< Previous20 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3 Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation21 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation References Annie E. Casey Foundation (2018). Transforming Juvenile Probation: A Vision for Getting it Right. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Carey Group Publishing (2015).The Carey Guides Carey Group Publishing (2016). FAQ about the Goldstein, N., NeMoyer, A., Gale-Bentz, E., Levick, M., & Feierman, J. (2016). “You’re on the right track!” Using graduated response systems to address immaturity of judgment and enhance youths’ capacities to successfully complete probation. Temple Law Review, 88, 803-836. Graduated Response Workgroup of the Pennsylvania Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers (2017). Graduated Response Systems, Guiding Principles and Protocol Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, V. G., & Carver, D. (2010). Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs; A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2018). Family Engagement in Juvenile Justice. Literature review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2019). Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement: 1997- 2017 (EZACJRP). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2020a). Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985-2018. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2020b). OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book Retrieved from Siegle, E., Walsh, N., & Weber, J. (2014). Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice system. White paper. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Wodahl, E. J., Garland, B., Culhane, S. E., & McCarty, W. P. (2011). Utilizing behavioral interventions to improve supervision outcomes in community- based corrections. Criminal Justice and 22 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3 Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: STEPS FOR CHANGE IN JUVENILE PROBATION BY JEANNE MCPHEE, ELIZABETH GALE-BENTZ, AMANDA NEMOYER, RENA KREIMER, NAOMI E. GOLDSTEIN23 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation More than 60% of all youth adjudicated in the juvenile justice system experience community-based supervision (i.e., probation) as a subsequent disposition (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2018). Historically, juvenile probation has paralleled adult probation practices, with heavy reliance on monitoring adherence to court-ordered conditions and sanctioning misbehavior and noncompliance. However, youth are inherently different from adults in their development and decision- making abilities, as has been recognized by scientific research (e.g., Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, & Banich, 2009) and practitioners (e.g., NCJFCJ, 2017). Recognizing these differences, organizations have called for changes to juvenile probation so that juvenile probation practices do not mirror adult probation practices (e.g., NCJFCJ, 2017). Creating Developmentally Appropriate Supervision Practices This article is a summary of a recent paper published by Goldstein and colleagues (2019) which discussed a resolution that the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) passed in 2017 to encourage local jurisdictions to adopt developmentally informed practices (NCJFCJ, 2017a; NCJFCJ, 2017b). The resolution calls for probation to be modernized to help youth change their behavior and build skills needed to ensure success while under supervision and into adulthood (NCJFCJ, 2017a). Additionally, the authors of that article provided several action-oriented steps by which jurisdictions can translate the resolution into policy and practice by creating developmentally appropriate supervision practices; these steps will be reiterated, briefly, here. A lengthier discussion of the resolution’s implications and its empirical support—as well as examples from two jurisdictions that reformed their practices accordingly—can be found in the original article by Goldstein and colleagues (2019), in Translational Issues in Psychological Science . In essence, NCJFCJ called for the juvenile probation field to use empirically supported behavior change techniques to promote positive youth development and success during community supervision. These include: • SETTING REALISTIC SHORT-TERM GOALS; • USING INCENTIVES TO INCREASE GOAL-CONSISTENT BEHAVIOR; • EMPHASIZING EFFORT; AND • HELPING YOUTH LEARN FROM MISTAKES; WHILE • FINDING ALTERNATIVES TO OUT- OF-HOME PLACEMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE FOR MISBEHAVIOR, NONCOMPLIANCE, AND TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS. Additionally, NCJFCJ encouraged the use of individualized case plans rather than relying on universal conditions as probation requirements. Finally, the resolution calls for practitioner education on relevant principles of adolescent development so that day-to-day supervision practices are used in a way that conforms to research findings. Supporting Research on Adolescence Developmentally, adolescence is characterized by rapid changes to the brain. Research has shown that the brain does not fully mature until well into the mid- to late-twenties, indicating that adolescents’ brains are still 24 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3 Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation forming and making important connections, especially in the brain areas responsible for executive functioning, which includes decision making and planning (Casey et al ., 2008; Groeschel, et al., 2010). The resolution’s call to use incentives to encourage positive behavior has been well supported by research