effects of teen court: results of the ojjdp evaluation
Post on 02-Jan-2016
35 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Effects of Teen Court: Results of the OJJDP Evaluation
Jeffrey ButtsJaneen BuckMark Coggeshall
April 15, 2002
2002 National Youth Court ConferenceArlington, VA
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)
Funded by
Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention
U.S. Department of Justice
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
• 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.
What is Teen Court?
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Youth and parent(s) meet with teen court
Youth or parent(s) refuse diversion
Case returned to regular juvenile court process
Youth accepts responsibility
Youth denies responsibility
Youth goes to teen court, receives sanctions
Intake agency confirms
eligibility, offers diversion to youth
& parent(s)
Youth fails to complete sanctions
Youth faces original charges, juvenile court record
Youth completes sanctions
Case closed -- youth has no formal record
Youth arrested for an offense eligible
for teen court
Return to regular court process
The teen court process varies from place to place, but it typically looks something like this...
How Does Teen Court Work?
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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 CasesSo, what was the bottom line?
The study measured six-month recidivism for youth in four teen court programs and four comparison groups.
Six-Month Recidivism
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
• 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
Why Evaluate Teen Courts?
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
• 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?
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)
The Urban Institute studied teen courts (or youth courts) in four sites from 2000 to 2002
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Anchorage
AK
Maricopa County
AZ
Independence
MO
Montgomery County
MD
Four Study Sites
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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 Teen courts use four
courtroom models:
1) Adult Judge: An adult judge conducts hearings with youth attorneys & youth jury.
2) Youth Judge: A youth judge conducts hearings with youth attorneys & youth jury.
3) Youth Tribunal: Three youth judges conduct hearings with youth attorneys (no jury).
4) Peer Jury: Youth jurors question defendant directly (usually no attorneys; sometimes no judge).
The programs in Alaska and Missouri give more responsibility to youth volunteers who actually run the court sessions.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Evaluation Samples
Research Groups AK AZ MD MOTeen Court 120 115 154 142
Comparison 120 115 118 142
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.
The study did not attempt to influence or measure the extent to which these youth may have received sanctions and services.
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.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Evaluation Samples
Research Groups AK AZ MD MOTeen Court 120 115 154 142
Comparison 120 115 118 142
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.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)
Visits to the Four Study Sites
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Anchorage Youth Court
The Anchorage Youth Court has its own office in a small, downtown building.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Anchorage Youth Court
The building contains a reception area, small conference room, and several offices.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Anchorage Youth Court
Court sessions are held in the State Court Building just across the street.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Anchorage Youth Court
Inside the courtroom used by the Anchorage Youth Court.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Teen Court, Tempe Arizona
The Tempe Teen Court operates out of the Tempe Justice Court, which has its facilities in a small shopping mall.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Teen Court, Tempe Arizona
Inside the courtroom used by the Tempe Teen Court.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Teen Court, Tempe Arizona
Jury box and spectator seating.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Montgomery County Teen Court
Court sessions are held in the Judicial Center, in Rockville, Maryland.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Independence Youth Court
Court sessions are held in the Municipal Court building in Independence, Missouri.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Independence Youth Court
Inside the courtroom used by the Independence Youth Court.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
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.
