dress rehearsal for citizenship: using theatre to teach law-related education to diverted youth

Dress Rehearsal for Citizenship: Using Theatre to Teach Law-

Related Education to Diverted Youth by Sue Larison, M.S.W., Deborah Williamson, and Paul Knepper

A national initiative to develop law-related education programs for juvenile justice populations is underway. In 1990, the U.S. Depart- ment of Justice's Ofice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched the National Training and Dissemination Project to pilot law-related education programs in juvenile justice settings from Rhode Island to California. The initiative began in September ofthat year, when more than a hundred juvenile justice personnel from 35 states gathered inKansas City, Missouri for the first national conference on Law-Related Education in Ju- venile Justice Settings. Since then, the initiative has gained strength. By September 1992, 56 law-related education programs were oper- ating in institutional schools, diversion, detention, and community settings across the nation (ABNYEFC 1992).

The Law-Related Education/Juvenile Jus- tice initiative grew out of an earlier movement to teach elementary and secondary school chil-

dren about the qualities of citizenship. Law- Related Education (LRE), is an interactive educational program designed to educate youth about law and the foundations of democracy. During the 1970s, national civic education organizations teamed up with attorneys, teachers, and court personnel to conduct mock trials, distribute law-related books and videos, and bring judges and attorneys to schools and communities across the country (Zapkowski 1993).

Kentucky has become a leader in the national LRE movement. Two of the 16 pilot sites selected in the 1990 initiative were lo- cated in the state, and Kentucky has hosted a national LRE training symposium for juvenile justice professionals. Kentucky has fielded nontraditional LRE projects, including project PRINCE (Young 1992) and Teen Court (Williamson, Chalk and Knepper 1993). Ken- tucky established an LRE director in 199 1, and is currently the only state to have implemented

Sue Larison is a Kentucky native. She attended Morehud State Univenity where she received a Bachelor's degree in Social Work. She received her M.S.W. from the University of Kentucky. Sue is the founder of the Theater in Diversion Program in Kentucky and had been certified to t u c h Law-Related Education through the University of Colorado at Boulder. She most recently received the Juvenile Justice Award of Merit from Eastern Kentucky University for her work with Theater in Diversion.

Deborah Williamson was appointed to serve as the dircctor of the Kentucky Law-Related Education Program by Chief Justice Robert F. Stephen of the Kentucky Supreme Court in July 1991. In school syrtmr, juvenile correction settingr and community contexts, Ms. Williamson conducts law-related education awareness and training sesabna, which highlight topics such as current research findings in the field, theoretical underpinnings, methodology and marshalling community support, for educators, law enforcement officers, juvenile jurticc practitioners and other community leaders. In addition, rhe has ptsaonted the Kentucky LRE model and research findings at the National Juvenile Detention Association Conference, the National Juvenile Juatiw Training Symposium, the American Bar Association's Youth for Citizenship Education Conference and the National Training and Dissemination's LRE in Juvenile Justice Settings Conference. Finally, Ms. Williamson is responsible for authoring grants to support LRE initiatives occurring throughout the state.

Prior to her appointment as director ofthe state-wide project, Ms. Williamson served aa m intake and diversion oflticer in the northern Kentucky a m and as a field supervisor for the state's Court Designated Worker Program.

MS. Williamson holds an MAdegree in cultural anthropology from the University ofCincinnati and is currently enrolled in the doctoral program at the University of Kentucky, Department of Sociology. Her a m of intercat is cognitive programming for juvenile offenders.

Paul Knepper is Assistant Professor of Political Science and Diroctor of the Justice Studies Program at Northern Kentucky University. He has published in diverse journals; most recently, he co-authored articles on juvenile parole and teen court. He is currently conducting an evaluation of teen court for the Kentucky Administrative Offrcc of the Courts.

1994 I Juvenile and Family Court Journal 55

Dress Rehearsal for Citizenship

diversion-based LRE programs on a statewide basis (Williamson and Young 1992).