demonstrating that such techniques capitalize on the highly active reward-seeking components of adolescents’ brains (Casey, et al., 2008; Cauffman et al., 2010) and can effectively change youths’ behaviors (Corepal et al., 2018; Kazdin, 2005). Experiencing success or achieving a goal can also be a powerful positive motivator for youth (Van Hasselt & Hersen, 1998); therefore, the NCJFCJ’s suggestion that probation departments design a system in which youth can succeed very early on by achieving short-term goals (NCJFCJ, 2017a) is also supported by the science on behavior change. The resolution also recognizes that positive motivators are more powerful and effective in changing long-term behavior than negative consequences and calls for jurisdictions to emphasize incentives rather than sanctions (NCJFCJ, 2017a). Although responses to unwanted behavior can be helpful in stopping those behaviors in the short term, responses are typically only successful if they are immediate, consistent, and proportionate to the targeted behavior (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001; Rosén, O’Leary, Joyce, Conway, & Pfiffner, 1984; Zettler, Morris, Piquero, & Cardwell, 2015). Research has shown that sanctions, despite their short-term suppression of targeted behavior, are not particularly effective in changing behavior in the long term because youth become accustomed to the negative consequences, and such consequences subsequently lose their power and effects (Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & Wolf, 1971). Research investigating surveillance-based approaches to juvenile probation has identified serious concerns related to this supervision structure, including high rates of youth noncompliance (NeMoyer et al., 2014) and use of out-of-home placements for technical violations (Hockenberry, 2018). Such negative outcomes may result from the mismatch between expectations set for youth and their limited abilities to meet those expectations given their developmental stage. Furthermore, the NCJFCJ resolution calls for finding alternatives to out-of-home placements as a consequence for misbehavior, noncompliance, and technical violations (NCJFCJ, 2017a), as researchers have demonstrated that overly harsh responses to misbehavior—and the use of detention and placement—can lead to negative outcomes, including new negative behaviors and increased recidivism (Dmitrieva et al., 2012; Gershoff, 2002; Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009; Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006; Keeley, 2006; Rosefelt, 2019). Youth also differ from adults in their decision-making abilities. The resolution recognizes these differences by encouraging jurisdictions to design their juvenile probation systems to help improve youths’ decision-making skills (NCJFCJ, 2017a). Youths’ tendency to value short-term positive outcomes more than long-term negative ones can lead to poor decisions (Pokhrel et al., 2013), including decisions to engage in behavior that conflicts with probation requirements (e.g., to use drugs despite having an upcoming drug screen; Steinberg, 2009; Steinberg et al., 2009). Adolescents also have difficulty making wise decisions when they are involved with peers or in emotional situations (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert, & Steinberg., 2011; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005), further complicating their 25 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation decision-making abilities and highlighting the need for additional support while on probation. Finally, all youth undergo neural and psychosocial changes during adolescence, and the NCJFCJ resolution calls for using individualized case plans to best address the needs of each youth (NCJFCJ, 2017a). Research on adolescent development highlights the need for probation supervision to implement strategies that capitalize on the strengths of adolescents and target areas in which youth need additional support (e.g., to make good decisions that do not negatively impact their progress on probation), given the relative immaturity of adolescent brains compared to those of adults. Turning Theory into Practice: Steps for Change Beyond understanding adolescent development principles, the following action- oriented steps can help state and local jurisdictions translate the NCJFCJ resolution’s goals into practice. Further, we provide brief examples of how some of these steps may be carried out. These steps were designed to prevent some of the challenges that typically arise when instituting new practices, such as difficulty in getting buy-in from probation staff, a lack of clearly defined goals, and budgetary concerns. Such action-oriented steps are aimed to help jurisdictions consider how best to develop and implement new probation strategies based on the recommendations of the NCJFCJ resolution. Also, jurisdiction leaders should be aware that the time required to fully develop and put such policies into everyday supervision practices will vary based on myriad factors, such as alignment of the new system with a jurisdiction’s current probation practices, the structure of the probation department (and whether it is within a state- or county-based system of operation), the culture and leadership style within the department, the size of the department, and the scope of change being made within the department. 1. Identify and engage stakeholders . Prior to making major changes to supervision practices, jurisdictions should create a team of individuals with a variety of perspectives (e.g., juvenile justice personnel, community partners, and individuals with lived juvenile justice experience) and delineate clear roles and expectations. This group of key stakeholders can then brainstorm and identify potential goals of any new probation practices. Furthermore, early identification of key players and consensus around stakeholders’ expectations of the reform process allows for transparency and clearer communication among all who are involved in revising policies and practices. 