reproductions supplied by edrs are the best that can be ...professionals such as lawyers, judges,...

ED 464 861

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTECONTRACTAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

SO 033 801

Butts, Jeffrey A.; Buck,.JaneenTeen Courts: A Focus on Research. OJJDP Bulletin.Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.NCJ-1834722000-10-0018p.

98-JN-FX-0003Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, PublicationReprint/Feedback, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000.Tel: 800-638-8736 (Toll Free); Fax: 301-519-5600; e-mail:[email protected]. For full text:http://virlib.ncjrs.org/JuvenileJustice.asp.Information Analyses (070)MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Adolescent Behavior; *Evaluation Research; *Juvenile Courts;*Juvenile Justice; Law Related Education; ProgramEvaluation; Secondary Education; Social Studies; *YouthProblems*Legal Information; Peer Support; Research Summaries; *TeenCourts; Urban Institute

The teen court concept has gained popularity in recent yearsas juvenile courts have had to deal with increased numbers of serious,violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Its acceptance has been fueled, inpart, by positive anecdotal reports from those involved with thispeer-centered approach. Growing from a handful of programs in the 1960s, thenumber of teen courts (or youth courts) now operating in the United Stateshas been estimated to be as high as 675. Communities across the nationcontinue to demand better information and assistance with which to start orenhance their own teen courts. This bulletin aims to help address that demandby providing information about the characteristics of established teen courtsand the operational and managerial challenges they face. It also summarizesthe evaluation literature on teen courts. The bulletin provides a backgroundoverview; explains the teen court concept; and discusses a national surveyconducted by the Urban Institute. (Contains 9 figures, 5 tables, and 19references.) (BT)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

Teen Courts: A Focus on Research.

OJJDP Bulletin.

Jeffrey A. Butts

Janeen Buck

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

LI This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made to Improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

BESTCOPY AVAILABLE

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

john J. Wilson, Adifig Adifffilisifrififirlrit" toctober 2000

Teen Courts:A Focus on Research

Jeffrey A. Butts and Janeen BuckGrowing from a handful of programs inthe 1960's, the number of teen courts (oryouth courts) now operating in the UnitedStates has been estimated to be as high as675. Communities across the Nation con-tinue to demand better information andassistance with which to start or enhancetheir own teen courts. This Bulletin helpsto address that demand by providing in-formation about the characteristics of es-tablished teen courts and the operationaland managerial challenges they face. Italso summarizes the evaluation literatureon teen courts.

BackgroundTeen courts are spreading rapidly acrossthe United States. Many people view themas a cost-effective alternative to traditionaljuvenile court for some young offenders.Until recently, relatively little informationhas been available about how teen courtsoperate or how they affect youthful offend-ers. This Bulletin presents the results of anational survey of teen courts. The findingssuggest that most teen courts are relativelysmall and were established very recently.The findings also suggest that the mostestablished teen court programs (i.e., pro-grams reporting longevity in operationsand/or little financial uncertainty) may bethose that are housed within or closelyaffiliated with the traditional juvenilejustice system.

The survey indicates that teen courtsenjoy broad community support. Theirpopularity appears to stem from favor-able media coverage and the high levelsof satisfaction reported by parents, teach-ers, and youth involved in teen court pro-grams, rather than from evaluation re-search showing that teen courts havebeneficial effects on offenders. Little re-search has been conducted on outcomesfor teen court defendants, although somestudies offer encouraging results. Recentstudies have found that teen court par-ticipation may be associated with low re-cidivism rates, improved youth attitudestoward authority, and increased knowl-edge of the justice system among youth.More research is required before claimsabout teen court effectiveness can besubstantiated.

The Teen CourtConceptTeen courts are generally used foryounger juveniles (ages 10 to 15), thosewith no prior arrest records, and thosecharged with less serious law violations(e.g., shoplifting, vandalism, and disor-derly conduct). Typically, young offend-ers are offered teen court as a voluntaryalternative in lieu of more formal handlingby the traditional juvenile justice system(see figure 1). Teen courts differ from

From the AdministratorDeveloped as an alternative to thetraditional juvenile court system foryounger and less serious offenders,teen courts operate on the premisethat the judgment of a juvenileoffender's peers may have a greaterimpact than the decisions of adult au-thority figures.

The teen court concept has gainedpopularity in recent years as juvenilecourts have had to deal with in-creased numbers of serious, violent,and chronic juvenile offenders. Its ac-ceptance has been fueled, in part, bypositive anecdotal reports from thoseinvolved with this peer-centered ap-proach. This Bulletin examines sev-eral teen court evaluations, but cau-tions that we lack the empirical dataneeded to fully evaluate the effective-ness of this intervention.

In keeping with its commitment toidentifying "what works," OJJDP isfunding the Evaluation of Teen CourtsProject. This Bulletin includes a pro-file of teen court characteristics andimplementation challenges, derivedfrom a national survey of teen courtsconducted in the project's first phase.Phase two will consist of a multisiteevaluation.

Until the findings of that evaluationare available next year, I hope thatcommunities considering the meritsof teen courts will find this Bulletin tobe a useful interim guide.

John J. WilsonActing Administrator

11111111111111

Figure 1: Points at Which Juvenile Offenders Can Be Divertedto Teen Court

Teen Court Alternative

SchoolDisciplinaryPrograms

PoliceDiversion

InformalLaw Diversion Diversion Disposition

EnforcementReferrals

FormalJuvenile

Intake II Prosecutor Court JusticeSystem

Non-Law-Enforcement

Referrals(i.e., schools)

Source of ReferralIntake Screening Beginning of Formaland Case Review Process

Source: The Urban Institute. Evaluation of Teen Courts Project.

other juvenile justice programs becauseyoung people rather than adults deter-mine the disposition, given a broad arrayof sentencing options made available byadults overseeing the program. Teencourt defendants may go through an in-take process, a preliminary review ofcharges, a court hearing, and sentencing,as in a regular juvenile court. In a teencourt, however, other young people areresponsible for much of the process.Charges may be presented to the court bya 15-year-old "prosecutor." Defendantsmay be represented by a 16-year-old "de-fense attorney." Other youth may serve asjurors, court clerks, and bailiffs. In someteen courts, a youth "judge" (or panel ofyouth judges) may choose the best dispo-sition or sanction for each case. In a fewteen courts, youth even determinewhether the facts in a case have beenproven by the prosecutor (similar to afinding of guilt).

Adults are also involved in teen courts.They often administer the programs, andthey are usually responsible for essentialfunctions such as budgeting, planning,and personnel. In many programs, adultssupervise the courtroom activities, andthey often coordinate the community

service placements where youth work tofulfill the terms of their dispositions. Insome programs, adults act as the judgeswhile teens serve as attorneys and jurors.The key to all teen court programs, how-ever, is the significant role youth play inthe deliberation of charges and the impo-sition of sanctions on young offenders.

