Discussion 3:

THREE YEARS OF TEEN COURT OFFENDER OUTCOMES

Deborah Kirby Forgays

ABSTRACT

Since 1983, Teen Courts have offered a judicial altemative for many adolescent offenders. In the flrst year of the Whatcom County Teen Court Program a small sample of Teen Court offenders had more favorable outcomes than did Court Diversion offenders. In the current study, the results are based on a three-year sample of 84 Whatcom County adjudicated youths, each with at least one prior conviction. Overall, recidivism was lower for the Teen Court offenders than for flrst-time Court Diversion offenders. Sentence completion rates were comparable for the two groups. In addition to behavioral outcomes, responses on a satisfaction survey and a self-acceptance inventory provide a more complete view ofthe offenders' perspectives. One unanticipated outcome was the number of offenders who chose to continue involvement with Teen Court sessions, independent of sentencing requirements.

Since t h e early 1980s, Tieen Courts h a v e provided youthful offenders with an altemative to the standard juvenile justice system. The sub- stantive increase in youth courts, from fewer than 100 to over 1000, is evidence of the strong advocacy for these programs (National Youth Court Center, 2005). Further, according to current outcome evaluation data, youth court offenders have lower recidivism rates than offenders in other juvenile adjudicating formats (Butts, Buck, & Coggeshall, 2002). The majority of youth court programs focus on first-time offend- ers (Acker, Hendrix, Hogan, & Kordzek, 2001), although there is gen- eral acknowledgement that repeat youthful offenders constitute a major problem in the juvenile justice system (Umbreit, 1993). Recently, researchers reported that repeat offenders who were processed

The Whatcom County Teen Court is the result ofthe vision of Tina Lanci of Northwest Youth Services (N\ffYS), Judge Charles Snyder, and Court Commis- sioner Martha Gross. Cathy Beaty (NWYS) has put life-sustaining organiza- tion mto that vision. Thanks are due Lisa DeMilio of Interfaith Community Center, Kim Schuster of the Puhlic Defenders Office, Nan DeSelover of the Juvenile Justice Center, and to all ofthe community and student volunteers This research was funded by a grant 1-200-01100 from the Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Council of Washington State and the Office of Juvenile Delin- quency Prevention. |

Requests for reprints should be sent to Deborah Kirby Forgays, Ph D De- partment of Psychology, Western Washington University, BeUikgham' WA 98225-9089.

ADOLESCENCE, Vol. 43, No. 171, Fall 2008 Libra Publishers, Inc., 3089C Clairemont Dr., PMB 383, San Diego, CA 92117

through Teen Court (TC) had lower recidivism rates than did a group of first-time Court Diversion (CD) offenders (Forgays & DeMilio, 2005). However, the sample was small and represented only a single year of the program. In the present study, three years of outcome data from the Whatcom County, Washington State Teen Court program are com- pared with outcomes from the county Court Diversion program.

One key difference between altemative youth courts and the typical juvenile justice approach is the make-up of the court personnel. In the standard juvenile justice approach, including CD programs, adults represent youths in court and adults decide on the sentence. In con- trast, the youth court emphasis is on trial by peers—peer counsel, jurors, bailiff, clerk, and even peer judges. During the TC session, the adolescent offender observes the courtroom personnel—judge, bailiff, clerk, advocate—in socially responsible roles. Then the peer jury de- vises a sentence that provides the youth offenders with positive com- munity activities to enhance their commitment and involvement. For example, one sentence component may include serving on a TC jury. This activity places the offender in a socially responsible role, working with other adolescents to develop a sentence that refiects community values. Thus, through observation of and involvement in appropriate civic behavior, the offender who is adjudicated through TC should be more attached to their community and, therefore, less willing to dis- rupt the community with delinquent acts.

Restorative Justice Approach In the standard legal system, the crime is against the state or law—a

rather abstract concept for an adolescent. The goal of the sentence is to punish the offender. By contrast, within the restorative justice approach, the crime is against a person or community (Bazemore, 2001; Bazemore & Maloney, 1994). In juvenile court or court diversion sentences, the offender is held responsible for the crime and must make restitution. The restorative justice sentence does not focus solely on punishment.

