Opportunities for Juvenile Probation Reform" />Opportunities for Juvenile Probation Reform" />
This article is part of Shared Justice’s Opportunity for Transformation series running throughout June. The series will explore one of the most urgent areas for reform within the juvenile justice system: juvenile probation. It will introduce readers to juvenile probation, its flaws, and the opportunities for government and civil society to create a juvenile justice system that is more equitable, effective, and restorative.
When COVID-19 began to spread, there were many sudden changes to the way people lived. Amidst the chaos, Grace, a 15-year-old girl from Michigan, made headlines for not completing her homework . Her school transitioned from in-person classes to online learning to adapt to COVID-19 restrictions, and Grace, along with other students from her class, struggled to make the adjustment. These school changes were further complicated by the fact that Grace has ADHD, a learning disability that can make online learning even more challenging. Her instructor commented that her academic performance did not falter any more than that of her peers.
Though her classmates did not receive any extra punishment, she was incarcerated. Why? Grace was on juvenile probation. By failing to complete her homework, she had violated a condition of her probation. Grace’s probation officer, who monitored her compliance, reported the violation to the judge overseeing her case. In response, the judge determined that she should be sentenced to a juvenile detention facility.
The public decried the punitive decision to send a teenager to a detention facility in the middle of a pandemic, not for a serious violation of her probation, but for failing to complete her homework.
Grace’s story illustrates a juvenile probation system that is deeply flawed. Across the country, young people like Grace are regularly sent to detention facilities for what are often minor infractions or violations of probation.
Juvenile probation is an alternative to confinement that allows young people who have contact with the justice system to remain in their own communities if they comply with a set of conditions. Judges grant probation when the circumstances or seriousness of the offense suggest that the young adult is not a threat to society. A young person is assigned a probation officer who monitors compliance through check-ins with important people from the young person’s life, such as family, teachers, or employers, as well as meeting with the young person regularly. Some young people are given ankle monitors to track their movement and adherence to curfews. If the conditions are violated, the young person is subject to further punishment — including incarceration. The length of the probation sentence may be specified by the judge or left up to the probation officer to decide whether the youth has made enough progress.
States enact their own laws to define juvenile delinquency and the structure of the juvenile justice system. These laws are then executed by the juvenile court of each county or municipality within the state. That means probation may entail complete house arrest and curfew requirements or may allow the youth to leave the home for school, work, or community service — all depending on which jurisdiction the youth is under and the discretion of the judge. In most states , juvenile courts handle cases for youth under the age of 17, and there is no minimum age to be sent to juvenile court if charged with a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, the average length of probation ranges from under 12 months to over two years.
Probation is the most common punishment for juvenile delinquency, accounting for over half of all court-adjudicated youth, according to a report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each year, “nearly a half-million young people are given some form of probation.” More than half of these young people are “never found delinquent in court,” or were only in trouble for status offenses — noncriminal acts that count as law violations because the offender is a minor, like running away from home or not showing up to school. In other words, they pose only a minimal risk to their community.
Young people of color are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system as a whole and, particularly, in probation. Black, Latino, and other youth of color are more frequently given probationary sentences as opposed to less restrictive alternatives like community service: “48 percent of young white offenders are diverted to community service, compared to 37 percent of youths of color.” According to Steve Bishop, senior associate at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, young people of color are also “far more likely than their white peers to be confined for violating probation rules.” Specifically, in 2017, youth of color represented 64 percent of those held in residential custody for technical violations — despite comprising only 46 percent of the total youth population. This overrepresentation perpetuates racial disparities found in the justice system.
A number of studies suggest that sentencing young people to probation is (at best) ineffective or (at worst) harmful. An article by the Journal of Crime and Justice suggests that community supervision has little impact on recidivism — the rate at which someone reoffends — or even can leave supervisees more likely to recidivate. Similarly, a study from the Forum on Corrections Research found that probation is less effective at reducing recidivism than alternatives like counseling, restorative justice, or skill-building programs. And, for youth at low risk of reoffending, it can actually increase the likelihood that they reoffend, according to an evaluation conducted by the University of Cincinnati. It found that, among young people considered to be low-risk, those given probation were 50 percent more likely to reoffend.
