Probation and Community-Based Programs

  • Peter C. Kratcoski
  • Lucille Dunn Kratcoski
  • Peter Christopher Kratcoski


The concept of minimization of penetration entails involving a youth in the juvenile justice system to the least degree necessary to effect positive behavioral changes. Various instruments have been developed to assess the potential risk to the community for youths placed on probation or some other community based supervision. These instruments are used to determine the level of supervision (high, medium or low) needed. Juvenile placed on probation must adhere to a set of probation rules (conditions). Probation officer roles pertain to providing supervision, assistance, as resource brokerage. Intensive supervision often is coupled with other types of supervision such as house arrest, family counseling, substance abuse counseling or commitment to a resident group home. The probation of a juvenile can be revoked if it is determined after a hearing in the juvenile court that the youth has violated a general or special condition of probation, or has committed a new offense.


Probation Informal (unofficial) probation General conditions (rules) of probation Special conditions (rules) of probation Risk and needs assessment Probation officer (case manager) Community residential facility Community treatment centers Minimization of penetration Intensive supervision 


  1. Adopt US Kids. (2019). About the children (pp. 1–4). Retrieved from in-foster care/about-the-children
  2. Ball, R., Huff, R., & Lilly, J. (1988). A model house arrest program for juveniles: Doing time at home. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, W. (1970). Kentfields rehabilitation program: An alternative to institutionalization. Grand Rapids, MI: Kent County Juvenile Court.Google Scholar
  4. Empey L. (1977). The Provo and Silverlake experiment. In E. Miller & M. Mintilla (Eds.), Corrections in the community (p. 109). Reston, VA: Reston Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Gagnon v. Scarpelli. (1978). 411 U.S. 778.Google Scholar
  6. Hengesh, D. (1991). Think of boot camps as a foundation for change, not an instant cure. Corrections Today, 53, 6 (October), 106–108.Google Scholar
  7. Holsinger, A., Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E., Cohen, T., Robinson, C., Flores, A., et al. (2018). A rejoinder to Dressel and Farid: New study finds computer algorithm is more accurate than humans at predicting arrests and as good as a group of 20 experts. Federal Probation, 82(2), 50–55.Google Scholar
  8. Illinois Laws. 1899. pp. 131–137. Quoted in Paulsen, M. G. (1975)/The Problems of Juvenile Courts and the Rights of Children (pp. 15–16). Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Juvenile Alternatives. (2019). Home detention. Tippecanoe County, IN. Retrieved February 2, 2019.Google Scholar
  10. Killinger, G., Kerper, H., & Cromwell, P. (1973). Probation and parole in the criminal justice system. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  11. Kratcoski, P. (2012a). Juvenile justice administration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  12. Kratcoski, P. (2012b). Interview with Roy Franks. Probation Officer, Portage County Juvenile Court.Google Scholar
  13. Kratcoski, P. (2019). Interview with Lisa Green. Director New Philadelphia Group Home.Google Scholar
  14. Kratcoski, P., & Kratcoski, L. (2004). Juvenile delinquency (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Little, A. D. (1978). Foster parenting (pp. 114–115). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  16. Meade, B., & Steiner, B. (2010). The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 841–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mempa v. Rhay. (1967). 389 U.S.128.Google Scholar
  18. Meyers, J., & Schmidt, F. (2008). Predictive validity of the structured assessment for violence risk in youth with juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(30), 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morrisey v. Brewer. (1972). 408, U.S., 471, 92, S.Cr. 2593, 331, ED. 2D 484.Google Scholar
  20. New Philadelphia Group Home Brochure. (2019). Multi County Juvenile Attention System.Google Scholar
  21. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Alternatives to detention and confinement (pp. 1–8). Retrieved February 3, 2019, from
  22. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2015). Risk/needs assessments for youths (pp. 1–8). Retrieved January 31, 2019, from
  23. Peters, M., Thomas, D., & Zamberian, C. (1997). Boot camps for juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  24. Rudes, D., Viglione, J., & Taxman, F. (2011). Juvenile probation officers: How the perception of roles affects training experiences for evidence-based practice implementation. Federal Probation, 75, 3–10.Google Scholar
  25. Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (Eds.). (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.Google Scholar
  26. Sies, I. (1965). From the probation officers desk. New York: Exposition Press.Google Scholar
  27. Smyka, K. (1984). Probation and parole, crime control in the community. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1977). National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  29. Vincent, G., Guy, L., & Grisso, T. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. New York, Models for Change. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Kratcoski
    • 1
  • Lucille Dunn Kratcoski
    • 2
  • Peter Christopher Kratcoski
    • 3
  1. 1.Sociology/Justice StudiesKent State UniversityTallmadgeUSA
  2. 2.TallmadgeUSA
  3. 3.Williams, Welser & Kratcoski LLCKentUSA

Personalised recommendations