The wide expansion of community supervision has resulted in large-scale reliance on probation officers to facilitate change among both youth and adults. This is especially true for supervising high-risk populations, such as gang-involved individuals. To understand how probation officers balance the dual goals of public safety and rehabilitation, in-depth interviews with 12 youth and adult officers in Oregon were conducted. Results revealed that both groups had a shared understanding of gang pathways and desistance barriers. However, they held differing views on the factors that drive success and compliance. Youth officers utilize therapeutic philosophies and emphasize restoration through community resources to help youth desist from gang activity. Adult officers endorse law enforcement philosophies, emphasize accountability and personal choices, and center punitive strategies when using interagency collaboration. This study contributes to the literature on role perceptions and decision-making, and suggests that continuity of care in supervision philosophies can yield more successful outcomes for high-risk youth and adults.
BenderK.CobbinaJ.McGarrellE. (2016). Reentry programming for high-risk offenders: Insights from participants. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(13), 1479–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15578204
BöhmA. (2004). Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory. In FlickU.von KardorffE.SteinkeI. (Eds.), A Companion to qualitative research (pp. 270–275). Sage.
9.
BolgerL.NeedsA. (2022). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experience of ex-gang members as they transition into and out of gangs. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 22(2), 186–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2021.1973233
10.
BolinR.ApplegateB. (2018). Supervising juveniles and adults: Organizational context, professional orientations, and probation and parole officer behaviors. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(4), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2018.1440616
11.
BontaJ.BourgonG.RuggeT.ScottT.YessineA.GutierrezL.LiJ. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1127–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811420678
12.
BootsD.WarehamJ.Stevens-MartinK.BarbieriN. (2018). A preliminary evaluation of the supervision with immediate enforcement probation program for adult gang-affiliated offenders in Texas. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(7), 1047–1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818774386
13.
BoxerP.KubikJ.OstermannM.VeyseyB. (2015). Gang involvement moderates the effectiveness of evidence-based intervention for justice-involved youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 52, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.02.012
14.
BrownT.BaldwinJ.BuchananM.KrohnM. (2023). “Bangin” at the crossroads: A study of rural gangs. Crime and Delinquency, 69(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221113305
15.
BubolzB.LeeS. (2021). “I still love my hood”: Passive and strategic aspects of role residual among former gang members. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(6), 846–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820959115
16.
CampbellJ.QuincyC.OssermanJ.PedersenO. (2013). Coding in-depth semi-structured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113
17.
CarsonE. (2021). Prisoners in 2020—Statistical tables (NCJ 302776). Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. www.bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/p20st.pdf
18.
CaudillJ. (2010). Back on the swagger: Institutional release and recidivism timing among gang affiliates. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 8(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204009339872
19.
ClearT. (2009). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
20.
ConnorC.JoffeH. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
21.
ConradJ. (1987). Return to John Augustus. Federal Probation, 51(4), 22–27.
22.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.
23.
CoscarelliJ.FaussetR. (2023, January13). Violent gang or rap label? Prosecutors say Young Thug’s YSL is both. The New York Times. https://nyti.ms/3ZjpU4j
24.
CreswellJ.PothC. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
25.
CruméH.NuriusP.KimB.Logan-GreenP. (2021). School engagement among youth entering probation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50, 1098–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01405-3
26.
DeckerS.PyroozD. (2015). The handbook of gangs. Wiley Blackwell.
27.
DeckerS.PyroozD.MouleR. (2014). Disengagement from gangs as role transitions. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 24(2), 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12074
28.
DeckerS.PyroozD.DensleyJ. (2022). On gangs. Temple University Press.
29.
DuffeeD. (1984). Models of probation supervision. In McAnanyP.ThomsonD.FogelD. (Eds.), Probation and justice: Reconsideration of mission (pp. 175–202). Gunn & Hain.
30.
DuránR.CamposJ. (2020). Gangs, gangsters, and the impact of settler colonialism on the Latina/o experience. Sociology Compass, 14(3), Article e12765. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12765
31.
EiserJ.van der PligtJ. (1988). Attitudes and decisions. Taylor and Francis.
