transforming teens: measuring the effects of restorative justice principles in a teen court setting

Transforming Teens: Measuring the Effectsof Restorative Justice Principles in a Teen

Court Setting

By Kenneth Laundra, Keyria Rodgers, and Heidi Zapp

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the impact of restorative justice principles in a teen courtsetting. Specifically, our research attempts to quantitatively measure learning ofcertain restorative justice principles through the teen court process by comparingmatched, pre- and post-survey responses to questions involving the adolescent’sability to understand their crime as a violation of relationships within their commu-nity, as opposed to merely a violation of law. Qualitative responses regarding theefficacy of the teen court program from both teen participants and their parents arealso examined in the context of restorative justice principles. Finally, the efficacy ofthe teen court model is discussed in terms of recidivism rates compared to teens whodo not experience the teen court process.

INTRODUCTION

Since the mid-1980s, the paradigm shift in criminal justice known as “restorativejustice” (Van Ness, 1986; Zehr, 1990) has been increasingly the subject of criminologicalstudy, and has been increasingly employed in a wide variety of innovative programs foryouthful offenders (Bonta et al., 2002; Butts & Buck, 2002; Butts & Harrell, 1998; Friday,2003; Pearson, 2003; Van Ness, 1990; Van Ness & Strong, 1997). This shift is occurringin the context of relatively high recidivism rates among both adult and youth offendersdespite ubiquitous “get tough” legislation. This legislation is founded primarily in a

Kenneth Laundra, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Millikin University, specializingin the areas of delinquency, crime and deviance, and environmental sociology. He obtained his Ph.D. inSociology at Utah State University with an emphasis in juvenile delinquency, an MA in Sociology fromCentral Michigan University, and a BS in Psychology from Michigan State University.

Keyria Rodgers is the Director of the Teen Court program in Decatur, IL, and adjunct instructor atMillikin University.

Heidi Zapp is an undergraduate student at Millikin University majoring in Sociology.

bs_bs_banner

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 64, no. 4 (Fall) 21© 2013 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

retributive model of justice, typified in approaches grounded in deterrence-based solu-tions, such as harsher penalties, longer sentences, adjudication of youth to adult court, andmandatory sentencing laws, all of which are designed to lower crime rates primarilythrough the threat of punishment.

This one-dimensional retributive strategy has resulted in an ever-expanding incar-cerated population and the subsequent growth of the “prison-industrial complex” thatserves it (Alexander, 2012; Smith & Hattery, 2006). This expansive criminal justicesystem has also resulted in increasing costs for local, state, and federal law enforcementagencies and, ultimately, to taxpayers. Hence, the rise in less costly restorative justiceprogramming is at least partly a response to slashed budgets in a difficult economy,budgets that will likely continue to be constrained by larger economic factors, bothlocally and globally, in the foreseeable future.

Beyond the fiscal concerns of a predominantly retributive model of crime control,both criminological scholars and practitioners in the field have become increasinglyskeptical of the model’s practical efficacy. The popular political response to crime—harsher laws, longer sentences, and mandatory sentencing—does not seem to be effectivein reducing many juvenile crimes, and does not address some of the core structural issuesrelated to criminal activity, such as joblessness, poverty, lack of education, and training(or re-training) opportunities (Abrams, 2006; Bushway & Reuter, 2011; McGrath &Weatherburn, 2012). Advocates of restorative justice view the retributive strategy fordealing with crime as largely ineffective because of another inherent weakness—it doesnot promote the repair of relationships.

In the contemporary retributive system, neither victims nor offenders are directlyinvolved in the justice process, which is largely experienced as a violation to the state, as acontest between the offender and the state in a legal determination of law-breaking, andwhich emphasizes blame and the administration of pain to the offender by the state. Bothvictims and offenders are commonly treated as bystanders in this process, with littleopportunity for meaningful community participation (Cavanagh, 1998; Mika & Zehr,1997; Van Ness, 1990). The physical and psychological disconnect between those involvedin a criminal act, coupled with the sterilizing effects of a detached, bureaucratic legalprocess, is central to understanding the shift in paradigm represented in restorative justice.

