Investigating Probation Strategies with Juvenile Offenders

SUMMARY Investigating Probation Strategies with Juvenile Offenders The Influence of Officers Attitudes and Y forthh Characteristics Benita Byers Ray Davis Jessica Hoff Jessica beer mug Just 326 Juvenile Justice System September 14, 2012 Although large investments in resources are used to deal with tumble-down callownesss, there urinate been unaccompanied sporadic efforts to research effective probation practices.Since most y bug outh encounters with the novel judge system, accounting for over 60%, glide by under supervision by Probation Officers (POs), the Probation Practices Assessment Survey (PPAS) was used to evaluate diverse types of interventions. This was a web-based translate that holdd a archetype of 308 POs and measured disincentive, tonic justice, treatment, confrontation, counseling and behavioral tactics.For example, while Lipseys influential multi- tuition compend shows that probation has a small notwithstanding significant impact on youth outcomes, li terature on originative and progressive probation practices shows little improvement to date. There is little research that describes various probation strategies for youth and their effectiveness. Youth probation usually vacillates between penalization and rehabilitation. Historically, advocates of progressive approaches viewed punishment and its reliance on monitoring and rule enforcement as a response to poorly trained and overworked POs.On the other hand, rehabilitation has been viewed as a charitable relationship between POs and youths with intent to humanize the juvenile justice system. During the middle with late 1900s, the public demanded a more than disciplinary response to youth crime, advocates of victims rights wanted more input into the process and increasing permit of the rehabilitative beat caused threesome objectives, known as the Balanced blast to become prominent in addressing youth delinquency.To protect public safety, POs utilize deterrence-based inte rventions utilizing increased monitoring, fines, detention, and technical violation of probation to promote youth expectations that delinquency is not worth the cost. To hold youths accountable for their offenses, POs promote recuperative justice policies through offenders meeting with their families, the victims and community members to decide together how the offender can best make amends and promote reconciliation, often through community table service and restitution.To promote rehabilitation, POs utilize resources such as tutoring to improve school slaying family, substance abuse and/or mental health counseling mentoring programs to model achievement based skills and increase access to resources and, other programs to improve lifespan chances. While the balanced approach suggests that POs utilize unity-on-oneized treatment of offenders in order to exact the best outcomes, research shows that POs attitudes towards punishment and rehabilitation vary.Additional problems oc cur when longstanding biases influence POs attitudes. For example, these unconscious biases include higher expectations of recidivism and endorsing stronger attitudes of punishment towards youth offenders of color and girls being seen as very difficult to work with. anterior research has not addressed the different strategies and frequency of specific interventions with an individual within a specific period of time utilized by POs in dealing with youth delinquency as does the PPAS.This survey utilizes 28 items measuring the frequency of three reference management approaches, as deterrence, restorative justice and treatment orientations, as well as compliance enhancing strategies, as confrontation, counseling and behavioral tactics, during the past three (3) months. Method A sample of 308 respondents get byd the survey, recruited through an announcement in an electronic newsletter for POs with cellular inclusion into a drawing for a $20 e-gift certificate to an online retailer as incentive.The respondents were to insert their names into an alphabetical list of their juvenile exemplarloads and select the beside youth who was (1) formally adjudicated, (2) known to the respondent for at least three months, and (3) under 18 long time old. The respondents completed 31 questions intimately youth demographics, offending characteristics and psycho tender characteristics, including five items combined to measure prior heath and social services involvement and five items combined to measure psychosocial emergencys.Thirteen items measure case management approaches, fifteen items measure compliance practices. Respondents reported their personal demographics, years of experience in juvenile justice settings and direct of education, six items addressing their attitudes toward punishment, both items measuring their beliefs about POs helpfulness with youths who have alcohol and mental health problems and two items measuring their beliefs about the effectiveness of ma ndated treatment on medicate and mental health problems.Out of all cases, only 56% were completed mighty with all variables. Data was imputed multiple times using the SAS Proc MI (Schafer, 1997). SAS Proc MI is an interactive procedure that