courts include (1) adult judge, (2) youth judge, (3) peer jury, and (4) tribunal. These variations are summarized in Table 10.2.

The adult judge model of teen courts uses adult judges to preside over all actions. Generally, a youth acting as the prosecutor presents each case against a juvenile to a jury comprised of one’s peers. A juvenile defense counsel offers mitigating evidence, if any, which the jury may consider. The jury is permitted to ask the youthful defendant any questions in an effort to determine why the offense was committed and any circumstances surrounding its occurrence. Subsequently, the jury deliberates and recommends the most appropriate disposition. The suitability of the recommended sanction, which is most often some form of community service and/or victim compensation or restitution, is decided by the judge. About half of all teen courts in the United States use the adult judge model.

The youth judge model of teen courts utilizes a juvenile judge instead of an adult judge. As with the adult judge model, youth serve as prosecutors and defense counsel. A sentence is recommended by a peer jury, and the juvenile judge decides if it is appropriate. About a third of all teen courts use this model.

In the peer jury model, an adult judge presides, while a juvenile jury hears the case against the youth. While both the adult judge and youth judge models use a peer jury, in this model no youth prosecutors or defense counsel are present. After hearing the case, the jury deliberates and makes a disposition, which the judge must approve.

In the tribunal model, one or more juveniles act as judges, while other youth are designated as prosecutors and defense counsel. The prosecution and defense present their case to the judges, who subsequently deliberate and return with a disposition. Again, the sanctions usually involve restitution or some form of victim compensation, community service, or combination of punishments, depending upon the circumstances.

Focus on Delinquency

Police in Escondido, California, arrested a 17-year-old female for shoplifting $400 worth of clothing and jewelry from Macy’s department store. The youth could have been referred to juvenile court to face theft charges and to be formally processed. This most likely would have resulted in formal adjudication, which would have given the girl a juvenile record. Instead, after reviewing the case, police, along with community service providers, volunteers, and teen peers, decided that the girl was a good candidate for peer court. She was given the opportunity to testify before a jury of five peers and a lawyer who served as judge.

The goal of peer court is to hold juveniles like this girl accountable for their delinquency, to teach them to engage in law abiding behavior, and to “get them back on track” while reducing crime and victimization. In addition, teen court reduces costs by avoiding the expense of juvenile court, and it provides a more productive response to young people by referring them to programs without their having to receive a formal sentence. In teen court, youth and their parents must agree to complete the peer jury sentence in 90 days, or the case is referred to juvenile court. In the Escondido teen court, 85 percent of the youth complete their sentences. The peer jury in this case sentenced the shoplifter to “20 hours of community service,” to write letters of apology to Macy’s and her parents, and to serve as a peer on three teen court hearings.

The growing popularity of teen courts as alternatives to formal juvenile court actions attests to their success in dealing with first-time, low-risk youthful offenders. Youth who function as judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel usually engage in training to perform these roles. In New York, for example, an average of 16 to 20 hours of training is required of youth court juvenile officials (Butts and Buck, 2002). In some courts, written tests are administered following one’s training. These are intended to ensure that the participants understand fundamental legal principles.

Several national youth court guidelines have been articulated. These guidelines have been developed for (1) program planning and community mobilization, (2) program staffing and funding, (3) legal issues, (4) identified respondent population and referral process, (5) volunteer recruitment and sentencing options, (6) volunteer training, (7) youth court operations and case management, and (8) program evaluation.

Recidivism rates of teen courts have not been studied consistently throughout all jurisdictions. However, available information suggests that recidivism rates among youthful defendants who have gone through the teen court process are very low (less than 20 percent overall). Studies of teen courts indicate that youth emerge with a greater appreciation for and a better understanding of the law. They also appear to be more law-abiding when compared with youth adjudicated formally through juvenile courts. In light of this, a majority of states have adopted teen court models of one type or another (Chapman, 2005).

Two examples of teen courts are the Anchorage Youth Court in Alaska and the Holland Teen Court in Michigan.

In Anchorage, Alaska, the Anchorage Youth Court (AYC) was established in 1989. Subsequently, 14 other youth courts, modeled after the AYC, have been established in Alaskan cities (AYC, 2005). The AYC targets first-offenders and uses volunteers from the community. The protocol of the AYC is outlined below.

At the intake stage, a decision is made whether to recommend a youth for AYC. Low-risk first-time juvenile offenders may be offered the opportunity to enter no-contest pleas and attend AYC for sentencing. A no-contest plea means that the youth admits to the offense and avoids formal adjudication by a juvenile court judge. Youth volunteers serve as prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, clerks, bailiffs, and jurors for youth.

The following sentencing options are available: (1) AYC classes, including anger management class, defensive driving class, property and theft crimes class, skills for life class, “Start Smart” and “Stay Smart” classes, victim-impact class, and weapons safety class; (2) an apology letter to the offender’s family; (3) an apology letter to the victim; (4) community service; (5) diversity awareness; (6) drug/ alcohol assessment; (7) an essay; (8) fire prevention program; (9) jail tour; (10) juvenile antishoplifting program, parent–adolescent mediation, restitution, and victim–offender mediation.

A no-contest script is presented to the defendant, the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the judges. The AYC no-contest script outlines the entire protocol for the AYC proceeding. The defendant is advised that one or more persons have been appointed to defend him or her. The charging document is read, outlining all charges against the offender as well as the teen’s admissions to the alleged offenses. The defendant is asked whether the facts outlined in the charging document are true and enters a no-contest plea.

Both the prosecution and the defense have the opportunity to examine the case and make a sentencing recommendation to the AYC judges. These recommendations consider all factors from both the defense attorney’s and the prosecutor’s point of view, and both are provided with access to the list of sentencing options noted above.

Every youth processed by the AYC performs a certain number of hours of community service determined by the seriousness of the offense and the presence or absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In addition, recommendations are used to select appropriate and meaningful sanctions that will demonstrate consequences and reinforce accountability.

A juvenile probation officer may prepare the equivalent of a predisposition report for any particular juvenile and make a recommendation. A probation officer’s recommendation usually carries considerable weight. All of this information is considered by the judges.

Often, one or more victims is involved. The court notifies the victim(s) that the defendant has agreed to participate in the AYC (Figure 10.2). Information about the crime and damage or injuries to the victim(s) are solicited. Thus, victims have an opportunity to communicate in writing how the act committed by the youth affected them. The AYC can consider this information.

Reprinted with permission from the State of Alaska Juvenile Court.

Both the prosecution and the defense make oral arguments that reflect their written recommendations to the court.

Defendants are permitted to address the AYC judges on their own behalf. Youthful offenders may take this opportunity to accept responsibility for their crime(s), to show remorse, and perhaps, to argue for leniency.

AYC judges deliberate and eventually produce a sentencing document. The sentencing document is a unanimous decision by the judges, outlining the disposition and the reasons for it. The aggravating and mitigating factors considered by the judges are listed, along with a rationale for why these factors were considered to be important. The youth then consult with their attorneys and determine whether the sentence is accepted or whether they will file an appeal. In most cases, defendants agree to the AYC judicial sentencing terms.

Youth may be required to write letters of apology to victims in peer courts as a part of their sanction.

(Courtesy of Dean John Champion)

With many intervention programs, effectiveness is measured by recidivism. For the AYC, the recidivism rate is very low; only 11 percent of those processed return to juvenile court for a new offense. This means that there is nearly a 90 percent success rate and that most participants will not commit additional offenses. A majority of youth or teen courts in the United States have reported similar results, which attests to their growing popularity.

In 1991, several juvenile justice officials in Michigan examined alternative procedures to more formalized juvenile courts for processing less-serious juvenile offenders. They ultimately established the Holland Teen Court (HTC), a successful project that has been expanded and emulated by other cities throughout Michigan and in other states. The goals of the HTC are (1) to interrupt developing patterns of criminal behavior, (2) to promote self-improvement, and (3) to educate peer jurors about the legal system and local authority processes. Judges are local attorneys and judges who volunteer to preside whenever a case is heard.

Acceptance into the HTC is restricted to juvenile first-offenders between the ages of 10 and 17. Youth must admit their involvement in the alleged behavior, and they must agree to accept the sanction (Figures 10.3 and 10.4). Once they successfully complete the process, the charges against them are dismissed. Typical offenses considered for HTC resolution range from curfew violation and disorderly conduct to larceny under $100. Driving offenses are also included.

Reprinted with permission of the Holland Teen Court.

Source: Reprinted with permission of the Holland Teen Court.

Holland Teen Court, Michigan, convenes to hear cases.

(Courtesy of Dean John Champion)

The peer jury consists of high-school students who receive instruction and then engage in practice sessions. The jury is trained to ask fair questions and seek the truth relating to the offense(s). A strong focus is placed on the offender’s feelings about the incident, his or her perspective regarding consequences for the illegal behavior, and the effect it has had on the offender’s life and family and on the life of the victim. At the end of the session, the jury deliberates and determines the disposition to be imposed.

The following sanctions are typical choices for the HTC peer jury: (1) community service hours, (2) restitution, (3) an essay, or (4) an apology to the victim. As mentioned, the completion of all sanction requirements eventually results in a dismissal of all original allegations against a youth.

By 2008, the HTC had processed nearly 4,000 teens. Recidivism rates among these sentenced teens have been quite low (less than 5 percent). Compared with the informal success standard of intervention programs for other types of offenders of 30 percent or less, the HTC is considered to be highly successful (HTC, 2008).

Day reporting centers were established first in England in 1974 to provide intensive supervision for offenders who would otherwise be incarcerated (Roy, 2004). Offenders in English day treatment centers typically lived at home while remaining under the supervision of a correctional administrator. Inmates would work or attend school, regularly participate in treatment programming, devote at least four hours a week to community service, and observe a strict curfew.

A variation on day treatment programs has been attempted in the United States for juvenile offenders. The first American day reporting centers were established in Connecticut and Massachusetts during the mid-1980s. During that period, there were 13 day treatment centers operating. By 2007, there were over 500 day treatment centers in 39 states (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2007).

Both male and female clients benefit from day treatment services. Since the mid-1970s, these programs have helped to expand the continuum of services available to at-risk and delinquent youth. These programs were developed through the collaborative efforts of educators, judges, and social service professionals and provide an effective alternative to out-of-home placements. Many day treatment programs are operated on a year-round basis, offering community-based, nonresidential services to at-risk and delinquent youth.

The centers provide a variety of treatments and services. Offenders report to these centers frequently, usually once or twice a day, and individual and group programs, classes, and supervision are available on site in most instances. For more-serious types of problems or illnesses, the center staff will refer clients to the appropriate community services, where they can receive specialized treatments. The types of services provided by most of these day reporting centers include the acquisition of job-seeking skills, drug-abuse education, group counseling, job placement services, academic instruction, vocational training, drug treatment, life skills training, individual counseling, transitional housing, and recreation and leisure activities (Henry and Kobus, 2007).

The goals of day treatment centers are to provide access to treatment and services, equip youth with relevant education and skills, reduce institutional overcrowding, protect the public, and build political support. Eligibility requirements stipulate that offenders are low-risk delinquents or criminals, with a good chance of succeeding in the community. Those with serious and violent prior records are usually excluded. However, in some jurisdictions, day reporting centers serve as intermediate sanctions for more delinquent offenders. Furthermore, some of these day treatment programs are offense-specific, such as day treatment for drug offenders.

