Running head TEXT ANALYSIS .docx

Running head: TEXT ANALYSIS
1
TEXT ANALYSIS
2
Text Analysis
My name
Instructor
University
The value of text analysis is to establish designed data from the
unstructured contents of a text. It aims at organizing
unorganized data and documents to data that can make easily
managed and interpreted. In businesses/ companies, text
analysis is very essential because it helps in decision-making.
Data texting gives clues to the company by predicting the trend
of customers and behavior, increasing business productivity,
providing analysis, interpretation, and delivery of data better
ways (Grant, 2016). Additionally, text analysis helps the
company in making effective and efficient decisions for the
company and business (Grant, 2016).
One of the problems associated with data analysis is the lack of
good methods for the process (Grant, 2016). Text analysis is a
process that requires the use of complicated methods so as to
get the best data. If one lacks a better method for text analysis
then he/she finds it difficult to carry out the process. Another
challenge is the lack of skilled personnel (Grant, 2016). Text
analysis can only be done with individuals trained in this field
and therefore without such individuals then data analysis is a
big challenge. The other challenge associated with data analysis

is ambiguity in words and context sensitivity. In text analysis,
some words used are confusing in analyzing and some
information is too sensitive to analysis.
Parsing is the analysis of meanings of words and symbols used
in texts during data analysis. Search and retrieval is the process
of seeking information, which is expressively evident though
not existing in some documents (Grant, 2016). Text mining is a
process of collecting unorganized data or information into a
clear and structured data or values.
Three main takeaways from this assignment include the
understanding value of text analysis, its challenges and the
steps involved in text analysis. To answer this assignment one
needed to have an understanding of these three areas and so to
me these are the take away in this assignment.
Reference
Grant, R. M. (2016). Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and
cases edition. John Wiley & Sons.
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish
the following objectives:
▪ Analyze the community-based corrections goals of
punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.
▪ Describe how probation is organized and the population it
serves.
▪ Explain the two basic functions of a probation officer.
▪ Summarize the goals of probation supervision.
▪ Outline the factors influencing the effectiveness of probation.
▪ Explain the circumstances in which probation can be revoked.
▪ Evaluate the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions.

Juveniles and Community
Corrections
7
PhotoAlto/SuperStock
© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Chapter Outline
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The Goals of Community-Based Corrections
▪ To Punish or to Rehabilitate?
▪ Restorative Justice
7.3 Probation: Organization and the Population Served
▪ How Is Probation Organized?
▪ Who Is Served by Probation?
7.4 Probation Officer Functions
▪ Investigation
▪ Supervision and Control
7.5 Goals of Probation Supervision
7.6 Effectiveness of Probation

7.7 Probation Revocation
7.8 Intermediate Sanctions
▪ Electronic Monitoring/House Arrest
▪ Day Treatment Centers
▪ After School/Recreation
The officers walk the hallways chatting with kids. They make
informal contacts with youth
throughout the day and meet one on one with those who have
been involved with the juvenile
court. They may visit classrooms, give students advice, or
attend school events. These people
aren’t police officers charged with keeping the school safe.
Rather these officers are probation
officers. School-based probation has become a popular option in
many jurisdictions. It began
to take hold in the 1990s in Pennsylvania and now exists in
several states nationwide. For
example, more than one third of the school districts in Georgia
now have a probation officer in
the school system (Badertscher & Tagamittagami, 2011).
The benefits of these programs range from decreased
disciplinary infractions, decreased tru-
ancy, increased academic achievement, and decreased school
dropout rates. Moreover, an eval-
uation of Pennsylvania’s school-based probation program found
that youth exposed to proba-
tion officers in the schools were also more likely to have lower
rearrest rates (DeAngelo, 2005).
These programs are seen as an effective way to place probation
officers into the community
where the youth spend most of their time. Noted as an

intervention that moves the “courtroom
to the classroom,” these programs mirror many of the defining
principles of the restorative
justice movement. Specifically, repairing and rebuilding
relationships with the offender and
community requires that the youth be served in the community
through a variety of avenues
and approaches. School-based probation officers meet youth and
work with school officials
to enhance the youth’s commitment to school. The officers are
given access to grades and
Section 7.2The Goals of Community-Based Corrections
classroom behavior reports and can often address problems
before they start. Although some
observers are concerned that having probation officers in the
schools can disrupt the learning
environment, others suggest this intervention can make a
significant difference and should
be expanded.
7.1 Introduction
In this chapter we discuss community corrections for juveniles.
The correctional system is
considered the third component of the American criminal justice
system. The term is really
a label to describe the sanctions used by the court system to
punish or “correct” criminal
behavior. At its core, the corrections system is the agent or
body that carries out the sentence

given to individuals once they are adjudicated by the court
system. However, the correctional
system can also serve those not yet convicted of a crime (e.g.,
those in jail awaiting trial or in
treatment as part of drug court requirements).
The sanctions available to judges vary widely across the
country; however, common sanc-
tions exist on a continuum. At one end of the continuum is the
least restrictive sanction (basic
probation); at the other end is the most restrictive (institutional
or residential placement).
Services along this continuum, also referred to as intermediate
sanctions, include commu-
nity service, house arrest, day treatment, and a range of
treatment programs. The majority
of juveniles adjudicated by the court system serve their
sentences in the community rather
than in residential placement. In fact, according to Puzzanchera
and Hockenberry (2018), “In
2015, formal probation was the most severe disposition ordered
in 63% of cases in which the
juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, and 26% of cases were
ordered to residential placement
as the most severe disposition” (p. 3). Our focus begins with
community-based corrections
for juveniles.
7.2 The Goals of Community-Based Corrections
The social and political climate is always a factor in juvenile
justice policy. For example, dur-
ing the social turmoil of the 1960s, the court system concerned
itself with the due process
rights of juveniles. When the political climate changed in the
1980s, juvenile justice policies
became more punitive, as evidenced by the popularity of boot

camps and the increased use of
transfers to adult criminal court (Annie E. Casey Foundation,
2012). The correctional system
was not immune to these influences. Although the social climate
may be the driving force
behind some of the policy developments, it would be too
simplistic to assume the system can
be categorized so easily.
To Punish or to Rehabilitate?
Both the adult and juvenile correctional systems experience
goal conflict. Goal conflict refers
to the struggle faced by many correctional agencies in deciding
which philosophical path to
choose: punishment or rehabilitation (Urban, Cyr, & Decker,
2003). The struggle exists for
several reasons.
First, it would be naïve to assume that every juvenile
correctional system in the country could
follow one goal (e.g., rehabilitation versus punishment). For
example, Florida may adopt a
particular policy that supports rehabilitation for juveniles in the
community, whereas Texas
may have a more punitive philosophy. Just as likely, however,
is that Austin, Texas, may be
different than Dallas, Texas, or that two judges in Austin may
have very different ideas of
what services or sanctions are most appropriate for juveniles. In

addition, a survey of juvenile
court probation officers found that even an individual officer’s
attitude can have a significant
impact on whether he or she uses rehabilitative or punitive
approaches with their caseload
(Ward & Kupchik, 2010). Many officers did not hold an
exclusively punishment or rehabilita-
tive focus; instead officers responded situationally.
Second, resource limitations inevitably influence what services
(or rewards) the system can
offer. It may be, for example, that the judge in rural Ohio would
like to offer community-based
drug treatment to a juvenile; however, those services may
simply be unavailable in that county.
Third, the correctional system requires a significant degree of
interagency coordination.
The coordination may need to include probation, day treatment
staff, and the school system.
How these agencies communicate forms the basis for how any
individual case is handled. For
example, the probation officers may be most concerned with
public safety and see themselves
in a law enforcement role. But the treatment agency may be
reluctant to work with proba-
tion because they do not want to interrupt their therapeutic
relationship with the client by
telling probation that a client admitted to criminal behavior
during the treatment session. In
another example, probation may require the youth to attend
school, but the school system
may find it easier to expel the student because it lacks the
resources to manage the juvenile in
a traditional school setting. In short, many variables affect the
goals, methods, and resources

of any single agency, which in turn are influenced by the goals,
methods, and resources of
other agencies.
Fourth, punishment and rehabilitation are not always in conflict
and can coexist in some cir-
cumstances. Both rewards and consequences shape behavior.
Behavior that is rewarded is
more likely to be repeated. However, consequences or
punishment for behavior is a part of
this equation. Removing rewards or privileges, while perhaps
seen as a punishment by the
individual, is also a way to change behavior. People are less
likely to repeat behavior that has
led to a perceived negative consequence (Spiegler, 2015). In
other words, sometimes punish-
ment can have rehabilitative effects.
Finally, some observers argue that the system’s philosophy can
be characterized in terms of
the difference between risk control and risk reduction (O’Leary
& Clear, 1997). Risk control
refers to a set of policies or interventions designed to control a
juvenile’s risk of criminal
behavior. Let’s take the example of a juvenile who is at high
risk for substance abuse. Being at
high risk for substance abuse means there is a high probability
the juvenile will continue to
use drugs or alcohol unless the system intervenes. The system
must respond in this circum-
stance in order to reduce the chance that high-risk people will
reoffend. In simple terms, the
system can respond to high-risk juveniles in two ways. The
system (e.g., probation) can moni-
tor the client’s behavior through random drug tests or frequent
meetings. If clients know they

are being monitored, they may be less likely to use drugs for
fear of being caught and pun-
ished. At the same time, O’Leary and Clear (1997) argue that
once clients are no longer under
the control of the system, they may be likely to use again. They
argue that controlling the
individual is a short-term strategy because
the “control” model did little to address
why the person began using drugs. Alter-
natively, a risk reduction approach would
focus on reducing the probability of reoff-
ending by changing why the person began
using drugs. Risk reduction strategies
address the underlying causes of the cli-
ent’s addiction in an effort to reduce future
use. The most common risk reduction
approach includes treatment services
such as substance abuse therapy.
The two methods of risk control and risk
reduction need not be mutually exclusive.
In other words, probation would likely
still engage in control strategies (e.g., drug
testing); however, this would be in conjunction with treatment
strategies. Beyond the basic
philosophy of punishment versus treatment, however, is a third
goal referred to as restorative
justice.