2. Agree on reform effort goals. Following key stakeholder brainstorming, jurisdictions should agree on the goals of the new supervision system. It will be important to consider the impetus for change and the desired outcome(s). For example, some jurisdictions may want to target reducing the use of detention for technical violations while others may want to focus on addressing racial and ethnic disparities. Additionally, each locality should consider the unique needs of their department and the youth they supervise. Without clear goals, reform efforts may meet additional challenges and not progress as desired. Stakeholders (e.g., district attorneys, public defenders, judges, and probation staff) included in such efforts should have similar understanding of the identified goals of the new probation system. 26 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3 Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation 3. Define relevant concepts. Although the overarching goals may be clear, jurisdictions should define the components necessary to reach their identified goals. For example, if jurisdictions seek to recognize progress towards full compliance with probation conditions, definitions of effort and improvement should be precise and quantifiable within a specified time frame. By defining relevant concepts, jurisdictions can ensure consistency across staff and reduce disagreements regarding interpretation. 4. Gather baseline data. To track the impact of juvenile probation changes, jurisdictions should gather baseline data on the original system. These data can provide guidance for creating a needs-based approach to policy and practice change and inform effective measurement of reform efforts. For example, if jurisdictions aim to reduce the use of detention for technical violations, as defined by the jurisdiction, it would be important to know how often this practice was occurring prior to reform implementation. 5. Develop policies and procedures to support and sustain reforms. Next, jurisdictions should create policies and procedures that offer clear instructions for implementing supervision strategy changes on a daily basis. By creating accessible and clear guidelines, reform leaders will reduce the burden caused by confusion and will also increase buy-in from probation officers and other staff. The development of manuals, training curricula, and sample materials can facilitate this process. Furthermore, jurisdictions should begin to consider how best to build expenses for incentives into a budget that can be sustained beyond the pilot phase (e.g., through grants, community partnerships, or line items in county or state budgets). 6. Evaluate effectiveness. Finally, jurisdictions should evaluate the utility and success of their reform efforts. Beyond assessing progress toward identified programmatic goals, evaluation can identify areas in which change was particularly challenging. Jurisdictions can then elicit feedback from both practitioners and youth and their families to inform adjustments. In addition, by closely examining the new practices, jurisdictions can ascertain whether new policies and procedures are being used consistently across staff and caseloads. Examining different aspects of the system, such as program fidelity or achieved outcomes, can provide reform leaders with valuable information for system enhancement. Translating the Resolution into Practice: Examples from Two Jurisdictions Reforms are happening across the country in juvenile probation, and we highlight here two counties that have successfully developed and implemented developmentally appropriate policies and practices that align with NCJFCJ recommendations. Pierce County, Washington, with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, created Opportunity Based Probation (OBP). OBP is a system that utilizes research-informed recommendations to focus on promoting positive youth development and emphasizes opportunities for youth involvement in their communities (Walker et al., 2019). In line with the recommendations set forth by the NCJFCJ, OBP emphasizes setting short-term goals and offering incentives for positive behavior change. It also limits the use of sanctions, instead responding to probation violations by utilizing restorative plans. Similarly, Philadelphia, PA, as an Annie E. Casey Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) site, sought to create a developmentally informed probation approach, called Graduated Response , that emphasizes use of incentives to motivate and reinforce positive 27 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation behaviors and delivery of responses and specific interventions to modify negative behaviors. Along with the promotion of incentives and targeted interventions to change behavior, Graduated Response further exemplifies the NCJFCJ’s recommendations through probation officers’ use of individualized case plans to help youth identify and progress toward achievement of specific short- and long-term goals. For additional discussion of the development and implementation of OBP and Graduated Response , see Goldstein et al. (2019). Resources To recap, adolescents and other youths are not adults and differ in their level of brain development and age-related decision-making abilities. Accordingly, each local jurisdiction is challenged to develop appropriate programs for supervision of this population—programs that include effective and informed use of incentives, motivations, and interventions. The NCJFCJ’s 2017 resolution both reflects and reinforces the increasingly widespread support in the criminal justice community for specific youth-focused practices. In addition to the framework and examples described in this paper, juvenile justice practitioners may draw inspiration from the following materials. Pierce County, Washington’s Opportunity Based A fact sheet on “Incentivizing Success and Implementing Graduated Responses” with resources from Washington D.C.’