Professional Lives of Community Corrections Officers: The Invisible Side of Reentry

Assessing the current state of juvenile probation practice: A statutory analysis

“…Ten states acknowledged RNR assessment as an important task that should be practiced by juvenile probation officers. Given these results, this study shows that that states continue to move towards the adoption of RNR-based assessment and coordinated case management for juvenile offenders (Andrews et al, 1990;Luong & Wormith, 2011;Lutze, 2014;Taxman et al, 2014;Young, Farrell, & Taxman, 2013), which promotes competency development of juvenile offenders in the restorative justice framework. Table 2 details the changes in legally prescribed functions of juvenile probation officers by task orientation from 2002-2015.…”

“…Haqanee, Peterson-Badali, and Skilling (2015) further suggested that correctional staff could better adjust programing and manage cases to meet the institutional goals of juvenile officers by adopting a risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-based assessment. RNR principles (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010) are effective for juvenile probation in reducing recidivism when risk and need principles are closely followed in supervision and treatment (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990;Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011;Luong & Wormith, 2011;Lutze, 2014;Taxman, Henderson, Young, & Farrell, 2014). In other words, the best science indicates that intensive supervision and services are most effective when provided to high-risk and high-needs offenders, while minimal supervision and intervention are provided to low-risk offenders.…”

“…With the development of standardized risk/needs screening tools in the late 1990s, juvenile probation functions appear to have shifted in orientation towards case management styles that target an offender's risk and needs in order to reduce the likelihood of future deviant behavior and reoffending (Lutze, 2014;Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009). While the Desktop Guide recommends the adoption of a BARJ model in empirical probation practices (Griffin & Torbet, 2002), research has shown that the impact of BARJ practices is very weak (Schwalbe, 2012;Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009).…”

“…According to Peters (2011), the role of the juvenile probation officer is no longer a dichotomous function but rather a convergence or a blend of rehabilitation-oriented and law enforcement-oriented tasks. In this context, probation officers function as "synthetic" officers (see Miller, 2015) or "boundary spanners" (see Lutze, 2014) somewhere between social workers (e.g., care) and peace officers (e.g., control) in managing diverse cases. Depending on the circumstances, probation officers employ fluid treatment and surveillance strategies to identify individual needs and to manage each individual's risk.…”

“…It has been argued that contemporary juvenile probation attempts to reconcile both social work-oriented tasks and law-enforcement-oriented tasks have gradually shifted toward integrated roles, or a "balanced approach" in response to a growing body of literature about "what works" in juvenile justice (Lipsey et al, 2010;Peters, 2011;Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009). Similarly, a case management model also provides a fluid philosophy that probation work functions between the therapeutic orientations and just deserts orientations as "boundary spanners" (see Lutze, 2014) to manage individual cases. This is especially true for high-risk juvenile offenders.…”