Restorative Justice
The restorative justice approach became popular in the 1980s
with critics arguing that the
system focused entirely on the juvenile delinquent with little to
no attention paid to the vic-
tims of the crime (Braithwaite, 2002). The restorative justice
approach argues that crime
should be viewed not only from the juvenile offender’s point of
view (e.g., the offender needs
punishment or treatment) but also from the perspective of the
victim or the community. If
criminal behavior is viewed as harm inflicted on the victim or
the community, then the sanc-
tions should have a purpose of repairing this damage. Bringing
all three parties together is
beneficial for the victim and the community but also has
restorative effects on the delinquent.
According to the restorative justice.org website, the foundation
of restorative justice rests on
the following principles:
• Justice requires that we work to restore those who have been
injured.
• Those most directly involved and affected by crime should
have the opportunity to
participate fully in the response if they wish.
• Government’s role is to preserve a just public order, and the
community’s is to build
and maintain a just peace.
Restorative justice programs can vary; however, popular
programs include victim-offender

mediation/meetings, community service, restitution, and circle
sentencing.
Victim-offender mediation programs are popular in many
jurisdictions. These programs bring
together the victim, the juvenile defendant, and a professional
mediator to discuss the impact
of the crime. The youth is given the opportunity to apologize
for the crime. The victim is given
Laurence Mouton/ès/SuperStock
Substance abuse therapy is a risk reduction
strategy.
the opportunity to discuss the impact of the crime on his or her
life. In most circumstances, a
restitution plan is developed during the mediation session and
agreed upon by both parties.
The approach is meant to benefit both the juvenile and the
victim.
Community service can include activities such as picking up
trash alongside the road, remov-
ing graffiti from buildings, or a variety of other service-type
projects. Community service is
seen as a way for juvenile delinquents to give back to the
community for the damage their
criminal behavior inflicted on the community.

Restitution is typically a monetary fine the court will order to
be paid to the victim. However,
it may also include services to the victim or the community. For
example, if a youth vandalized
a storefront, the judge may require the youth to clean up the
damage to the store. Of course,
the restitution activity in this example requires that the victim is
willing to have the youth
participate in this type of activity.
Circle sentencing, as its name implies, includes a circle of
people who can give input into the
type of sanction the youth receives. The circle will typically
include the juvenile, the victim,
the family, and any interested or impacted community members.
The process is designed
to provide people with the opportunity to speak uninterrupted
and share their opinions
about or experiences with the crime. The judge then takes into
account all of the informa-
tion provided by each of the members of the circle when
deciding the appropriate sanction
for the youth.
Restorative justice practices have been implemented recently in
the schools. School-based
restorative justice programs use conflict resolution strategies.
For example, one school in
Peoria, Illinois, implemented peacemaking circles as a way to
reduce conflict in school. Peace-
making circles bring teachers and students together to talk
through important issues, giv-
ing the students an opportunity to voice their concerns. The
same school system also imple-
mented a peer/teen jury program. In this program, a youth who
has broken a rule appears

before a jury of peers to discuss the situation and determine the
course of action to repair
the harm. Results of both initiatives were positive, with an
improvement in student-teacher
relationships and a reduced need for formal discipline (Brown,
Synder, Hurst, & Berry, 2010).
As mentioned earlier, restorative justice policies became
popular in the 1980s and have per-
sisted in many jurisdictions. The question, however, is whether
these programs and services
are effective. The problem with answering this question rests
with how effectiveness is mea-
sured. For example, measuring effectiveness by how well an
intervention or sanction reduces
future criminal behavior is common. In the earlier example,
when we discussed reducing the
risk level of a juvenile with a substance abuse problem,
effectiveness might be measured by
the reduced probability that the juvenile will continue using
drugs or alcohol. With restor-
ative justice programs, effectiveness might mean increasing
community engagement, reduc-
ing the psychological impact of crime on victims, or increasing
the satisfaction level among
community members, victims, and juveniles. Studies find that
juveniles who participate in
restorative justice programs feel connected to the process and
are more likely to complete
their restitution. Victims report feeling less fearful of repeat
victimization and experiencing
greater levels of satisfaction with the process (Umbreit, 1994;
Umbreit, Coates, & Kalanji,
1994). A review of the research by Bouffard, Cooper, and
Bergseth (2017) found that, overall,
juveniles who participated in these programs tended to do better

on a variety of outcomes
than juveniles who were exposed to the traditional court
process.
Section 7.3Probation: Organization and the Population Served
7.3 Probation: Organization and the Population Served
Probation began in the United States in the late 1800s; it
became a popular option for juve-
niles in the mid-1920s. Since that time, probation continues to
be the most frequently used
sanction. As noted by Patricia Torbet (1996), “Juvenile
probation is the oldest and most widely
used vehicle through which a range of court-ordered services is
rendered” (p. 1). Probation is
used at a rate similar to that found in 1985, which indicates that
the sanction remains popu-
lar (Sickmund, 2009). In fact, Torbet (1996) referred to
probation as the “workhorse of the
juvenile justice system.” Probation is used frequently for a
variety of reasons. Most notably,
probation is cost effective and considered a valuable
community-based option, particularly
when compared with residential placement.
How Is Probation Organized?
As with most features of the juvenile justice system, how
probation is organized varies by
state. Juvenile probation tends to be administered at the state
level or local level. As shown
in Figure 7.1, in the majority of states, probation is operated by

local officials rather than the
state. The logic of placing probation at the local level rests with
the notion that the proba-
tion department should be under the authority of local officials,
including courts and plan-
ning boards. Judges in local courts tend to have the best view of
the case and are more effec-
tive when they can follow the case and make adjustments to
supervision plans. Consider, for
example, the drug court model. In that model, both the judge
and the probation officer are
seen as important team members in the rehabilitation of
juveniles. Planning boards at the
local level also have a better sense of the needs of probation
and often readily attend to those
needs without having to work within the state bureaucracy.
Figure 7.1: Administration of probation in the United States,
2017
From “Administration of community supervision (probation),
2017,” in “OJJDP statistical briefing book,” by Office of
Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04203.asp?
qaDate=2017
AK
HA
CA
NV
OR

WA
ID
WY
UT
AR NM
CO
MO ND
MN
NE
OK
TX
AR
LA
MO
IA
WI
MI
MI
IL IN

KY
TN
MI. AL GA
FL
SC
NC
VA
OH
PA
NY
WV
ME
KS
SD
VT
NH
MA
RI
CT

NJ
DE
MD
DC
State operated (22)
Locally operated (20)
Mostly state operated (9)
Others argue that probation services are better provided at the
state level, which often
includes public administrators. Public administrators may be
more in tune with state budget
issues and can create standardized policies that create
uniformity across the state. The situa-
tion can be even more complex given that probation can be
handled “mostly” at the state level
but with some local authority. Only nine states place juvenile
probation “mostly” under state
jurisdiction.
Who Is Served by Probation?
If we examine the profile of juveniles served by probation
postadjudication, we can see some
differences by gender, age, and race. As illustrated by Figure

7.2, the majority of juveniles on
probation are boys. This fact is not necessarily surprising given
that boys commit a greater
proportion of crime. With regard to race, Figure 7.3 indicates
that the majority of clients on
probation are white; however, black youth make up 36% of the
clients served. Finally, with
regard to age (Figure 7.4), the age groups are fairly evenly
distributed, with the greatest per-
centage (26%) among 16-year-olds.
Figure 7.2: Gender and probation, 2015
From “Table: Demographic characteristics of cases handled by
juvenile courts,” in “Easy access to juvenile court statistics:
1985–
2015,” by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018,
Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/demo.asp
Figure 7.3: Race and probation, 2015
From “Table: Demographic characteristics of cases handled by
juvenile courts,” in “Easy access to juvenile court statistics:
1985–
2015,” by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018,
Retrieved from
Girls
23%
Boys
77%
Black

36%
White
41%
Hispanic/
race unknown
19%
American Indian
2%
Asian
1%
Figure 7.4: Age at referral and probation, 2015
From “Table: Year of disposition by age at referral,” in “Easy
access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015,” by M.
Sickmund, A.
Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/display.asp
It is a myth that the only youth placed on probation are those
who have been adjudicated for
minor crimes. For example, as noted in Figure 7.5, 29% of the
youth on probation are adju-
dicated for person-related offenses (which includes violent

crimes), compared to 25% for
public-order offenses, and 12% for drug offenses. Juveniles
adjudicated for property offenses
make up the greatest proportion of juvenile offenders on
probation.
Figure 7.5: Most serious offense and probation, 2015
From “Table: Analyze delinquency cases” in “Easy access to
juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015,” by M. Sickmund, A.
Sladky, and W.
Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/selection.asp
Finally, Figure 7.6 illustrates that there have been significant
differences over time with regard
to charge type for those served on probation. For example, in
1990, the greatest proportion
of cases served on probation was, by far, property offenses. In
contrast, the differences we
see now are less distinct. Even though property offenses make
up the highest proportion of
cases, they represent a smaller share of the overall cases. The
overall rate of delinquency has
declined significantly in the past decade, and we see this same
decline in the number of youth
on probation across all charge types.
14
16%
15
24%
16
26%