Proponents of teen court argue that theprocess takes advantage of one of themost powerful forces in the life of anadolescentthe desire for peer approvaland the reaction to peer pressure. Accord-ing to this argument, youth respond betterto prosocial peers than to adult authorityfigures. Thus, teen courts are seen as apotentially effective alternative to tradi-tional juvenile courts staffed with paidprofessionals such as lawyers, judges, andprobation officers. Teen court advocatesalso point out that the benefits extend be-yond defendants. Teen courts may benefitthe volunteer youth attorneys and judges,who probably learn more about the legalsystem than they ever could in a class-room. The presence of a teen court mayalso encourage the entire community totake a more active role in responding tojuvenile crime. Teen courts offer at leastfour potential benefits:

About the Evaluation ofTeen Courts ProjectThe Urban Institute's Evaluation ofTeen Courts (ETC) Project is studyingfour teen court programs: AnchorageYouth Court in Anchorage, AK; TeenCourt of the Tempe Justice Court inMaricopa County, AZ; MontgomeryCounty Teen Court in Rockville, MD;and Independence Youth Court in Inde-pendence, MO. These programs wereselected to maximize (1) the number ofcourtroom models used by theprograms involved in the study, (2) themix of geographic locations, and (3)the overall quality and length of serviceof each program.

In each jurisdiction, youth whosecases are handled in teen court arebeing compared with those who en-ter the traditional juvenile justicesystem. The project is measuring theextent to which teen court outcomesdiffer from outcomes that might re-sult if the cases of youth similar tothose diverted to teen court werehandled using normal procedures,including the dismissal of chargesor informal adjustment. Outcomesinclude postprogram recidivism andchanges in the teen's perceptions ofthe justice system (e.g., respect forauthority or trust in police).

The evaluation is investigating a va-riety of teen court models. Some ofthe courts in the study use adultjudges, while others use only youthjudges. Some are authorized to de-termine a youth's guilt, while othersonly impose dispositions on juve-niles who have previously admittedtheir guilt. The purpose of the evalu-ation is not to select one model overanother but to establish a baselineof outcome information for the rangeof teen court models now beingused throughout the country.

Accountability. Teen courts may helpto ensure that young offenders areheld accountable for their illegal be-havior, even when their offenses arerelatively minor and would not likelyresult in sanctions from the traditionaljuvenile justice system.Timeliness. An effective teen court canmove young offenders from arrest tosanctions within a matter of days

2

rather than the months that may passwith traditional juvenile courts. Thisrapid response may increase the posi-tive impact of court sanctions, regard-less of their severity.

Cost savings. Teen courts usually de-pend heavily on youth and adult vol-unteers. If managed properly, theymay handle a substantial number ofoffenders at relatively little cost to thecommunity. The average annual costfor operating a teen court is $32,822(National Youth Court Center, unpub-lished data).Community cohesion. A well-structuredand expansive teen court program mayaffect the entire community by increas-ing public appreciation of the legal sys-tem, enhancing community-court rela-tionships, encouraging greater respectfor the law among youth, and promotingvolunteerism among both adults andyouth.

Researchers are beginning to report in-stances in which these potential benefitshave been realized in some communities,but evaluation research on teen courts isstill in the early stages. It is too soon totell whether the positive results reportedby some communities can be replicatedreliably in other communities. Regardlessof the limited evidence, however, teencourts are increasingly in use across theUnited States. This Bulletin describes thevariety of teen courts and summarizeswhat researchers know about the effectsof teen court programs.

National SurveyAs part of the Office ofJuvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention's (0JJDP's) Evalua-tion of Teen Courts Project, The Urban Insti-tute recently conducted a national surveyof teen courts and youth courts. With assis-tance from the National Youth Court Center(NYCC), which is housed at the AmericanProbation and Parole Association and sup-ported by funds from OBDP, project re-searchers obtained addresses, telephonenumbers, and personal contacts for all U.S.teen courts believed to exist as of the endof 1998, and they mailed questionnaires tonearly 500 programs. A handful of theseprograms had gone out of business by thetime researchers tried to contact them.Of the remaining programs, 335 (more than70 percent) completed and returned thesurvey. The responses documented therange of teen court programs used by juris-dictions across the country, the character-istics of their clients, the sanctions they

imposed, the courtroom models they used,the extent of community support they re-ceived, and the challenges they faced.

Program CharacteristicsRecent growth in the number of teen courtprograms nationwide was reflected in thebrief tenure of the programs respondingto the national survey. Of all the programsthat responded, 13 percent had been inoperation less than 1 year and 42 percenthad been in operation for only 1 to 3 years.More than two-thirds (67 percent) of allteen courts had been in existence for lessthan 5 years (see figure 2).

Many teen courts that responded to thesurvey were closely affiliated with the tradi-tional justice system (see figure 3). Courts,law enforcement agencies, juvenile proba-tion offices, or prosecutors' offices oper-ated slightly more than half (52 percent)of the programs responding to the survey.More than one-third (37 percent) of the pro-grams were affiliated with the courts and12 percent with law enforcement. Privateagencies operated one-quarter (25 percent)of the teen court programs.

Most teen court and youth court programswere relatively small (see figure 4). Morethan half (59 percent) of the programs

responding to the survey handled 100 orfewer cases annually. Just 13 percent ofthe programs handled more than 300cases per year.

Very few programs relied on private fund-ing to meet their operational costs (seefigure 5). More than half (59 percent) ofthe teen courts received no private fund-ing; 16 percent of the programs receivedup to one-fifth of their funding from pri-vate sources, and 11 percent received be-tween one-fifth and one-half from privatesources.

Client CharacteristicsTeen courts usually handle relativelyyoung offenders with no prior arrests.Survey respondents reported that, onaverage, 24 percent of their cases in-volved youth under age 14 and 66 per-cent involved youth under age 16. Morethan one-third (39 percent) of the teencourts accepted only first-time offendersand another 48 percent reported thatthey "rarely" accepted youth with priorarrest records. Nearly all programs (98percent) reported that they "never" or"rarely" accepted youth with prior felonyarrests. Most programs (91 percent) alsoindicated that they "never" or "rarely"

Figure 2: Years Teen Courts Had Been in Operation as of 1998

Years in Operation as of 1998

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: The Urban Institute. 1998. National survey of youth courts and teen courts.

3

accepted youth who previously had beenreferred to a juvenile court.

To assess the nature of those cases typi-cally handled in teen court, the surveyasked each program to review a list ofoffenses and to indicate whether the pro-gram received such cases "very often,""often," "rarely," or "never." The offensesmost likely to be received "often" or "veryoften" were theft (93 percent), minor as-sault (66 percent), disorderly conduct(62 percent), possession or use of alcohol(60 percent), and vandalism (59 percent)(see figure 6).

SanctionsThe principal goal of teen court is to holdyoung offenders accountable for their be-havior. In a system of graduated sanc-tions, there is a consequence for everyoffense. Every youth who has admittedguilt or who is found guilty in teen courtreceives some form of sanction. In manycommunities, teen court sanctions domore than punish the offender. Sanctionsencourage young offenders to repair atleast part of the damage they have causedto the community or to specific victims.Offenders are often ordered to pay resti-tution or perform community service.Some teen courts require offenders towrite formal apologies to their victims:others require offenders to serve on asubsequent teen court jury. Many courtsuse other innovative dispositions, such asrequiring offenders to attend classes de-signed to improve their decisionmakingskills, enhance their awareness of victims,and deter them from future theft.

