Parents' perceptions of juvenile probation: Relationship and interaction with juvenile probation officers, parent strategies, and youth's compliance on probation

Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Parents' perceptions of juvenile probation: Relationship and interaction with juvenile probation officers, parent strategies, and youth's compliance on probation Sarah Vidal a,⁎, Jennifer Woolard b a b

Yale University School of Medicine Georgetown University

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 17 December 2015 Received in revised form 26 April 2016 Accepted 26 April 2016 Available online 27 April 2016 Keywords: Parent strategies Parental involvement Delinquency Probation

a b s t r a c t In the past several years, there has been a growing movement toward family-driven initiatives in many childserving agencies, including the juvenile justice system. These initiatives underscore the importance of parental involvement in successful rehabilitation of at-risk and offending youth and highlight the unique role of parents to influence and inspire their child's behavior. Despite a growing consensus on the importance of parental involvement in juvenile justice processes, little empirical research has explored the nature of parental involvement in the juvenile justice system. This study examined parents' (n = 87) perceptions of relationship quality and interaction with probation officers, parenting strategies, and how these factors related to youth's compliance on probation. Findings revealed that parents generally had positive relationships with probation officers characterized as supportive, fair, respectful, and helpful toward youth. Most parents also employed practices such as use of reminders and encouragement to promote youth's compliance on probation. Parents' perceptions of probation officers' helpfulness toward youth were associated with decreased used of parenting practices that encourage probation compliance. However, parents' perceptions of supportive, respectful, and fair relationships with probation officers were associated with increased use of parenting practices that promote probation compliance. Supportive, fair, and respectful relationships with probation officers were also linked to fewer counts of technical violations of probation, but not new delinquent offenses, among offending youth. Implications for research, practice, and policy around the potential of collaborative relationships between parents and probation officers in facilitating successful probation outcomes are discussed. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the past several years, there has been a growing movement toward family-driven initiatives in many child-serving agencies, including the juvenile justice system. These initiatives underscore the importance of parental involvement in successful rehabilitation of at-risk and offending youth (Pennell, Shapiro, and Spigner, 2011; Gavazzi, Yarcheck, Rhine, and Partridge, 2003; Davies and Davidson, 2001) and highlight the unique role of parents to influence and inspire their child's behavior (Bandura, 1969; Burgess and Akers, 1966). For example, juvenile courts increasingly involve families in rehabilitation interventions with at-risk and offending youth (Pennell et al., 2011; Gavazzi et al., 2003; Davies and Davidson, 2001). Yet surprisingly, we know more

⁎ Corresponding author at: Division of Prevention and Community Research, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 389 Whitney Ave., New Haven 06511, CT, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Vidal).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.019 0190-7409/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

about family involvement from research with juvenile justice professionals than parents themselves (Maschi, Schwalbe, and Ristow, 2013; Peterson-Badali and Broeking, 2009, 2010). In this study, we addressed this gap in the literature by investigating how parents' perceptions of juvenile probation officers combine with their own parenting strategies affect their child's compliance with conditions of probation, the disposition rendered in approximately two-thirds of adjudicated delinquency cases (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2015). 2. Parental involvement in juvenile probation: importance and challenges Ample empirical evidence supports the belief that parents can protect against antisocial and delinquent behaviors. For example, parental support (e.g., care and warmth), authoritative parenting styles (e.g., balancing demand and responsiveness), and engaged parenting practices (e.g., active monitoring and supervision) predict lower risk of associations with antisocial peers, substance use, and delinquency

2

S. Vidal, J. Woolard / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 1–8

(Hoeve et al., 2009; Steinberg, Blatt-Eisengard, and Cauffman, 2006; Dorius, Bahr, Hoffman, and Harmon, 2004; Baumrind, 1991). Parents, thus, are integral in facilitating successful outcomes, particularly among court-involved youth (Burke, Mulvey, Schubert, and Garbin, 2014). Indeed, according to the participation process model of probation (Schwalbe, 2012), parental support and involvement are one of three key components to the theory of change underlying probation, alongside youth-probation officer relationships and youth motivational processes. Parental involvement in probation may manifest in three ways – as service recipient, as child advocate, and as compliance monitor (see Burke et al., 2014). First, parents may receive services simultaneously with the youth. Tanenhaus (2002) suggests that “the [youth] not only brought the state into his or her life, but also opened up the family home to state intervention and extended supervision [when they are placed on probation]” (pp. 53–54). Courts often mandate evidence-based programs such as Multisystemic Therapy (Henggeler, 2011), which by their design require significant parental participation (Brank, Kucera, and Hays, 2005). Second, parents may advocate for the needs and welfare of their child with a variety of professionals (Burke et al., 2014). They may negotiate with the probation officer for the type of services they believe best fits their child's needs. Finally, parents may enforce rules and extend services provided by the court. For example, parents may remind youth of probation rules, reinforce service requirements, and/or report violations to the probation officer. Juvenile probation officers depend on parents for information about the youth's behavior and compliance with probation conditions (Maschi et al., 2013; Peterson-Badali and Broeking, 2009). Recognizing that parents are critical to youths' probation success, juvenile justice systems have begun proactively involving parents in all stages of processing (Davies and Davidson, 2001). For example, training manuals for juvenile justice officials include practices that support and promote parental involvement (Torbet and Griffin, 2002; Mullins and Toner, 2008). In some jurisdictions, parents are strongly encouraged to attend probation meetings (Maschi et al., 2013; Mental Health Association in Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers, 2009; Davies and Davidson, 2001). These efforts reflect the juvenile justice system's recognition of the vital role of parents in facilitating a successful response of youth to court-ordered programs and services. However, the relationship between parents of offending youth and the juvenile justice system is complex, often fraught with many challenges. Although one goal of the juvenile justice system is to promote rehabilitation by helping families, not all families experience system intervention as intended. First-time involvement can be stressful, confusing, and anything but positive (Osher and Shufelt, 2006; Osher and Hunt, 2002). Although parents may possess some basic understanding of how the system works, even experienced parents do not necessarily know how to successfully navigate the juvenile justice system (Woolard, Cleary, Harvell, and Chen, 2008). Moreover, some parents may view probation as an intrusive sanction, interfering with family affairs. That view may be reinforced by perceptions (or the reality) that system officials blame parents for their child's misbehavior (Brank and Scott, 2012). Thus, supportive services are essential for parents to alleviate the complexities of navigating the juvenile justice system and promote the successful rehabilitation of their child. 3. Parent-juvenile probation officer relationship: a critical factor in the juvenile probation process Juvenile probation officers have a complex and challenging role of monitoring progress and compliance with probation, and promoting rehabilitation and accountability among offending youth. Probation officers also typically develop working relationships with parents and serve as parents' primary connection with the court. Positive working relationships may help promote positive behavioral changes among