Restorative Justice

A restorative justice framework begins by acknowledging that crime necessarilycauses injury to people and their communities. Rather than viewing justice as a legalcontest between offender and victim, the primary function of a justice system, foradvocates of restorative justice, is to promote the restoration of relationships between theoffender and victim, as well as within the larger community. The criminal justice system,then, must involve itself in the repair of those injured relationships by ensuring thatthe parties can participate in the restorative processes of justice. Restorative justiceprograms typically do this by enabling the victim, the offender, and other members of thecommunity to be directly involved in responding to the crime and determining anoutcome. Both victims and offenders become central to the criminal justice process, with

22 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL / Fall 2013

professionals in the field functioning as facilitators of a process geared toward offenderaccountability, reparation to the victim, and full participation by the victim, offender,and community. The restorative process of involving all parties is fundamental to achiev-ing the restorative outcome of both reparation and healing (Mika & Zehr, 1997;Umbreit, 1994; Van Ness, 1990; Van Ness & Strong, 1997; Zehr, 1990). It should benoted that restorative justice is not appropriate for all cases, such as for violent offenses,in which the victim’s participation might be too traumatic for the victim (e.g. rape,sexual assault, or murder), or when a victim or offender simply do not wish to participatevoluntarily.

Restorative justice is different from contemporary retributive justice in severalimportant ways. First, restorative justice views criminal acts more comprehensively.Rather than defining crime as simply law-breaking, it recognizes that offenders harmvictims, communities, and even themselves, inviting mediated reflection, introspection,and communication among all involved. Second, it engages those involved in the crimein more meaningful ways. Rather than give key roles primarily to legal officials, itdirectly engages offenders, victims, and the community throughout the justice process.Finally, it measures success differently. Rather than measuring how much punishment isinflicted, it measures how harm is repaired or prevented. The emphasis of the process ison restoration – restoration of the offender’s self-respect, restoration of the relationshipbetween offender and victims, and restoration of both offenders and victims within thecommunity (Haley, 1996).

From a restorative lens, when a crime is committed, a violation has taken placebetween people which must be repaired to re-establish a strong sense of community,which is seen as fundamental for social organization and personal well-being. Thus, it iscritical for victims, offenders, and the community to participate intimately in the processof justice, as a means of re-establishing and building stronger community ties amongthose involved in the crime. This goal is typically achieved through meetings or activitiesheld with victims, their offenders, and representatives of the local community, wheredecisions are made by all parties (including the offenders), and where sanctions and/oroutcomes are set for offenders. These meetings or activities take many forms today,including the more popular victim-offender mediation or reconciliation programs(VOMP and VORP programs), teen and truancy courts, peace circles (based in traditionalNative American concepts and practice in community justice), accountability circles,community conferencing, reparation boards, prison ministries, surrogate victim meet-ings (where offenders meet other victims of similar crimes), and art therapy programsdesigned to engage victims and/or offenders in various collaborative and therapeutic artprojects promoted within the community (Bogenschneider, 1996; Cavanagh, 1998;Umbreit, 1994). Inherent in all these programs is an effort to repair relationships throughvoluntary, face-to-face interaction between victims and offenders, often involving familyor other community members who have a stake in the outcome, usually mediated by atrained professional with knowledge of restorative justice principles and goals.

One long-standing program designed to employ restorative justice principles inthis manner is teen court. The teen court program, which has been adopted in variousforms by juvenile court systems nationwide, has been touted as one of the more successful

Laundra et al. / TRANSFORMING TEENS | 23

diversionary programs for delinquent or at-risk adolescents today (Botch, 2006; Buttset al., 2002; Godwin, 1998; Irons & Jones, 2001; Nessel, 1998). Teen courts are typicallyfunded and administered by existing, local juvenile justice or corrections departments,but they are considered diversionary programs because youth who successfully completethe program are not formally charged with a crime, do not face formal criminal sanctionssuch as imprisonment or probation, and do not carry a record of their criminal conductinto adulthood.

These results are accomplished through scheduled meetings, organized and mod-erated by a representative of the restorative justice agency (typically a judge, lawyer, orother administrator versed in restorative justice principles), attended by a group of peerjurors, the offender, and his/her parents or guardians. During the initial meeting, a groupof peers from the community who have been trained in teen court procedures meet withthe offender and parent/guardian in a mock court setting to discuss the crime committedand to discuss the offender’s remorsefulness and willingness to participate in assignedlearning activities, such as writing letters of apology, attending counseling sessions withtheir parents/guardians, community service, writing reflective essays, and making resti-tutions to the victim. Once offenders complete these assignments, usually with the helpof an assigned peer mentor, they return to teen court for review and approval for casedismissal.

Participation in teen court is voluntary for offenders, but most youth who aredetermined eligible for teen court (typically first-time offenders with relatively minoroffenses such as vandalism, retail theft, disorderly conduct, illicit drug use, or fighting)accept and complete the program successfully. Given that refusal to participate or failureto complete the program results in youth being transferred into the formal juvenilejustice system, nearly all offenders accept the invitation to teen court and complete theprogram successfully. But how is this success measured?

