Juvenile Probation Officer Decision-Making in a Reforming State: Assessing the Application of Evidence-Based Principles

Miller, Joel; Palmer, Krissinda

doi:10.1177/0093854820925112

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although jurisdictions across the United States are reforming their juvenile justice systems to become more developmentally appropriate (Esthappan, Lacoe, Zweig, & Young, 2020; Miller & Palmer, 2020; Schwartz, 2018) particularly in light of the fact that juvenile justice system programs and procedures are enormously expensive (Labrecque, Schweitzer, & Mattick, 2018; Petteruti, Walsh, Velazquez, & Walsh, 2009; Steinberg, 2017), there is still much work to do. Findings from the multisite and multiyear Crossroads study are important for guiding decisions surrounding future policies and practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossroads in juvenile justice: The impact of initial processing decision on youth 5 years after first arrest

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study advances past research by studying the impact of juvenile justice decision making with a geographically and ethnically diverse sample (N = 1,216) of adolescent boys (ages 13–17 years) for the 5 years following their first arrest. Importantly, all youth in the study were arrested for an eligible offense of moderate severity (e.g., assault, theft) to evaluate whether the initial decision to formally (i.e., sentenced before a judge) or informally (i.e., diverted to community service) process the youth led to differences in outcomes. The current study also advanced past research by using a statistical approach that controlled for a host of potential preexisting vulnerabilities that could influence both the processing decision and the youth's outcomes. Our findings indicated that youth who were formally processed during adolescence were more likely to be re-arrested, more likely to be incarcerated, engaged in more violence, reported a greater affiliation with delinquent peers, reported lower school enrollment, were less likely to graduate high school within 5 years, reported less ability to suppress aggression, and had lower perceptions of opportunities than informally processed youth. Importantly, these findings were not moderated by the age of the youth at his first arrest or his race and ethnicity. These results have important implications for juvenile justice policy by indicating that formally processing youth not only is costly, but it can reduce public safety and reduce the adolescent's later potential contributions to society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossroads in juvenile justice: The impact of initial processing decision on youth 5 years after first arrest

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Provided that the intake interviews were informal and not scripted, this naturally opens the door to potential bias, leading questions, or other techniques that might reinforce officers’ perceptions of risk. Indeed, a number of studies indicate compliance with both risk assessment tools and processes varies for both juveniles (see Miller & Maloney, 2013; Miller & Palmer, 2020) and adults (Viglione, 2019). The results of this study indicate that bias in risk assessment and condition selection can have negative consequences for youth if it results in youth being supervised more closely without sufficient justification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Partners or adversaries? The relation between juvenile diversion supervision and parenting practices.

Fine¹,

Rowan²,

Cauffman³

2020

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Based on guiding principles such as parens patriae, juvenile probation officers (JPOs) not only supervise youth, but in certain jurisdictions they also decide how control-oriented their conditions will be. JPOs' perceptions of parenting could be related to their decision making. This study examined: (a) whether JPOs' perceptions of the home were associated with the conditions they placed on youth; (b) if JPOs' perceptions of the home aligned with the youths' perceptions; and (c) if JPOs' control-oriented conditions were associated with changes in parenting practices. Hypotheses: (H1) JPOs' perceptions of the home should be positively related to youths' perceptions of parenting practices. (H2) JPOs' perceptions of the home should be positively associated with the conditions imposed. (H3) JPOs' control-oriented conditions may be positively associated with increased parental supervision, yet they may also be associated with lessened parental supervision. Method: The sample consisted of 265 male youth (mean age ϭ 15.41; 76.6% Latino, 19.25% White, 0.75% Black) who were arrested for the first time and placed on supervised diversion. Results: Latent class analyses indicated that there were three supervision conditions classes: standard, moderate, and high control. JPOs' perceptions of the home did not align with youths' perceptions of parenting practices (e.g., rule setting, curfew setting, and monitoring) yet they were the strongest predictor of receiving the most control-oriented conditions. Surprisingly, parental rule setting, curfew setting, and monitoring declined once youth were placed under supervision, and declines did not differ based on how control-oriented their official conditions were. Conclusions: Parents are thought to be vital in justice-involved youths' success. Yet within this sample, officers' perceptions of the family did not align with youths' perceptions. Further, parental supervision declined equally regardless of how control-oriented youths' supervision conditions were. Parents must be better integrated into the process to enhance the success of youth on community supervision. Public Significance StatementYouth report that their parental supervision declines once they are placed under official supervision, indicating that families may view probation as supplanting or replacing their responsibilities. Officers and parents must work together to ensure youth are adequately supervised and supported, rather than one authority supplanting the other.

show abstract

“…The highest intensity of treatment regimens should be geared towards those that exhibit the highest risks for continued criminal conduct, and people that are assessed as low-risk should receive minimal treatment intervention (Andrews and Dowden 2006; Gendreau, Little, and Goggin 1996). Implementation science has routinely indicated that the risk principle, and other principles of effective correctional intervention, remain difficult for community corrections agencies to effectively put into practice (Miller and Palmer 2020; Viglione, Rudes and Taxman 2015) which can lead to those assessed as low-risk for recidivating receiving intense and high dosages of treatment interventions during the course of community supervision (Barnes et al 2010; Wakeling, Mann and Carter 2012). Empirical evidence has demonstrated that intensive programming geared towards low-risk individuals generally leads to either minimal impacts upon recidivism, or to the production of iatrogenic recidivism effects (Dowden and Andrews 1990a, 1990b, 2000; Gendreau, Little, and Goggin 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recidivism of Low-Risk People That Receive Residential Community-Based Correctional Programs: The Role of Risk Contamination

Ostermann

2022

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Placing low-risk individuals into residential community-based correctional programs often results in minimal or iatrogenic impacts upon recidivism. Contamination through exposure to higher-risk program participants is a mechanism that has been used to explain these effects. This study empirically explores this phenomenon. Methods A series of survival models examine data from low-risk paroled people released from a state’s prisons from 2005 to 2011 (n = 3,862) to assess the impact of residential community-based program participation upon recidivism. The daily rate of exposure to higher-risk people while attending programs is modeled for a subset of program participants (n = 202) to assess impacts upon time to failure within 18-months of program completion. Results Program participation increased the hazards of failure by approximately 66% for low-risk paroled people. Exposure to higher-risk people did not have significant impacts upon recidivism. Conclusions The current study coincides with past work demonstrating that policy makers and practitioners should be mindful of the potential iatrogenic or minimal recidivism effects associated with treating low-risk people through residential community-based programs. The mechanisms by which these effects are produced are in need of further exploration. Particular attention should be paid to whether programs can disrupt pro-social aspects of low-risk peoples’ lives.

show abstract

Juvenile Probation Officer Decision-Making in a Reforming State: Assessing the Application of Evidence-Based Principles

Cited by 11 publications

References 54 publications

Crossroads in juvenile justice: The impact of initial processing decision on youth 5 years after first arrest

Crossroads in juvenile justice: The impact of initial processing decision on youth 5 years after first arrest

Partners or adversaries? The relation between juvenile diversion supervision and parenting practices.

Recidivism of Low-Risk People That Receive Residential Community-Based Correctional Programs: The Role of Risk Contamination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About