This article describes an innovative LRE program in Kenton County, Kentucky, which uses theatre to teach youth diverted from juvenile court. A novel program that brought together the interests of an actor on a popular TV series and a determined juvenile justice professional, the theatre-in-diversion program presents a powerful medium for extending the benefits of LRE to troubled youth. In staging a law-related theatrical production, an LREI Theatre program can operate as a dress rehearsal for the roles participating youth will play as citizens for the rest of their lives. The Idea of Law-Related Education

The beginning of LRE can be tracked to Isidore Starr, a professor of Education at Queens College in New York. Stan believed that the method of reasoning taught to law students had benefits for persons outside the legal profes- sion. During the 195Os, Starr developed curriculum materials incorporating the case study and Socratic methods for use in secondary school.

Stan’s enthusiastic support for LRE at- tracted the interest of Leon Jaworski, President of the American Bar Association (ABA) in the early 1970s. Jaworski sought to bring an understanding of law and citizenship to school- age populations and stated that “if there was anything that he wanted to be remembered for, it was bringing an understanding of the law to our elementary and secondary schools’’ (Zapkowski 1993:9). Jaworksi managed to get the ABA interested in law-related education, and the ABA created the Special Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship (YEFC). The YEFC has hosted national LRE leadership semi- nars since 1978, and currently maintains the Chicago-based National Law-Related Educa- tion Resource Center.

Other early LRE programs began in Cali- fornia and the District of Columbia. California’s program began in 1964, when administrators from the Schools of Law and Education, and the Department of Political Science at the Uni- versity of California at Los Angeles formed the Committee on Civic Education. The Commit- tee on Civic Education received funds to pilot 56 Juvenile and FamiIy Court Journal I 1994

curriculum on due process of law at UCLA’s University Elementary School. Four years later, the State Bar of California took an interest in civic education, and developed a new project - - Law in a Free Society -- to bring together lawyers, teachers, professors and judges to develop a kindergarten through twelfth grade curriculum. By 1976, more than 4500 teachers had participated in field testing and evaluation. In 1981, the California State Bar established the Center for Civic Education, which assumed responsibility for the Law in a Free Society project and other civic education programs.

The District of Columbia’s LRE project began at Georgetown Law School. In the early 1970% faculty conducted the Street Law Project, a program that brought law students and local educators together to teach a course in “street law” in the D.C. public schools. Street law covered criminal, consumer and family law along with basic concepts central to citizenship in a democracy: justice, authority, rights and responsibilities. In 1975, the National Street Law Institute (now the National Institute for Citizen Education in The Law or NICEL) was founded to broaden the education effort. NICEL’s D.C. Center for Civic Education in Law conducted model programs throughout the United States, and recently, has implemented programs in several foreign countries, including Bolivia, Hungary, South Africa and the Philippines.

Beginning with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, Con- gress funded a number of LRE projects conducted by civic education organizations across the country. Recognizing that it was important to determine what impact, if any, these programs had on student behavior, OJJDP con- tracted with the Social Science Education Con- sortium and the Center for Action Research at the University of Colorado to undertake a two- year evaluation. The evaluators, who used self-reported delinquency to measure behav- ioral change, concluded that when taught ac- cording to specific standards, LRE served as a deterrent to delinquent behavior (Hunter 1991).

LRE remained a school-based program, however, until OJJDP established the National Training and Dissemination Program (NTDP)

Sue Larison, et al.

in 1983. NTDP is a cooperative effort between the Department of Justice and five civic education organizations: the -A’s Special Com- mittee on Youth Education, the Center for Civic Education, the Constitutional Rights Foundation, the National Institute for Citizen Education in the Law, and the Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center. In NTDP’s first year, the consortium worked to institutionalize delinquency prevention programs in schools by distributing resource materials to juvenile justice workers and by offering seed grants to local LRE projects.

In 1990, OJJDP experimented with LRE for juvenile justice populations in a variety of settings. LRE programs appeared indiversion, detention, correctional programs, training schools and group homes. In that same year, NTDP embarked on its three-year initiative to introduce LRE into juvenile justice programs throughout the country by offering coordina- tion and management, public information, training and technical assistance, program development and assessment through the cooperating organizations.

When NTDP sponsored its Kentucky LRE programs, it found an influential ally in Robert F. Stephens, Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court. Stephens, who had given hundreds of talks to civic groups across the state, was convinced that the law was some- thing non-lawyers ought to know about. He explored legal education programs in other parts of the country, and learning about other state’s efforts provided him with the incentive to explore LRE.