As with other diversionary programs, the goal of teen court is to prevent long-term,negative impacts of formal sentencing for youth, while also providing an opportunity toaccept responsibility for one’s crime, to understand how one’s crime has affected others,to show remorse, and to demonstrate a willingness to repair relationships with bothvictim and the community through various learning activities that are assigned duringthe teen court sessions that youth attend with their parents/guardians. Completing theprogram, however, is not necessarily a valid measure of successful learning of restorativejustice principles. Offenders almost always fulfill the court’s directives (showing up forcourt, completing assignments, program participation, etc.), but to what extent havethey grown cognitively to understand how their crime has affected others, be genuinelyremorseful for their crime, and be willing to repair relationships with the victim, theirpeers, and the community at large? In other words, do offenders who participate in teencourt learn any of the restorative justice principles touted by such programs and, if so, dothese restorative justice principles affect successful outcomes at teen court?

At present, these restorative justice learning goals are not specifically measured,measured anecdotally, or not measured at all in teen court research (Butts & Buck, 2000;Butts et al., 2002; Forgays & DeMilio, 2005). More empirical research has been done onteen courts since the late 1990s, but this research generally emphasizes comparative


recidivism rates between teen court participants and similar youth offenders who did notparticipate in teen court, or simply emphasizes teen court recidivism rates as a measure ofsuccess (Butts et al., 2002; Dick et al., 2003; Forgays, 2008; Forgays & DeMilio, 2005;Garrison, 2001; Harrison et al., 2001; Minor et al., 1999; Stickle et al., 2008). Thisresearch does not generally measure the degree to which teen court participants learnrestorative justice principles and/or whether this has any effect on recidivism rates.

Research designed to measure specific elements of restorative justice has shownmostly positive, but often mixed, results. For example, a report to the Kentucky Courtof Justice, Knepper (1994) found significant attitude change among teen court partici-pants in terms of a more favorable attitude toward authority figures, as reported by theparticipants themselves. This study supports earlier research which shows more positiveviews of police officers and the legal system among teen court participants (Fox et al.,1994). In terms of favorable peer influences of teen court on participants, Smith andChonody (2010) develop and test their “Teen Court Peer Influence Scale” (TCPIS),finding significant positive impacts of peer influence on teen court participants in termsof improvements in positive cognitions, positive identity, and modeling positive behav-ior. In another study, Lott et al. (2000) found that although teen court participants inNebraska rated their teen court experience as valuable, “the participants evidenced verylittle change of attitude or beliefs.” Other researchers have also noted empirical andtheoretical limitations in the current research on teen courts (Jones et al., 2003; Dicket al., 2004; Stickle et al., 2008).

There are other reasons to be skeptical of the efficacy of teen courts. Despite agenerally favorable view of these programs in both scholarship and practice, someempirical studies have either shown insignificant differences between teen court offendersand a control group of similar offenders who did not participate in teen court, or haveactually shown higher recidivism rates among teen court participants (Butts et al., 2002;NCAOC, 1995; Stickle et al., 2008). To the extent that studies have shown successfuloutcomes of the teen court program, no clear consensus explains precisely why teen courtis successful. Some research points to the positive effects of “reintegrative shaming”(Sherman et al., 2000; Shiff and Wexler, 1996), while other research relies on lessempirically-grounded explanations, such as the ostensibly less damaging labeling effectsof informal processing (Frazier & Cochran, 1986; Minor et al., 1997), or the positiveeffects of restorative justice principles via anecdotal evidence, such as personal testimo-nials by participants or their parents that typically support teen court (Butts et al., 2002).Omitted from these discussions, however, is a more fundamental question: Exactly whatelements of restorative justice, if any, are being learned at teen court? Assuming thepromotion of restorative justice principles is an effective approach to dealing withdelinquent youth, can we determine which principles are the most impactful? Forinstance, does the teen court process promote increased understanding and awarenessabout harm to victims, to the community, or to the youth themselves? Further, in termsof outcomes, are restorative justice principles learned at teen court having a measurableimpact on recidivism rates?

