Incentives That Work: What Motivates Youth on Probation?

Featured Article

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law| 2025, Vol. 131, No. 1, p. 45- 55.

Article Title

What Youth Want: Youths’ Perceptions of Incentives in Juvenile Probation

Authors

Justin T. Richardson - School of Interdisciplinary Forensics, Arizona State University

Kelsey E. Tom - School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

Adam D. Fine - School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

Abstract

Juvenile probation, which impacts the vast majority of justice-involved youth, would benefit from incorporating developmentally informed practices. Under the rationale that rewards reinforce positive and prosocial behavior, jurisdictions are increasingly incorporating incentives into juvenile probation. However, little is known about what motivates justice-involved youth. This study of youth on probation examines youths’ perceptions of probation incentives. Developmental research suggests that adolescents are particularly susceptible to social feedback, experience an increased desire for autonomy, and are particularly sensitive to monetary rewards; thus, we explored what youthful probationers believe would motivate them to do well in juvenile probation. This was a self-report study of 491 youth on standard probation in a large, urban jurisdiction in the southwest United States. Youth indicated that recognition-based incentives (M = 3.68, SE= 0.05) would be more compelling than autonomy-based incentives (M=3.46, SE=0.05), and autonomy-based incentives would be more compelling than monetary-based incentives (M= 3.02, SE=0.06) with a large effect within the omnibus test (ηp 2 = .14). Overall, these findings suggest that receiving feedback in the form of recognition may be particularly motivating for youth on probation. Implications for future research, juvenile justice policy, and juvenile probation practice are discussed.

Keywords

adolescent, probation, development, incentives, graduated response system

Summary of Research

“Once placed on probation, youth receive a variety of requirements such as restitution, drug testing, and community service hours in an effort to hold youth accountable and change. However, this approach is often unsuccessful as further infractions are met with additional sanctions, and it is not uncommon for a youth to be rearrested while still under an officer’s surveillance. In part, this is because punishment, or the threat thereof, alone is often insufficient to motivate individuals to improve their behavior… Incentive systems are only effective if youth actually desire the reward. Yet, what types of incentives justice-involved youth want has received minimal empirical attention.

The current study examines the types of incentives justice-involved youth believe would motivate them to succeed on probation. By understanding what motivates youth, graduated response systems can become more developmentally informed and tailored toward youth to promote behavioral change. In the following sections, we review the relevant literatures on traditional probation practices and incentives before outlining the current study…, more than half of youth on probation often fail to comply with their probation terms, and there is a belief that traditional probation practices may increase youths’ likelihood of recidivism. As such, jurisdictions are increasingly seeking more developmentally appropriate tools and systems, one of which involves the use of incentives” (p. 45- 46).

“While the existence of the incentives themselves can be particularly motivating, in this case they serve a dual purpose. Specifically, incentives become a tool to both motivate and reinforce behavior. Incentive systems may be particularly effective during adolescence for several reasons. Adolescence is a unique developmental period, one that is marked by many neurological milestones and changes to sociocultural behaviors… adolescence is a unique period wherein youth seek opportunities to express and develop their autonomy. Importantly, adolescents have increased reward-seeking and risk-taking behavior when compared to other age groups” (p. 46).

“The current study fills a gap in the literature by examining youths’ perspectives on common probation incentives by asking: What do youth believe would motivate them to be compliant on probation? We expect youth to prefer monetary incentives over autonomy- or recognition-based incentives. This difference is due to reward-seeking behavior and inclination toward short-term and monetary rewards peaking in adolescence… Partnering with a large jurisdiction in the southwest United States, between December 2020 and March 2021, we sampled youth who had been on juvenile standard probation for at least 30 days” (p. 47).

“In this study, youth on probation in a large urban jurisdiction were asked the extent to which a variety of frequently utilized probationary incentives would motivate them. We compared three incentive categories: autonomy, recognition, and monetary. The autonomy incentive category was related to giving youth greater freedoms such as a later curfew, less meetings with the probation staff, or special permission to attend an event. The recognition-based incentive category was created using incentives related to youths’ probation staff telling the family, judge, or victim about the positive changes the youth had made. The final category, monetary incentives, was comprised of a reduction in fines or fees or receiving gift cards to various stores.

…Youth were most motivated by incentives in the form of their family, the judge, or the victim hearing about their positive efforts. This result aligns with previous research finding that the desire for positive attention from other people may peak in late adolescence. While the present study did not assess if youth with more positive relationships with their POs, judges, and/or parents/guardians more strongly desired recognition-based incentives, future research should clearly explore this topic. For instance, previous studies have found that firm, fair, and caring relationships between people on parole and community corrections staff can protect against rearrest. We theorize that a poor relationship with a juvenile PO, for example, could undermine the effect of recognition-based incentives and undermine their capacity to be an effective reward, but additional research is necessary” (p. 50).

“The present study found that recognition-based, a category consisting of positive social reinforcement, was the most desired compared to autonomy-based and monetary-based incentives, which both consisted of positive and negative reinforcers. However, the current study did not assess if there is a meaningful difference in youths’ behavior when positive or negative reinforcers are received largely because the jurisdiction, like many others, does not systematically track the use of incentives. While scholars have argued that the distinction between positive and negative reinforcers may be negligible and share many of the same brain regions regarding anticipation of a reward or loss, it is possible that in the present context, the distinction could be meaningful” (p. 52).

Translating Research into Practice

“...Assessing youths’ interest level in different types of incentives and then applying those incentives accordingly could be more fruitful than adopting a one-size-fits-all type of policy and would align with the principle of responsivity. While in the process of gauging a youth’s set of dynamic risk factors, there could be an opportunity to discover what types of incentives that you would find particularly motivating to not recidivate. Moreover, these incentives can be used in tandem with each rehabilitative treatment…

This approach allows for probation staff to clearly define the expectations for a youth’s treatment and the subsequent reward for being successful in a way that is responsive to what that youth wants. This type of individualization of care could enhance the fidelity of treatment and potentially reduce the likelihood of technical violations or recidivism. By using this approach, probation staff gain another opportunity to engage with youth as a social worker and valued nonparental adult” (p. 50).

“In line with positive youth change, engaging with youth in conversations about their desired incentives might help youth transition from a role focused on compliance to where they are as a voluntary partner… Along these lines, the results of the current study are currently being used in conversations to reshape the sample jurisdiction’s graduated incentive ladder and what incentives are prioritized for youth. For instance, rather than implementing formal recognition from probation staff in court only when youth are highly compliant, conversations are occurring about lowering the threshold for recognition such that staff can share a youth’s minor successful steps more frequently and at earlier times during probation.

In addition, this invites the opportunity for innovation around such feedback, such as the judge and other courtroom members writing a formal letter to a youth at the end of probation highlighting the changes they have seen and how specifically they have watched the youth grow. Further, probation staff could create more dynamic incentives ladders, where each youth can choose what rewards they want to prioritize to best motivate their own success. While the current study could not assess the effectiveness of the sample jurisdiction’s use of incentives in promoting compliance and reducing recidivism, other scholars have noted some initial success” (p. 51).

Other Interesting Tidbits for Researchers and Clinicians

“By broadening our understanding of what rewards youth want and what may be practical for changing youths’ behavior, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of what motivates youth. Youth on probation are at a pivotal time in their life and a significant, well-tailored intervention may be able to positively impact their life-course trajectory and promote prosocial change. Incentives can aid youth in both completing juvenile probation and avoid further delinquency” (p. 53).