As the administrative head of the state’s court system, Stephens was uniquely qualified to spearhead a campaign to promote LRE. In Kentucky, the Administrative Ofice of the Courts (AOC) serves as staff for the chief justice. The AOC, charged with performing fiscal, personnel and education duties for the Court of Justice, includes the Division of Juve- nile Services. Juvenile Servicesmaintains Court Designated Workers (CDWs), who operate in each of the state’s 59 judicial districts, and provide intake for the Court of Justice.

Kentucky’s AOC received NTDP funding in September 1990, and CDWs from 12 judi-

cial districts received training. In November 1990, Justice Stephens organized a 26-mem- ber roundtable composed of district court judges, attorneys, educators, juvenile justice workers and others to direct LRE activities in schools, communities, and juvenile justice settings throughout the state. In June and July 199 1, LRE received the support needed to train additional juvenile justice workers from the National Diffusion Network at the University of Colorado and the Kentucky Bar Foundation. The AOC formally adopted the LRE program in October 1991, making LRE a diversion option for youth referred to CDWs. Justice Stephens appointed an LRE director (Deborah Williamson), and Kentucky became the first state to implement LRE-based diversion programs on a statewide level.

The Goals of LRE The principle underlying LRE is straight-

forward: If youth appreciate the principles underlying our law and government, they are less likely to violate them. Young people without some grasp of their rights and responsibilities under the law lack essential intellectual prerequisites for citizenship in a free society (see, for example, Ross 1990). Or as Chief Justice Stephens (1988:l) puts it: “Lack of knowledge, misinformation, and confusion about the legal process, lead to suspicion, dis- respect, and disregard for not only the indi- viduals who administer justice, but for the justice administered.”

Although LRE programs use different curricula, they share core ingredients of content, action and people.

Content. LRE curricula focus on the foundations of democratic society, on criminal and civil law, and on the judicial process. Provoca- tive and controversial legal, social, political and historical issues make up the heart of LRE lessons.

Action. LRE facilitators use interactive teaching strategies that generate enthusiastic participation. LRE participants brainstorm ideas, work in small groups, and perform role plays and mock trials. They also travel to law libraries, police stations and courthouses to see how and where justice is administered.



People. LRE participants interact with peers and positive role models. Community resource persons, such as legislators, attorneys, and police officers, are brought in to offer firsthand accounts of their role in the justice process (American Bar Association 1991 : 3).

During the multi-week program, LRE participants are expected to acquire a conceptual knowledge of the legal system and the principles that form the basis of citizenship in a democratic society; to display positive attitudes toward authority, government and public officials; to receive a positive message from LRE participants and facilitators that builds self-esteem, self-confidence and personal accountability; and to develop analytical thinking skills necessary for problem-solving and decision-making. Ultimately, successful LRE participants are expected to demonstrate the qualities of citizenship at home, school, and in society; and to make positive life choices that decrease the likelihood of participation in ille- gal activities.

LRE is compatible with intervention for youth populations, particularly high-risk youth populations, because it builds resiliency to risk. By targeting aspects of social competence, problem-solving skills, and developing a sense of autonomy, the LRE curriculum equips youth with cognitive skills to resist pressures to en- gage in delinquent behavior. By teaching LRE in an interactive forum that stresses participation and community involvement, LRE repre- sents a structural intervention that builds resiliency to environmental forces which create high-risk situations (Buzzell 1991 , 1 993).2

Kentucky’s LRE initiative operates in a diversion setting through its network of CDWs. CDWs, who process all complaints on indi- viduals under age eighteen, use uniform crite- ria derived from ABA standards to determine which juvenile offenders must be referred to formal court and which are eligible for informal processing. First-time, and occasionally second-time juvenile offenders accused of mis- demeanor and low-level felony charges such as shoplifting, harassment, and criminal mischief are eligible for informal processing. Informal processing includes victim restitution, community service, drug/alcohol assessments, cur-

58 Juvenile and Family Court Journal l 1994

few, and seminar attendance, including the LRE program.

Youth who elect informal processing nego- tiate a diversion agreement with the CDW at a formal conference. CDWs monitor youth placed on diversion who have six months to fulfill the terms of their contract. Juveniles who successfully complete their agreements have the original complaint dismissed. Juve- niles who fail to comply are referred to formal court for traditional proceedings.