Surveillance of day reporting center clients consists of on-site and off-site contacts. On-site contacts average 18 hours per week, where clients must be at these day reporting centers for treatment and special programming during the most intensive phases. Off-site surveillance includes visits to one’s home, telephone contact, and unannounced visits to one’s place of work or school.

The Moore County Day Reporting Center in North Carolina is a state-funded program that involves youth between 7 and 16 years of age who have been adjudicated delinquent. The juveniles arrive at the center every day after school hours to receive various services. In particular, this program targets youth who are nonviolent, who have a substance-abuse history, and who need to develop living skills (Dubowitz, Pitts, and Black, 2004).

Participation in the day reporting center is approved provided that clients meet the following eligibility requirements:

1. A Moore County resident.

2. Not charged with a serious or violent crime.

3. Have an approved residence.

4. Have access to a telephone.

5. Agree to abide by the conditions of the contract with the day reporting center.

6. Meet the requirements for intermediate punishment under the Structured Sentencing Act of 1994.

Youth who participate acquire valuable employment skills; participate in GED classes; undergo life skills training; participate in random drug testing; have access to a variety of mental health services, including group or individual counseling; participate in vocational rehabilitation programs; participate in health education courses; and undergo cognitive behavioral interventions. The cognitive behavioral interventions program is a 36-session program designed to change a person’s thought processes to more law-abiding orientations. A number of youth have benefited from their participation in this day reporting program. The recidivism rate is less than 30 percent (Moore County Government, 2002).

Some day reporting centers are operated during evening hours. This is true of the Englewood Evening Reporting Center, which operates between the hours of 4:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. weekdays in Englewood, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. The Englewood Center is an alternative site to serve juvenile offenders who would otherwise be held in the Juvenile Detention Center. The center was opened in 1995. Subsequently, the center has received a number of state awards for the services it provides to participating youth.

A part of the Cook County Circuit Court Juvenile Alternative Detention initiative, evening reporting centers such as the Englewood Center are “community-based facilities that operate through partnerships between sponsoring social service organizations and the court” (Office of the Chief Judge, 1998, para. 3). The juvenile court judge can order “nonviolent juvenile offenders awaiting disposition on a warrant or probation violation to report to the evening reporting center as an alternative to detention” (Office of the Chief Judge, 1998, para. 4). According to Chief Judge Donald P. O’Connell of the Cook County Court, youth are required to report to the center between the hours of 4:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. daily. At the center, they meet with professional staff, consisting of educational specialists, recreational specialists, and group workers, who “provide programs, activities, and workshops for a maximum of 25 youth. Transportation to and from the Englewood center and an evening meal are provided” (Office of the Chief Judge, 1998, para. 4).

Chief Judge O’Connell has said that

[t]he purpose of the Circuit Court’s support for establishing evening reporting centers is two-fold. First, we are helping at-risk kids avoid the possibility of being rearrested and sent to detention centers by getting them off the street and offering them positive, structured programming. We are able to do this through a low staff-to-client ratio of five to one, which ensures the personal attention that is simply not possible at the detention center. The expectation is that stronger, safer neighborhoods are fostered by reducing the likelihood of delinquent activity and by providing various jobs to community residents (Office of the Chief Judge, 1998, para. 5).

The average cost per client at the Englewood center is $33 per day, which is significantly less than the $100 per day it would cost to hold the juvenile in detention facilities. This particular evening reporting center is in a community that has one of the highest rates of juvenile arrests and referrals to detention (Office of the Chief Judge, 1998, para. 7).

In McLean County, Illinois, a day reporting center is designed for juveniles who were in possession of firearms during the commission of delinquent acts. It is called the Day Reporting Center for Juvenile Firearms Offenses. The purpose of this program is to provide the juvenile court with meaningful sanctions for youth who were in possession of firearms. Three components of the program include (1) mandatory public service, (2) public health education addressing the risks of firearms and their possession, and (3) psychological evaluation with appropriate referrals.

Community service is a significant component of the program. Such service is designed to assist juveniles in assuming responsibility for themselves and for the community in which they live. Service to the local residents enables youth to form attachments and commitments that promote civility and safety within the community. Mandatory public health education is designed to instill in the juvenile participants a more complete understanding of the personal and public health risks associated with the unlawful use of firearms. A comprehensive psychological evaluation is required before a juvenile’s acceptance into the program. All files are updated during the juvenile’s participation. Referrals to psychological and/or counseling services are made where appropriate.

Each juvenile participates in the program for between 1 and 60 days. In addition to other services, juveniles receive tutoring, with an emphasis on those with a record of poor school performance. Time allocated for tutoring can also be used for the completion of homework. The main goal of this portion of the program is to teach the juvenile how to use his or her study time effectively. Group therapy, including presentations by professionals on positive peer relationships, drug education, handgun education, esteem building, and understanding of the juvenile court system, are also provided. Depending upon the youth’s needs, individual therapy may be required as well. Basic life skills are incorporated in an instructional component of the program, which includes personal hygiene, meal planning, and preparation. The goal of this phase is to heighten juveniles’ awareness of themselves and family members. The program is offered Mondays through Fridays, after normal school hours. Youth participants are expected to attend school and fulfill the obligations related to their courses.

There is strong parental input in this day reporting center. Parents are responsible for transporting their children to the center, and they are encouraged to become involved in all aspects of the program. Program officials maintain daily case notes on each juvenile, and they chart how well the youth is progressing toward attaining his or her goals. When the juvenile successfully completes the program, a full report of the juvenile is provided to the court.

The cost of maintaining each child in the day reporting program is $50 per day, compared with $92 per day if the juvenile were placed in secure detention in the McLean County Juvenile Detention Center. The recidivism rate of youth who have successfully completed the program is about 25 percent (McLean County Court Services, 2002).

The Predispositional Supervision (PDS) Program in Geary County, Kansas, was established in 1996. The original purpose of this day reporting program was to reduce juvenile offending and recidivism. Local law enforcement officials in the county believed that the juvenile crime rate was directly related to substance abuse among youth. Therefore, early assessments and treatments of juveniles arrested for drug-related offenses were believed to be an effective means of decreasing offending.

The program is predispositional and is administered through the local community corrections office. Juvenile court judges in Geary County are provided with additional information about a youth’s suitability for probation before disposition. Before the program was created, judges sometimes were unaware of a particular juvenile offender’s needs and other problems, including behavioral/emotional problems.

Eligible offenders include adjudicated youth who have not yet received a disposition in their case. Before the dispositional hearing, the court can order the juvenile detained or released on bond. As a condition of the bond, the court can refer the juvenile to the PDS Program. Juvenile offenders must report to the community corrections day reporting center for an assessment. The day reporting staff conducts a needs assessment as well as a substance-abuse assessment. A plan is developed for each youth based on these results. A local professional supplies substance-abuse assessment and treatment.

The juvenile offender must report to the day reporting center from 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. daily. During this time, the juvenile participates in academic programs, job skills training, social skills training, anger management, conflict resolution, and community service for a maximum of 20 hours. All PDS-ordered youth meet in one classroom and are supervised by two staff members. The staff may utilize electronic monitoring for noncompliant youth. Curfews are generally ordered from 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M., and clients are randomly monitored by the community corrections surveillance officers.

The maximum capacity is 30 clients, based on staff and space limitations. The average length of supervision varies between 30 and 60 days. Clients typically remain in the predispositional program four weeks.

The average cost of this experience is $155 per offender. The cost includes staffing, alcohol and drug evaluations, urinalyses, electronic monitoring, books, and software. The success of this program is reflected by the low, six percent rate of recidivism among its participants (Geary County Community Corrections, 2002).

In most U.S. jurisdictions, youth are subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), or mediation, to resolve school problems (Bannan, 2008). The mediation process allows participants to resolve conflicts in a nonthreatening and nonpunitive atmosphere. Mediators are third-party individuals who help people in a dispute to express their points of view, identify their needs, clarify issues, explore solutions, and negotiate satisfactory agreements.

Mediation centers generally train students in different grade levels to serve as mediators so that they can intervene in school-based disputes among students. Several common components of these centers include (1) a conflict resolution curriculum that can be taught in either academic or residential settings, (2) a mediation program that trains residents and staff to help resolve conflicts among themselves, and (3) a reintegration component involving parents and residents developing terms of daily living for when the residents return home. By giving students a model for positive expression and conflict resolution, they hopefully can learn alternatives to violent and self-destructive behavior. Using these skills within the institutional setting, youth learn to interact successfully with their peers and adults.

Victim–offender mediation is an important and growing part of ADR. For juveniles who have committed property offenses, it is often beneficial for them to face their victims and learn how those victims have been affected by their losses. It is believed that these strategies increase offenders’ accountability and that they are more inclined to accept responsibility for their actions (Bannan, 2008).

Some victim–offender mediation sessions may involve all parties, including family members, the child’s attorney, social service agencies, and others associated with the case. The goal is to work toward an agreement and a restitution plan that everyone approves. This agreement is then submitted to the juvenile court judge for final authorization. The family-centered nature of the mediation process provides the social support youth need for long-term behavioral change associated with the mediation. No single victim–offender mediation model is applicable for all situations, however. Individual factors and circumstances must be considered to develop the best mediation plan (Bannan, 2008).

South Carolina has been operating juvenile arbitration programs since 1983, and the Lexington County Juvenile Arbitration Program is one example. The program is designed to “promote successful prevention and intervention strategies for at-risk juvenile offenders” (Alford, 1998, p. 28). Conditions of this program include the youth waiving his or her rights to legal representation and agreeing to permit impartial arbitrators to make a determination of guilt at the beginning of the hearing. Once the juvenile admits guilt, the hearing proceeds to a mutually satisfactory conclusion between the offender and the victim. If the juvenile does not admit guilt, then the arbitration proceedings are terminated, and the juvenile is referred to the juvenile court. Arbitrators are chosen from the community on the basis of their skill and expertise, and they complete approximately 20 hours of arbitration training before conducting sessions. During the period from 1995 to 1996, for instance, 370 juveniles were referred to the Lexington County Juvenile Arbitration Program, with a success rate of 94 percent. These sessions generated 4,666 hours of community service, and the restitution amount collected was $5,038. Comparable programs have been established in other jurisdictions, such as Cook County, Illinois, with similar successful results (Bannan, 2008).

Half of all juveniles who enter the juvenile justice system annually are low-risk first-offenders. For many of these first-offenders, intake officers and judges use diversion to prevent these youth from experiencing the formal processes of juvenile courts. Several types of diversion programs were described. Not everyone qualifies for diversion, however, and intake staff and judges must exercise their best judgment in determining which offenders to refer to these programs.

Overall, diversion programs appear to be effective in reducing recidivism among low-risk youth or first-offenders. Adverse labeling is avoided, and youth acquire greater self-esteem and individual coping skills. They also have better school adjustment following their diversion experiences. Diversion programs can incorporate elements of rehabilitation, restitution, heightened accountability, and community service.

Teen courts are used increasingly as an alternative to formal juvenile court action. Teen courts, peer courts, or youth courts consist of youth who function as prosecutors, defense counsel, and juries for youth who have committed minor offenses. Originally established in Washington and Oregon, teen courts have proliferated. By late 2008, there were more than 1,300 teen courts operating in different U.S. jurisdictions. Teen courts are considered to be effective because one’s peers, rather than adults, impose punishments. Punishments imposed by teen courts can involve community service and restitution. Teen court effectiveness in reducing recidivism among affected youth is impressive.

