Rewarding What Works in America’s Juvenile Probation and Parole Systems

---

Issue Areas

---

Introduction

The failures of the punitively designed juvenile probation system are stark. Even minor offending has been shown to lead to more serious crime when met with arrest.¹ Studies have shown that as little as six percent of juvenile criminals commit 52 percent of all juvenile crime,² and that they continue to commit crime during the life-course into adulthood.³ Yet, while juvenile probation has been shown to have a positive impact in reducing adult crime,⁴ non-compliance is high at 62 percent, even higher than that of adults, which was reported as 59 percent for 2021.^5–6 Despite this, it continues to be the most widely used form of correction applied in juvenile court cases. In 2022 alone,⁷ 90,600 (67 percent) of the 134,400 adjudicated juvenile cases resulted in probation.⁸

Technical violations, such as missing a probation meeting or failing a drug test, account for 52 percent of juvenile probation violations, while status-term violations account for roughly one-in-ten.^9–10 Status terms are those applied to minors, such as curfews, school attendance, abstaining from alcohol, and so on. But this data is hiding behind a technical loophole in federal law.

Since 1980, states have been allowed to treat status violations as technical, which carry heavier penalties. As a result, status restrictions are abused while doing little to motivate troubled youths on a bad path to turn their lives around. Meanwhile, juvenile probation violation hearings are stressing an overburdened system, and the reincarceration rate for probation violations stands at 48 percent.^11–12

There are clear longer-term failures of this misaligned system. One-third of all youth reoffend within one year of release from probation, and 50 percent to 60 percent reoffend within three years.¹³ This is an unsustainable cycle that sets kids up to fail, destroys families, and breeds crime in our cities.

Modifying probation terms to work with kids’ natural learning behaviors and emotional and intellectual development has the potential to reduce recidivism and foster generational change. For example, reducing probation sentence lengths for graduating high school has the potential to change patterns of behavior permanently.^14–15

The Problem

Spurring this phenomenon is an increase in the number of probation requirements in a shorter period of time, specifically for non-criminal offenses, when compared to adult probation requirements.^16,17,18

Juvenile probation sentences are not typically long in nature, with a median length of 137 days, compared to just under two years for adult probation sentences.^19–20 However, the length and consistency of sentences are inconsistent from one state to another. For example, California sentences range from 6-30 months, and those in Texas average 324 days.^21–22 Further, many sentences, often based on an output-based assignment completion model,²³ layer conditions such as community service, restitution, drug counseling, electronic monitoring, and weekend jail confinement, with the addition of status-offense level requirements of school attendance and curfews. And these requirements are compressed into a much shorter timeframe than those outlined for adults.²⁴ This truncated and complex sentencing can leave kids who truly want to do better feeling overwhelmed and incapable of success.

Implementing Probation Incentives for Juveniles

A growing body of research indicates that outcome-driven approaches to juvenile probation that incentivize achievement over compliance hold significant promise. One such approach is graduated response systems. These models allow courts to adjust probation length based on things like good behavior and school attendance.

One study in Nebraska found these programs have high completion rates (75-79 percent) and reduce recidivism by 14-32 percent, compared to Virginia, which does not offer these programs and has a re-offense rate of 55 percent.^25,26,27 South Dakota’s implementation of a graduated response program with incentives contributed to a 38 percent drop in the recidivism rate over 14 years, saving taxpayers an estimated $720,000 to $1.8 million in incarceration costs per year.^28–29 Another study from 2022 showed that Kansas youths on probation earned 29,846 days off through innovative probation models, saving an estimated $600,000 in supervision costs.³⁰

Graduated Response Systems with Incentives

Graduate response systems, which are written into statute, are assessed by the youth’s risk level and nature of compliance/noncompliance, represent a continuum of consequences and rewards to incentivize rehabilitation. Incentives can include more lenient curfews or increased or restored driving privileges, though most current models focus on time reduction incentives. Consequences can include required volunteer time, travel restrictions, or involuntary treatment in lieu of incarceration.³¹ Below are examples of states that have implemented graduated response systems and the impacts they have had.

Discretionary Measures

These measures are employed by the states at the discretion of the supervising probation officer.

Policy Proposal

Graduated response systems offer a practical and humane alternative to the traditional probation model. By using structured incentives and proportionate sanctions, these systems shift the focus from punishment to rehabilitation, saving money while achieving better outcomes. National research shows that community-based interventions can reduce recidivism by up to 22 percent and deliver more than 10 dollars in public safety benefits for every dollar invested.^52-53 States that have adopted similar programs within their probation systems have seen similar results.

While financial savings are substantial, the human impact is even greater. Lengthy or punitive probation disrupts schooling, deepens trauma, and weakens family ties, with foster youth bearing a disproportionate share of these burdens.^54–55 Graduated approaches recognize the developmental needs of young people and reward positive steps such as attending school or volunteering, and maintaining sobriety. Certainly, incarceration and punitive measures are necessary in many cases, but punitive measures should not be a blanket approach. This model strengthens families and communities, improves public safety, and reduces the cycle of crime that has, for too long, snowballed into an overwhelmed juvenile justice system that sets children up for failure.

The following proposals are put forward for states to consider as they tackle juvenile probation reform.

1) Provide incentives to probation officers for assisting juveniles in successfully completing probation. Incentivizing officers through performance funding (such as investing in technology that makes supervision more efficient or providing monetary or professional development awards for staff who focus on successful completion rather than technical violations) refocuses the department on meaningful outcomes for the probationer and reduces unsuccessful terminations of probation that result in incarceration. A rewards model that uses incentive payments and grants to probation departments for improved probation outcomes has been shown to work for adults and will work for juveniles.^56–57

2) Expand work for time credits for juveniles who are on probation. Work for time credits have been shown to work with adults on probation and have worked in states that have implemented variations of this approach.⁵⁸

a. Implement work for time credits for education. Research has shown that educational attainment is key to a successful future for juveniles in the justice system, and those who successfully complete their education are less likely to commit crimes in the future.

b. Implement work for time credits for completion of probation conditions. Similar to the impact of education, successfully completing mental health, substance abuse, or other treatment positively impacts the juvenile’s chances for success post-supervision.

c. Implement early termination of probation. Juveniles can be motivated by the knowledge that completing the terms and conditions of their sentence could reduce their probationary time period. Several states have already proven the effectiveness of this approach. Making this change incentivizes juveniles to work in partnership with their probation officer, rather than reverting to rebellion.

Example of Graduated Response Incentive Matrix

Example of Graduated Response Sanction Matrix