1

JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN JUVENILE JUSTICE BULLETIN

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Generally, juvenile probation officers

are college-educated white males, 30–49

years old, with 5–10 years of experience

in the field. Typically the officers earn

$20,000–$39,000 per year and receive

standard benefits packages, but not necessarily annual salary increases. The average caseload is 41 juveniles. Although

probation officers have some arrest powers, they do not normally carry weapons.

Some of the typical problems juvenile

probation officers face are a lack of resources, not enough staff, and too many

cases. Although they chose this line of

work “to help kids,” their greatest sources

of frustration are an inability to impact the

lives of youth, the attitudes of probationers and their families, and difficulties in

identifying successes.

The Profession

What Is Juvenile Probation?

Juvenile probation is the oldest

and most widely used vehicle through

which a range of court-ordered services is

rendered. Probation may be used at the

“front end” of the juvenile justice system

for first-time, low-risk offenders or at the

“back end” as an alternative to institutional confinement for more serious offenders. In some cases probation may be

voluntary, in which the youth agrees to

Juvenile Probation:

The Workhorse of the

Juvenile Justice System

Patricia McFall Torbet

In 1993 nearly 1.5 million delinquency

cases were handled by juvenile courts.

Virtually every one of those cases had

contact with a probation officer at some

point. Probation departments screened

most of those cases to determine how

they should be processed, made detention decisions on some of them, prepared

investigation reports on most of them,

provided supervision to over a half million of them, and delivered aftercare services to many of the juveniles released

from institutions. Since 1929, when the

first Juvenile Court Statistics report was

published using 1927 data, probation

has been the overwhelming dispositional choice of juvenile and family court

judges. In 1993, 56 percent of all cases

adjudicated for a delinquency offense

received probation as the most severe

disposition, compared with 28 percent

that were placed in some type of residential facility, 12 percent that were given

some other disposition (e.g., fines, restitution, or community service), and 4 percent that were dismissed with no further

sanctions.

Over the past several years, the

National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ)

has produced reports, parts of which describe the profession of probation or the

youth on probation (see References). This

information is compiled here to present

the most comprehensive picture of juvenile probation activity in the Nation.

From the Administrator

This bulletin was prepared, in part,

based upon responses to a nationwide survey of juvenile probation

officers and administrators conducted

in 1992 by NCJJ. The survey was

part of ongoing efforts by NCJJ’s

Juvenile Probation Officer Initiative

(JPOI) to address the needs of

juvenile probation officers nationally

through applied research, program

development, technical assistance,

and information dissemination. JPOI

is a component of NCJJ’s Technical

Assistance to the Juvenile Court

Project funded by the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP).

As part of JPOI, NCJJ compiled a

data base of juvenile probation

officers in every county in the

country. This data base is used to

select random samples for surveys,

analyze information about probation

departments, and disseminate

information to the field. Information

on youth placed on probation comes

from the Juvenile Court Statistics

series, which describes data stored

in the National Juvenile Court Data

Archive at NCJJ. The archive, funded

by OJJDP, contains the most detailed

information available on youth involved in the juvenile justice system

and on activities of the Nation’s

juvenile courts.

It is my hope that this bulletin

assists the probation field in its

critically important work.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Shay Bilchik, Administrator March 1996
2

How Many Juvenile

Probation Officers Are

There in the Country?

There are an estimated 18,000 juvenile

probation professionals impacting the

lives of juveniles in the United States.

comply with a period of informal probation in lieu of formal adjudication. More

often, once adjudicated and formally ordered to a term of probation, the juvenile

must submit to the probation conditions

established by the court.

The official duties of juvenile probation

professionals vary from State to State and

can even differ between jurisdictions within a single State. Nonetheless, a basic set

of juvenile probation functions includes:

intake screening of cases referred to juvenile and family courts, predisposition or

presentence investigation of juveniles,

and court-ordered supervision of juvenile

offenders.

Not all probation departments execute

all three of these functions independently.

For example, in some jurisdictions the

prosecutor shares the intake responsibility with the probation officer, and in other

jurisdictions the prosecutor has sole responsibility for the intake process. Similarly, probation responsibilities are not

always limited to intake, investigation,

and supervision. Some departments also

provide aftercare for youth released from

institutions; others may administer detention or manage local residential facilities

or special programs.

How Are Probation

Departments Organized?

Probation services are administered by

the local juvenile court or by the State administrative office of courts in 23 States

and the District of Columbia. In another

14 States, probation administration is a

combination of structures, usually with

services administered by the juvenile

court in urban counties and by a State

executive system of probation in smaller

counties. In 10 States probation is administered statewide through an executive

branch department. In three States, the

county executive administers probation

(Table 1).