32.
ElinsonZ. (2021, August20). Gang violence drives rise in murder rates in some U.S. cities. Wall Street Journal. https://on.wsj.com/41Hs9A5
33.
EsbensenF.OsgoodD. (1999). Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT): Results from the national evaluation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 194–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427899036002004
34.
EsbensenF.OsgoodD.PetersonD.TaylorT.CarsonD. (2013). Short- and long-term outcome results from a multisite evaluation of the G.R.E.A.T. Program. Criminology and Public Policy, 12(3), 375–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12048
35.
EsthappanS.LacoeJ.ZweigJ.YoungD. (2020). Transforming practice through culture change: Probation staff perspectives on juvenile justice reform. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 18(3), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204020901761
FloresJ. (2021). Criminalization of homies: Gang policing tactics and community fragmentation. Hastings Journal of Crime and Punishment, 2(1), 3–30.
38.
GiesS.GaineyR.CohenM.HealyE.YeideM.BekelmanA.BobnisA. (2013). Monitoring high-risk gang offenders with GPS technology: An evaluation of the California supervision program—Final Report. Development Strategies Group.
39.
GilmanA.HillK.HawkinsJ. (2014). Long-term consequences of adolescent gang membership for adult functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 104(5), 938–945. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301821
40.
GleicherL.ManchakS.CullenF. (2013). Creating a supervision tool kit: How to improve probation and parole. Federal Probation, 77(1), 22–27.
41.
GlosserA. (2016). Homies of the corn: Gangs in the rural environment. In DonnermeyerJ. (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of rural criminology (pp. 85–91). Routledge.
42.
GosheS. (2019). How contemporary rehabilitation fails youth and sabotages the American juvenile justice system: A critique and call for change. Critical Criminology, 27(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09473-5
43.
GravelJ.BouchardM.DescormiersK.WongJ.MorselliC. (2013). Keeping promises: A systematic review and a new classification of gang control strategies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.05.005
44.
HarrisH. (2020). Building holistic defense: The design and evaluation of a social work centric model of public defense. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(6), 800–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420916228
HendersonH.MillerH. (2013). The (twice) failure of the Wisconsin Risk Need Assessment in a sample of probationers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(2), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411422410
47.
HenninkM.KaiserB. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science and Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523
HowellJ.GriffithsE. (2018). Gangs in America’s communities. Sage.
50.
HsiehM.WooY.HafokaM.van WormerJ.StohrM.HemmensC. (2016). Assessing the current state of juvenile probation practice: A statutory analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(5), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2016.1181693
51.
HueyS.LewineG.RubensonM. (2016). A brief review and meta-analysis of gang intervention trials in North America. In MaxsonC.EsbensenF. (Eds.), Gang transitions and transformations in an international context (pp. 217–233). Springer.
52.
HughesM.BenselT. (2022). “Stuck in their ways”: Examining parole officers’ perceptions on guiding older offenders through the reentry process. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(2), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09613-0
53.
IngelS.DavisL.RudesD.HartwellT.DrazdowskiT.McCartM.ChapmanJ.TaxmanF.SheidowA. (2021). Misunderstanding and sensemaking among juvenile probation officers working with evidence-based practices. Victims and Offenders, 17(7), 975–993. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2021.1985670
54.
JacobsL.GottliebA. (2020). The effect of housing circumstances on recidivism: Evidence from a sample of people on probation in San Francisco. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(9), 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820942285
JensonJ.HowardM. (1998). Correlates of gang involvement among juvenile probationers. Journal of Gang Research, 5(2), 7–15.
57.
KaebleD. (2021). Probation and parole in the United States, 2020 (NCJ 303102). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus20.pdf
58.
KaplanT.deBragaF.TaylorM.MulveyP.MillerM. (2017). Individual differences relate to juvenile offender stereotypes. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 13(2), 125–141.
59.
KennealyP.SkeemJ.ManchakS.Eno LoudenJ. (2012). Firm, fair, and caring officer-offender relationships protect against supervision failure. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093935
60.
KilgoreJ. (2022). Understanding e-carceration: Electronic monitoring, the surveillance state, and the future of mass incarceration. The New Press.
