Last updated: August 2017 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Formal, Post-Adjudication Juvenile Probation Services 

Juvenile probation is the supervision and monitoring of justice-involved youth in the community, 

rather than placement out of the home. Youths on probation must comply with the terms and 

conditions of probation imposed by the court (Nieto, 1996). It is the most common juvenile court 

disposition for youths who have offended. It can be used both for first-time, low risk youth who have 

committed offenses, and as an alternative to out-of-home confinement youth who have committed 

more serious offenses (OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, 2015). Juvenile probation serves two primary 

purposes: 1) it holds youths who have offended accountable in order to protect public safety; and 2) it 

supports their rehabilitation through service delivery and with an alternative to incarceration (Westat 

and National Center for Juvenile Justice [NCJJ], 2013). 

The focus of this literature review is on formal probation and services provided to juveniles on postadjudication probation, or probation as a disposition. The review will not focus on probation at intake, 

probation following out-of-home placement, or school-based probation. In addition to describing 

services provided, this review provides an overview of the process of juvenile probation, characteristics 

of youths served by probation, the role of probation officers, and a description of evidence-based 

programs that have been evaluated with youth on probation. 

The Process of Juvenile Probation

Probation is used most frequently by the juvenile justice system in response to a youth’s delinquent 

behavior (Kurlychek, Torbet, and Bozynski 1999; Torbet 1996; Wagoner, Schubert, and Mulvey 2015). 

There are two key points at which a juvenile may be assigned to some form of probation: informal 

probation at intake and formal probation following adjudication (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2017).

 An intake department, within or outside the court, will screen juvenile court case referrals. If

the case is not formally petitioned to a hearing, it could be 1) dismissed for lack of legal

sufficiency, or 2) resolved informally via informal probation or another sanction (OJJDP Statistical

Briefing Book 2015). Informal probation lacks formal supervision of the probationers, who then

report directly to the court instead of to a probation officer.

 After a juvenile is adjudicated as having committed a status offense or delinquent behavior, the

disposition outcome may include 1) formal probation; 2) out-of-home placement (for example,

in a group home, other residential facility, or a foster home); or 3) referral to a mental health

program, imposition of a fine, community service, or restitution. A disposition of probation at

this point may also be informal and voluntary or formal and court-ordered (OJJDP Statistical

Briefing Book 2015).

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2017. “Formal, Post-Adjudication Juvenile Probation Services.” 

Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Probation_Services.pdf 

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract #2010-MU-FX-K002. 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.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

One significant challenge of describing the process of juvenile probation is that specific characteristics 

of probation vary by jurisdictions. In some states and counties, juveniles may be ordered to house arrest,

be required to abide by a curfew, or may be allowed out of the home for school, work, or community 

service (OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book 2015).

The length of a juvenile’s probation period may be specified by the judge, or it can be open ended. In 

jurisdictions with indeterminate lengths, probation officers have discretion in deciding when to close a 

case and dismiss a youth from supervision (Westat and NCJJ 2013). The juvenile’s progress is monitored 

via review hearings, and after the conditions of probation have been met, the judge terminates the case 

(OJJJDP Statistical Briefing Book 2015).

When youths are on probation, they must comply with the conditions of supervision laid out by the 

court, which may include routine/random drug tests, payment of restitution, or participation in 

treatment services, among other options. 

However, the conditions of probation, such as the imposition of fees and fines, may hinder youths’ 

process to becoming productive members of society, as they (or their families) may not have the 

financial abilities to pay back such costs. This issue is discussed in other research (see: Feierman et al. 

2016, pp. 7-8). Moreover, when youths who have been adjudicated for relatively minor offenses are 

placed on formal probation (versus being diverted from the system), they may end up more deeply 

involved in the juvenile justice system for violating the terms of their supervision. For example, youths 

who are placed on probation for truancy, and then violate their probation by missing school, may have 

their probation rescinded and may be remanded into out-of-home placement. Research has found that 

as youths move further into the system, their likelihood of engaging in delinquent behavior increases 

(Petrosino et al. 2013).