Under 14
13%17 & older
21%
Property
34%
Drugs
12%
Person
29%
Public order
25%
Section 7.4Probation Officer Functions
Figure 7.6: Trends in those served on probation by charge type,
1985–2015
Property-related cases have had the highest number of
individuals served on probation over the
30-year span between 1985 and 2015 when compared to person-,
drug-, or public-order-related
crime. However, after 1995, person-, drug-, and public-order-
offense probation rates rose while
property offense probation rates fell, making differences in
charge type less distinct. Although

property-related offenses still have the highest number of
offenders served probation, all of the rates
have declined significantly since 2005.
From “Demographic characteristics of cases handled by juvenile
courts,” in “Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–
2015,” by
M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
7.4 Probation Officer Functions
Probation officers serve the juvenile justice system in various
ways, but their functions fall
primarily into two categories: investigation and supervision. For
example, in some jurisdic-
tions probation officers conduct intake screenings to help
decide whether the case should
be formally processed. In this investigative function, probation
officers are often called upon
to examine the case prior to adjudication. Their primary role,
however, is to supervise the
juveniles who are formally adjudicated by the court. Let’s
examine each of these functions in
detail.
Investigation
Investigating the juvenile’s record prior to sentencing is a
useful part of a probation officer’s
job. The investigation is commonly referred to as a presentence
investigation (PSI). The PSI
is a summary report created by the probation officer detailing
the juvenile’s criminal history
and social situation (e.g., family, peers, school). The report
often concludes with a recommen-
dation to be given to the sentencing judge prior to the
adjudication hearing. In some jurisdic-

tions, however, the PSI is not completed until after the youth is
adjudicated onto probation. In
this circumstance, the investigation is completed for purposes of
deciding supervision and
treatment services but will not be utilized during the disposition
phase. If conducted pread-
judication, the information contained in the PSI will assist the
judge in deciding what services
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Person Property Drugs Public Order
1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
R

a
te
2005 2010 2015
or sanctions might be appropriate for the
juvenile. The judge has the discretion to
decide whether to adhere to the PSI rec-
ommendation. Although many studies
find that judges do consider the probation
officer’s recommendation when sentenc-
ing, the recommendation is not the only
factor considered (Norman & Wadman,
2000).
The PSI is most often conducted in a face-
to-face interview with the youth. The pro-
bation officer will often collect as much
information as possible from the youth in
terms of criminal history, school achieve-
ment/attendance, peers, substance use,
family relations, mental illness, or other
personal history. The probation officer
will likely collect what is referred to as
collateral information as well. Collateral
information can include interviews with parents, reports from
school, or results from any
formal assessments that may have been completed. All of the
information is combined in the

probation officer’s assessment of the youth.
At this stage, the probation officer is simply gathering
information. The type and breadth of
information varies considerably depending on the expectations
of the judge and/or proba-
tion agencies. As such, the focus of the PSI may be offender
based or offense based. For exam-
ple, if the judge or probation officer places more weight on
criminal history than on any other
risk factor, then the PSI may be based on the offense and the
juvenile’s prior criminal history.
Alternatively, if risk reduction is the focus, the PSI may be
offender need based, and other sec-
tions such as family, addictions, and school will be detailed in
breadth and scope. If the focus
is treatment and rehabilitation, the probation officer must know
detailed information about
the client’s social situation. In order to decide, for example,
whether the youth needs family-
based services, the probation officer may spend considerable
time uncovering issues such as
abuse in the home, relationships with the mother and father,
supervision levels, discipline
practices, and so on.
One of the other issues influencing the PSI is the probation
officer’s skill as an interviewer.
Arguably it is fairly straightforward to assess the youth’s
criminal history. The probation offi-
cer may interview the youth to determine the context behind the
youth’s arrest record or prior
sanctions; however, the information itself is a matter of public
record. By contrast, examining
the youth’s relationship with his or her family requires a more

elaborate set of interviewing
skills. This task is made even more difficult given that the
probation officer conducting the PSI
often has limited contact with the youth prior to the interview
and has a finite amount of time
to complete the assessment, particularly when it is being
conducted preadjudication.
Some jurisdictions assign probation officers to conduct PSIs as
their primary job. They
are sometimes referred to as PSI writers. There are advantages
and disadvantages to this
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Probation officers assess youths’ arrest
records, family relations, and other important
information during the presentence
investigation interview.
approach. Dedicated PSI writers may be better prepared in terms
of interview skills. Addi-
tionally, these probation officers may feel less pressure to rush
a PSI because they don’t also
have a full caseload to maintain. In terms of disadvantages, if
the supervising officer is not the
one who completes the PSI, the supervising officer may feel the
need to reinterview the cli-
ent to gather information that will assist in the supervision or
treatment plan. The process of

reinterviewing the youth is inefficient and takes up more
valuable time and resources.
Supervision and Control
The officer begins supervision once the youth is placed on
probation. An individual can be
placed on probation preplea or preadjudication. Preadjudication
probation is part of the
diversionary court process. Although the rules and processes
vary by state, pretrial proba-
tion allows the youth to complete certain probationary
requirements in exchange for a dis-
missal of charges. The level of supervision required (such as the
number of times the youth is
required to meet with a probation officer or judge) is decided on
a case-by-case basis (Hock-
enberry & Puzzanchera, 2017).
Probation supervision postadjudication can vary and often
ranges from intensive (multiple
meetings per week) to low-level supervision (one meeting per
month or less). The intensity
of supervision can be dictated by many factors; for example, the
offense or the juvenile’s crim-
inal history, whether the juvenile is placed on a specialized
caseload, or whether the juvenile
is assessed as higher risk and in need of services.
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP), there are
three types of probation services: traditional probation,
intensive supervision probation,
and school-based probation. First, traditional probation
supervision occurs at different lev-
els depending on the officer, the client’s needs, and agency
standards. The supervision may

include face-to-face visits with the juvenile, during which the
probation officer will complete
a check-in. The check-in often includes a series of questions
about such things as the juve-
nile’s performance in school, relationship with parents,
involvement with drugs or alcohol,
or other high-risk situations. The face-to-face meeting may also
include a drug test, which
involves the juvenile client submitting to urinalysis to check for
any substance use. At the
other end of the spectrum, the contact may simply include a
check-in by phone, in which case
the juvenile provides similar information (without urinalysis, of
course) via a phone call to
the probation officer.
Second, with intensive supervision probation (ISP), the client is
required to meet more fre-
quently with a probation officer. The ISP model that was
initially developed for adults became
a popular option for juvenile probation by the late 1980s
(Barton & Butts, 1990). ISP typically
involves more rigorous supervision standards, lower client-
officer ratios, and increased lev-
els of treatment services. As can be seen in Spotlight: An
Intensive Supervision Juvenile Proba-
tion Program, some ISP programs even target specific groups.
The basic premise assumes that
probation officers who are working with smaller caseloads are
able to dedicate more time to
supervision and services. Studies find that ISP can be an
effective option for reducing recidi-
vism rates if the services offered are rehabilitative in nature
(Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger,
Makarios, & Latessa, 2010). However, studies suggest that if
the focus is purely supervision

oriented, ISP can increase the rate of technical violations
(Petersilia & Turner, 1993).
Third, school-based probation is a recent innovation that has
been adopted in several states,
including Arizona, California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. As
noted earlier, the probation
officer and the school system often act in partnership to assist
the youth. The probation offi-
cer is placed directly within the school setting or within a
school district. By meeting with the
youth within the school, the probation officer is able to have
informal contact with the youth
and access important information regarding attendance,
academic performance, and the like.
School-based probation is not available in all schools, and
critics assert that the programs
must be wary of widening the probation officer’s reach too far
into the school system. Specifi-
cally, the probation officer’s presence should be used not to
manage all disciplinary infrac-
tions among students, but instead to provide contact only with
youth adjudicated onto proba-
tion by the court system.
Although these typical models of probation exist to varying
degrees throughout the country,
the goals of probation can vary dramatically from program to
program.