CDWs throughout Kentucky implement LRE programs that follow a similar curriculum format. The first week amounts to an orienta- tion session in which the participants’ knowledge and attitudes are pre-tested and parents are involved. The remaining 1 1 weeks concen- trate on the rationale for rules; decision-making and responsibility; precepts ofjustice; family and environmental law; and constitutional rights. In the last two lessons, participants practice and conduct a mock trial, and they complete post-tests of knowledge and behavior. Other LRE lessons focus on juvenile arrest, diversion, formal court, the differences between the juvenile and adult systems, and on child neglect and abuse.

Kentucky’s curriculum model was informed by research conducted by Robert Hunter at the University of Colorado’s Center for Action Research. Hunter’s classroom observations uncovered six key factors of effective LRE programs. These were: (1) Adequate prepara- tion and use of outside resource people; (2) Use of teaching strategies that foster true interaction and joint work among students; (3) Judi- cious selection and presentation of course materials; (4) Provision of sufficient quantity and quality of instruction; ( 5 ) Availability of professional peer support for teachers and teacher use of such support; and (6) Active involvement of administrators (Hunter 199 l).3

Theatre as Diversion in Kenton County

Kenton County’s theatre program did not begin as a LRE demonstration project. Rather, it started when the CDW, Sue Larison, read an article in November 1992 about Peg Phillips in a local newspaper. Peg Phillips, perhaps best

Sue Larison, et al.

known for her role as storeowner Ruth Ann in the CBS television series “Northern Expo- sure,” is an accomplished actor concerned about troubled youth. For the past five years, Phillips had conducted Theatre Inside, a program fea- turing weekly drama workshops for the residents of Echo Glen, a maximum security insti- tution for juvenile offenders at Snoqualmie, Washington. Larison contacted Phillips, and she agreed to share the program concept.

Theatre Inside matches three drama teachers with 12 incarcerated juveniles. The actors conduct a fast-paced workshop in which the students take part in exercises facilitated by the teachers, all of whom have had experience or training in dramatic performance. Teachers and students begin work in small groups, then prepare to stage a production. The actors make no attempt to offer psychological therapy or rehabilitative instruction, nor do they teach acting techniques per se. Unlike the kind of drama taught in a high school drama class, which stresses techniques of internalization and characterization for example, Theatre In- side emphasizes a flexible, criticism-free interaction between students and teachers. The program uses the study of drama to provide a forum in which to instill cooperation, create relationships, build self-esteem, and cultivate imagination.

Larison obtained permission to conduct a Kentucky version of the Theatre Inside from the Administrative Ofice of the Courts. AOC staffrecognized the tremendous LRE potential of the program and encouraged her to implement a pilot program for youth placed on diversion. Larison then enlisted the support of Buz Davis. Davis, who founded a local theatre company after five years intheatre in New York City, found Larison’s Theatre-in-Diversion idea to be a meaningful form of community outreach. He volunteered to coordinate the project. As theater manager of Covington’s Carnegie Theater, he provided the facility necessary to stage the production, and assisted Larison in obtaining agrant from the Kentucky Arts Coun- cil.

In March 1993, Buz Davis and Sue Larison spent three days in Washington at Phillips’s Echo Glen workshop. They observed the The- atre Inside program in action, and participated

in a video-taped question-and-answer session with the actors who facilitated the workshop. Davis and Larison also met with Peg Phillips and her administrative assistant to discuss the program and obtain permission to use her original script “I Wanna Be Me!”.

Back in Kentucky, the two recruited facilitators. They found two volunteer actors from local university theatre departments, two professional actors residing in northern Kentucky, and a technical director from the local professional theatre community. They also adapted the script to incorporate LRE themes and operate in a diversion setting. Because Theatre Inside had been developed without the support of ajuvenile justice professional, no LRE concepts had been incorporated into the program. Unlike the residents of Echo Glen, Kentucky’s participants had not seen the inside of a courtroom.