youth and support probation compliance. For example, probation officers employ several strategies to facilitate parental involvement in probation, including listening empathetically, building trust, providing emotional support, and including parents in case planning and management (Maschi et al., 2013). If these strategies foster a supportive, fair, and respectful relationship, parents may be more willing to work constructively with probation officers, which in turn increases the chance of youth's compliance. To date that hypothesis remains untested, but research from related fields supports its utility. Procedural justice research, for example, suggests that individuals who trust the legal system and view it as fair are more likely to see laws as legitimate and cooperate with legal decisions (Tyler, 1990; Tyler and Jackson, 2013). Extrapolating those findings to juvenile probation, we suggest that the nature of parent-officer relationships may encourage parents to proactively help their children comply with probation conditions. When parents feel they are respected and treated fairly by the probation officers they can partner with the probation officer to promote positive behavioral changes in the youth. When parents feel their voices are heard, they may also feel empowered to actively participate in case planning and management efforts (Pennell et al., 2011; Hillian and Reitsma-Street, 2003). Thus, the extent to which parents perceive their relationships with probation officers as supportive, fair, and collaborative may encourage partnership with juvenile justice professionals and effective parental authority to promote compliance among offending youth. However, parents and probation officers encounter significant challenges to developing and maintaining positive relationships. Two qualitative studies document that parents of offending youth find the probation process particularly challenging when justice system professionals, including probation officers, communicate inadequately and provide support inconsistently (Osher and Shufelt, 2006; Hillian and Reitsma-Street, 2003). Poor relationships with probation officers can create ambiguity about the probation process and inhibit parents from acquiring services for their child (Osher and Shufelt, 2006). Such problems can create a cycle in which the more challenging that probation becomes, the more likely it is that parents might disengage or undermine the process. On the other hand, parents experience probation as a positive intervention when juvenile justice professionals provide consistent support and follow through on their commitments. Consistent with procedural justice theories, parents appreciate probation officers' efforts to support and encourage the family during a crisis even if no concrete solution to the problem is identified (Hillian and Reitsma-Street, 2003). 4. Parent and youth characteristics: predictors of parents' contact and relationship quality with probation officers The limited studies focusing on parents' experiences with the juvenile justice system have shed some light on the challenges they experience when their child is involved with the juvenile justice system (Cook, 2013; Cook and Gordon, 2012). These studies suggest that lack of communication and consistent support may influence how parents interact with juvenile justice professionals and the extent to which they engage and participate in programs and services. However, we know little about other factors that could influence parents' experiences and involvement in juvenile justice processes. Parents' perceptions of the legal system might be shaped by how the system has treated them as individuals and how well the system has met their family's needs. Research suggests that individual and situational characteristics relate to how a person perceives their experiences with the legal system (Rodriguez, Smith, and Zatz, 2009; Leiber and Mack, 2003). Theories of legal socialization posit that the orientation, perceptions, and beliefs of an individual toward the legal system are shaped by direct personal experiences or indirect vicarious experiences with the courts, police, and other legal actors (Fagan and Tyler, 2005). Thus, parents may be positively or negatively predisposed toward justice system officials based in part on their previous experiences with

S. Vidal, J. Woolard / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 1–8

legal authorities. In particular, members of minority groups both perceive their experiences with the legal system more negatively than white individuals (Rocque, 2011; Nordberg, Crawford, Praetorius, and Hatcher, 2015) and actually receive harsher treatment compared to white individuals even after accounting for important risk factors (Demuth, 2003; Mitchell, 2005). Parents' perceptions are likely affected by the depth of their family's needs and the system's capacity to respond effectively. Parents with fewer resources themselves, such as single parents or parents from low socioeconomic backgrounds, may require additional resources and supportive services to adequately address their family or child's needs. Additionally, high-risk youth may require levels of intervention that families simply cannot provide, leading parents to expect and demand more services from the legal system. Consistent with principle of risk-need-responsivity, which suggests that the intensity and frequency of program intervention should match the risk level of offenders (Andrews and Bonta, 2010), high-risk youth may require more supportive services and resources from probation officers. For example, boys, youth who had been suspended or expelled from school, youth with mental health and substance use needs, youth with previous juvenile justice involvement, and those who committed more serious offenses are at greater risk for negative outcomes than youth with fewer or without such risks (Monahan, Vanderhei, Bechtold, and Cauffman, 2014; Fagan, Van Horn, Hawkins, and Arthur, 2007; Cottle, Lee, and Heilbrun, 2001). The extent to which parents think their children's needs are met may influence their perceptions of probation and the practices they themselves employ to support their children's progress. To date, we have no systematic assessment of the relationship between parents' perceptions of probation and their own parenting behaviors. 5. The current study This study extended the literature on juvenile probation by focusing on parents' self-report of their perceptions of and experiences with probation and these perceptions relate to youth's compliance on probation. In line with findings from previous studies (Rodriguez et al., 2009; Leiber and Mack, 2003; Monahan et al., 2014; Cottle et al., 2001) and the risk-need-responsivity principle (Andrews and Bonta, 2010), we hypothesized that youth characteristics associated with increased needs and risk for poor outcomes (e.g., youth who had been expelled and with more mental health and substance use symptoms, more prior arrests) would predict greater frequency of parent contact with probation officers and increased use of parenting strategies to promote probation compliance. We also hypothesized that parent characteristics associated with increased needs, including single parent household and lower educational attainment would predict greater frequency of parent contact with probation officers. Consistent with studies documenting the experiences of minorities in the legal system (Rocque, 2011; Nordberg et al., 2015), we hypothesized that parents from ethnic and racial minority groups would hold less favorable perceptions of relationship quality with a probation officer. Based on previous research (Osher and Shufelt, 2006; Hillian and Reitsma-Street, 2003), we offer two competing hypotheses on the association between parent and youth characteristics and parent-officer relationships. On the one hand, it is possible that parent and youth characteristics associated with increased risk would negatively predict perceptions of relationship quality with probation officers. On the other hand, the extent to which probation officers are able to provide support and help might foster positive perceptions of relationship quality from parents. In line with theories of procedural justice (Tyler, 1990; Tyler and Jackson, 2013), we hypothesized that supportive, fair, and respectful relationships between parents and probation officer would elicit involvement from parents through increased use of strategies to promote youth's compliance on probation. We also hypothesized that positive