This study tries to offer some quantitative measure of restorative justice learninggoals, as well as some qualitative measures, in an effort to better understand what, if


anything, is being gleaned by offenders who experience the teen court process. Specifi-cally, our research attempts to measure learning of certain restorative justice principlesthrough the teen court process by comparing matched, pre- and post-survey responses toquestions involving the adolescent’s ability to understand the crime as a violation ofrelationships within the community, as a measure of restorative justice principles. Quali-tative responses regarding the teen court program’s efficacy from both teen participantsand their parents/guardians are also examined in the context of restorative justice prin-ciples. Finally, the efficacy of the teen court model is discussed in terms of recidivism ratescompared to teens who do not experience the teen court process.

METHODS

Population and Sample

Our target population consists of adolescent offenders selected from a teen courtprogram in central Illinois who voluntarily entered the program and who successfullycompleted it from November 2011 through November 2012, a one-year period in whichteen court met bi-weekly in privately-held sessions at a local health department building.Because we were interested in measuring learning among those who completed theprogram (employing a matched, pre- and post-test design), we excluded from thisanalysis adolescents who, for whatever reason, did not complete it. A convenience samplewas selected by inviting all teen court participants to a face-to-face interview during theirinitial visit (the sentencing hearing), just before entering teen court. Those who agreedto participate were interviewed at their initial hearing and again when they returned fortheir second (and last) court appearance when their case was reviewed and determined tobe a successful completion. In addition, parents or guardians of these participants wereasked to complete an exit survey to garner feedback about the teen court experience fromparent/guardian’s point of view. Overall, our sample in this study consists of 38 partici-pants who volunteered to be interviewed both before and after their teen court experi-ence, and their parents/guardians. Ages of participants (excluding parents/guardians)ranged from 11-18, with a median age of 15. Participants were predominantly male (63percent male vs. 37 percent female) and white (60 percent white vs. 26 percent black vs.5 percent other). Offenses ranged from theft and drug offenses to simple battery, whichwas the most common offense in this sample.

Procedures

We employed a questionnaire to measure both quantitative and qualitative out-comes of teen court, as well as to compare recidivism rates between teen court partici-pants and those who did not experience the teen court process. Teens sentenced to teencourt, and parents/guardians who were also required to attend the teen court sessionswith their child, were invited by a researcher to complete an orally-administered ques-tionnaire 15 minutes before entering teen court. This questionnaire contained both


closed (Likert-style) questions for use in quantitative analysis, as well as some open-endedquestions for the qualitative portion of this study. Because we were interested in mea-suring individual learning of restorative justice principles, using pre- and post-test datato determine whether any “growth” occurred between first contact with teen court andsuccessful completion, youth were invited to participate in this study both before theirinitial hearing, and again just before their second and final exit hearing. Parents/guardians were asked to complete a self-administered written questionnaire only duringthe exit hearing, to collect feedback from the parent/guardian regarding perceivedquality and effectiveness of the teen court experience for their child. We used caseidentification numbers assigned to youth sentenced to teen court by the State’s Attorney’sOffice to identify participants by recording that same case identification number on boththe initial and exit questionnaire given to that respondent. In doing so, names ofparticipants in the study were not associated with survey responses to ensure thatparticipants’ responses remained anonymous. This identification procedure also allowedfor matching individual pre- and post-test data for later analysis.

Participation was voluntary but nearly all youth and parents/guardians partici-pated. For both teen court sessions (initial and exit), youth and their parents/guardianswho volunteered for the survey were taken to a private room down the hall from teencourt, where they were given oral instructions for participating, emphasizing that thesurvey was voluntary, that the study in no way influenced their teen court appearance, andthat it was both anonymous and confidential. Both youth and their parents/guardiansacknowledged their understanding and willingness to participate by signing theinformed consent document that was read to them. At this point, while sitting at a tablein a private room, questions were read to youth verbally by the researcher in a semi-structured, face-to-face interview session, in which responses to both Likert-style ques-tions and open-ended questions were collected (See Appendix A, available upon request).After a series of Likert-style questions pertaining to restorative justice principles werepresented, youth were asked various open-ended questions concerning the quality of theirteen court experience and, for the exit interview only, their recent criminal activity, inorder to compare recidivism rates with teens who did not experience the teen courtprocess.