Spotlight: An Intensive Supervision Juvenile Probation Program
The OJJDP has identified an intensive supervision probation
(ISP) program in Illinois as an
exemplary or “model” program. The ISP program, begun in
1997 and known as the Peoria
County Anti-gang and Drug Abuse Unit, is designed to last six
months. Juveniles served
include those probationers who have been assessed as having a
history of gang involvement
and substance abuse issues.
The program includes the following five phases with the
intended goal of reducing
recidivism:
• Planning and movement control
• Counseling, treatment, and programming
• Community outreach
• Reassignment
• Tracking and discharge
In the planning and movement control phase, the probation
office will conduct a needs
assessment to identify issues for treatment and will begin the
intensive supervision require-
ments. The second phase will include referrals to substance
abuse programs, counseling,
anger management, or other needs exhibited by the client. The
third phase, community out-
reach, involves requiring the youth to complete community
service or restitution services.
The fourth phase, reassignment, begins working with the client
to reduce the level of super-
vision to ready the juvenile for a transfer back to a standard

caseload that requires fewer
meetings with the officer. Finally, the tracking and discharge
phase involves planning for the
successful completion of the program.
According to Wassenberg, Gransky Dorman, McGahey, Syrcle,
and Ball (2002), the program
was intended to be six months in length and serve 100 youth at
any given time. However,
probation officers found that the number of youth served needed
to be reduced to 80 (40 per
officer) and clients would need longer than six months to
complete the program. Preliminary
evaluation results suggest that the program is effective at
reducing recidivism rates. The
intervention shows that the intersection between probation and
treatment is very strong in
many jurisdictions.
Section 7.6Effectiveness of Probation
7.5 Goals of Probation Supervision
As we discussed earlier in this chapter, correctional agencies
commonly experience goal con-
flict. Probation officers are often pulled in two competing
directions. First, the probation offi-
cer must be concerned with maintaining community safety. If a
youth on probation is arrested
for a violent crime, the public may be out-
raged that the agency did not do more to
control its client’s behavior. In this case,

probation officers must see themselves in
a law enforcement role. At the same time,
the probation officer is responsible for
providing services for the youth. To pro-
vide these services, the probation officer
must establish a helping role with the
youth. Officers may find it difficult to
strike a balance between the law enforce-
ment and social worker orientations.
Probation services in the 1960s and
1970s were often fairly service oriented.
This was sometimes referred to as the
justice model. Probation officers were
seen as advocates for the clients and often
focused on being service brokers, especially acting as the
liaison for services to be delivered
to the youth. However, when the system began to take a more
punitive stance toward juvenile
crime in the 1980s, we saw a direct influence on probation
supervision. Probation officers
were seen as possessing too much discretion in deciding what
services and supervision were
appropriate for youth. At the same time, advocates lobbied for
restitution programs to “pay”
victims or society for the harm that crimes caused. ISP became
popular in the late 1980s in
part because of this movement to a more accountable probation
office with increased levels
of supervision (Byrne, 1986).
In the 1990s, however, others advocated for a balanced
approach to juvenile probation super-
vision. The balanced approach follows many of the restorative
or community justice com-
ponents discussed earlier. In particular, Dennis Maloney (1998)

advocated for a balanced
approach that gives equal attention to the offender, the victim,
and the community (which
can include schools). Within that context, the services should
hold juveniles accountable for
their crimes through sanctions but also provide services and
skills to the client so that he or
she can contribute to society in a productive way.
Unfortunately, the wide range in the types and intensity of
services provided by probation
officers can limit the potential effectiveness of these services.
7.6 Effectiveness of Probation
Studies suggest that probation has mixed effectiveness. To
understand the studies, however,
we must examine how they are conducted. For instance, most
studies of probation use other
probation samples as a comparison. Let’s consider an example
to illustrate why using this
comparison is problematic.
DC/Casper Star-Tribune/Associated Press
Probation officers aim both to protect the
community from criminal activity and to help
troubled youth offenders.
If we decide to study whether an intervention like a drug court
is effective in reducing drug

use and future criminal behavior among its participants, we
would need to compare the out-
comes of the drug court group (e.g., drug test results, arrest
rates) to juveniles who did not
participate in the drug court. The logic is that you are
comparing the impact of the drug court
to not having a drug court. But most probation studies compare
certain probation services
to other probation services. For example, studies on caseload
size and probation effective-
ness compared probationers who were served on lower
caseloads to probationers who were
served on higher caseloads. The research suggested that
caseload size by itself didn’t influ-
ence recidivism (DeMichele, 2007). This may be surprising in
that we might expect that pro-
bation officers with lower caseloads have more time to spend
with each case, which we would
expect could increase their effectiveness. However, if we really
think about what a probation
officer does, the personality traits they bring to the job, the
agency’s priorities, and so on, we
can see that probation supervision is more complex than simply
caseload size.
The reality is that most probation officers are overworked and
not given sufficient resources
to complete the job. Their contact with their clients, even when
face to face, is often limited
to check-ins during which they ask the youth how things are
going without the time needed
for meaningful interactions about changing the issues that
brought the youth onto probation
in the first place.
As a result, probation agencies are increasingly required to rely

on evidence-based
approaches to investigation and supervision. Evidence-based
practices, sometimes referred
to as “best practices” or “what works,” are services, programs,
or interventions that have been
shown to be effective, most often measured by reductions in
recidivism (Gendreau, 1996).
The term best practice tends to be used when referring to
treatment programs. For example,
best practices might include intensive
interventions that target juveniles at
higher risk for recidivism, that target
issues related to the juveniles’ criminal
behavior (e.g., parental relationship,
school truancy, antisocial peers), and that
use certain approaches over others (e.g.,
cognitive-behavioral versus punitive
approaches such as boot camps) (Gen-
dreau, 1996).
There are certain best practices that can be
utilized by various correctional agencies
and settings. For example, with regard to a
probation officer’s investigative function,
some probation agencies now augment
the PSI interview with a standardized risk
and need tool. One criticism of the PSI pro-
cess had often been that probation agen-
cies did not use a standardized process or
instrument. Consequently, the recommen-
dation given to the judge was often based
on the probation officer’s judgment of the
youth. Studies show that interview-based
clinical assessments of a client’s overall
Burger/Phanie/SuperStock

Evidence-based probation approaches,
like cognitive-behavioral treatments and
interventions, work to reduce the rate of
recidivism among juvenile offenders.
risk of recidivism tend to be inaccurate (Grove, Zald, Lebow,
Snitz, & Nelson, 2000). Even
though the probation officer is collecting a wealth of
information, the officer’s assessment
of the youth’s issues and need for a particular sentence (e.g.,
remaining in the community on
probation versus being sent to an institution) would still be
based on the agency’s review of
a narrative report. So a best practice in this area is to adopt a
standardized assessment of the
youth’s risk and needs. These standardized tools use scoring
rubrics that produce an overall
score or rating of the youth’s risk of committing future
delinquency.
This process is followed in Ohio, where juvenile probation
officers complete a formal and
standardized instrument of the youth’s criminal history and
social background. The assess-
ment tool, referred to as the Ohio Youth Assessment System,
asks the youth many of the same
questions that can be found in a traditional PSI. The difference
is that the assessment tool
scores each item. For example, the probation officer would

assess the youth’s family relations.
When a problem exists in that area, the probation officer would
assign a youth a certain point
value (e.g., 3 points for a negative relationship versus 0 points
for a positive relationship). The
more issues the client has, the higher the score. In the end, the
instrument produces an overall
score that gives the probation officer (and judge) the youth’s
probability of future criminal
behavior. Using tools to structure decision making has been
shown to be a much more effec-
tive approach than relying on officer judgement (Baglivio,
Greenwald, & Russell, 2015).
Another approach adopted in several states is the Effective
Practices in Community Supervi-
sion (EPICS) model. Edward Latessa and colleagues at the
University of Cincinnati developed the
EPICS approach for both juvenile and adult probation agencies
(Smith, Schweitzer, Labrecque, &
Latessa, 2012). Probation officers are trained to provide
targeted, short interventions to probation-
ers during the typical face-to-face meeting with clients. In
particular, they argue that each face-to-
face meeting should include the following:
• Check in
• Review
• Intervention
• Homework
During the session, the probation officer focuses on issues the
client is dealing with that might
act as barriers to change. For example, if the youth is struggling
with finding prosocial peers
to spend time with after school and on weekends, the probation

officer can offer suggestions
for prosocial activities and work with the youth to develop
coping skills to handle high-risk
situations. For example, the probation officer would be able to
engage in a short role-play
with clients about what to say or how to handle the next time an
antisocial peer asks them to
attend a party or use drugs. The EPICS approach would not be
in place of treatment services;
rather, it would simply provide a framework for meaningful
interactions between the youth
and the probation officer.
Another model, developed by Faye Taxman of Virginia
Commonwealth University, is referred
to as Proactive Community Supervision (PCS). Originally
developed for adult probation
and parole agencies, the PCS model has also been used in
juvenile agencies. Like the EPICS
model, the PCS model is based on what works or evidence-
based practices for offender
change. According to Taxman, Yancey, and Bilanin (2006), the
PSC model includes “five major
components:
Section 7.7Probation Revocation
• Identify criminogenic traits using a valid risk and need tool;
• Develop a supervision plan that addresses criminogenic traits
employing effective

external controls and treatment interventions;
• Hold the offender accountable for progress on the supervision
plan;
• Use a place-based strategy wherein individual
probation/parole office environments
are engaged in implementing the strategy; and
• Develop partnerships with community organizations who will
provide ancillary
services to supervisees.” (p. 1)
Studies suggest that this approach can reduce recidivism among
youth supervised by skilled
probation officers (Young, Farrell, & Taxman, 2012).
The impact of the relationship between the officer and the
juvenile is also a critical factor in
effective probation, but it was frequently overlooked (Matthews
& Hubbard, 2007). Tradition-
ally, probation officers often lacked training in relationship-
and rapport-building, instead
taking an authoritative style. But skills-based approaches such
as EPICS and PCS require com-
munication skills to be effective.
7.7 Probation Revocation
The final issue confronting probation for juveniles is the
revocation and termination of proba-
tion services. As mentioned in Chapter 6, juvenile courts may
invoke blended sentences. In
this circumstance, the juvenile is given a disposition in both the
juvenile and adult systems.
For example, a juvenile may be sentenced to intensive
supervision with juvenile probation
but also receive a sentence of incarceration in the adult system.