3

parent-officer relationships and use of parenting strategies would predict better probation compliance among youth. 6. Method 6.1. Participants Participants were 87 parents of youth adjudicated and supervised on probation in four counties in two eastern states.1 Seventy 6% of parents self-identified as the youth's biological parent, 14% as a relative (e.g., grandparent, aunt), and 10% as adoptive or foster parents. A majority of parents were females (87%) with an average age of 47.3 (SD = 9.6). Sixty-two percent reported their racial and ethnic background as African American, 24% White, 12% Hispanic, and 2% other. Thirty-nine percent reported completing a college education or beyond, 26% had some college education, 27% completed high school or received GED, and 7% completed some high school or less. Forty-three percent were married or widowed, 39% divorced or separated, and 18% never married. A majority of the parents (73%) reported that they had never been in trouble with the law. Table 1 shows a summary of parents' demographic and background characteristics. 6.2. Procedures Recruitment flyers were posted in probation offices and placed at the probation sign-in desk. The administrative assistants and probation officers in the participating offices were also asked to distribute invitation letters to parents and youth clients. When interested parents contacted the study group, researchers determined whether they met eligibility criteria as a biological, adoptive, or legal guardian of the youth, or as an adult (age 18 and older) considered by the youth as a guardian (e.g., aunt, grandmother). Eligible parents were invited to participate in a structured interview that took approximately 1–1.5 h and were conducted at-home or in community settings. Parents were asked questions pertaining to their experiences with the probation process, including their interaction and relationship with their child's probation officer and their child's compliance on probation during the past six months (or less if they youth had been on probation fewer than six months) preceding the interview. On average, youth had been on probation supervision with the current probation officer for 36.3 weeks (SD = 32.3, Median = 23.0). Parents received monetary compensation for their participation. This study was approved by the university and state agencies' Institutional Review Boards. In addition, a Certificate of Confidentiality from the National Institutes of Health was obtained to further protect participant confidentiality. 6.3. Measures 6.3.1. Parents' contact and perceptions of relationship quality with probation officer 6.3.1.1. Contact with probation officer. Parents were asked to report the frequency and average length of time (in minutes) of face-to-face and phone contacts with their child's probation officer during the past month of their interview. Parents were also asked to state the reasons for (general check-up, probation compliance, service access, treatment compliance, and substance abstinence) and location of (probation office, home, school, treatment facility, other) those contacts. An average score 1 We used the term “parent” to refer to an adult figure or caregiver primarily responsible for the youth and in contact with probation. Parents were part of a larger study of 110 youth adjudicated and supervised on probation. Three of the parents had two of their children enrolled in the study, resulting to a total of 107 eligible parents. Of the 23 parents who did not participate, 9 were refusals, 6 were non-English speakers, and 8 became ineligible to participate when they were not scheduled within two weeks of youth interview.

4

S. Vidal, J. Woolard / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 1–8

Table 1 Demographic and background characteristics for parents and youth. Parent Mean (SD) Age Gender Male Female Race/ethnicity White African American Hispanic Other Educational attainment College or beyond Some college GED/HS diploma HS or less Marital status Married/widowed Divorced/separated Never married Criminal justice involvement (yes) Relationship to youth Biological parent Relative Adoptive/foster parent School expulsion (yes) Mental health symptomatology (high) History of arrest 0–2 3 or more Delinquency charge Person Property Drugs/minor

Youth n (%)

47.3 (9.6)

was calculated for number of face-to-face and phone contacts of parents with probation officers. 6.3.1.2. Parent-officer relationship quality. An 11-item questionnaire rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1-never to 7-always) was created to capture two indices of parents' interaction and relationship with the probation officer. First, parents responded to six questions that tapped perceived support, voice, respect, and fairness from probation officer. These questions include—the probation officer provides me with appropriate parenting resources; is a good source of professional support; informs me of my child's progress on probation; considers my views before making any decisions about my child's case; takes our family's circumstance in his/her decision-making; and shows me respect in absolutely all of my dealings with him/her. The six items showed high internal consistency (α = 0.89) and were averaged to create a composite score for perceived support, voice, fairness, and respect (Mean = 5.5, SD = 1.6). Next, a 5-item questionnaire adapted from the Dual Role Relationship Inventory (Skeem, Louden, Polaschek, and Camp, 2007) was used to assess parents' perceptions of the probation officer's helpfulness toward the youth. These five items include—the probation officer tries to make sure my child doesn't get lost between the cracks of the systems; treats my child with respect; ignores my child's needs; goes the extra mile to help my child; and genuinely wants to help my child. The five items showed high internal consistency, α = 0.89 and an average score was calculated to create a composite score for perceived helpfulness of probation officer toward youth (Mean = 5.9, SD = 1.4). 6.3.2. Parent strategies to promote probation compliance A 4-item questionnaire rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1-not at all to 5-always) was created to measure the different strategies (e.g., reminders, encouragement, monitoring) parents might employ to help youth comply with the conditions of probation. The questions

