Predictors of juveniles’ noncompliance with probation requirements.

Abstract

Probation is the most common disposition for adjudicated youth, but little is known about which specific requirements are commonly imposed on juveniles, the requirements with which juveniles most often fail to comply, and how certain youth characteristics and/or imposed requirements might relate to probation noncompliance. An investigation of 120 archived files of youth represented by an urban public defender's office identified 29 probation requirements imposed on youth and 18 requirements with which youth commonly failed to comply. Results revealed that 52% of youth failed to comply with at least one probation requirement; prior probation noncompliance and race were both significantly associated with noncompliance in the examined probation disposition. In addition, the probability of probation noncompliance was significantly higher when youth received either of two substance-related probation requirements: drug tests or drug and alcohol counseling. Such results may prompt further investigation of juvenile probation-related predictors, identify areas of need for clinical service provision to foster successful completion of probation requirements, and help identify areas of potential biases among juvenile court personnel.

A Probation Profanation

“…At the very least, these results indicate that disparities exist in probation outcomes that cannot be explained away with standard risk assessment and administrative variables. This study is therefore consistent with prior research which has similarly found evidence of racial/ethnic differences in the administration and disposition of probation (Gould et al, 2011;Gray et al, 2001;Ho et al, 2014;Johnson & Jones, 1998;Leiber & Peck, 2013;NeMoyer et al, 2014;Olson & Lurigio, 2000;Piquero, 2003;Sims & Jones, 1997;Steinmetz & Henderson, 2015a, 2015bTapia & Harris, 2006). Scholars should continue investigating the potential of unconscious/cognitive, institutional, and structural disparities in American probation systems.…”

“…Relatively little attention, however, has been given to examining if such solutions manage to escape racial/ethnic inequality issues that afflict so many other areas of criminal justice. The results of this study, in conjunction with previous scholarship (Gould et al, 2011;Johnson & Jones, 1998;Leiber & Peck, 2013;NeMoyer et al, 2014;Steinmetz & Henderson, 2015a, 2015b, indicate such remedies are not immune.…”

“…NeMoyer et al (2014) studied the records of 120 juvenile probationers and found that Black juveniles were more likely to fail probation for noncompliance with sentence terms. In addition, the authors found that Hispanic juveniles were more likely to not receive a mandatory school requirement for noncompliance, a finding that ''may indicate that judges are taking inappropriate extralegal factors .…”

Youth’s Perceptions of Parental Support and Parental Knowledge as Moderators of the Association Between Youth–Probation Officer Relationship and Probation Non-compliance

“…These findings are particularly noteworthy given that technical violations can have potentially serious consequences for the youth, including revocation of probation (termination of probation due to severe violations) and placement in detention. In a national survey of youth residing in residential placements, 58% were in custody for violating probation or parole for a status offense and of these youth, 53% were in custody for technical violations (SYRP, 2003; also see Nemoyer et al, 2014). Our findings suggest the potential benefits of collaboration between parents and probation officers to facilitate compliance with the specific mandates of probation.…”

Motivating compliance: Juvenile probation officer strategies and skills

“…In a study of youth offender records in an urban mid-Atlantic county, NeMoyer and colleagues (2014) found that 52% of all youth ordered to probation over two years had violated the terms of their probation. For nearly half of the offenders with probation violations, the violation was associated with more severe sanctions and placement in a secure facility (NeMoyer et al, 2014). Juvenile probation officers (JPOs) play an important role in preventing youths' deep-end involvement in the justice system, exercising significant discretion to establish and enforce conditions of probation through their recommendations to the court (Griffin & Torbet, 2002).…”