In the Best Interests of the Child? Distinctions Between the Professional Orientations of Juvenile and Adult Probation and Parole Officers

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/07340168221117108
• Author: Riane M. Bolin,Brandon K. Applegate
• Date: 01 September 2023

In the Best Interests of the

Child? Distinctions Between

the Professional Orientations of

Juvenile and Adult Probation

and Parole Off‌icers

Riane M. Bolin

1

and Brandon K. Applegate

2

Abstract

Despite fundamental distinctions between the ideals of juvenile and criminal justice , little research

has sought to establish the extent to which juvenile probation and parole off‌icers’orientations differ

from those of their adult counterparts. Further, of the few studies that have explored this area of

study, none have examined the role that organizational context may play in predicting professional

orientation. Thus, this study aims to f‌ill the gap in the literature by utilizing a sample of probation

and parole off‌icers drawn from three different types of agencies: juvenile-only supervision, adult-

only supervision, and combined supervision. The results show that the system within which off‌icers

work is associated with professional orientation. Distinctions, however, are not as large or consis-

tent as would be expected from strict adherence to the traditional ideals of the juvenile justice sys-

tem versus the criminal justice system. The implications of these f‌indings are discussed.

Keywords

probation, parole, juvenile justice, off‌icer, orientation

Every state in the U.S. operates a justice system of special jurisdiction charged with handling juvenile

offenders that is separate from the criminal justice system for adults. However, the juvenile system

that exists today does not perfectly mirror the one originally conceived in 1899. Over the last one

hundred and twenty years, the juvenile justice system has undergone a number of distinct paradigm

shifts, oscillating between an ostensibly benevolent approach that clearly distinguished it from the

adult system and a more punitive orientation ref‌lective of the criminal justice system (Benekos &

Merlo, 2008; Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Feld, 1991, 1999, 2017; Merlo & Benekos, 2010).

Feld (2017) categorized these paradigm shifts into distinct eras, and he suggested that the most

1

Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, Radford, VA, United States

2

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States

Corresponding Author:

Riane M. Bolin, Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, 801 East Main St., Radford, VA 24142, United States.

Email: rbolin1@radford.edu

Article

Criminal Justice Review

2023, Vol. 48(3) 339-358

© 2022 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168221117108

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

recent trend has moved the juvenile justice system away from a decades-long emphasis on culpability

and punishment toward a reaff‌irmation that “kids are different”(p. 1; also see Benekos & Merlo,

2019; Weiss, 2013). While the broad philosophy of juvenile justice may be tilting toward recognition

of how juveniles differ from adults and renewed efforts to handle wayward youths in ways that are

consistent with their immaturity, relatively little is known about the orientation of those charged with

day-to-day supervision of adjudicated juveniles. Understanding an off‌icer’s professional orientation

is of importance because it may inf‌luence how effective they are in carrying out their job responsi-

bilities (Ricks & Eno Louden, 2015). The current study contributes to this important issue by assess-

ing the professional orientations of probation and parole off‌icers (PPOs) who supervise juveniles and

contrasting them against those of PPOs whose clients are adults. Although the distinctions are

modest, we f‌ind that juvenile PPOs are more aligned with some dimensions of traditional juvenile

justice ideology than are adult PPOs and off‌icers who supervise both adult and juvenile clients.

Prior to detailing these results, however, we place the study in context by discussing the nature of

juvenile justice—including major ideological changes—the role of probation and parole off‌icers,

and the existing literature on correctional orientations.

Literature Review

Juvenile Justice Paradigm Shifts

The separate system of justice for juveniles in the United States emerged at the opening of the 20

th

century. As one of the initiatives of the Progressive era, the juvenile court was grounded in the belief

that juveniles are different from adults in terms of their levels of maturity and responsibility. Based

on this conception of juveniles, the court sought “to identify causes of youths’misbehavior, to inter-

vene, and to promote their development into responsible adults”and “to minimize the harms the

criminal justice system inf‌licted on young people”by diverting them to a separate, benevolent

system of justice (Feld, 2017, p. 9). With these goals at the forefront, the court exercised unfettered

discretion and informal processes to address the full situation of each juvenile. For the f‌ir st two-thirds

of the 20

th

century, probation off‌icers made virtually all decisions about detaining youth; they inves-

tigated their situation and background, determined whether to refer the case to the juvenile court, and

made disposition recommendations to the judge (Sanborn & Salerno, 2005). Ultimately, the judge

and probation off‌icer “truly ran the show,”emphasizing accountability but also rehabilitative dispo-

sitions that focused on the best interests of the child (Sanborn & Salerno, 2005, p. 25).

The original vision of a separate juvenile court, however, faced two major challenges during the

20

th

century that blurred its distinction from the criminal court. First, critics asserted that the outcome

of juvenile court cases were not as benef‌icent as the court claimed; rather, juveniles were receiving

sometimes harsh punishment while at the same time being denied due process rights (Benekos &

Merlo, 2019; Feld, 1999). Landmark rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court addressed these concerns

and determined that youths must be protected through due process (Breed v. Jones, 1975; In re Gault,

1967; In re Winship, 1970; Kent v. United States, 1966; New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1984). The Supreme

Court concluded that youths were capable of exercising their legal rights and becoming active par-

ticipants in the adjudicatory process. The establishment of procedural safeguards recognized the

potentially punitive consequences of a juvenile being adjudicated, but this shift also increased for-

mality and transformed the juvenile court from a benevolent collaboration to an adversarial

process. These changes have been widely recognized as blurring the distinction between the juvenile

and criminal courts (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Feld, 1991, 2017).

Second, the 1980s and 1990s witnessed societal and political changes including increased crime

rates (Cook & Laub, 1998; Snyder, 2000), a newfound fear of juveniles as “superpredators”(DiIulio,

1995), and a growing perception that delinquency resulted from poor character and rational choices

340 Criminal Justice Review 48(3)