The Advocacy Foundation Youth Court Initiative by The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.

The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine

Youth Court

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”

Vol. II, Issue VII – Q-3 July| August| September 2016

The Advocacy Foundation

The Youth Court Initiative ...

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

1735 M arket Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19102

| 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Atlanta, GA 30303

John C Johnson III, Esq. Founder & CEO ______

(855) ADVOC8.0 (855) 238-6280 § (215) 486-2120 www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org

Page 2 of 19

Page 3 of 19

Biblical Authority ______ 1 Corinthians 6:1-3 NIRV Suppose one of you wants to bring a charge against another believer. Should you take it to the ungodly to be judged? Why not take it to God's people? Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? And if you are going to judge the world, aren't you able to judge small cases? Don't you know that we will judge angels? Then we should be able to judge the things of this life even more!

Page 4 of 19

Page 5 of 19

Table of Contents ______

Introduction - What Is Youth Court? Youth Court Functions Youth Court Program Models Typical Offenses Adjudicated In Youth Court Sentencing Options Program Effectiveness Miscellaneous Facts and Stats Impact of Youth Court on Young Offenders The Role of Restorative Justice In Teen Courts: A Preliminary Look (Reprinted by Permission)

Teen Courts: Do they Work and Why Jeffrey A. Butts and Jennifer Ortiz

Page 6 of 19

Page 7 of 19

Introduction – What Is Youth Court? Youth Court is a program in which juvenile offenders are questioned, defended and sentenced by their peers. Currently, there are around 1,200 youth courts in place across the United States with many more being developed. Youth Courts are the fastest growing crime intervention programs in the nation. T hey offer ways to engage the community in a partnership with the juvenile justice system to respond to juvenile crimes by increasing the awareness of delinquency issues on a local level and by mobilizing community members and youth to take an active role in addressing the problem. In most youth courts, young offenders are referred for sentencing, rather than for a decision of guilt or innocence. Sentences commonly include community service (1-200 hours), jury duty (up to 12 times), restitution, and apologies. Additional sentencing options include counseling, educational workshops on substance abuse or safe driving, essay writing, victim-awareness classes, curfew, drug testing, school attendance, and peer discussion groups. For the most part, Youth Courts only accept first-time offenders who have committed relatively minor offenses. Rather than handing down harsh juvenile punishment, Youth Courts offer an appropriate level of guidance and correction. Youth Courts share an important goal with law-related education, including a strong potential to improve the citizenship skills of young people.

Youth Court Functions The primary function of most youth court programs is to determine a fair and restorative sentence or disposition for the youth respondent. According to the National Youth Court Database: 93% of youth court programs in the U.S. require youth to admit guilt prior to participating in youth court. In the 7% of youth court programs that allow youth to plead “ not guilty”, if a youth chooses to plead “not guilty”, the program conducts a hearing to determine guilt or innocence. If the defendant is found “ guilty,” then an appropriate disposition is rendered by the youth court. When defendants successfully complete a youth court program, 63% of youth courts dismiss the charges. 27% immediately expunge the defendant’s record.

Youth Court Program Models The four primary youth court program models are the Adult Judge, Youth Judge, Peer Jury, and Youth Tribunal Models. According to the National Youth Court Database: •

The Adult Judge Model is used by approximately 53% of youth courts.

•

The Youth Judge Model is used by approximately 18% of youth courts.

•

The Peer Jury Model is used by approximately 31% of youth courts.

•

The Youth Tribunal Model is used by approximately 10% of youth courts.

Page 8 of 19

Typical Offenses Adjudicated In Youth Court Type of Offense

% of Youth Courts that Acce pt this Type of Offense

Theft

91%

Vandalism

76%

Alcohol

73%

Disorderly Conduct

73%

Assault

67%

Possession of Marijuana

60%

Tobacco

59%

Curfew Violations

50%

School Disciplinary

45%

Traffic Violation

39%

Truancy

39%

Trespassing

38%

Criminal Mischief

30%

Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

24%

Other drug offenses

20%

Harassment

21%

Fraud

Page 9 of 19

Sentencing Options % of Youth Courts That Use This Sentencing O ption Sentencing O ption Community Service

99%

Oral/Written Apologies

94%

Essays

92%

Educational Workshops

73%

Jury Duty

73%

Restitution

61%

Alcohol/Drug Assessment

57%

Curfew

46%

T utoring

37%

Counseling

37%

Drug T esting

31%

Victim Awareness Classes

29%

Victim/Offender Mediation

28%

Peer Mediation

23%

Jail Tour

22%

Observe T een Court

14%

Page 10 of 19

Mentoring

13%

Suspend Driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s License

Page 11 of 19

Program Effectiveness According to the Urban Institute’s Evaluation of Teen Courts Project, which was based on four teen court programs studied in four different states (Alaska, M aryland, Arizona, and M issouri), the six-month recidivism figures among the programs ranged from 6% to 9%.

Miscellaneous Facts and Stats 53% of youth court programs require respondents to participate in jury duty at least once as part of their sentence. •

The average amount of training that most youth court volunteers receive is 10 hours.

•

55% of youth courts close their hearings to the general public.

•

30% of youth courts hold hearings at least once a month.

•

70% of youth courts hold hearings all year long vs. 28% of programs that operate during the school year only.

•

The average reported annual budget for a youth court program is approximately $32,767.

Impact on Young Offenders1 There is sufficient research evidence to believe that teen courts have meaningful benefits for youth participants, their families and communities, yet many questions remain. One particularly vital question overlooked by researchers is whether communities are better served by teen courts that rely on youth rather than adults to manage the court process... . Teen courts are believed to reduce recidivism by tapping the power of positive peer influence. Adolescents crave peer acceptance and peer approval. The teen court process takes advantage of this naturally powerful incentive. Just as association with deviant or delinquent peers is commonly associated with the onset of delinquent behavior, pressure from pro-social peers may propel youth toward law-abiding behavior... Not all teen courts are alike [however]. They vary in how they handle cases and in the extent to which they assign responsibility to youth. Some include youth in prominent roles; others do not. Some involve youth judges; others permit only adults to serve as judge. Are these differences 1