Another nominal option is day reporting centers, where day treatments for youthful clients are provided in their own neighborhoods. Youth participate in various programs and receive assistance through job placement services, individual counseling, life skills training, drug-abuse education, and drug treatment. The goals of day reporting centers are to assist youth in receiving the appropriate services in a structured environment, to reduce overcrowding, and to protect the public.

Juveniles may also participate in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). ADR is a mediation program in which victims and youthful offenders can meet and resolve their conflicts. Parental and community involvement in ADR programs improve their effectiveness.

· nominal dispositions, 360

· diversion, 362

· Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) model, 365

· Reparative Probation Program, 365

· mediation, 365

· mediator, 365

· teen courts, 368

· adult judge model, 369

· youth judge model, 369

· peer jury model, 371

· tribunal model, 371

· Anchorage Youth Court (AYC), 373

· Holland Teen Court (HTC), 377

· day reporting centers, 379

· Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), 384

Childstats.gov: Forum on Child and Family Statistics

A 15-year-old black youth assaults two Latino youth and inflicts serious physical injuries as part of a racially motivated hate crime. A 12-year-old boy bludgeons his 17-month-old cousin to death for crying and interrupting his television cartoon show. Are either of these cases deserving of probation?

Probation is the most frequently used sanction by juvenile court judges. However, less than two-thirds of all youth adjudicated delinquent are placed on probation annually. The chapter opens with a definition of standard probation. This chapter will describe juvenile probation and a variety of other community-based programs.

All probation is conditional, although there are several common characteristics among most juvenile court jurisdictions that describe standard probation. These features will be described.

Additional requirements of probation orders include community service, restitution, home confinement, and electronic monitoring (EM). Youth also may be required to fulfill other conditions, including school attendance, vocational/educational training, or counseling. These various requirements will be discussed.

Intermediate punishments range between standard probation and secure confinement. Juvenile intensive supervised probation (JISP) is an intermediate punishment. The goals of intermediate punishment programs, which are community based, will be described. In addition, the eligibility requirements of several JISP programs will be featured, and the strengths and weaknesses of JISP programs will be discussed.

Juvenile probation officers (POs) are assigned different caseloads, depending upon their jurisdiction and the total number of juvenile offenders. Increasing numbers of juvenile probation departments are adopting the balanced approach, which seeks to ensure public safety, heighten offender accountability, and individualize the offender’s needs. The relationship between juvenile POs and their clients will be explored.

Enabling legislation in most jurisdictions has established various community corrections agencies and services. Community corrections acts (CCAs) offer a wide variety of services to meet offender needs. Different types of community corrections initiatives, together with their purposes, goals, strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness, will be highlighted.

Frequently, home confinement or house arrest is used concurrently with EM. These monitoring and supervisory methods have been effective in verifying an offender’s activities and location. The functions, advantages, disadvantages, and usefulness of both EM and home confinement will be examined and discussed, and different types of EM programs will be identified and explained.

The chapter concludes with an examination of various conditions that accompany probation programs. These conditions are fines, victim compensation or restitution, victim–offender mediation, and community service. Each condition is imposed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the offense and the suitability for such sanctions and behavioral requirements. These conditions are intended to heighten offender accountability and ensure that the goals of juvenile justice are fulfilled. Evaluations of these sanctions will be made in terms of offender recidivism and other criteria.

Standard probation is either a conditional or unconditional disposition that does not involve incarceration for a specified period following an adjudication of delinquency. Standard juvenile probation is a frequent disposition given by juvenile court judges. In fact, of all dispositional options available to juvenile court judges, standard probation is the most commonly used.

Probation exemplifies the philosophy of the early juvenile court. The first probation law was enacted in Massachusetts in 1878, although probation was practiced much earlier. John Augustus first developed probation in Boston in 1841. Even when the juvenile justice system became more punitive in the 1990s, probation was the dominant sanction (Merlo and Benekos, 2010).

In 2007, probation was the disposition imposed in approximately 56 percent of the cases (Livsey, 2010). This represents an actual decrease in the use of probation by juvenile court judges when compared to 1997. When compared to 1985, however, more youth were on probation in 2007. The kinds of cases that resulted in a youth being placed on probation have also changed. As Figure 11.1 shows, although most offenders who are placed on probation are property offenders, greater proportions of youth were placed on probation for person offenses, drug offenses, and public order offenses in 2007 than in 1985 (Livsey, 2010).

Source: Charles M. Puzzanchera, Benjamin Adams, and Melissa Sickmund (2010). Juvenile Court Statistics 2006–2007. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

There are several types of standard probation programs. Like their diversion program counterparts, probation programs for juveniles are either unconditional probation or conditional probation. Unconditional standard probation, another term for unconditional probation, basically involves freedom of movement for juveniles within their communities, perhaps accompanied by periodic reports by telephone or mail with a PO or the probation department. Because a PO’s caseload is often large, with a hundred or more juvenile clients who must be managed, specialized individual attention is not a routine part of standard probation. The period of unsupervised probation varies among jurisdictions, depending on offense seriousness and other circumstances (Champion, 2008b).

Conditional probation programs may include optional conditions and program requirements, such as a certain number of hours of public or community service, restitution to victims, payment of fines, employment, and/or participation in specific vocational, educational, or therapeutic programs. It is crucial to any probation program that an effective classification system is utilized so that juvenile court judges can dispose of cases fairly and efficiently. It is standard practice for conditional probation programs to contain special conditions and provisions that address different youth needs. These special conditions are usually added by the juvenile court judge on the basis of information provided by juvenile POs.

The terms of standard probation are outlined in Figure 11.2 in a General Conditions of Supervision agreement. The probationer signs the form, thus consenting to the probation conditions. A witness also signs to attest to the probationer’s signature. These terms may be accompanied by special conditions, known as special conditions of probation. The juvenile court judge and the PO use their discretion in deciding if these conditions would be beneficial to the youth. Thus, youth placed on standard probation may experience little outward change in their daily routines. Whenever special conditions of probation are attached, it usually suggests that the judge or PO has determined the youth should adhere to these additional terms for specific reasons. Some of these conditions include medical treatments for drug or alcohol dependencies, individual or group therapy or counseling, or participation in a driver’s safety course. In some instances involving theft, burglary, or vandalism, restitution provisions may be included that require youth to repay victims for their financial losses. Some standard probation programs in the United States require little direct contact with the probation office. This reality may benefit POs, who often have large client caseloads. However, huge caseloads mean POs provide less individualized attention to youth, and some youth require more supervision than others while on standard probation.

Community service orders are increasingly used, although in some states, juvenile probation departments have found it difficult to find personnel to supervise youthful probationers. For instance, a North Dakota delinquent was ordered to perform 200 hours of community service. The community had about 500 residents, and the ordered work involved park maintenance and general cleanup duties. However, the youth did not perform this community service, because the probation department did not have the money to pay a juvenile PO to monitor the youth for the full 200 hours. Despite these occasional limitations, probation program conditions typically address offender accountability. In a growing number of jurisdictions, drug courts are being established to deal more effectively with youthful substance abusers (Whiteacre, 2007).

Another related development is the use of report cards to keep communities involved and aware of how the juvenile justice system is working. In several states, juvenile probation departments have issued report cards to the community that explain what has been accomplished in the preceding year. From logging community service hours that youth have volunteered to publishing recidivism data, these report cards provide a level of accountability for courts and an opportunity for more cooperation and collaboration between probation staff and the community (Rubin, 2006). It is anticipated that such reports may be more frequent in the future.

In some jurisdictions, parents of juveniles can be held financially liable for the actions of their delinquent children (Lee, 2008). For instance, D.D.H. was a Texas juvenile who committed burglary and larceny (Matter of D.D.H., 2004). Following D.D.H.’s apprehension and adjudication, the court determined that the damages accruing to the victim amounted to $5,400, which included $4,500 to repair the property at the point where the burglary occurred as well as $900 for unrecovered stolen property resulting from the burglary. The juvenile court judge ordered D.D.H.’s parents to pay $5,000 in restitution to the victim for their son’s delinquent acts as a special condition of the youth’s probation orders. Although the parents appealed, a Texas appellate court upheld the juvenile court judge’s restitution orders for the parents of the youth.

Standard probation recidivism rate data are not uniformly maintained. Therefore, it is often difficult to forecast which juveniles will have the greatest likelihood of reoffending, regardless of their program.

The following steps have been recommended to reform juvenile probation in an effort to reduce recidivism:

1. Research should drive policy. Any and all new initiatives should include an evaluation component. Evidence-based programs should be expanded, especially programs that emphasize community involvement.

2. Early intervention should be emphasized. Interventions occurring earlier are more effective than those attempted in the offender’s mid-teens.

3. Paying just debts should receive priority. Restitution and community service heighten offender accountability, and they can easily be integrated into the probation or parole program.

4. Character building should be a part of probation programming. Programs that include psychoeducational strategies are better at character building than those that are strictly punishment-centered.

5. Violence prevention should be a priority in program development. Juvenile probation must focus on efforts to suppress violent behavior. Programs that are educational in nature are more profitable compared with punishment-centered programs. These educational programs enable youth to learn how to cope more effectively with their environment. Such programs would include training in anger management, acquiring skills (social and emotional), improving moral reasoning, and instilling heightened self-esteem (Rosky, 2008).

More effective juvenile probation appears to be both mission-driven and outcome-focused. Professional policies and practices in juvenile probation are outcome-focused.

For both individual offenders and entire juvenile PO caseloads, outcome-focused probation systematically measures the tangible results of its interventions, compares those results to its goals, and holds itself publicly accountable for any differences. Departments must measure more than just their failures (recidivism) and the sanctions they have imposed. Outcome measures provide evidence of the degree to which probation supervision goals have or have not been achieved, in essence measuring the department’s performance in meeting system goals. Long-term measurement of outcomes indicates the degree to which probation supervision has impacted youthful offenders after their release in terms of changing their thinking, behaviors, and attitudes (Parker, 2005).

Mission-driven juvenile probation means that the work of probation must be directed at achieving clearly articulated and widely shared goals. It requires a commitment to a strategic plan or focus-group process that gives staff members an opportunity to define their values about the juvenile justice system—and about juvenile probation in particular—and to translate them into action and results. Such an effort will increase staff support and provide a basis for continuous feedback, evaluation, and improvement at the policy, program, and individual employee levels. Mission statements provide an organizational compass that points to an agreed-upon destination, and they are central to the operations and activities of any organization. What does juvenile probation stand for in the community? What is it attempting to accomplish? Ultimately, mission statements should be categorized into individual goals that are directed at protecting the public, holding the juvenile accountable for repairing harm caused to victims and the community, and engaging offenders in rehabilitative activities designed to address their most pressing problems and needs.

Restitution is a frequent condition of probation. Programs that use restitution and enforce it seem to have lower recidivism rates. This is because offenders are required to repay victims for damages they inflict and take responsibility for their actions. Restitution requires a financial connection between what the youthful offenders did and how much it costs to compensate victims for their losses. Therefore, these tangible punishments are considered to be effective as delinquency deterrents (Taxman, 2005).

In the early 1980s, California experimented with several types of juvenile probation camps (Watson et al., 2003). These camps were county-operated and included physical activities, community contacts, and academic training. The camps were designed as dispositional alternatives to secure custody for youthful offenders. Eligibility requirements included first-offender status and nonviolent behaviors. Counselors worked with youth who were carefully screened before entering the program. By admitting small groups of youth, counselors maximized individualized attention for each youth.