Questions from the written questionnaire were read aloud and slowly, and repeatedor re-stated if necessary, to allow time for more thoughtful answers, and then wererecorded by the researcher. Participants were given a slip of paper containing theLikert-style responses (“strongly agree”, “agree”, etc.) for easy reference, but theseresponse choices were also read aloud for each individual question. For open-endedquestions, the researcher attempted to probe for more in-depth responses. In the case ofthe parent/guardian questionnaires, responses for an exit-only questionnaire were pro-vided in writing, and questions were not read aloud. Parents/guardians completed thiswritten questionnaire at a nearby table while the researcher orally interviewed their child(See Appendix A, available upon request). No recording devices were used in any of theinterviews. Once the survey was administered, a short debriefing was held and youth andtheir parents/guardians were escorted into the teen court room for their hearing. Com-pleted questionnaires were collected immediately and stored securely with the primary


researcher for later analysis. These data collection procedures took place between Novem-ber 2011 and November 2012 at the same facility during the regularly scheduled,bi-monthly teen court meetings.

A pilot study was conducted before the procedures presented here, in which weemployed the same procedures as described above. Instead of reading the questionnairealoud by the researcher, however, the participants were simply given the written ques-tionnaire to read and to provide written responses themselves. When we examined surveydata approximately three months into the study, we discovered that pre- and post-testdata were insignificantly different, due to highly positive responses on the initial survey(typically “agree” or “strongly agree” on Likert-style questions in the expected directionof the study), leaving little or no room for “growth” on the exit survey. This effect wasreduced significantly (but not entirely; see discussion section) during the actual study byproviding questions orally by a researcher who was instructed to read slowly, to re-statethe question if it was not understood, and to probe for more depth in responses to theopen-ended questions.

RESULTS

Our analysis uses both quantitative and qualitative data from the face-to-faceinterviews we conducted for one year. Quantitative analysis was conducted by employ-ing a paired sample, means test (t-test), comparing 38 pre- and post-survey responses toLikert-style questions measuring various dimensions of restorative justice principles(See Appendix B, Table 1, available upon request). For our quantitative analysis, resultsshow that some restorative justice principles were learned through the teen courtprocess, but that only one dimension of these principles showed a statistically signifi-cant level of growth when comparing pre- and post-survey indicators. More precisely,we found a statistically significant improvement on an important restorative justiceprinciple—feeling responsible for improving the community where one lives. Compar-ing pre- and post-survey responses to the statement, “I feel responsible for improvingmy community,” we see a significant, positive improvement in this important dimen-sion of restorative justice among teens who have successfully completed the program(t = 2.16, p < .05; N = 37). Although not statistically significant, teen court partici-pants also showed stronger relationships with teachers and increased understanding ofhow their actions have harmed others. For other measures (such as an ability to makegood decisions, worrying about how actions affect family, stronger relationship withfamily, worrying how actions affect relationships with peers, understanding that a crimewas committed, feeling sorry for the crime committed, and understanding that actionsaffect others), no significant growth was observed and, in some cases, understandingrestorative justice principles actually decreased during the teen court process. Mostnotably, when rating self-esteem (“I feel good about myself”), decision-making (“I amable to make good decisions”), and worrying about how actions affected their families,teen court participants showed slight decreases on these indicators when comparingpre- and post-survey responses. Although these mean differences were not statistically


significant, they challenge our research hypothesis because we expected positive growthin these areas.

Qualitative findings suggest, overall, that teen court was a valuable experience forboth offenders and their parents/guardians, and that at least some measure of restorativejustice principles were learned (See Appendix B, Table 2, available upon request).Content analysis was performed on 35 open-ended responses by teen offenders, in whichwe coded common themes to questions we posed both during the initial and exitinterviews. Natural categories were formed for two open-ended questions we posed,revealing some significant themes. During the initial interview, prior to entering teencourt, when asked, “how do you think teen court can help you?”, 17 percent of respon-dents cited thinking about actions and consequences, 26 percent cited making better decisions,but 40 percent cited simply staying out of trouble, which seems to indicate a narrow, ormore shallow concern about one’s crime in relation to its effect on others, or in terms ofrelationships harmed as a result of one’s actions. Compared to the exit interview, onlythree referenced staying out of trouble. The specific language used in these answers was,“My charges may be dropped,” “I didn’t have to go to real court,” and “I’m trying not to get intoany trouble whatsoever.”

In terms of our qualitative findings based on open-ended questions other themesemerged from the exit interview, after the offenders had successfully completed theprogram, that are at least suggestive of restorative justice principles, although we cannotconclude that offenders did not already possess these values before entering teen court(self-selection bias), or that they precisely represent restorative justice principles at workin the minds of these youthful offenders. When asked, “how has teen court made you abetter person?”, 34 percent felt that teen court helped them to understand their actions,29 percent felt teen court helped them to make better decisions, and 11 percent felt thatteen court changed their character in some way (not specified). The following are sometypical responses that seem to reflect a restorative justice principle—a concern for self andothers, that were coded as either thinking about actions and consequences or betterdecision-making:

“It made me see how my actions affect others (through community service).”