Examples of Services Provided on Probation

Services provided to juveniles on probation may be court-ordered or voluntary and take a variety of 

forms. Lipsey (2009) conducted a meta-analysis that examined the efficacy of different types of 

programs commonly used with juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent, though many of these 

services are also provided to youths who have been diverted from the system. The meta-analysis 

examined a variety of programs for youths on probation and parole, and found that deterrence (e.g., 

“scared straight”) and discipline (e.g., boot camps) were not only ineffective, but also had a negative 

effect on later recidivism rates. Further, evidence has been both limited and mixed for the surveillance 

programs. For more information, please see the Alternatives to Detention and Confinement literature 

review on the Model Programs Guide (MPG).

The following types of programs were identified as demonstrating positive effects for juveniles placed 

on probation and parole:

 Restorative programs, including both restitution to victims and mediation, are intended to 

repair the harm done by the juvenile’s behavior by requiring compensation and sometimes 

direct reconciliation to victims or via community service.

 Counseling and other therapeutic programs, which include a diverse array of treatments that

often focus on the relationship between the juvenile who has offended and a responsible adult 

who attempts to exert positive influence on the juvenile’s feelings, cognitions, and behavior; this 

treatment may also include family members or peers.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

 Skill-building programs, including cognitive–behavioral therapy, which provide instruction, 

practice, incentives, and other activities aimed at developing skills to help the youths control 

their behavior and increase their prosocial skills.

 Coordinated services, which work within multiple systems and provide a package of 

individualized services such as case management, a service broker, and multimodal regimens

(Lispey, 2009).

A risk-need-responsivity (RNR) approach to justice interventions suggests that improving the match 

between adolescents and specialized treatment services could improve outcomes [National Resource 

Council (NRC) 2013]. The RNR literature explains the positive impact of interventions that address 

youths’ level of risk to reoffend, their individual needs, and their responsivity, or their amenability to 

treatment (Andrews et al. 1990).

Risk-assessment instruments are frequently used in juvenile justice settings to assess the likelihood that 

youths will recidivate (see Schwalbe 2007, for a meta-analysis of risk-assessment instruments). These 

instruments are also used to assess the degree to which juveniles may have a variety of other needs that 

should be addressed, including mental health and substance use issues (Tarolla et al. 2002; Ryan, 

Abrams, and Huang 2014; Ramchand, Morral, and Becker 2009). Research has found that probation 

services have the potential to be effective if youths are screened for additional needs and provided with 

services that address those needs (Carey, Van Wormer, and Mackin 2013). For more information, see 

the Risk/Needs Assessments for Youths literature review on the MPG.

Characteristics of the Population

According to Juvenile Court Statistics 2014 (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2017), 975,000 juvenile

delinquency cases were processed in 2014. That year, 291,300 youths in the United States were 

adjudicated delinquent and of those, 183,200 were placed on probation for a variety of offenses, 

including property (33 percent), public order (26 percent), person (28 percent), or drug offenses (13 

percent). 

Among the youths adjudicated delinquent in 2014, probation was the most restrictive disposition1

assigned in 63 percent of cases, whereas out-of-home placement was ordered in 26 percent of all those 

cases. The remaining 11 percent received other sanctions, which included being ordered to pay 

restitution or a fine, having to participate in some form of community service, or entering a treatment 

or counseling program, all of which provide minimal continuing supervision by probation staff 

(Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2017).

Demographic differences among youths given probation in 2014 were relatively small. Specific 

comparisons by age, gender, and race follow:

 Age. Younger youths were given probation more often than older youths. Specifically, of all 

cases processed, 53 percent involved youths younger than age 16, and the overall likelihood that 

youths of that age who were adjudicated delinquent were placed on probation was 65 percent, 

compared with 60 percent of those age 16 and older.

