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

Abstract

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.

Great Expectations: The Importance of Procedural Justice and Parenting for Perceptions of Success Among Youth on Probation

“…More specifically, results highlight the importance of family member engagement in probation intervention and the need for measurement of family as a risk and/or strength for a youth’s ability to succeed on probation. JPOs often perceive families as their greatest partners in enhancing youth success as youthful probationers are essentially under dual jurisdiction of their parents as well as JPOs (see Fine et al, 2020). Thus, when parents and JPOs are in agreement, youths’ chances of successfully completing probation and not recidivating increase (Vidal & Woolard, 2016).…”

“…Within the context of juvenile probation, youth with lower levels of parental monitoring will likely have a higher risk assessment score and therefore will be subjected to more intensive intervention and more restrictive monitoring by JPOs (Fine et al, 2017). Furthermore, rates of parental monitoring can actually decline during the course of juvenile probation (Fine et al, 2020). This may result in increased youth risk assessment scores, probation oversight, and delinquent behavior.…”

Labeling effects of initial juvenile justice system processing decision on youth interpersonal ties*

“…Although the purest test of labeling processes on peer relations may involve an assessment of justice contact on those labeled compared with those who are not (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989), at each stage of the justice system, some decision points may result in relative impacts of labels. Here, we focus on formal versus informal processing (see Cauffman et al., 2021; Fine et al., 2020). Within the juvenile justice system, officials are afforded the discretion to decide how youth should be processed, even for the same crime and even if their offending history is identical.…”

“…Fine et al. (2020) observed heterogeneity in sanctioning among informally processed youth and noted that although these youth avoid more formal courtroom processing, some youth report intensive (public) supervision and restrictive supervisory conditions by probation that may be similar to the experience of being formally processed. Therefore, informally processed youth also may experience some stigmatization that impacts peer relations.…”

Healthy adolescent development and the juvenile justice system: Challenges and solutions

“…For example, in a study of 13‐year‐olds in Arizona that controlled for actual family‐level risk, probation officers rated Latino families as lacking appropriate parental supervision relative to White families, an attribution that informed harsher youth processing recommendations (Goldman & Rodriguez, 2020). Likewise, in a study of majority‐Latino 13‐ to 17‐year‐olds in California, probationary restrictions undermined rather than augmented existing parental supervision practices (Fine et al, 2020).…”