Older juveniles who participated in these probation camps had lower rates of recidivism compared with younger youth. Overall, the camps were evaluated as successful in minimizing recidivism and enhancing the rehabilitation of participants. One reason for the lower rates of recidivism among youthful clients was the greater direct supervision by camp personnel. This circumstance is not unlike that found in communities where various methods of formal social control, including police and PO surveillance, are employed to supervise juvenile probationers and parolees. California maintains 67 probation camps and ranches, of which five are for female delinquents. Annually, about 3,800 males and females are placed in the probation camps (Nieto, 2008).

Between 1988 and 1990, the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) was designed in Philadelphia to target serious youthful offenders (Altschuler and Armstrong, 2001). A sample of 46 youth committed to the Bensalem Youth Development Center was compared with a control group of 46 youth who received traditional aftercare probation services. While the IAP participants exhibited lower rates of recidivism compared with those subject to conventional aftercare probation, the differences were not significant. It was reported, however, that IAP officers believed their interventions with IAP youth were both rapid and positive. Thus, some officials believed that they were able to assist a few of the participants in avoiding subsequent rearrests. The successfulness of IAP in any particular jurisdiction often depends on the nature and quality of supervision received by clients (Meisel, 2001).

Not all specialized programs for juvenile probationers are successful. For example, an assessment was made of the Sexual Offender Treatment (SOT) Program established by a juvenile probation department of a large midwestern U.S. metropolitan county in January 1988 (Lab, Shields, and Schondel, 1993). The program consisted of 20 peer-group meetings with psychosocioeducational intervention focus, supplemented by individual family counseling sessions with youth who had been adjudicated delinquent. Subsequently, an experimental program was conducted in which 46 youth referred to the SOT program were compared with a control group of 109 youth assigned to nonsexually specific interventions during the same period. Data sources included juvenile court and program records.

Career Snapshot

(Courtesy of Myra Ann Welborn-Weeks)

Name: Myra Ann Welborn-Weeks

Position: Program Coordinator, Wichita County Teen Court, Texas

Colleges Attended: Midwestern State University

Degrees: Bachelor of Applied Arts & Sciences; M. A. Public Administration

Background

It was never my intention to work with juveniles. I made the decision to go into the criminal justice field; however, my focus was to work with adults. Blame it on divine intervention or trends in the criminal justice system. In 1992, I began working with juvenile offenders and have been involved with juveniles to date.

My current position is Program Coordinator with the Wichita County Teen Court. This is a program designed to allow first-offender youth the opportunity to satisfy misdemeanors or minor offenses utilizing a peer judicial system. There are several examples of peer justice dating back to the early 1970s. However, one of the first documented teen court programs in the United States began in Grand Prairie, Texas, in the early 1980s. There are additional programs in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

I was aware that peer courts or teen courts were designed for first-offenders and that they did not involve juvenile probation. When the director of the existing teen court program resigned, I was afforded an unanticipated opportunity to become better acquainted with the teen court. After minimal research about teen courts, my attraction to the program was forged. This program was the epitome of early intervention. Youth with offenses in teen courts were receiving sentences more proactive than some serious felony offenders on probation. Teen courts, on average, have an 85 percent success rate. I was and still am “hooked” on teen courts as a proactive approach to intervention for youth who have committed a criminal offense.

The teen court model used in Texas is the adult judge model. In Texas, teen court trials are sentencing trials, so a plea of guilty or no contest is entered. The cases referred to teen court in Texas include status or children in need of supervision (CHINS) offenses as well as petty crimes. Sentences include community service, jury duty, and any other sanction that emphasizes restorative justice while educating the offender about the consequences associated with criminal behavior. Many courts also utilize sentencing options such as letters of apology, essays, workshops, counseling tools, and tours of participating agencies. Most often, youth are afforded from 30 to 90 days to complete the sanctions, at which time their offense is dismissed, leaving them with a clean slate. An adult volunteer with the Wichita County Teen Court and a victim of a tragic drunk driving accident has coined the phrase “erasable mistake.” Youth are offered the chance to erase their criminal record and start fresh as they enter adulthood.

I am convinced that teen courts and peer justice are effective tools for working with youth. I have helped administer the Teen Court Association of Texas and the National Association of Youth Courts. Networking among coordinators is an effective way to develop new courts and enhance existing programs. Program development is an ongoing process, with input and idea sharing the driving forces for establishment and enhancement.

Advice to Students

It takes the entire community to nurture a child to adulthood. As a part of any community, be involved. Whether you chose to contribute as an educator, volunteer, parent, or citizen, youth need you. More than ever, we have absentee parents and overscheduled children. With technology enhancing lives, personal involvement decreases. Parents increasingly communicate in sound bites versus conversations. Kids learn to type rather than converse. As we discover ever-efficient ways to live our lives, the quantity of time spent with youth and children cannot become one more convenience. They need to hear and believe that adults are there for support and guidance. Parents are responsible for the development of their youth, but communities have a duty to facilitate the parents in every way possible.

I also want to emphasize the need to be patient with youth and specifically teens. Part of adolescence is trying on various personalities until finding one that fits. This may include hideous wardrobes and unbelievable forms of self-expression. Be confident that most teens will outgrow the offending behavior and, overnight, become the intelligent person that you thought would never appear.

Although it was never my intention to work with teens, it has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. I have experienced the gamut of emotions through my involvement with youth. I have helped young people choose a college and I have been present as young people were sentenced to life sentences without parole. It has never been easy, but as it has been said, nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

Essentially, youth handled by the SOT program fared no better than youth processed through normal, nonoffense-specific programming. Thus, these researchers concluded that simply knowing the symptoms and problems and designing specific interventions for those problems are not always entirely successful. Additional study is needed to identify appropriate treatment factors that might make a difference in reducing recidivism rates for sexual offending.

The success of standard juvenile probation as well as other probation and parole programs is measured according to the recidivism rate accompanying these program alternatives. Recidivism is measured in various ways, including new apprehensions or arrests, new adjudications, return to secure confinement, movement from standard probation to intensive supervised probation (ISP), and violations of simple probation program conditions, such as drug or alcohol use and curfew violation (Clinkinbeard and Murray, 2008; Pires and Jenkins, 2007). Recidivists are offenders who commit new crimes or delinquent acts after having been previously convicted or adjudicated.

Recidivism can be defined as a subsequent delinquency adjudication when a youth reoffends (Champion, 2008a). Historically, a recidivism rate of 30 percent has been established among researchers as the cutoff point between a successful probation program and an unsuccessful one. Programs with recidivism rates of approximately 30 percent or less are considered to be successful, while those programs with more than 30 percent recidivism are not viewed as particularly successful. No program presently has zero percent recidivism (Champion, 2008a).

For standard probation, which can refer to little direct regular supervision of offenders by POs, recidivism rates vary among the various state jurisdictions. Recidivism rates for these juveniles may range from 30 to 70 percent, depending upon the nature of their offenses and prior records. The following elements appear to be predictive of future criminal activity and reoffending by juveniles: (1) age at first adjudication, (2) a prior criminal record (a combined measure of the number and severity of priors), (3) the number of prior commitments to juvenile facilities, (4) drug/chemical abuse, (5) alcohol abuse, (6) family relationships (parental control), (7) school problems, and (8) peer relationships (Schaffner, 2006).

At the beginning of the 20th century, when probation began to be used for juvenile supervision, Flexner and Baldwin (1914) issued a report entitled Juvenile Courts and Probation. Writing seven years following the establishment of the National Probation Association in 1907, Flexner and Baldwin described three important aspects of probation as it applied to juvenile offenders:

1. The period of probation should always be indeterminate, because judges cannot possibly fix the period of treatment in advance.

2. To be effective, probation work must be performed by full-time, professionally trained POs.

3. Probation is not a judicial function.

It is interesting to see how Flexner and Baldwin viewed the judiciary in establishing a specific term of probation and performing supervisory functions. They adhered to the belief that only professional POs should engage in such supervisory tasks and that the role of the judiciary should be minimal. The strong treatment orientation of probation is apparent as well, suggesting their belief that probation treatment programs should be tailored to fit the offender’s needs. Furthermore, they underscored the authority originally assigned to POs and the leverage that POs could exert on their clients, including possible probation revocation if program infractions occurred.

States increasingly utilize probation rather than rely on sanctions like residential placement. As mentioned, California, for example, is reducing its reliance on juvenile correctional institutions, and counties are developing alternatives that incorporate probation with sanctions like community service and drug and alcohol treatment (Macallair, McCracken, and Teji, 2011). The decision to emphasize community-based alternatives may be based on economic considerations, closure of institutions, or research on their effectiveness. Based on California’s and other states’ historical and current use of probation, it is likely that its dominance will continue (Figure 11.3).

Source: Charles M. Puzzanchera, Benjamin Adams, and Melissa Sickmund (2010). Juvenile Court Statistics 2006–2007. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Focus on Delinquency

In Cherry Hill, New Jersey, two teens, ages 14 and 15, had a dispute over

a girl and were exchanging text messages. The 14-year-old youth, along with two other teens, went to the home of the 15-year-old, confronted him about the messages, and challenged him to fight. The older youth went to kitchen, got a knife, and returned to the door, where he stabbed the other youth in the throat, puncturing the victim’s voice box. The 15-year-old assailant denied self-defense and pleaded guilty to second-degree aggravated assault. The prosecution made the argument that the youth should receive two years of incarceration in a juvenile institution. The judge, Anthony Pugliese, sentenced the juvenile to three years of probation and 100 hours of community service. In addition, the judge prohibited contact between the two teens and ordered the juvenile offender to pay restitution and receive psychological evaluation. The victim recovered from his injury.

What sentence would you have imposed? Was probation sufficient? Was the victim’s role a factor? What do you think?

Juveniles meet with probation officers in their offices on a regular basis.

(© Mikael Karlsson/Alamy)

If the allegations are supported, the judge will determine which steps should be taken to sanction the juvenile for noncompliance. Judges have an array of options, including intensifying one’s supervision by POs, restitution, community service, fines, or participation in one or more counseling programs. Or, the judge can simply continue the youth’s probation with a verbal reprimand or warning.

Some juveniles may not respond favorably to this experience. Chronic offenders, hard-core offenders, or psychologically disturbed juveniles may reject attempts by authorities to understand them or to assist them in any task (Cauffman, Steinberg, and Piquero, 2005). If youth are chemically dependent, their substance abuse may interfere with effective interventions. Where standard probation is not feasible, an intensive supervision program (ISP) may be required for certain offenders.

Intermediate punishments are community-based sanctions that range from intensive probation supervision (IPS) to nonsecure custodial programs. These programs include more intensive monitoring or management of juvenile behaviors through rigorous supervision. They may involve home confinement, EM, or both. Other community-based services are included, where the goal is to maintain fairly close supervision over youthful offenders (Abrams, 2006). The successful ISP programs tend to be those that emphasize the sociostructural causes of delinquency and that use greater community participation and agency networking rather than focusing only on individual problems. Cognitive-behavioral interventions and participatory problem-solving activities are part of probation department programs designed to reduce offender recidivism and promote long-term law-abiding behaviors (Bernberg and Thorlindsson, 2007).

Intermediate punishment programs are operated in all states for both juvenile and adult offenders. They are sometimes referred to as creative sentencing, because they are somewhere between standard probationary dispositions and traditional incarceration sanctions that judges can impose. These alternatives to incarceration are regarded as positive interventions for a majority of youth who are brought to the attention of the juvenile justice system (Champion, 2008a).