replaces missing data with estimates based on evident relationships observed in the data. By introducing random error, multiple imputations result in a more accurate variance estimates compared to other imputation procedures (Allison 2002). When comparing the complete data analysis, the listwise deletion and the imputed data, they were unimportant.Nearly 25% of the youth were female and about 40% were of color. Usually, youth were approaching 16 years old, were 33% were 15 or younger and 67% had prior offences. Felony adjudications were most common, about 33% had station related offences, 25% had person related offences and 20% had drug related offences. The average youth a specialized intervention prior to their young adjudication (specializ ed mental health, substance abuse, or child welfare) and had nearly three out of six risk factors.POs were 64% females, 83% were white and 23% had masters degrees. Analysis started with a confirmatory factor analysis for 7 PPAS subscales deterrence orientation, restorative justice orientation, treatment orientation, confrontational tactics, counseling tactics, behavioral tactics and contact frequency (Muthen & Muthen 1998-2006). This model had acceptable fit, however, it was unfit do to a high linear between the two factors intimidation and Confrontation. Several adjustments were made but they all continued to have errors.The final examination analysis examined the predictors of class membership. Ordinal regression was chosen because three classes birth ordinal-level qualities. The Latent Class Analysis began by estimating the optical number of groups or classes required to describe how probation practice clusters. Classes were not distinguished by a dominant subscale score, but rather by a general level across all of the subscale scores. Probation Officers reported using restorative justice interventions little than any other approach.In terms of contact, Probation Officers averaged about 18 contacts to the youth, parents, schools and service providers during a three month period. In terms of youths age, betting odds of having a more intensive probation decreased 28% for every one year of increase. POs attitudes about the helpfulness of probation, an increase in one point increased the odds of more intensive probation by 38% while an increase in favorable attitudes from one warning deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above the mean, led to a fivefold increase in the odds of more intensive probation.POs implement a balanced approach with delinquent youths, they blend both accountability and rehabilitation based approaches. In case management approaches, POs use approaches informed by deterrence and treatment equally, but are less inclined by restorative justice. POs use confrontation, counseling and behavioral tactics about the same when it comes to compliance strategies. Probation practices vary along key youth and Probation Officers characteristics.POs that really agrees with punishments emphasizes accountability in their interventions and whitethorn make fewer contacts with youth and POs who endorse treatment would strongly focus on the rehabilitation aspects of supervision and devote more time to each case. younger youths receive a more accountability approach and more public contacts than the older youths. POs giving more resources to younger youths may indicate greater hope or urgency, for prevention with these youths and more settlement from the older youths.Several predictions did not predict probation in this study, operate and gender, they stand out as a key findings. Research with probation and the juvenile justice finality making strongly suggests that the juvenile court interventions are influences by race and gender. Youth race and gender were not associated with probation practices in the current study suggests two alternatives. First, measures and methods employed in this study may not have been sufficiently sensitive to detect biased treatment leading to a type II error. It is apparent that youth with a higher additive risk and needs receive more probation approaches.This demonstrates the priorities of the POs product with the contemporary juvenile justice mandates which calls for individualized court interventions based on an assessment of risks and needs (Hoge, 2002 Howell, 2003). References Schwalbe, Craig S. and Maschi, Tina. (Oct. 2009). Investigating Probation Strategies with Juvenile Offenders The Influence of Officers Attitudes and Youth Characteristics. honor and Human Behavior. Vol. 33, No. 5, Pp 357-367. Springer. Retrieved from JSTOR online 9/12/12 at 212pm. Schafer, J. L. (1997).Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. New York Chapman & Hall. Schafer, J. L. , & Graham, J. W. (2002) Missing data Our view of the press out of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177. Doi 10. 1037/1082-989X. 7. 2. 147. Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks Sage. Hoge, R. D. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 380396. doi 10. 1177/0093854802029004003. Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing & reducing juvenile delinquency A comprehensive framework. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.