 Gender. Females were more often placed on probation than males, but the differences were not 

substantial. Sixty-two percent of males who were adjudicated delinquent were placed on formal 

probation, compared with 66 percent of their female peers.

 

1 Hockenberry and Puzzanchera (2017) reported case dispositions by the most severe or restrictive sanction. For example, 

though youths in out-of-home placements are also technically on probation, they were not included in the probation 

group because out-of-home placement is the more restrictive sanction.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

 Race/Ethnicity. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian youths were similarly likely to be given 

probation (61, 62, 66, respectively) compared with white youths (64 percent). However, they 

were slightly more likely to be placed in secure confinement, compared with white youths (28, 

31, and 24 percent versus 22 percent, respectively; Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2017). Asian 

youths were most likely to be given probation (72 percent) and least likely to be placed in secure 

confinement (20 percent). While there does appear to be some racial disparity, there does not 

appear to be excessive disparity. Though not strongly supported by these data, past research 

has identified racial disparities at the disposition stage, including the probation stage, even after 

legal, extralegal, and demographic factors are controlled (Spinney et al. 2016).

The Role of the Probation Officer

With post-adjudication probation, juvenile probation officers have contact with virtually every case 

disposed to probation, with responsibilities ranging from screening to supervising cases (Kurlychek, 

Torbet, and Bozynski 1999). The specific tasks performed by juvenile probation officers vary by state, 

but three of their primary tasks include intake screening, pre-sentence investigations, and postadjudication supervision (Torbet 1996; Steiner, Roberts, and Hemmens 2003). Bryan (1995) argued that 

juvenile probation officers serve as both counselor and law enforcement representative, as they are

expected to supervise youths in rehabilitative probation services, compared with the probation officers 

of adults. In addition to probation officers themselves taking on multiple roles, researchers have also 

highlighted how success for justice-involved youths may also be best achieved if the juvenile justice 

system and youth-serving agencies engaged in greater collaboration (Evans Cuellar, McReynolds, 

Wasserman 2006; Leone, Quinn, and Osher 2002).

The responsibilities of probation officers who serve juveniles differ from those who serve adults, which 

can present challenges to probation officers who serve both populations. While both types of probation 

officers are charged with supervision, Steiner and colleagues (2004) found that adult probation officers 

reported more often that they were tasked with record-keeping and surveillance of adult probationers, 

whereas juvenile probation officers were tasked with investigating cases and writing social history 

reports (which can be more detailed than records kept on adults). They argued that this could mean

that state justice systems place a greater importance on community control with adult probation 

officers, but place greater importance on supplying information to the court with their juvenile-serving 

colleagues. However, their research concluded that community control was the greatest emphasis for 

both adult and juvenile probation officers (Steiner et al. 2004). 

Juvenile Probation Policies

Juvenile probation is a common disposition in the juvenile justice system. The frequency of its use has 

been attributed to its limitless nature (that is, probation departments cannot limit or control the number 

of youths disposed to probation) and its relatively inexpensive cost (Kurlychek, Torbet, and Bozynski 

1999). However, research does not suggest that probation has a better effect on future offending than 

other types of supervision. The meta-analysis by Lipsey (2009) revealed an overall positive effect for 

well-designed, well-implemented programs, in general; however, findings also indicated that, with all 

other variables controlled for, the effects of those interventions did not differ by the level of supervision. 

Thus, the same interventions were similarly effective whether implemented within the context of 

probation, incarceration, diversion, or no supervision at all. 

