effects of teen court: results of the ojjdp evaluation

URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Effects of Teen Court: Results of the OJJDP Evaluation

Jeffrey ButtsJaneen BuckMark Coggeshall

April 15, 2002

2002 National Youth Court ConferenceArlington, VA


The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)

Funded by

Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org



• A diversion program, offered as an alternative to the regular juvenile justice process

• Youth are usually required to admit responsibility for their offense in order to qualify for teen court

• Young offenders going through teen court agree to abide by whatever sanctions they are given

• Sanctions imposed by teen court often involve community service, written apologies, restitution payments, teen court jury duty, etc.

What is Teen Court?



Youth and parent(s) meet with teen court

Youth or parent(s) refuse diversion

Case returned to regular juvenile court process

Youth accepts responsibility

Youth denies responsibility

Youth goes to teen court, receives sanctions

Intake agency confirms

eligibility, offers diversion to youth

& parent(s)

Youth fails to complete sanctions

Youth faces original charges, juvenile court record

Youth completes sanctions

Case closed -- youth has no formal record

Youth arrested for an offense eligible

for teen court

Return to regular court process

The teen court process varies from place to place, but it typically looks something like this...

How Does Teen Court Work?



New charges sent to intake

New charges sent to juvenile court

New arrest by local police

New charges sent to family court

6%8%9% 9%

Alaska Arizona Maryland Missouri

Combined recidivism in all states

18%

All 4 States

Teen Court Cases

Comparison CasesSo, what was the bottom line?

The study measured six-month recidivism for youth in four teen court programs and four comparison groups.

Six-Month Recidivism



• Number of programs growing fast, nearly 900 courts nationwide, up to 100,000 cases annually

• Teen courts are not all alike

• Different program strategies may produce different client outcomes

• Researchers are just beginning to investigate this important issue

Why Evaluate Teen Courts?



• Peer-to-peer influence (quality, quantity)?

• Sanctions (certainty, severity, swiftness)?

• Improving youth perceptions of justice?

• Fairness and consistency of process?

• Professionalism, formality of program?

What Makes Teen Court Work?



What Makes Teen Court Work?

Some of these elements may conflict with one another

Until we have more evidence, we won’t know what the key elements are




The Urban Institute studied teen courts (or youth courts) in four sites from 2000 to 2002



Anchorage

AK

Maricopa County

AZ

Independence

MO

Montgomery County

MD

Four Study Sites



Four Study Sites

Alaska --

Arizona --

Maryland --

Missouri --

100% Youth Tribunal

50% Adult Judge / 50% Peer Jury

50% Adult Judge / 50% Peer Jury

100% Youth Judge

Percent of cases handled by court model Teen courts use four

courtroom models:

1) Adult Judge: An adult judge conducts hearings with youth attorneys & youth jury.

2) Youth Judge: A youth judge conducts hearings with youth attorneys & youth jury.

3) Youth Tribunal: Three youth judges conduct hearings with youth attorneys (no jury).

4) Peer Jury: Youth jurors question defendant directly (usually no attorneys; sometimes no judge).

The programs in Alaska and Missouri give more responsibility to youth volunteers who actually run the court sessions.



Evaluation Samples

Research Groups AK AZ MD MOTeen Court 120 115 154 142

Comparison 120 115 118 142

Number of Cases

Two different types of comparison groups were used. The Maryland comparison group was different from the comparison groups used in Alaska, Arizona, and Missouri.

In Alaska, Arizona, and Missouri, the comparison groups were selected from a general pool of comparable first-time juvenile offenders, matched on age, sex, race, and offense type.

The study did not attempt to influence or measure the extent to which these youth may have received sanctions and services.

They were chosen at random from the juvenile justice system, however, so they most likely received whatever response is typical for young, first-time offenders.



Evaluation Samples

Research Groups AK AZ MD MOTeen Court 120 115 154 142

Comparison 120 115 118 142

Number of Cases

The comparison group in Maryland, on the other hand, was selected from youth served by a proactive, police diversion program in a neighboring county.

They received services and sanctions that were similar to those offered by the teen court program, but without the court element itself.




Visits to the Four Study Sites



Anchorage Youth Court

Private, nonprofit agency

Handles 400+ cases annually

Uses youth tribunal model

Interesting Features:- Youth Bar Association- Supported by statute- Can hold full trials when warranted




The Anchorage Youth Court has its own office in a small, downtown building.




The building contains a reception area, small conference room, and several offices.




Court sessions are held in the State Court Building just across the street.




Inside the courtroom used by the Anchorage Youth Court.



