Assessing Readiness for Change of Juvenile Probation Policies and Practices: A Factor Analysis of the Probation Officer Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behavior (POABB) Scale

Jeanne McPhee^a, Briana Huett^b, Leah Brogan^c, Elizabeth McCurdy^d, Amanda NeMoyer^b, Rena Kreimer^b, Lena DeYoung^b, Naomi Goldstein^b  

ABSTRACT

As juvenile probation undergoes nationwide reform to better align with research on adolescent development, it is critical to understand probation officers’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about corresponding changes to supervisory practices within juvenile probation departments. The Probation Officer Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors (POABB) Scale was designed for use with juvenile probation officers (JPOs) undergoing training in a specific evidence-based supervision strategy (i.e., Graduated Response) to assess staff’s knowledge and beliefs about Graduated Response’s practices and intended supervisory behaviors. To provide foundational empirical support for the novel scale, the current study examined the factor structure of this self-report measure using POABB data from 351 juvenile probation staff across three mid-Atlantic states. An exploratory factor analysis revealed that a five-factor structure within the POABB provided the best fit and, overall, the POABB had good internal reliability (ɑ = 0.84). Importantly, the five-factor structure suggests a key difference between knowledge of Graduated Response components and attitudes toward using those components in everyday practice. Results suggest that use of the POABB can provide probation departments with information about specific attitudes and overall willingness to implement specific supervision practices as well as offer targeted areas for additional training to support developmentally appropriate probation transformations.

KEYWORDS: Juvenile probation, organizational readiness, measurement, factor analysis, assessment

Received January 2023; Accepted May 2023; Published May 2023             DOI: 10.52935/23.13316.05

INTRODUCTION

Nationwide, juvenile probation policies and practices are undergoing considerable reform to better align with existing research on adolescent development and behavioral decision making (Annie E. Casey Foundation [AECF], 2018; Cavanagh, 2022; Goldstein et al., 2019; National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ], 2017a). These reforms often transition away from a sanction-based, monitoring-oriented probation model toward one that emphasizes goal setting, opportunities and incentives, family-engaged case planning, and decision making and skill development to promote youths’ long-term behavior change and wellbeing (AECF, 2018; Soung, 2022). Several county and state jurisdictions have already created and are now implementing these types of developmentally informed juvenile probation case management systems (e.g., AECF, 2018; Farrell et al., 2020; Goldstein et al., 2019; Walker et al., 2019). Continued national and local investments in the widespread adoption of developmentally informed juvenile probation systems demonstrate the “increasingly fertile ground” on which reform efforts are rooted (Schwartz, 2018, p. 52).

As the enthusiasm for revamping juvenile probation grows, jurisdictions (at the county and state levels) will need to be prepared for such change—particularly given the complexities of implementing system-wide reform (Harvell et al., 2019). A reliable and valid tool to assess individuals’ readiness for engaging in this change process would be particularly beneficial to jurisdictions contemplating or actively engaged in reforming their juvenile probation systems. Further, such a measure could provide useful data for reform leaders as they seek to promote success and sustainment of developmentally appropriate juvenile probation strategies. This paper will briefly introduce individual and organizational readiness for change as a metric, both broadly and specifically in juvenile justice-related contexts, before describing a novel, self-report measure of individuals’ knowledge and attitudes towards policy and procedure changes designed for use with juvenile probation officers undergoing training on a specific form of developmentally appropriate probation strategy: Graduated Response. We will then present the results of a factor analysis of this novel measure, conducted to provide foundational empirical support for the measure and its structure.

