Youth Court: Models and Impact

1
Youth Court Models and Impact

• Jeffrey Butts
• Janeen Buck
• Mark Coggeshall
• December 3, 2001

American Youth Policy Forum
2
Evaluation of Teen Courts
Funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.ncjrs.org
3
Why Evaluate Youth Courts?

• Youth courts are not all alike.
• Different program strategies may produce
  different client outcomes.
• Researchers are just beginning to investigate
  this important issue.

4
What Makes Youth 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

5
What Makes Youth Court Work?
Some of these elements may bein direct conflict
with one another. Until we have more evidence,
we wont know what the key elements are
6
Four Courtroom Models

• Adult Judge
• Youth Judge
• Youth Tribunal
• Peer Jury

7
Four Courtroom Models
Adult
Youth
8
Four Courtroom Models
Adult
Youth
9
Four Courtroom Models
Adult
Youth
10
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
11
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
12
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Defendant
13
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Judge
Defendant
14
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Judge
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
15
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Judge
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
16
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Judge
Clerks/Bailiffs
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
17
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Judge
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
18
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Defendant
19
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Defendant
20
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
21
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Judge
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
22
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Judge
Clerks/Bailiffs
?
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
23
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Defendant
24
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Defendant
25
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
26
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
27
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Judge
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
28
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Judge
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
29
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Judge
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
30
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Defendant
31
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Defendant
32
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
Prosecution
Defense
33
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Clerks/Bailiffs
Coordinator
Defendant
34
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Coordinator
Defendant
35
Adult Judge Youth TribunalYouth Judge Peer
Jury
Jury
Judge
?
Coordinator
Defendant
36
Four Courtroom Models
Percent of Cases Nationwide
60 22 7 7 4
Adult Judge Peer Jury Youth Judge Youth
Tribunal Other / mix
Source Urban Institute national survey of youth
courts, 1998.
37
Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)
Models Used by ETC Sites
100 Tribunal 80 Adult Judge / 20 Peer
Jury 50 Adult Judge / 50 Peer Jury 100 Youth
Judge
Alaska Arizona Maryland Missouri
38
Youth Characteristics
39
Opinions Attitudes
Self-Administered Questionnaires (SAQ)

• Items on
• socio-economic status
• self-reported delinquency
• peer associations
• pro-social norms
• perceptions of teen court
• attitudes toward justice system

40
Self-Admin Questionnaires
Same Day
2 SAQs Youth Parent
2 SAQs Youth Parent
Court Hearing
Intake
Services / Sanctions
30-90Days
1 SAQ Youth Only
41
Youth Attitudes
Before Court
Percent that agree or strongly agree with
each item.
42
Youth Attitudes
Before Court
Percent that agree or strongly agree with
each item.
43
Youth Attitudes
After Court
Percent that agree or strongly agree with
each item.
44
Youth Attitudes
Percent that agree or strongly agree with
each item.
45
Parent Attitudes
Percent that agree or strongly agree with
each item.
46
Parent Attitudes
After Court
Percent that agree or strongly agree with
each item.
47
Implications

• No clear evidence that one model is more
  effective than another
• Client satisfaction is very high
• Both parents and youth report high
  satisfaction, even after court
• Program impact may be greater among already
  pro-social youth

48
Evaluation of Teen Courts
Final Results in April 2002URBAN
INSTITUTEwww.urban.org