61.
KimB.MatzA.GerberJ.BetoD.LambertE. (2013). Facilitating police-probation/parole partnerships: An examination of police chiefs’ and sheriffs’ perceptions. Policing: An International Journal, 36(4), 752–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2013-0036
62.
KlockarsC. (1973). A theory of probation supervision. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 63(4), 550–556.
63.
KokkaleraS.SingerS.CehreliD. (2022). Young enough for the maximum: Discretionary release decisions in the post-Miller era. Crime and Delinquency, 68(6/7), 919–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211054734
64.
LenziM.SharkeyJ.WroblewskiA.FurlongM.SantinelloM. (2019). Protecting youth from gang membership: Individual and school-level emotional competence. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22138
65.
LevensonJ.WillisG. (2018). Implementing trauma-informed care in correctional treatment and supervision. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 28(4), 451–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1531959
66.
LevineK.HinkleJ.GriffithsE. (2021). Making deflection the new diversion for drug offenders. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 19(1), 75–118.
67.
LevittH.BambergM.CreswellJ.FrostD.JosselsonR.Suarez-OrozcoC. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
68.
LevittH.MotulskyS.WertzF.MorrowS.PonterottoJ. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082
69.
LibermanA.HussemannJ.McKeeverB. (2021). Juvenile Second Chance Act participation in Virginia: Impact on rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 60(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2021.1887426
70.
LindnerC. (2006). John Augustus, father of probation, and the anonymous letter. Federal Probation, 70(1), 141–143.
71.
MacKenzieD. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge University Press.
72.
MallionJ.WoodJ. (2020). Street gang intervention: Review and good lives extension. Social Sciences, 9(9), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9090160
73.
MaruschakL.MintonT. (2020). Correctional populations in the United States, 2017–2018 (NCJ 252157). Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus1718.pdf
74.
MatzA.Stevens-MartinK.DeMicheleM. (2014). Barriers to effective gang-member reentry: An examination of street gang-affiliated probationer revocation in a southwestern state. Journal of Gang Research, 21(2), 32–51.
75.
McCarterS. (2016). Holistic representation: A randomized pilot study of wraparound services for first-time juvenile offenders to improve functioning, decrease motions for review, and lower recidivism. Family Court Review, 54(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12216
76.
MillerJ.PalmerK. (2020). Juvenile probation officer decision-making in a reforming state: Assessing the application of evidence-based principles. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(9), 1136–1155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820925112
77.
MintonT.ZengZ. (2021). Jail inmates in 2020—Statistical tables (NCJ 303308). Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. www.bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji20st.pdf
MunizA. (2014). Maintaining racial boundaries: Criminalization, neighborhood context, and the origins of gang injunctions. Social Problems, 61(2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2014.12095
80.
NelsonR.VincentG. (2018). Matching services to criminogenic needs following comprehensive risk assessment implementation in juvenile probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(8), 1136–1153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818780923
81.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2021). Statistical briefing book. www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/
82.
OnifadeE.WilkinsJ.DavidsonW.CampbellC.PetersenJ. (2011). A comparative analysis of recidivism with propensity score matching of informal and formal juvenile probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(8), 531–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.618526
83.
OudekerkB.KaebleD. (2021). Probation and parole in the United States, 2019 (NCJ 256092). Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. www.bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus19.pdf
84.
PapachristosA.HureauD.BragaA. (2013). The corner and the crew: The influence of geography and social networks on gang violence. American Sociological Review, 78(3), 417–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413486800
85.
PaskoL.LopezV. (2018). The Latina penalty: Juvenile correctional attitudes toward the Latina juvenile offender. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 16(4), 272–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2015.1015196
86.
PattonD.LaneJ.LeonardP.MacbethJ.SmithJ. (2017). Gang violence on the digital street: Case study of a south side Chicago gang member’s Twitter communication. New Media and Society, 19(7), 1000–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815625949
87.
PayneB.DeMicheleM. (2011). Probation philosophies and workload considerations. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-010-9101-3
88.
PhelpsM. (2017). Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment. Punishment and Society, 19(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516649174
89.