Juvenile Probation Reform Efforts

Probation serves as the most common disposition for adolescents who have been adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court. Traditional probation systems focus on requiring youths’ complete compliance with court-ordered conditions to avoid sanctions, such as out-of-home placement in juvenile commitment facilities (Hseih, 2016; Klingele, 2013; Soung, 2022). However, research on adolescent development demonstrates that the immature decision making associated with youth—in conjunction with other still-developing cognitive abilities—make it more challenging for young people to conform their behavior perfectly in line with court requirements, especially given the large number of conditions often imposed (e.g., NeMoyer et al., 2014). Therefore, many youth under court supervision fail to comply with their conditions of probation supervision and face confinement (e.g., NeMoyer et al., 2016). In this way, traditional, compliance-based probation systems have led to increased populations of detained and placed youth (Dir et al., 2022; Mendel, 2009) and higher rates of continued and future system involvement (Puzzanchera et al., 2010; Steinberg, 2009)

Recognizing the misalignment between youths’ developmental capacities and expectations of probation, reformers, researchers, and advocates have sought to change probation systems to better promote youths’ successful discharge from probation and support positive behavioral change (van Wormer & Campbell, 2016). Jurisdictions around the country have worked to transform their systems into ones that encourage prosocial behaviors and positive youth development using incentives for reaching short- and long-term goals; examples include Opportunity Based Probation in Pierce County, WA (AECF, 2018), Accountability and Incentives Management system in Maryland (Farrell et al., 2020; Harvell et al., 2018), and Graduated Response across Pennsylvania (Brogan et al., 2021). In 2017, these reforms were championed on a national scale when the National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges called for the adoption of developmentally informed practices in probation (Goldstein et al., 2019; NCJFCJ, 2017a; NCJFCJ, 2017b). “Graduated Response” is a common shorthand for structured juvenile probation case management systems that rely upon the operant conditioning principles of positive reinforcement (i.e., incentives and rewards for desired behaviors) and immediate and measured interventions for undesired behaviors (Brogan et al., 2021; Goldstein et al., 2016). Such interventions can include those that reduce barriers related to access (e.g., parents’ inability to engage in probation conditions due to work or other essential commitments) or to youths’ ability to comply with conditions (e.g., needing to pick up a sibling from school and being unable to attend required community service). In Pennsylvania, Graduated Response has been adopted by jurisdictions across the state—as part of this adoption, probation departments hosted professional development trainings for their officers that focused on core principles of adolescent development (e.g., cognitive capacities, emotional and psychosocial development), the empirical basis of using operant conditioning principles for behavior change (e.g., Kazdin, 2005) and key components of the Graduated Response system, including the ways in which probation can and should be responsive to the risks and needs of youth (Brogan et al., 2015; see Brogan et al., 2021 for more detailed information about the trainings provided). Further, these trainings were designed as a starting point for organizational culture change to promote successful probation reform (Brogan et al., 2021).

Organizational and Individual Readiness for Change

Successful reform within an organization requires shifts in organizational culture and values (Esthappan et al., 2020)—shifts that are dependent upon an organization’s readiness, or the degree to which individuals within an organization are psychologically and behaviorally prepared, to change (Jones et al., 2005; Lerch et al., 2011; Schein, 2004). Weiner (2009, p. 2) referred to organizational readiness as the “precursor to successful implementation of complex change.” Organizational readiness is influenced by several factors (Taxman et al., 2014), including organizational culture toward change (e.g., openness to innovation and learning), organizational resources and infrastructure to support change (Vakola, 2014; Weiner, 2009), and several personal characteristics of the individuals who comprise an organization. For example, team members’ past experiences with change, their knowledge and expectations of the planned changes, and their personal readiness for change, all play important roles in an organization’s overall readiness for change (Holt et al., 2007). Organizations ready to change show greater preparedness and support for reform initiatives and exert greater effort and persistence when difficulties arise during change implementation (Weiner et al., 2009). In contrast, organizations less ready to change typicallydemonstrate greater resistance to and avoidance of change preparation and initiation (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Shea et al., 2014). As a result, prior to implementing organizational change, gaps in individual members’ knowledge or expectations of those changes should be identified and their own personal attitudes toward and readiness for change should be assessed to mitigate potential challenges (Holt et al., 2007). Such identified areas requiring additional support can then be adapted into more robust training, as training can provide efficient opportunities for changes in individuals’ knowledge and attitudes or beliefs (Knaak, 2019). However, research suggests that changes in knowledge and attitudes do not necessarily align with changes in behavior (Beidas & Kendall, 2010; Brogan et al., 2021; Frank et al., 2020). Organizational readiness for change requires both individuals’ buy-in as well as ongoing technical assistance, support, and supervision (Beidas et al., 2012; Edmunds et al., 2013).

