NCJ Number
173699
Journal
Pennsylvania Progress Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Dated: January 1996 Pages: -
Date Published
1996
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This paper describes the experience of Pennsylvania's Erie County in implementing its intensive juvenile probation program model, profiles the collaborative efforts of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) and the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission (PJCJC) in expanding the availability of this program across the State, and reviews the results of program evaluations.
Abstract
In May 1977 Erie County began the first formal intensive juvenile probation program in the State. It is a five-stage model that requires juveniles to complete a 187-day supervision cycle. The program begins with 7 days of house arrest, during which time the juvenile must contact the probation officer each evening; the probationer is also instructed in the requirements for successful completion of the next four stages of supervision. Requirements for the juvenile in Phase I include keeping a daily record of progress toward individual goals, obtaining weekly progress reports from teachers, reporting to the probation officer twice a week, and attending self-help group sessions. In addition, the probation officer conducts a weekly visit to both the juvenile's home and school, conducts three curfew checks a week, and requires the juvenile to submit to drug screenings every 10 days. Phase II lasts 60 days and involves slightly less supervision with bi-weekly drug screenings, bi-weekly progress reports from the schools, and only two curfew checks per week. Phase III, also lasting 60 days, involves random drug screenings, daily recording of goals, and school progress reports. Phase IV, which lasts 30 days, involves "weaning" the juvenile and family from dependence on the juvenile probation officer. The success of Erie County's efforts, coupled with continued State interest in the establishment of community-based alternatives to placement provided impetus for the establishment of intensive probation services in a number of other counties in the early 1980s. The PCCD and the PJCJC cooperated in setting standards and priority for the use of juvenile intensive probation. First-year evaluations showed the effectiveness of intensive probation in reducing court commitment to placement facilities by 10 percent.