Science advisory boards and policy organizations have called for adolescent brain science to be incorporated into juvenile probation operations. To achieve this, Opportunity-Based Probation (OBP), a probation model that integrates knowledge of adolescent development and behavior change principles, was developed in collaboration with a local juvenile probation department. The current study compares outcomes (recidivism and probation violations) for youth in the OBP condition versus probation as usual. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to estimate causal effects of OBP’s average treatment effect (ATE). Results indicated clear effects of OBP on reducing criminal legal referrals, but no significant effects were observed for probation violations. Overall, results provide promising recidivism-reduction effects in support of developmentally grounded redesigns of juvenile probation.
ArnoldM. E.SillimanB. (2017). From theory to practice: A critical review of positive youth development program frameworks. Journal of Youth Development, 12(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2017.17
3.
AustinP. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
4.
AustinP. C.StuartE. A. (2017). The performance of inverse probability of treatment weighting and full matching on the propensity score in the presence of model misspecification when estimating the effect of treatment on survival outcomes. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26(4), 1654–1670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280215584401
BonellC.HindsK.DicksonK.ThomasJ.FletcherA.MurphyS.Melendez-TorresG. J.CampbellR. (2016). What is positive youth development and how might it reduce substance use and violence? A systematic review and synthesis of theoretical literature. BMC Public Health, 16, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2817-3
7.
ButtsJ. A.SchiraldiV. N. (2018). Recidivism reconsidered: Preserving the community justice mission of community corrections. Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Harvard Kennedy School. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-gky0-5x32
8.
CiocanelO.PowerK.EriksenA.GillingsK. (2017). Effectiveness of positive youth development interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0555-6
9.
DaviesN.MathewR.WilcockJ.ManthorpeJ.SampsonE. L.LamahewaK.IliffeS. (2016). A co-design process developing heuristics for practitioners providing end of life care for people with dementia. BMC Palliative Care, 15, Article 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-016-0146-z
10.
DirA. L.MageeL. A.CliftonR. L.OuyangF.TuW.WieheS. E.AalsmaM. C. (2020). The point of diminishing returns in juvenile probation: Probation requirements and risk of technical probation violations among first-time probation-involved youth. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27, 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000282
FortneyJ. C.UnützerJ.WrennG.PyneJ. M.SmithG. R.SchoenbaumM.HarbinH. T. (2017). A tipping point for measurement-based care. Psychiatric Services, 68, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201500439
13.
GattiU.TremblayR. E.VitaroF. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 50, 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02057.x
14.
GeldhofG. J.BowersE. P.BoydM. J.MuellerM. K.NapolitanoC. M.SchmidK. L.LernerJ. V.LernerR. M. (2014). Creation of short and very short measures of the five Cs of positive youth development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12039
15.
GoldsteinN. E. S.NeMoyerA.Gale-BentzE.LevickM.FeiermanJ. (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.
HuizingaD.SchumannK.EhretB.ElliottA. (2003). The effect of juvenile justice system processing on subsequent delinquent and criminal behavior: A cross-national study. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/205001.pdf
21.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr013
KimchiA. (2019). Investigating the assignment of probation conditions: Heterogeneity and the role of race and ethnicity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35, 715–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9400-2
24.
KrezmienM. P.MulcahyC. A.LeoneP. E. (2008). Detained and committed youth: Examining differences in achievement, mental health needs, and special education status. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0029
25.
LaneJ.TurnerS.FainT.SehgalA. (2005). Evaluating an experimental intensive juvenile probation program: Supervision and official outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128704264943
26.
LeiberM. J.PeckJ. H. (2013). Probation violations and juvenile justice decision making: Implications for Blacks and Hispanics. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012447960
27.
LuncefordJ. K.DavidianM. (2004). Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: A comparative study. Statistics in Medicine, 23, 2937–2960. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1903
28.
MallettC. A.Stoddard-DareP. (2010). Predicting secure detention placement for African-American juvenile offenders: Addressing the disproportionate minority confinement problem. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 8, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377931003761011
29.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2018). Resolution regarding juvenile probation and adolescent development. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 69, 55–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12104
PaparozziM. A.GendreauP. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85, 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505281529
32.
PetrosinoA.Turpin-PetrosinoC.GuckenburgS. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1–88. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2010.1
33.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
34.
RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S.PortilloS.MurphyA.RhodesA.StitzerM.LuongoP. F.FriedmannP. D. (2012). Adding positive reinforcement in justice settings: Acceptability and feasibility. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 42, 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2011.08.002
35.
RudesD. S.ViglioneJ.SheidowA. J.McCartM. R.ChapmanJ. E.TaxmanF. S. (2021). Juvenile probation officers’ perceptions on youth substance use varies from task-shifting to family-based contingency management. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 120, 108144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.108144
SaundersJ.MidgetteG.TaylorJ.FarajiS.-L. (2021). A hidden cost of convenience: Disparate impacts of a program to reduce burden on probation officers and participants. Criminology & Public Policy, 20, 71–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12534
SchwartzR. G. (2018). A 21st century developmentally appropriate juvenile probation approach. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 69, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12108
40.
SheidowA. J.McCartM. R.ChapmanJ. E.DrazdowskiT. K. (2020). Capacity of juvenile probation officers in low-resourced, rural settings to deliver evidence-based substance use intervention to adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000497
41.
SkeemJ. L.ManchakS. (2008). Back to the future: From Klockars’ model of effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 69, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802134069
42.
SmithH.RodriguezN.ZatzM. S. (2009). Race, ethnicity, class, and noncompliance with juvenile court supervision. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208330488
43.
SteinmetzK. F.AndersonJ. O. (2016). A probation profanation: Race, ethnicity, and probation in a Midwestern Sample. Race and Justice, 6, 325–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368715619656
44.
ThoemmesF.OngA. D. (2016). A primer on inverse probability of treatment weighting and marginal structural models. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815621645
TrotmanA. J.TaxmanF. S. (2011). Implementation of a contingency management-based intervention in a community supervision setting: Clinical issues and recommendations. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 235–251.
WalkerS. C.BishopA. S.CatenaJ.HaumannE. (2017). Deploying street outreach workers to reduce failure to appear in juvenile court for youth of color: A randomized study. Crime & Delinquency, 65, 1740–1762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717739567
49.
WalkerS. C.ValenciaE.MillerS.PearsonK.JewellC.TranJ.ThompsonA. (2020). Developmentally-grounded approaches to juvenile probation practice: A case study. Federal Probation, 83, 33–41.
50.
WolfR.MorrisonJ.InnsA.SlavinR.RismanK. (2020). Average effect sizes in developer-commissioned and independent evaluations. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13, 428–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2020.1726537
