Effects of Teen Court: Results of the OJJDP Evaluation

1. Jeffrey Butts Janeen Buck Mark Coggeshall April 15, 2002 Effects of Teen Court: Results of the OJJDP Evaluation 2002 National Youth Court Conference Arlington, VA

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

3. What is Teen Court? • A diversion program, offered as an alternative to the regular juvenile justice process • Youth are usually required to admit responsibility for their offense in order to qualify for teen court • Young offenders going through teen court agree to abide by whatever sanctions they are given • Sanctions imposed by teen court often involve community service, written apologies, restitution payments, teen court jury duty, etc.

4. How Does Teen Court Work? Youth accepts responsibility Youth goes to teen court, receives sanctions Youth and parent(s) meet with teen court Youth denies responsibility Intake agency confirms eligibility, offers diversion to youth & parent(s) Youth fails to complete sanctions Youth completes sanctions Youth or parent(s) refuse diversion Return to regular court process Case closed -- youth has no formal record Youth faces original charges, juvenile court record Youth arrested for an offense eligible for teen court The teen court process varies from place to place, but it typically looks something like this... Case returned to regular juvenile court process

5. Six-Month Recidivism 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 So, what was the bottom line? The study measured six-month recidivism for youth in four teen court programs and four comparison groups.

6. Why Evaluate Teen Courts? • Number of programs growing fast, nearly 900 courts nationwide, up to 100,000 cases annually • Teen courts are not all alike • Different program strategies may produce different client outcomes • Researchers are just beginning to investigate this important issue

7. 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?

8. 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

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

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

11. Four Study Sites • Teen courts use four courtroom models: • Adult Judge: An adult judge conducts hearings with youth attorneys & youth jury. • Youth Judge: A youth judge conducts hearings with youth attorneys & youth jury. • Youth Tribunal: Three youth judges conduct hearings with youth attorneys (no jury). • Peer Jury: Youth jurors question defendant directly (usually no attorneys; sometimes no judge). 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 The programs in Alaska and Missouri give more responsibility to youth volunteers who actually run the court sessions.

12. Evaluation Samples Number of Cases Two different types of comparison groups were used. The Maryland comparison group was different from the comparison groups used in Alaska, Arizona, and Missouri. In Alaska, Arizona, and Missouri, the comparison groups were selected from a general pool of comparable first-time juvenile offenders, matched on age, sex, race, and offense type. They were chosen at random from the juvenile justice system, however, so they most likely received whatever response is typical for young, first-time offenders. The study did not attempt to influence or measure the extent to which these youth may have received sanctions and services.

13. Evaluation Samples Number of Cases The comparison group in Maryland, on the other hand, was selected from youth served by a proactive, police diversion program in a neighboring county. They received services and sanctions that were similar to those offered by the teen court program, but without the court element itself.

14. Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Visits to the Four Study Sites

15. Anchorage Youth Court • Private, nonprofit agency • Handles 400+ cases annually • Uses youth tribunal model • Interesting Features: • - Youth Bar Association • - Supported by statute • - Can hold full trials when warranted

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

17. Anchorage Youth Court The building contains a reception area, small conference room, and several offices.

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

19. Anchorage Youth Court Inside the courtroom used by the Anchorage Youth Court.

20. Teen Court, Tempe Arizona • Administered by local court system • Handles 300+ cases annually • Uses adult judge model (50% cases) and peer jury model (50% cases) • Interesting Features: • - Located in community justice centers • - Many ex-defendants on juries • - Close association with schools

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

22. Teen Court, Tempe Arizona Inside the courtroom used by the Tempe Teen Court.

23. Teen Court, Tempe Arizona Jury box and spectator seating.

24. Montgomery County Teen Court • Administered by prosecutor’s office • Handles 225+ cases annually • Uses adult judge model (50% cases) and peer jury model (50% cases) • Interesting Features: • - Strong support by local justice system • - Volunteers get school service credits

25. Montgomery County Teen Court Court sessions are held in the Judicial Center, in Rockville, Maryland.

26. Independence Youth Court • Private, nonprofit agency • Handles 500+ cases annually • Uses youth judge model • Interesting Features: • - Local judge serves as director • - Close ties to local police • - Can hold full trials when warranted

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

28. Independence Youth Court Inside the courtroom used by the Independence Youth Court.

29. Defendant Profiles Parents in Alaska and Maryland were more well off financially, as measured by home ownership and other consumer goods. Youth in Arizona and Missouri were slightly younger than those in Alaska and Maryland. The parents of teen court youth were younger in Missouri. Parents in Missouri were less likely to have education beyond high school.