There is considerable variation among intermediate punishment programs, but they do tend to exhibit similar goals or objectives. These include, but are not limited to:

1. Providing less-expensive sanctions compared with secure confinement.

2. Achieving lower rates of recidivism compared with standard probation.

3. Emphasizing reintegration into communities as the primary correctional goal.

4. Providing a greater range of community services and organizations in a cooperative effort to assist youthful offenders.

5. Minimizing the adverse influence of labeling that might stem from secure confinement.

6. Improving the personal, educational, and vocational skills of individual offenders, together with promoting acquisition of better self-concepts and greater acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions.

Intensive Supervision Programs, also known as juvenile intensive supervised probation (JISP), have become increasingly popular for managing offender populations. Since the mid-1960s, these programs have been aimed primarily at supervising adult offenders closely, and in recent years, JISP programs have been designed for juvenile offenders as well. JISP can describe similar programs developed in different jurisdictions, regardless of whether the specific JISP designation is utilized by individual programs. A JISP disposition is a highly structured and conditional supervision program that serves as an alternative to incarceration and provides an acceptable level of public safety.

Juvenile court judges impose ISP for juveniles who are in need of greater supervision by POs. Because POs responsible for these youth must meet with and monitor them frequently, their caseloads are reduced substantially. Thus, JISP is more expensive than traditional standard probation. It is important to note that both the juvenile and the parents must sign the probation order, signifying their intent to comply with it. Just like standard probation, a violation of one or more of these intensive supervision conditions may result in a judicial review at the request of the PO.

Juvenile court judges decide which juveniles to assign to various programs. This is part of the classification process. Historically, juvenile courts have preferred to utilize the expertise and knowledge of the judge and probation staff versus technology in determining dispositions. However, the level of accuracy associated with juvenile risk prediction instruments is steadily improving.

Classification is considered to be one of correction’s greatest challenges (Clinkinbeard and Murray, 2008). Nevertheless, judges attempt to make secure or nonsecure confinement decisions based on the following elements: (1) judging the risk of continued criminal activity and the offender’s need for services; (2) assisting probation and parole officers in developing better case plans and selecting appropriate casework strategies for a more effective case-management system; (3) enhancing planning, monitoring, evaluation, and accountability for a better management information system; and (4) allowing agencies to effectively and efficiently allocate their limited resources for a better workload deployment system.

Chronic recidivists and serious offenders are most likely to be placed in secure confinement. However, an increasing number of community-based programs are being designed to supervise such offenders closely and to offer needed services and treatments. It is helpful to review briefly some of the issues relating to the effectiveness of such interventions (Latessa, 2005). Depending upon the scores received by various juvenile clients when classified, they may or may not be assigned to ISP or to a community-based program. Theoretically, youthful offenders who are considered to be dangerous and violent are poor candidates for inclusion, because it is predicted that they might harm themselves or others. By contrast, those considered as not dangerous would be predicted to be good candidates for the program. However, assessment instrumentation does not always discriminate effectively.

JISP programs for juveniles have been developed and are currently operating in most jurisdictions. Many of these JISP programs are operated on a county basis rather than on a statewide basis. Thus, it is difficult to find a state jurisdiction with a uniform policy and program information about JISPs that apply to all local agencies within that state.

Similar to their adult ISP program counterparts, JISP programs are designed for secure incarceration-bound youth and are considered to be alternatives to incarceration. JISP programs are different from other forms of standard probation in terms of the amount of officer–client contact during the course of the probationary period. For example, standard probation typically is considered to be no more than two face-to-face officer–client contacts per month. JISP programs might differ from standard probation according to the following face-to-face criteria: (1) two or three times per week versus once per month, (2) once per week versus twice per month, or (3) four times per week versus once per week.

Various services are included in JISP programs. Typically, POs act as brokers in identifying treatment options for offenders in different jurisdictions. These may include (1) mental health counseling; (2) drug and alcohol counseling; (3) academic achievement and aptitude testing; (4) vocational and employment training; (5) individual, group, and family counseling; (6) job search and placement programs; (7) alternative education programs; (8) foster grandparents programs; and (9) Big Brother/Big Sister programs. Even though not all JISP programs are identical, many share certain similarities. These include (1) recognition of the shortcomings of traditional responses to serious and/or chronic offenders (e.g., secure confinement or out-of-home placement), (2) severe resource constraints within jurisdictions that compel probation departments to adopt agency-wide classification and workload deployment systems for targeting a disproportionate share of resources for the most problematic juvenile offenders, (3) commitment to reduce the incidence of incarceration in juvenile secure confinement facilities and prevent overcrowding, (4) aggressive supervision and control as part of the get-tough movement, and (5) an interest in the rehabilitation of youthful offenders (Armstrong, 1991).

From reviewing the content of traditional ISPs, the following are basic characteristics of ISP programs:

1. Low client caseloads (i.e., 30 or fewer probationers).

2. High levels of offender accountability (e.g., victim restitution, community service, payment of fines, or partial defrayment of program expenses).

3. High levels of offender responsibility.

4. High levels of offender control (e.g., home confinement, EM, or frequent face-to-face visits by POs).

5. Frequent checks for arrests, drug and/or alcohol use, and employment/school attendance (e.g., drug/alcohol screening and coordination with police departments and juvenile facilities, teachers, family) (Fagan and Reinarman, 1991).

One example of a JISP program operated by a county is that of the Johnson County Department of Corrections in Kansas. Here, the court grants probation for a stipulated period of time, with the specific conditions of each probationer’s supervision listed in the Probation Plan or Conditional Release Contract. Each client must abide by the written rules and regulations of the program, which will be reviewed by the Intensive Supervision Officer (ISO).

There are several levels in the ISP. Listed below are some of the minimum requirements of each:

Level I

1. Thirty days in length.

2. Three face-to-face contacts with the ISO per week.

3. Four random urinalyses/breath analyses per month as directed by the ISO.

4. Twenty hours of community service.

5. Curfew as directed.

Level II

1. Sixty days in length.

2. Two face-to-face contacts with the ISO per week.

3. Three random urinalyses/breath analyses per month as directed by the ISO.

4. Curfew as directed.

Level III

1. Sixty days in length.

2. One face-to-face contact with the ISO per week.

3. Two random urinalyses/breath analyses per month as directed by the ISO.

4. Curfew as directed.

Level IV

1. No specified minimum length.

2. One face-to-face contact with the ISO per week for the first 30 days.

3. One face-to-face contact every other week after a minimum of 30 days.

4. One random urinalysis/breath analysis per month as directed by the ISO.

The curfew is monitored on a random basis, and a face-to-face contact may include:

1. Visits to the probation office.

2. Visits to employment sites.

3. Home visits.

4. Meetings at other designated places.

In addition, the ISOs are required to have frequent contact with individuals who play a significant role in the life of the youth, such as family, friends, treatment providers, and sponsors.

Compliance with the previously stated requirements, and with any other requirements, allows the individual to progress through the ISP (Johnson County Department of Corrections, 2002).

One major advantage of JISP programs is that they are substantially less expensive than the costs of incarcerating juvenile offenders. For instance, the Texas Youth Commission (2005) reports that juvenile incarceration represents the most expensive criminal justice option, averaging $124 as the daily expenditure per juvenile. Alternatively, juvenile probation programs manage youth at the rate of $10.50 per day. Various ISP programs in Texas average $30 per day per juvenile.

Another benefit is that JISP programs generally report lower rates of recidivism compared with standardized probation and other more conventional options. One reason is that JISP clients are more closely monitored and, thus, are given less opportunity to reoffend. Another reason is that prospective clients for JISP programs are more carefully screened. More-serious offenders are usually excluded, which may bolster the success rate of included clients (Gordon and Malmsjo, 2005).

There are also limitations or disadvantages of ISPs. After more than 25 years, there is still no standard definition of what constitutes an ISP (Corbett, 2000). The reality for most JISP programs is that local demands and needs vary among jurisdictions. Thus, the dominant themes of current JISP programs appear to be (1) front-end alternatives to secure confinement, (2) a combination of incarceration with some degree of community supervision (e.g., shock probation), and (3) community supervision following secure confinement.

In an experiment of intensive supervision probation in California, Hennigan et al. (2010) compared an experimental and a control group to determine differences. The experimental group was randomly assigned to intensive supervision probation, and the control group received regular probation supervision and services. Despite some initial success of the ISP youth, the researchers found that one frequent experience of intensive supervision probation is the increased likelihood of being apprehended for a technical violation. This is consistent with more intense monitoring of youth assigned to JISPs. The violation is often followed by a stay in the detention center. Over time, these institutional experiences have an adverse effect on the youth’s future placement options and their perceptions of themselves. In addition, younger, lower-risk youth were more negatively affected than their older, higher-risk counterparts (Hennigan et al., 2010). These findings suggest that it is important to determine the appropriate age group and offense pattern when placing youth on intensive supervision probation. Also, alternative sanctions that are outside of institutional custody should be considered.

At some point, almost all juveniles placed on standard probation or JISP will complete their programs. Those who do not complete them will have other dispositions imposed, such as secure confinement or placement in an alternative setting (e.g., group home, boot camp, or wilderness experience). Judges are responsible for issuing orders terminating an offender’s probation. Typically, POs provide relevant information for the judge’s consideration. This includes a statement that the juvenile has completed all of the terms required by the original probation orders (Figure 11.5). Based on the PO’s recommendation to terminate probation, the juvenile court judge formally grants the request (Figure 11.5).

One strategy for assigning caseloads to POs employed in probation departments is to give smaller caseloads to improve officer–client interpersonal contact. Reduced caseloads for POs arguably intensify their supervision of, as well as the quality of their interaction with, offenders. Some studies have examined different levels of officer–client contact and have compared recidivism rates. PO caseload reductions were mandated by one of the recommendations of the Task Force on Corrections appointed by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 1967 (Sturgeon, 2005).

Case supervision planning may reflect alternative case assignment strategies presently used by different probation departments. The most popular model is the conventional model, which is the random assignment of probationers to POs on the basis of the PO’s present caseload in relation to those of other POs. This is much like the numbers game model, in which the total number of probationers is divided by the total number of POs in a given department, and then each PO is allocated an equal share of the supervisory task. Thus, POs may supervise both dangerous and low-risk probationers.

Another model is the conventional model with geographical considerations which involves assigning probationers who live in a common geographic area to a designated PO. The intent is to reduce the PO’s travel time between clients.

In the specialized caseloads model, offender assignments are made on the basis of client risks and needs and on PO skills and interests in dealing with those offender risks and needs. Some POs may have specialized training and education in psychology or social work or in chemical dependency. Thus, if clients have psychological problems or alcohol or other drug dependencies, it is believed that POs with relevant expertise, skills, and education would be more effective in relating to them (Sturgeon, 2005).

Typically, POs deal with various kinds of offenders on their caseloads. Rather than specializing in working with one type of offender, they are more likely to counsel and supervise youth who were involved in both violent and property offenses as well as youth who were involved in drug and public order offenses. Figure 11.6 demonstrates the percentage of youth placed on probation for each of the four categories of delinquent offending in 1985 and 2007. These data illustrate the diverse types of offenders that can be found in probation caseloads today.

Source: Charles M. Puzzanchera, Benjamin Adams, and Melissa Sickmund (2010). Juvenile Court Statistics 2006-2007. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Some of the problems of JISP have been attributable to different caseload assignment models or to other organizational structures and conflicting organizational goals that interfere with the performance of juvenile PO roles. One solution is the balanced approach (Seyko, 2001).