Rather, there are multiple goals—offender accountability, commu- nity protection, competency development, and youth advocacy (Malo- ney, Romig, & Armstrong, 1988). Community reparation activities, such as letters of apology or interaction with crime victims, are de- signed to educate the offending youth about the impact of the crime on the community and to provide the community with evidence of the offender's new understanding. A final component provides an avenue for the youth's "restoration" into the community as a socially responsi- ble citizen (see Godwin, 2001 for a more in-depth discussion of restor-

474

ative justice; Maloney & Holcomb, 2001; Presser & Van Voorhis, 2002). This restoration is crucial because offending youths t5T)ically need di- rection to reinstate themselves positively with their peers and adults. An effective restorative justice sentence pairs accountability with so- cially responsible behavior for the offender.

However, although the components of restorative justice are clearly delineated, examinations of their efficacy are few. Well-designed evalu- ations of youth court programs are increasing but vary in their focus. Some researchers have identified attitude changes such as a more posi- tive view of police officers and the legal system after their youth court adjudication (Fox et al., 1994). In New Mexico and Kentucky, evalua- tors focused on recidivism rates (Harrison, Maupin, & Mays, 2001; Minor, Wells, Soderstromj Bingham, & WiUiamson, 1999). For exam- ple, re-offense rates for jrouth court offenders in New Mexico were lower than those of any other diversion program in that state. Further, at one year follow-up, loyer recidivism was associated with having served on a youth court jury. In the Kentucky program, adolescent offenders who completed more hours of community service were less likely to re-offend. Neither program directly compared youth court of- fenders with youth offenders from other adjudicating formats. Thus, it was not possible to evaluate fully the impact of peer-mandated sen- tences.

More recent investigations of youth court programs have included comparisons with non-youth court offenders. In Idaho researchers ran- domly assigned first-time court programs—Juvenile

charged youthful offenders to one of four Accountability, Youth Court, Magistrate

Court, and Educational Control (Patrick, Marsh, Bundy, Mimura, & Perkins, 2004). The crime was limited to Minor in Possession (MIP) of alcohol or tobacco. There were no significant differences in recidivism across the four groups in the first year ofthe research project, although the authors noted a trend toward lower recidivism in the Juvenile Accountability group. Butts and colleagues (2002) reported that, in three ofthe four states surveyed, youth court offenders had lower recid- ivism rates than offenders processed through traditional juvenile courts. In the fourth state] Maryland, the youth court and diversion rates were comparable. In the Butts et al. study, the adolescent crimes included a range of misdenieanors and gross misdemeanors. Although limited to a single data-collection period, the Butts et al. study is note- worthy for its multi-site controlled comparison of youth court pro- grams.

One possible reason for the dearth of comparison studies is the diffi- culty in identifying and obtaining an appropriate comparison group. A

475

viable comparison group would be matched on characteristics such as crime, age, and gender. The comparison group should have similar adjudicating experiences to those of youth court defendants, differing only on the make-up of the sentencing group—peers versus adults. With these considerations in mind, CD youthful offenders were se- lected as the youth court comparison sample. CD is a program designed for first-time offenders of non-felony crimes. TC offenders were adjudi- cated through CD for their first crime but are not ehgible for their second offense. TC offenders' second offense falls into the same cate- gory as those of CD offenders—misdemeanors and gross misdemean- ors. CD and TC offenders have admitted their guilt and hence are most concerned with the sentence. In addition, reparation to the community is common to both TC and CD sentences. The main difference between TC and CD adjudication formats is the reliance on a peer jury rather than an adult panel. Thus, a comparison between TC and CD offender outcomes is a suitable method to examine the impact ofthe peer sanc- tion and modeling unique to youth courts.

Current Study The current study examined TC offender outcomes across three

years. This article is a follow-up of the first-year findings of the What- com County Teen Court Program (for a more detailed description see Forgays & DeMiho, 2005). Outcome measures for the repeat adolescent offenders included self-report inventories and behavioral indices. Of- fenders described their Teen Court experiences and their own social competencies. Behavioral evidence of positive or negative outcomes was derived from sentence completion data, court records, and involve- ment in TC sessions subsequent to sentence requirements. Recidivism was defined as being charged with a crime after the TC session. Sen- tence completion and re-offense rates were compared with rates of first-time offenders adjudicated through CD programs. It was antici- pated that across the three years, TC offenders would have higher sentence completion and lower recidivism rates than CD offenders.