Individual and organizational readiness for change has been widely studied across several diverse settings (Miake-Lye et al., 2020), including healthcare (Alexander & Hearld, 2012; Vaishnavi et al., 2019), community mental health clinics (Stanhope et al., 2019), child welfare agencies (Mersky et al., 2020), and schools (McKnight & Glennie, 2019). Further, these constructs have also been examined within the juvenile justice system, where such research has focused on youth-serving agencies’ adoption of evidence-based practices, such as assessment and referral services, individualized case planning, engagement with youths, families, and communities, and racial and ethnic equity initiatives (Esthappan et al., 2020; Rigsbee, 2015; Taxman et al., 2014). Findings from these studies convey the importance of organizational readiness for change in initiating and sustaining innovative reforms within the juvenile justice system (Taxman et al., 2014).

Measuring readiness for change at the beginning of reform efforts provides an organization with insight into the potential for successful implementation, and it can identify areas in which intervention might increase commitment and efficacy (Hannon et al., 2017). Within the juvenile probation system, such shifts may be slow to take shape given numerous contextual factors, such as frontline staff distrust of administrative-led change (Farrell et al., 2011), heavy caseloads that leave little time to implement new practices, and lack of organizational infrastructure to help staff translate new knowledge and training into policies and procedures (Taxman et al., 2014). Knowing how ready a juvenile probation department may be for a specific change equips reform leaders with insight and guidance on how to stimulate, strengthen, and sustain an organization’s commitment to and preparedness for current and future reforms.

Advancing scientific knowledge about readiness for change, particularly within juvenile justice settings, requires brief, publicly accessible, reliable, and valid measures (Shea et al., 2014). Such measures should include items relevant to the organization’s proposed reform while remaining adaptable for use in other circumstances (Shea et al., 2014; Weiner, 2009). To our knowledge, no such instrument exists to measure staff attitudes toward the adoption of evidence-based probation strategies. As a result, researchers leading the Graduated Response training sessions across Pennsylvania and two other states (see Brogan, 2021) developed the Probation Officer Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors (POABB) scale. Created initially as a quality assurance measure, the POABB was designed to identify baseline levels of relevant knowledge among training participants, as well as changes in attitudes and beliefs about Graduated Response principles and strategies from pre- to post-training. Survey items were developed in conjunction with justice system personnel (e.g., probation officers and supervisors, judges, attorneys) across Pennsylvania and were meant to address the general thematic concepts discussed in training sessions (e.g., research on adolescent development and effective behavior change principles; basic components of a Graduated Response system, including using both incentives and interventions to change youth short- and longterm behavior). POABB survey items related to behavioral change principles were based on empirical operant conditioning research (e.g., Kazdin, 2005; McSweeney & Murphy, 2014; Smagner & Sullivan, 2005); such survey questions provided the trainers with information on probation staff’s basic knowledge related to changing youths’ behaviors that could then be translated into new probationary practices. Additionally, given the importance of understanding adolescent brain development to maximize young people’s cognitive capacities in the context of probation (Goldstein et al., 2015), survey items were drafted to elicit previous knowledge on key principles of adolescent development.

Although initially designed as a quality assurance measure to ensure the Graduated Response trainings met their goals (e.g., increase knowledge around Graduated Response practices, adolescent neurobehavioral development, and behavior change strategies), we recognized that the survey also provided information about individual staff’s knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about transitioning to new probation practices—key information that probation departments could use to identify additional ways to support staff during the transition. Given the thematic goals of the training and of the quality assurance measure, we expected that the survey would show a relationship between items assessing similar themes and concepts. However, the measure has not previously been studied to validate this hypothesis. Therefore, to provide foundational empirical support for the POABB scale, the current study identified psychometric properties of the measure and examined its internal factor structure. Understanding the underlying factors of the POABB scale can provide support for its continued use within probation departments implementing reform to assess staff members’ knowledge of developmentally appropriate supervision strategies and willingness to adopt Graduated Response practices, in line with national recommendations (e.g., NCJFCJ, 2017a). 

METHODS

To continue reading, download the full open access article.