Developmental research also suggests that the structure of probation is counterproductive. Risky behavior is a natural part of adolescence as the brain develops; most young people grow out of such behavior over time without any intervention by the system. As the Annie E. Casey report poignantly asks, “Why impose additional rules on already troubled youth, heighten scrutiny of their behaviors and then punish them for predictable transgressions when most would likely desist from delinquency on their own?”
Instead of heightening scrutiny on a young adult’s behavior, research shows that positive development programs offer a promising alternative. A report from the Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform outlines how probation alternatives such as behavioral therapy programs that emphasize problem-solving, perspective-taking, and self-control can reduce recidivism rates significantly.
Along the same lines, incentives can improve the effectiveness of probationary programs by helping young people learn and implement new behaviors, according to an article from Temple Law Review. Punishment can inhibit bad behaviors, but incentives can actually replace bad behaviors with good ones.
Reforming juvenile probation reform has the potential to alter the course of thousands of lives every year in a positive direction, uphold a more complete vision of justice, and ultimately, offer a path toward flourishing entire communities can take part in.
As Christians, we are not only called to love our neighbors, but are also intimately familiar with the importance of forgiveness and the need for restoration. Christ calls us to extend the same love that rescued us when we were dead in our sins (Rom. 5:8) to those around us and especially to those most in need. This call affirms the importance of restoration in any system of justice. We are left with the question of how best to pursue justice and restoration for our neighbors.
The Center for Public Justice affirms government as a good — though imperfect — gift from God that ought to promote a just public order. Public justice, the guiding principle for government’s work, asks government to uphold the common good by protecting and promoting flourishing for its citizens, while also recognizing that many groups in society contribute uniquely to the well-being of the whole. There is thus an important role for both government and civil society institutions — churches, schools, families, etc. — to play in reforming juvenile probation.
As an institution called to promote the common good, government should prioritize a restorative juvenile justice model rather than one that punishes youth. It can accomplish this goal, while upholding a public justice perspective, in a few key ways.
First, while the structure of probation is problematic, the juvenile justice system’s overreliance on probation is even more concerning. Instead, whenever possible, the juvenile justice system should practice diversion — the redirection of young people away from formal processing by releasing them with a warning or directing them towards faith-based and community diversion programs. Police officers, prosecutors, and judges can all seek diversion , from initial contact with law enforcement through adjudication. The Casey report suggests that young people should be diverted “unless they are alleged to have committed a serious violent felony, have a history of serious and/or chronic offending or have been assessed as high risk of rearrest.”
Diversion programs are premised on the idea that community-based alternatives are most appropriate for minor offenses and that unnecessary involvement with the justice system is harmful to young people. These programs can support young people by offering mental health treatment, substance use education, crisis intervention, job skills training, and more. Government — meaning law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges — should divert young people to programs that are tailored to their individual needs.
Second, in cases when probation is appropriate, government can restructure probation itself by promoting positive youth behaviors. As noted above, developmental research has documented that “the vast majority of youthful offenders will desist from criminal behavior in adulthood.” There is also a growing awareness that “developmental differences make adolescents less morally culpable” and more capable of change than adults. Probation case plans can focus on opportunities for positive development rather than hawkishly watching the young person’s behavior.
In Pierce County, Washington, the Opportunity-Based Probation (OBP) program offers a promising model for other jurisdictions to consider. The program is based on the idea that decision-making and emotional regulation are skills which must be built over time; it attempts to build “scaffolding” around youth to support the development of positive behavior. These material and social incentives offered by OBP can help motivate and reinforce young people along the way. Pierce County also took steps to fund programs like boat building, skateboarding, yoga, and bicycle repair. Additionally, the county funds “parent advocates” that support families through the process of probation.