METHOD

Participants Eighty-four youthful offenders, 58 males and 26 females, agreed to

be sentenced through the Whatcom County Teen Court program. Of those reporting ethnicity, 85% indicated Caucasian, 4% Hispanic, 2% African-American, 1% Native American, and 8% Other (East Indian,

476

Ukrainian, or more than one ethnic identity). The average age for boys and girls was 15.55 years ¡and all but 3 lived at home with at least one biological parent. Over 91% of the offenders were enrolled in school and the remaining 9% either were not enrolled in a public school or were working on their GED. Boys and girls reported a different pattern of school performance. There were more boys on the extremes—more failing (22%) and more As & Bs (7%)—than girls (5% and 4%, respec- tively). There were more girls (58%) than boys (34%) reporting grades in the Cs & Ds range. In th[e past year, a substantial percentage of girls (38%) and boys (31%) had been suspended from school for violations unrelated to the TC crimel

Data on the CD comparison group were limited to sentence comple- tion and re-offense rates. Cases were randomly selected from a list obtained from Juvenile J t stice Services. The list had been stratified by gender, and CD crimes were limited to misdemeanors or gross mis- demeanors. All CD cases were first-time offenders.

Measures Northwest Youth Services Intake & Assessment Record I Evaluation

Form. The Intake & Assessment Record elicits offender demographic information and information about current and previous offenses. The Evaluation form identifies the degree to which each sentence compo- nent was completed. A post-sentence completion interview is the final part of the Evaluation Form.

Exit Survey is a nine-item satisfaction survey. The offenders indicate the perceived fairness of the sentence and their understanding of the Teen Court process. Sentence fairness is rated on a four-point scale from too harsh to very fair. The remaining survey items are presented in a yes/no format. "The sentence made sense to me" is an example. Intemal consistency is .67 across the three years.

Harter: Self-Perception P,rofile for Adolescents (Harter, 1985). The Harter inventory provides' information about how adolescents see themselves across domains, e.g., scholastic competence, social accep- tance, physical appearance', overall self-worth. The format has good face validity because the respondents are asked to rate themselves in relation to other adolescents and each option is presented as equally acceptable. The measure has been normed and standardized on male and female youths in the age range of the Teen Court offenders. In this study, analyses were restricted to the Self-Worth scale as there was no theoretical basis for anticipating other domain differences. In- ternal consistency was .85. When compared to the normative, same-

477

age, same-gender population, TC offender scores were within one stan- dard deviation of the normative mean.

Behavioral indices. Sentence completion and recidivism comprised the two behavioral measures. Northwest Youth Services (NWYS) per- sonnel completed a checklist with the offender identifying each part of the sentence and the degree to which it had been completed—not at all, mostly not, partially completed, and fully completed. Recidivism was determined by a review of juvenile court records by court personnel blind to the goals of this study.

Procedure All TC defendants were first referred to NWYS by the District Attor-

neys office. Accompanied by a parent or guardian, the adolescent com- pleted the Northwest Youth Services Intake & Assessment Record. As a prerequisite, the offender pled guilty to the charge and the parent or guardian agreed to support the offender's sentence completion. In compliance with ethical guidelines for research with minors, parent and youth consent forms were obtained for all offenders. On the night of the TC session, prior to the hearing, the offender completed the Harter Self-Perception Profile. After the hearing, the offender com- pleted the Exit survey.

The NWYS Teen Court Coordinator monitored the offender for com- pletion of sentencing components, including fines and restitution to victims. The typical time frame for sentence completion was two to three months. At the end ofthat time, the offender completed an out- come evaluation/interview either at the NWYS office or by phone. Re- cidivism was evaluated six months after sentencing.