Teen Courts: Do They Work and Why by Jeffrey A. Butts and Jennifer Ortiz NYSBA Journal | January 2011 Page 12 of 19

important? Do they affect the ability of teen courts to reduce recidivism? Do they shape the experiences of youth, either volunteers or defendants? In more than half of all teen courts today, adults manage the courtroom process and decide all sentences. Young people are restricted to the lesser roles of attorney, clerk and bailiff. To some observers, this seems to contradict the very spirit of teen courts – the idea that youth will learn greater respect for the law when they are judged by their peers. To others, however, an adult presence may seem vital to maintaining order during teen court proceedings. Some practitioners worry that the impact of teen court may be diminished by the disorder and frivolity that may occur without adult supervision. When viewed through the lens of the juvenile justice system, the particular courtroom model used in a teen court may not seem to be a critical issue. Juvenile justice professionals may express a preference for the adult judge model simply because it is thought to ensure a greater degree of order and control – and because it takes less time to prepare youth for their roles. Certainly, it is easier to recruit and train youth volunteers for an adult operated program. Young people are not expected to manage the courtroom process; they do not have to be as responsible, or as prepared. M any teen court program directors believe firmly in the superiority of the adult-run model, but is this simply a matter of convenience? Research suggests this is not true. The Anchorage program was run entirely by youth. The adult program director recruited the volunteers for the court, managed the office, scheduled the courtrooms, and monitored whether defendants completed their assignments and sanctions. These tasks, however, were all out of the public eye. The public aspects of the program – those witnessed by young defendants and their parents – were managed entirely and exclusively by young people. Teens managed the courtroom process, presided over all hearings, deliberated on appropriate sanctions for each defendant, and announced their findings in open court. The Urban Institute study showed that a youth-run teen court can run like clockwork. Courtroom procedures were orderly and timely. Participants behaved professionally. The entire process was conducted with great seriousness. The respect that both defendants and parents showed for the court was obvious to any observer. One of the principal conclusions of the Urban Institute study was that youth-run programs deserve closer attention from policymakers and practitioners.

Page 13 of 19

The Role of Restorative Justice In Teen Courts: A Preliminary Look (Reprinted by Permission)

Page 14 of 19

The Role of Restorative Justice in Teen Courts: A Preliminary Look By Tracy M. Godwin

Intr oduction Introduction The American Probation and Parole Association convened a focus group in March 2000 to examine and discuss the role of restorative justice in teen court programs, also commonly called youth courts and peer courts. There has been considerable debate and discussion over the past several years as to whether and how teen courts can incorporate restorative justice principles into their practices. However, the meeting in March represented the first discussion focused exclusively on the subject. A panel consisting of persons working actively in teen court programs and persons working actively in more traditional restorative justice-based programs was brought together for the two-day meeting. The focus group generated a dynamic discussion of issues based on guiding questions identified in the Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model (Pranis, 1998). It is impossible to describe the magnitude of information that was generated by the process within the constraints of this paper. However, this paper will address the key issues that serve as a promising foundation from which teen courts can begin to move toward integrating more restorative justice-based practices within their programs.

Overview of Restorative Justice Principles Before discussing how teen courts can become more restorative in nature, it is important to understand some of the overall principles and goals of restorative justice. There are numerous articles and books devoted to describing the restorative justice model. Therefore, this paper will provide a brief synopsis of the concept as opposed to an exhaustive description. A brief list of suggested supplemental resources on restorative justice may be found at the conclusion of this paper. Background Restorative justice outlines an alternative philosophy for addressing crime. When viewed from a restorative lens, crime is a violation of people and relationships – the relationships between the offender and his or her family, friends, victims, and the community – as opposed to merely an act against the state (Zehr, 1990). In essence, restorative justice focuses on repairing harm and rebuilding relationships through a process that involves stakeholders in an active and respectful way, while emphasizing the community’s role in problem solving. From a practical perspective, it requires the juvenile justice

system to respond to crime by devoting attention to (Zehr, 1990; Pranis, 1998; Maloney, Romig, and Armstrong, 1998; Bazemore, 2000): • Enabling offenders to understand the harm caused by their behavior and to make amends to their victims and communities.

• Building on offenders’ strengths and increasing offenders’ competencies.

• Giving victims an opportunity to participate in justice processes. • Protecting the public through a process in which the individual victims, the community, and offenders are all active stakeholders. Stakeholders and Goals of Restorative Justice There are three primary stakeholders and three primary goals of restorative justice. Primary stakeholders are victims, offenders, and the community. Goals of restorative justice include accountability, competency development, and community protection. The role that these stakeholders take within restorative justice framework and the manner in which these goals are achieved differ slightly in practice among programs. The emphasis on victims’ roles in restorative justice is about choice. Restorative justice cannot exist without giving victims the opportunity to participate in the justice process and making every effort to respond to their needs and desire for participation. The level of their participation may vary (e.g., providing written impact statements, providing oral testimony of the impact of the crime, participating in victim offender mediation, giving their suggestions related to sentencing, etc.). In restorative justice, the emphasis for offenders is on change. The goal is to hold offenders accountable by providing opportunities for them to understand the effect their actions have on others and to assist the offenders in enhancing and developing skills that will make them more productive and competent citizens by identifying and building on their strengths. Competency development is fundamentally about changing the role of the offender from passive recipient of services to an active role that allows him or her to be a resource to others (personal communication, G. Bazemore, March 4, 2000). For the community, the emphasis in restorative justice is on bonding and building relationships. Communities are also victims of crime. Certainly, the juvenile justice system has a responsibility to protect the public from juveniles in the system (Pranis, 1998).

The development of this report was supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (Grant Number DTNH-22-Z-05212). The report was published by the National Youth Court Center at the American Probation and Parole Association with support from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program (Cooperative Agreement Number 1999-JI-VX-K001). Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and focus group members and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. Department of Transportation.

However, restorative justice also places some of the responsibility for offender reintegration onto the community itself. Communities need to offer opportunities for juvenile offenders to be held accountable for their actions (including educating youth on the effect of crime on the community), while at the same time giving them the chance to connect and contribute to their communities and establish or rebuild broken relationships.

justice-based practices change the role of the justice system from being an “expert” in a case-driven response to crime toward the justice system acting in a facilitative role that focuses more on problem-solving and community capacity-building.

Moving Toward Restorative Justice in Teen Courts Moving teen courts toward restorative justice-based practices is an ongoing process. There is no single “right way” to implement the restorative justice concept. How the principles are implemented will vary based on local resources, traditions, and cultures. All teen court program models (i.e., adult judge, youth judge, youth tribunal, and peer jury) have the potential to incorporate restorative justice-based practices if staff and program organizers are flexible and open to new ideas related to program policies, procedures, and practices. It is safe to say that no teen court is fully restorative in nature, and may never be, due to some of the practices and philosophies that define a teen court. However, programs can definitely be more restorative than they are currently. Change is slow and is a learning process. Program staff and organizers who decide to move toward more restorative justice-based practices will need to constantly assess and reassess where they are in the application of restorative justice principles and adjust practices accordingly. While it may be easier to implement restorative justice concepts as a program is being developed, there are ways to build on strengths of an existing teen court program to make it more restorative. Restorative justice principles can affect all aspects of a teen court’s processes (see Table 1 for some examples).

Principles of Restorative Justice It is important to understand that restorative justice is not a program. Essentially, restorative justice is a set of principles that can be applied to any program or practice. Some key principles that serve as part of a foundation of restorative justice-based practices include (Pranis, 1998; Bazemore, 2000; Zehr, 1990; Van Ness and Strong, 1997 as cited in Bazemore, 2000): • Repair: Crime results in harm to individual victims, communities, and juvenile offenders and creates an obligation to make things right. Essentially, justice requires healing or repairing harm and rebuilding broken relationships.

• Involvement: All parties, including the victim (if he or she wishes), the community, and the juvenile offender should be provided with opportunities for input and participation in the justice process.

