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

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Funded by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention U.S. Department of Justice

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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% AlaskaArizonaMarylandMissouri Combined recidivism in all states 18% All 4 States Teen Court Cases Comparison Cases Bottom Line?

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 The Big Question Do Teen Courts Work? Surprisingly, very few studies have addressed this question.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Our Review of Existing Studies

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Hissong, 1991 Teen CourtComparison % Recidivating 24%36% Statistically Significant Difference ( p <.01 )

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Hissong, 1991 Little information about group selection No consistent follow-up periods Recidivism not clearly defined

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 N.C. AOC, 1995 Teen CourtComparison % Recidivating in 7 months 20%9% Not Statistically Significant

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 N.C. AOC, 1995 Follow-up periods were inconsistent Offenses of comparison group varied from teen court group Small samples

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 El Dorado Co. (CA), 1999 Teen CourtComparison % Recidivating in 1 year 17%27% Not Statistically Significant

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 ETC, Urban Institute, 2002 adequate sample sizes sound comparison groups standard follow-up exposure diversity of measures focused on key components Our goals:

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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 INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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 INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) The Urban Institute studied teen courts (or youth courts) in four sites from 2000 to 2002

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Four Study Sites Anchorage AK Maricopa County AZ Independence MO Montgomery County MD

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Four Study Sites Alaska -- Arizona -- Maryland -- Missouri % Youth Tribunal 50% Adult Judge / 50% Peer Jury 100% Youth Judge Percent of cases handled by court model

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Evaluation Samples Research Groups AKAZMDMO Teen Court Comparison Number of Cases Youth similar to teen court cases, but handled in traditional juvenile justice system, whatever that meant… intervention or not

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Evaluation Samples Research Groups AKAZMDMO Teen Court Comparison 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

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Defendant Profiles AKAZMDMO Youth is male57%62%61% Youth is under age Parent is under age Parent went past H.S Parent owns home Family owns computer Family owns cell phone

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Data Collection Strategy Offenders handled in teen court Services and sanctions Changes in attitudes & opinions Recidivism Offense, age, sex, race, etc. ——————— Content Domains——————— Offenders handled in regular court Comparison Recidivism Offense, age, sex, race, etc. Teen Court

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Data Collection Strategy Offenders handled in teen court Services and sanctions Changes in attitudes & opinions Recidivism Offense, age, sex, race, etc. ——————— Content Domains——————— Teen Court Offenders handled in regular court Comparison Recidivism Offense, age, sex, race, etc. Services and sanctions Changes in attitudes & opinions Maryland site only

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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)

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Self-Admin Questionnaires Intake Same Day SAQ 1: Parent & Youth Court SAQ 2: Parent & Youth Sanctions SAQ 3: Youth Only 30 – 60 Days

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Sample Attrition at Wave 3 Questionnaires completed AKAZMDMO Waves 1 and 2 (day of teen court) Wave 3 (follow-up) Percent received 97%36%49%39% Youth were required to return third survey in person Youth were asked to mail third survey

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Sample Attrition at Wave 3 Because of varying response rates to the 3 rd youth questionnaires, the project’s measurement of program effects was limited to the official recidivism analysis and just few questions on the 1 st and 2 nd questionnaires

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Youth Attitudes AKAZMDMO 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.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Youth Attitudes AKAZMDMO Teen 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.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Parent Attitudes AKAZMDMO Teen court (will be / was) a waste of time Before teen court 7%5%6% After teen court 5%4% 6% Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Alaska Arizona Maryland Missouri Teen Court Comparison Six-Month Recidivism 6% 23% 9% 15% 8% 4% 9% 27% * *

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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 INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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 INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Pro-social attitudes Low Six-Month Recidivism 13% 5% 11% 5% 7% 9% 12% 4% * High Pro-social bonds Low High Delinquent peers Low High Parent’s pro-social expectations for youth Low High * *

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 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 INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002 Final Report Available Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders go to youth.urban.org ”Research Highlights”