While juvenile probation services

continue to be predominantly organized

under the judiciary, recent legislative activity has primarily transferred these services from the local juvenile court to a State

court judicial department. The transfer of

juvenile probation services to State judicial administration is consistent with the

emerging pattern of State funding of

courts.

Eighty-five percent of these professionals

are involved in the delivery of basic intake,

investigation, and supervision services at

the line officer level; the remaining 15 percent are involved in the administration of

probation offices or the management of

probation staff.

Table 1:

Probation Supervision Tends To Be Administered by

Local Juvenile Courts or by a State Executive Branch Agency

State Administration Local Administration

Judicial Branch Executive Branch Judicial Branch Executive Branch

Connecticut Alaska Alabama California

Hawaii Arkansas Arizona Idaho

Iowa Delaware Arkansas Minnesota

Kentucky Florida California Mississippi

Nebraska Georgia Colorado New York

North Carolina Idaho District of Oregon

North Dakota Kentucky Columbia Washington

South Dakota Louisiana Georgia Wisconsin

Utah Maine Illinois

West Virginia Maryland Indiana

Minnesota Kansas

Mississippi Kentucky

New Hampshire Louisiana

New Mexico Massachusetts

North Dakota Michigan

Oklahoma Minnesota

Rhode Island Missouri

South Carolina Montana

Tennessee Nevada

Vermont New Jersey

Virginia Ohio

West Virginia Oklahoma

Wyoming Pennsylvania

Tennessee

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Note: Bolded States indicate that probation is provided by a combination of agencies. Often

larger, urban counties operate local probation departments, while the State administers probation

in smaller counties.

Source: Hurst, H., IV, and Torbet, P. (1993). Organization and Administration of Juvenile Services:

Probation, Aftercare, and State Institutions for Delinquent Youth. In Snyder, H. and Sickmund, M.

(1995). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. NCJ 153569.
3

for more than 25 percent of delinquency

referrals to courts in jurisdictions with an

upper age of 16. The exclusion of 16-yearolds from juvenile jurisdiction has a dramatic effect on the need for juvenile

probation staff.

In addition to mixed caseloads and

upper age differences, other variables

that impact department or caseload

size include the range of functions performed by juvenile probation, the range

of juvenile behaviors prohibited by law,

and the number of crimes excluded from

juvenile court jurisdiction. Moreover, the

extent to which laws are enforced and

crimes are cleared with an arrest varies

between jurisdictions, as does the involvement of prosecutors and the use

of diversion or informal handling.

How Much Do Juvenile

Probation Officers Earn?

Over three-quarters of all survey respondents earned less than $40,000 per

year. More than half (53 percent) of line

staff earned less than $30,000 per year,

but 13 percent earned $40,000 per year

or more. Nearly 30 percent of the administrators earned more than $49,999 per

year. Very few line staff reported earning

salaries higher than that.

Only 28 percent of the respondents

indicated that they routinely received

annual salary increases; 30 percent replied that they received none; and 42 percent indicated that it varied whether they

received increases. Of those that did receive annual salary increases, 50 percent

received increases of less than 4 percent

annually, 47 percent received increases of

4–6 percent, and fewer than 3 percent

received increases in excess of 6 percent.

Youth on Probation

What Is the Volume of

Cases Placed on

Probation?

In 1993, 35 percent (520,600) of all

formally and informally handled delinquency cases disposed by juvenile courts

resulted in probation. Probation was the

most severe disposition in over half (56

percent) of adjudicated delinquency cases,

with annual proportions remaining constant for the 5-year period 1989–1993.

The 1.5 million delinquency cases

handled by juvenile courts in 1993 represented a 23-percent increase from 1989.

Similarly, the number of juvenile cases

placed on probation (either formally or

informally) increased 21 percent, from

428,500 in 1989 to 520,600 in 1993. The

growth in probation caseloads was directly related to the general growth in referrals to juvenile courts. The likelihood

of a probation disposition did not change,

because judges did not increase the rate

at which they used probation as a disposition. During this same period, the number

of adjudicated cases placed on formal probation increased 17 percent, from 216,900

to 254,800, and the number of cases involving a person offense (homicide, rape,

robbery, assault, kidnaping, etc.) resulting

in formal probation increased 45 percent

(Table 4).

What Is the Profile of Cases

Placed on Probation?