Teen Court, Tempe Arizona

Administered by local court system


Uses adult judge model (50% cases) and peer jury model (50% cases)

Interesting Features:- Located in community justice centers- Many ex-defendants on juries- Close association with schools




The Tempe Teen Court operates out of the Tempe Justice Court, which has its facilities in a small shopping mall.




Inside the courtroom used by the Tempe Teen Court.




Jury box and spectator seating.



Montgomery County Teen Court

Administered by prosecutor’s office


Uses adult judge model (50% cases) and peer jury model (50% cases)

Interesting Features:- Strong support by local justice system- Volunteers get school service credits



Montgomery County Teen Court

Court sessions are held in the Judicial Center, in Rockville, Maryland.



Independence Youth Court

Private, nonprofit agency


Uses youth judge model

Interesting Features:- Local judge serves as director- Close ties to local police- Can hold full trials when warranted




Court sessions are held in the Municipal Court building in Independence, Missouri.




Inside the courtroom used by the Independence Youth Court.



Defendant ProfilesAK AZ MD MO

Youth is male 57% 62% 61% 61%

Youth is under age 15 33 48 34 50

Parent is under age 40 35 44 16 55

Parent went past H.S. 68 73 81 45

Parent owns home 70 59 76 58

Family owns computer 86 78 94 67

Family owns cell phone 78 71 85 62

Youth in Arizona and Missouri were slightly younger than those in Alaska and Maryland.The parents of teen court

youth were younger in Missouri.Parents in Missouri were less

likely to have education beyond high school.

Parents in Alaska and Maryland were more well off financially, as measured by home ownership and other consumer goods.



Opinions & Attitudes

Items on:• socio-economic status• self-reported delinquency • delinquent peer association• pro-social attitudes• pro-social bonds• perceptions of justice system

Self-Administered Questionnaires (SAQ)

In addition to collecting recidivism data, the evaluation measured the attitudes and opinions of youth and their parents.



Self-Admin Questionnaires

Intake

Same Day

SAQ 1: Parent &

YouthCourt Sanctions

SAQ 2: Parent &

Youth

Self-administered questionnaires were given to youth and parents just before and just after their appearance in teen court.



AK AZ MD MO

Most police officers try to do a good job

96% 96% 88% 83%

The police are usually fair to people like me

76 74 60 54

My teachers are proud of me 72 87 80 77

Getting into good college is important to me

95 91 93 77

We fight a lot in my family 22 18 20 30

My parents don’t care what I think 16 13 15 20

Youth AttitudesBefore Court

Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

In general, the youth involved in teen court expressed high levels of pro-social attitudes.Youth in Missouri, however, were slightly less pro-social.



AK AZ MD MO

Most police officers try to do a good job

96% 96% 88% 83%

The police are usually fair to people like me

76 74 60 54

My teachers are proud of me 72 87 80 77

Getting into good college is important to me

95 91 93 77

We fight a lot in my family 22 18 20 30

My parents don’t care what I think 16 13 15 20

Youth AttitudesBefore Court




Before CourtAK AZ MD MO

Friends think teen court is a joke 12% 18% 13% 29%Teen court will be a waste of time 7 11 12 18Being in teen court makes you a better person

82 76 68 62

Being in teen court makes you think about your future

86 89 88 73

You can learn a lot about the law in teen court

96 88 91 86

Youth Attitudes


Just before they went into court, the youth expressed considerable optimism about what teen court would be like and what they would likely get out of the experience.



Before CourtAK AZ MD MO

Friends think teen court is a joke 12% 18% 13% 29%Teen court will be a waste of time 7 11 12 18Being in teen court makes you a better person

82 76 68 62

Being in teen court makes you think about your future

86 89 88 73

You can learn a lot about the law in teen court

96 88 91 86

Youth Attitudes




After Court AK AZ MD MO

Got to talk enough in court 85% 80% 85% 66%

Was treated fairly in teen court 93 79 79 68

Glad I came here (& not juv court) 93 97 92 85

Teen court made me want to know about the law

64 63 71 43

People in teen court cared about my rights

88 82 83 69

I wish they would have explained teen court better

19 34 24 45

Youth Attitudes


After court, their support for teen court was not greatly diminished, although youth from Missouri were slightly less positive than those from Alaska, Arizona, and Maryland.




Got to talk enough in court 85% 80% 85% 66%

Was treated fairly in teen court 93 79 79 68

Glad I came here (& not juv court) 93 97 92 85

Teen court made me want to know about the law

64 63 71 43

People in teen court cared about my rights

88 82 83 69

I wish they would have explained teen court better

19 34 24 45

Youth Attitudes




Youth Attitudes

AK AZ MD MO

Teen court (will be / was) waste of time

Before teen court 7% 11% 12% 18%After teen court 4% 9% 12% 29%


After court, youth from Alaska and Arizona were actually less likely to say that teen court was a “waste of time.”