Mean (SD)

n (%)

16.34 (1.40) 12 (14) 75 (86)

66 (76) 21 (24)

20 (23) 55 (63) 10 (12) 2 (2)

17 (20) 54 (62) 12 (14) 4 (5)

33 (38) 22 (25) 25 (29) 7 (8)

– – – –

37 (43) 33 (39) 16 (18) 23 (26)

– – – –

66 (76) 13 (15) 8 (9) – –

– – – 34 (39) 34 (39)

– –

44 (51) 43 (49)

– – –

43 (50) 27 (31) 16 (19)

include: how often do you remind your child about his/her probation appointments; encourage your child to go to his/her probation appointments; remind your child to follow and obey the rules of probation; and monitor your child's progress on probation? These four items showed adequate internal consistency (α = 0.73) and an average score was calculated for these items to create a composite score for parent strategies to promote probation compliance (Mean = 4.1; SD = 0.9). 6.3.3. Probation non-compliance: variety of delinquent and technical offenses Probation non-compliance was defined as the variety of new delinquent offenses and technical violations of probation conditions in the past 6 months. First, parents reported how often (0 = none to 4 = more than once a week) their child had engaged in technical violations (e.g., missing probation/treatment appointments and skipping school; failure to pay fines or restitution fees; failure to seek permission to engage in activities including travel and association with certain peers; violation of curfew) and delinquent offenses (person, property, substancerelated, and minor offenses). Next, a variety score, or counts of how many different types of offenses youth committed in the last six months as reported by parents, was calculated separately for delinquent offenses and technical violations of probation conditions. For example, if the parent reported that their child missed a probation appointment, skipped school, and associated with antisocial peers, the variety score for that youth's technical violations is 3, representing the three different types of technical violations. If the parent reported that their child committed theft and sold an illegal substance, the youth's variety score for delinquent offenses is 2, representing the two types of delinquent offenses. Relative to a binary variable that describes the presence or absence of violations or delinquent offenses, variety scores offer more salient practical implications for probation decision-making. To an extent, the variety or counts of probation non-compliance reflects severity of non-compliance, which influence probation officers' decisions to file

S. Vidal, J. Woolard / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 1–8

probation violations as well as juvenile court judges' decisions to revoke probation. Further, relative to the widely used frequency or incidence scores, variety scores are less prone to recall error and represent a more normally distributed range of responses. Variety scores have also shown good predictive strength in future offending, more particularly in non-violent offending (Oudekerk, Erbacher, and Reppucci, 2012) and are increasingly preferred over frequency scores by researchers (Odgers et al., 2007; Osgood, 2000). 6.3.4. Parent characteristics Parents were asked to report on demographic and background characteristics, including age (continuous), gender (male, female), race (minority, white), educational attainment (GED/high school diploma or little education, some college or beyond), marital status (single/separated/divorced, married/widowed), and history of arrest (yes, no). 6.3.5. Youth demographic and probation characteristics We also included characteristics of the youth as reported by the youth in a separate interview for the larger study, including age (continuous), gender (male, female), school expulsion (yes, no), mental health and substance use symptoms or MAYSI II scores (high, low; Grisso and Barnum, 2000), history of arrest (3 or more, 0–2), and current probation offense (property/drugs/minor offense, person) in our regression models. Table 1 also shows a summary of youth background and demographic characteristics.

5

such as the youth's school (3%) or treatment facility (3%). Typically, these meetings covered a general check-up with parents and youth (84%), youth's compliance on probation (58%), and service access (21%). Sometimes meetings covered youth's compliance with treatment (12%) and substance use abstinence (7%). In addition, parents had an average of three phone contacts (Mean = 2.94, SD = 8.74, range = 0–80) with their child's probation officer during the previous month. Similar to face-to-face contacts, phone contacts typically covered a general check-up (69%), youth's compliance on probation (36%), and service access (22%); whereas, topics related to treatment compliance (5%) and substance use abstinence (2%) were discussed less frequently. On average, parents had five combined face-to-face and phone contacts (Mean = 4.76, SD = 9.11, range = 0–84) with their child's probation officer. We examined parent and youth characteristics as predictors of frequency of parents' contact with probation officer. For parent characteristics, we included age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, and history of arrest in our model. For youth characteristics, we included age, gender, school expulsion, mental health and substance use symptomatology, history of arrest, and current delinquency charges in our model. Contrary to our hypotheses, none of the parent characteristics significantly predicted contact with probation officers. Of the youth's characteristics, only school expulsion significantly predicted contact with probation officers. Among parents of youth who had been expelled from school, frequency of contact with a probation officer increased by 95% (IRR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.01 to 3.76).