Parents in Alaska and Maryland were more well off financially, as measured by home ownership and other consumer goods.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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)
In addition to collecting recidivism data, the evaluation measured the attitudes and opinions of youth and their parents.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Self-Admin Questionnaires
Intake
Same Day
SAQ 1: Parent &
YouthCourt Sanctions
SAQ 2: Parent &
Youth
Self-administered questionnaires were given to youth and parents just before and just after their appearance in teen court.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
AK AZ MD MO
Most police officers try to do a good job
96% 96% 88% 83%
The police are usually fair to people like me
76 74 60 54
My teachers are proud of me 72 87 80 77
Getting into good college is important to me
95 91 93 77
We fight a lot in my family 22 18 20 30
My parents don’t care what I think 16 13 15 20
Youth AttitudesBefore Court
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
In general, the youth involved in teen court expressed high levels of pro-social attitudes.Youth in Missouri, however, were slightly less pro-social.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
AK AZ MD MO
Most police officers try to do a good job
96% 96% 88% 83%
The police are usually fair to people like me
76 74 60 54
My teachers are proud of me 72 87 80 77
Getting into good college is important to me
95 91 93 77
We fight a lot in my family 22 18 20 30
My parents don’t care what I think 16 13 15 20
Youth AttitudesBefore Court
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Before CourtAK AZ MD MO
Friends think teen court is a joke 12% 18% 13% 29%Teen court will be a waste of time 7 11 12 18Being in teen court makes you a better person
82 76 68 62
Being in teen court makes you think about your future
86 89 88 73
You can learn a lot about the law in teen court
96 88 91 86
Youth Attitudes
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
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.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Before CourtAK AZ MD MO
Friends think teen court is a joke 12% 18% 13% 29%Teen court will be a waste of time 7 11 12 18Being in teen court makes you a better person
82 76 68 62
Being in teen court makes you think about your future
86 89 88 73
You can learn a lot about the law in teen court
96 88 91 86
Youth Attitudes
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
After Court AK AZ MD MO
Got to talk enough in court 85% 80% 85% 66%
Was treated fairly in teen court 93 79 79 68
Glad I came here (& not juv court) 93 97 92 85
Teen court made me want to know about the law
64 63 71 43
People in teen court cared about my rights
88 82 83 69
I wish they would have explained teen court better
19 34 24 45
Youth Attitudes
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
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.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
After Court AK AZ MD MO
Got to talk enough in court 85% 80% 85% 66%
Was treated fairly in teen court 93 79 79 68
Glad I came here (& not juv court) 93 97 92 85
Teen court made me want to know about the law
64 63 71 43
People in teen court cared about my rights
88 82 83 69
I wish they would have explained teen court better
19 34 24 45
Youth Attitudes
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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.
After court, youth from Alaska and Arizona were actually less likely to say that teen court was a “waste of time.”
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Youth Attitudes
AK AZ MD MOTeen court (will be / was) waste of time
Before teen court 7% 11% 12% 18%After teen court 4% 9% 12% 29%
Glad I came here (not juv court)
Before teen court 97% 95% 97% 96%After teen court 93% 97% 92% 85%
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
Youth were still overwhelmingly positive about teen court, even after receiving sentences from the court.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Parent Attitudes
AK AZ MD MOTeen court (will be / was) a waste of time
Before teen court 7% 5% 6% 6%After teen court 5% 4% 4% 6%
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
After court, parents were just as supportive, or even more supportive than they had been before they went into court with their children.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
After Court AK AZ MD MO
Child got to talk enough in court 95% 93% 93% 85%
Child treated fairly in teen court 92 93 89 89
Glad we came here (not juv court) 95 96 96 91
Think child took this seriously 96 94 91 89
People here cared about my child’s rights
96 96 94 96
I am grateful to teen court for trying to help us
95 96 95 91
Parent Attitudes
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
Parents were very supportive of the teen court process and were grateful that their children had been to teen court.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
After Court AK AZ MD MO
Child got to talk enough in court 95% 93% 93% 85%
Child treated fairly in teen court 92 93 89 89
Glad we came here (not juv court) 95 96 96 91
Think child took this seriously 96 94 91 89
People here cared about my child’s rights
96 96 94 96
I am grateful to teen court for trying to help us
95 96 95 91
Parent Attitudes
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Alaska
Arizona
Maryland
Missouri
Teen Court
Comparison
6%23%
9%15%
8%4%
9%27%*
*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Six-Month Recidivism
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
These findings suggest that teen court may be a viable alternative to the typical juvenile justice process...
Six-Month Recidivism
… especially in jurisdictions that are unable to provide extensive interventions for young, first-time juvenile offenders
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Moreover, even in jurisdictions that do have a wide range of interventions for young, first-time offenders…
Six-Month Recidivism
… teen courts may be a cost-effective option since they depend largely on volunteers and have small operating budgets
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
*
*The evaluation examined differences in recidivism for all teen court cases according to various measures from the self-administered questionnaires.
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 study also investigated whether recidivism was different among the youth handled in teen court, based upon their attitudes and opinions prior to teen court.
Six-Month Recidivism
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
*
*
Six-Month Recidivism
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
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
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Final Report Available
Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders
go to
youth.urban.org
”Research Highlights”
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Program on Youth Justice
The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts was conducted by the Urban Institute’s Program on Youth Justice
For more information, see http://youth.urban.orgThe 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.
top related