Most cases (54 percent) placed on formal probation in 1993 involved youth adjudicated for property offenses; 21 percent

involved person offenses; 18 percent involved public order offenses; and 7 percent involved drug law violations (Table

5). Even though most of the cases placed

on probation are for property offenses (because most cases seen by juvenile courts

are property cases), the offense profile of

cases placed on formal probation changed

slightly between 1989 and 1993, with an

increase in the proportion of cases involving person offenses. Probation caseload

changes reflected overall delinquency

caseload changes in terms of growth

and offense profile—the majority of cases

processed by juvenile courts remained

property offenses, but the court also experienced an increase in cases involving person offenses. To the extent that probation

is a mirror of what juvenile courts are

facing, it is not surprising that probation

How Large Are Probation

Officers’ Caseloads?

Survey results of those officers who

reported an active field supervision

caseload indicate that the size of

caseloads within departments ranged

between 2 and more than 200 cases,

with a typical (median) active caseload

of 41. The optimal caseload suggested by

respondents was 30 cases (Table 2).

A comparison of caseloads across geographic areas (urban, suburban, and rural)

revealed substantial differences. The median caseload for urban officers was

greater than the median caseload for suburban officers, which, in turn, was greater

than the median caseload for rural officers. Similarly, urban and suburban juvenile

probation officers reported a higher optimal caseload than rural officers. Rural officers are more likely than their urban or

suburban counterparts to carry a mixed

caseload of both adult and juvenile cases.

How Do Urban Counties

Compare in Terms of

Department Size?

Table 3 presents manpower rates for

several urban jurisdictions. All have specialized juvenile probation departments;

therefore, mixed caseloads of adults and

juveniles are not an issue.

At first glance it appears that New

York is understaffed relative to Chicago.

However, the upper age of juvenile court

jurisdiction in New York is 15; it is 16 in

Illinois. Even though rate calculations control for upper age differences, older juveniles generate more delinquency referrals

than younger juveniles. While 16-year-olds

constitute about 14 percent of the population aged 10–16 nationwide, they account

Table 2:

Probation Officers Report Differences in

Their Actual and Optimal Caseloads

Caseload Urban Suburban Rural Overall

Current 47 40 30 41

Optimal 35 35 25 30

Source: Thomas, D. (1993). The State of Juvenile Probation 1992: Results of a Nationwide

Survey. NCJ 159536.
4

officers are finding more violent youth in

their caseloads. Moreover, while there

has not been a change in judicial use of

probation as a disposition, the increase in

violent youth on probation may very well

be a result of a lack of secure beds for

these offenders. Probation is the only

alternative.

Challenges to Probation

The field of probation is staffed by

dedicated individuals who believe that

young persons who break the law can

change their behavior in favor of lawabiding activities. Probation departments

cannot, however, limit their intake of probationers like private providers or State

training schools, which routinely operate

Balancing juvenile probation officers’

safety and the safety of the public with

probationers’ needs is a major challenge.

Many departments have developed creative and successful intensive supervision

and school-based programs that target

special populations of probationers;

however, there is increased pressure to

do much more community-based

programming.

Indeed, in the face of rising caseloads,

fixed resources, public demand for more

accountability, and serious safety concerns, the mission of probation will need

to evolve even further to respond not

only to juvenile offenders but also to the

community.

over capacity and often have caps on admissions. In that sense, probation is the

“catch basin” of the juvenile justice system and is being confronted with increasing and, as indicated below, more

dangerous caseloads.

In fact, one of the biggest issues facing

the field of juvenile probation is on-the-job

safety. There is a growing perception that

the work of juvenile probation is increasingly dangerous. Almost one-third of the

survey respondents reported that they

had been assaulted on the job at some

point in their careers. When asked

whether, during the course of their duties,

they were ever concerned about personal

safety, 42 percent of the respondents reported that they were usually or always

concerned.

Table 3:

There Are Major Differences in the Number of Probation Officers in Urban Jurisdictions

