Troubles & Violations: Juvenile Probation Officer Ideology and Behavior in a Reform Era

• In Event: Risk and Needs in Supervision Agencies: Key Issues

Abstract

While juvenile justice agencies compile a wealth of knowledge on the crimes juveniles commit that lead them to probation, we know little about juvenile violations and “troubles” (non-approved behaviors that do not constitute a probation violation) once under community supervision. Using Emerson and Messinger’s (1977) “micro-politics of troubles” framework, we explore the troubles juvenile probationers encounter and subsequent probation officer (PO) responses. Using a mixture of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (field observation and semi-structured interview) data gathered over two years, we find that regardless of POs’ expressed views on punishment ideology (ranging from punitiveness to rehabilitation), POs respond to juvenile troubles and violations – particularly to those under intensive supervision – with progressively severe sanctions. While some POs use “creative sanctions” to spark change before resorting to more punitive consequences, most followed the formal agency policy by relying upon judicial orders for support. Using formal discretionary power, POs regularly refer troubled cases to other criminal justice actors in the same way they refer non-troubled juveniles for services and treatment. For probation agencies trying to promote self-motivated change and work with offenders to decrease violations, creative sanctions may improve outcomes and align PO behavior with their stated ideology and agency policy.

Authors

• Kimberly S. Meyer, George Mason University

• Danielle Rudes, George Mason University

• Courtney Porter, George Mason University

• Jill Viglione, George Mason University