Survey respondents were asked to assessa list of typical sanctions and indicate howfrequently the program used each one (i.e.,"very often," "often," "rarely," or "never").Community service was the most com-monly used sanction (see figure 7). Nearlyall (99 percent) of responding teen courtsreported using community service "often"or "very often." Other frequently usedsanctions included victim apology letters(86 percent), written essays (79 percent),teen court jury duty (74 percent), drug/alcohol classes (60 percent), and restitu-tion (34 percent).

Courtroom ModelsNYCC divides the courtroom approachesused by teen courts into four types (de-scribed in table 1): adult judge, youthjudge, peer jury, and youth tribunal (Na-tional Youth Court Center, 2000). Findings

Figure 3: Entities That Operate Teen Courts

Court or probationagency

Private agency

Other agency

Law enforcement

Schools

Prosecutor orDistrict Attorney

37%

25%

1 %

12%

5%

3%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Percentage of U.S. Teen Courts



35 40

Figure 4: Number of Cases Handled by Teen Courts Each Year

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

25%

050 orfewer

51-100 101-150 151-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 Morethan 500

Number of Cases Handled per Year



4

Figure 5: Percentage of Teen Court Budgets Provided by Private Funds

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

16%14%

None Some, but less Between one- More than halfthan one-fifth fifth and half

Private Funds as Proportion of Annual Budget


Figure 6: Offenses Handled in Teen Court

Theft (includingshoplifting)

Minor assault

Disorderly conduct

Alcohol possessionor use

Vandalism

Marijuana possessionor use

School disciplinaryproblems

Traffic violation

Truancy

Weapon possessionor use

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percentage of Teen Courts Reporting They Handle SelectedOffenses "Often" or "Very Often"


from the national survey suggested thatthe adult judge model was the most popu-lar. Nearly half (47 percent) of the respond-

ing courts used only the adult judge model.When the number of cases handled byadult judges in programs using a mix of

courtroom models was added, the adultjudge model accounted for more than half(60 percent) of all teen court cases.

The next most prevalent courtroom modelwas the peer jury, which accounted for 22percent of all teen court cases. More thanone in four (26 percent) teen court pro-grams used this model for at least part oftheir caseloads. The youth judge and tribu-nal models were the least used, with eachaccounting for just 7 percent of all cases.

The use of courtroom models varied some-what according to the agency sponsoringthe program (see table 2). The adult judgemodel was the most popular among teencourts operated by local courts and proba-tion agencies (58 percent) and those hostedby schools, private agencies, and other not-for-profit organizations (48 percent). Therewas no dominant model, however, amongprograms operated by law enforcementagencies or prosecutors. In fact, more thanone-third (34 percent) of those programsused mixed models (i.e., a combination oftwo or more courtroom models).

Differences by courtroom model. Thecharacteristics of teen courts were nota-bly different when the analysis controlledfor courtroom model (see table 3). Forexample, programs using the youth judgemodel were among the newest teencourt programs. Fewer than one-fifth(19 percent) of these programs had beenin operation for 5 years or more, com-pared with 31 percent of adult judge pro-grams, 35 percent of programs using peerjuries, and 34 percent of programs usingthe youth tribunal model. Most (58 per-cent) youth judge programs had been inoperation for less than 2 years at the timeof the survey.

Youth judge programs were also the small-est programs in terms of their annual case-loads. Only 14 percent of programs usingthe youth judge model reported more than100 cases per year, compared with 40 per-cent of programs using the adult judgemodel and 38 percent of programs usingpeer juries.

Programs using the peer jury model werethe least likely to depend on private fund-ing. Nearly four-fifths (78 percent) of peerjury programs received no private fund-ing and only 13 percent received morethan one-third of their funding from pri-vate sources. For most other courtroommodels, nearly half of the programs re-sponding to the survey reported receivingsome private funding (i.e., 45 percent ofadult judge programs, 47 percent of youth

5

Figure 7: Sanctions Imposed by Teen Courts

Community service

Victim apology

Written essay

Teen court jury duty

Drug/alcohol class

Monetary restitution

Victim awarenessclass

Driving/traffic class

99%

86%

9%

74%

60%

34%

16

14%

0 20 40 60 80

Percentage of Teen Courts Reporting TheyImpose Selected Sanctions "Often" or "Very Often"


100

judge programs, and 48 percent of youthtribunal programs).

Programs using the youth judge and youthtribunal models were more likely to allowjuveniles to plead innocence or guilt andto hold trials. About one-third (35 percent)of programs using the youth judge modeland 44 percent of those using the youthtribunal model held trials.

About 80 percent of teen court programsresponding to the survey had a paid, full-time or part-time program director. Pro-grams using the peer jury model wereleast likely to have paid program direc-tors (58 percent). Likewise, these pro-grams were least likely to operate duringthe summer months (53 percent).

Teen Court FactsThirteen percent of teen courtsare authorized to hold trials (youthcan deny charges).

Eighty percent of teen courts havepaid program directors.

Thirty-nine percent of teen courtsaccept only first-time offenders.

Seventy-three percent of teencourts operate throughout theyear.

Of the four major program models, youthtribunal programs were the most likelyto accept referrals for youth with priorarrest records. Only 28 percent of pro-grams using the youth tribunal modelreported that they would "never" acceptyouth with prior arrests, compared withat least 40 percent for all other programmodels. Just 39 percent of tribunal pro-grams indicated that they would "never"accept youth with prior juvenile court refer-rals, compared with 50 percent or moreamong the other types of teen court models.

Community SupportThe success of an individual teen court maydepend on how well it is supported by vari-ous segments of the community. Teen courtadvocates have observed that it is essentialfor teen courts to be accepted by the larger.

Table 1: Characteristics of Four Courtroom Models Used by Teen Courts

Courtroom Model

Characteristic Adult Judge Youth Judge Peer Jury Youth Tribunal

Judge Adult Youth Adult (limited role) Youth (often 3)

Youth attorneys Yes Yes No Yes

Role of the youth jury, if any Recommendsdisposition

Recommendsdisposition

Questions defendant,recommends disposition

No jury

Percentage of teen courts usingthis model for all cases 47% 9% 12% 10%

Percentage of teen courts usingthis model for at least some cases 64 13 26 12

Percentage of teen court caseshandled using this model 60 7 22 7

Note: In the national survey, the combination of the adult judge, youth judge, peer jury, and youth tribunal models accounted for 96 percent of all caseshandled by responding programs. The remaining 4 percent were handled with other models, often variations of the more established models (e.g., youthtribunal with no prosecutor or defense attorney). The four courtroom models were first described by the National Youth Court Center, American Probationand Parole Association.