• Justice System Facilitation: Repairing harm requires that the respective roles of government and community be rethought in terms of how to respond to crime. In other words, restorative

be obtained through written, oral or electronic means (e.g., audio or videotape), chosen to suit the comfort of the individual victim. Teen courts need to create a victim impact statement that victims can complete which describes the effect (physical, emotional, and financial) the teen court respondents’ behavior or crime had on them and asks the victim what s/he needs to have the harm repaired or for amends to be made. The recitation of victim impact information should be added to the teen court courtroom protocol or script. Victims also should be allowed to testify in teen court hearings, if they so choose. This option will increase the time needed to conduct hearings; however, if the goal of the hearing is to discover the harm caused by the respondent’s actions and get information on how that harm can be repaired, victim input is essential. Remember, victims should have a choice as to whether they wish to participate. There will be times when a victim will choose not to be involved. However, the impact information is still important to the respondent’s understanding of the effect his or her actions have had on another human being. In cases where the actual victim does not want to participate, programs can implement a process by which a surrogate victim (e.g., youth or adult volunteer) provides impact information. Beyond establishing a process for soliciting and providing impact information in hearings and obtaining victim involvement, meeting victim needs in teen courts lends itself to a little more creative thought. Some ideas include: • Make victims feel comfortable when they attend teen court hearings. Like teen court respondents, victims need support before, during, and after the hearing. One way that teen courts can support victims is by having a youth or adult volunteer serve as a greeter or victim advocate. The advocate’s role is to greet the victim when they arrive at the teen court hearing and make sure the victim’s questions are answered. They also explain to the victim what the hearing process will be like and assist them in preparing testimony, much like a defense attorney does with the respondent. If possible, have a separate waiting area so that victims do not have wait in the same room with the respondent and his or her family.

Developing a Plan From a practical perspective, there are three questions that restorative justice asks that can serve as cornerstones for structuring the development and implementation of more restorative practices in teen court: 1. What is the harm that was created by the teen court respondent’s behavior? 2. What needs to be done to repair the harm? 3. Who is responsible for repairing the harm? The major difference between the current philosophy of many teen courts and what the restorative justice philosophy demands is the view of the goal of teen court as responding to a crime or problem behavior by punishing the juvenile, as compared to a focus on the harm that was created by the crime or problem behavior and assisting the juvenile in making amends for their behavior and the resulting harm. There also needs to be an emphasis on helping the young person rebuild relationships to others (e.g., family, friends, victims, community) that have been damaged as the result of the crime or problem behavior. This is a crucial distinction (i.e., punishment v. reparation) that teen court program staff and organizers must make to be successful in moving toward restorative justice-based practices. The implications of this shift in program philosophy is significant and the ways in which teen court practices can be augmented or implemented to support this philosophical shift are numerous. However, there needs to be a starting point from which movement toward more restorative justice-based practices can grow. To begin the process, staff and program organizers should consider the following three key concepts: • Teen courts need to increase and rethink the role of victims and community in the programs’ practices and operations.

• Teen courts need to alter the focus of teen court hearing proceedings from punishment to restoration.

• Teen courts need to rethink or augment the types of sentencing options available.

• Inform the victim of the teen court’s sentence. After the hearing,

Rethink Role of Victims and Community

send a letter that tells them what the disposition was and, if appropriate, share with the victim the rationale of the jury as to why they recommended the particular sentence. Informing the victim when the respondent has completed his/her sentence is also good practice.

The Victim’s Role The role that victims play in teen courts, if any, varies quite considerably among programs. For restorative justice principles to be integrated, teen courts’ policies and procedures related to crime victims will have to be reconsidered and, in many programs, changed. As the earlier discussion indicated, in restorative justice victims are a key stakeholder and must have a choice as to whether they want to participate in the program or not. Therefore, teen courts that do not allow victims the opportunity to participate are neglecting a primary stakeholder of the program. Without making a provision for victim input and involvement, implementation of restorative justice-based practices is impossible. At a minimum, teen courts can offer victims an opportunity to provide information on the impact the respondent’s actions have had on them. Impact information should then be imparted during the hearing through the questioning process with the goal being to increase the respondent’s awareness of the effect of their actions. Programs should have various options available for obtaining and reporting impact information. For example, impact information can

• Invite victims to volunteer with the program. Victims can be future surrogate victims, provide training on impact of crime for volunteers, serve on victim impact panels, and/or assist in policy development to help programs become more restorative and responsive to victims’ needs. Youth victims can also be invited to serve as youth volunteer attorneys, jurors, or in other teen court roles.

• Invite victims, along with other stakeholders, to the program’s recognition banquet at the end of the year.

• Solicit victim satisfaction information. Develop and send a victim satisfaction survey to all victims. Results from these surveys can provide excellent data to use in evaluating how well the program is responding to victims’ needs. This information can be shared with funders to show the impact the program is having on a key constituent group.

• With victim and respondent consent, consider victim offender

Other ideas for facilitating the community role in problem solving include: • Have representatives from local businesses provide impact statements on the effects of shoplifting to stores and communities. Try to recruit a large number of local business representatives so that individual volunteers only need to appear in teen court periodically.

dialogue (i.e., a facilitated face-to-face meeting between the victim and offender to determine a disposition) as an intermediate step to or sentencing option for teen court. From a restorative justice point of view, if there is a key customer in the justice process, it is the victim. This does not mean that the victim’s interests must be adhered to at all costs to the process, but it does mean that there are often decision points in the process in which the victim should be given a significant voice. No matter what direction a program chooses for involving victims, it is important for teen court staff and participants to obtain additional victim-sensitivity and advocacy training. This type of training is often available from local victim advocacy staff working in the criminal/juvenile justice system and/or in the community.

• Hold teen court hearings in different sites or locations throughout the community. This increases visibility of the program and encourages involvement from more community members – especially those who may have transportation problems – by making the program more accessible and/or convenient for community participation.

• Educate the community about teen court to counteract reluctance or fear of working with teen court respondents. Partner with the media to highlight success stories.

The Community’s Role The community is also an essential stakeholder in restorative justice. Teen courts, by their very nature, are programs that require a significant level of community involvement to function effectively. However, the expanded role of community within the context of restorative justice can further enhance the use of community members in teen court programs. First, the role of community in restorative justice places an emphasis on the community’s role in problem solving or on community members helping juvenile offenders reintegrate into the community. To do this, community members need to assume the responsibility for creating meaningful forums and activities that will allow offenders to repair harm and make meaningful and positive contributions to the community in which they reside. Second, the impact of crime is not limited to the effect it has on individual victims. Effects of crime are far reaching. Many times, youth sent to teen court for sentencing have committed acts in which there is no easily identifiable direct victim, making the community the primary victim. Somehow, the impact of the youth’s crime or behavior on the community needs to be articulated and brought out during teen court hearings through the questioning process. Volunteers from the community can assist and help define and describe the impact crime has on the community. This can be accomplished through: • The development and recitation of written community impact statements in cases where there is no identifiable direct victim or in cases where the victim does not wish to offer their impact information. Depending on the type of crime, youth and/or adult volunteers could be given the responsibility for collecting and preparing community impact statements by talking with business owners in shoplifting cases, neighborhood associations in cases where property was vandalized, school administrators and teachers in school-related incidents, etc.

