Juvenile probation officers: How the perception of roles affects training experience for evidence-based practice implementation (original) (raw)
Related papers
Federal Probation, 2017
IN THE CRIMINAL justice system, approximately 80 percent of 4,650,900 adults (Kaeble & Bonczar, 2017) and 60 percent of 974,900 juveniles (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2017) processed through the court system are placed on probation. Indeed, probation has been acknowledged as the most common form of community corrections for both adults and juveniles. The field of probation, and more specifically the adult or juvenile probation officers themselves, have grappled with numerous paradigm shifts and challenges, dealing with appropriate resource allocation, development of new treatment resources, offender supervision effectiveness, effects of caseload size and service quality, and potential risk and dangerousness management and the related community protection needs (Lutze, 2014).
Journal of Community Psychology, 1982
The feasibility of studying the effects of behavioral training for probation workers upon both the workers and their probationers was examined by randomly assigning ten probation officers and volunteers to a training group and a control group. Pre-and post-tests were administered to assess the knowledge and competence of the probation workers, various kinds of problem behaviors that the workers and parents observed in the delinquent youth, and various kinds of problem behaviors that the youth observed in themselves. The training included both didactic and experiential elements. The behavioral training significantly improved the knowledge and the competence of the probation workers and significantly decreased the number of problem behaviors observed by both the workers and the parents. No evidence was found that the workers' behavioral training affected the number of problem behaviors that the youth observed in themselves. The difficulties of conducting such a study are discussed along with recommendations for addressing these difficulties in future research.
Criminology, 1980
This arricle examines the relative influences yf the ,juvenile probation otficer's perceptions ofselfand work on his or her opinions c$delinquency and decisions made about ,juveniles. Selfladministered questionnaires were completed by 255 ,juvenile probarion officers. Results indicate that the officer who is trearment-service oriented is less likely 10 label juvenile acts delinquent than the officer who responds to lawyer role models. Officers who make rehabilitative recommendations are less likely to label acts delinquent than (hose who d o not. 'Ihe independent variables accounted for a rural of 21.3% o f t h e variance in the dependent variable, the officer's perception of treatmenr.
Legally Prescribed Functions of Adult and Juvenile Probation Officers
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 2004
Historically, there have been two competing goals of probation: law enforcement and rehabilitation of the offender. Accordingly, the role, functions, and tasks of probation officers are at times in conflict. In this paper we explore the roles of adult and juvenile probation officers and compare their statutorily prescribed duties. In so doing we attempt to uncover what differences exist between adult and juvenile probation officers. We conclude that there are no appreciable differences between the orientation (either law enforcement or rehabilitation) of the tasks adult and juvenile probation officers are mandated to perform. Moreover, the task
Resource cell for juvenile justice: challenges of motivation of social workers
Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies, 2020
Learning outcomes The learning outcomes are as follows: understanding issues involved in the employee motivation, particularly those engaged in social change and development in emerging economies; develop insights into how to motivate team members by drawing on relevant theories of motivation; and orient students towards the application of these theories in the organization. Case overview/synopsis Resource cell for juvenile justice (RCJJ) was initiated as a field action project at the centre for criminology and justice, Tata Institute of Social Sciences with the objective of working on issues of children with a special focus on juveniles in conflict with law (JCL). RCJJ aimed at highlighting the socio-legal issues of juvenile children who were in conflict of law providing aid to these children and their families, and working towards their eventual social reintegration. RCJJ also trained stakeholders in the juvenile justice system and facilitated rehabilitation and social integration...
The Role of Correctional Social Worker
This research explored of correctional social worker role in the implementation of the children in conflict with the law. As we understand the task and function of the Community advisers at the correctional hall (BAPAS) includes being able to develop community research, become a person who assists the client both adults and also children, become a mentor and become a supervising of his clients. In this study, the approach used is a qualitative method, with a descriptive approach where the research results will give an accurate picture of the role of the correctional social worker in the implementation of diversion toward children who faced legal issues the Indonesian correctional hall in the year 2019 has successfully implemented diversion program by performing the motivation Interview approach. The results of the research provided an overview of the role of community advisers, where the method of motivational interview techniques conducted by community advisers has made progress on the success of the child diversion. Providing four principles includes held in curating the attitude of empathy, the development of the disrepair attitudes, developing the approach of the implementation of resistance and the application of self-efficacy support can be a driver in the success of the child diversion.
Accountable to what? Juvenile probation officer's treatment and punishment orientations
Formal philosophical and procedural aspects of American juvenile justice have been transformed over the past half-century by 'accountability' movements. Yet the meaning of accountability in juvenile justice -specifically who is to be held accountable and to whom -has varied over time making its present application unclear. In this article, we first describe two models of accountability ideals and how each developed. We discuss how traditional rehabilitative ideals were first displaced by 'system accountability' reforms emphasizing fairness and youths' rights, followed by 'juvenile accountability' reforms emphasizing punishment and victims' interests. We then explore how juvenile court judges, lawyers and probations officers in four states prioritize these accountability principles. While decision makers in our sample prioritize a system accountability perspective, especially as this relates to rehabilitative ideals, there is considerable diversity in orientation. Professional roles and racial identities of decision makers significantly shape their prioritization of various accountability goals.