The judge will suspend the
adult sentence based on the juvenile’s behavior on intensive
supervision probation. In this
example, if the juvenile fails to abide by the conditions of
probation, the adult sentence may
be invoked.
Even when the juvenile is not given a blended sentence, the
probation can be revoked and the
juvenile sent back to court. However, juveniles have been
granted certain due process rights
that must be considered in court before probation can be
revoked. The case that addressed
this was Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), in which a group of
appellants claimed that their
request for a jury trial was denied under Pennsylvania law. The
Supreme Court was asked
to review whether juvenile defendants are entitled to a formal
hearing as would be found in
a typical criminal proceeding. The Court ruled that if a
juvenile’s probation is to be revoked,
certain rights must be preserved. Those rights include written
notice, disclosure of evidence,
opportunity to be heard, a right to cross-examine witnesses, and
a written statement of the
charges. In addition, a revocation of probation in juvenile court
is not an automatic qualifier
to be remanded to the adult criminal court system. The judge
will reconsider the dispositional
options available both to serve the youth and to preserve public
safety.
There are several concerns regarding revocation, including race
impacts and long-term
impacts on the youth. For example, a third of the referrals for
residential facilities emanate

from probation revocations. As we discuss in Chapter 8,
residential placement has multifac-
eted impacts, including reduced social bonds, time away from
school, and exposure to high-
risk others. There are also concerns regarding whether the
probationer’s race could influence
Section 7.8Intermediate Sanctions
the judge’s decision to revoke a youth’s probation in favor of
long-term detention (Bishop &
Lieber, 2011).
Although probation is the most frequently used sanction in the
juvenile justice system, vari-
ous other dispositions are available, including community-based
sanctions, also referred to
as intermediate sanctions. The intermediate sanctions we
discuss in the next section do not
represent an exhaustive list, but they provide examples of
commonly used interventions.
7.8 Intermediate Sanctions
Intermediate sanctions can be applied in conjunction with
probation, in place of probation,
or as a sanction for noncompliance on probation. Intermediate
sanctions provide the judge
with a greater menu of options when sentencing the juvenile,
particularly if the judge feels the
juvenile warrants additional sanctions rather than relying solely
on standard probation ser-

vices. The goal of the sanction may be community safety (e.g.,
electronic monitoring), restor-
ative justice (e.g., restitution), rehabilitation (e.g., day
treatment centers), or a mixture of all
three. Although a judge or probation officer may choose from a
multitude of sanctions, we
focus here on several of the most popular
ones.
Electronic Monitoring/
House Arrest
House arrest can occur with or without
electronic monitoring. House arrest, also
called home confinement, requires the
youth to stay in the community while
maintaining a higher level of supervision
than found on traditional probation or
even ISP. The youth is often required to
stay in the home for certain periods of
time. The youth may be given the freedom
to leave the home during preapproved
times and for activities such as school or
work; however, he or she often remains in the home the
majority of the time. The home con-
finement can be part of a pretrial condition in an effort to
reduce the use of detention or as a
sanction postadjudication.
The Developmental Services Group (2009) provided a literature
review for OJJDP and con-
cluded that home confinement often includes three levels of
restriction:
• Curfew programs: The youth would be required to return home
by a certain time
each day.

• Home detention: The youth would be required to remain home
unless at school,
work, or another approved activity.
• Home incarceration: The youth would be required to remain in
the home virtually 24
hours per day, with the exception of medical and court
appointments.
age footstock/SuperStock
Electronic monitoring devices allow authorities
to track the whereabouts of offenders.
Home confinement has its benefits. It retains the juvenile in the
community rather than rely-
ing on detention or incarceration. It also typically allows the
juvenile to continue enrollment
in a traditional school setting. Some research has shown that
juveniles placed under home
confinement have lower recidivism rates while under
supervision (Weibush, 1993). Other
research, however, indicates that benefits are short term and not
seen as promoting long-
term behavioral change (Aos, Phipps, Barnowski, & Lieb,
2018).
Home confinement may also include electronic monitoring. The
two most common types are

referred to as “passive” or “active” monitors. The passive
monitors require some degree of
effort on the client’s part. For example, the juvenile may be
required to insert a transmitter
into a home device at certain intervals. Or the juvenile may be
required to answer random
phone calls to the residence (it may be an automated system or
the probation officer). Typi-
cally, active systems transmit signals to a receiver in the
client’s home, and the signals are
then continually relayed to the device-monitoring company.
Home devices are typically bracelets worn around the ankle or
wrist. More recent technologi-
cal advancements include global positioning systems (GPS) or
voice recognition software.
GPS devices provide immediate verification of the client’s
whereabouts 24 hours a day. The
devices can be set up to indicate inclusionary and exclusionary
zones. If the offender enters
an exclusionary zone, the device will record the violation. The
device is touted as particularly
useful for offenders charged with domestic violence and sex
crimes, and studies suggest it
can be an effective option for reducing recidivism (Padget,
Bales, & Blomberg, 2006). Voice
recognition software, which also could be augmented with a
camera, allows the monitoring
company to verify that the client is the one inserting the
transmitter or answering the phone
(a disadvantage of the passive systems). Another recent
advancement in electronic monitor-
ing is the inclusion of an alcohol sensor built into the client’s
bracelet. The sensor is designed
to pick up traces of ethanol in the client’s body, thereby alerting
the monitoring company of

possible alcohol use.
A newer approach in electronic monitoring leverages
smartphone technology to enhance
tracking. By monitoring a youth’s smartphone, the officer could
keep track of the websites the
youth is visiting and their patterns of behavior (e.g., school
attendance). This method is still
in the development stage, and privacy issues have not been
worked out; however, agencies
such as the National Science Foundation are providing funding
to explore the use of phones
to enhance behavioral change.
As with home confinement, studies examining the effectiveness
of electronic monitoring are
mixed. Proponents argue that electronic monitoring technology
is a cheaper alternative to
incarceration and can augment traditional probation supervision.
Critics argue that the moni-
toring devices can be expensive, and given that families are
often asked to bear the costs of
the devices, it can put an unreasonable burden on poor families.
Moreover, studies suggest
that electronic monitoring is not superior to ISP probation in
terms of recidivism rates (Peter-
silia, 2018). Finally, long-term follow-up studies of clients on
electronic monitoring found
no significant reductions in recidivism (Finn & Muirhead-
Steves, 2002; Stanz & Tewksbury,
2000). However, given that it is a cheaper option than other
forms of incarceration, many
jurisdictions continue to use these devices. In more recent
years, innovations such as the GPS
systems noted earlier have become popular. However, the
results are mixed as to whether

the addition of GPS technology decreases a person’s propensity
to reoffend (Turner, Cham-
berlain, Jannetta, & Hess, 2015). Future technologies might
hold more promise. Remember,
however, that even though technological advances within the
realm of consumer electronics
(e.g., smartphones, tablets) might be fairly rapid, advancements
involving the monitoring of
delinquency evolve much more slowly.
Day Treatment Centers
Day treatment centers became popular in the 1970s. The centers
are nonresidential facilities
that typically serve youth during the day; however, they may
also offer services in the eve-
ning or weekends (some are referred to as evening treatment
centers). Day treatment centers
provide structured activities and can provide a forum for
treatment and general educational
development (GED) classes for eligible youth.
Day treatment centers offer various services to youth, including
individual and group counsel-
ing, family interventions, school-based services, and recreation
therapy. As with other inter-
mediate sanctions, youth may also be on probation while
attending day treatment centers.
The centers are seen as a cost-effective alternative to residential

treatment or incarceration.
Few studies have been conducted on day treatment centers. The
studies that have been con-
ducted indicate that these centers can be beneficial for youth
(Wilson & Lipsey, 2001). Prelim-
inary findings make sense if we consider that these centers can
provide youth with services
(e.g., substance abuse treatment, job readiness classes, life
skills) designed to address their
problems or issues. However, as with many of the community-
based alternatives that we have
discussed so far, the effectiveness of these centers rests with
how well they are resourced
and whether the programs use strategies known to reduce
recidivism (this topic is explored
further in Chapter 10).
One of the largest providers of day treatment services is known
as the Associated Marine
Institute, Kids (AMIKids) program (see the accompanying
Spotlight).
Spotlight: AMIKids Day Treatment Program
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice conducted an
outcome evaluation of Associated
Marine Institute, Kids (AMIKids). The study compared both
girls and boys who participated
in the program to juveniles who received services in a secure
residential facility. The authors
concluded that the youth who participated in the AMIKids
intervention were significantly
less likely to be arrested and placed in prison during the follow-
up period. They also con-
cluded that the AMIKids program saved Florida taxpayers

money, particularly when com-
pared to the cost of incarcerating juveniles (Winokur Early,
Hand, Blankenship, & Chapman,
2010). The services, noted below, provide youth with skills they
can use when dealing with
problems in their homes and communities.
AMIKids provides a variety of services to youth in eight states.
Services include residential
centers, day treatment centers, alternative school programs, a
program specifically for delin-
quent girls, and family services.
Program Features
• Adjudicated youth
(continued on next page)
After School/Recreation
As the name implies, after-school pro-
grams (ASPs) are designed to provide
services to youth during the time they
are most likely to be unsupervised (e.g.,
3:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.). The programs may
also be offered on weekends or during
the summer. The types of services offered
vary considerably by program and state.
Although many school districts offer
ASPs for youth whose parents work or

are unable to supervise them, ASPs have
been created in many communities to spe-
cifically target at-risk youth. The benefits
of these programs are twofold. First, the
programs keep the youth occupied dur-
ing what otherwise is considered a high-
risk time. Second, supporters argue that by offering educational
services after school, these
programs can increase participants’ academic achievement.
Moreover, agencies often receive
financial support through the federal government for these types
of programs through the
Every Student Succeeds Act (formerly the No Child Left Behind
mandate).
As mentioned earlier, ASPs can vary dramatically by state or
program. For example, one
nationally recognized program, Be a Star, targets low-income
youth ages 5 to 12 and teaches
them about the danger of drugs (Pierce & Shields, 1998).
Another program, Success for Kids,
targets low-income youth ages 6 to 14 and teaches them
resiliency skills to overcome adver-
sity (Maestas & Gaillot, 2010). Yet another program, SMART
Moves, which is operated by the
Boys and Girls Club of America, provides educational services
designed to prevent drug use
and sexual activity among 13- and 15-year-olds (Kaltreider &
St. Pierre, 1995). This chapter’s
Featured Program box focuses on the literature-based program
Reading for Life.
Spotlight: AMIKids Day Treatment Program (continued)
• Program hours, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
• Serves girls and boys

