Transforming Practice Through Culture Change: Probation Staff Perspectives on Juvenile Justice Reform

• Author: Sino Esthappan,Janine M. Zweig,Douglas W. Young,Johanna Lacoe
• Date: 01 July 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204020901761
• Published date: 01 July 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Transforming Practice

Through Culture Change:

Probation Staff Perspectives

on Juvenile Justice Reform

Sino Esthappan

1

, Johanna Lacoe

2

, Janine M. Zweig

1

,

and Douglas W. Young

3

Abstract

Probation plays a central role in the juvenile justice system, and probation officers are often involved

in numerous decisions made in juvenile courts. This study examines the views of probation staff from

23 jurisdictions, some of which participated in an Annie E. Casey Foundation–funded juvenile justice

reform effort intended to safely and significantly reduce the use of out-of-home placements,

especially for youth of color. We survey juvenile probation staff members at two waves and describe

changes in reported practices and principles relating to individualized case planning, youth

engagement, family and community engagement, and racial and ethnic equity and inclusion as well as

beliefs about the purposes of out-of-home placement. Reform sites reported slightly more frequent

use of practices and principles addressing community engagement and racial and ethnic equity and

inclusion in the second wave than in the first wave.

Keywords

juvenile justice, juvenile probation, probation officer roles, racial and ethnic disparities, family

engagement

Probation is the most commonly used disposition in juvenile court. In 2017, almost 300,000 cases

adjudicated delinquent resulted in formal or informal probation (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera,

2018). Nearly every young person who enco unters the juvenile justice system int eracts with a

juvenile probation staff member (Development Services Group, 2017; Steiner et al., 2003). Juvenile

probation officers (POs) play a central role in the juvenile justice system, and many POs have

discretion to make decisions about cases that enter the juvenile court. POs often conduct intake

interviews and investigations; make court recommendations about diversion, case processing, and

1

Urban Institute, Washington, DC, USA

2

University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

3

University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:

Sino Esthappan, Urban Institute, 500 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, USA.

Email: sinoesthappan@gmail.com

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2020, Vol. 18(3) 274-293

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1541204020901761

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

out-of-home placement; and work with youth placed on probation or returning to the community

from confinement (Kurlychek et al., 1999; Steiner et al., 2003; Torbet, 1996).

Despite a growing literature base that encourages implementing risks and needs assessments,

engaging youth and families, and matching youth to appropriate services, standard probation prac-

tices often do not align with the evidence on what works to improve outcomes for youth who interact

with the juvenile justice system (Love & Harvell , 2016). Efforts to change traditional juvenile

probation practices require shifts in organizational culture and values, particularly with regard to

the principles of juvenile probation practice and views on the purposes of out-of-home placement.

This article describes a reform effort funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, that aimed to reduce

out-of-home placements through culture change within juvenile justice systems, focused primarily

on juvenile probation departments.

The Intervention

Culture change has been a core strategy of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s (the Foundation)

juvenile justice reform efforts. In 1992, the Foundation began its Juvenile Detention Alternatives

Initiative (JDAI

®

) in response to growing recognition about the nation’s overreliance on youth

detention. Since then, the Foundation has worked with nearly 300 sites across the country to reduce

local detention populations. JDAI provides participating sites with direct technical assistance, anal-

yses and tools, peer-learning networks, and conferences.

1

In 2013, JDAI had achieved nearly a 44%

reduction in the average daily population in detention (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014b). It

also saw a 40%reduction in the number of youth of color in detention among participating sites

by that year (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014a), though studies have found mixed results

on JDAI’s impact on reducing racial and ethnic disparities in detention (Carlton et al., 2017;

Leiber & Fix, 2019; Maggard, 2013). In 2012 and 2014, the Foundation selected 13 sites

2

participatinginJDAItoexpandtheirdetention reform efforts to out-of-home placements in

residential facilities referred to as the “deep end” of the system.

3

These sites applied and were

selected to participate in the deep end reform in part because they showed promise to advance

in select reform areas.

The primary goal of the deep end reform was to safely and significantly reduce the number of out-

of-home placements through a range of supports to sites, especially for youth of color who dis-

proportionately received such disp ositions. The Foundation’s financi al and technical assistance

resources for the deep end reform were invested in communities with a focus on juvenile probation

due to the central role it plays in processing youth through the juvenile justice system. Deep end

reform sites engaged in a set of intensive, tailored reform activities, and received substantial tech-

nical assistance from the Foundation and other providers to help meet their goals of reducing the

number of youth, particularly youth of color, who progress deeper into the juvenile justice system.

The reform effort focused on two critical drivers of out-of-home placements: placements that

occurred at initial disposition and those that occurred through violations of probation. Below, we

describe some of the activities that deep end reform sites pursued to advance these aspects of the

reform.

Youth and family engagement strategies were critical components of the deep end reform. Deep

end reform sites made concerted efforts to understand the needs of youth and families through

satisfaction surveys, focus groups of family members of probation-involved youth, and family

councils and work groups. These activities were designed to incorporate youth and family voices

into juvenile justice decision-making and improve the juvenile court’s interaction with family

members. These activities align with research on best practices, which suggest that family involve-

ment in juvenile case processing helps prioritize youths’ treatment needs, keeps families informed,

and provides juvenile justice system staff with adequate knowledge and insights to make informed

Esthappan et al. 275