6.4. Plan of analysis 7.2. Predictors of parent-officer relationship qualities Analyses were conducted in four steps. First, we described how often, where, why parents meet with probation officers and examined predictors of parents' frequency of contact with probation officers. Second, we examined parent and youth characteristics as predictors of parents' relationship qualities with probation officers. Third, we examined predictors of parent strategies in probation. Finally, we examined the link among parents' contact and relationship with probation officers, parent strategies, and youth's non-compliance on probation. For models with continuous outcome variables (perceived relationship qualities with probation officers, parent strategies), we conducted ordinary linear regressions. For models with count data as outcome variables (parents' frequency of contact with probation officer, variety of delinquent offenses and technical violations), we conducted Poisson regression (see Elhai, Calhoun, and Ford, 2008; Atkins and Gallop, 2007; Gardner, Mulvey, and Shaw, 1995). To aid the interpretation of Poisson regression results, we also reported in-text the Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) for significant findings. The IRR quantifies the direction and strength of relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable in terms of a percentage increase or decrease in the outcome variable (Hilbe, 2008). We accounted for the clustering effects of probation officers in our regression models. Because 87 parents reported on 52 supervising probation officers (average cluster size = 1.67), data pertaining to parents' interaction with and perceptions toward probation officers may have been non-independent. To account for non-independence of data, we used the “cluster” command in Stata and controlled for clustering effects of probation officer. All analyses were conducted in Stata 14.0. 7. Results

We conducted two separate regression models to examine parent and youth characteristics as predictors of parents' perceptions of support, voice, fairness, and respect from probation officer and helpfulness of probation officer toward youth. Contrary to our hypotheses, none of the parent or youth characteristics was significantly related to parents' perceptions of support, voice, fairness, and respect from probation officer and helpfulness of probation officer toward youth. 7.3. Predictors of parent strategies to promote probation compliance First, we examined whether parent and youth characteristics predicted parent strategies to promote probation compliance. Only youth's history of school expulsion was significantly related to parent strategies (B = −0.57, p = 0.040, 95% CI = −1.10 to −0.03). Surprisingly, parents whose children had been expelled from school employed fewer practices to promote probation compliance than parents whose children had never been expelled from school. This model explained 15% of the variance in parent strategies. Next, we examined whether parents' contact with and perceptions of relationship qualities with the probation officer predicted their own strategies to promote probation compliance. As shown in Table 2, parents' perceived support, voice, respect, and fairness from probation officer and perceived helpfulness of probation officer toward youth were significant predictors of parent strategies. Parents who perceived more Table 2 Summary of OLS Regression analyses for parents' contact and relationship qualities with JPO predicting parental involvement in probation. Parenting practices

7.1. Frequency and predictors of parents' contact with probation officers On average, parents had two face-to-face meetings (Mean = 1.81, SD = 1.32, range = 0–6 times) with their child's probation officer during the month prior to their interview, which lasted for an average of 34.5 min (SD = 0.50, range = 1–90 min). These meetings usually took place at the probation office (81%), followed by the parents' home (25%), the courthouse (11%), and less frequently in other places

Frequency of contact with JPO Support, voice, fairness, respect from JPO Perceived helpfulness of JPO toward youth R2 F

β

95% CI

p

0.01 0.28 −0.35 0.11 3.96*

−0.00, 0.02 0.06, 0.50 −0.56, −0.14

0.073 0.013* 0.002**

Reference categories are shown in the parentheses. *p b 0.05; **p b 0.01; ***p b 0.001.

6

S. Vidal, J. Woolard / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 1–8

Table 3 Summary of Poisson regression analyses for variables predicting diversity of probation non-compliance.

Intercept Frequency of contact with JPO Support, voice, fairness, respect from JPO Perceived helpfulness of JPO toward youth Parenting practices to promote probation compliance

Model 1

Model 2

Variety of delinquent offenses

Variety of technical offenses

B

B

SE B Z

SE B Z

0.19 1.14 0.17 0.70 0.78 0.90 0.01 0.01 0.61 0.00 0.01 0.73 −0.05 0.18 −0.26 −0.23 0.10 −2.33* −0.08 0.23 −0.34 0.03 0.18

0.19

0.10 0.13

0.78

0.06 0.12

0.51

*p b 0.05; **p b 0.01; ***p b 0.001.

support, respect, voice, and fairness from probation officers employed more parenting strategies to promote probation compliance. Parents who perceived more probation officer helpfulness toward youth, however, employed fewer parenting strategies than parents who perceived probation officers as less helpful toward youth. This model explained 11% of the variance in parent strategies. 7.4. The association between parents' perceptions of probation and variety of delinquent offenses and technical violations Models 1 and 2, as shown in Table 3, examined parents' frequency of contact with the probation officer, relationship qualities with the probation officer, and parent strategies as predictors of variety of delinquent and technical offenses, respectively.2 Contrary to our hypothesis, parents' frequency of contact, perceptions of relationship qualities with probation officer, and strategies did not significantly predict counts of delinquent offenses. In the technical violations model, however, parents' perception of support, voice, respect, and fairness was significantly associated with fewer counts of technical offenses. For every one unit of increase in parents' perceptions of support, voice, respect, and fairness from probation officer, the technical violations of probation counts decreased by 20% (IRR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.96). 8. Discussion This paper extends current literature on parental involvement in the juvenile justice system by examining parents' perceptions of and experiences in juvenile probation, including their contact, perceptions of relationship qualities with probation officer, and strategies to promote probation compliance. Three chief findings emerged from this study. First, parents met with their child's probation officer in-person approximately twice a month for an average of 35 min and talked on the phone approximately three times a month. Parents' report of frequency of contacts with probation officers in our study was slightly higher than those reported by juvenile probation officers. In a survey of 308 juvenile probation officers, Schwalbe and Maschi (2010) found that probation officers on average had 2.4 in-person meetings and 2.6 phone contacts with parents during a 3-month period. In another study, Bouffard and Bergseth (2008) reported an average weekly contact of 0.20 times between probation officers and parents of 49 youth supervised on probation. Consistent with the law enforcement aspect of probation, our findings also suggest that parent-officer contacts were primarily 2 Bivariate correlations between parents' perceived support, voice, respect, and fairness from probation officer and helpfulness of probation officer toward youth was 0.82. Tests of multicollinearity suggest acceptable values of Tolerance (0.30 for both variables) and Variance Inflation Factor (3.34–3.36) for these variables. Bivariate correlations between parent strategies and perceived support from probation officer was 0.08 and parent strategies and perceived helpfulness of probation officer toward youth was −0.11.