Kenton County, an urban area of 142,000, lies just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, a metropolitan area of about 1.7 million. Covington, the county’s principal city, is the third largest Kentucky city. The aging build- ings surrounding the Carnegie Theater reveal the city’s Germanic heritage, as does the resto- ration of a number of 19th-century houses nearby. Covington’s proximity to Cincinnati creates an urban environment not unlike other midwestern cities with a million inhabitants, although the Ohio River links the city to a historic legacy common to urban centers further south.

The youth in the program were referred from the Kenton County CDW’s ofice. They had an array of charges including status, mis- demeanors, and felony offenses. Five girls and six boys, ranging from 12 to 17 participated. In order to participate, the juvenile had to express an interest in the theatre project and be avail- able for the multi-week schedule (have trans- portation, and be free from other commitments such as part-time work). Each potential participant was given several diversion options: attending a traditional LRE program, performing community service work, and the theatre project, In this way, the youth who participated were similar to youth who chose not to participate.



Six weeks of training preceded the performance. During the training, acting techniques such as Interview the Expert, Name Acting, Statues, and Audience Focusing were used.

Interview the Expert. One workshop mem- ber becomes an “Interviewer” and another the “Expert” in any subject the Interviewer could imagine. The interview follows a talk-show format invoking questions from other members who make up theaudience. This exercise gave the participants confidence in being on- stage without worrying about remembering lines.

Name Acting. The participants and facilitator stand in a circle. Each steps into the circle and states his or her name in a way that reveals their emotional state. The group steps in after each individual, repeating the name and parroting the tone of voice and physical ges- tures. The exercise provided a way of breaking the ice, but also gave each participant the opportunity to see how others see them.

Statues. One participant becomes the “mold of clay” and another the “sculptor.” The sculptor shapes a particular emotion into the mold of clay known only to the two of them. The remaining workshop members attempt to guess the sculpted emotion. Statues gave the juveniles the opportunity to experiment with control over the relationship between inner emotion and outward expression.

Audience Focusing. Two workshop members stood on one-side of the stage and two members stood across from them while the other participants watched. Each dramatized the same scenario, except that one mimed and the other vocalized. In the middle of the scene, the facilitator called “Switch!” and the mimes vocalized and the vocalizers mimed. This exercise gave the youth the sense that more than one means of communication can be used to channel emotional reactions.

At first, the youth mumbled and avoided eye contact. Many had built shells around themselves, and refused to let anyone else inside. During the first few weeks, some appeared late for rehearsals, a few skipped them altogether. But about the fourth week, a transformation occurred. The participants displayed ownership of the project, and by the tenth week

60 Juvenile and Fomily Court Journal I 1994

the feeling of belonging expressed by the participants was evident to outside observers.

The group staged their performance in the CarnegieTheatre. Parents, fellow CDWs, AOC supervisors, and community leaders were in- vited. Some weeks later, the troupe volunteered to perform at a statewide CDW conference. For this performance, they awoke at four in the morning for a three hour van ride. They entered the conference room, hung spot lights, set up the sound system, and strung extension cords. An hour later, they began the performance, interrupted by spontaneous applause from the audience. When the performance ended, the young actors received a standing ovation.

Using Theatre to Teach LRE As soon as the drama exercises began, it

became clear that theatre could be a powerful medium to teach LRE to youth. The performing arts -- film, television, theatre productions -- permeate every comer of American society. A generation ofyouth raised on video responded well to thevisual format. LRE lessons could be incorporated into the script. Not only could students hear and discuss concepts of justice and law, they could act them out.

As adapted for diversion by Larison and Davis, the “I Wanna Be Me!” script naturally contained law-related concepts. In one scene, one of the principal characters imagines herself becomingthe first woman president. She pictures herself contending with lobbyists from two foreign nations, each of whom hopes to receive valuable oil concessions from the U.S. Government. One lobbyist questions her authority to make such a decision, a decision which would impact not only his own country, but the rest of the world as well. The dialogue distinguishes between the exercise of authority, and the use of power without authority, an essential LRE lesson.

Other scripts could be developed to provide additional LRE content. Great works of Ameri- can and western literature, such as Puddn ’Head Wilson, The Devil in Daniel Webster, To Kill a Mockingbird, Antigone, and All the King S Men contain rich deposits of moral and legal principles that young actors could mine. Great

Sue Larison, et al.