Juvenile probation approaches have also been criticized for the balance between rehabilitation and 

punishment. For example, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, juvenile probation was perceived as 

providing only a “slap on the wrist” to juveniles who offended, rather than holding them accountable 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

for their actions. Moreover, the juvenile courts were portrayed by critics as a revolving door, with 

youths often re-arrested for new crimes while still under court-ordered supervision (Steiner et al. 2004; 

Kurlychek et al. 1999). Torbet (1993) concluded that there was a need for a balanced approach across

rehabilitation, punishment, and supervision. However, when perceptions of a crime epidemic in the 

early 1990s focused the public’s attention on the ability of the juvenile justice system to control violent 

juveniles, many states responded by instituting numerous laws and the “get tough” movement, which

also broadened the scope of transfer laws and exposed more youths to criminal (versus juvenile) court 

prosecution (Sickmund and Puzzanchera, 2014). For more information, see the Diversion from Formal 

Juvenile Court Processing literature review on the MPG.

Between 2005 and 2007, more than 300 new juvenile probation laws or policies were passed by state 

legislatures. These focused on a wide variety of issues (including mental health, substance use 

treatment, and diversion) and policy approaches (Westat and NCJJ 2013). More recently, Tuell and 

Harp (2016) suggested that historical approaches and statutes have led juvenile probation departments 

to measure policy success in terms of how many cases were filed, how quickly they were disposed, and 

what types of offenses were involved; but these departments have less often assessed the overall 

approach and framework to juvenile probation in localities. Social work researchers have highlighted 

that probation officers tend to have law enforcement or corrections backgrounds, positing that social 

workers’ skill sets may be more consistent with those needed to support the rehabilitation of justiceinvolved youths (Peters 2011; Ryan, Abrams, and Huang 2014). 

To improve probation services, Miller (2015) described a “synthetic” officer, who draws on a 

combination of law enforcement and social work approaches—specifically, building rapport with 

probationers, but invoking an obligation to enforce probational conditions to promote cooperation 

when required. The combination gives the probation officer greater power to help probationers make 

positive changes, reduce recidivism, and foster a positive relationship with the officer.

Outcome Evidence

A recent report by the NRC (2013) highlighted aspects of adolescent development that should be used 

to design and implement procedures for holding adolescents accountable for their offending, providing 

services to them, and helping to reduce offending. Specifically, the report provided evidence that 

adolescence is a distinct period of development in which personality is still being formed, and that 

adolescents are cognitively and psychosocially immature, compared with adults. As a result, while 

adolescents perceive and process risk information similarly to adults, their increased sensation-seeking 

and vulnerability to peer influence leads them to embrace risk-taking behaviors. One conclusion of the 

report is that “most criminal conduct in adolescence is driven by developmental influences that will 

change with maturity” (NRC 2013, p. 118); thus, positive adults in youths’ lives should focus on rewards 

and immediate consequences while working to help them develop self-control and self-confidence. This 

suggests that juvenile justice programs that engage parents, families, peers, schools, and communities 

in an ecological approach are more likely to reduce juveniles’ future offending (NRC 2013).

The following are examples of evidence-based therapeutic programs from the Model Programs Guide

that involve youths on probation and their families. Some of these programs are used with youths in 

other settings, but these studies focus on youth probationers. 

Functional Family Therapy (FFT). This is a family-based prevention and intervention program for highrisk youths that addresses complex and multidimensional problems through flexibly structured, 

culturally sensitive clinical practice. The FFT clinical model concentrates on decreasing risk factors and 

on increasing protective factors that directly affect adolescents, with an emphasis on familial factors.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

A study of adjudicated youths on probation by Gordon and colleagues (1988) found that for any 12-

month period, the recidivism rate was statistically significantly lower for the FFT group than for the 

comparison group. The recidivism rate of youths once they became adults (i.e., ages 20 to 22) for 

combined misdemeanor and felony offenses was statistically significantly lower for the treatment 

group than for the comparison group, though it was not statistically significantly lower for each offense 

type alone. 

A large-scale trial of FFT compared with usual probation services, conducted by Sexton and Turner 

(2010) and delivered by community-based therapists, found that when adherence to the FFT model was 

high, FFT resulted in a statistically significant reduction in felony and violent crimes (though not 

misdemeanor crimes). As well, when adherence was high, the FFT group had statistically significantly 

lower recidivism rates for youths with the highest levels of family- and peer-risk levels in the sample. 