• Invite community people to events that celebrate teen court success.

• Seek out community projects in which the teen court could participate (e.g., teen court volunteers and respondents could assist the local police department in distributing program literature during National Drunk and Drugged Driving Month).

• Host a recognition event for community groups/members involved in the program. The event could be hosted by the youth volunteers.

• Assess community satisfaction with the program and make program improvements and enhancements based on community input.

• Encourage community members to serve as mentors for teen court respondents and volunteers. Mentors can be youth or adult community members.

Alter the Focus of Teen Court Hearings Early in the focus group discussion it was revealed that one of the most basic issues that prevents some teen courts from incorporating restorative justice principles into their practices is how the teen court, and most importantly its staff and youth volunteers, view the purpose of the teen court hearing. Is the purpose to determine consequences and punishment for the respondent or is the purpose to assist the respondent in repairing the harm caused by his or her actions? Now, some may say, “What’s the difference?” However, the subtle difference in these two questions can often mean a world of difference in a program’s ability to implement restorative justice principles. If the purpose is to pronounce punishment, for punishment’s sake, then who was harmed and how they were harmed may not be relevant. Impact information certainly would not be a priority element to be considered during the hearing and deliberation process. A respondent will get the opportunity to be held accountable for his or her actions by carrying out the tasks outlined in his or her sentence – tasks that may or may not have much meaning to the respondent, victim, or community. However, accountability will not be totally achieved unless the respondent gains an increased awareness and understanding of his or her actions and takes an active role in repairing the harm caused. Punishment alone does not facilitate increased awareness and

• Utilization of a youth or adult volunteer to serve as a community advocate whose role is to provide oral testimony on how the youth’s acts affected the community.

• Offering offender’s parents or other family members, neighbors, etc. the opportunity to provide impact information (e.g., if a teen court is hearing a breaking and entering case, a neighborhood member could be asked to share their feelings about knowing their neighbor’s house was broken into and how it affected their sense of safety and security).

offers little opportunity for the respondent to make amends to the victim or the community in a meaningful way. However, if the purpose of the teen court program is to assist the respondent in repairing the harm created by his or her actions, a decision about the appropriate type of consequence is impossible without information related to the specific and overall effect of that individual’s crime or behavior. With this change in focus for the teen court hearing, youth volunteers are still able to delineate a consequence for the respondent’s behavior; although, now they also are able to tailor the consequence to the unique circumstances and needs of the respondent, respondent’s family, victim, and the community. Youth volunteers also are exposed to a new way of thinking about justice, thus increasing the educational experience that teen courts can provide to them by raising their awareness of the effects of crime and facilitating the development of their empathy toward others. For this type of shift in the purpose of teen court hearings to take place, it is necessary for staff and program organizers to buy in to this concept of reparation of harm. The following ideas represent some strategies staff and program organizers can employ for making this shift in program focus move beyond rhetoric to practice. It is important to understand that these types of changes can be implemented in any model of teen court if program staff and organizers are flexible in the design and operation of their hearings. • Volunteer training should stress and constantly reinforce the idea that the purpose of sentencing is to repair harm as opposed to punish.

respondent’s behavior has had on his or her family, the victim and/or the community. They also need to hear what understanding the respondent has about the effects of his or her behavior (Godwin, Heward, and Spina, 2000) and, what, if anything, the respondent has done to make amends for his or her behavior. It may be helpful for respondents to be asked what they think they can do to repair the harm.

• Provide youth volunteers with information on how to deliberate effectively and allow enough time for them to work through the deliberation process. The deliberation process is one of the most important components of the teen court hearing – it is where the decision is made on what the most appropriate sentence will be for a respondent. Too often, youth volunteers deliberate by focusing on the sentencing options themselves (e.g., How many community service hours should be given?), as opposed to facts, circumstances, and identifiable harm caused in the case being presented (e.g., What was the harm caused by the respondent’s behavior? What type of community service assignment will best educate the youth on what he or she did or give them an opportunity to repair the harm cased by his or her actions? What type of educational class will help the respondent understand more fully the impact his or her actions had on the victim or the community?) Implementing a structured process that focuses on the harm and its repair for jury and judge panels to follow during deliberation will help increase the ability of youth volunteers to make appropriate, constructive, fair, and restorative sentencing recommendations. A seven-step deliberation process that supports restorative justice principles is outlined in Figure 1.

• Youth volunteers will need to learn strategies for questioning and deliberating that will support this shift in focus.

• Programs will need to structure the hearing and deliberation processes so that appropriate information can be solicited and considered. Strategies for restructuring the hearing and deliberating processes include:

•

Make more time available for hearings and deliberations. This may mean hearing fewer cases in a given teen court session and/or holding court more often.

•

Give volunteer attorneys or jury panels an adequate amount of time to prepare their cases (e.g., question victims and witnesses, discuss the case with the respondent and his/her parent/guardian, review the police report, prepare their questions and opening statements, etc.).

•

Figure 1

Seven-Step Deliberation Process

Increase or change the type of information made available during the hearings and how information is presented during hearings with a goal of assuring that victim and community impact is received and articulated (e.g., impact statements; oral testimony of victims, community members, and respondent’s family members, etc).

• Train youth volunteers on the types of questions to ask during hearings. To be consistent with restorative justice goals, the sentence recommended by the judge or jury panel needs to have components that will help increase the respondent’s understanding of his or her actions; offer opportunities to make amends or appreciate and repair the harm caused; and increase their skills, competencies and ties to the community to enable them to function as more productive citizens. To effectively do this, juries and judge panels must be given information during the hearing through the questioning process that describes the effect the

Review the rules of the deliberation process.

Debrief on what was seen and heard during the hearing and review the facts and circumstances of the case.

Provide an explanation of the harm (i.e., who’s been affected by the offense and how).

Outline the needs of the affected parties (e.g., respondent, respondent’s family, victim, community).

Determine what needs to be done to repair the harm.

Determine an appropriate sentence that will help meet the needs of the affected parties and reach consensus.

Provide a written justification on the Verdict Form that explains the rationale for the sentence being imposed. (This justification should be explained to the respondent at the time the sentence is pronounced or during the posthearing interview with program staff or his or her designee).

(Godwin, Heward, and Spina, 2000)

• Assess the relevance of sentences given by juries and judge panels

these types of groups to see if they need assistance or if they have planned projects with which the teen court can partner. Teen courts should assure that all community service sites are aware and supportive of the program’s vision for community service work. Another good practice is to ask victims to recommend community service projects or organizations. Staff can assess the victims’ recommendations for suitability as community service sites for youth. Some examples of community service projects teen courts can plan that are based on restorative justice principles may be found in Figure 2.

to the offenses committed and the needs of victims and the community.