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

31. SAQ 1: Parent & Youth SAQ 2: Parent & Youth Court Self-Admin Questionnaires Same Day Sanctions Intake Self-administered questionnaires were given to youth and parents just before and just after their appearance in teen court.

32. Youth Attitudes Before Court In general, the youth involved in teen court expressed high levels of pro-social attitudes. Youth in Missouri, however, were slightly less pro-social. Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

33. Youth Attitudes Before Court Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

34. Youth Attitudes Before Court Just before they went into court, the youth expressed considerable optimism about what teen court would be like and what they would likely get out of the experience. Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

35. Youth Attitudes Before Court Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

36. Youth Attitudes After Court After court, their support for teen court was not greatly diminished, although youth from Missouri were slightly less positive than those from Alaska, Arizona, and Maryland. Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

37. Youth Attitudes After Court Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

38. Youth Attitudes After court, youth from Alaska and Arizona were actually less likely to say that teen court was a “waste of time.” Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

39. Youth Attitudes Youth were still overwhelmingly positive about teen court, even after receiving sentences from the court. Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

40. Parent Attitudes After court, parents were just as supportive, or even more supportive than they had been before they went into court with their children. Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

41. Parent Attitudes After Court Parents were very supportive of the teen court process and were grateful that their children had been to teen court. Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

42. Parent Attitudes After Court Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

43. Six-Month Recidivism Teen Court 6% 23% Comparison 9% 15% 8% 4% 9% 27% * Alaska Arizona Maryland The comparison groups in the other three sites were drawn from typical juvenile justice cases. Many may have been “adjusted” or dismissed, and the youth probably received no sanctions. While youth from the teen court in Maryland were slightly more likely to be re-arrested than were youth in the comparison group, the difference between them was not statistically significant. In Maryland, all of the youth in the comparison group received sanctions. In fact, they received sanctions similar to those received by youth in teen court. In Maryland, the difference in recidivism did not favor teen court, but it is important to remember that the nature of the comparison group was different in Maryland. In Alaska and Missouri, there were statistically significant differences in the recidivism of teen court cases and comparison group cases. * In Arizona, the difference in recidivism favored teen court, but it was not statistically significant. Missouri

44. 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

45. 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

46. Six-Month Recidivism 13% 5% 11% 5% 7% 9% 12% 4% * Low Pro-social attitudes High * Low Pro-social bonds High Low Delinquent peers High In general, the results indicated that youth who were more pro-social before teen court were less likely to be re-arrested or re-referred to the juvenile justice system after teen court. The evaluation examined differences in recidivism for all teen court cases according to various measures from the self-administered questionnaires. The study also investigated whether recidivism was different among the youth handled in teen court, based upon their attitudes and opinions prior to teen court. * Parent’s pro-social expectations for youth Low High

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

48. 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

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

50. The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts was conducted by the Urban Institute’s Program on Youth JusticeFor more information, see http://youth.urban.org The Program on Youth Justice was established by the Urban Institute in 2002 to help policymakers and community leaders develop and test more effective, research-based strategies for combating youth crime and encouraging positive youth development. Researchers affiliated with the Program on Youth Justice investigate a wide variety of programs and policies related to crime and youth development. Studies may focus on efforts to hold young offenders accountable for illegal acts, programs to prevent the early onset of delinquency and improve the life prospects of at-risk youth, and policies designed to increase the safety and stability of neighborhoods by reducing opportunities and incentives for youth to engage in criminal behavior. The director of the Program on Youth Justice is Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D. Program on Youth Justice