Predicting probation revocation and residential facility placement at juvenile probation review hearings: Youth-specific and hearing-specific factors.

Abstract

Although most justice-involved youth receive probation as a community-based alternative to residential facility placement, many of these youth are later committed to residential facilities when their probation dispositions are revoked at probation review hearings. The limited research investigating predictors of facility placement following juvenile probation revocation has focused primarily on youth-specific factors rather than on factors that can change from hearing to hearing, such as noncompliance with court-imposed probation conditions. The current study addressed this gap, using generalized estimating equation analyses with 77 youths' archived public defender files--providing data from 268 review hearings--to evaluate the role of both youth-specific factors (e.g., demographic characteristics) and hearing-specific factors (e.g., noncompliance with imposed probation requirements) in residential facility commitment. Results revealed that youth who were absent from the examined review hearing, were rearrested, failed to comply with school-related probation requirements, or failed to appear as directed at the prior review hearing were more likely to have probation revoked and be placed in a juvenile correctional facility. Such findings might help identify groups of youth at greater risk for facility commitment and might inform the guidance provided to juvenile probationers by their families, attorneys, and probation officers.

Adverse Juvenile Probation Supervision Outcomes: Noncompliance, Revocation, and Failure to Appear at Review Hearings

“…Results of GEE analyses revealed that probation revocation was not significantly associated with any youth-specific characteristics (i.e., race, gender, age at hearing, number of previous referrals, or whether the youth was initially charged with a felony offense). Consistent with hypotheses about replicating prior work in this area (NeMoyer et al, 2016), results revealed that documentation of several noncompliant behaviors was significantly associated with probation revocation. These behaviors included incurring new charges (OR = 10.91), going AWOL from home or supervision (OR = 6.82), using drugs or alcohol (OR = 5.32), missing school (OR = 3.79), poor behavior at home or in the community (OR = 3.05), and problems related to a day/evening program (OR = 2.64).…”

“…Interestingly, no youth-specific characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age, criminal history) demonstrated a significant relationship with probation revocation. Nonsignificant findings regarding gender and race align with previous literature (e.g., Kong & AuCoin, 2008; Leiber & Peck, 2013; NeMoyer et al, 2016) that failed to observe such group differences. Furthermore, the overall lack of significant static youth-related factors might indicate that dynamic need factors—as illustrated by the many significant noncompliant behaviors—appear to be particularly important for predicting probation revocation as an adverse outcome.…”

“…Findings related to predictors of probation revocation were also partially replicated—rearrest and missing school were both, once again, significantly related to this adverse outcome (NeMoyer et al, 2016). However, several new prehearing behaviors (i.e., AWOL status, substance use, problems at day/evening program, and poor behavior at home) were also linked to revocation at a given hearing.…”

“…GEE analysis yields an odds ratio for each predictor variable while controlling for other variables included in the equation. To better assist with replication efforts, we intentionally modeled this analysis plan on the techniques used by NeMoyer and colleagues (2016) to identify factors related to probation revocation.…”

“…In an effort to predict and prevent adverse probation outcomes like noncompliance and revocation, researchers and advocates have begun investigating precursors of these events, while recognizing that results might vary across jurisdictions. For example, in a recent study of one mid-Atlantic county, failure to appear at a supervision review hearing increased odds of probation revocation at the subsequent hearing by more than 60 (NeMoyer et al, 2016). Identifying characteristics and behaviors associated with these negative outcomes may help system actors recognize at-risk youth who might benefit from additional supports and interventions while under supervision.…”