6

Table 2: Percentage of Teen Courts Using Each Courtroom Model, bySponsoring Agency

CourtroomModel

Total(n=330)

Administrative Host

Court/Probation Agency

(r-121)

Police/Prosecutor

(50)

School/PrivateAgency/Other

(n=159)

Adult judge 47% 58% 16% 48%

Youth judge 9 4 12 13

Peer jury 12 18 14 6

Youth tribunal 10 3 24 10

Mixed models 22 17 34 23

Notes: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding; mnumber of respondents.


justice system in their local area (NationalYouth Court Center, 2000). To examine teencourt program directors' perceptions ofcommunity support for their programs, thesurvey asked each program to consider sev-eral prominent community groups and indi-cate whether each was "very supportive,""moderately supportive," "mildly support-ive," or "not at all supportive" (see figure 8).

Judges were seen as the greatest support-ers of teen court programs. More than 9 in

10 teen courts rated their local judges as"very supportive" (71 percent) or "moder-ately supportive" (21 percent). Othergroups considered "very supportive" or"moderately supportive" of teen courtsincluded law enforcement (87 percent),court intake and probation workers (86percent), teachers and other school offi-cials (86 percent), and prosecutors(84 percent). In general, teen courts per-ceived all of the named groups to be sup-portive. Even the groups ranking lowest

Figure 8: Perceived Levels of Support for Teen Court ProgramsFrom Community Groups

Judges

Law enforcement

Court intake/probation

School officials/teachers

Prosecutors

Parent groups

Local media

Elected officials

Businesscommunity


1111 Very supportive

Mildly supportive

El Moderately supportive

0 Not supportive


7

on the list (elected officials and the busi-ness community) were considered by amajority of teen courts as either very ormoderately supportive (78 and 67 per-cent, respectively).

ProblemsAs small, community-based programs, teencourts face a range of challenges and ob-stacles. To identify the type of problemsfacing teen courts, the survey asked eachprogram to review a list of typical opera-tional problems that might cause difficul-ties for teen courts. Each court was askedto indicate whether it had experienced theissue as a "serious" problem, a "minor"problem, something in between, or not aproblem at all (see figure 9).

Not surprisingly, the operational problemreported most often by teen courts wasfunding (see figure 9). Forty percent of theprograms reported "some problems" (25percent) or "serious problems" (15 per-cent) with funding uncertainties. Only 38percent of the programs reported thatfunding uncertainties caused no problems.

Other problems that presented significantchallenges for teen courts included re-taining youth volunteers (i.e., attorneys,judges, and jurors) and maintaining anadequate flow of referrals. More thanone-fifth (21 percent) of the programs re-ported having "some" problems or "seri-ous" problems keeping teen volunteers.Nearly one-third (29 percent) reportedhaving "some" or "serious" problems withmaintaining sufficient case referrals.

Several other issues were described aspresenting "some" or "serious" problemsfor teen courts. These issues includedcases in which too much time elapsedbetween a youth's arrest and his or herreferral to teen court (19 percent), diffi-culties in coordinating the efforts of teencourts with other agencies in the commu-nity (16 percent), and problems recruitingyouth volunteers (19 percent) and adultvolunteers (20 percent).

Differences by program characteristics.The extent to which teen courts reportedhaving problems in meeting specific chal-lenges varied according to other programcharacteristics. Some differences werestatistically significant. For example, teencourts operated by schools or privateagencies were significantly more likely toreport problems with funding uncertain-ties (see table 4). Among programs oper-ated by private agencies and schools, 79percent reported at least some problems

Table 3: Selected Characteristics, by Courtroom Models Used by Teen Courts

Total

Courtroom Model

Adult Judge Youth Judge Peer Jury Youth Tribunal Mixed Models

Characteristics (.r332) (1w156) (n=31) (m40) (r32) (73)Years in operation

Less than 2 31% 33% 58% 20% 38% 19%

2 to 4 37 36 23 45 28 48

5 or more 31 31 19 35 34 33

Total annual caseload(cases/year)

50 or fewer 34% 36% 62% 44% 31% 12%

51 to 100 25 24 24 18 44 22

More than 100 42 40 14 38 25 66

Sponsoring agencyCourt/probation agency 37% 45% 16% 56% 13% 27%

Police/prosecutor 15 5 19 18 38 23

School/privateagency/other 48 50 65 26 50 49

Private funding sourcesNone 59% 55% 53% 78% 52% 62%

Less than 1/3 of budget 21 22 27 10 35 19

More than 1/3 of budget 20 23 20 13 13 19

Authority to hold trialsNoyouth must admit

to charges 87% 97% 65% 85% 56% 89%

Yesable to hold full trials 13 3 35 15 44 11

Paid program directorNo 20% 19% 16% 43% 22% 8%

Yes 80 81 84 58 78 92

Operation during summerNo 27% 31% 23% 48% 13% 14%

Yes 73 69 77 53 88 86

Youth with prior arrestsaccepted

Never 39% 41% 42% 45% 28% 32%

Rarely 49 45 52 38 53 61

Often or very often 13 14 6 18 19 7

Youth with prior juvenilecourt referrals accepted

Never 50% 50% 58% 51% 39% 49%

Rarely 41 42 35 33 48 44

Often or very often 9 9 7 15 13 7

Notes: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding; rpnumber of respondents.


with funding, compared with 44 percentof programs operated by courts and 49percent operated by law enforcement orprosecutors. Teen courts operated byschools or private agencies were also sig-nificantly more likely than programs runby courts, law enforcement, or prosecu-

tors to report problems with a lack of ju-dicial support (38 percent) and difficul-ties coordinating with other agencies(63 percent).

Smaller programs were somewhat morelikely than larger programs to reportproblems with a lack of judicial support

1 0

8

and with a lack of clear program goals.More than one-quarter (28 percent) ofteen courts that handled fewer than 50cases per year reported having problemswith goal clarity, compared with 15 per-cent of programs that handled more than100 cases each year.

Figure 9: Extent of Problems Reported by Teen Courts

Funding uncertainties

Keeping teenvolunteers

Not enough referrals

Delays betweenoffense and referral

Difficult coordinationwith other agencies

Lacking teen volunteers

Lacking adult volunteers

Youth who denycharges after referral

Politics of juvenile crime

Lack of judicial support

Confidentiality issues

Lack of clarityregarding goals

Legal liability issues

Too many referrals

15 N. 23 38

4 0&' 37 42

8 g'8 27 44

4 eg, 37 44

2 40 36 48

3 'il@ 30 51

3 9P 24 56

0 32 62

2 0 18 72

99 15 73

ii, 19 77

V 16 77

16 78

1 (5 14 79


1111 Serious problems

El Some problems

Minor problems

E No problems

Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.


The length of time that teen courts hadbeen in operation was also associatedwith problems regarding the clarity oftheir goals. Programs less than 2 years oldwere significantly more likely than pro-grams in operation for 5 or more years toreport having problems with goal clarityand with issues surrounding legal liability.

Finally, programs that relied heavily on pri-vate funds (often those operated by privateagencies) were significantly more likely thanthose that did not rely heavily on such fundsto report a lack of judicial support, coordi-nation difficulties, a lack of adult volunteers,and problems with retaining youth volun-teers. Programs that depended on privatefunding were also significantly more likelyto report problems with heavy caseloads.Among programs that received more than

one-third of their funding from privatesources, 35 percent reported problemsstemming from too many referrals, com-pared with 16 percent of programs thatreceived no private funding.