American trials of Fred Korematsu, the Chi- cago Eight, William Calley, and Standing Bear could be scripted for LRE programs. So could trials in other nations that involve profound legal and human rights issues: Nelson Mandella or Steve Biko in South Africa; Nazi war-criminal Klaus Barbie; Alexander Bustemante, Jamaica’s first prime minister. .It is difficult to imagine a more interactive, participatory strat- egy for learning about the law than to enact courtroom dramas raising questions of authority, power, justice, and polity.

Not only does the medium of the theatre offer a means of teaching LRE content, it offers action, too. During the weeks leading up to the production, the participants engaged in a means of learning that reinforced accountability and self-esteem. Preparing, and eventually performing, in front of an audience gave the students self-confidence and self-respect. Acting out emotions on demand gave them a sense of self-control, and having other participants mimic their actions in Name Acting and other techniques engendered a feeling of empower- ment. Receiving immediate approval in the form of applause and handshakes, provided immediate and overwhelming acceptance. Being asked for autographs from strangers was a powerful form of praise that allowed the youth to take pride in their accomplishments, and gave them faith in their ability to be productive members of their community.

The transformation in one 13-year-old girl illustrates the potential of the LRERheatre program. For the ten weeks of the workshop she had kept her head downcast, occasionally peaking from behind the bangs that covered her other eye and most of her face. She refused to make eye contact, and whispered her lines only after great coaxing from the facilitator. Her distress was so great that the night before the performance, a facilitator called her to say she did not have to perform. She declined the offer, and acted her part as scheduled. Two weeks later, she appeared for the encore performance. Her hair smartly pulled back and a wearing a confident smile, she was the first to volunteer for improvisation in front of the hundred strangers facing the platform.

Theatre provides the third element of LRE as well: people. In working with the facilita-

tors, the juvenile participants found someone who took an interest in them. As the relationship with these teachers grew, the youth began to recognize the value ofbuilding links with people outside their immediate peer groups. The values displayed by the facilitator provided an alternative to the subcultural values they had come with, and as the juveniles began to reflect these values, the promise of resiliency revealed itself.

Rehearsing and giving the performance reinforced a sense of togetherness. For the production to take place as scheduled, each individual had to make a commitment to the group. When one came late to practice lines, others indicated their disapproval which underscored the importance of being on time and fulfilling agreements. Together, the troupe solved prob- lems of equipment shortages, scheduling, and other day-to-day obstacles. Getting to the performance meant that the group had learned more than acting, they had learned about working cooperatively as a group.

The dramatic production linked youth with their community. From the mayor to parents, the production brought together community members. At-risk youth were exposed to the importance of community participation. Com- munity leaders witnessed youth working together to improve the quality of social life. In a kind of role reversal, alienated youth participated in community outreach. Rather than undermining social cohesion by acting out, they had become community organizers by acting and had improved the quality of life in an urban neighborhood.

As adapted for Kentucky youth, the LREI Theatre concept demonstrated that the program can incorporate each of Hunter’s (1 99 1) six prescriptions for effective LRE programs. The project secured adequately-prepared community resource persons, mainly members of the local theatre community. The drama exercises (Name Acting, Statues and so on) repre- sent interactive learning strategies, and the script contained avariety of instructional materials. Ten weeks of interaction with the facilitator amount to a significant quantity and quality of instruction. The project had peer support -- CDWs from neighboring counties assisted



with the project and are seeking additional training --and from administrators -- the state's LRE director supported the project from its inception. Further modification will make the theatre project an even more effective LRE medium.

The Future of Theatre and LRE The troupe that performed in Covington

and Frankfort agreed to perform a third time in Richmond, Kentucky in September 1993. Two of the participants have volunteered at the Northern Kentucky Arts Council and two others have accepted paid positions as sound tech- nicians for future Arts Council productions.

In fall 1993, Sue Larison initiated a survey of college and university theatre departments across the state to assess interest in support for future programs. She is exploring various funding sources, and is investigating additional ways to enhance the program. Peg Phillips is working on another script, and other scripts incorporating LRE themes are under prepara- tion. Whether or not the program extends to other parts of the state, and to other states, depends on the willingness of juvenile justice practitioners to bring the necessary ingredients together.

