Using Police Officers to Enhance the Supervision of Juvenile Probationers: An Evaluation of the Anchorage CAN Program

Abstract

This study presents an evaluation of the Anchorage Coordinated Agency Network (CAN) program. The program combined the capacities of both the Anchorage Police Department and the Anchorage Office of Juvenile Probation to enhance the overall levels of supervision that juvenile probationers received. Consistent with research from intensive supervision literature, the CAN evaluation found that juveniles participating in the program were more likely to have new technical violations but no more likely to have new charges when comparedto juveniles on regular probation. These findings support intensive supervision probation literature suggesting that increased supervision and surveillance lead to increased levels of probation violations.

The cost benefits of providing community-based correctional services: An evaluation of a statewide parole program in California

“…Parole agents were more likely to follow up on the parolees who had been referred to the program; service providers were also more likely to provide feedback to the supervising agents on the status and performance of these referred parolees. It was fairly well established in correctional research literature that increased supervision (or surveillance) usually led to greater likelihood of parole violations (Giblin, 2003;Petersilia, 1998;Turner et al, 1992). Data were not available to the possibilities of criminal over-identification in the treatment groups.…”

Identifying variation in police officer behavior between juveniles and adults

“…In addition to more traditional law enforcement or order maintenance activities, officers are also required to intervene where children are involved to protect them from being harmed (such as in domestic conflicts, or abusive homes), to prevent them from becoming delinquent by providing child related services (i.e., anti-gang and anti-drug programs), and have cooperated with other community service providers to provide enhanced services to troubled youth (Bannister, Carter, & Schafer, 2001;Giblin, 2002;Withrow & Bolin, 2005). This poses a difficult task for the police and often involves conflicting options that do not arise for adult suspects.…”

Issues in Juvenile Program Implementation: A Case Study

“…At the time the decision was made to implement the program, no evaluations of curfew check programs had been completed, with the exception of NightLight. Several other cities have loosely followed this model since then, including San Diego, California (O'Rourke et al 1998), Anchorage, Alaska (Giblin 2002), and Wilmington, Delaware (Welch 2003), each showing varying degrees of effectiveness in reducing juvenile crime and recidivism. Each of these programs utilizes the collaborative effort similar to NightLight, typically between the police department and the juvenile court.…”