Rethink And Redefine Sentencing Options Some of the common sentencing options of teen courts, as well as many other programs based on the restorative justice philosophy, include community service, educational workshops, and apologies to victims. The manner in which these sentencing options are designed and currently utilized in teen courts may need to be rethought when viewed within a restorative framework. Sentencing options based on restorative justice principles encompass choices that focus on accountability (i.e., increasing respondents’ awareness of the effect of their actions on others and offering them opportunities to repair the harm caused, either directly or indirectly), competency development (i.e., building youths’ relationships with caring and positive adults or peers and providing respondents with opportunities to increase their skills and competencies so they are able to function as more productive members of society), and community protection (i.e., increasing youths’ skills and ties to the community so they will be less likely to harm the community in the future) [Godwin, Heward, and Spina, 2000]. Designing sentencing options that are based on restorative justice principles helps give juries and judge panels choices that they can use to focus their sentencing recommendations on the harm that was caused, rather than focusing on punishing the respondent for the sake of punishment.

Figure 2

Community Service Project Ideas

Community Service Historically, community service has too often revolved around menial assignments, while little attention has been given to the advantages that it can provide by influencing youths’ attitudes and providing public benefits (Maloney and Bazemore, 1994; Bazemore and Maloney, 1994). The prevailing attitude that community service should be designed to punish youth and make them suffer is changing gradually. Certainly, if that old attitude prevails, youth will be less likely to develop a healthy and positive view of providing service for their community. Initially, respondents may view their community service work as punitive. However, teen courts that design community service assignments to offer youth a chance to repair harm caused by their actions (directly or indirectly), develop skills, and build ties to the community will be supporting the restorative justice philosophy and may help contribute to youth choosing to avoid delinquent and problem behavior in the future (Godwin, Heward, and Spina, 2000). In short, community service work should be oriented to community needs and linked with broader community issues. Community service should be constructive and educational – not punitive. Youth should not feel isolated while doing community service; rather, they should feel connected to the community. Whenever possible, programs should strive to have youth and adult volunteers and respondents working together on community projects. View youth as an untapped resource, who if given the appropriate guidance and support can produce positive results and meet community needs. To facilitate the development of a more meaningful community service component, teen courts should get out into the community, and see what needs to be done, and build and maintain relationships with a variety of community organizations and agencies (e.g., youth serving organizations, victim service providers, neighborhood associations, civic groups). The teen court can check periodically with 6

•

Hold a community car wash. Youth volunteers and respondents work together at the car wash. Donations are collected for the service being provided and the money is given to a local charity. The youth identify and decide on the local charity that will receive the money.

•

During domestic violence month, teen court respondents can help distribute literature that educates the community on domestic violence issues.

•

Conduct discussions or educational workshops on timely issues and organize projects around those issues.

•

Partner with a group who is building a Habitat for Humanity house.

•

Organize and hold a youth summit. Have teen court respondents participate and assist in the planning process.

•

Work with a community action or neighborhood group on neighborhood repair (e.g., fixing broken equipment on a playground, park beautification project).

•

Have youth serve as mentors to younger children (e.g., tutor an elementary school-age child in math, work with younger kids at the YMCA or Boys and Girls Club).

•

Have youth volunteer at nursing homes and senior citizen centers to promote intergenerational mentoring.

•

Conduct a neighborhood food drive. Collect food for local food pantries and serve the food or help distribute the food to needy families.

•

Assist elderly or disabled persons with household projects, snow removal, lawn care, or other services that can help them maintain a productive lifestyle.

•

Conduct community surveys about the needs of the community, perhaps on behalf of local government planning groups, to help agencies better plan for and meet community needs.

•

Work with the community or an agency to develop, plant, and maintain a community garden. Raise vegetables and fruit that can be distributed to needy families or to the elderly.

a youth with musical talent could go to the nursing home and play for the residents).

Educational Workshops Another aspect to look at in sentencing is in relation to the types of educational workshops and skill-building opportunities offered by the program (either those offered in-house or those to whom youth are referred in other community agencies). To meet competency development goals espoused in restorative justice, educational workshops and projects need to be designed to assist youth in developing skills and in gaining some social capital. This allows the youth to build relationships with others and have an ongoing role in their community based on something of value that they have to offer (personal communication, G. Bazemore, March 4, 2000). Therefore, to move toward restorative justice-based practices in teen court, educational workshops need to reflect competency development goals, as opposed to merely passing on information in a passive format. Youth learn best by doing, so integrating information with activity is more likely to result in long-lasting change.

• Develop options that encourage parental involvement (e.g., invite parents to participate in their child’s community service, require or invite parents to participate in educational workshops with their child, ask parents what their needs and concerns are and respond if appropriate and feasible).

• Collaborate and partner with other community agencies that have programs designed to develop skills in youth.

• Look for sentencing options that create opportunities for youth to practice skills (e.g., community service, mentoring, apprenticeships).

• Have respondents return to teen court at the end of the sentence to say what they accomplished and have their achievement recognized and acknowledged by program staff and volunteers.

Apologies Oral and written apologies to victims are recommended quite often by teen court jurors and judges. However, for an apology to be an effective option when viewed within the restorative justice context, it must be sincere. If the respondent feels and is able to articulate his or her remorse in a sincere and respectful manner, then an apology can be a therapeutic option for offenders and victims. However, an insincere apology extended to a victim may cause more damage to an already sensitive situation or relationship. Also, a critical point to keep in mind when using apologies to victims as a sentencing option is that in restorative justice victim involvement remains a choice on behalf of individual victims. Therefore, victims must be asked if they wish to receive an oral or written apology from the respondent. If they do not wish to receive an apology, then an oral apology to the victim should not be required. A written apology could be ordered regardless of whether the victim wishes to receive it or not. However, if the victim does not want to receive the written apology, it should be placed in the respondent’s file.

Developing sentencing options that serve multiple goals is important in a restorative justice approach. Fortunately, there are many activities that simultaneously can serve multiple goals of repairing harm caused, building skills and competencies of respondents, building or enhancing relationships within the community, and engaging others. During deliberations, teen court volunteers should be encouraged to keep these multiple goals in mind and attempt to address as many of them as possible through creative combinations of sentencing options.

Conclusion This paper presents a preliminary look at how teen court programs can begin moving toward incorporating more restorative justice-based practices within their programs. As was evident during the focus group meeting in March 2000, there are many layers of the restorative justice philosophy that can and need to be explored in relation to their application in teen courts. A tangential issue that needs to be examined is the relationship between teen courts and more traditional interventions based on restorative justice principles (e.g., victim offender mediation, family group conferencing, sentencing circles, community accountability boards) in order to determine constructive ways in which partnerships can be formed and reciprocal lessons learned. Each type of program has experiences and ideas to share that can help strengthen offender accountability, competency development, and community protection goals. For example, sentencing circles and family group conferencing programs can learn from the example set by teen courts that youth can be powerful voices in community problem solving and decision making. Likewise, the training that participants of sentencing circles and community accountability boards receive could be extremely beneficial to youth court volunteers in helping them to apply restorative justice principles to the examination and deliberation of cases coming before teen courts. The goals for moving toward restorative practices are clear — more effective services for respondents, victims, and the community; better respondent accountability; increased skills and competencies for respondents; improved relationships among respondents and their families, friends, victims, and community; and more meaningful community involvement in solving local problems. Each of these are achievable and all are supportive and reflective of what restorative justice principles teach us. The discussion and application of restor-

Additional Sentencing Options Additional ideas and issues to consider when creating sentencing options for teen courts to support restorative justice goals include: • Develop victim impact panels and victim awareness classes to educate youth on the effect of crime on victims and build empathy.