“It helped me gain a full understanding of what I did [and] enlightened me on the bigger picture ofwhat I did.”

“It made me think about what I did wrong and made me think about my future.”

Next, for our qualitative analysis, we performed a content analysis on 24 parent/guardian questionnaires, soliciting open-ended feedback to questions regarding the teencourt experience. Because parents/guardians were asked to complete the questionnaire inwriting, without a face-to-face, orally administered interview, responses we received wereless considered and briefer. When asked “what do you think about the teen courtsentence/decision that was made?” 18 parents/guardians responded affirmatively to theteen court process. No clear themes emerged from these responses, but all responsesreflect a general appreciation for the program and/or seem to reflect restorative justiceideas such as community engagement and being accountable for one’s actions. Thefollowing parent/guardian responses are representative of these ideas:


What do you think about the teen court sentence/decision that was made?

“I think it was fair and very much needed. I love that he got this chance to prove that he is not thishorrible person and he does have a lot to bring to the table.”

“I feel it’s a good option to make the children take responsibility for their actions.”

“I think they’ve been excellent. However, maybe even more community service with the less fortunatecould have been added. He has developed a deep compassion for those less fortunate because of workingwith them and has even offered to volunteer to help whenever he is needed. It’s amazing to us how muchhe enjoyed working at Oasis.”

Finally, we attempted to compare recidivism rates between teen court participantsand non-participants. Among our teen court participants, we used self-report data,collecting responses to two questions from our exit survey: “Since your involvement withteen court, have you been charged with any additional offenses?” and “Since yourinvolvement with teen court, have you been involved in any criminal activity (but notcaught)?” Among the 38 teen court participants, 3 reported being charged with anadditional offense or being involved in a crime without being caught, during the 60-dayperiod in which teen court was held for each participant (8 percent). Compared with agroup of 38 offenders who engaged in similar (but not equal) types of crimes during a60-day period, but who did not experience teen court, there was a significantly greaterrate of criminal recidivism in this group. Of the 38 no-teen-court offenders, 17 (43percent) were charged with a second offense during a (different) 60-day period. It isimportant to note that in the no-teen-court cases selected for comparison, youth did notparticipate in our survey and were ineligible for teen court because they already had apending case (prior offense). We selected only no-teen-court cases with less seriousoffenses (offenses eligible for teen court; similar to those in our study), but these twogroups are not equal because the no-teen-court offenders are repeat offenders (only firsttime offenders are allowed into teen court), and also because participants in our studyvolunteered for both teen court and for our study, a circumstance that creates a selectionbias noted in other studies, making equal comparison groups impossible (Seyfrit et al.,1987; Stickle et al., 2008). Since no-teen-court youth did not participate in our study, wecannot conclude that restorative justice principles are not learned by youth who do notexperience teen court. Varying degrees of discretion among police officers, judges, andprosecuting attorneys also make it difficult to compare these groups.

DISCUSSION

The degree to which restorative justice programs such as teen court provide a venuefor learning much touted restorative justice principles is difficult to determine becausethese principles tend to defy quantification, and because programs vary in their ability toincorporate these ideas, or to transfer them in any measurable way to participants. Otherresearch has underscored the difficulty in comparatively measuring successful outcomesacross programs and practices. In a meta-analytic overview of effective interventionsfor juveniles, Lipsey (2009) found no statistically significant differences in recidivism


related to level of supervision (detention, probation, or diversionary programs), but that“therapeutic” interventions such as counseling and skills training (including restorativejustice practices) were more effective than strategies based in surveillance, deterrence anddiscipline. Among these various approaches, intervention was similarly effective acrossage, gender and race/ethnicity of offenders. These researchers conclude that there are noparticular models of effective treatment, but that effective treatment (measured byrecidivism rates) depends on the quality of program implementation, stating, “It does nottake a magic bullet program to impact recidivism, only one that is well made and wellaimed.” (p. 145). Relatedly, within restorative justice programs such as teen court,identifying exactly which factors are responsible for success is a challenge for researchers.This study shows that, at least in some ways, restorative justice principles can bemeasured, and can be shown to improve over time within individuals participating inthese programs. Our study supports the notion that some of the core ideas of restorativejustice can be successfully employed in these programs and that those who participate inrestorative justice programming can improve their understanding of these core ideas insome important ways. Specifically, in examining matched, pre- and post-survey dataamong youthful offenders who participated in teen court, we find improved understand-ing of some of the core ideas related to restorative justice, including a statisticallysignificant effect on one dimension – feeling responsible for improving one’s community.Narratives from participants and their parents/guardians also shows some support forboth learning and valuing restorative justice principles, but these responses are onlysuggestive of any specific restorative justice principles at play. Finally, a comparison ofrecidivism rates among teen court participants and non-participants suggests that, forreasons we cannot confirm, participants in teen court are less likely to recidivate thannon-participants, at least in the short term. As such, our attempt to demonstrate bothquantitative and qualitative evidence for restorative justice learning is partially supportedhere, with some important caveats.