Youth Attitudes

AK AZ MD MOTeen court (will be / was) waste of time


Glad I came here (not juv court)



Youth were still overwhelmingly positive about teen court, even after receiving sentences from the court.



Parent Attitudes

AK AZ MD MOTeen court (will be / was) a waste of time



After court, parents were just as supportive, or even more supportive than they had been before they went into court with their children.




Child got to talk enough in court 95% 93% 93% 85%

Child treated fairly in teen court 92 93 89 89

Glad we came here (not juv court) 95 96 96 91

Think child took this seriously 96 94 91 89

People here cared about my child’s rights

96 96 94 96

I am grateful to teen court for trying to help us

95 96 95 91

Parent Attitudes


Parents were very supportive of the teen court process and were grateful that their children had been to teen court.




Child got to talk enough in court 95% 93% 93% 85%

Child treated fairly in teen court 92 93 89 89

Glad we came here (not juv court) 95 96 96 91

Think child took this seriously 96 94 91 89

People here cared about my child’s rights

96 96 94 96

I am grateful to teen court for trying to help us

95 96 95 91

Parent Attitudes




Alaska

Arizona

Maryland

Missouri

Teen Court

Comparison

6%23%

9%15%

8%4%

9%27%*

*

In Alaska and Missouri, there were statistically significant differences in the recidivism of teen court cases and comparison group cases.

In Arizona, the difference in recidivism favored teen court, but it was not statistically significant.

In Maryland, the difference in recidivism did not favor teen court, but it is important to remember that the nature of the comparison group was different in Maryland.

The comparison groups in the other three sites were drawn from typical juvenile justice cases. Many may have been “adjusted” or dismissed, and the youth probably received no sanctions.

In Maryland, all of the youth in the comparison group received sanctions. In fact, they received sanctions similar to those received by youth in teen court.

While youth from the teen court in Maryland were slightly more likely to be re-arrested than were youth in the comparison group, the difference between them was not statistically significant.




These findings suggest that teen court may be a viable alternative to the typical juvenile justice process...


… especially in jurisdictions that are unable to provide extensive interventions for young, first-time juvenile offenders



Moreover, even in jurisdictions that do have a wide range of interventions for young, first-time offenders…


… teen courts may be a cost-effective option since they depend largely on volunteers and have small operating budgets



Pro-social attitudesLow 13%

5%

11%5%

7%9%

12%4%

* High

Pro-social bondsLow

High

Delinquent peersLow

High

Parent’s pro-social expectations for youth

Low

High

*

*The evaluation examined differences in recidivism for all teen court cases according to various measures from the self-administered questionnaires.

In general, the results indicated that youth who were more pro-social before teen court were less likely to be re-arrested or re-referred to the juvenile justice system after teen court.

The study also investigated whether recidivism was different among the youth handled in teen court, based upon their attitudes and opinions prior to teen court.




Pro-social attitudesLow 13%

5%

11%5%

7%9%

12%4%

* High

Pro-social bondsLow

High

Delinquent peersLow

High

Parent’s pro-social expectations for youth

Low

High

*

*




Implications

• Recidivism is low among teen court cases partly due to factors existing before teen court

• Client satisfaction is very high among youth and parents, even after teen court sanctioning

• No clear evidence that one courtroom model is best, but youth-run models (like those in Alaska and Missouri) deserve wider consideration

• Teen court may be a viable option for cases not likely to receive meaningful sanctions from the regular juvenile justice system



Final Report Available

Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders

go to

youth.urban.org

”Research Highlights”



Program on Youth Justice

The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts was conducted by the Urban Institute’s Program on Youth Justice

For more information, see http://youth.urban.orgThe Program on Youth Justice was established by the Urban Institute in 2002 to help policymakers and community leaders develop and test more effective, research-based strategies for combating youth crime and encouraging positive youth development.

Researchers affiliated with the Program on Youth Justice investigate a wide variety of programs and policies related to crime and youth development. Studies may focus on efforts to hold young offenders accountable for illegal acts, programs to prevent the early onset of delinquency and improve the life prospects of at-risk youth, and policies designed to increase the safety and stability of neighborhoods by reducing opportunities and incentives for youth to engage in criminal behavior.

The director of the Program on Youth Justice is Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D.

effects of teen court: results of the ojjdp evaluation

Documents