Completion and Recidivism Rates of High-Risk Youth on Probation: Do Home Visits Make a Difference?

Abstract

Probation supervision with and without home visits is an underresearched area for adjudicated higher risk youth. This study compared 287 juvenile probationers receiving police/probation home visits with similar youth (n = 437) who were supervised on regular probation without home visits. Youth performance was measured during supervision and up to 24 months following probation. The most notable finding was that the rearrest rate for youth who had home visits during supervision was 3 times lower after probation supervision ended than for youth who did not have home visits.

Keywords

juvenile probation recidivism intensive probation supervision police partnerships

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahlin

E. M.

Antunes

M. J. L.

Tubman-Carbone

(2013). A review of probation home visits: What do we know? Federal Probation, 77(3), 32-37.

Alarid

L. F.

(2015). Perceptions of probation and police officer home visits during intensive probation supervision. Federal Probation, 79, 11-16.

Alarid

L. F.

Montemayor

Dannhaus

(2012). The effect of parental support on juvenile drug court completion and post-program recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 354-369.

Alarid

L. F.

Sims

B. A.

Ruiz

(2011a). Juvenile probation and police partnerships as loosely coupled systems: A qualitative analysis. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9, 79-95.

Alarid

L. F.

Sims

B. A.

Ruiz

(2011b). School-based juvenile probation and police partnerships for truancy reduction. Journal of Knowledge and Best Practices in Juvenile Justice and Psychology, 5, 13-20.

Condon

C. D.

(2003). Falling crime rates, rising caseload numbers: Using police-probation partnerships. Corrections Today, 65, 44-48.

Corbett

R. P.

(1998). Probation blue: The promise (and perils) of probation-police partnerships. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(3), 31-39.

Giblin

M. J.

(2002). Using police officers to enhance the supervision of juvenile probationers: An evaluation of the Anchorage CAN program. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 116-137.

Greenwood

(2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. The Future of Children, 18, 185-210.

10.

Hennigan

Kolnick

Tian

T. S.

Maxson

Poplawski

(2010). Five year outcomes in a randomized trial of a community-based multi-agency intensive supervision juvenile probation program (National Criminal Justice No. 232621). Rockville, MD. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232621.pdf

11.

Hyatt

J. M.

Barnes

G. C.

(2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 3-38. doi:10.1177/0011128714555757

12.

Jewell

J. D.

Malone

M. D.

Rose

Sturgeon

Owens

(2015). A multiyear follow-up study examining the effectiveness of a cognitive behavioral group therapy program on the recidivism of juveniles on probation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 259-272.

13.

Johnson

L.M.

Simons

R.L.

Conger

R.D.

(2004). Criminal justice system involvement and continuity of youth crime: A longitudinal analysis. Youth and Society, 36(1), 3-29.

14.

Jones

M. A.

Sigler

R. T.

(2002). Law enforcement partnership in community corrections: An evaluation of juvenile curfew checks. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 245-256.

15.

Katz

Bonham

(2009). Effective alternatives to incarceration: Police collaborations with corrections and communities. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdog.gov/files/RIC/publications/e070930222-alt-incarceration.pdf

16.

Kim

Gerber

Beto

D. R.

(2010). Listening to law enforcement officers: The promises and problems of police-adult probation partnerships. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 625-632.

17.

Kim

Gerber

Beto

D. R.

Lambert

E. G.

(2013). Predictors of law enforcement agencies’ perceptions of partnerships with parole agencies. Police Quarterly, 16, 245-269.

18.

Kim

Matz

A. K.

Gerber

Beto

D. R.

Lambert

(2013). Facilitating police-probation/parole partnerships: An examination of police chiefs’ and sheriffs’ perceptions. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36, 752-767.

19.

Land

K. C.

McCall

P. L.

Parker

K. F.

(1994). Logistic versus hazards regression analyses in evaluation research: An exposition and application to the North Carolina court counselors’ intensive protective supervision project. Evaluation Review, 18, 411-437.

20.

Land

K. C.

McCall

P. L.

Williams

J. R.

(1990). Something that works in juvenile justice: An evaluation of the North Carolina court counselors’ intensive protective supervision randomized experimental project, 1987-1989. Evaluation Review, 14, 574-606.

21.

Leitenberger

Semenyna

Spelman

(2003). Community corrections and community policing: A perfect match. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72(11), 20-23.

22.

MacKenzie

(2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Matz

A. K.

(2016). Enhancing community supervision: A unified voice for community corrections concerning police-probation/parole partnerships (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

24.

Matz

A. K.

Kim

(2013). Policy implications of police-probation/parole partnerships: A review of the empirical literature. Federal Probation, 77, 9-16.

25.

Miller

(2014). Probation supervision and the control of crime opportunities: An empirical assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 1235-1257.

26.

Murphy

(2005). Making police-probation partnerships work. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

27.

Murphy

Lutze

(2009). Police-probation partnerships: Professional identity and the sharing of coercive power. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 65-76.

28.

Murphy

Worrall

J. L.

(2007). The threat of mission distortion in police-probation partnerships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30, 132-149.

29.

Neithercutt

M. G.

(1987). Time to recidivism in probation/parole cohorts. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 3(2), 7-24.

30.

Petersilia

Turner

(1993). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment (National Institute of Justice Research in Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://cebcp.org/wp-content/CRIM781/EvaluatingISP.pdf

31.

Piquero

N. L.

(2003). A recidivism analysis of Maryland’s community probation program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 295-307.

32.

Sarver

C. M.

Molloy

J. K.

Butters

R. P.

(2012). Utah cost of crime intensive supervision (juveniles): Technical report. Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah. Retrieved from https://socialwork.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/ISP_Juv_Tech_updateformat.pdf

33.

Schwalbe

C. S.

(2012). Toward an integrated theory of probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 185-201.

34.

Sickmund

Puzzanchera

(2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2014/downloads/NR2014.pdf

35.

Sieh

E. W.

(2003). A theoretical basis for handling technical violations. Federal Probation, 67(3), 28-32.

36.

Steinmetz

K. F.

Henderson

(2015). On the precipice of intersectionality: The influence of race, gender, and offense severity interactions on probation outcome. Criminal Justice Review, 40, 361-377.

37.

Worrall

J. L.

Gaines

L. K.

(2006). The effect of police-probation partnerships on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 579-589.