• Youth reside at home while in the program
• Saturday services may be offered
• Referred by court or schools
• Average length of stay, 4–6 months
Typical Services
• Academic educational services and GED prep
• Recreation therapy (e.g., backpacking, wilderness programs)
• Motivational interviewing
• Cognitive-behavioral therapy to resolve deviant thoughts
• Anger replacement training for anger issues
• Skills streaming to teach youth coping skills for dealing with
high-risk situations
Eyecandy Images/Thinkstock
Community after-school programs provide
supervision and educational services for youth.
Although ASPs are popular, studies on their effectiveness
overall are mixed. Some research
suggests that these programs can increase participants’
educational achievement; however,
many others suggest they have no impact (James-Burdumy et
al., 2005). Most studies cite dif-
ficulties with comparing the programs, given that they are so
distinct from one another (Lauer
et al., 2006). For example, some programs are loosely organized
and simply provide some

adult supervision to the youth with few structured activities.
Others are more intensive and
Featured Program: Reading for Life
http://www.readingforlife.us/
Mission: Reading for Life exists as an alternative
to prosecution for nonviolent offenses. In small
groups with trained mentors, young people learn to
make more virtuous life choices by recognizing and
implementing justice, prudence, temperance, forti-
tude, fidelity, hope, and charity.
What does Harry Potter have to do with juvenile
rehabilitation? More than you might think.
The idea to pair the two began when Alesha Seroc-
zynski was jogging one day. Having just immersed
herself in a Harry Potter novel, she began consider-
ing how J. K. Rowling’s famous story might enable
teens to see the value of good decisions. Little did
she know that this thought process would lead to
the creation of exactly that: an intervention pro-
gram in which mentors use the virtues espoused
in the Harry Potter novels to teach character
development.
Working with Bethel College, Alesha began to
design curriculum based on Aristotelian and
Thomist virtue theory, the result of which became
the foundations of her Reading for Life program.
According to Alesha, “[v]irtue theory maintains that
morality is more than simply doing the right thing”
(Seroczynski, 2011). This theory empha-
sizes the agent over the action, holding that the cultivation of
virtue will produce moral

action. Alesha believes that virtue theory models a good and
simple way to think about life,
encouraging one to slow down and think.
The pilot program was held in 2004 at the St. Joseph County
Juvenile Justice Center in South
Bend, Indiana. Alesha, Scott Johnson, and a team of
undergraduates held a “story hour” once
a week in which they read aloud portions of Harry Potter and
the Sorcerer’s Stone with about
20 students, followed by a 90-minute discussion that involved
exploring how virtues were
exhibited in the novel.
In “The Hidden Virtues of Harry Potter,” Seroczynski, Johnson,
Lamb, and Gustman (2011)
note that “there are multiple moral dimensions in Harry Potter,
including the contrast of
evil and greed with the virtues of courage, fidelity, and love”
(p. 3). The novel’s examples of
injustice give the program mentors the chance to talk about
justice. The friendship among
the novel’s main characters, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, spurs
discussion of the students’ own
friendships. Harry’s relationship with his friends contrasts with
several of his conflicted rela-
tionships with adults, such as his aunt and uncle or Professor
Snape. Mentors take time to
talk to the students about their own family relationships, their
relationships with authority
figures, and various issues of trust.
Since the inception of the pilot, many other books have been
added to the program’s reading
list. Mentors work with participants to consider whether or not
the actions taken by the

Alesha Seroczynski/Reading for Life
Alesha Seroczynski, Ph.D., founder and
director of Reading for Life.
Featured Program: Reading for Life (continued)
characters in a book are virtuous. Mentors also show students
why these virtues could be
beneficial tools to have in life and how to exercise them in daily
situations. There is also a
journal component, in which participants write about virtuous
and not-so-virtuous actions
they have taken themselves.
After reading a book, groups complete a commu-
nity service project that complements the theme
of the book. For example, readers of Neil Gaiman’s
The Graveyard Book, a novel about an orphaned
boy who is raised by ghosts, volunteered at a soup
kitchen that serves the homeless. And the group
that read Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner spent
the afternoon making hygiene care packs for refu-
gees in Afghanistan.
In 2005, Alesha was approached by Peter Morgan,
then the director of the Youth Justice Project, and
together they transformed Reading for Life into a
diversion program for first-time offenders at the
St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center. Partici-
pants in Reading for Life are given the opportunity
to have their case closed and record expunged
after age 18 if they complete the requirements
of the program and remain offense-free for
three years.

So why is Alesha so passionate about leading book discussions
as diversion programs?
Because she believes that it makes a difference in the lives of
its participants. At the time of
the study, 99% of Reading for Life graduates had not been
prosecuted for reoffending, and
94% had had no further contact with the law. Alesha and the
other mentors have seen first-
hand the difference the program makes. For example, a
discussion on the different types of
love helped one of the participants realize the need to break up
with an abusive boyfriend
(Seroczynski, 2011). Additionally, many of the participants’
parents or guardians say that
they see behavioral changes in the juveniles as a result of the
program.
The program’s motto is evident on its website: “A caring
mentor. A good book. A new life.”
Alesha’s goal is to stop the cycle of violence—to prevent those
who come in contact with the
law from doing so again.
For more information on this program visit the following
website:
• Story on National Public Radio (NPR):
http://www.npr.org/blogs/participationnation/
2012/08/29/159957406/reading-for-life-in-south-bend-ind
Reading for Life
Student painting of Richard Parker
from The Life of Pi. Students in the
“Heavy Readers” group completed this
novel as part of the fall/winter 2011

curriculum.
Although ASPs are popular, studies on their effectiveness
overall are mixed. Some research
suggests that these programs can increase participants’
educational achievement; however,
many others suggest they have no impact (James-Burdumy et
al., 2005). Most studies cite dif-
ficulties with comparing the programs, given that they are so
distinct from one another (Lauer
et al., 2006). For example, some programs are loosely organized
and simply provide some
adult supervision to the youth with few structured activities.
Others are more intensive and
Featured Program: Reading for Life
http://www.readingforlife.us/
Mission: Reading for Life exists as an alternative
to prosecution for nonviolent offenses. In small
groups with trained mentors, young people learn to
make more virtuous life choices by recognizing and
implementing justice, prudence, temperance, forti-
tude, fidelity, hope, and charity.
What does Harry Potter have to do with juvenile
rehabilitation? More than you might think.
The idea to pair the two began when Alesha Seroc-

zynski was jogging one day. Having just immersed
herself in a Harry Potter novel, she began consider-
ing how J. K. Rowling’s famous story might enable
teens to see the value of good decisions. Little did
she know that this thought process would lead to
the creation of exactly that: an intervention pro-
gram in which mentors use the virtues espoused
in the Harry Potter novels to teach character
development.
Working with Bethel College, Alesha began to
design curriculum based on Aristotelian and
Thomist virtue theory, the result of which became
the foundations of her Reading for Life program.
According to Alesha, “[v]irtue theory maintains that
morality is more than simply doing the right thing”
(Seroczynski, 2011). This theory empha-
sizes the agent over the action, holding that the cultivation of
virtue will produce moral
action. Alesha believes that virtue theory models a good and
simple way to think about life,
encouraging one to slow down and think.
The pilot program was held in 2004 at the St. Joseph County
Juvenile Justice Center in South
Bend, Indiana. Alesha, Scott Johnson, and a team of
undergraduates held a “story hour” once
a week in which they read aloud portions of Harry Potter and
the Sorcerer’s Stone with about
20 students, followed by a 90-minute discussion that involved
exploring how virtues were
exhibited in the novel.
In “The Hidden Virtues of Harry Potter,” Seroczynski, Johnson,
Lamb, and Gustman (2011)
note that “there are multiple moral dimensions in Harry Potter,

including the contrast of
evil and greed with the virtues of courage, fidelity, and love”
(p. 3). The novel’s examples of
injustice give the program mentors the chance to talk about
justice. The friendship among
the novel’s main characters, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, spurs
discussion of the students’ own
friendships. Harry’s relationship with his friends contrasts with
several of his conflicted rela-
tionships with adults, such as his aunt and uncle or Professor
Snape. Mentors take time to
talk to the students about their own family relationships, their
relationships with authority
figures, and various issues of trust.
Since the inception of the pilot, many other books have been
added to the program’s reading
list. Mentors work with participants to consider whether or not
the actions taken by the
Alesha Seroczynski/Reading for Life
Alesha Seroczynski, Ph.D., founder and
director of Reading for Life.
Featured Program: Reading for Life (continued)
characters in a book are virtuous. Mentors also show students
why these virtues could be
beneficial tools to have in life and how to exercise them in daily
situations. There is also a
journal component, in which participants write about virtuous
and not-so-virtuous actions
they have taken themselves.
After reading a book, groups complete a commu-

nity service project that complements the theme
of the book. For example, readers of Neil Gaiman’s
The Graveyard Book, a novel about an orphaned
boy who is raised by ghosts, volunteered at a soup
kitchen that serves the homeless. And the group
that read Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner spent
the afternoon making hygiene care packs for refu-
gees in Afghanistan.
In 2005, Alesha was approached by Peter Morgan,
then the director of the Youth Justice Project, and
together they transformed Reading for Life into a
diversion program for first-time offenders at the
St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center. Partici-
pants in Reading for Life are given the opportunity
to have their case closed and record expunged
after age 18 if they complete the requirements
of the program and remain offense-free for
three years.
So why is Alesha so passionate about leading book discussions
as diversion programs?
Because she believes that it makes a difference in the lives of
its participants. At the time of
the study, 99% of Reading for Life graduates had not been
prosecuted for reoffending, and
94% had had no further contact with the law. Alesha and the
other mentors have seen first-
hand the difference the program makes. For example, a
discussion on the different types of
love helped one of the participants realize the need to break up
with an abusive boyfriend
(Seroczynski, 2011). Additionally, many of the participants’
parents or guardians say that
they see behavioral changes in the juveniles as a result of the
program.