PhelpsM. (2018). Ending mass probation: Sentencing, supervision, and revocation. The Future of Children, 28(1), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2018.0006
90.
PhelpsM. (2019). Mass probation from micro to macro: Tracing the expansion and consequences of community supervision. Annual Review of Criminology, 3(1), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041352
91.
PhelpsM.RuhlandE. (2022). Governing marginality: Coercion and care in probation. Social Problems, 69(3), 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa060
92.
PhillippiS.ThomasC.YoshidaY.AfanehH. (2021). Holistic representation in juvenile defense: An evaluation of a multidisciplinary children’s defense team. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 39(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2500
93.
PullmannM.KerbsJ.KoroloffN.Veach-WhiteE.GaylorR.SielerD. (2006). Juvenile offenders with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism using wraparound. Crime and Delinquency, 52(3), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705278632
PyroozD.TuranovicJ.DeckerS.WuJ. (2016). Taking stock of the relationship between gang membership and offending: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 365–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815605528
RicksE.Eno LoudenJ. (2015). The relationship between officer orientation and supervision strategies in community corrections. Law and Human Behavior, 39(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000098
98.
RiosV. (2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. New York University Press.
RubensonM.GalbraithK.ShinO.BeamC.HueyS. (2021). When helping hurts? Toward a nuanced interpretation of adverse effects in gang-focused interventions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 28(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12321
101.
RuhlandE.ScheiblerE. (2022). Probation officer discretion in monitoring and violating supervision conditions. Probation Journal, 69(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211041578
102.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.
103.
SanchezJ.DeckerS.PyroozD. (2022). Gang homicide: The road so far and a map for the future. Homicide Studies, 26(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679211043804
SchaeferL.WilliamsonH. (2017). Probation and parole case management as opportunity-reduction supervision. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(7), 452–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2017.1359225
107.
SchwalbeC.MaschiT. (2009). Investigating probation strategies with juvenile offenders: The influence of officers’ attitudes and youth characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 33(5), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9158-4
108.
SiglerR.McGrawB. (1984). Adult probation and parole officers: Influence of their weapons, role perceptions and role conflict. Criminal Justice Review, 9(1), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/073401688400900105
109.
SnyderH.SickmundM. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/
SpicaA. (1977). The correctional novagram. Federal Probation, 41(4), 47–51.
112.
SpoonerK.PyroozD.WebbV.FoxK. (2017). Recidivism among juveniles in a multi-component gang reentry program: Findings from a program evaluation in Harris County, Texas. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9288-0
113.
SteinerB.PurkissM.KiferM.RobertsE.HemmensC. (2004). Legally prescribed functions of adult and juvenile probation officers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(4), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v39n04_04
114.
SterlingR. (2013). “Children are different”: Implicit bias, rehabilitation, and the “new” juvenile jurisprudence. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 46(3), 1019–1074. www.digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol46/iss3/6
115.
StuartF. (2020). Code of the tweet: Urban gang violence in the social media age. Social Problems, 67(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz010
SwanerR. (2022). “We can’t get no nine-to-five”: New York City gang membership as a response to the structural violence of everyday life. Critical Criminology, 30, 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-022-09610-7
118.
TrulsonC.CaudillJ.HaerleD.DeLisiM. (2012). Cliqued up: The postincarceration recidivism of young gang-related homicide offenders. Criminal Justice Review, 37(2), 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016811434531
119.
TurnerH.ScheyettA.AllenL. (2022). Legal and extralegal factors associated with success on misdemeanor probation. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.103019
120.
VidalS.SkeemJ. (2007). Effect of psychopathy, abuse, and ethnicity on juvenile probation officers’ decision-making and supervision strategies. Law and Human Behavior, 31(5), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9077-1
ViljeonJ.CochraneD.JohnsonM. (2018). Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending? A systematic review. Law and Behavior, 42(3), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000280
124.
WeissI.WoznerY. (2002). Ten models for probation supervision compared across eight dimensions. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v34n03_06
125.
WhiteheadP. (1990). Community supervision for offenders. Avebury.