The balanced approach to juvenile probation is not an entirely punitive or rehabilitative formulation. Rather, it is a broad-based, constructive approach. It operates on the assumption that decision making must take into consideration the interests of all involved parties in the juvenile justice process, including offenders, victims, and the community. No participant should benefit at the expense of another party; instead, a balance should be attained. The balanced approach, therefore, simultaneously emphasizes community protection, offender accountability, and individualized competency assessment and development (Abatiello, 2005).

The balanced approach requires community leaders and juvenile justice system professionals to consider their juvenile codes and determine whether a balance exists between offender needs and community interests (Seyko, 2001). Punitive provisions of these codes should address the needs of both victims and juvenile offenders to the extent that restitution and victim compensation improve an offender’s accountability and acceptance of responsibility. The fairness of the juvenile justice system should be assessed by key community leaders, and a mission statement should be drafted that has the support of diverse community organizations. Training programs can be created through coordination of chief POs in different jurisdictions, where offender needs may be targeted and addressed. All facets of the community and the juvenile justice process should be involved. The high level of community involvement will help to ensure a positive juvenile probation program that will maximize a youth’s rehabilitative benefits (Ayers-Schlosser, 2005).

Some ISP programs may fail because they neglect to address problems suggested by the balanced approach. There are a number of reasons why case supervision planning can be unsuccessful:

1. Purpose: The purposes of case supervision planning have not been thought out carefully.

2. Perceptual differences: Offenders often change only when they find it necessary to change, not because professionals want them to change.

3. Resistance: Professionals do not always recognize that resistance to change is normal. Sometimes, POs prematurely shift emphasis to an enforcement orientation and rules of probation. Case planning starts to look more like the probation order whenever this occurs.

4. Expectation: Desired change is sought too quickly. Professionals sometimes expect too much from offenders or expect unrealistic changes to be made.

5. Focus: There is a tendency to focus on less serious problems to gain “success.”

6. Involvement: Professionals may fail to involve offenders in the case-planning process.

7. Stereotyping: Case supervision planning is equated with treatment and rehabilitation. Thus, it is often rejected without an adequate consideration of its strengths.

8. Getting too close: Sometimes, POs are perceived as getting too close to offenders.

9. Perceptions of accountability: Nonspecific case plans may preclude criticism of professionals by supervisors.

10. Use of resources: There is tendency to exhaust community resources by referring involuntary offenders, those who are not ready to work on their problems.

11. Measurement: Probation successes or failures are not measured according to the designated case plan but, rather, according to arrests, convictions, or numbers of technical violations.

12. Management: There is a general lack of understanding or support for case supervision planning by management. POs are considered to be exclusively officers of the court, and judges do not expect offenders to change because of officer “treatments,” only that someone shares the accountability whenever offenders commit new crimes or violate one or more of their probationary conditions.

13. Training: Staff members have not been adequately trained in the development, implementation, and evaluation of case plans. (Ellsworth, 1988, pp. 29–30)

The principles of JISP programs are sound. However, implementation problems, resource limitations, or organizational structure may hinder their success in various jurisdictions. Juvenile probation services should attempt to coordinate their programs and align their departmental performance objectives with those of community-based agencies that are a part of the referral network of services and treatments to maximize goal attainment. Consistent with the balanced approach to managing offenders, it has been recommended that for ISP programs to maximize their effectiveness, they should be individualized to a high degree so that a balance of punishment/deterrence and rehabilitation/community protection may be attained (Ayers-Schlosser, 2005). Public safety is one goal of any community-based program responsible for serious and violent juvenile offenders (Kennedy, 2005). At the same time, accountability to victims and the community must be considered. In the next section, some ISP programs that are viewed as community-based alternatives, in contrast with state operated or locally operated public programs, will be examined.

Community-based corrections agencies and organizations have a long-standing tradition in juvenile justice and adult corrections. Originally, they attempted to alleviate prison and jail overcrowding by establishing community-based organizations that could accommodate some prison-bound offenders. However, corrections officials soon realized not only that the potential of such programs for offender rehabilitation and reintegration was great but that juveniles as well as adult offenders could benefit from them. Many states subsequently enacted community corrections acts (CCAs) aimed at funding local governments to create community facilities that could provide services and other resources to juveniles (Clear and Dammer, 2003).

The overall objective of community corrections agencies is to develop and deliver front-end solutions and alternative sanctions in lieu of state incarceration (Burrell, 2005). In 1984, the American Correctional Association (ACA) Task Force on Community Corrections Legislation recommended that CCAs should not target violent offenders. Rather, states should be selective about who meets their program requirements. It was suggested that (1) states should continue to house violent juvenile offenders in secure facilities, (2) judges and prosecutors should continue to explore various punishment options in lieu of incarceration, and (3) local communities should develop programs with additional funding from state appropriations (Huskey, 1984, p. 45). The ACA Task Force also identified the following elements as essential to the success of any CCA:

1. There should be restrictions on funding high-cost capital projects as well as conventional probation services.

2. Local communities should participate on a voluntary basis and may withdraw at any time.

3. Advisory boards should submit annual criminal justice plans to local governments.

4. There should be a logical formula in place for allocating community corrections funds.

5. Incarceration-bound juveniles should be targeted, rather than adding additional punishments for those who otherwise would remain in their communities (in short, avoid “net-widening”).

6. Financial subsidies should be provided to local government and community-based corrections agencies.

7. Local advisory boards in each community should function to assess program needs and effectiveness, to propose improvements in the local juvenile justice system, and to educate the general public about the benefits of intermediate punishments.

8. A performance factor should be implemented to ensure that funds are used to achieve specific goals of the act.

One example of a contemporary CCA is the Shawnee County, Kansas, community corrections program (Shawnee County Department of Community Corrections, 2002). During the period from 1996 to 1997, juvenile offender services were transferred from the Kansas Department of Corrections to the Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority (JJA). The JJA is the cabinet-level agency that has jurisdiction over youth as young as age 10 and can retain supervision until a youth reaches age 23 (Kansas JJJA, 2010). The JJA oversees prevention programs, community-based sanctions, and juvenile institutions.

One original purpose of the Kansas CCA was to divert prison-bound offenders from institutions to community-based intermediate sanction programs. In 2002, the Department of Community Corrections supervised chronic or violent offenders within the community. Effective community-based programming involves intensive supervision of these clients, together with solution-focused case-management services that assist offenders in becoming productive members of society. When Shawnee County Community Corrections was established, it was one of three units within the Shawnee County Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections included the jail, the juvenile detention center, and community corrections. In 2000, community corrections became a separate department.

The juvenile community corrections program is a state and local partnership. It is designed to (1) promote public safety, (2) hold juvenile offenders accountable for their behavior, and (3) improve the ability of youth to live productively and responsibly in their communities (Shawnee County Department of Community Corrections, n.d.). In this respect, the juvenile program reflects the basic elements of the balanced approach.

The juvenile community corrections program strives to attain these stipulated goals in various ways. For example, the program promotes public safety by ensuring that manageable caseloads are maintained, allowing staff to closely supervise offenders in the community. For the goal of enforcing court-ordered sanctions, supervision plans are devised that meet the requirements of the court and provide structure. These are designed to improve the offender’s ability to successfully complete the terms of his or her probation program. To restore losses to crime victims, payment of restitution by offenders is monitored, including the collection of court costs and supervision of community service work. Finally, the program assists offenders in changing their behavior. Offender participation in services provided by community corrections or community programs is enforced through close supervision to ensure compliance. Services include drug treatment, job search and maintenance skills, literacy enhancement, and life skills.

Several supervisory options are available, depending on the juvenile offender’s needs. For example, a JISP program includes intensive monitoring and provides an intermediate sanction between standard probation and placement in a juvenile correctional facility for adjudicated juvenile offenders. The juvenile offender community case-management program consists of services provided for juvenile offenders who have been placed by the court in the care and custody of the JJA. The court may order out-of-home placement for certain juvenile offenders after all other reasonable efforts have been made to address the problems that caused their illegal behavior. Case-management services are provided to assist juveniles and their caregivers in finding resources that will meet their needs. Finally, the juvenile conditional release supervision program provides monitoring of juveniles who have been released from one of four JJA-operated juvenile correctional facilities and returned to the community. Community corrections officers monitor these juveniles so they comply with the conditions of their release. These officers also assist juveniles in accomplishing their aftercare plans.

The juvenile justice process in Shawnee County includes:

Arrest

1. Juvenile Detention Center (if danger to self or others during court process)

2. Adjudication (court determines if juvenile committed the offense; juvenile is adjudicated a delinquent offender)

Sentencing Alternatives

1. Place juvenile offender in parent’s custody (to follow terms and conditions of the court, including making restitution).

2. Place juvenile offender on probation through court services for a fixed period (to follow terms and conditions of the court, including making restitution).

3. Place juvenile offender on ISP for a fixed period through community corrections (to follow terms and conditions of the court, including making restitution; report to the ISO as required; submit to drug screens; use no alcohol or illegal drugs; follow mental health or drug treatment plan; perform community service work—20 hours; attend school; employment, if not enrolled in school; no firearms; other conditions as ordered by the court).

4. Place juvenile offender in custody of JJA (case management through community corrections) once reasonable efforts have been met for juveniles requiring more services (supervision plan may include similar items as ISP and may require placement out of the home).

5. Commit juvenile offender to a juvenile correctional facility (incarceration).

6. Conditional release supervision (follow conditional release requirements; similar requirements as outlined under ISP).

On any given day in Topeka and the Shawnee area, about 465 juvenile misdemeanors or felony offenders on probation are supervised by court services. Approximately 35 juvenile misdemeanors or felony offenders are on ISP, while 90 juvenile misdemeanors or felony offenders are on community case-management supervision. About 15 juvenile offenders are on conditional release and are supervised by community corrections, while 40 juvenile offenders are in a state juvenile correctional facility supervised by community corrections for reintegration planning. Overall, about 645 juveniles from Shawnee County are on some type of supervision for a criminal offense on any given day.

In the following sections, two intermediate punishments that are utilized for adult and juvenile offenders are examined. These include (1) EM and (2) home confinement.

Electronic monitoring (EM), or tagging, is the use of electronic devices to verify that an offender is at a particular location during specified times. EM is also a system of home confinement aimed at monitoring, controlling, and modifying the behavior of offenders.

In EM, the offender wears an electronic bracelet/anklet or other electronic device in accordance with conditions set by the courts. The tagged person is monitored by computer 24 hours a day and is supervised by a private company or a combination of a company and the criminal justice authority, usually a probation department. The person must remain in the home under surveillance, unless authorized to leave for employment, school, participation in community treatment programs, or similar activities.

EM tends to be used for less-serious, nonviolent offenders who are identified by a risk formula. For juvenile offenders, EM enables them to remain in the community rather than in secure custody. In 2011, the American Bar Association passed a resolution endorsing the use of EM rather than detention for youth at government expense (American Bar Association, 2011).

Usually, juveniles are ordered to be electronically monitored for a specified period. The period varies by jurisdiction, anywhere from 30 to 120 days. When a youth is placed on EM, he or she and the parent have to agree to the terms.

EM devices were first used in 1964 as an alternative to incarceration. Subsequently, EM was extended to include monitoring office work, employee testing for security clearances, and many other applications. Other countries also employ EM. For instance, England and Germany use EM for managing certain adult and youthful offenders.

