Juvenile Justice, Probation, and Parole
Over a century ago, the United States established the first separate juvenile justice system aimed at rehabilitating young offenders through informal, confidential proceedings focused on children’s needs above punitive consequences (Liefaard, 2020). While mirroring aspects of the adult criminal system, juvenile courts maintain independent guidelines tailored to youths’ developmental stages. However, ongoing Assessment indicates more progress is required to ensure just, equitable outcomes for all juveniles.
Juvenile Courts and Probation
Juvenile courts weigh public safety with rehabilitation in sanctioning delinquent acts (Liefaard, 2020). Probation remains a common alternative to secure detention, allowing community supervision where education and treatment supports can be most impactful (Kaeble & Alper, 2017-2018). However, studies show racial and ethnic disparities persist at decision points, as Black and Hispanic youth face greater likelihood of out-of-home placements than white youth for similar offenses (Bradner, Schiraldi, & Mejia, 2017-2018). Coordinated reentry services also require improvement to aid long-term success transitioning from probation or parole back into communities (Kaeble & Alper, 2017-2018).
Addressing Disparities
While the original intent of a separate juvenile justice system focused on compassionate, individualized responses, further advancement is needed to ensure fairness and rehabilitation for all youth. Ongoing Assessment can identify and remedy inadvertent biases influencing case processing and outcomes. Additionally, enhanced data collection regarding youth demographics and offense types can illuminate disparate treatment requiring remedy (Bradner, Schiraldi, & Mejia, 2017-2018). With continued progress, the system aims to fulfill its founding purpose of just and beneficial treatment for every child.
Promoting Fairness Through Data
To further the original goal of an equitable, compassionate system, jurisdictions can leverage data-driven strategies. For example, standardized risk and needs assessments aim to objectively classify youths’ likelihood of reoffending based on characteristics including offense severity, family/social factors, and mental health needs (Bradner, Schiraldi, & Mejia, 2017-2018). Implemented properly with ongoing Assessment, such tools may counteract implicit biases and promote placement and service decisions aligned with each juvenile’s circumstances.
Additionally, collecting detailed data regarding probation and parole outcomes can reveal which program components correlate most strongly with law-abiding behavior and educational/vocational success post-supervision (Kaeble & Alper, 2017-2018). For example, mentoring relationships and mental health services appear particularly impactful for high-risk youth (National Mentoring Resource Center, 2022). Targeting limited resources to evidence-based practices shown to prevent recidivism supports cost-effective, long-term public safety.
Conclusion
In its second century, the juvenile justice system continues refining practices to fulfill the original vision of rehabilitation over retribution. Leveraging data strategically, addressing disparities through objective risk classification, and investing in programs demonstrably reducing reoffending moves the field closer to equitable, compassionate, and effective treatment of every youth. With sustained progress, the system’s founding principles of Helping rather than punishing young people in conflict with the law can be fully realized.
References
Bradner, K., Schiraldi, V., & Mejia, N., Lopoo, E. (2017-2018). More work to do: Analysis of probation and parole in the United States, 2017-2018. Columbia Justice Lab. https://www.columbiajusticelab.org/justice-lab-report-probation-parole/
Kaeble, D. & Alper, M. (2017-2018). Probation and parole in the United States, 2017–2018. Bureau of Justice Statistics. research essay writing service. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus1718.pdf
Liefaard, T. (2020). Juvenile justice. In The Oxford handbook of children’s rights law. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190675522.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190675522-e-38
