URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 Butts Janeen Buck Mark Coggeshall April 15, National Youth Court Conference Arlington, VA

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 and Delinquency Prevention U.S. Department of Justice

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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% AlaskaArizonaMarylandMissouri Combined recidivism in all states 18% All 4 States Teen Court Cases Comparison Cases So, 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 % Youth Tribunal 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 AKAZMDMO Teen Court Comparison 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 AKAZMDMO Teen Court Comparison 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 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 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 & Youth Court 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 INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. AKAZMDMO Most police officers try to do a good job 96% 88%83% The police are usually fair to people like me My teachers are proud of me Getting into good college is important to me We fight a lot in my family My parents don’t care what I think Youth Attitudes Before 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 INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. AKAZMDMO Most police officers try to do a good job 96% 88%83% The police are usually fair to people like me My teachers are proud of me Getting into good college is important to me We fight a lot in my family My parents don’t care what I think Youth Attitudes Before Court Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 Court AKAZMDMO Friends think teen court is a joke 12%18%13%29% Teen court will be a waste of time Being in teen court makes you a better person Being in teen court makes you think about your future You can learn a lot about the law in teen court 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 Court AKAZMDMO Friends think teen court is a joke 12%18%13%29% Teen court will be a waste of time Being in teen court makes you a better person Being in teen court makes you think about your future You can learn a lot about the law in teen court Youth Attitudes Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 AKAZMDMO Got to talk enough in court 85%80%85%66% Was treated fairly in teen court Glad I came here (& not juv court) Teen court made me want to know about the law People in teen court cared about my rights I wish they would have explained teen court better 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 AKAZMDMO Got to talk enough in court 85%80%85%66% Was treated fairly in teen court Glad I came here (& not juv court) Teen court made me want to know about the law People in teen court cared about my rights I wish they would have explained teen court better Youth Attitudes Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 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. After court, youth from Alaska and Arizona were actually less likely to say that teen court was a “waste of time.”

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 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. Youth were still overwhelmingly positive about teen court, even after receiving sentences from the court.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 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. After court, parents were just as supportive, or even more supportive than they had been before they went into court with their children.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 AKAZMDMO Child got to talk enough in court 95%93% 85% Child treated fairly in teen court Glad we came here (not juv court) Think child took this seriously People here cared about my child’s rights I am grateful to teen court for trying to help us 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 AKAZMDMO Child got to talk enough in court 95%93% 85% Child treated fairly in teen court Glad we came here (not juv court) Think child took this seriously People here cared about my child’s rights I am grateful to teen court for trying to help us Parent Attitudes Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 attitudes Low 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 * * 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 attitudes Low 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 * * Six-Month Recidivism

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 INSTITUTE Justice 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 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.