Third, government can actively involve the families of young people who have contact with the justice system. Family involvement is critical, from working with the probation officer and the youth in order to set the best goals, to supporting the youth through completion of the program and beyond. The Casey foundation, for example, recommends its own Family-Engaged Case Planning model for family involvement. The model emphasizes things like open conversation with the young person and their family, setting realistic goals that are important to all parties, and building on the strengths of the youth and the family instead of exclusively addressing the problems. Together, community resources including family, nonprofit and faith-based groups, schools, and businesses, can form a “circle of care” around the youth and set them on a path to restoration.
In Jefferson County, Alabama, the Juvenile Probation Department uses a method called the Youth Family Team Meeting (YFTM). These meetings involve the young person, his or her family, and other important people from the youth’s life such as pastors or teachers. YFTMs view negative behavior as a young person’s attempt to meet his or her needs in the wrong way. Acting in concert, the team highlights strengths possessed by the youth, and plans how those strengths can be used to meet their underlying needs. Each member of the team is assigned a role to help meet those needs, such as looking into a service or program for the youth. YFTMs in Jefferson County are organized by program coordinators — specially trained probation officers — who contact the various participants. Probation agencies can and should seek out this sort of family involvement.
In short: government can seek diversion, restructure probation, and actively engage the young person’s family or support network. Alongside this progress government can make, a public justice perspective calls for government to recognize its limits and uphold the contributions of civil society.
In the context of juvenile probation, a public justice perspective calls for government to recognize that civil society institutions — such as houses of worship and nonprofit organizations — are often best equipped to meet the holistic and varied needs of young people and their families.
Faith-based organizations and houses of worship are uniquely equipped to contribute to a more effective and restorative juvenile probation process. They are embedded in local communities, more familiar with the challenges that youth and families face, and often serve as institutions of trust in their communities. The Casey report notes that partnerships between probation agencies and faith-based organizations are limited, as “probation agencies have not aggressively pursued meaningful connections with community partners.” These limitations are especially seen in underserved communities of color.
There is significant yet untapped potential for the juvenile justice system and faith-based organizations to collaborate. When probation agencies partner with faith-based organizations, probation can become a focused intervention that engages families, creating the aforementioned “circle of trust.” Faith-based organizations often provide restorative and individualized wraparound services. And, when partnered with probation agencies, they can participate in diversion and probation programming that promotes restorative justice, youth development, workforce development, mentorship, and positive relationships.
An example of this is the work done by Youth Advocate Programs (YAP). The organization is built on “research demonstrating that people do better throughout their lives when they receive support in their communities to strengthen their social, emotional, financial and physical wellbeing.” Toward that end, it offers services that help young people recover from trauma, form positive relationships, create connections within their communities, set and accomplish goals, and build life skills. An Urban Institute report explains that probation officers “would be instrumental in linking youth with lasting community opportunities” that extend past probation.
YAP offers the kinds of wraparound services that can support young people not only over the course of probation but also well beyond it. Multiple studies provide evidence that YAP leads to positive youth development in education, community connections, and social behavior. Growth and skill development from programs like YAP helps strengthen young adults in their own communities — all in an environment free of stigma.
In New York City, a nonprofit organization called Community Connections for Youth (CCFY) works to empower community solutions to juvenile justice from neighborhood organizations and/or faith-based groups. In partnership with the NYC Department of Probation, it conducts a Parent Peer Support Program that trains parents experienced with the juvenile justice system to be “peer coaches” for parents currently involved with it. These peer coaches “connect families to parent support groups and family strengthening programming,” and are also available to assist in crisis situations. As a whole, the program demonstrates how civil society can find solutions when diverse institutions collaborate on an issue.
The norm of public justice challenges government, civil society, and individuals to work together toward a comprehensive vision of flourishing. As Christians, aware of the government’s limitations but hopeful of its potential, called to love our neighbor and to seek justice and restoration, we should view juvenile probation reform as an opportunity to embody our beliefs. We are called to uphold the image of God in our neighbors and in the most vulnerable of society — not only through our individual actions but also in our institutions and the policies we enact.
Josh Seiersen graduated from Whitworth University with a degree in Political Science and is a former intern with the Center for Public Justice.