RESULTS

Descriptives All TC crimes were misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors. The most

frequent crime for boy and girls was shoplifting and/or theft. However, an equally frequent crime for girls was assault—almost three times more frequent than for boys. Minor in possession of alcohol or mari- juana (MIP) was the next most frequent offense for boys and girls. Boys were more likely to be involved with property damage, car prowls, criminal trespass, carrying a weapon, and disturbing the peace than were girls. Overall, boys were involved in more property-related and girls in more person-related crimes. There was an identifiable victim in 7% ofthe cases.

478

With regard to sentencing, 86% of boys and 95% of girls received sentences that included community service as well as sentencing com- ponents specifically related to their crime, such as a drug evaluation, letter of apology, restitution or appearance before a victim impact panel. Fifty-two percent of defendants were sentenced to serve on one TC jury for the month following their own court appearance. In addi- tion to serving on a TC jury as part of their sentence, previously adjudi- cated youth also served 14 times in the role of clerk, bailiff, or advocate. Participation in these roles was never part of a TC sentence and there- fore was voluntary, self-motivated behavior. Moreover, thirteen (15.5%) former defendants (either Teen Court or Juvenile Court) served as jurors on multiple occasions, service that was also voluntary and not related to their sentence.

Sentence Completion & Recidivism Data Across the three years o'f the funded Whatcom County Teen Court

Program, 84 youthful offenders were sentenced by peer juries. The end point for sentence completion was three months, and recidivism was evaluated six months post TC session. Sentence completion rates were consistently high, ranging from 85-92%, yet recidivism varied by year, as seen in Table 1. When the recidivism data were collapsed across the three years, significantly fewer TC youth re-offended compared to first-time adjudicated CD youth (x̂ (1,161) = 14.92, p < .001). There

Table

Recidivism Rates for Teen Court and Court Diversion

Adolescent Offenders by Year

Year Teen Court Court Diversion

Year]

Year 2

Years

14%

12%

25%

31%

25%

80%

479

were no significant gender differences for sentence completion or recid- ivism. Boys and girls were equally likely to fulfill their sentence re- quirements and refrain from re-offending. As of the writing of this manuscript, 30 of the original 84 TC offenders are now at least 18 years of age. Based on a review of court records, 10% have re-offended, none with felony charges.

Harter Self-Acceptance Inventory (Harter, 1985) Seventy-six offenders agreed to complete the Harter Self-Perception

Profile questionnaire. A 2 (gender) by 3 (TC year) ANO VA was per- formed with Self-Worth as the dependent variable. There was a sig- nificant main effect in Self-Worth scores by Teen Court year, F = (5,70) = 5.70, p = .000, Adj. R'' = .24. There was no main effect for gender nor was the interaction significant. However, Year 3 offenders reported significantly higher self-acceptance than either Year 1 or Year 2 offend- ers, F = (2,73) = 12.83, p = .000.

Offender Perspectives Immediately following the TC session, defendants met with NWYS

Staff to review the sentence requirements and to complete the exit survey. Responses were relatively uniform across gender and across all three years. Sentence ratings were as follows: too easy (0% girls; 4% boys), too harsh (20% girls, 16% boys), fair enough (55% girls, 48% boys), and very fair (25% girls, 32% boys). The majority ofthe offenders indicated that the sentence components made sense (70% girls, 64% boys), and that they received clear explanations for the Teen Court process (65% girls, 83% boys). Finally, 77% of girls and 82% of boys indicated that if they had a friend in trouble with the law, they would recommend the Teen Court option to their friend.

DISCUSSION

To date, the majority of youth court outcome evaluations limit their populations to first-time offenders (Butts et al., 2002; Patrick et al., 2004). In the current study, the focus was on repeat offenders. Adoles- cent jurors developed sentences based on restorative justice compo- nents—accountability, restoration, and offender re-engagement in the community. (For a more detailed description of juror sentencing pat- terns, see Forgays, DeMiho, & Schuster, 2004). The TC offender out- comes were compared with those of the first-time CD sample. The CD and TC samples had committed similar types of crimes and were

480

matched on demographic variables.The key sample differences were that the TC sample included repeat offenders and received a restor- ative justice sentence from their adolescent peers rather than from adults.

