1 / 38

The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Project

Janeen Buck Jeffrey Butts October 23, 2002. The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Project. National Youth Court Center Evaluation Workshop Indianapolis, IN. Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC).

elaine-sutton
Download Presentation

The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Janeen Buck Jeffrey Butts October 23, 2002 The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Project National Youth Court Center Evaluation Workshop Indianapolis, IN

  2. Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Funded by Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency PreventionU.S. Department of Justicehttp://ojjdp.ncjrs.org

  3. 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

  4. Teen Court Cases 18% Comparison Cases Combined recidivism in all states 9% 9% 8% 6% New charges sent to juvenile court New charges sent to family court New arrest by local police New charges sent to intake Alaska Arizona Maryland Missouri All 4 States Bottom Line?

  5. The Big Question Do Teen Courts Work? Surprisingly, very few studieshave addressed this question.

  6. Our Review of Existing Studies

  7. Hissong, 1991 % Recidivating Statistically Significant Difference ( p < .01 ) 24% 36% Teen Court Comparison

  8. Hissong, 1991 • Little information about group selection • No consistent follow-up periods • Recidivism not clearly defined

  9. N.C. AOC, 1995 % Recidivating in 7 months Not Statistically Significant 20% 9% Teen Court Comparison

  10. N.C. AOC, 1995 • Small samples • Follow-up periods were inconsistent • Offenses of comparison group varied from teen court group

  11. El Dorado Co. (CA), 1999 % Recidivating in 1 year Not Statistically Significant 17% 27% Teen Court Comparison

  12. 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

  13. ETC, Urban Institute, 2002 Our goals: • adequate sample sizes • sound comparison groups • standard follow-up exposure • diversity of measures • focused on key components

  14. 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

  15. What Makes Teen Court Work? • Peer-to-peer influence (quality, quantity)? • Sanctions (certainty, severity, swiftness)? • Improving youth perceptions of justice? • Fairness and consistency of process? • Professionalism, formality of program?

  16. 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

  17. Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) The Urban Institute studied teen courts (or youth courts) in four sites from 2000 to 2002

  18. Four Study Sites Montgomery CountyMD IndependenceMO Maricopa CountyAZ Anchorage AK

  19. Four Study Sites Percent of cases handled by court model Alaska -- Arizona -- Maryland -- Missouri -- 100% Youth Tribunal 50% Adult Judge / 50% Peer Jury 50% Adult Judge / 50% Peer Jury 100% Youth Judge

  20. Evaluation Samples Number of Cases Youth similar to teen court cases, but handled in traditional juvenile justice system, whatever that meant… intervention or not

  21. Evaluation Samples 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

  22. 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

  23. Defendant Profiles

  24. Comparison Offenders handled in regular court Offense, age, sex, race, etc. Recidivism Data Collection Strategy ——————— Content Domains——————— Teen Court Offenders handled in teen court Offense, age, sex, race, etc. Services and sanctions Changes in attitudes & opinions Recidivism

  25. Services and sanctions Changes in attitudes & opinions Maryland site only Data Collection Strategy ——————— Content Domains——————— Teen Court Offenders handled in teen court Offense, age, sex, race, etc. Services and sanctions Changes in attitudes & opinions Recidivism Comparison Offenders handled in regular court Offense, age, sex, race, etc. Recidivism

  26. Opinions & Attitudes Self-Administered Questionnaires (SAQ) • Items on: • socio-economic status • self-reported delinquency • delinquent peer association • pro-social attitudes • pro-social bonds • perceptions of justice system

  27. Same Day SAQ 1: Parent & Youth SAQ 2: Parent & Youth Court Sanctions SAQ 3: Youth Only Self-Admin Questionnaires Intake 30 – 60 Days

  28. Youth were required to return third survey in person Youth were asked to mail third survey Sample Attrition at Wave 3

  29. 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

  30. Youth Attitudes Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

  31. Youth Attitudes Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

  32. Parent Attitudes Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

  33. Teen Court 6% 23% Comparison 9% 15% 8% 4% 9% 27% Six-Month Recidivism * Alaska Arizona Maryland * Missouri

  34. Six-Month Recidivism 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

  35. Six-Month Recidivism 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

  36. 13% 5% 11% 5% 7% 9% 12% 4% Six-Month Recidivism * Low Pro-social attitudes High * Low Pro-social bonds High Low Delinquent peers High * Parent’s pro-social expectations for youth Low High

  37. Implications • Recidivism is low among teen court cases partly due to factors existing before teen court • Teen court may be a viable option for cases not likely to receive meaningful sanctions from the regular juvenile justice system • 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

  38. Final Report Available Impact of Teen Court on Young Offendersgo toyouth.urban.org”Research Highlights”

More Related