However, statistically significant results were not found when the sample included therapists of all 

adherence levels.

Connections. This is a juvenile court-based program designed to address the needs of juveniles who 

have offended, are on probation, and who have emotional and behavioral disorders. The program also 

aims to address the needs of juveniles’ families. The program’s goal is to connect youths and families 

with local resources to reduce youths’ risk of recidivating. Connections uses the wraparound model to 

engage with youths, their families, and service providers. Youths and family teams are convened to 

identify needs and coordinate services with multiple service providers. Services may include family 

therapy, clinical therapy, substance use treatment, special education, medication, caregiver support, 

public assistance, housing, and mental health care. In theory, the program treats its target population 

in a holistic way by participating in cross-system collaboration to ensure youths do not recidivate.

Pullman and colleagues (2006) found that youths in the Connections program were statistically

significantly less likely to recidivate. Youths in the comparison group were statistically significantly

more likely to commit any type of offense, and specifically, a felony offense, compared with youths in 

the Connections program. Finally, youths in the Connections program were statistically significantly 

less likely to have served time in detention during the follow-up period. Only 72 percent of Connections 

youths served some days in detention, compared with 100 percent of the comparison group. 

Connections youths also served statistically significantly fewer days in detention, compared with the 

comparison group (59 days versus 102 days, respectively).

Multisystemic Therapy (MST). The overriding goal of Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is to keep 

adolescents who have exhibited serious clinical problems (e.g., drug use, violence, severe criminal 

behavior) at home, in school, and out of trouble. Through intense involvement and contact with the 

family, MST aims to uncover and assess the functional origins of adolescent behavioral problems. It 

works to alter the youth’s ecology in a manner that promotes prosocial conduct while decreasing 

problem and delinquent behavior. MST targets youths between the ages of 12 and 17 who present with 

serious antisocial and problem behavior and with serious criminal offenses. The MST intervention is 

used on these adolescents in the beginning of their criminal career by treating them within the 

environment that forms the basis of their problem behavior instead of in custody, removed from their 

natural ecology.

A randomized controlled trial of youths on probation conducted by Henggeler and colleagues (1992) 

found that the MST treatment groups had just more than half the number of re-arrests than the usualservices comparison group, over a year later. Statistically significant differences favoring the MST 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

group were also found for number of days incarcerated and self-reported delinquency. The MST group 

also reported statistically significantly higher family cohesion and lower peer aggression than the 

comparison group at the posttest.

Another randomized controlled trial study by Borduin and colleagues (1995) found that 4 years after 

the end of their probation, the MST group was less likely to have been arrested than the comparison 

group, and that the number of arrests of the recidivists was statistically significantly lower for the MST 

treatment group. Moreover, the recidivists of the MST group had been arrested for statistically 

significantly less-serious crimes and statistically significantly fewer violent crimes than recidivists from 

the comparison group. However, no differences were found between the MST and comparison groups 

on peer relations measures.

Finally, a study by Timmons–Mitchell and colleagues (2006) found that, at an 18-month follow up of 

youths in a probation setting, the MST group’s recidivism rate was statistically significantly lower than 

that of the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group. MST participants were also arrested and arraigned for new 

charges statistically significantly fewer times, compared with the TAU group, and youths in the TAU 

group were more likely to be arrested than the MST group. 

For more information on these programs, please click on the links below.

Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Connections

Multisystemic Therapy (MST)

Conclusions

Juvenile probation has been called the “workhorse” of the juvenile justice system, as most juveniles 

either enter or exit the juvenile justice system while under supervised probation (Kurlychek, Torbet, 

and Bozynski 1999; Torbet 1996; Wagoner, Schubert, and Mulvey 2015). As the most common juvenile 

court disposition for juveniles who have offended, juvenile probation serves two primary purposes: to 

hold youths accountable for their actions and to support their rehabilitation and positive 

developmental outcomes. Yet juvenile probation policies, practices, and approaches vary widely across 

jurisdictions due to differences in jurisdictional control, different types of supervision that can be 

provided, availability of resources, and the size of caseloads. 