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services and Maryland’s Department of Juvenile The Pennsylvania Graduated Response Systems Guiding Principles and Protocol Acknowledgements This paper summarizes information presented in an article published in Translational Issues in Psychological Science (Goldstein et al., 2019). Research reported in the original publication was supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH019733), and Stoneleigh Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders. Bios Jeanne McPhee, M.S., is a doctoral candidate in Clinical Psychology at Drexel University. She can be contacted Elizabeth Gale-Bentz, Ph.D., is a post-doctoral fellow at the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department in Houston, Texas. Amanda NeMoyer, J.D., Ph.D., is an Assistant Research Professor in the Department of Psychology at Drexel University. Rena Kreimer, M.S.W., is the Director of Grants and Evaluation for the Juvenile Justice Research and Reform Lab at Drexel University. Naomi E. Goldstein, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology, Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program in Law and Psychology and Director of the Juvenile Justice Research and Reform Lab at Drexel University. 28 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 44, NUMBER 3 Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation References Casey, B., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , Cauffman, E., Shulman, E. P., Steinberg, L., Claus, E., Banich, M. T., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2010). Age differences in affective decision making as indexed by performance on the Iowa Gambling Task. Developmental Psychology , 46 , 193- Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science , 14 (2), F1- Corepal, R., Tully, M. A., Kee, F., Miller, S. J., & Hunter, R. F. (2018). Behavioral incentive interventions for health behavior change: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Prevention Medicine , 110 , Dmitrieva, J., Monahan, K. C., Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2012). Arrested development: The effects of incarceration on the development of psychosocial maturity. Development and psychopathology, 24 (3), 1073- 1090. Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology , 41, 625- Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50 , 991-998. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Goldstein, N. E., Gale-Bentz, E., McPhee, J., NeMoyer, A., Walker, S., Bishop, … Schwartz, R. G. (2019). Applying the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ resolution to juvenile probation reform. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, Groeschel, S., Vollmer, B., King, M. D., & Connelly, A. (2010). Developmental changes in cerebral grey and white matter volume from infancy to adulthood. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 28 (6), Hockenberry, S. (2018). Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2015 (Juvenile Justice Statistics: National Report Series 29 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION Transforming Juvenile ProbationTransforming Juvenile Probation Hockenberry, S. & Puzzanchera, C. (2019). Juvenile Court Statistics 2017 . Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The dangers of detention: The impact of incarcerating youth in detention and other secure facilities . Justice Policy Institute Washington, DC. Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Parent management training: Treatment for oppositional, aggressive, and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents . Oxford University Press: New York, NY. Keeley, J. H. (2006). Will adjudicated youth return to school after residential placement? The results of a predictive variable study. Journal of Correctional Education , 65-85. Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology , National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ]. (2017a). Resolution regarding juvenile probation and adolescent development. Reno, NV. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ]. (2017b). Applying principles of adolescent development in delinquency proceedings (Bench NeMoyer, A., Goldstein, N. E., McKitten, R. L., Prelic, A., Ebbecke, J., Foster, E., & Burkard, C. (2014). Predictors of juveniles’ noncompliance with probation requirements. Law and Human Phillips, E. L., Phillips, E. A., Fixsen, D. L., & Wolf, M. M. (1971). Achievement place: Modification of the behaviors of pre ‐ delinquent boys within a token economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , Pokhrel, P., Herzog, T. A., Black, D. S., Zaman, A., Riggs, N. R., & Sussman, S. (2013). Adolescent neurocognitive development, self-regulation, and school-based drug use prevention. Prevention Science , 14 , Rosefelt, R. (2019). Children in Limbo: The Need for Maximum Limits for Juvenile Pretrial Detention. Minn. J. Int’l L., 28 , 239. Rosén, L. A., O’Leary, S. G., Joyce, S. A., Conway, G., & Pfiffner, L. J. (1984). The importance of prudent negative consequences for maintaining the appropriate behavior of hyperactive students. Journal of Abnormal Child Next >