Evaluation ResearchDespite broad and growing interest inteen courts, only a few studies haveattempted to measure their effect onyouth, and even the best of these studieshave not yet produced the sort of evalua-tion data necessary to deem a programeffective. Juvenile justice officials andpractitioners generally praise teen courts,but these claims remain largely unsub-stantiated. The Evaluation of Teen CourtsProject conducted a comprehensive re-view of evaluation studies (published and

unpublished) conducted in the past 20years. These studies examined teen andyouth court programs in States includingCalifornia, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland,New York, North Carolina, and Texas. Allof the studies were limited in scope andmethodology, but together they offeredinsight to an essential question for Stateand local officials, "Do teen courts work?"

RecidivismRecidivism would seem to be an obviousfocus for evaluation studies of teen courts,but only a handful of evaluations havemeasured postprogram recidivism (seetable 5). Most studies have relied on courtrecords and official police data to detectrecidivism. Few studies have attempted tocollect personal data from teen court de-fendants. Only Swink's (1998) study of ateen court program in Onondaga County,NY, measured self-reported recidivism,and it relied on parents to report the ille-gal activities of their children.

Of the few studies that measured officialrecidivism, some found very low rates ofreoffending among former youth courtdefendants. Several researchers foundrates of postprogram recidivism thatranged from 3 to 8 percent within 6 to12 months of appearance in teen court(Butler-Mejia, 1998; McNeece et al., 1996;SRA Associates, 1995). A few studiesfound recidivism rates in excess of 20 or30 percent. One Texas study, for ex-ample, found that 24 percent of formeryouth court participants reoffended(Hissong, 1991). Minor and his col-leagues found that nearly one-third (32percent) of teen court youth reoffendedwithin 1 year (Minor et al., 1999). It is notpossible to say whether these higherrates are anomalies. Existing teen courtevaluations are so different in scope anddesign that it is often impossible to com-pare the findings of one with another.

Most evaluations of teen court recidivismhave employed relatively simple researchdesigns. Even some of the best studies (Mi-nor et al., 1999; LoGalbo, 1998; Swink, 1998;Wells, Minor, and Fox, 1998) have relied ondata from a single group of teen courtcases at a single point in time. Often, re-searchers have failed to use comparisongroups or pre- and postmeasures. Thus, itis impossible to test the assumption thatrecidivism outcomes are due to teen courtrather than to other factors (e.g., the typeof youth selected for teen court may beunlikely to recidivate).

9

11

Table 4: Operational Problems, by Characteristics of Teen Court Programs

Extent of Problem

SponsoringAgency

Annual Caseload(number of cases) Years in Operation

Percentage ofPrivate Funding

More MorePolice, School, Fewer 50 to Than

Total Court DA Private Than 50 100 100(n=335) (n=121) (n=51) (n=159) (n=109) (n=80) (n=135)

Less 5 or ThanThan 2 2 to 4 More None 1-33% 33%(n=105) (n=125) (n=104) (n=193) (n=70) (n=64)

Funding uncertaintiesNot a problemMinor problemDefinite problems

Lack of judicialsupport

Not a problemMinor problemDefinite problem

Legal liability issuesNot a problemMinor problemDefinite problem

Lack of clear goalsNot a problemMinor problemDefinite problem

Difficulties coordinatingwith other agencies

Not a problemMinor problemDefinite problem

Lacking adult volunteersNot a problemMinor problemDefinite problem

38% 56% 51% 21%23 19 20 2640 25 29 53

X2=40.75; p<0.01

73% 88% 76% 62%15 9 14 1812 3 10 20

X2=24.95; p<0.01

78%166

77%8

15

86%113

76%168

80% 72%14 206 8

86% 75%8 176 8

48% 57% 60% 37%36 29 32 4416 14 8 19

X2=14.58; p<0.01

56%2420

63%2215

64% 48%14 2922 23

43% 30% 39%16 28 2241 42 39

67% 79% 76%15 11 1618 10 8

r=-0.12; p<0.05

82% 78% 74%12 15 206 8 5

72% 71% 85%17 23 1011 6 5

r=-0.13; p<0.05

48% 47% 49%34 39 3818 14 13

59% 49% 56%17 32 2624 19 18

32% 35% 47%23 23 2145 42 32

r=-0.12; p<0.05

71% 66% 83%14 16 1314 18 4

r=-0.13; p<0.05

67% 80% 86%21 17 912 3 5

r=-0.18; p<0.01

63% 82% 84%24 11 1313 7 3

i=-0.20; p<0.01

45% 49%38 3617 15

56% 54%26 2218 25

51% 22% 16%21 23 2528 55 59

r=0.33; p<0.01

80% 71% 58%11 14 209 14 22

p<0.01

84% 67% 75%13 20 173 13 8

r=0.14; p<0.05

79%138

71% 80%21 149 6

49% 53% 38% 41%36 34 46 3615 13 16 23

r=0.14; p<0.05

58% 63% 41% 48%26 22 32 2316 14 27 28

r=0.17; p<0.01

Only three published studies (Hissong,1991; North Carolina Administrative Officeof the Courts, 1995; Seyfrit, Reichel, andStutts, 1987) have used reasonably appro-priate comparison groups to measure thepossible effects of teen courts on recidi-vism (see table 5). Hissong's evaluationof an Arlington, TX, teen court comparedrecidivism among teen court defendantswith a group of non-teen-court participantsmatched on sex, race, age, and offense.The analysis suggested that teen courtparticipants were significantly less likelyto reoffend than the comparison group(24 percent versus 36 percent). Severalimportant elements of the study, however,were poorly documented. The definition ofrecidivism used in the analysis (presum-ably rearrest) is unclear. The duration ofthe followup period is not described (sub-

jects may have had different periods ofrisk), and there is a range of unexploredpotential differences between the treat-ment group and the comparison group.

The North Carolina study used a compari-son group that consisted of 97 cases di-verted by police during a 6-month periodprior to implementation of the teen courtin Cumberland, NC. Researchers hypoth-esized that these youth would have beenreferred to teen court had the programbeen in existence. Teen court and com-parison group cases were matched usingseveral factors, including demographiccharacteristics and offense type, and re-searchers tracked the recidivism of bothgroups. The study failed to find statisti-cally significant differences in the recidi-vism of the two groups. In fact, the analy-

sis seemed to favor the comparison group.After 7 months, 20 percent of teen courtparticipants had reoffended, comparedwith just 9 percent of the comparisongroup. The study also found little differ-ence between the two groups in averagetime before a new offense (4.1 months forteen court offenders versus 4.6 months forthe comparison group). Youth who suc-cessfully completed the teen court pro-gram were less likely to reoffend than wereyouth who began but failed to completethe program (11 percent compared with42 percent), but this finding may reflectthe greater tendency of low-risk youth tocomplete the program.