When compared with the CD sample, the TC offenders had lower recidivism rates and comparable sentence completion rates. Moreover, only a small percentage of the now adult TC offenders have re-of- fended. Yet, there was substantial variabihty in recidivism across the three years in both the TC and CD samples. The dramatic increase in recidivism in the third year is somewhat perplexing. On the one hand, this increase can be placed in context—the TC recidivism rate of 25% was substantially lower than the 80% for the CD group. On the other, what factors contributed to the re-offense differences in Year 3?

The explanation for the increase does not appear to be related to demographics. The distribution of crimes—e.g., shoplifting, minor in possession of alcohol or niarijuana (MIP)—^was comparable across the three years for TC and CDj offenders. For the TC offenders, court proce- dures and sentencing guidelines were the same. The TC gender and ethnic distributions were not significantly different across the three years.

One possibility is that Yjear 3 juvenile offenders may have committed more crimes than offenders in Years 1 and 2 adjudicated crimes. Ac- cording to national surveys, youthful offenders report conimitting more crimes than indicated by| national crime statistics (Snyder & Sick- mund, 1999). Thus, Year 3 offenders with a first or second charge may have broken the law before, but had not been caught. In addition, when county prosecutors were faced with a backlog of Minor in Possession (MIP) cases, at times they would dismiss the charges if the charged adolescent completed a Drug & Alcohol Evaluation. In these cases, although a youth's crime is recorded as a first offense, that youth may have been charged previously with an MIP. Thus, the Year 3 offending youths may be more practiced in committing crimes and more likely to re-offend.

From another perspectivje, the Harter Self-Worth scores may provide some explanation for the TC sample. During the first two years, the overall Self-Worth subscale scores were the lowest scores for male and female offenders. This suggests that these youthful offenders have low self-acceptance, wishing that they could be different. Certainly, low self-acceptance can be a cause for concern. However, thé stated desire to behave differently may indicate that these offenders are amenable to the restorative justice opportunities to act more responsibly. In con- trast, year 3 offenders' overall self-worth scores were significantly

481

higher, suggesting an inflated sense of self. Similar to adolescents with conduct disorder, offenders with an unrealistically positive self-view may be less responsive to interventions that rely on social bonds. (Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; David & Kistner, 2000). Since the restorative justice approach relies on the youths' willingness to modify their behavior to gain social acceptance, the TC experience may have little effect on these adolescents' delinquent behavior. Al- though the Harter is not designed as a diagnostic tool, the self-esteem information provides some direction in understanding the spike in Year 3 recidivism rates.

The determination of program effectiveness is often limited to objec- tive outcomes such as sentence completion and recidivism rates. Yet, the offender's perspective on the TC process and sentence can be equally informative. Overall, the offenders had favorable comments about their TC experience, with the majority willing to recommend the option to others in the same situation. These comments provide rich detail and anecdotal support for TC as a positive infiuence on the offender. However, the most powerful indicator of a TC impact is through self-directed offender behavior. A number of former TC defen- dants returned to serve as a juror even after fulfilling their sentence requirements. Moreover, former youthful offenders volunteered as ad- vocate, bailiff, and clerk to maintain contact with the TC program. A few former offenders even joined the Teen Court Student Advisory Board. This self-determined involvement is consistent with empow- erment theory and a strong endorsement of the TC experience. The offenders accepted the sanction from their peers by completing their sentences. In addition, the former offender utilized TC court roles to re-engage with a peer community. Earlier youth court evaluations noted that youthful offenders who completed jury duty were less likely to re-offend (Harrison et al., 2001). Future investigations should ex- plore more systematically the possible relationship between serving in a TC role and positive self-view, as well as a link to lower recidivism.

The positive impact of jury duty may be due to many factors. By observing non-adjudicated adolescents and working with them on a common task, the former offender practices social problem-solving skills. Further, becoming a member of the jury is personally empow- ering and allows the former youthful offender to see him/herself as a valuable community member. Parent comments also noted positive effects, including better communication with their adolescent and im- proved attitudes about school. Thus, improved parent relationships, greater commitment to school, and continued involvement with the Teen Court program should result in less delinquency; i.e., adolescents with strengthened social bonds would be less hkely to re-offend.

