Dispositional Discretion or Disparity: The Juvenile Probation Officer's Role in Delinquency Processing

Abstract

Concerns about bias and disparity in case dispositions-despite inconclusive evidence-have recently spurred interactionist research into the organizational processes and functionaries of juvenile justice. This article reports a study of the role of the juvenile probation officer (JPO) in affecting dispositions, in which the effects of extralegal factors were systematically tested. In one juvenile probation department in the southwestern U.S., 87 JPOs each completed a survey and recommended three dispositions for the case of a juvenile delinquent. The results indicate that the JPOs' background characteristics, organizational situations, and attitudes toward delinquency were crucial variables explaining dispositional disparity. The authors posit that the "IPO factor" can produce treatment differences sufficient to undermine the rehabilitative ideal and confound studies of judicial bias, and suggest that understanding the systematic nature of this factor might facilitate needed reform.

Examining the predictors of juvenile probation officers' rehabilitation orientation

“…Research is mixed with regard to the role that organizational goals (retributive, rehabilitation, balanced approach) have on staff members' attitudes and perceptions. While some research with adult correctional officers suggests that institutional goals had a strong effect on correctional orientation (Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986;Poole & Regoli, 1980), other research on adult parole officers and correctional officers (Lynch, 1998;Winn et al, 1987) and juvenile probation officers suggests just the opposite (Petronio, 1982;Reese et al, 1988). Although the probation officers in the current study worked within a balanced approach setting, it is unclear if and how organizational goals influenced their correctional orientation.…”

“…In response to changing juvenile justice approaches over the past several decades (Butts & Mears, 2001;Steiner et al, 2003), probation officers had to expand their roles and functions to include community advocacy and law enforcement type responsibilities, as well as traditionally favored counselor/social work duties (Steiner et al, 2003). In light of research indicating that probation officers and other correctional staff use discretion that is often at odds with overarching organizational goals and objectives (Lynch, 1998;Petronio, 1982;Reese et al, 1988;Winn et al, 1987), the current study sought to examine other factors that influence probation officers' correctional orientation. In particular, this study sought to examine three sets of variables, two of which were theoretically driven, as predictors of juvenile probation officers' correctional orientation.…”

“…Indeed, research indicates that juvenile probation officers do not always adopt prescribed system-level messages, but instead rely on their own interpretations and judgments when dealing with juvenile offenders (Petronio, 1982;Reese, Curtis, & Whitworth, 1988). Research on adult parole officers and correctional officers further suggests that the 'success' of top-down reforms is always subject to the discretion of individual front-line employees (Lynch,1998;Winn, Musheno, & Jurik,1987).…”

Exploring the Impact of Institutional Placement on the Recidivism of Delinquent Youth

“…In truth, the answer to this question may be complicated. Prior research has found differences in recommendation/disposition patterns by decision-maker characteristics (Anderson and Spanier 1980;Brennan and Khinduka 1970;Reese, Curtis and Whitworth 1988;Rush 1992;Walsh 1985). And given the wide discretionary powers of juvenile justice officials, there may be profound differences across boroughs, across judges, and across JPOs.…”

“…In terms of educational attainment, it is not surprising that PO's with a background in social work tend to lean towards rehabilitative recommendations, while those without social work backgrounds give higher priority to punitive sanctions (Anderson & Spanier 1980;Brennan & Khinduka 1970). Similarly, younger POs and those who reported being delinquent themselves were less likely to recommend rehabilitative strategies (Reese, Curtis & Whitworth 1988). Burnout and cynicism were also found to contribute to the attitudes, behaviors, and ultimately, the decisions of POs (Rush 1992).…”