Second Judicial District Judge Jack Love of New Mexico is credited with implementing a pilot EM project in 1983 for persons convicted of drunk driving and certain white-collar offenses, such as embezzlement (Houk, 1984). Subsequent to its use for probationers, the New Mexico State Supreme Court approved the program, because it required the voluntariness and consent of probationers as a condition of their probation programs. Judge Love directed certain probationers to wear anklets or bracelets that emitted electronic signals that could be intercepted by their POs, who conducted surveillance operations. After a short period of such judicial experimentation, other jurisdictions conducted their own experiments for offender monitoring with electronic devices. Eventually, electronic devices were being used for probationers and parolees and some inmates in jails and prisons.

Accurate statistical information about the extent and use of EM in the United States for either juveniles or adults is difficult to obtain. Most of this information is based on estimated rather than actual usage. Some of this information is derived from sales figures reported by firms that manufacture EM equipment. The number of electronically monitored clients fluctuates daily, and there are variations in length of time clients spend being monitored. However, the amount of time on EM averages about 12 to 15 weeks (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2007).

Surveys that seek accurate information about EM usage throughout the United States only obtain such information from about 25 percent of the jurisdictions canvassed (Seiter and West, 2003). After considering all of these limitations, however, virtually every report about EM shows that its frequency is increasing annually. For instance, in 1997, a report was issued showing that “31,236 probationers and parolees were being electronically monitored” (Schmidt, 1998, p. 11). In 1998, over 95,000 clients were being electronically monitored. By 2004, more than 150,000 persons were on EM and/or house arrest (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2007). Over 28,000 youth were involved in EM programs by 2007 (American Correctional Association, 2007).

There are at least four types of electronic monitoring (EM) signaling devices. These include (1) continuous-signal devices, (2) a programmed contact devices, (3) cellular devices, and (4) continuous-signaling transmitters.

The first type, the continuous-signal device, consists of a miniature transmitter that is strapped to the probationer’s wrist. The transmitter broadcasts an encoded signal that is received by a receiver-dialer in the offender’s home. The signal is relayed to a central receiver over the telephone lines.

The second type of monitor is the programmed contact device, which is similar to the continuous-signal device. However, in this case, a central computer from the probation office is programmed to call the offender’s home at random hours to verify the probationer’s whereabouts. Offenders must answer their telephones and insert the wristlet transmitter into the telephone device. Their voices and signal emissions are verified by computer (Cadigan, 2001).

The third type of monitor is a cellular device. This is a transmitter worn by offenders and emits a radio signal that is received by a local area monitoring system. Up to 25 probationers can be monitored simultaneously with such a system.

The fourth type of monitor is the continuous-signaling transmitter that is worn by the offender. Like the continuous-signal device, this type also sends out continuous signals, but these may be intercepted by portable receiving units in the possession of POs. These are quite popular because POs may conduct drive-bys and verify whether offenders are at home during curfew hours.

These various wristlet or anklet transmitters are certainly not tamperproof. They are similar in plastic construction to the wristlet ID tags given patients at the time of hospital admissions. However, these electronic devices are somewhat sturdier. In addition, it is easy to determine whether the device has been tampered with (e.g., stretched, burned, or mutilated), because it is impossible to reattach without special equipment in the possession of the probation department. If tampering has occurred and probationers have attempted to defeat the intent of the device, they may be subject to probation revocation which may result in incarceration.

The offenders placed on EM are selected because of their low likelihood of reoffending and the fact that their crimes are less serious, usually property offenses. Thus, a certain amount of “creaming”, in which those most likely to succeed are selected. This is one reason why EM exhibits low recidivism rates among its participants in numerous jurisdictions.

In recent years, however, EM has been extended to include more violent juvenile offenders, such as violent juvenile parolees (Kubena, 2008). One reason may be that juvenile correctional facilities are overcrowded; another might be related to the assumption that closer supervision after release from an institution will preclude further offending. Because the public is concerned about community safety, greater use of EM equipment for such offenders enables professionals to verify the offender’s location and exert appropriate surveillance and control.

When the alternative to EM is incarceration, most offenders—juveniles or adults—prefer EM to secure confinement. However, there are significant punitive dimensions of EM, including both physical and psychological. Probationers are required to be in a particular place at a designated time, and computer checks of whereabouts are frequent enough to cause stress for some clients. Being confined to the youth’s house as a sanction is more serious than it sounds. Many electronically monitored clients point out that the EM program is in many ways equivalent to a jail sentence and that it is a punitive sanction (Gainey and Payne, 2003).

Some jurisdictions, such as the Dane County Sheriff’s Office in Wisconsin, have implemented a SpeakerID Program (Listug, 1996). SpeakerID is a voice verification monitoring system allowing law enforcement and criminal justice agencies to monitor low-risk offenders under probation or house arrest. Implemented in October 1994, the SpeakerID program is an automated system that calls clients at their authorized locations at random times. When offenders answer their telephones, they are asked specific questions. Voice matches are verified perfectly. Thus, there is little likelihood that the offender can deceive the system with a previously recorded tape or some other device.

Prior to using SpeakerID, the Dane County Sheriff’s Office used traditional ankle bracelets and wristlets. In 1996, there were between 30 and 35 offenders participating in this system. Because of the automated nature of the system, SpeakerID is cost-effective. Apart from initial start-up costs, the SpeakerID system costs about $3 per day per monitored offender. This compares favorably with jail and prison costs of $40 and $49 per prisoner per day, respectively, in Wisconsin.

Some limitations of EM programs are that they are expensive to implement initially. The direct costs associated with their purchase or lease are seemingly prohibitive to local jurisdictions that are used to incarcerating juveniles and defraying their maintenance costs over an extended period. However, once a given jurisdiction has installed such equipment, it functions to reduce overall incarceration expenses that otherwise would have been incurred had these same youth been placed in secure confinement. The average cost of using this equipment in different probation and parole departments ranges from $5 to $25 per day, depending upon the intensity of the surveillance by POs. This is much less than the cost of maintaining a juvenile or adult under some type of residential custody per day.

In addition, EM programs require training on the part of the users. The costs and time associated with the training affect willingness of some jurisdictions to utilize the technology. EM is a delinquency deterrent for offenders. However, it is not foolproof. In spite of the fact that they may be easily tampered with, electronic wristlets and anklets only help to verify an offender’s whereabouts. They do not provide television images of the activities probationers may be engaging in at the time.

EM has also been criticized as possibly violating the Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure provision, where electronic eavesdropping might be conducted within the home or bedroom. This argument seems to be without constitutional merit, because the primary function of such monitoring is to verify an offender’s whereabouts. In addition, it is considered to be voluntary to the extent that the offender could go to an institution in lieu of monitoring (Figure 11.7). Some sophisticated types of monitoring systems are equipped with closed-circuit television transmissions. However, even if such monitoring were so equipped, this additional feature would only intrude where offenders wished it to intrude, such as their living rooms or kitchens.

Despite these criticisms, the fact is that offenders may be inexpensively tracked through these monitoring systems and their whereabouts can be verified without face-to-face checks. For instance, a single juvenile PO may conduct drive-bys of client residences during evening hours and receive their transmitted signals with a portable unit. This silent means of detection is intended only to enforce one program element—namely, observance of curfews. Other checks, such as those conducted for illegal drug or alcohol use, must be verified directly, through proper testing and expert confirmation. EM is increasingly used in tandem with another sentencing option—home confinement.

In summary, proponents of EM report that it (1) assists offenders in avoiding the criminogenic atmosphere of prisons or jails and helps reintegrate them into their communities, (2) permits offenders to retain jobs and support families, (3) assists POs in their monitoring activities and has the potential for easing their caseload responsibilities, (4) gives judges and other officials considerable flexibility in sentencing offenders, (5) has the potential of reducing recidivism rates more than existing probationary alternatives, (6) is potentially useful for decreasing jail and prison populations, (7) is more cost-effective in relation to incarceration, and (8) allows for pretrial release monitoring as well as for special treatment cases, such as substance abusers, the mentally retarded, women who are pregnant, and juveniles.

Opponents of EM contend that (1) the potential exists for race, ethnic, or socioeconomic bias by requiring offenders to have telephones or to pay for expensive monitoring equipment and/or fees; (2) public safety may be compromised through the failure of these programs to guarantee that offenders will not endanger citizens by committing new offenses while free in the community; (3) the technology may be too coercive, and it may be unrealistic for officials to expect full offender compliance with such a stringent system; (4) lack of consistent information exists about the impact of EM on recidivism rates compared with other probationary alternatives; (5) persons frequently selected for participation are those who probably do not need to be monitored anyway; (6) technological problems exist, making EM somewhat unreliable; (7) it may result in net-widening by being prescribed for offenders who otherwise would receive less costly standard probation; (8) it raises right to privacy, civil liberties, and other constitutional issues, such as Fourth Amendment search and seizure concerns; (9) much of the public interprets this option as being lenient with offenders and perceives EM as a nonpunitive alternative; and (10) the costs of EM may be more than estimated. Typically, a supervision fee requirement also is imposed by jurisdictions (Figure 11.8). These fees are intended to offset the costs of EM and other ancillary expenses.

As identified above, issues regarding the use of EM continue to raise concerns, including the effectiveness of the technology for monitoring youth. For example, the traditional EM units generally send signals when barriers have been breached. Newer Global Positioning System (GPS) devices, however, permit almost 24/7 monitoring, with real-time updates and tracking that provides location history for the released juvenile offenders (Walker, 2011). The GPS technology uses tracking units that maintain surveillance by satellite-based navigation and are monitored by computer software that automatically reviews the data (Garmin Ltd., 2011). The GPS tracking devices are widely used across the United States to monitor various offenders, including sex offenders and other high-profile offenders. In Yakima County, Washington, juveniles who are released on GPS surveillance save taxpayers approximately $160 a day that it would cost to confine them in the Yakima County Juvenile Detention Center (Walker, 2011). The daily cost for GPS bracelets and monitoring is $5.50, and the real-time tracking helps ensure compliance. In Multnomah County, Oregon, GPS tracking has also been used with juvenile gang members (Hannah-Jones, 2010).

As with EM, concerns have been raised about the rights of youth being monitored with GPS devices. Since the system is 24/7, authorities know the whereabouts of youth all the time, and this could violate their Fourth Amendment search rights (Hannah-Jones, 2010). Because this technology continues to provide greater surveillance capabilities, a balance between public safety and personal rights will be significant. This was demonstrated in 2011, when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a case involving police use of GPS tracking to monitor a suspect after the warrant had expired (Turley, 2011). The case, Jones v. United States (2011), underscores the potential for real-time/all time monitoring of an unlimited number of citizens.

The use of an offender’s home as the principal place of confinement is not new. In biblical times, Saint Paul was sentenced in Rome to house arrest for two years, where he performed tent-maker services for others. Home confinement is a program of intermediate punishment involving the use of the offender’s residence for mandatory incarceration during evening hours, after a curfew, and on weekends (Cadigan, 2001). In many jurisdictions, home confinement is used with EM.

Florida introduced the contemporary use of home confinement under the Correctional Reform Act of 1983, which provided that the home could be used as a form of intensive supervised custody in the community (Boone, 1996). At that time, corrections officials considered home incarceration to be an acceptable alternative to prisons or jails for certain low-risk offenders. Home confinement was seen as an inexpensive way of maintaining supervisory control over offenders who were judged not to be in need of costly incarceration. When Florida started to use home confinement in lieu of incarceration in institutions, prison costs averaged $30 per inmate per day, while home confinement required an expenditure of about $3 per offender per day. In the late 1990s, prison maintenance costs per prisoner were in excess of $75 per day in most jurisdictions, while home confinement costs had stabilized at about $5 per offender per day (Tonry, 1997). Today this program is intended primarily to restrict offender movement within the community together with specific sanctions, such as curfew, payment of fines, community service, and other requirements.