The program’s motto is evident on its website: “A caring
mentor. A good book. A new life.”
Alesha’s goal is to stop the cycle of violence—to prevent those
who come in contact with the
law from doing so again.
For more information on this program visit the following
website:
• Story on National Public Radio (NPR):
http://www.npr.org/blogs/participationnation/
2012/08/29/159957406/reading-for-life-in-south-bend-ind
Reading for Life
Student painting of Richard Parker
from The Life of Pi. Students in the
“Heavy Readers” group completed this
novel as part of the fall/winter 2011
curriculum.
Summary of Learning Objectives
offer group sessions designed to teach kids a variety of life
skills (e.g., budgeting, nutrition,
interviewing, job readiness). In addition, in many circumstances
these programs are volun-
tary, and attendance can be difficult to enforce. Finally, the
effects of a given program (e.g.,
increasing resiliency) may be difficult to measure. A summary
of the research conducted by

Lauer and colleagues did find a small but significant impact on
reading and math levels for
participants.
Critics of ASPs suggest that the programs could increase their
effectiveness if they incorpo-
rated best practices into their models. Best practices with regard
to ASPs include the following:
• Targeting at-risk youth
• Conducting an assessment of the youth’s risk and needs
• Matching levels of services to the youth’s risk and needs (e.g.,
targeted services to
the areas in which the youth needs the most assistance)
• Integrating family members when possible
• Teaching youth coping skills for dealing with high-risk
situations
Proponents of ASPs argue that they serve an important purpose
above and beyond the
increase in academic achievement (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005).
Although these programs
are not necessarily treatment programs, they do provide
supervision to youth during a fairly
at-risk time (3:00 p.m.–7:00 p.m.). As such, these programs
continue to proliferate in many
jurisdictions.
Regardless of whether the system experiences shifts in social or
political policy, community
corrections will remain a popular option for juvenile
delinquents. Studies support keeping
juveniles in the community to remain close to their schools and
families, and community cor-
rections remains a cost-efficient way to respond to criminal

behavior. With that said, however,
institutional corrections remains an important option for some
youth. In the next chapter we
discuss institutionalizing juveniles and the importance of
planning for their eventual reinte-
gration back into society.
Analyze the community-based corrections goals of punishment,
rehabilitation, and restor-
ative justice.
• Community corrections range from basic probation,
community service, intensive
supervision probation, house arrest, electronic monitoring, day
treatment, after-
school programs, and a range of treatment programs.
• Several forces influence the effectiveness of community
corrections with juveniles.
Those forces include goal conflict, resource limitations,
bureaucracy, and philosophi-
cal differences.
• Restorative justice is a popular approach for juveniles.
Restorative justice programs
are designed to bring the offender, the victim, and the
community together to repair
the harm done to society. Popular approaches include victim-
offender mediation,
community service, restitution, and circle sentencing.

Describe how probation is organized and the population it
serves.
• Probation is the most widely used sanction under the
community corrections
umbrella. Probation can be organized locally or at the state
level depending on the
jurisdiction.
• Probationers differ in terms of race, age, gender, and charge
type. However, the
majority of juvenile delinquents are placed on probation.
Explain the two basic functions of a probation officer.
• Probation officers are often engaged in two core activities:
investigation and
supervision.
• The presentence investigation report will detail the results of
the investigation of the
youth’s background.
• The level and types of supervision activities vary greatly and
depend on factors such
as the youth’s background, supervision level, and resources of
the agency.
Summarize the goals of probation supervision.
• The goal of probation supervision is to increase public safety
through supervision
and service delivery. However, probation officers often have to

contend with compet-
ing goals.
• The probation officer must be concerned with maintaining
community safety while
also being responsible for the provision of services for youth.
To provide these ser-
vices, the probation officer must establish a helping role with
the youth. Officers may
find it difficult to strike a balance between the law enforcement
and social worker
orientations.
Outline the factors influencing the effectiveness of probation.
• The effectiveness of probation is mixed; however, newer
approaches suggest that
probation officers can increase their effectiveness by relying on
best practices to
guide the supervision activities and face-to-face meetings with
clients.
• Best practices might include intensive interventions that target
juveniles at higher
risk for recidivism and that target issues related to their
criminal behavior, as well as
augmenting the PSI interview with a standardized risk and
needs assessment tool.
Explain the circumstances in which probation can be revoked.
• The courts ruled that if a juvenile’s probation is to be revoked,
certain rights must be
preserved.
• Those rights include written notice, disclosure of evidence,

opportunity to be heard,
a right to cross-examine witnesses, and a written statement of
the charges.
Evaluate the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions.
• House arrest and electronic monitoring remain popular options
for juvenile delin-
quents. Recent technological advancements in the area of
electronic monitoring such
as GPS, voice recognition software, and alcohol monitors have
increased its popu-
larity. However, these methods have not been shown to be
particularly effective in
reducing recidivism.
• Day treatment centers offer a cost-effective alternative to
incarceration and can pro-
vide a structured treatment approach with increased levels of
supervision.
• The few studies that have been conducted do show that these
centers can be ben-
eficial for the youth. However, the effectiveness of these
centers tends to depend
on how well they are resourced and whether the programs use
strategies known to
reduce recidivism.

• The effectiveness of after-school programs is mixed.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Visit the Officer of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention website (http://
www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/probation/index.html) and learn more
about the latest
trends in probation.
2. Probation is the workhorse of the system; however, it often
suffers from a negative
image. That negative image emanates from critics who believe
that probation is too
lenient a punishment. What are your views on probation?
3. Do you think probation officers should act as treatment
counselors, as suggested by
the EPICS model? What might be the disadvantages of having
probation officers act
in this role?
4. Do you think that global positioning systems (GPSs) are a
reasonable option for
monitoring juvenile delinquents? Do you think GPS devices
violate juveniles’ privacy
rights? Why or why not?
Key Terms
Associated Marine Institute, Kids pro-
gram (AMIKids) One of the largest provid-
ers of day treatment services.
correctional system Sanctions utilized by
the court system to punish or correct crimi-

nal behavior.
Effective Practices in Community Super-
vision (EPICS) A probation model in which
probation officers are trained to provide
targeted, short interventions to probation-
ers during the typical face-to-face meeting
with clients to focus on issues that might act
as barriers to the client’s change.
evidence-based approach The use of
services, programs, or interventions that
have been shown to be effective, most often
measured by reductions in recidivism. Also
referred to as “best practices” or “what
works.”
global positioning system (GPS) A tech-
nological device that provides immediate
verification of the client’s whereabouts 24
hours a day.
goal conflict The struggle faced by many
correctional agencies in deciding which
philosophical path to choose.
house arrest Home confinement that
requires the youth to stay in the community
while maintaining a higher level of supervi-
sion than found on traditional probation or
even ISP.
intensive supervision probation (ISP)
A type of probation that requires the client
to meet more frequently with a probation
officer.

justice model A 1980s movement toward
a more accountable probation office with
increased levels of supervision.
Morrissey v. Brewer A 1972 Supreme
Court case that ruled that juveniles have
been granted certain due process rights that
must be considered in court before the indi-
vidual’s probation can be revoked.
presentence investigation (PSI) A sum-
mary report created by the probation officer
detailing the juvenile’s criminal history and
social situation.
Proactive Community Supervision
(PCS) A model based on “what works”
or evidence-based practices for offender
change that includes five major strategies.
risk control A set of policies or interven-
tions designed to control a juvenile’s risk of
criminal behavior.
risk reduction A set of policies or inter-
ventions focused on reducing the probabil-
ity of reoffending through changing why the
person began engaging in risky behavior.

Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish
the following objectives:
▪ Explain the purpose and primary features of the juvenile
court.
▪ Summarize the jurisdiction of juvenile court, especially with
regard to cases of abuse and neglect.
▪ Describe the traditional juvenile court process.
▪ Evaluate the different types of problem-solving courts.
▪ Summarize the laws used to transfer juveniles to adult court.
▪ Analyze the legal issues surrounding the death penalty for
juveniles and the recent Supreme Court decision
on mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole.
6The Juvenile Court
Model
Ashlee Culverhouse/Chattanooga Times Free Press/Associated
Press

Chapter Outline
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Jurisdiction of the Court
▪ Cases of Abuse and Neglect
▪ Child Protective Services
6.3 Traditional Juvenile Court Process
▪ Arrest
▪ Intake
▪ Detention
▪ Adjudication and Disposition
▪ Diversion
6.4 Alternative Processes: Problem-Solving Courts
▪ Teen Courts
▪ Juvenile Drug Courts
▪ Mental Health Courts
6.5 Alternative Processes: Transferring Youth to Adult Court
▪ Transfer Laws
▪ Criticisms of Transfer Laws
6.6 Death Penalty for Juveniles
In the fall of 2002, two men terrorized the Washington, D.C.,
area by randomly killing 10 people

over the course of three weeks. The pair earned the name
“Beltway Snipers” because of the shooting
method used to kill their victims. In most circumstances, the
victims were shot sniper-style from a long
distance without the shooters being seen by the victims or
others around them. The victims were chosen
at random while they were simply going about their everyday
lives.
During the three-week period, the police had many leads but no
real suspects. Then an anony-
mous tipster directed police to a previous shooting in Alabama.
In that case, the police found finger-
print evidence, eventually linking the suspects and identifying
the make and model of the car they
were driving. Shortly thereafter, the police apprehended the
assailants sleeping in their car at a
rest stop near where the crimes were committed. After the
assailants were caught, the police found
the weapon used in many of the shootings as well as a hole in
the trunk apparently used to conceal the
sniper’s gun. The two individuals eventually convicted of the
crimes were John Allen Muhammad and Lee
Boyd Malvo. John Allen Muhammad, a 43-year-old man, was
convicted of murder and sentenced to
death. He was executed by lethal injection in November 2009.
The public was shocked to learn that the second assailant, Lee
Boyd Malvo, was only 17 at the
time of the shootings. He is currently serving six life sentences
without the possibility of parole
for his role in the crimes (Horwitz & Ruane, 2004). Prosecutors
in Virginia contemplated trying
him for additional capital crimes, which could have resulted in
the death penalty. However, in
2010, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty is

unconstitutional for juvenile defendants.
Section 6.1Introduction
6.1 Introduction
The juvenile justice system has changed over time in many
ways. By most accounts, the cre-
ation of the first juvenile court is one of the most significant
changes in the history of the juve-
nile justice system. The juvenile court model, created in 1899,
developed with the recognition
that juveniles are different from adult offenders. As such, the
juvenile court concept adopted
a less formal role of processing cases. In effect, the court
embraced a caretaking role toward
juveniles. At the same time, however, we have seen political
and social forces shape the cur-
rent juvenile court model.
There is a great deal of variation in how juvenile courts are
organized throughout the United
States. For example, juvenile courts nationwide differ in terms
of who they serve, the interac-
tions among the courtroom workgroup, and sentencing options
available to judges. As noted
by Bilchik (1999),
There is much variation in the way state statutes define the
purposes of their
juvenile courts. Some declare their goals in exhaustive detail,
even listing spe-

cific programs and sentencing options; others mention only
broad aims. Most
states seek to protect the interests of the child, the family, the
community, or a
combination of the three. (p. 3)
Although differences exist, the juvenile court model is
organized around several core features:
• The judge should act as a parent or advocate for the child
rather than rely simply on
punishment.
• Juveniles and adults should be separated for all proceedings.
• Juveniles and adults should be kept in separate institutions.
• Probation officers should be appointed who will investigate
the youth’s background
and provide case management services.
The first juvenile court was established in 1899. In 1999, the
Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) published a series of articles
to commemorate the 100th
anniversary of its establishment; however, questions remain
whether the core concepts of the
juvenile court system have ever been fully realized. In the late
1990s, Cindy Lederman (1999)
concluded that the courts were more punitive and lacked the
resources needed to achieve
their intended goal: the prevention of juvenile delinquency. She
argued that juvenile courts
should not simply mirror the adult criminal court system.
Rather, they should be organized
around the founding principles of rehabilitation and advocacy.

Political and social forces play an important role in shaping
juvenile justice policy. The juve-
nile court model is not immune to these types of influences. As
the number of juvenile courts
grew, several significant changes occurred. For example, as
more juveniles were subjected
to the court system, reformers advocated for the protection of
juveniles’ due process rights.
The focus on due process rights was advocated as a way to
protect, not punish, juveniles who
were involved in the system. However, as the “get tough”
movement of the 1980s and 1990s
spread through the country, reformers advocated for a punitive
shift in the handling of juve-
nile offenders. One example of this punitive shift is the
increased number of youths treated
as adults as shown by the increased use of transfer waivers to
the adult court. Many states
broadened the criteria for transferring juvenile offenders to the
adult criminal court system
Section 6.2Jurisdiction of the Court
based on deterrence theory—that is, harsher treatment and
punishments would discourage,
or deter, would-be offenders in the future.
By the early 2000s, though, trends reversed, and juvenile courts
began adopting more poli-
cies congruent with the original goals of rehabilitation. For
example, alternative courts such as

juvenile drug courts, teen courts, and even juvenile mental
health courts have become popular
options. These courts, which have spread rapidly throughout the
country, pair the court and
the treatment provider to address juveniles’ various needs.
Raising the age of jurisdiction (the age at
which youth convicted of certain crimes will be sent to adult
criminal court for processing) is a topic
that has gained support in recent years. Finally, three major
Supreme Court rulings since 2005 have
affected the juvenile justice system in terms of death penalty
eligibility and sentences of lifetime with-
out parole. As we examine the current juvenile court system in
this chapter, we discuss these issues
as well as many others.
6.2 Jurisdiction of the Court
Although many people may consider anyone under the age of 18
as a “youth,” courts vary in
how they treat 16- and 17-year-old offenders. The majority of
the states in this country set
the age of original jurisdiction at 17 years of age; five states set
it at 16 (see Figure 6.1). This
issue continues to evolve because of research calling into
question the effectiveness of trans-
ferring youth to adult court.
Figure 6.1: Number of states by age of original jurisdiction*
*South Carolina’s Act 268 raised the age through age 17,
effective 7/1/19; Louisiana's Act 501 raised the age through 17
for some
youth effective 7/1/18, and others effective 7/1/20; New York's
A3009C raised the age through 16 effective 10/1/18, and
through
age 17 effective 10/1/19; North Carolina's SL2017-57 raised the

age through 17, effective 12/1/19.
“Delinquency upper age, 2016,” from “OJJDP statistical
briefing book,” by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 2017,
Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?
qaDate=2016&text=no&maplink=link2 and
“Recent changes,” from “Jurisdictional boundaries,” by Juvenile
Justice Geography, Policy, Practice, & Statistics, 2017,
Retrieved from
http://www.jjgps.org/jurisdictional-boundaries
Certain charges influence when a juvenile is automatically
transferred. For example, Georgia
Senate Bill 440, titled the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, gives
the adult court exclusive jurisdic-
tion over the trial of juveniles 13–17 years of age who have
committed any offense catego-
rized as the “seven deadly sins.” They are
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

0
16 years old 17 years old
5
45
45
• Murder
• Rape
• Aggravated robbery with a firearm
• Aggravated child molestation
• Aggravated sodomy
• Aggravated sexual batter
• Voluntary manslaughter (Georgia Department of Corrections,
2016)
Age aside, the juvenile court also serves youth from various
backgrounds and offense types.
For example, in addition to more serious criminal cases, the
juvenile court is in charge of
status offenders and abuse and neglect cases. In some states, the
juvenile court retains
jurisdiction over child custody disputes, youth with mental
illnesses, protection orders, and
child support.
It is the processing of abuse and neglect cases and status

offenders, however, that continues
to be the subject of great debate in the field of juvenile justice.
Both groups are considered
vulnerable populations, and studies suggest that, without careful
consideration, the court’s
involvement could exacerbate the problem.
Cases of Abuse and Neglect
Abuse and neglect cases can present a
number of unique challenges to the juve-
nile court system. For example, the juve-
nile court must be mindful of how the
court’s involvement in the youth’s life
could exacerbate existing problems (e.g.,
negative labeling, exposure to delin-
quents). In other circumstances, the
youth’s family may be involved in the
criminal justice system and be resistant to
engage in the process. In still other cir-
cumstances, the youth may be involved in
the system both in an abuse and neglect
case and in a criminal case on a different
matter. The complexity of these situations
is illustrated in numerous studies that link
exposure to violence (including child
abuse) to criminal behavior. Consider the following facts:
• Abused children are significantly more likely to be involved in
criminal behavior com-
pared to those who were not abused.
• Abused children are more likely to be arrested both as
juveniles and adults.
• Abused children are three times more likely to use drugs and
alcohol and to exhibit

aggressive behavior (Earle, 1995).
• Studies show that abused and neglected youth may also
experience other forms of
victimization, making their trauma more complex and the
effects longer lasting (Fin-
kelhor, Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011).
Axiom Photographic Limited/SuperStock
The juvenile court system intervenes in cases
of abuse and neglect and often must determine
custody of juveniles.
The court’s responsibility for the child in an abuse and neglect
case rests with the concept
of in loco parentis. In loco parentis means “in place of the
parent” and implies that the juve-
nile court will maintain responsibility for the care of the
juvenile in cases where the parents’
rights are terminated. Juveniles in this circumstance are referred
to as wards of the state. In
some circumstances, the juvenile court will decide whether
criminal prosecution of the par-
ent is necessary.
However, in many abuse and neglect cases, the parental rights
are not terminated. In these
cases, the purpose of the court’s involvement is to intervene and
determine whether family

Running head TEXT ANALYSIS .docx

Running head TEXT ANALYSIS .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head TEXT ANALYSIS .docx

Similar to Running head TEXT ANALYSIS .docx (12)

More from todd521

More from todd521 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head TEXT ANALYSIS .docx