Evaluation of Pennsylvania's School-based Probation Program

• NCJ Number: 221286
• Author(s): Patricia Torbet; Ralph Ricci; Carol Brooks; Susan Zawacki
• Date Published: September 2001
• Length: 139 pages
• Grant Number(s): 1997/1999-J-05-9678
• Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Corporate Author: National Ctr for Juvenile Justice
• Sale Source: National Ctr for Juvenile Justice; Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Appendix http://www.pccd.state.pa.us/pccd/lib/pccd/stats/sb%20probation%20final%20appendix.pdf

Annotation

This report evaluates school-based probation in Pennsylvania

Abstract

Results indicated that school administrators, school probation officers, and chiefs/supervisors regarded the program as an overall success, and particularly gave high marks to its positive impact on probationers and improved communication between the school and the probation department. The program provided school based probation officers increased contact with probationers, which promoted a rapport with youth on probation, resulting in more effective supervision. The outcomes were positive relationships, faster response times, and better offender accountability. School personnel believed that the program was effective on probationers, as well as on the general school population since absenteeism, suspensions, and school disciplinary referrals also decreased. By inserting probation officers into the middle and high school buildings where juvenile probationers spent the majority of the day, it not only fostered a closer and more informed supervision of probationers, but improved communication between the courts and schools, and appeared to have positive impact on the overall school climate by preventing delinquent behavior on the part of students who were at risk. However, as presently implemented, school-based probation programs have certain characteristic weaknesses, most of which are related to areas in which probation departments struggle to meet the Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission (JCJC) standards for such programs. In particular, the evaluators found that though there may be written agreements between courts and schools participating in school-based probation, there is still doubt and confusion regarding the appropriate responsibilities of juvenile probation officers working in schools, and fundamental variations in the way the school-based probation officers’ function as revealed; further leadership in standard-setting and enforcement is needed. Despite its limitations, school-based probation works well within the balanced and restorative justice framework and needs to be strengthened and expanded. The recommendations present a plan for assisting the JCJC and school-based probation programs in improving and expanding the program. Tables, references, appendix