First, although this study was conducted for an entire year, and used a matched,pre- and post-survey design that allowed for examination of individual growth inrestorative justice learning during participation in teen court, our sample (N = 38) wasnot large enough to offer any generalizable findings. In addition, because of the widerange of existing restorative justice programming, and because the efficacy of eachprogram in transferring core restorative ideas differs widely, we cannot conclude thatrestorative justice programs are always successful in their learning goals, or that any oneapproach is more effective than another. In this study, because we have attempted tomeasure only growth in learning among participants, and not the particular strategy (orability) of these programs to transfer these key ideas, we cannot offer any practicalsuggestions for improving restorative justice programming based on the results of thisstudy. Our study is only suggestive for such programs, in that we provide limitedevidence that some of the key ideas related to restorative justice can be transferred toparticipants, that growth can occur on an individual level, and that this growth can, inat least some rudimentary ways, be measured quantitatively.

We have shown greater “success” among participants compared to non-participantsin terms of recidivism rates over a three-month period, but we cannot conclude that this


success is due to the restorative justice program itself. Because we compared onlyself-report data among teen court participants with the official data of similar offenderswho did not participate in teen court, we are unable to account for other effects that mayhave influenced criminality among these offenders. This inability to compare these twogroups accurately is due to what has been referred to as a “self-selection bias” in theliterature on restorative justice programming (Butts et al., 2002; Forgays and DeMilio2005), meaning that, since teen court is a voluntary program for first-time offenders, andis based in court referrals of youth who have not (typically) engaged in more serious formsof delinquency (e.g. homicide, rape, arson), no definitive conclusion can be made aboutthe success of these programs compared to other, more traditional programs for youthfuloffenders.

Future research attempting to measure more precisely restorative justice principlesat work in these kinds of programs might attempt to design more standardized, quan-tifiable measures of restorative justice principles for comparative analysis, employing thisanalysis among a larger, more representative sample of participants in a wider range ofrestorative justice programs. Support for employing restorative justice to divert adoles-cent offenders from adverse, long-term effects of formal sanctioning is abundant in thescholarly research, but this research is primarily qualitative and anecdotal. Furtherattempts at more precise measurement of the effects of restorative justice programming,and at assessing outcomes for participants, are needed to more confidently advance suchprogramming in the ongoing evolution of our contemporary juvenile justice system.

REFERENCES

Abrams, L. (2006). Listening to juvenile offenders: Can residential treatment prevent recidivism? Childand Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(1), 61-85.

Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press.Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory for building prevention programs,

policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family Relations, 45(2), 127-138.Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & Mcanoy, K. (2002). An outcome evaluation of a

restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Contemporary Justice, 5, 319-338.Botch, D. A. (2006). Reforming the American justice system. Public Administration Review, 66(4),

640-643.Bushway, S. & Reuter, P. (2011). Deterrence, economics, and the context of drug markets. Criminology

and Public Policy, 10(1), 183-194.Butts, J. A. & Buck, J. (2000). Teen courts: A focus on research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, Department of Justice.Butts, J. A. & Buck, J. (2002). The sudden popularity of teen courts. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.Butts, J. A., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2002). The impact of teen court on young offenders. Washington,

D.C.: Urban Institute.Butts, J.A. & Harrell, A. V. (1998). Delinquents or criminals: Policy options for young offenders. Crime Policy

Report. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute.Cavanagh, T. (1998). Adopting new values for the courts: What is restorative justice? The Court

Manager, 13(2/3), 24-27.Dick, A. J., Geertsen, R., & Jones, R. M. (2003). Self-reported delinquency among teen court

participants. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 18(1), 33-49.Dick, A. J., Pence, D. J., Jones, R. M., & Geertsen, R. H. (2004). The need for theory in assessing peer

courts. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(11), 1448-1461.


Forgays, D. (2008). Three years of teen court offender outcomes. Adolescence, 43(171), 473-484.Forgays, D. & DeMilio, L. (2005). Is teen court effective for repeat offenders? A test of the restorative

justice approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(1), 107-118.

