Adverse Juvenile Probation Supervision Outcomes: Noncompliance, Revocation, and Failure to Appear at Review Hearings

• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Date: 01 February 2020
• Author: Naomi E. S. Goldstein,Elizabeth Gale-Bentz,Suraji Wagage,Kelley Durham,Amanda Nemoyer
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854819889077
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 2, February 2020, 145 –165.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819889077

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2019 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

145

ADVERSE JUVENILE PROBATION

SUPERVISION OUTCOMES

Noncompliance, Revocation, and Failure to

Appear at Review Hearings

AMANDA NEMOYER

ELIZABETH GALE-BENTZ

KELLEY DURHAM

SURAJI WAGAGE

NAOMI E. S. GOLDSTEIN

Drexel University

Despite widespread use of community-based supervision for justice-involved youth, little research has examined what might

contribute to youth performance under supervision. A recent investigation of probation practices in one jurisdiction noted that

failure to appear at a review hearing was strongly associated with probation revocation. To determine whether these findings

would replicate elsewhere and to identify youth characteristics and behaviors significantly related to failure to appear at

review hearings, the current study examined probation records for 200 youth under supervision in another large mid-Atlantic

county. Some similarities between jurisdictional findings arose, but notable differences were also observed. For instance,

results revealed significant relationships between youth “absent without leave” status and two outcomes: failure to appear at

the next hearing and probation revocation at their next hearing appearance. Findings further develop existing understanding

of youth performance under supervision and suggest potential avenues for further investigation and future intervention.

Keywords: juvenile justice; probation; noncompliance; violation; failure to appear

Each year, the majority of justice-involved youth receive some form of community-

based supervision, such as a probation disposition, prior to discharge from court

supervision (Furdella & Puzzanchera, 2015). Typically, youth on probation reside in their

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We express our gratitude to the jurisdiction that provided data for this study and its staff

members for their guidance and feedback. This research was supported in part by a dissertation grant from the

American Academy of Forensic Psychology. Preliminary results from this paper were presented at the annual

conference of the American Psychology-Law Society in March 2017. No other data or ideas presented in this

article have been otherwise disseminated. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Amanda NeMoyer, Department of Psychology, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Stratton 119,

Philadelphia, PA 19104; e-mail: ann38@drexel.edu

889077CJBXXX10.1177/0093854819889077Criminal Justice and BehaviorNeMoyer et al. / Adverse Juvenile Probation Supervision Outcomes

research-article2019

146 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

communities, seek to comply with conditions set forth by juvenile court judges, and regu-

larly appear in court for review hearings where attorneys, probation officers, family

members, and others provide information regarding the youth’s performance under super-

vision (Sickmund, 2003). After learning of a youth’s compliance, or lack thereof, a judge

might impose new requirements, modify or remove existing requirements, discharge the

youth from court supervision after successful completion, or revoke supervision and

order the child committed to a residential placement facility. Nationwide, nearly 25% of

youth in such residential facilities were committed after a technical violation of supervi-

sion—an action that contradicts a judge’s order but does not otherwise meet the definition

of a delinquent act—such as misbehaving at school, breaking curfew, failing to maintain

contact with a probation officer, or failing to appear at a review hearing as directed

(Sickmund et al., 2015).

An abundance of research has demonstrated the negative effects of facility placement

on youth. Consequences can include neglect, physical and sexual victimization, and

increased rates of physical and mental health problems while in confinement (e.g., Beck

et al., 2010; Lambie & Randell, 2013; Wasserman et al., 2004), as well as significant

difficulty achieving educational and employment goals upon discharge (e.g., Dmitreva

et al., 2012; Lambie & Randell, 2013; Taylor, 1996; Western & Beckett, 1999).

Furthermore, youth with a history of confinement often demonstrate an increased risk of

recidivism, even when controlling for demographics, offense history, and other relevant

risk factors (DeLisi et al., 2011; Gatti et al., 2009; Mendel, 2011). Therefore, confine-

ment appears to be an unnecessarily extreme response to youth whose misbehavior con-

stitutes technical probation violations, considering their minimal threat to community

safety (Mendel, 2007).

In an effort to predict and prevent adverse probation outcomes like noncompliance and

revocation, researchers and advocates have begun investigating precursors of these events,

while recognizing that results might vary across jurisdictions. For example, in a recent

study of one mid-Atlantic county, failure to appear at a supervision review hearing increased

odds of probation revocation at the subsequent hearing by more than 60 (NeMoyer et al.,

2016). Identifying characteristics and behaviors associated with these negative outcomes

may help system actors recognize at-risk youth who might benefit from additional supports

and interventions while under supervision. To contribute to ongoing work in this area, the

current study sought to replicate previous findings related to supervision noncompliance

and probation revocation in a different jurisdiction with an enhanced data source and to

investigate potential warning signs of youths’ failure to appear at supervision review hear-

ings. Together, findings from these inquiries might point to ways in which systems can bet-

ter facilitate successful probation completion—an important goal of juvenile probation

(Mendel, 2018).

JUVENILE PROBATION GOALS AND THE RNR MODEL

Although specifics vary across states and local jurisdictions, juvenile probation systems are

typically designed to accomplish multiple goals related to youth rehabilitation, youth

accountability, and public safety (Hafoka et al., 2017). Within this multifaceted framework,

probation reform advocates have emphasized the value of a system that promotes positive

youth development while simultaneously working to prevent recidivism among youth under