oriented toward monitoring and surveillance, with a majority of topics covering a general check-up about the youth and youth's compliance on probation. A majority of these meetings took place in the probation office with occasional visits from probation officers at the parent's home. These findings provide basic, yet important descriptive information on how often, how long, and where parents usually interact and communicate with probation officers face-to-face. Future research, however, should explore and examine the nature and context of these meetings in order to gain a better understanding about the dynamics of parental involvement in juvenile probation. It is also important to note that probation practices and policies, including frequency of contact between parents and probation officers, may vary significantly by jurisdiction. Thus, the extent to which our findings are generalizable to other probation jurisdictions is limited. Second, parents generally had positive relationships with probation officers characterized as supportive, respectful, fair, and helpful toward the youth. Most parents employed practices such as use of reminders and encouragement to promote youth's compliance on probation. Our findings show that when parents perceived their relationships with probation officers as supportive, respectful and fair, they also employed more parenting practices themselves to promote probation compliance. Although we did not examine the mechanism by which better parentofficer relationships may promote increased use of parenting practices, research suggests that a positive working relationship with the probation officer may provide a sense of empowerment and facilitate perceptions of competencies among parents. Parents of offending youth typically experience confusion, shame, and being ignored and undermined (Hillian and Reitsma-Street, 2003; Osher and Shufelt, 2006; Osher and Hunt, 2002). Positive and supportive relationships with probation officers may assuage the challenges of parenting a court-involved youth (Cook and Gordon, 2012) and encourage a collaborative partnership with the probation officer by employing more parenting practices that would help promote compliance. These findings support the notion that probation officers may serve as important resource for parents and that parents and probation officers can be important allies in facilitating positive behavioral changes among offending youth (Schwalbe, 2012; Vidal and Woolard, 2015). However, we also found that parents' perceived helpfulness of the probation officer toward the youth was linked to parents' utilization of fewer parenting strategies to promote youth's compliance on probation. This finding may reflect a parent's reliance on the power of the system to be in charge of their child's behavior while under court supervision (Hillian and Reitsma-Street, 2003). Probation officers' helpfulness toward youth may promote perceptions of legitimacy of authority or the notion of “responsibility and obligation to defer to the law and the decision of legal authorities” (Tyler and Jackson, 2013, pp. 7). Legitimacy may reflect trust and confidence in legal authorities, which enable individuals to defer to the authority in enforcing rules or appropriate behaviors in a given situation. For example, parents may view probation officer's helpfulness toward the youth as an effective measure of facilitating youth's compliance on probation. Relatedly, employing fewer parenting practices to promote probation compliance when parents find probation officers helpful may reflect parental resignation or a sense of exasperation and defeat over the child's problem behaviors. For example, we found that parents of youth who had been expelled from school employed fewer parenting practices than those who had never been expelled school. School expulsion is a significant risk factor for problem behaviors (Monahan et al., 2014). When parents feel that they have no control over their child's behavior, they may rely on a probation officer's authority to facilitate youth's compliance on probation. Finally, our hypothesis that parents' positive relationships with probation officers would help promote better probation compliance was only partially supported. Parents' perceptions of supportive, respectful, and fair relationships with probation officers were significantly linked to fewer counts of technical violations of probation, but not delinquent offenses. Recall that technical violations such as missing probation

S. Vidal, J. Woolard / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 1–8

appointments, skipping school, and association with antisocial peers are violations of the specific terms and conditions of probation. Although the consequences are not trivial, 58% of detained youth were in custody for violations of probation or parole and of these, 53% were in custody for technical violations (SYRP, 2003; also see Nemoyer et al., 2014), technical offenses may be easier to curtail than delinquent offenses or new crimes. For example, parents and probation officers may have more control over youth when they are required to take a drug test, attend anger management classes, or attend school. Supportive, respectful, and fair relationships of parents with probation officers may facilitate collaborative practices that allow for better supervision and monitoring of youth's compliance with the specific terms and condition on probation. On the other hand, a different set of collaborative strategies between parents and probation officers may be needed to help prevent more serious and delinquent offending. Relatedly, there are several possible explanations on the lack of significant findings related to parent strategies and counts of delinquent offenses. It is possible that youth characteristics related to increased risk for offending may moderate the association between parent strategies in probation and youth's compliance on probation. For example, increased parenting practices to promote probation compliance may matter more for high-risk youth than low-risk youth. Consistent with the risk-need-responsivity principle, high-risk youth may need more supervision to promote successful outcomes (Andrews and Bonta, 2010). Further, parent strategy or employing practices to promote probation compliance is just one of the various ways parents can be involved in the probation process. Future research should investigate other types of parental involvement in probation (see Burke et al., 2014) in order to identify which strategies are most helpful and for whom in promoting positive outcomes among offending youth. 8.1. Limitations There are several limitations to keep in mind when interpreting our findings. First, this study utilized a non-probability sample, and thus, generalizability of findings should be approached with caution. Our recruitment method was also prone to selection bias. By relying on recruitment flyers and letters, it is possible that we recruited a sample of parents who might be different in important demographic and background characteristics from those who did not choose to contact us and participate in the study. Parents who chose to participate might also have a different (e.g., more positive) probation experience that those who did not participate. Second, the small sample size and cross-sectional nature of the study did not provide us with adequate power to conduct more complex models (e.g., moderation and mediation analyses) that would help disentangle the associations between parent-officer relationship qualities, parent strategies in probation, and youth's non-compliance on probation. All analyses were correlational in nature; thus, causal conclusions cannot be inferred from the observed findings. Relatedly, our assessments of relationship quality, parenting practices, and probation compliance were administered at a single point in time. Research suggests that relationship quality is often times dynamic (Wood, 1999) and may change overtime. Likewise, parent strategies to promote probation compliance may vary according to the youth's performance on probation over time. The cross-sectional nature of the study only provided a snapshot of parents' perceptions of relationship quality, parenting practices, and youth's compliance on probation; thus, it may not have provided sufficient time to detect the plausible strength and effect of relationships between and among these variables. Future research should employ longitudinal designs in order to capture the changes in relationship qualities and supervision practices and assess whether and how these changes are associated with offending patterns overtime. Third, we did not assess for other variables that might be related to our outcomes in important ways. For example, studies have shown