• Implement a peer mentoring program or component to strengthen ties between respondents and youth volunteers. Peer mentors can maintain contact with respondents while they are involved in the program to check on the respondent’s progress and offer support for continued involvement in programs/ projects.

• Implement an adult mentoring component that adheres to adult/ youth partnership principles to strengthen ties and build relationships between youth and positive, caring adults.

• Involve victims in recommending the type of restitution/ community service that should be made.

• Make provisions for the order and payment of restitution to compensate victims for monetary loss.

• Design community service or service learning projects so that they build on individual respondent’s strengths and interests (e.g.,

Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M.S. (1994). Balanced and Restorative Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 149727. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/bal.pdf Bazemore, G., and Walgrave, L. (Eds.). (1999) Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press. Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking. (2000, April). Multicultural Implications of Restorative Justice: Potential Pitfalls and Dangers. Washington, DC: Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 176348. http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/infores/restorative_justice/96522-multicultural/ Dunlap, K (Ed.). (1998). Community Justice: Concepts and Strategies. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association. Frievalds, P. (1996, July). Balanced and Restorative Justice Project. OJJDP Fact Sheet #42. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/91415.pdf Galaway, B., and Hudson, J. (Eds.). (1996). Restorative Justice: International Perspectives. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press. Office for Victims of Crime. (2000, October). Victims, Judges, and Juvenile Court Reform Through the Restorative Justice. OVC Bulletin. Washington, DC: Author. NCJ 179383. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/infores/vjj_10_2000_2/ welcome.html. Pranis, K. (1998, December). Guide for Implementing Balanced and Restorative Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/167887.pdf Van Ness, D. and Strong, K. H. (1997). Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

ative justice principles in teen courts is just beginning, but the road ahead looks exciting and promising.

References Bazemore, G. (2000, July). “Community Justice and a Vision of Collective Efficacy: The Case of Restorative Conferencing,” in National Institute of Justice (Ed), Criminal Justice, 2000: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, Volume 3. NCJ182410. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/criminal_justice2000/ vol3_2000.html Bazemore, G. and Maloney, D. (1994). Rehabilitating Community Service: Toward Restorative Service in a Balanced Justice System. Federal Probation, 58(1), 24-35. Godwin, T.M., Heward, M.E., and Spina, T. (2000). National Youth Court Guidelines. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association. Maloney, D., and Bazemore, G. (1994, December). Making a Difference: Community Service Helps Heal Troubled Youths. Corrections Today, 56(7), 78-84, 149. Maloney, D, Romig, D., and Armstrong, T. (1998). Juvenile Probation: The Balanced Approach. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 39(3) 5-53. Pranis, K. (1998, December). Guide for Implementing Balanced and Restorative Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Van Ness, D. and Strong, K. H. (1997). Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Supplemental Readings Balanced and Restorative Justice Project. (1997, August). Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles: A Framework for Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 169691 http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/framwork.pdf Bazemore, G. (2000, July). “Community Justice and a Vision of Collective Efficacy: The Case of Restorative Conferencing,” in National Institute of Justice (Ed), Criminal Justice, 2000: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, Volume 3. NCJ182410. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/criminal_justice2000/ vol3_2000.html

Online Resources Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking http://ssw.che.umn.edu/rjp/ Restorative Justice On-Line Notebook (National Institute of Justice) http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/rest-just/index.htm. H

Bazemore, G. and Maloney, D. (1994). Rehabilitating Community Service: Toward Restorative Service in a Balanced Justice System. Federal Probation, 58(1), 24-35.

Tracy M. Godwin is the Director of the National Youth Court Center and a Reseach Associate at the American Probation and Parole Association.

Bazemore, G., and Day, S.E. (1996, December). Restoring the Balance: Juvenile and Community Justice. Juvenile Justice, 3(1), 3-15. http://www.ncjrs.org/ pdffiles/jjjd96.pdf

Focus Group Participants

National Youth Court Center

Gordon Bazemore, Ph.D., Project Director of the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project (FL) Hellen J. Carter, Ph.D., Supervisor of the Maricopa County Teen Court Programs (AZ) Jim Moeser, Dane County Juvenile Court Program (WI) Sandra Pavelka O’Brien, A.B.D., Project Manager of the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project (FL) Nancy Riestenberg, Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (MN) Elinor Robin, Coordinator of the Broward County Teen Court (FL) Mistene Vickers, Research Assistant for the National Youth Court Center Jane Volland, Program Director of the Durham County Teen Court (NC) Carl Wicklund, Executive Director of the American Probation and Parole Association (KY) Kathleen Zeitlen, Program Director of the Salt Lake Peer Court (UT)

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) established the National Youth Court Center (NYCC) in 1999 at the American Probation and Parole Association in Lexington, Kentucky. The NYCC serves as an information clearinghouse and provides training, technical assistance, and resource materials to assist jurisdictions in developing and operating effective youth court programs. For more information, contact: National Youth Court Center c/o American Probation and Parole Association PO Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578-1910 Phone: 859-244-8215 Fax: 859-244-8001 Email: nycc@csg.org Website: www.youthcourt.net

Facilitator Tracy M. Godwin, Director of the National Youth Court Center

2001, American Probation and Parole Association

Teen Courts: Do they Work and Why by Jeffrey A. Butts and Jennifer Ortiz

Page 15 of 19

Greenpoint Youth Court members in front of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice after touring the facilities and speaking with professors.

Teen Courts â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Do They Work and Why? By Jeffrey A. Butts and Jennifer Ortiz Introduction Teen courts (also known as youth courts or peer courts) are specialized diversion programs for young offenders that use court-like procedures in courtroom settings. The typical delinquent youth referred to teen court is probably 12 to 15 years old, in trouble for the first time, and charged with vandalism, stealing or other non-violent offense. Teen court offers a non-binding, informal alternative to the regular juvenile court process. In most cases, young offenders agree to participate in teen court as a way of avoiding formal prosecution and adjudication in juvenile court. If they agree to participate, but then refuse to comply with teen court sanctions, young offenders risk being returned to juvenile court to face their original charges.

18 | January 2011 | NYSBA Journal

When judged by the straightforward metric of proliferation, teen courts are clearly a success. The number of teen court programs in the United States grew quickly over the past two decades. Although fewer than 100 programs existed prior to 1990, recent surveys suggest that more than 1,200 programs are in operation today.1

JEFFREY A. BUTTS, PH.D., is executive director of the Justice Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. JENNIFER ORTIZ is a research assistant and Ph.D. student at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Despite their popularity, there are many unanswered questions about the effectiveness of teen courts. The overall impression one gets from the evaluation literature is positive, but researchers have yet to identify exactly why teen courts work. Most important, studies have not yet investigated whether some teen court models are better than others.

