Using Police Officers to Enhance the Supervision of Juvenile Probationers: An Evaluation of the Anchorage CAN Program

Abstract

This study presents an evaluation of the Anchorage Coordinated Agency Network (CAN) program. The program combined the capacities of both the Anchorage Police Department and the Anchorage Office of Juvenile Probation to enhance the overall levels of supervision that juvenile probationers received. Consistent with research from intensive supervision literature, the CAN evaluation found that juveniles participating in the program were more likely to have new technical violations but no more likely to have new charges when comparedto juveniles on regular probation. These findings support intensive supervision probation literature suggesting that increased supervision and surveillance lead to increased levels of probation violations.

References

Aho, K. (1999, October 4). Police help DFYS watch probationers. Anchorage Daily News, p. B1-B1.

Bachman, R. , & Paternoster, R. (1996). Statistical methods for criminology and criminal justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bureau of Justice Assistance . (1997). Improving the nation's criminal justice system: Findings and results from state and local program evaluations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Evans, D. G. (1997). Boston's probation and police partnership. Corrections Today, 59(4), 126-126.

Fulton, B. , Latessa, E. J. , Stichman, A. , Travis, L. F. , Corbett, R. P., Jr. , & Harris, M. K. (1997). A review of research for practitioners. Federal Probation, 61, 65-76.

Grossman, J. , & Tierney, J. P. (1993). The fallibility of comparison groups. Evaluation Review, 17, 556-571.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Morris, N. , & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York: Oxford University Press.

O'Rourke, G. , Scott, A. , Lance, D. , & Evans, S. (1998). Coordinated agency network: Fighting crime and combating juvenile delinquency. The Police Chief, 65, 48-50.

10.

Parent, D. , & Snyder, B. (1999). Police-corrections partnerships. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

11.

Petersilia, J. , & Turner, S. (1991). An evaluation of intensive probation in California. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 610-658.

12.

Petersilia, J. , & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 281-336). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Rossi, P. H. , Freeman, H. E. , & Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Smith, C. A. , & Thornberry, T. P. (1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33, 451-482.

15.

Tabachnick, B. G. , & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

16.

Tonry, M. (1998). Intermediate sanctions. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 683-711). New York: Oxford University Press.

17.

Turner, S. , & Petersilia, J. (1992). Focusing on high-risk parolees: An experiment to reduce commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 34-62.

18.

Widom, C. S. , & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An update on the “cycle of violence.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

19.

Zingraff, M. T. , Leiter, J. , Myers, K. A. , & Johnsen, M. C. (1993). Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31, 173-202.