Duties

I = Intake

1990 Census V = Investigation Officers/

 Population S = Supervision 10,000

10–Upper Upper Officers Reported A = Aftercare Youth

City Age Age 1993–1994 D = Detention 10–Upper Age

New York, NY 536,300 15 175 I V S 3

Chicago, IL 469,000 16 318 I V S 7

Houston, TX 288,300 16 208 I V S 7

Detroit, MI 212,100 16 100 I V S 5

Los Angeles, CA 943,500 17 404 I V S 4

Orange, CA 242,000 17 148 I V S 6

Phoenix, AZ 225,400 17 275 I V S D 12

Miami, FL 201,900 17 191 I V S A 10

Philadelphia, PA 158,800 17 190 I V S A 12

Cleveland, OH 142,500 17 105 I V S 7

Seattle, WA 137,100 17 95 I V S 7

Oakland, CA 120,500 17 120 I V S 10

Memphis, TN 95,600 17 65 I V S A 7

Cincinnati, OH 92,200 17 34 V S 4

Minneapolis, MN 91,700 17 82 I V S A 9

Fairfax, VA 88,100 17 95 I V S A 11

Newark, NJ 83,000 17 38 S 5

Baltimore, MD 70,500 17 142 I V S A 20

Oklahoma City, OK 64,600 17 25 I V S 4

Note: “Officers Reported 1993–1994” count includes local juvenile probation administrators, supervisors, line staff, and special program staff

(e.g., community service and drug and alcohol program officers).

Source: Hurst, H., IV, and Vereb, P. (1995). Special Analysis of the Juvenile Probation Officer Initiative Database.
5

Table 4:

Probation Caseloads Are Growing

Number of Adjudicated Cases

Placed on Formal Probation

Offense 1989 1993 Percent Change

Delinquency 216,900 254,800 17%

Person 37,200 53,900 45

Property 126,300 136,600 8

Drugs 17,600 17,500 0

Public Order 35,900 46,800 30

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. “Percent Change” calculations are

based on unrounded numbers.

Source: Butts, J., et al. (1995). Juvenile Court Statistics 1993. NCJ 159535.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

An emerging issue for probation departments seeking some reasoned relief from

juvenile justice policies that shift between

just deserts and treatment philosophies is

whether to embrace a paradigm that encompasses yet another philosophy. The

“balanced approach” and “restorative justice” concepts evoke new ways of looking

not only at the delivery of probation services, but also the continuum of services

available to respond to juvenile offenders

in the community. The balanced approach

(see Maloney, Romig, and Armstrong,

1988) espouses the potential value in any

case of applying, to some degree, an entire

set of principles—community protection,

accountability, competency development,

and/or treatment—along with individualized assessment. Restorative justice (see

Umbreit, 1989) promotes maximum involvement of the victim, offender, and

community in the justice process. These

two concepts have been combined into

the “balanced and restorative justice”

model, which suggests that justice is best

served when the community, victim, and

youth receive balanced attention, and all

gain tangible benefits from their interactions with the juvenile justice system.

Future bulletins will address these issues

in an attempt to support juvenile justice

professionals on the front lines in finding

new solutions to emerging problems. An

upcoming OJJDP Program Summary will

highlight the American Probation and Parole Association’s program for early identification of and appropriate intervention

for drug-involved youth.

For further information about the Juvenile Probation Officer Initiative, contact:

Doug Thomas, JPOI Coordinator

National Center for Juvenile Justice

710 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

412–227–6950

References

Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Armstrong,

T. (1988). “Juvenile Probation: The Balanced Approach.” Juvenile and Family

Court Journal, 39 (3).

Umbreit, M. (1989). “Victims Seeking

Fairness, Not Revenge: Toward Restorative Justice.” Federal Probation,

September.

This bulletin was prepared using the

following reports produced by the National Center for Juvenile Justice:

Butts, J., et al. (1995). Juvenile Court

Statistics 1993. NCJ 159535.*

Hurst, H., IV. and Torbet, P. (1993). Organization and Administration of Juvenile

Services: Probation, Aftercare, and State

Institutions for Delinquent Youth.

Hurst, H., IV. and Vereb, P. (1995).

Special Analysis of the Juvenile Probation

Officer Initiative Database.

Snyder, H. and Sickmund, M. (1995).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National

Report. NCJ 153569.*

Thomas, D. (1993). The State of Juvenile

Probation 1992: Results of a Nationwide

Survey. NCJ 159536.*

Torbet, P. (Editor). (1993). Desktop

Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice.

NCJ 128218.*

* Documents available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, 800–638–8736;

all others available from NCJJ.

This bulletin was prepared under grant

number 95–JN–FX–K003 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

Table 5:

Offenses Against Other

Persons Make Up a Growing

Proportion of Probation

Officers’ Caseloads

Offense 1989 1993

Person 17% 21%

Property 58 54

Drugs 8 7

Public Order 17 18

Total 100% 100%

Cases

Resulting

in Formal

Probation: 216,900 254,800

Note: Detail may not total 100 percent

because of rounding.

Source: Butts, J., et al. (1995). Juvenile

Court Statistics 1993. NCJ 159535.
NCJ 158534

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91