7

that parent characteristics such as mental health and substance use symptomatology relate to parenting practices and involvement (Lander, Howsare, and Byrne, 2013; Sim and England, 2009) and parent-child attachment (Kirisci, Dunn, Mezzich, and Tarter, 2001; Lander et al., 2013). Thus, parental mental health and substance use problems may impact the degree to which parents employ different practices and are involved in their child's life. Finally, we relied on parents' report of delinquent offenses and technical violations of probation. Thus, parents are able to only report incidents known to them, which may reflect an underestimation of the true counts of probation noncompliance as what would have been captured by official records or reports from youth themselves (see Sourander, Helstelä, and Helenius, 1999; Laird, Pettit, Bates, and Dodge, 2003). The accuracy of parent reports may vary by type of violation as well. It may be easier for parents to discover technical violations that involve contact with other adults (e.g., skipping school, failing to show up for a drug test) than delinquent behaviors occurring outside supervised settings. 8.2. Conclusion Practitioners have increasingly recognized the importance of parental involvement in many child-serving systems, including the juvenile justice system. Indeed, there is a strong theoretical support for promoting parental involvement in facilitating rehabilitation and positive outcomes among offending youth (Hoeve et al., 2009; Steinberg et al., 2006). However, there is still a notable gap between theory and practice in realizing the potential of parental involvement in the juvenile justice system (Burke et al., 2014; Peterson-Badali and Broeking, 2010). Our findings call for and support programs and practices that would help bridge this gap and promote better collaboration between probation officers and parents. For example, programs and practices that incorporate parental involvement in officer trainings, include family conferences at the beginning and throughout the duration of probation, and provide helpful resources for parents may help facilitate and strengthen parental involvement in the juvenile justice system. Indeed, we found that when parents perceive their relationships with probation officers as supportive, fair, and respectful they are more likely to employ practices that encourage probation compliance. Although probation officers' helpfulness toward youth was associated with decreased use of parenting practices that encourage probation compliance, this could be a reflection of parents' trust and confidence in probation officers' authority to promote positive changes in their child's behavior. We note the importance of additional research in order to clarify and disentangle the associations and potential benefits of different forms of parental involvement on compliance among court-involved youth. A positive and collaborative relationship between parents and probation officers may create an optimal environment for parental involvement and facilitate successful probation outcomes. Acknowledgments The authors thank the many research assistants at the Center for Research on Adolescence, Women, and the Law in the Department of Psychology at Georgetown University for their outstanding help with data coordination and management; the participating probation offices for their support of the study; and the youth and their families for their time and participation. This research was supported by grants from the American Academy of Forensic Psychology; American Psychology-Law and Society, Minority Affairs Committee; Georgetown University; National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (Award No. 1228589); and Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Support for Dr. Vidal was provided by a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded Postdoctoral Training Program (T32 DA 019426). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

8

S. Vidal, J. Woolard / Children and Youth Services Review 66 (2016) 1–8

the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health. References Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39–55. Atkins, D. C., & Gallop, R. J. (2007). Rethinking how family researchers model infrequent outcomes: A tutorial on count regression and zero-inflated models. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 726–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.726. Bandura, A. (1969). Social learning of moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 275–279. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95. Bouffard, J. A., & Bergseth, K. J. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders' recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295–318. Brank, E. M., & Scott, L. (2012). The historical, jurisprudential, and empirical wisdom of parental responsibility laws. Social Issues and Policy Review, 6(1), 26–53. Brank, E. M., Kucera, S., & Hays, S. A. (2005). Parental responsibility statutes: An organization and policy implications. Journal of Law and Family Studies, 7, 1–55. Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14(2), 128–147. Burke, J. D., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., & Garbin, S. R. (2014). The challenge and opportunity of parental involvement in juvenile justice services. Children and Youth Services Review, 39, 39–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.007. Cook, A. K. (2013). I'm tired of my child getting into trouble: Parental controls and supports of juvenile probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52, 529–543. Cook, A. K., & Gordon, J. A. (2012). Get him out of my house parental competencies of juvenile probationers. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 205–223. Cottle, C., Lee, R., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles. A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 367–394. Davies, H., & Davidson, H. (2001). Parental involvement practices of juvenile courts. Report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention http://www. americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/child/PublicDocuments/full_report. authcheckdam.pdf. Demuth, S. (2003). Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: A comparison of hispanic, black, and white felony arrestees. Criminology, 41, 873–908. Dorius, C., Bahr, S., Hoffman, J., & Harmon, E. (2004). Parenting practices as moderators of the relationship between peers and adolescent marijuana use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 163–177. Elhai, J. D., Calhoun, P. S., & Ford, J. D. (2008). Statistical procedures for analyzing mental health services data. Psychiatry Research, 160, 129–136. Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18, 217–241. Fagan, A. A., Van Horn, M. L., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (2007). Gender similarities and differences in the association between risk and protective factors and self-reported serious delinquency. Prevention Science, 8(2), 115–124. Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 392–404. Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., Rhine, E. E., & Partridge, C. R. (2003). Building bridges between the parole officer and the families of serious juvenile offenders: A preliminary report on a family-based parole program. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(3), 291–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0306624X03047003004. Grisso, T., & Barnum, R. (2000). Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument—2nd Version. Worcester, MA: University of Massachusetts Medical School. Henggeler, S. W. (2011). Efficacy studies to large-scale transport: The development and validation of multisystemic therapy programs. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 351–381. Hilbe, J. (2008). Brief overview of interpreting count model risk rations. An addendum to negative binomial regression. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Hillian, D., & Reitsma-Street, M. (2003). Parents and youth justice. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 45, 19–41. Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 749–775. Kirisci, L., Dunn, M. G., Mezzich, A. C., & Tarter, R. E. (2001). Impact of parental substance use disorder and child neglect severity on substance use involvement in male offspring. Prevention Science, 2(4), 241–255. Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents' monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents' delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752–768. Lander, L., Howsare, J., & Byrne, M. (2013). The impact of substance use disorders on families and children: From theory to practice. Social Work in Public Health, 28(3–4), 194–205. Leiber, M. J., & Mack, K. Y. (2003). The individual and joint effects of race, gender, and family status on juvenile justice decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 34–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022427802239253. Maschi, T., Schwalbe, C., & Ristow, J. (2013). In pursuit of the ideal parent in juvenile justice: A qualitative investigation of probation officers' experiences with parents of juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52, 470–492. Mental Health Association in Pennsylvania & Pennsylvania Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers (2009o). Family involvement in Pennsylvania's juvenile justice