What Does Research Tell Us? The most recent, most comprehensive investigation of teen court effectiveness was conducted by the Urban Institute.2 The project studied teen courts in four jurisdictions: Alaska, Arizona, Maryland and Missouri. More than 500 teen court cases from the four sites were compared with similar cases handled by the traditional juvenile justice system. In three of the four study sites, recidivism was lower among youth handled in teen court. In Alaska, for example, recidivism for teen court cases was 6%, compared with 23% of cases handled by the traditional juvenile justice system and matched with the teen court sample on variables such as age, sex, ethnicity and offense history. In Missouri, the recidivism rate was 9% in teen court and 27% in the traditional process. The difference among Arizona youth (9% vs. 15%) trended in the same direction, although the difference was not large enough to reach the level of statistical significance. In these three sites, teen courts were compared with the average juvenile justice response in cases involving matched cases of first-time offenders. The young offenders in the comparison group were not offered special services or sanctions. They received whatever was typical for first-time offenders in that jurisdiction, including warning letters, informal adjustments and outright dismissals. In the fourth site (Maryland), teen court was compared with a proactive, police diversion program in a neighboring county. The police program provided many of the same services and sanctions offered by teen courts. Young offenders were ordered to pay restitution, perform community service, and write letters of apology, just as they would in a teen court, but without a court hearing or any peer-to-peer justice. The entire process was managed by police officers and a police department social worker. Recidivism among the Maryland comparison group was slightly lower than it was among teen court cases (4% vs. 8%), although the size of the difference was not statistically significant. One could argue that the evaluation design in Maryland was a more rigorous test of teen court effectiveness, because it came closest to isolating the effects of peer-to-peer justice in a courtroom setting. The comparison group in Maryland, however, was a

convenience sample, drawn from a neighboring county, and the cases were not matched on a case-by-case basis with the teen court sample, as was true in the other three sites. For these reasons, the Urban Institute described the Maryland findings as inconclusive. Still, the Maryland results suggested that when most aspects of another kind of diversion program are similar to that of teen court â&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e., when teen court cases and comparison group cases receive similar sanctions and services â&#x20AC;&#x201C; there may be little difference in recidivism. The evaluators inferred from these results that the real value of teen courts might be their ability to ensure the delivery of meaningful sanctions for firsttime delinquent offenders, the type of youth usually ignored by the traditional juvenile justice process. In jurisdictions unable to provide meaningful interventions for these youth, teen court may offer an effective alternative. Another interesting aspect of the Urban Institute study was the courtroom models used by each study site. The Alaska and Missouri sites used teen court models that relied heavily on youth themselves for courtroom management (even youth judges). The Arizona and Maryland programs used models in which adults were largely responsible for managing the court process and the courtroom dynamics (youth may question the defendant, but an adult judge determines sentencing). Thus, the sites with the strongest findings that favored teen court were those that used courtroom models in which youth themselves performed all the key roles. The study was not designed to test the effect of different courtroom models on recidivism, and the disparities in the

Teen courts are believed to reduce recidivism by tapping the power of positive peer influence.

NYSBA Journal | January 2011 | 19

Adolescents crave peer acceptance and peer approval. The teen court process takes advantage of this naturally powerful incentive.

recidivism comparisons could be due to the nature of the comparison groups themselves more than the program effects, but the pattern at least suggested the need for further investigation.

What Does Theory Tell Us? Teen courts are an appealing alternative to traditional juvenile court processing, but why? What is the theory behind the effectiveness of teen courts? Juvenile justice interventions are often compatible with more than one theory of delinquency. In its 2002 evaluation of teen courts, the Urban Institute proposed several variants of theory that seemed to be consistent with teen courts as a method of reducing future recidivism.3 Of all the theoretical perspectives identified by the Urban Institute – peer influence, procedural justice, deterrence, labeling and restorative justice – only the first, peer influence, seemed to be uniquely suited to teen courts. Teen courts are believed to reduce recidivism by tapping the power of positive peer influence. Adolescents crave peer acceptance and peer approval. The teen court process takes advantage of this naturally powerful incentive. Just as association with deviant or delinquent peers is commonly associated with the onset of delinquent behavior, pressure from pro-social peers may propel youth toward law-abiding behavior.

with antisocial friends and associates are more likely to be delinquent themselves. The theory of differential association posits that criminal behavior is learned through direct and repeated interactions with people who have attitudes or beliefs favorable to deviance.5 Through social interaction, uninitiated youth are taught criminal techniques as well as definitions favorable to violating the law. The central tenet of differential association theory is that “a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.”6 Criminological theory suggests that reducing teenagers’ antisocial interactions and increasing their exposure to the influences of non-delinquent, pro-social peers is a plausible approach to delinquency prevention. Every parent who worries about a child “hanging out with the wrong crowd” knows this as well.

Which Kind of Teen Court Is the Most Effective? Not all teen courts are alike. They vary in how they handle cases and in the extent to which they assign responsibility to youth. Some include youth in prominent roles; others do not. Some involve youth judges; others permit only adults to serve as judge. Are these differences important? Do they affect the ability of teen courts to reduce recidivism? Do they shape the experiences of youth, either volunteers or defendants? In more than half of all teen courts today, adults manage the courtroom process and decide all sentences. Young people are restricted to the lesser roles of attorney, clerk and bailiff. To some observers, this seems to contradict the very spirit of teen courts – the idea that youth will learn greater respect for the law when they are judged by their peers. To others, however, an adult presence may seem vital to maintaining order during teen court proceedings. Some practitioners worry that the impact of teen court may be diminished by the disorder and frivolity that may occur without adult supervision. When viewed through the lens of the juvenile justice system, the particular courtroom model used in a teen court may not seem to be a critical issue. Juvenile justice professionals may express a preference for the adult judge model simply because it is thought to ensure a

Just as association with deviant or delinquent peers is commonly associated with the onset of delinquent behavior, pressure from pro-social peers may propel youth toward law-abiding behavior. The idea is not new. Researchers and practitioners have for decades used pro-social peer pressure in delinquency prevention programs, including Guided-Group Interaction, Positive Peer Culture and Peer Group Counseling. All of these programs are based upon a common principle: If peer-group influences lead to delinquency, peer-group influences might also be used to prevent delinquency. For more than 50 years, social scientists have found that delinquent acts are disproportionately committed by groups of juveniles rather than by lone offenders.4 Numerous studies have found that youth

20 | January 2011 | NYSBA Journal

greater degree of order and control – and because it takes less time to prepare youth for their roles. Certainly, it is easier to recruit and train youth volunteers for an adultoperated program. Young people are not expected to manage the courtroom process; they do not have to be as responsible, or as prepared. Many teen court program directors believe firmly in the superiority of the adult-run model, but is this simply a matter of convenience?

showed for the court was obvious to any observer. One of the principal conclusions of the Urban Institute study was that youth-run programs deserve closer attention from policymakers and practitioners.

