1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Forty states and the District of Columbia acknowledge persons under the age of
18 juveniles. However, eight other states consider youth under the age of 17 juveniles.
Whether persons under the age of 18 are called troubled children, young criminals, or
youth offenders, the term juvenile delinquent is defined differently in many states
(Whitehead & Lab, 2015). The definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, meaning
a juvenile in one state may be considered an adult in another.
It was during the Progressive Era (1880–1920) that juvenile courts were
institutionalized. Due to the increasing number of immigrants, a lack of policies on
mandatory schooling, poor working conditions, and demand for humanitarian reform,
juvenile courts were established (Whitehead & Lab, 2015). However, according to Platt
(1977), many people did not consider the modernized form of juvenile delinquency
reform a benevolent act. It was seen as selfish, self-interest behavior among society’s
elite groups. Juvenile justice was becoming a movement of the rich for controlling the
dangerous poor youth groups (Platt, 1977).
Background
The use of alcohol and drugs, drinking and driving, and other high-risk and
delinquent behaviors are some of the issues young people face in society. Restorative
justice could be considered a necessary form of rehabilitation to lessen the severity for
juveniles facing consequences of delinquent criminal acts. Sound guidance and
meaningful learning opportunities during this stage in life could aid in juveniles
becoming responsible and productive citizens. The use of restorative justice strategies is a
2
modernized response to the traditional approach of justice, encouraging a heightened
sense of moral behavior and self-accountability (McKibben & Penko, 2015).
The story of Ralph Brazel, Jr., who was born and raised in a poor New Jersey
neighborhood, was introduced to a national audience by Ashley Nellis in 2015. Brazel
rarely listened to his single mother’s rules and did not take much interest in school
attendance. Brazel bounced from different homes and several states as a teen between his
grandmother, mother, and father. Brazel became a small-time drug dealer and was
eventually arrested and convicted. These nonviolent mistakes as a juvenile eventually led
to Brazel being sentenced to a lifetime in prison with no possibility of parole. Based on
the current U.S. adult prison population, the story of Ralph Brazel has likely played out
many times in the lives of other juveniles across the country (Nellis, 2015).
Nason and Sandow (2017) depicted the tragic life story of Kalief Browder on
screen through a documentary. Browder was a New York teen accused of stealing a
backpack. Browder was never convicted of the crime, yet he spent 2 years locked away in
Rikers Island Penitentiary. Most of this time was in solitary confinement. Browder was
beaten by correction officers and fellow teen inmates. His case was continually delayed
in court and his time in prison increased. This form of neglect led to physical and
psychological abuse that no youth deserves to experience and could have been avoided
(Nason and Sandow, 2017). The internal demons Browder discovered and faced as a
young, incarcerated person followed him after his overdue release from Rikers Island
Penitentiary. Unable to cope with life outside of prison’s gates and not able to verbally
express what he battled daily, Kalief took his life in the summer of 2016.
3
Brazel’s and Browder’s stories represent a small percentage of the young lives
stolen by harsh penalties toward teens in the juvenile justice system. Such examples
indicate that children are targeted and affected in a system originally created to
rehabilitate and house adults. Nellis (2015) proclaimed that most Americans consider
juvenile crime to play a major negative role. However, many do not agree with policies
being created to provide harsher penalties that lead to the incarceration of more young
offenders (Nellis, 2015).
Restorative justice programs may have saved the lives and prevented the
prolonged incarceration of Browder, Brazel, and others. If given the opportunity, positive
peer pressure and adult guidance may prevent recidivism and reduce negative
environmental influences. The techniques of restorative justice programs have been
deemed beneficial to a variety of parties (McKibben & Penko, 2015). Youth offenders
are encouraged to connect and positively relate to other youths, families are advised to
participate in some of the treatment plans, and communities have the opportunity to heal
and forgive through the reintegration of juvenile offenders and the victims (Latimer et al.,
2005). Historically, the origins of restorative justice have not been only found in criminal
justice systems, but also in the workplace, schools, and similar forms of social conflict
(McKibben & Penko, 2015). Additional research on juvenile restorative or diversion
opportunities could encourage the expansion of similar programs for juvenile
delinquency throughout the state of Georgia.
4
Problem Statement
The problem addressed in this study focused on first-time juvenile offenders and
how the Dublin-Laurens Teen Court was more successful at reducing recidivism than the
traditional juvenile court. Success in teen court programs was measured by the number of
reoffending youths in the restorative justice program versus the number of reoffending
juveniles who entered the traditional juvenile court system. To address the issue, I
surveyed juvenile justice officers who worked directly with youths who had entered,
completed, and been released from the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program and
traditional court. The juvenile justice officers were able to provide valid insights on how
the Dublin-Laurens Teen Court was more successful in reducing recidivism.
Programs such as teen courts are utilized to deter youths from entering a lifetime
of criminal behaviors. Measures of effectiveness were discovered through the programs’
discussion of successful completions and recidivism rates (Harris et al., 2011).
Recidivism in juvenile delinquency was identified as a worrying factor for researchers.
Rates of recidivism, which include teens, have been extremely high throughout recent
years (Seigle et al., 2014). Due to a lack of research on the juvenile justice system’s
recidivism issues, the efforts to reduce recidivism were often incomplete and misguided.
