This paper analyzes juvenile probation as a sentencing option for youth offenders in the criminal justice system. It discusses why probation is preferable to incarceration, examines conflicting evidence on its effectiveness, and reviews best practices including structured risk assessment tools like the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and evidence-based probation strategies. The paper emphasizes that while probation allows youth to remain in their communities, its success depends on proper implementation of risk assessment models, officer training, adequate funding, and adherence to rehabilitation-focused interventions rather than punitive approaches that may increase recidivism.
The criminal justice system has several options when dealing with youth offenders. Age is a critical factor in sentencing decisions because it is uncommon for young people to commit crimes that represent isolated incidents in otherwise law-abiding lives. When a crime committed in youth is punished too severely, it can be counterproductive to both the offender and society (Schwalbe, 2009). A criminal conviction can prevent individuals from obtaining meaningful employment or other opportunities in their futures. Furthermore, incarcerating youth offenders in already overcrowded facilities can actually increase their likelihood of committing future offenses.
Probation has become a commonly utilized alternative to incarceration for youth criminal offenders. It is widely believed that younger violators have greater potential for rehabilitation than older offenders. Used as an alternative to confinement, probation allows juvenile offenders to remain in their communities to continue school and work obligations, provided they follow court-ordered requirements. If a juvenile fails to comply with any mandated condition, a judge may revoke probation and impose a stricter disposition, including placement in a residential facility (NeMoyer et al., 2014).
In 2007, 327,400 adjudicated delinquents in the United States were ordered to probation, and on any given day more than 60,000 were incarcerated in juvenile correctional programs (Vincent, Paiva-Salisbury, Cook, Guy, & Perrault, 2012). The prevalence of probation as a sentencing option reflects the criminal justice system's recognition that youth offenders warrant rehabilitation-focused approaches rather than purely punitive measures.
Despite the popularity of probation for youth offenders, there are many conflicting reports on its effectiveness. In some cases, youth in probation programs exhibit substantially higher rates of reoffending, especially when placed in greater contact with misbehaving peers (Vincent, Paiva-Salisbury, Cook, Guy, & Perrault, 2012). This troubling outcome has prompted researchers and practitioners to develop more sophisticated methods for identifying which youth are at greatest risk of failure.
The popularity of probation has prompted efforts to design risk assessment models so that probation officers can effectively identify high-risk youth offenders. One popular model is the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and its use is considered a best practice in the field. Research indicated that after SAVRY was properly implemented, placement rates dropped by 50 percent, use of maximum levels of supervision dropped by almost 30 percent, and use of community services decreased except for high-risk youths (Vincent, Guy, Gershenson, & McCabe, 2012). The proper use of risk assessment models can help provide appropriate allocation of resources to each youth individual and ensure that their specific risk level is addressed without a significant increase in reoffending. Many studies have found that if a youth is subjected to overly aggressive disciplinary measures, the likelihood of recidivism actually increases.
Juvenile probation officers have significant discretion in their approach to working with offenders. One study examined probation strategies and interventions in a sample of 308 probation officers who completed the Probation Practices Assessment Survey (PPAS) in a web-based survey. The research measured six probation approaches: deterrence, restorative justice, treatment, confrontation, counseling, and behavioral tactics (Schwalbe, 2009).
The study found that most probation officers use a combination of different types of interventions, both accountability-based and rehabilitation-based approaches, to deal with youth offenders in a balanced manner. This flexibility allows officers to tailor interventions to individual youth needs rather than applying a one-size-fits-all model. The diversity of strategies employed suggests that effective probation work requires professional judgment informed by both research and practical experience.
Some probation departments have fully implemented evidence-based practices (EBP) that have been shown to reduce the likelihood of recidivism in youth offenders. However, these practices require ongoing training, robust data collection, organizational changes, and adequate funding. In many states, the funding or organizational culture does not effectively promote this approach to juvenile offenders (Seave, 2011). There are many barriers that exist to improving the effectiveness of probation offices throughout the nation, and some departments have resorted to creatively seeking public and private funding to further their implementation efforts. The gap between research evidence and practice implementation remains a significant challenge for the juvenile justice system.
Youth offenders represent an especially important division of the criminal justice system. If the system is successful and can rehabilitate these individuals, then it can reduce the costs associated with a lifetime of future crime in some cases. However, if it is unsuccessful, it represents a failed attempt to rehabilitate someone during their most impressionable years. The data suggesting that some punishments are actually counterproductive in this system is striking. States should make evidence-based practices a priority in juvenile probation, as they also represent a sound investment in public funds that yields long-term benefits for both individuals and communities.
NeMoyer, A., Goldstein, N., McKitten, R., Prelic, A., Ebbecke, J., Foster, E., & Burkard, C. (2014). Predictors of juveniles' noncompliance with probation requirements. Law and Human Behavior, 38(6), 580–591.
Schwalbe, C. (2009). Investigating probation strategies with juvenile offenders: The influence of officers' attitudes and youth characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 33(5), 357–367.
Seave, P. (2011). Evidence-based practices reduce juvenile recidivism: Can state government effectively promote implementation among probation departments? American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(1/2), 138–140.
Vincent, G., Guy, L., Gershenson, B., & McCabe, P. (2012). Does risk assessment make a difference? Results of implementing the SAVRY in juvenile probation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30(4), 384–405.
"Long-term system value and policy priorities"
You’re 94% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.