Seyfrit and her colleagues (1987) trackedrecidivism outcomes for 52 youth referredto a Columbia County, GA, teen court

10

1 2

Table 4: Operational Problems, by Characteristics of Teen Court Programs (continued)

Extent of ProblemTotal

(n=335)

SponsoringAgency

Annual Caseload(number of cases) Years in Operation

Percentage ofPrivate Funding

Court(n=121)

Police, School,DA Private

(n=51) (n=159)

Fewer 50 toThan 50 100(n=109) (n=80)

MoreThan100

(n=135)

LessThan 2(n=105)

2 to 4(n=125)

5 orMore

(n=104)None

(n=193)

MoreThan

1-33% 33%(n=70) (n=64)

Lacking teen volunteersNot a problem 51% 58% 43% 48% 54% 53% 45% 52% 46% 56% 55% 46% 44%Minor problem 30 25 29 32 25 31 34 27 34 27 26 33 36Definite problem 20 17 28 20 21 16 21 21 21 17 19 21 20

Keeping teen volunteersNot a problem 42% 44% 45% 39% 45% 38% 38% 42% 41% 41% 48% 36% 32%Minor problem 37 41 29 37 31 38 43 36 36 41 33 41 41Definite problem 21 15 26 25 24 24 19 22 23 18 19 23 27

rt=0.13; p<0.05

Too many referralsNot a problem 79% 85% 76% 75% 87% 73% 74% 82% 79% 73% 85% 75% 65%Minor problem 14 8 14 19 9 22 15 13 15 16 10 17 25Definite problem 7 7 10 6 4 5 11 5 6 11 6 7 10

r=0.15; p<0.01 r=0.16; p<0.01

Not enough referralsNot a problem 44% 45% 48% 43% 28% 43% 59% 39% 46% 48% 43% 51% 40%Minor problem 27 30 27 26 29 31 24 26 26 30 29 26 22Definite problem 29 26 25 32 43 26 17 36 28 22 28 22 38

r=-0.30; p<0.01 p<0.05

Notes: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding. DA=District Attorney; n=number of respondents. Chi-square ("x2") measures the extent to whichthe values of one variable are systematically different across the categories of one or more variables. Probability ("p") measures the likelihood that astatistical relationship is due to chance. Typically, a relationship between two variables is considered statistically significant when the probability is lessthan 0.05. The correlation coefficient ("r") indicates the strength of association between two variables and ranges from 1.0 (strong inverse relationship)to +1.0 (strong positive relationship).

"Includes responses of "some problems" and "serious problems."


during an 18-month period in the early1980's. They also collected data for a com-parison group of 50 youth matched on de-mographics and offenses. The study foundlittle difference between the two groups.Although 12 percent of the comparisongroup recidivated during the followup pe-riod, the same was true for 10 percent ofthe teen court defendants. Like the NorthCarolina study, the Seyfrit study was un-able to control statistically for differentperiods of opportunity to reoffend. Thefollowup periods ranged from 6 to 18months, which reduced the researchers'ability to infer any real differences in therecidivism of the two groups.

Other OutcomesSeveral studies have suggested that teencourts may have effects on youth otherthan reduced recidivism. These potential

benefits include client satisfaction withthe teen court experience (Colydas andMcLeod, 1997; McLeod, 1999; Reichel andSeyfrit, 1984; Swink, 1998; Wells, Minor,and Fox, 1998), enhanced perceptions ofprocedural justice (Butler-Mejia, 1998),improved attitudes toward authority(LoGalbo, 1998; Wells, Minor, and Fox,1998), and greater knowledge of the legalsystem (LoGalbo, 1998; Wells, Minor, andFox, 1998).'

For example, McLeod's (1999) survey offormer teen court participants found thatat least 90 percent of youth referred to the

' Researchers have found that teen court participationis also associated with positive outcomes for youthvolunteers. For information about prevention and law-related education outcomes for youth volunteers, seeKnepper, 1994, 1995; Reichel and Seyfrit, 1984; Wells,Minor, and Fox, 1998.

11

1 3

Colonic (NY) Youth Court during 1997 and1998 believed that the experience in-creased their understanding of the legalsystem, helped them improve their behav-ior, and helped them become more respon-sible. Nearly all survey respondents (95percent) reported that going through teencourt caused them to "make more thought-ful decisions." Nearly three in five (58 per-cent) reported better communication withtheir parents, and half (50 percent) re-ported improved grades in school. How-ever, the study's very low response rate(24 percent of youth surveyed) raised thepossibility that the youth responding tothe followup survey may have been themost compliant and prosocial youth inthe sample.

LoGalbo's (1998) evaluation of the SarasotaCounty FL, teen court program also found

(continued on page 14)

Table 5: Findings of Studies on Recidivism Among Former Teen Court Participants

El Dorado County Superior Court, 1999

Measures: Uncertain

Data Sources: Officialrecords

Key Finding: Measurable, butnot significant, differencein favor of teen courts

Methods/FindingsAnalyzed reoffending by 460 youth handled by Placerville and South Lake Tahoe, CA, teencourts between 1994 and 1999.Compared teen court cases with cases that were eligible for teen court but referred tojuvenile probation instead (n=324).Seventeen percent of youth diverted to teen court and 27 percent of the comparison groupreoffended before the end of the year in which they were referred.Recidivism of comparison group exceeded that of teen court group for each year during the5-year period (differences in recidivism ranged from 5 to 15 percentage points).Cautions: Recidivism measures not defined. Possible selection biascomparison groupcases were those not selected for teen court. No standard followup periodanalyses fall tocontrol for differential opportunity to reoffend.

North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, 1995

Measures: New courtreferral


Key Finding: Measurable, butnot significant, difference infavor of comparison group

Methods/FindingsAnalyzed subsequent court contacts for youth handled by Cumberland County, NC, teencourt between 1993 and 1994 (n=95).Compared teen court cases with cases processed prior to introduction of teen court butmatched to the teen court target population (i.e., demographic factors, offense categories,and admission of guilt).Twenty percent of teen court cases and 9 percent of comparison group cases recidivatedduring the 7-month followup period. Groups recidivated in similar timeframes (4.1 and 4.6months, respectively).Cautions: Possible selection biasteen court participation was voluntary. No standardfollowup periodanalyses fail to control for differential opportunity to reoffend. "Other"offenses (e.g., traffic, weapons, drug/alcohol) were overrepresented in the teen courtsample due to policy changes.

Hissong, 1991

Measures: Uncertain


Key Finding: Significantdifference in favorof teen courts

Methods/FindingsAnalyzed recidivism (presumably rearrest) among youth referred to Arlington, TX, teencourt in 1986 (n=196). Compared time to failure among teen court defendants and acomparison group matched on demographic characteristics and offense.During followup period, 24 percent of teen court defendants recidivated compared with36 percent of comparison group (statistically significant; p<0.01). Analysis of a subset ofdefendants (16-year-old white males) suggested probability of "survival" (i.e., no recidivism)beyond 18 months was greater for teen court youth.Cautions: Recidivism measures not defined. Followup period not defined (probably 24months)sample youth may have varying lengths of exposure to recidivism risk. Possibleselection biasteen court participation was voluntary. Separate analysis of subsample notclearly justified. Possible underreporting of recidivismdata not collected in neighboringjurisdictions.