Few intervention programs focus exclusively on post-adjudicated youths on probation, but instead aim 

to reduce the likelihood of future offending by addressing the needs of juveniles, regardless of the level 

of supervision (i.e., probation, incarceration, diversion, and no supervision at all). The research 

presented in this literature review suggests that promising strategies include incorporating risk and 

needs assessments into a dynamic view of juvenile justice involvement that manages risk for those 

specific needs (e.g., mental health). Other evidence-based approaches, which engage parents, families, 

peers, schools, and communities in an ecological approach, give youths who have offended the tools to 

deal with challenges in all their domains.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

References

Andrews, D. A., J. Bonta, and R.D. Hoge. 1990. “Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: 

Rediscovering Psychology.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 17:19–52.

Borduin, C. M., B.J. Mann, L.T. Cone, S.W. Henggeler, B.R. Fucci, D.M. Blaske, and R.A. Williams. 1995. 

“Multisystemic Treatment of Serious Juvenile Offenders: Long-Term Prevention of Criminality 

and Violence.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63:569–78.

Bryan, D. 1995. “Probation Officers: Cops or Counselors.” Corrections Compendium 20(2):1–3.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016. “Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists.” 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Carey, Shannon M., Jacqueline van Wormer, and Juliette R. Mackin. 2013. The Juvenile Drug Court Model: 

Let’s Not Throw the Baby Out with the Bath Water. Portland, Ore.: NPC Research.

Evans Cuellar, Alison, Larkin S. McReynolds, and Gail A. Wasserman. 2006. “A Cure for Crime: Can 

Mental Health Treatment Diversion Reduce Crime Among Youth?” Journal of Policy Analysis and 

Management 25(1):197–214.

Feierman, Jessica, Naomi Goldstein, Emily Haney-Cron, and Jaymes Fairfax Columbo. 2016. Debtors’ 

Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System. Philadelphia, Penn.: 

Juvenile Law Center.

Gordon, Donald A., Jack Arbuthnot, Kathryn E. Gustafson, and Peter McGreen. 1988. “Home-Based 

Behavioral-Systems Family Therapy with Disadvantaged Juvenile Delinquents.” American 

Journal of Family Therapy 16(3):243–55.

Henggeler, S. W., G.B. Melton, and L.A. Smith. 1992. “Family Preservation Using Multisystemic 

Therapy: An Effective Alternative to Incarcerating Serious Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60:953–61.

Hockenberry, Sarah, and Charles Puzzanchera. 2017. Juvenile Court Statistics 2014. Pittsburgh, Pa.: 

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Kurlychek, M., P. Torbet, and M. Bozynski. 1999. Focus on Accountability: Best Practices for Juvenile Court 

and Probation. JAIBG Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Leone, Peter, Mary Magee Quinn, and David M. Osher. 2002. Collaboration in the Juvenile Justice System 

and Youth Serving Agencies: Improving Prevention, Providing More Efficient Services, and Reducing 

Recidivism for Youth with Disabilities. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.

Lipsey, Mark W. 2009. “The Primary Factors That Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile 

Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview.” Victims and Offenders 4(2):124–47.

Miller, Joel. 2015. “Contemporary Modes of Probation Officer Supervision: The Triumph of the 

‘Synthetic’ Officer?” Justice Quarterly 32(2):314–36.

National Research Council. 2013. Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach. In Committee on 

Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform, Richard J. Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers, and 

Julie A. Schuck (eds.). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Nieto, Marcus. 1996. The Changing Role of Probation in California’s Criminal Justice System. Sacramento, 

Calif.: California Research Bureau, California State Library.

OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. 2015. Probation as Court Disposition. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/

Peters, Clark M. 2011. “Social Work and Juvenile Probation: Historical Tensions and Contemporary 

Convergences.” Social Work 56(4):355–65.

Petrosino, Anthony, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and Sarah Guckenburg. 2013. Formal System Processing 

of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency. No. 9 of Crime Prevention Research Review. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Pullman, Michael, D., Jodi Kerbs, Nancy Koroloff, Ernie Veach-White, Rita Gaylor, and DeDe Sieler. 

2006. “Juvenile Offenders with Mental Health Needs: Reducing Recidivism Using 

Wraparound.” Crime and Delinquency 52(3):375–97.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 9

Ramchand, Rajeev, Andrew R. Morral, and Kirsten Becker. 2009. “Seven-Year Life Outcomes of 

Adolescent Offenders in Los Angeles.” American Journal of Public Health 99(5):863–70.

Ryan, Joseph P., Laura S. Abrams, and Hui Huang. 2014. “First-Time Violent juvenile offenders: 

Probation, Placement, and Recidivism.” Social Work Research 38(1):7–18.

Schwalbe, Craig S. 2007. “Risk Assessment for Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis.” Law and Human 

Behavior 31(5):449–62.

Sexton, Thomas L., and Charles W. Turner. 2010. “The Effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy for 

Youth with Behavioral Problems in a Community Practice Setting.” Journal of Family 

Psychology 24(3):339–48.

Sickmund, Melissa, and Charles Puzzanchera. 2014. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 National Report. 

Pittsburgh, Pa.: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Spinney, Elizabeth, Marcia Cohen, William Feyerherm, Rachel Stephenson, and Martha Yeide. 2016. 

Disproportionate Minority Contact in the U.S. Juvenile Justice System: A Review of the DMC Literature, 

2001-2014. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Steiner, Benjamin, Marcus Purkiss, Misty Kifer, Elizabeth Roberts, and Craig Hemmens. 2004. “Legally 

Prescribed Functions of Adult and Juvenile Probation Officers: Worlds Apart?” Journal of 

Offender Rehabilitation 39(4):47–67.

Steiner, Benjamin, Elizabeth Roberts, and Craig Hemmens. 2003. “Where is Juvenile Probation Today? 

The Legally Prescribed Functions of Juvenile Probation Officers.” Criminal Justice Studies

16(4):267–81.

Tarolla, Susan M., Eric F. Wagner, Jonathan Rabinowitz, and Jonathan G. Tubman. 2002. 

“Understanding and Treating Juvenile Offenders: A Review of Current Knowledge and Future 

Directions." Aggression and Violent Behavior 7(2):125–43.

Timmons–Mitchell, Jane, Monica B. Bender, Maureen A. Kishna, and Clare C. Mitchell. 2006. “An 

Independent Effectiveness Trial of Multisystemic Therapy with Juvenile Justice Youth.” Journal 

of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 35:227–36.

Torbet, P.M. 1993. Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Torbet, P.M. 1996. Juvenile Probation: The Workhorse of the Juvenile Justice System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention.

Tuell, John A., and Kari L. Harp. 2016. Probation System Review Guidebook, Second Edition. Boston, Mass.:

Robert F. Kennedy National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice.

Vidal, Sarah, and Jennifer Woolard. 2015. “Youth’s Perceptions of Parental Support and Parental 

Knowledge as Moderators of the Association Between Youth–Probation Officer Relationship 

and Probation Non-Compliance.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence: 1–20.

Wagoner, Ryan C., Carol A. Schubert, and Edward P. Mulvey. 2015. “Probation Intensity, Self-Reported 

Offending, and Psychopathy in Juveniles on Probation for Serious Offenses.” Journal of the 

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 43(2):191–200.

Westat and National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2013. “Redesigning the Census of Juvenile Probation 

Supervising Offices (CJPSO).” Prepared for Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Washington, D.C.