Fox, J. W., Minor, K. I., & Pelkey, W. L. (1994). The relationship between law-related educationdiversion and juvenile offenders’ social- and self-perceptions. American Journal of Criminal Justice,19, 61-77.

Frazier, C. E. & Cochran, J. K. (1986). Official intervention, diversion from the juvenile justice system,and dynamics of human service work: Effects of a reform goal based on labeling theory. Crime andDelinquency, 32, 157-176.

Friday, P. C. (2003). Community-based Restorative Justice: The Impact of Crime. In H. Kury &J. Obergfell-Fuchs (Eds.), Crime Prevetion: New Approaches (pp. 370-387). Herausgeber: WeisserRing.

Garrison, A. (2001). An evaluation of a Delaware teen court. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Summer,11-21.

Godwin, T. M. (1998). Peer justice and youth empowerment: An implementation guide for teen court programs.Washington, D.C.: American Probation and Parole Association.

Haley, J. O. (1996). Crime Prevention through Restorative Justice: Lessons from Japan. In B. Galaway& J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (pp. 352). Monsey, NY: Amsterdam;The Netherlands: Criminal Justice Press and Kugler Publications.

Harrison, P., Maupin, J. R., & Mays, G. L. (2001). Teen court: An examination of processes andoutcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 47(2), 243-264.

Irons, J. E. & Jones, R. (2001). Teen court: An effective intervention for youth at risk of interpersonalviolence and substance abuse. Journal of Correctional Education, 52(4), 149-151.

Jones, R. M., Dick, A. J., Geertsen, H. R., Cook, J. L., & Coyl, D. D. (2003). Ego identity status as anindicator of peer court efficacy. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(3), 47-60.

Knepper, P. (1994). Attitudinal change among teen court participants. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Court ofJustice, Administrative Office of the Courts.

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenileoffenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 124-47.

Lott, R., Thai, N., & Weisz, V. (2000). An evaluation of a teen court with a therapeutic jurisprudentialperspective. Center on Children, Families and the Law: University of Nebraska-Lincoln (Unpub-lished paper).

McGrath, A. & Weatherburn, D. (2012). The effect of custodial penalties on juvenile reoffending.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 45(1), 26-44.

Mika H. & Zehr, H. (1997). Restorative justice signposts. Akron, PA: Mennonite Central Committee.Minor, K. I., Hartman, D. J., & Terry, S. (1997). Predictors of juvenile court actions and recidivism.

Crime and Delinquency, 43, 328-344.Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., Soderstrom, I. R., Bingham, R., & Williamson, D. (1999). Sentence

completion and recidivism among juveniles referred to teen courts. Crime and Delinquency, 45(4),467-480.

Nessel, P. (1998). Teen court: A national movement. Technical Assistance Bulletin, 17: Chicago, IL:American Bar Association.

North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (1995). Report on the teen court programs in NorthCarolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.

Pearson, S. S. (2003). Youth court: A path to civic engagement. National Youth Court Center PolicyBrief. The National Youth Court Center.

Seyfrit, C. L., Reichel, P., & Stutts, B. (1987). Peer juries as a juvenile justice diversion technique. Youthand Society, 18, 302-316.

Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., & Woods, D. J. (2000). Recidivism patterns in the Canberra reintegrativeshaming experiment. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University, Center for RestorativeJustice.

Shiff, A. R. & Wexler, D. B. (1996). Teen court: A therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. Criminal LawBulletin, 32, 342-357.


Smith, E. & Hattery, A. (2006). The Prison Industrial Complex. Sociation Today, 4(2), 1-28.Smith, S. & Chonody, J. M. (2010). The Teen Court Peer Influence Scale (TCPIS): Determining an

Effective Way to Measure and Model Positive Peer Influence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(2),148-159.

Stickle, W. P., Connell, N. M., Wilson, D. M., & Gottfredson, D. (2008). An experimental evaluationof teen courts. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 4, 137-163.

Umbreit, M. S. (1994). Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Meditation. Monsey, NY:Criminal Justice Press

Van Ness, D. W. (1986). Crime and Its Victims: What We Can Do. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.Van Ness, D. W. (1990). “Restorative Justice.” In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Criminal Justice,

Restitution, and Reconciliation. Monsey, NJ: Willow.Van Ness, D. W. & Strong, K. H. (1997). Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.


transforming teens: measuring the effects of restorative justice principles in a teen court setting

Documents