system. Prepared for the models for change-Pennsylvania http://www. pachiefprobationofficers.org/docs/Family%20Involvement%20Monograph.pdf. Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 439–466. Monahan, K., Vanderhei, S., Bechtold, J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). From the school yard to the squad car: School discipline, truancy, and arrest. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1110–1122 online). Mullins, T. G., & Toner, C. (2008). Implementing the family support approach for community supervision. New York, NY: Family Justice and the American Probation and Parole Association. NeMoyer, A., Goldstein, N. E., McKitten, R. L., Prelic, A., Ebbecke, J., Foster, E., & Burkard, C. (2014). Predictors of juveniles' noncompliance with probation requirements. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 580–591. Nordberg, A., Crawford, M. R., Praetorius, R. T., & Hatcher, S. S. (2015). Exploring minority youths' police encounters: A qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10560-015-0415-3. Odgers, C. L., Moretti, M. M., Burnette, M. L., Chauhan, P., Waite, D., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). A latent variable modeling approach to identifying subtypes of serious and violent female juvenile offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 33(4), 339–352. Osgood, D. W. (2000). Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 21–43. Osher, T., & Hunt, P. (2002). Involving families of youth who are in contact with the juvenile justice system. Online. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED478675. Osher, T., & Shufelt, J. (2006). What families think of the juvenile justice system: Findings from the OJJDP multi-state study. Focal Point, 20, 20–23. Oudekerk, B. A., Erbacher, M. K., & Reppucci, N. D. (2012). A comparison of diversity, frequency, and severity self-reported offending scores among female offending youth. Psychological Assessment, 24, 738–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026791. Pennell, J., Shapiro, C., & Spigner, C. (2011). Safety, fairness, stability: Repositioning juvenile justice and child welfare to engage families and communities. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/famengagement/FamilyEngagementPaper. pdf. Peterson-Badali, M., & Broeking, J. (2009). Parents' involvement in the youth justice system: A view from the trenches. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 51, 255–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.51.2.255. Peterson-Badali, M., & Broeking, J. (2010). Parents' involvement in the youth justice system: Rhetoric and reality. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 1–27. Rocque, M. (2011). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system and perceptions of legitimacy a theoretical linkage. Race and Justice, 1(3), 292–315. Rodriguez, N., Smith, H., & Zatz, M. S. (2009). Youth is enmeshed in a highly dysfunctional family system: Exploring the relationship among dysfunctional families, parental incarceration, and juvenile court decision making. Criminology, 47, 177–208. Schwalbe, C. (2012). Toward an integrated theory of probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 185–201. Schwalbe, C. S., & Maschi, T. (2010). Patterns of contact and cooperation between juvenile probation officers and parents of youthful offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 398–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2010.499055. Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., & Kang, W. (2015). Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2013. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/. Sim, L. J., & England, M. J. (2009). Depression in parents, parenting, and children: Opportunities to improve identification, treatment, and prevention. National Academies Press. Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., Polaschek, D., & Camp, J. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment: Blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19, 397–410. Sourander, A., Helstelä, L., & Helenius, H. (1999). Parent-adolescent agreement on emotional and behavioral problems. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 34, 657–663. Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengard, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: A replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 47–58. Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (2003). Online analysis tool. Retrieved from https://syrp.org/online_analysis.html#. Tanenhaus, D. (2002). The evolution of juvenile courts in the early twentieth century: Beyond the myth of immaculate construction. In M. Rosenheim, F. Zimring, & D. Tanenhaus (Eds.), A century of juvenile justice (pp. 42–73). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Torbet, P., & Griffin, P. (2002). Desktop guide to good juvenile probation practice: Mission-driven, performance-based, outcome-focused probation. Perspectives, 26(4), 22–25. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Tyler, T., & Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. Public law working paper. 264, . Yale Law School http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2141322. Vidal, S., & Woolard, J. (2015). Youth's perceptions of parental support and parental knowledge as moderators of the association between youth–probation officer relationship and probation non-compliance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1–20. Wood, J. (1999). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal relationships. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Woolard, J. L., Cleary, H. M. D., Harvell, S. A. S., & Chen, R. (2008). Examining adolescents' and their parents' conceptual and practical knowledge of police interrogation: A family dyad approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 685–698.