482

Future Directions As with any applied research endeavor, this project had hmitations.

Sentence completion, recidivism, and self-reported personal and family status form the basis of the Teen Court six-month follow-up. Clearly, more extensive post-sentence data from the offenders and their parents could expand the hst of possible contributors to lower recidivism. How- ever, after sentence completion, the youthful offenders are reluctant to participate in additiorial information gathering. Although such re- luctance is understandab|le, a continuing information gap remains re- garding developmental niilestones such as high school completion or work history. One ongoing limitation is the relatively small number of offenders processed through i the Teen Court system compared with the total juvenile justice population. The size of the group is tied di-

available, the program is rectly to funding. If cour.ty, state, and federal resources were made

in place to expand its services. However, even with these constraints, the study results are consis-

tent with a growing data base on youth courts that apply restorative justice tenets. In the Whatcom County Teen Court Program, repeat offenders had a lower recidivism rate than did first-time Court Diver- sion offenders. Moreover, the TC program provides an opportunity for non-offending high school students to support their peers, leam about the justice system, and contribute to their community in a meaningful way (Forgays et al., 2004|. Thus, judgment by one's peers appears to be an effective deterrent to future crime, especially when the offender has the opportunity to become part ofthe Teen Court experience in a later socially responsible role.

REFERENCES

Acker, J. R., Hendrix, P. N., Hogan, L., & Kordzek, A. (2001). Building a better youth court. Law & Policy, 23, 197-215.

Baumeister, R. F., Bushman| B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science 9, 26-29.

Bazemore, G. (2001). Young people, trouble, and crime: Restorative justice as a normative theory of informal social control and social support Youth & Society, 33, 199-226.

Bazemore, G., & Maloney, D. (1994). Rehabilitating community service: To- ward restorative service sanctions in a balanced justice system. Commu- nity Service Federal Probation, March 24-35.

Butts, J., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. (2002). The impact of Teen Court on young offenders. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute.

483

David, C. F., & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do positive self-perceptions have a "dark side"? Examination of the link between perceptual bias and aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 327-337.

Forgays, D. K., & DeMilio, L. (2005). Is Teen Court effective for repeat offend- ers? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Crimi- nology, 49, 107-118.

Forgays, D. K., DeMilio, L., & Schuster, K. (2004). Teen Court: What jurors can tell us about the process. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 55, 25-34.

Fox, J. W., Minor, K., & Pelkey, W. L. (1994). The relationship between law- related education diversion and juvenile offenders' social- and self-per- ceptions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 61-77.

Godwin, T. (2001). The role of restorative justice in Teen Courts: A preliminary look. Lexington, Kentucky: National Youth Court Center.

Harrison, P., Maupin, J. R., & Mays, G. L. (2001). Teen Court: An examination ofthe processes and outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 243-264.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-perception Profile for Adolescents. Uni- versity of Denver.

Maloney, D., & Holcomb, D. (2001). In pursuit of community justice. Youth & Society, 33, 296-313.

Maloney, D., Romig, D., & Armstrong, T. (1988). The Balanced Approach in practice. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 13-19.

Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., Soderstrom, I. R., Bingham, R., & Williamson, D. (1999). Sentence completion and recidivism among juveniles referred to Teen Court. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 4 6 7 ^ 8 0 .

National Youth Court Center (2005). Youth court stats. Retrieved August 16, 2005, from http://www.youthcourt.net

Patrick, S., Marsh, R., Bundy, W., Mimura, S., & Perkins, T. (2004). Control study of juvenile diversion programs: An experiment in juvenile diver- sion—the comparison of three methods and a control group. Social Sci- ence Journal, 41, 129-135.

Presser, L., & Van Voorhis, P. (2002). Values and evaluation: Assessing pro- cesses and outcomes of retorative justice programs. Crime & Delin- quency, 48, 162-188.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 National Report. Retrieved January 12,2004 from http://www.ncjrs.org/ hml/ojjdp/nationalreport99

Umbreit, M. (1993). Juvenile offenders meet their victims. Family and Concili- ation Courts Review, 31, 90-100.

484