Conclusion There is sufficient research evidence to believe that teen courts have meaningful benefits for youth participants, their families and communities, yet many questions remain. One particularly vital question overlooked by researchers is whether communities are better served by teen courts that rely on youth rather than adults to manage the court process. As New York moves further ahead with its teen courts, hopefully this question will be resolved by rigorous evaluation research, which will additionally serve the larger interests of teen courts throughout the nation. ■

Social scientists have found that delinquent acts are disproportionately committed by groups of juveniles rather than by lone offenders. During the Urban Institute’s study of teen courts, investigators were told many times by advocates of the adult-run model that the presence of an adult on the bench is a critical ingredient of program effectiveness. This comment was often accompanied by descriptions of how chaotic courtrooms can be when an adult judge must leave the room even for a few moments. Adult supervision is necessary to restrain the natural tendencies of teenagers to “goof around.” The underlying message in these comments is that young people cannot learn to be responsible. Research suggests this is not true. The Anchorage program was run entirely by youth. The adult program director recruited the volunteers for the court, managed the office, scheduled the courtrooms, and monitored whether defendants completed their assignments and

Numerous studies have found that youth with antisocial friends and associates are more likely to be delinquent themselves. sanctions. These tasks, however, were all out of the public eye. The public aspects of the program – those witnessed by young defendants and their parents – were managed entirely and exclusively by young people. Teens managed the courtroom process, presided over all hearings, deliberated on appropriate sanctions for each defendant, and announced their findings in open court. The Urban Institute study showed that a youth-run teen court can run like clockwork. Courtroom procedures were orderly and timely. Participants behaved professionally. The entire process was conducted with great seriousness. The respect that both defendants and parents

1. J.M. Schneider, Youth Courts: An Empirical Update and Analysis of Future Organization and Research Needs, Hamilton Fish Institute (George Washington University 2008), available at http://hamfish.org/Publications/Serial/HFI_ Youth_Courts_Reports.pdf. 2. J.A. Butts, J. Buck & M. Coggeshall, The Impact of Teen Court on Young Offender (The Urban Institute (2002), available at http://www.urban.org/ uploadedpdf/410457.pdf. 3.

Id. at 8–10.

4. See, e.g., M. Warr, Age, Peers and Delinquency, 31 Criminology 17–40 (1993). 5. See R.L. Akers, Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation and Application (Los Angeles: Roxbury 3rd ed. 2000). 6. E.H. Sutherland & D.R. Cressey, Principles of Criminology (J. B. Lippincott Co. 1974).

Follow NYSBA on Twitter

visit www.twitter.com/nysba and click the link to follow us and stay up-to-date on the latest news from the Association

NYSBA Journal | January 2011 | 21

Program Budget National Youth Court Program Format

Page 16 of 19

BUDGET WORKSHEET

12,500 $49,400

$6,250 $24,450

n/a

4 @ .25%

$25,000 รท 2 (positions)

(Soc Sec = 7.65%; State U/C = 5.70%; W/C = 6.00%; Other = 1.0%) = 20.35% 4 positions + fringes

Total Direct Personnel

Fringe Benefits (e.g., FICA, unemployment, workers compensation, insurance, retirement)

n/a n/a

100 x 12 mos.

n/a

200 x 12 mos.

Office Supplies

100 x 12 mos.

n/a

50 x 12 mos.

Postage

Telephone (e.g., local and long distance services) Promotional Materials (e.g., brochures, newsletters, pens, lapel pins)

n/a

100 x 12 mos.

Photocopy/Printing

Supplies

Total Personnel

Youth Trainers

$1,200

$2,400

$600

$1,200

$59,452.90

$10,052.90

$11,400

$5,700

1 PT position

$25,000

Grand Total

Administrative Assistant

In-Kind Donations

$12,500

Monetary Costs

1 PT position

Computation

Coordinator

Personnel

Budget Item

The following budget worksheet provides a sample of budget items that youth courts may want to consider. It does not represent an exhaustive list of possible budget items. Also, there may be budget items that are not necessary for some youth court programs. It is recommended that programs attempt to quantify the in-kind services and donations they receive in addition to determining what monetary costs they will incur.

Janitorial Svcs//Maintenance Costs

Rent (e.g., office space, courtroom)

Facilities

Total Equipment

Other

Office Equipment (e.g., desks, file cabinets, chairs, bookshelves) Community Service Supplies (e.g., protective clothing, tools)

n/a

Lg. Van Rental x 2 Trips

$3,000 $1,200

$1,000

Neighborhood Clean-Up Stuff

Rutgers Law School Moot C/R (@ $250 x 12) $100 x 12 mos.

$2,000

n/a

1 @ $500

Photocopier

4 Sets @ $500

n/a

Online Fax Service @ $10/mo.

Computer

Fax Machine

n/a

Staff & Vol. Retreat + Local Activities

$1,000

n/a

$10,800

n/a

Wash DC - US Sup Ct

$2,400

n/a

200 x 12 mos.

$3,000 $1,200

$800 $6,920

$1,000

$2,000

$500

$120

$2,500

14,800

$8,300

$6,500

$1,200

n/a

$600

Grand Total

100 x 12 mos.

In-Kind Donations

n/a

Monetary Costs

50 x 12 mos.

Computation

5 Tablets @ $500

Equipment

Travel Staff Travel (e.g., local mileage, expenses to attend training seminars) Volunteer Travel (e.g., expenses to attend conferences or training seminars, special events) Total Travel

Total Supplies

Volunteer Recognition Materials (e.g., t-shirts, gymbags, plaques) Food/Catering (e.g., food for volunteer training, refreshments for hearing nights, volunteer or other recognition banquets) Books and Periodicals (e.g., volunteer training materials, staff development materials)

Budget Item

Total Program Costs

Indirect/Overhead/Administrative Costs

n/a $1,200 n/a $1,200 $3,000 n/a

$50 x 12 mos. $100 x 12 mos. $250 x 12 mos. 100 x 12 mos. $250 x 12 mos. $500 x 12 mos.

n/a

$100 x 12 mos.

20% of Budget

$1,200

$100 x 12 mos.

$128,368

$21,395

$6,000

$3,000

$1,200

$3,000

$1,200

$600

$1,200

$4,200

Grand Total

$47,520

In-Kind Donations

Total Direct Costs

Monetary Costs

$10,800

Computation

Other Expenses Accounting (e.g., payroll, bookkeeping, taxes) Insurance (e.g., general liability, board of directors, automobile) Background and Criminal Records Checks Expenses Computer Services (e.g., Internet access, software, database development, computer/software maintenance, web site development) Discretionary Assistance (e.g., bus tokens, cab vouchers, educational workshop fees) Outside Program Evaluator Services Consultant/Contracted Services (e.g., contracted trainers, curriculum development, stipends for educational workshop leaders) Scholarship Fund (e.g., volunteer educational scholarships) Total Other

Total Facilities

Security (e.g., office space, hearings)

Budget Item

Notes ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 19

Page 18 of 19

Page 19 of 19