the ojjdp evaluation of teen courts (etc) project

URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center

The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Project

Janeen BuckJeffrey Butts

October 23, 2002

National Youth Court CenterEvaluation WorkshopIndianapolis, IN


National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002

Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)

Funded by

Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org



Goals of the Evaluation

• Describe teen court operations

• Describe teen court clients

• Track samples of youth going through teen court and compare them with similar youth not referred to teen court

• Assess the impact of the teen court process on youth using a quasi-experimental design



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 Cases

Bottom Line?



The Big Question

Do Teen Courts Work?

Surprisingly, very few studieshave addressed this question.



Our Review of Existing Studies



Hissong, 1991

Teen Court Comparison

% Recidivating

24% 36%

Statistically Significant Difference ( p < .01 )



Hissong, 1991

• Little information about group selection

• No consistent follow-up periods

• Recidivism not clearly defined



N.C. AOC, 1995


% Recidivating in 7 months

20% 9%

Not Statistically Significant



N.C. AOC, 1995

• Follow-up periods were inconsistent

• Offenses of comparison group varied from teen court group

• Small samples



El Dorado Co. (CA), 1999


% Recidivating in 1 year

17% 27%

Not Statistically Significant



El Dorado Co. (CA), 1999

• Selection bias; comparison cases those rejected for teen court and referred to probation instead

• Possibly varying follow-up periods

• Recidivism not well defined



ETC, Urban Institute, 2002

• adequate sample sizes

• sound comparison groups

• standard follow-up exposure

• diversity of measures

• focused on key components

Our goals:



What are the Key Components?

The first challenge of the ETC project was deciding what to measure…

“Black Box” problem: If we don’t know the key ingredients of teen court effectiveness, we can’t test the impact of those ingredients



• 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



Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)

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



Four Study Sites

Anchorage

AK

Maricopa County

AZ

Independence

MO

Montgomery County

MD



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



Evaluation Samples

Research Groups AK AZ MD MOTeen Court 120 115 154 142

Comparison 120 115 118 142

Number of Cases

Youth similar to teen court cases, but handled in traditional juvenile justice system, whatever that meant… intervention or not



Evaluation Samples

Research Groups AK AZ MD MOTeen Court 120 115 154 142

Comparison 120 115 118 142

Number of Cases

Youth similar to teen court cases, but handled in a proactive police diversion program, with sanctions and interventions similar to those provided in teen court



Diverse Data Sources

• Teen court case records

• Police records

• Dept of Juvenile Justice records

• Face-to-face interviews (1 site only)

• Short, self-administered questionnaires



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



Data Collection Strategy

Offenders handled in teen court

Services and

sanctions

Changes in attitudes & opinions

RecidivismOffense, age, sex, race, etc.

——————— Content Domains———————

Offenders handled in regular court

Comparison


Teen Court



Data Collection Strategy

Offenders handled in teen court

Services and

sanctions



——————— Content Domains———————

Teen Court

Offenders handled in regular court

Comparison


Services and

sanctions


Maryland site only



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)



Self-Admin Questionnaires

Intake

Same Day

SAQ 1: Parent &

YouthCourt

SAQ 2: Parent &

YouthSanctions

SAQ 3: Youth Only 30 – 60 Days



Sample Attrition at Wave 3

Questionnaires completed AK AZ MD MO

Waves 1 and 2 (day of teen court) 117 108 154 145Wave 3 (follow-up) 114 39 75 56

Percent received 97% 36% 49% 39%

Youth were required to return third survey in person

Youth were asked to mail third survey



Sample Attrition at Wave 3

Because of varying response rates to the 3rd youth questionnaires, the project’s measurement of program effects was limited to the official recidivism analysis and just few questions on the 1st and 2nd questionnaires



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%

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



Youth Attitudes

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


Glad I came here (not juv court)





Parent Attitudes

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





Alaska

Arizona

Maryland

Missouri

Teen Court

Comparison

Six-Month Recidivism

6%23%

9%15%

8%4%

9%27%*

*



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

*

*



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”

the ojjdp evaluation of teen courts (etc) project

Documents