Seyfrit, Reichel, and Stutts, 1987

Measures: Uncertain


Key Finding: Measurable,but not significant,difference in favorof teen courts

Methods/FindingsTracked recidivism (presumably rearrest) among youth referred to Columbia County, GA,teen court (n=52) during an 18-month period in early 1980's. Comparison group (n=50)matched on demographics, offenses, and case processing procedures.Ten percent of teen court defendants recidivated, compared with 12 percent of the compari-son group. Difference was larger (2 versus 10 percent) when analysis controlled for prioroffenses.Cautions: Time at risk of recidivism ranged from 6 to 18 months. Analysis did not control fordifferential opportunity to reoffend.

12

Table 5: Findings of Studies on Recidivism Among Former Teen Court Participants (continued)

Post-Hoc Studies (No Comparison Groups)

Harrison, Maupin, and Mays,

Measures: Subsequentreferral to juvenileprobation


2000

Methods/FindingsTracked postprogram recidivism for a sample of youth referred to Dona Ana County, NM,teen court from 1994 to 1998 (f478).Twenty-five percent of teen court defendants were referred for new charges betweenparticipation in teen court and their 18th birthday.Recidivism was higher for youth appearing in teen court during 1994 and 1995 (in excess of30 percent) than for youth appearing in teen court after 1995 (19 to 25 percent), suggestingthat a longer followup period allowed for detection of more recidivism.Cautions: No comparison group. Recidivism offenses are reported in aggregate totals andcannot be attributed to individual youth. Methods do not control for subjects' varyinglengths of exposure to recidivism risk.

Minor et al., 1999

Measures: New courtappearance


Methods/FindingsAssessed postprogram recidivism (subsequent court appearance for new offense) for 234youth handled in Kentucky teen courts between 1994 and 1997. Data were obtained for 97percent of the youth identified for the study.Thirty-two percent of teen court defendants appeared in court within 12 months of the teencourt hearing.Prior offense and certain previous sanctions (e.g., curfew) were associated with a greaterlikelihood of recidivism.Cautions: No comparison group. Most of the sample's subsequent court appearances werefor minor delinquency charges (e.g., theft, marijuana possession).

Butler-Mejia, 1998

Measures: Rearrest


Methods/FindingsExamined postprogram recidivism for a sample of defendants from Montgomery County,MD, teen court (n=177) .Three percent of teen court defendants were rearrested during the 12-month followupperiod.Cautions: No comparison group. No analysis of varying time to failure. No controls forpossible selection bias. No data collection from large, neighboring jurisdictions.

LoGalbo, 1998

Measures: Rearrest


Methods/FindingsTracked postprogram arrests of youth referred to Sarasota County, FL, teen court between1997 and 1998 (n=111).Thirteen percent of teen court defendants were rearrested during 5-month followup.Improved attitudes toward self and authority figures (e.g., judges) were associated withlower incidence of recidivism among teen court youth.Cautions: No comparison group. Insufficient analysis of possible effects of sample attrition.

Swink, 1998

Measures: New policecontact

Data Sources: Officialrecords, questionnaires

Methods/FindingsTracked postprogram recidivism (subsequent police contact) for 782 youth referred toOnondaga County, NY, youth court between 1995 and 1997.Parent reports of youth behavior were also collected.Eight percent of teen court defendants recidivated at some point after teen courtappearance.Recidivism varied for youth handled during 1995 (9 percent), 1996 (9 percent), and 1997(6 percent). The lower rate for 1997 was likely due to shorter followup.Cautions: No comparison group. Analysis did not control for differential opportunity to failor for differences between youth with responding and nonresponding parents.

13

15

Table 5: Findings of Studies on Recidivism Among Former Teen Court Participants (continued)

Wells, Minor, and Fox, 1998

Measures: New courtreferral


Methods/FindingsMonitored subsequent court referrals for 55 teen court defendants handled by 18 Kentuckyprograms from 1994 to 1997.Thirty-two percent of the teen court defendants recidivated (subsequent court contact for anew offense).First-time offenders were less likely to recidivate than those with prior offenses. Success-ful completion of teen court sanctions was less likely for youth with prior offenses, butsanction completion was not correlated with recidivism.Cautions: No comparison group. Significant subject attrition (88 percent of defendants frominitial point of data collection) precludes meaningful analysis.

McNeece et al., 1996

Measures: Uncertain


Methods/FindingsMonitored caseload, sanctions, and client recidivism associated with Hernando County,FL, teen court during 1995 and 1996.Researchers describe an analysis of official records that showed 8 percent of teen courtyouth processed since 1992 recidivated.Cautions: No comparison group. Recidivism was not defined. Sample was not described.Followup period was not specified.

SRA Associates, 1995

Measures: New intakereferral


Methods/FindingsDocumented the number of cases heard, nature of sanctions imposed, and proportion ofclients that recidivated after participation in a Santa Rosa, CA, teen court program.Contacts with juvenile intake were tracked for defendants appearing in teen court betweenJanuary 1993 and June 1994 (n=238).Three percent of teen court defendants were again referred to juvenile intake following theirappearance in teen court.Cautions: No comparison group. Followup period not defined. Cases likely had varyingexposure time for recidivism. Recidivism may be underreported because no data werecollected from neighboring jurisdictions.

Rothstein, 1987

Measures: Uncertain

Data Sources: Police agencydescriptions

Methods/FindingsReported recidivism (presumably rearrest) for 87 youth referred to Odessa, TX, teen courtin 1985 for misdemeanor drug and alcohol offenses.Zero percent recidivism reported among teen court defendants during the 12-monthfollowup period.Cautions: No comparison group. Cases may have had varying lengths of exposure to recidi-vism risk. Recidivism results were based on claims made by the local police agency and notprimary data collection by researchers. No discussion of data collection methods. Limiteddescription of youth sample and selection methods.

Source: The Urban Institute, Evaluation of Teen Courts Project.

(continued from page 11)

that teen/court positively affected defend-ant attitudes toward authority and under-standing of the legal process. LoGalbosurveyed 111 youth immediately aftertheir initial interview with teen court staff

and again upon completion of the program.The survey asked participants about theirknowledge of Florida laws and the justicesystem, their attitudes toward nine author-ity figures (e.g., police officer, judge, par-ent, teacher), their attitudes toward teen

court and toward themselves, and theirperception of the fairness of teen court pro-cedures. The study found teen court par-ticipation was associated with increasedself-esteem and positive attitudes towardselect authority figures (e.g., judges). The

14

1 6

analysis also suggested that recidivismwas less likely among defendants with im-proved attitudes toward authority figures.

Strong client satisfaction was also re-ported by researchers in Kentucky. Exitinterviews conducted by Wells and col-leagues (1998) revealed high levels of satis-faction among 123 teen court participants,with 84 percent indicating that their sen-tences were fair. Several positive featuresof the teen court experience were cited bythe Kentucky subjects, including "educa-tional advantages" (37 percent) and theactual sentences youth received (21 per-cent). Teens also consistently indicatedthat the opportunity to serve as a teencourt juror was an important, positiveaspect of the teen court process.