Kenton County's theatre-in-diversion experiment has demonstrated the potential of dramatic performance as an LRE medium. Theatre takes the LRE approach a step further. High interest topics, group discussions, en- counters with community leaders, are enhanced by acting out LRE concepts. Students learn lessons in rights and responsibilities in a democracy, they learn about their own abilities and interests, and they build a bridge to their community. In staging adramatic performance, LRE presents a program in which troubled youth literally learn to act out productive social roles. It becomes a dress rehearsal for citizenship.

Authors ' Addrresses

Sue Larison, M.S.W. Court Designated Worker Administrative Ofice of the Courts County Bldg., Room 606 303 Court St. Covington, KY 4 10 1 1

Deborah Williamson, Director Law-Related Education Program Administrative Office of the Courts 100 Millcreek Park Frankfort, KY 4060 1 -9230

and

Paul Knepper, Director Justice Studies Program Political Science Department Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights, KY 4 1099-2207

Notes

'For the early history of LRE we are indebted to Bebs Chorak, Norma Wright, Robert Hunter, and David Naylor

'other research has shown that LRE is an effective means of intervention. B a d on interviews with staff at the Iowa State Training School where LRE waa delivered to youth in an institutional environment, Buzzell (1988) found positive outcomes within LRE participants, including an awareness of the need for rules, and a willingness to cooperate. Buzzell (1991) found that LRE puticipante not only v o i d an improved understanding of the legal process and a greater appreciation for rules, but used some of the rocial skills taught in the curriculum. In addition, Young ( 1992), who interviewed youth diverted to a 40-hour LRE program in four Kentucky counties, found favorable attitudes toward authority and an awareness of the value of law-abiding behavior. Sce also Hunter et a]., (1981) and Ross (1990).

'Hunter also found that when LRE is not taught effectively -- when facilitators and resource persons communicate cynicirmabout the efficacy of the law - the potential for delinquency may be enhanced.

62 Juvenile and Family Court Journal I 1994

Sue Larison, et al.

References American Bar AssociatiodSpecial Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship, 1992, Law-

Related Education Programs in Juvenile Justice Settings. Chicago: National Law- related Education Resource Center.

, 199 1 , “What is LRE?” LRE Project Exchange 8(2):3. Buzzell, Timothy L., 1993, “Using Law-Related Education to Foster Social Development:

Towards a Cognitive/Structural Intervention.” Unpublished paper. Iowa Center for Law-Related Education, Drake University.

, 1991, “Using Law-Related Education as an Intervention with ‘High Risk’ Youth,” LRE Project Exchange 8(2):3-7.

,1988, “Law-Related Education in Juvenile Justice Settings: Applications in the Iowa State Training School,” New Designs for Youth Development 8:43-47.

Hunter, Robert H., 199 1 , “Law-Related Education and Delinquency Prevention: Implications for Pre-Service Teacher Education,” in Prospects and Challenges: Law-Related Education. Chicago: American Bar AssociatiodSpecial Committee on Youth Educa- tion for Citizenship.

Hunter, Robert, Grant Johnson, Peter Kissel, Brian Bemus and Barbara Krauth, 1987, The Structure of Community-Based Corrections in Colorado. Center for Action Research, University of Colorado.

Ross, Robert R., 1990, “Time to Think: A Cognitive Model of Offender Rehabilitation and Delinquency Prevention.” Research Summary. Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa.

Stephens, Robert F., 1988, Law-Related Education in Kentucky: What We Am Doing -- What We Should Be Doing. PAD Monograph Series. Bethesda, MD: Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center.

Young, Christie J., 1992, “Law-Related Education: An Analysis of the Project Prince Model Implemented in Kentucky’s Juvenile Justice System.” M.S. Thesis. Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond.

Williamson, Deborah, Michelle Chalk, and Paul Knepper, 1993, “Teen Court: Juvenile Justice for the 21 st Century?” Federal Probation 57:54-58.

Williamson, Deborah, and Christie Young, 1992, “Law-Related Education as aDiversion Option for Juvenile Offenders in Kentucky,” Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services 7: 16-2 1.

Zapkowski, Jeanne A., 1993, “Bringing the Law to Life,” Cincinnati Bar Association Report. April, pp. 8-9.


dress rehearsal for citizenship: using theatre to teach law-related education to diverted youth

Documents