Juvenile Probation Officer Perceptions of Parental Involvement in Juvenile Probation and With Contingency Management

• Author: Sydney N. Ingel,Lynnea R. Davis,Danielle S. Rudes,Faye S. Taxman,Taylor N. Hartwell,Tess K. Drazdowski,Michael R. Mccart,Jason E. Chapman,Ashli J. Sheidow
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221106468
• Published date: 01 January 2023
• Date: 01 January 2023
• Subject Matter: SPECIAL THEMED SECTION: Transformative Areas in Juvenile Justice

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 2023, 40 –55.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221106468

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

40

JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER PERCEPTIONS

OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN JUVENILE

PROBATION AND WITH CONTINGENCY

MANAGEMENT

SYDNEY N. INGEL

LYNNEA R. DAVIS

DANIELLE S. RUDES

FAYE S. TAXMAN

TAYLOR N. HARTWELL

George Mason University

TESS K. DRAZDOWSKI

MICHAEL R. MCCART

JASON E. CHAPMAN

ASHLI J. SHEIDOW

Oregon Social Learning Center

Probation is a common sanction for youth substance users, and as such, juvenile probation officers (JPOs) shoulder much of

the burden for treatment and rehabilitation. To improve youth outcomes and alleviate some of the burden, JPOs may seek

parental involvement in the probation and substance use desistance processes. Using focus group data, we analyzed JPO

perceptions of the role parents play in contingency management (CM)—an incentive system designed to produce and reward

decreased substance use—and whether they perceived any value in CM. We found that most JPOs perceived parental involve-

ment as critical to the success of both substance use treatment and CM for youth. Our findings also suggest JPOs found

parental involvement in CM valuable given that CM was employed on nonstudy clients and future clients. This has implica-

tions for the practicality and sustainability of CM as a youth probation intervention.

Keywords: juvenile justice; family engagement; juvenile probation officers; substance use; contingency management

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We extend our appreciation to participating juvenile probation officers; to the participat-

ing Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon counties’ juvenile justice agencies; and to Jane Wilson and Larisa Lilles for

assistance in implementing the study. More information about implementing contingency management can be

found on the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence! website (https://www.gmuace.org/major-projects/

jjsteps-jsteps/) and/or the Oregon Social Learning Center website (https://www.oslc.org/publications/). Data

are available from Dr. Ashli J. Sheidow upon individual request and the approved data sharing agreement. We

have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This article was supported by Grants R01DA041434, R01DA043578,

R24DA051950, and K23DA048161 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health

(NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official

views of the NIH. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sydney N. Ingel, The Center

for Advancing Correctional Excellence! (ACE!), George Mason University, 4087 University Drive, Fairfax, VA

22030; e-mail: singel@gmu.edu.

1106468CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221106468Criminal Justice and BehaviorIngel et al. / JPO Perceptions of Parental Involvement

research-article2022

Ingel et al. / JPO PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 41

In the United States, approximately 2 million 12- to 17-year-olds report drug use, 2½ mil-

lion report alcohol use in the past month, and more than 1 million annually need sub-

stance use treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

[SAMHSA], 2018). A similar national report by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) in 2017 found 30% of high school–aged adolescents reported current

alcohol use, 20% reported current marijuana use, and 14% had taken prescription painkill-

ers (Kann et al., 2018). Adolescent substance use is a driver of involvement in the juvenile

justice system (Schubert et al., 2011; Wibbelink et al., 2017). An estimated 70% of arrested

youth have prior drug involvement (Belenko & Logan, 2003), and there is high prevalence

of substance use among justice-involved youth (Hicks et al., 2010; Wasserman et al.,

2010; Zajac et al., 2020). More referrals for community treatment services come from the

juvenile1 justice system than other systems (Chassin, 2008; SAMHSA, 2015), but youth

often do not engage in treatment services (Wasserman et al., 2021). As probation is ordered

for more than 50% of adjudicated youth (Sickmund et al., 2020), and most youth still live

with their families, juvenile probation officers (JPOs) and parents are key players in delin-

quency prevention and rehabilitation services.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is long-standing research on the natural protection parents may provide against

youth delinquency, behavioral issues, and substance use problems (Baumrind, 1991;

Burgess & Akers, 1966; Dorius et al., 2004; Finkenauer et al., 2005; Gottfredson & Hirschi,

1990; Herman et al., 1997; Hoeve et al., 2009; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 2006).

The importance of parental involvement in youth substance use rehabilitation was quickly

realized and harnessed by professionals in the substance use treatment field (Coleman &

Davis, 1978; Hogue et al., 2018; Kaufman & Kaufmann, 1992; Winters et al., 2011). For

example, family-based strategies, such as multidimensional family therapy (MDFT; deliv-

ered by clinicians) and Multisystemic Therapy (MST; delivered by clinicians), are effective

at reducing youth substance use, as well as other co-occurring problems (Henggeler, 1999;

Henggeler et al., 2009; Hogue et al., 2006; Liddle, 2016; Littell, 2005; Shelef et al., 2005).

These family-based interventions illustrate the value of having families and/or support sys-

tems actively involved in supporting youth goals.

Juvenile probation agencies also recognize the importance of relying on parents and

advocating for their inclusion in the probation process (Burke et al., 2014; Mullins & Toner,

2008; Pennell et al., 2011). JPOs have a complex role that requires balancing rehabilitating

youth and ensuring the community’s protection (Mulvey & Iselin, 2008; Rudes et al., 2011;

Schwalbe, 2012; Ward & Kupchik, 2010). To help manage their complex role, JPOs often

encourage parents to bring youth to appointments, attend appointments with youth, and

monitor youth behavior (Maschi et al., 2013; Mullins & Toner, 2008; Schwalbe & Maschi,

2010). Strong JPO–parent relationships (e.g., supportive and respectful) are associated with

more involvement by parents in probation-specific practices (e.g., reminding and encourag-

ing youth to attend probation appointments, monitoring youth progress on probation),

which then results in fewer youth technical violations (Schwalbe, 2012; Schwalbe &

Maschi, 2010; Vidal & Woolard, 2016, 2017). However, despite the recognition of how

important parents are to the juvenile probation process, JPOs are given little guidance on

how to actively engage parents in probation supervision processes (Maschi et al., 2013).