ConclusionState and local jurisdictions across thecountry are embracing teen court as analternative to the traditional juvenile jus-tice system for their youngest and leastserious offenders. Many jurisdictions re-port that teen court increases young of-fenders' respect for the justice systemand reduces recidivism by holding delin-quent youth accountable for what is oftentheir first offense. Moreover, a teen courtmay be able to act more quickly and moreefficiently than a traditional juvenilecourt. Researchers are beginning to accu-mulate a body of findings on the effective-ness of teen courts, but more detailedinformation is needed for future practiceand policy development.

The information discussed in this Bulletinis part of the Evaluation of Teen CourtsProject, OJJDP's response to the need formore detailed research about teen courts.The project, which is being conducted forOJJDP by researchers at The UrbanInstitute's Justice Policy Center, is thefirst national, multisite evaluation of teencourts and youth courts. Four jurisdic-tions are participating in the studyAn-chorage, AK; Tempe, AZ; Rockville, MD;and Independence, MO. The teen courtsin these communities were selected forthe study to maximize the number ofcourtroom models represented, the mixof geographic locations, and the overallquality and length of service of eachprogram. The project features a quasi-experimental design with data in eachjurisdiction being collected on a group ofteen court participants and a comparisongroup of youth handled using traditionaljuvenile court procedures.

The Evaluation of Teen Courts Project isdesigned to address some of the key issuesfacing policymakers and practitioners asthey consider investing more heavily inteen court programs in their own jurisdic-tions. The study will provide answers tothe following questions:

What do teen courts actually do withyoung offenders?

What type of sentences are typicallyimposed on youth, and do the youthcomply?

Are youth and parents satisfied withtheir experiences in teen court?Do young offenders referred to teencourts have lower rates of recidivismthan those handled in the traditionaljuvenile justice system?

Do juveniles show improved attitudestoward law enforcement and thecourts and improved relations withpeers and family, and do they have abetter understanding of the conse-quences of their illegal behavior?

Do these outcomes vary across teencourt models and across subsets ofoffenders?

Have the most experienced teen courtslearned any lessons that can be sharedwith other jurisdictions?What community-level factors contrib-ute to the success of teen courts?

Findings from the entire Evaluation ofTeen Courts Project will be available in2001. Policymakers and practitioners willbe able to draw on the study's findings asthey consider whether teen courts andyouth courts should play a more promi-nent role in each jurisdiction's system forresponding to youthful offenders.

For Further InformationFor more information about The UrbanInstitute, the Justice Policy Center, or theEvaluation of Teen Courts Project, seewww.urban.org.

For more information about the NationalYouth Court Center, see wwwyouthcourthet.

For more information about the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion, see www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

ReferencesButler-MeJia, K. 1998. Seen but not heard: Therole of voice in Juvenile Justice. Unpublishedmaster's thesis. Fairfax, VA: George MasonUniversity.

Colydas, V., and McLeod, M. 1997. Colonie (NY)youth court evaluation. Unpublished manu-script. Troy, NY: Russell Sage College.

El Dorado County Superior Court. 1999. ElDorado County teen court statistical overview.Unpublished manuscript. Placerville, CA: ElDorado County Superior Court.

Harrison, R, Maupin, J.R., and Mays. G.L. 2000.Teen court: An examination of processes andoutcomes. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,New Orleans, LA, March.

Hissong, R. 1991. Teen courtls it an effectivealternative to traditional sanctions?Journal forJuvenile Justice and Detention Services 6:14-23.

Knepper, P. 1994. Attitudinal Change AmongTeen Court Participants. Highland Heights, KY:Northern Kentucky University, Justice StudiesProgram.

Knepper, P. 1995. Teen Court Law-Related Educa-tion and Service Learning. Highland Heights,KY: Northern Kentucky University, JusticeStudies Program.

LoGalbo, A.P. 1998. Is teen court a fair and ef-fective Juvenile crime diversion program? Un-published manuscript. Tampa, FL: University ofSouth Florida, New College.

McLeod, M. 1999. Satisfaction with youth courtproceedings: A follow-up analysis of the Colonie(NY) youth court. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American Society of Crimi-nology, Toronto, Canada.

McNeece, A.P., Falconer, M.K., Bryant, C., andShader, M. 1996. Hernando County Teen Court:Evaluation of 1996 Continuation Grant Activity.Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Insti-tute for Health and Human Services Research.

Minor, K.I., Wells, J.B., Soderstrom, I.R., Bingham,R., and Williamson. D. 1999. Sentence completionand recidivism among Juveniles referred to teencourts. Crime and Delinquency45:467-480.

National Youth Court Center. 2000. How teen/youth courts operate. National Youth Court Cen-ter Web Site. Lexington, KY: American Probationand Parole Association. On the World Wide Web:www.youthcourtnet/how_teen.htm#MODEL.

North Carolina Administrative Office of theCourts. 1995. Report on the Teen Court Pro-grams in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: NorthCarolina Administrative Office of the Courts.

Reichel, P., and Seyfrit, C. 1984. A peer Juryin Juvenile court. Crime and Delinquency30:423-438.

Rothstein, R. 1987. Teen court: A way to com-bat teenage crime and chemical abuse. Juve-nile and Family Court Journal 38:1-4.

Seyfrit, C.L., Reichel. P., and Stutts, B. 1987.Peer Juries as a Juvenile Justice diversion tech-nique. Youth and Society 18:302-316.

15

17

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

SRA Associates. 1995. Teen Court Evaluation of1994 Activities and Goals: Characteristics, Back-grounds, and Outcomes of Program Referrals.Santa Rosa, CA: SRA Associates.

Swink, M.I. 1998. Onondaga County youth courtrecidivism rates. Unpublished manuscript.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, MaxwellSchool of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Wells, J.B., Minor, K.I., and Fox, J.W. 1998. AnEvaluation of Kentucky's 1997-98 Teen CourtProgram. Richmond, KY: Eastern Kentucky Uni-versity, Center for Criminal Justice Educationand Research.

This Bulletin was developed as part of theEvaluation of Teen Courts Project conductedby The Urban Institute in Washington. DC, andsupported by funds provided to The UrbanInstitute by the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention, U.S. Department ofJustice, under grant number 98-JN-FX-0003.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice nor of The Urban Institute, its trustees,or its funders.

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE MEES PAIDDONOJJDP

PERMIT NO. G-91

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

AcknowledgmentsJeffrey Butts, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, and Janeen Buck, ResearchAssociate, are with the Evaluation of Teen Courts Project of The Urban Institute'sJustice Policy Center. Dionne Davis helped collect the data presented in thisBulletin. The Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center is directed by Adele Harrell.

Both OJJDP and The Urban Institute gratefully acknowledge the efforts of themany teen courts and youth courts that contributed data for this study and thegenerous support of Tracy Godwin and the National Youth Court Center(www.youthcourt.net). Their participation made this Bulletin possible.

1 8

U.S. Department ofEducationOffice of Educational Reseatch and Improvement (0ERI)

National Libtaty of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (312000)

reproductions supplied by edrs are the best that can be ...professionals such as lawyers, judges,...

Documents