Missed Connection: Does Meeting Digitally Change How Supported Youth on Probation Feel?

Juvenile probation is the most common resolution for minors who are adjudicated delinquent. While on probation, a juvenile probation officer (JPO) monitors the youth, provides resources, and ensures they follow through on the probation terms they agreed to. Juvenile probation officers already used digital formats to meet with youths, but pandemic-related restrictions made digital interactions even more common. The interaction between minors on probation and their JPO is understudied, and now that these interactions are moving increasingly towards digital modalities, such as phone calls, texts, and video chats, it is increasingly important to understand how this is related to youths’ feelings of support from their JPOs, which research links to better probation outcomes.

Tom and colleagues (2025) sought to bridge this research gap with their paper, “Does Meeting in Person Matter? Examining Youths’ Perceived Support on Juvenile Probation.” Their aim was to examine, using self-reported measures from juveniles, how meeting type, interaction quality, and frequency with their JPO were associated with youths’ perceived support. The study was conducted in a large urban Southwestern county and included responses from 529 juveniles aged 11-19 years who were on standard probation at the time of the study. Because youth were surveyed at a single point in time, the study can show associations but not causation.

Researchers asked youth whether they met with their JPO never, rarely, sometimes, or most of the time for each meeting modality: in person, over the phone, via text message, or via video chat. They measured interaction quality by asking youth how much they agreed with four statements: if their JPO is encouraging, treats them fairly, listens to them, and is transparent with them about what would happen if they violated their probation. These statements are based on procedural justice theory, which holds that people view the law and legal authority more favorably when they are treated fairly. Youth responded on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Finally, youth were asked how supported they felt in each kind of meeting modality using a 5-point scale (strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)).

The researchers’ analysis matched their predictions: Meeting type was not associated with youth’s feelings of support. In other words, youth did not differ significantly in their feelings of support whether they met with their JPO in person or used a digital modality (phone call, text, video chat). The study also found that while youth reported meeting with their JPO most often by text, they felt slightly more supported by phone calls than by text messages, though the difference was small and no other formats differed significantly. However, the vast majority (about 85%) of youth reported meeting with their JPO using a mixture of three or more meeting types, while only 4% reported that their JPO used only one meeting type. Lastly, the frequency and quality of youth’s interactions with their JPO were both associated with how supported they felt. The more often youth met with their JPO, regardless of format, the more likely they were to feel strongly supported: each step up in meeting frequency raised the odds by roughly 70% to 150%, depending on the format. Perceived fairness mattered too, as each one-point increase in how procedurally just youth viewed their JPO raised the odds of feeling strongly supported by roughly 3 to 7 times.

Past research links supportive relationships with probation officers to more successful probation outcomes, and this study offers helpful insights into juveniles’ perspectives and what actually makes them feel supported. Although further research is needed to determine whether digital check-ins can fully replace face-to-face contact and whether the same applies to adults under community supervision, the pattern in this study is clear: the quality and frequency of interactions, not the meeting format, were associated with how supported youth felt. Juvenile officer training programs could use this study’s findings in two ways: maintaining regular check-ins in whatever formats work best for each youth while avoiding so much contact that youth feel overly monitored, and integrating principles of procedural justice in interactions with youth by emphasizing active listening, fair treatment, and clear expectations regarding probation conditions.

Tom, K. E., Allen, S., Cross, A. R., & Fine, A. D. (2025). Does meeting in person matter? Examining youths’ perceived support on juvenile probation. Law and Human Behavior, 49(3), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000606