The functions and goals of home confinement programs include:

1. To continue the offender’s punishment while permitting the offender to live in his or her dwelling under general or close supervision.

2. To enable offenders to perform jobs in their communities to support themselves and their families.

3. To reduce jail and prison overcrowding.

4. To maximize public safety by ensuring that only the most qualified clients enter home confinement programs and are properly supervised.

5. To reduce the costs of offender supervision.

6. To promote rehabilitation and reintegration by permitting offenders to live under appropriate supervision within their communities.

Relatively little is known about the extent to which home confinement is used as a sentencing alternative for juvenile offenders. Because probation is widely used as the sanction of choice except for the most chronic recidivists, home confinement is most often applied as an accompanying condition of EM. However, this disposition may be redundant, since curfew for juvenile offenders means home confinement anyway, especially during evening hours. As a day disposition, home confinement for juveniles would probably be counterproductive; juveniles are often required to attend school as a condition of probation. Again, because school hours are during the day, it would not be appropriate to deprive juveniles of school opportunities through some type of home confinement.

Home confinement is also useful for offenders who may be drug or alcohol dependent. POs can visit the homes of drug-dependent clients and perform instant checks to determine whether they recently used alcohol or drugs. While access to drugs or alcohol is relatively easy when a client is confined to his or her home, the threat of a random drug/alcohol test by a PO is often a sufficient deterrent. Needs assessments for certain offenders can determine which services they require, and they may be able to seek these services with probation department approval.

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of home confinement were addressed at length as issues concerning home confinement when EM is also used. Briefly, the advantages to home confinement include (1) it is cost-effective, (2) it has social benefits, (3) it is responsive to local citizen and offender needs, (4) it is easily implemented, and (5) it is timely in view of jail and prison overcrowding. Some of the disadvantages of home confinement are (1) it may actually widen the net of social control, (2) it may be viewed by the public as not being a sufficiently severe sentence, (3) it focuses primarily upon offender surveillance, (4) it is intrusive and possibly unconstitutional, (5) race and class bias may enter into participant selection, and (6) it may compromise public safety.

Briefly reviewing judicial dispositional options, at one end of the sentencing spectrum, judges may adjudicate youth as delinquent, impose nominal sanctions, and take no further action other than to record the event. If the juvenile reappears before the same judge in the future, however, additional measures may be taken when the judge imposes a new disposition. Alternatively, the judge may divert juveniles to designated community agencies for special treatment. Juveniles with psychological problems, sex offenders, or those with drug and/or alcohol dependencies may be referred for special community treatments. At the other end of the spectrum of punishments are the more-serious, out-of-home sanctions, ranging from the placement of juveniles in nonsecure foster homes and camps or ranches or in secure facilities, such as detention centers, reform schools, and other residential facilities. The nonsecure placements are intended for youth who are involved in relatively minor offending and who are in need of a temporary placement where there is more supervision and treatment than in their own homes. The secure placements are usually reserved for the more-serious juvenile offenders.

In many jurisdictions, a PO assigned to a juvenile’s case will conduct a home evaluation before judicial actions such as EM, home confinement, or other alternative sanctions are imposed. In most counties, POs conduct home evaluations and report the results of these evaluations to juvenile court judges, who then make a more informed decision about the most appropriate disposition to impose. As shown in Figure 11.9, a home evaluation or social history summary contains valuable information about the neighborhood, neighbors, gang presence (if any), family status, legal history of the family, proposed plan for the juvenile, and information that the investigating PO determines to be relevant.

Also helpful in juvenile court judge decision making are regular monthly reports filed by POs in different jurisdictions that outline the sociodemographic characteristics of youth under supervision, their numbers, number of terminations, transfers, commitments, court-ordered fines and their payment or nonpayment, and other factors. In some instances, psychological evaluations are also ordered. Juveniles may have been ordered to boot camps, to counseling, or to participation in youth clubs or other activities. Regular documentation of referrals and other relevant placement data enable judges to determine whether their dispositional orders are effective or in need of modification.

As mentioned, probation is the most commonly used sentencing option. Probation is either unconditional or conditional. This chapter has examined several conditional intermediate punishments, including IPS and community-based programs. A youth’s assignment to any of these programs may or may not include conditions. Separately from the more intensive monitoring and supervision by POs, juveniles may be expected to comply with one or more conditions, including restitution, if financial loss was suffered by one or more victims in cases of vandalism, property damage, or physical injury. In addition, fines may be imposed, or the judge may specify some form of community service. These conditions may be an integral part of a juvenile’s probation program. Violation of or failure to comply with one or more of these conditions may result in a probation revocation action. POs function as the link between juvenile offenders and the courts regarding compliance with these program conditions.

Increasingly, restitution is a feature of probation programs. Several models of restitution include:

1. The financial/community service model, which stresses the offender’s financial accountability and community service to pay for damages.

2. The victim/offender mediation model, which focuses on victim–offender reconciliation.

3. The victim/reparations model, in which juveniles compensate their victims directly for their offenses.

The potential significance of restitution, coupled with probation, is that it may reduce recidivism among juvenile offenders. Restitution orders impact juveniles directly, and having to repay someone for damages caused can result in youth awareness and sensitivity to the actual damages inflicted. This strategy may be rehabilitative for some offenders.

Beyond reductions in recidivism, payment of fines and victim compensation, similar to restitution, also increase offender accountability. In context of the philosophical direction of juvenile courts, this condition is consistent with enhancing youth acceptance of responsibility for acts committed against others and the financial harm that youth may have caused. Some of these programs include restitution as a part of the program requirements. Restitution orders may be imposed by juvenile court judges with or without accompanying dispositions of secure confinement.

There is growing interest in programs for juvenile offenders that increase accountability, especially toward their victims. Since 1980, there has been greater awareness of and interest in victim–offender mediation as a means of resolving disputes between the juvenile perpetrator and his or her victim. Victim–offender mediation brings together victims, offenders, and other members of the community to hold offenders accountable not only for their crimes but for the harm they caused to victims (Sinclair, 2005). These programs provide an opportunity for crime victims and offenders to meet face-to-face to talk about the impact of the crime on their lives and to develop a plan for repairing the harm. Most of these programs work with juvenile offenders, although a growing number are involving adult offenders (Gregorie, 2005).

Also known as restorative justice or balanced and restorative justice, victim–offender mediation is prevalent in various countries. In 2004, there were over 1,500 programs in 22 countries (Lightfoot and Umbreit, 2004). In 2005, there were 700 victim–offender mediation programs in the United States alone. One unique feature of such programs is that they are dialogue-driven rather than settlement-driven. While not all victims are satisfied with the outcomes of such programs, most report that they are content to have had the opportunity to share their experiences with the offender. Many juveniles report being surprised at learning about the impact their actions had on the victims they confront.

Associated with restitution orders is community service. Community service may be performed in different ways, ranging from cutting courthouse lawns and cleaning up public parks to painting homes for the elderly or repairing fences on private farms. Youth typically earn wages for this service, and these wages are usually donated to a victim compensation fund. The different types of community service activities are limited only by the imagination of the juvenile court and community leaders. Similar to restitution, community service orders are intended to increase offender accountability and individual responsibility (Sinclair, 2005).

Probation is a conditional, community-based sanction where probationers are supervised by juvenile POs for designated periods of time. It is the punishment most often imposed by juvenile court judges. Standard probation includes conditions such as reporting to POs in person at regular times and submitting written reports, obeying all laws, observing curfew, attending school, avoiding alcohol and drugs, not frequenting places where delinquent juveniles may be present or having any association with them, seeking counseling if directed by the court, not possessing firearms or any dangerous weapons, and participating in designated programs required by juvenile court judges. Probation is intended to be rehabilitative and reintegrative. Heightened accountability is also emphasized, including restitution requirements and community service. The success of any probation program is most often evaluated by recidivism rates. Risk and needs assessments are often used to determine individual offender needs and prescribe specific treatments to improve the youth’s chances of remaining delinquency-free.

A broad class of intermediate punishments for juveniles has been identified. Intermediate sanctions include any dispositions that can be imposed between standard probation and secure confinement. Also known as creative sentencing, intermediate punishments have several goals, such as providing less costly sanctions compared with secure confinement; achieving lower recidivism rates compared with standard probation programs; providing a greater range of community services for juvenile clients; minimizing the adverse effects of labeling by reducing contact with the juvenile justice system; improving personal educational and vocational skills, which help to improve self-concept; and encouraging greater acceptance of responsibility.

JISP programs are also used and include EM, house arrest, and other interventions. Eligibility standards for entry into JISPs are strict. JISP effectiveness depends on factors that heighten offender accountability by increasing offender responsibility and promoting greater offender control through more frequent curfew checks, drug and alcohol testing, school visits, and employment checks.

Overall, JISPs are more expensive than standard probation programs. More successful JISPs emphasize a balanced approach, which is based on achieving three fundamental goals: (1) improving community protection through close offender surveillance and supervision, (2) using activities and engaging youth in programs that increase their accountability and awareness of the victim, and (3) individualizing treatments and services delivered to juveniles.

Several caseload assignment models were described, and each community has evolved different community-based programs based on the nature and types of juvenile offenders. The goals of many community-based programs are to promote public safety, hold youth accountable for their behavior, and improve their ability to live productively in the community by providing educational, vocational, and counseling services. The balanced approach is apparent in these programs.

EM programs are used to monitor offender whereabouts. Precise numbers of youth on EM are difficult to determine because of disparate techniques of record-keeping. The benefits, weaknesses, and strengths of EM were described. Home confinement or house arrest was also explained. The goals of home confinement are to enable offenders to remain in their communities and attend school or jobs at regular times, reduce the cost of offender supervision, promote rehabilitation and reintegration, reduce jail and prison overcrowding, and maximize public safety by using the home as a place of confinement where compliance can be strictly enforced.

Other JISP conditions were also described. These include restitution, fines, victim compensation, victim–offender mediation, and alternative dispute resolution. The success of these programs was discussed.

· standard probation, 391

· unconditional probation, 392

· conditional probation, 392

· unconditional standard probation, 392

· special conditions of probation, 392

· juvenile probation camps, 396

· Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), 396

· Sexual Offender Treatment (SOT) Program, 396

· recidivism rate, 398

· intensive supervised probation, 398

· recidivists, 398

· recidivism, 398

· intensive supervision program (ISP), 402

· intensive probation supervision (IPS), 402

· creative sentencing, 403

· juvenile intensive supervised probation (JISP), 403

· caseloads, 408

· case supervision planning, 409

· conventional model, 409

· numbers game model, 410

· conventional model with geographical considerations, 410

· specialized caseloads model, 410

· balanced approach, 410

· community corrections acts (CCAs), 412

· American Correctional Association (ACA), 412

· electronic monitoring (EM), 415

· tagging, 415

· EM signaling devices, 416

· SpeakerID Program, 418

· house arrest, 422

· home confinement, 422

· home incarceration, 422

· restitution, 426

· fines, 426

· victim compensation, 426

· victim–offender mediation, 426

· community service, 427

Annie E. Casey Foundation