This has caused some prevention programs to be considered flawed and ineffective. A
goal of the current study was to overcome the current obstacles of juvenile reoffending
through understanding the strategies and how the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court is
effective.
5
Researchers and governmental agencies advanced alternative mentoring programs
for delinquent youths with some promising results and outcomes (Latimer et al., 2005). In
their published work, Wilson and Hoge (2012) highlighted two examples of alternative
strategies: (a) caution programs and (b) formal diversion programs. Caution groups aimed
to remove the youths from the systems of law and provided no further court or criminal
actions. This action was least troublesome for court officials and the youths. Formal
diversion groups utilized a type of surveillance consequence. The program was conducted
with youths who admitted their wrongdoings and agreed to participate in intervention
groups. Support for using alternative juvenile justice programs was found when utilizing
diversion practices. The completed reviews of Lipsey et al. (2001) on effective treatments
for juveniles within the court systems highlighting community-based programs were
found to be more productive and successful with youth recidivism than treatment of
juvenile incarceration or out-of-home placement. The diversion programs were beneficial
for low- and high-risk youths who had committed misdemeanors and a few more serious
crimes (Lipsey et al., 2001). However, negative responses were increasing in the existing
gap between reoffending outcomes and the assessments of the offenders’ behavioral
attitudes, background, values, and educational history and records. Limited research was
found on the styles of diversion applied to the youths. The lack of available information
from national reports suggested doubt and limitations on supporting sources and caused a
missing link in the research field of understanding the possibilities and promising
outcomes of diversion programs (Skowyra & Powell, 2006).
6
A disconnect was found in the proper rehabilitation provided per criminal act
committed. Hoge (2008) and Hoge and Andrews (2010) stressed that each offender must
be correctly assessed on risk levels and behavioral needs to provide the appropriate
services to each individual based on accurate intake information. There should be
effective alternative programs that cater to revitalizing, rejuvenating, and rehabilitating
each youth and targeting their area of need. Communities focused on the behavioral
health needs of delinquent youths by improving and providing therapeutic treatments in
an effort to deter them from reoccurring criminal acts (Tossone et al., 2017). This was in
response to an increasing number of youths in the justice system with behavioral health
disorders. Effective behavioral health diversion programs aimed to reduce multiple
incarcerations, psychological trauma, and overall recidivism among youths (Tossone et
al., 2017).
Confidentiality requirements kept information of juveniles sealed; however, a
small group of juvenile justice officers from the Department of Juvenile Justice were the
first to encounter the youths as they entered the teen court program and these officers
worked with them through the entire process. Utilizing these officers as study participants
provided direct experience and testimonial accounts on the effectiveness and
shortcomings of traditional juvenile courts and the nontraditional diversion court
programs. The juvenile justice officers were knowledgeable of the youth judicial system
and understood the importance of providing appropriate, accurate care to juveniles
involved in the court system.
7
Teen Court Overview
The Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court (Georgia) had been in operation since
1997 and operated as a juvenile diversion program. Laurens County and the City of
Dublin worked collaboratively to reduce the number of juvenile offenders not only to
make the community a safer place to live but also to provide opportunities for at-risk
youths to receive the needed assistance. Dublin-Laurens County’s Department of
Juvenile Justice has a total of 11,250 at-risk youths in its community, according to the
latest Georgia Juvenile Justice Data Clearinghouse (2016) for Reporting Period: January
2016 through December 2016. The Dublin-Laurens Teen Court was more successful in
reducing recidivism than the traditional court for first-time juvenile offenders. Table 1
shows the significant difference from 2015 to 2019 for traditional court first-time
offenders recidivism rate versus the Dublin-Laurens Teen Court recidivism rate. Over
this 5-year period, the traditional court had a recidivism rate of 42% and the Teen Court
had a recidivism rate of 2%. The focus of the current study was to understand the reasons
the Dublin Teen Court was successful in reducing recidivism.
8
Table 1
Five-Year Recidivism Percentages of Traditional Court Cases vs. Teen Court Cases
Year Traditional
court case first-
time offender
Traditional
court case first-
time offender
recidivism
percentage
Teen court case
first-time
offender
Teen court case
first-time
offender
recidivism
percentage
2015 n = 59 n = 24 (41%) n = 38 n = 1 (3%)
2016 n = 58 n = 32 (55%) n = 37 n = 1 (3%)
2017 n = 60 n = 22 (37%) n = 22 n = 1 (5%)
2018 n = 33 n = 11 (33%) n = 21 n = 0 (0%)
2019 n = 27 n = 10 (37%) n = 22 n = 0 (0%)
Total N = 237 N = 99 (42%) N = 140 N = 3 (2%)
Note. Recidivism is defined as a re-offense within 1 year of the first offense (Southern
Region [GA] Department of Juvenile Justice).
Globally, teen courts were built as a volunteer alternative to the traditional
criminal justice system for youths who found themselves involved with the law. The
Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court was a juvenile diversion program for first-time
offenders who committed misdemeanor crimes, recognized the error of their ways, and
desired a second chance. Juveniles who admitted guilt before the juvenile court judge
were eligible for the program. The goal of the teen court was to intervene and reduce
future incidents and escalations of law-breaking behaviors (i.e., recidivism). The teen
court strived to promote feelings of self-esteem and a desire for self-improvement among
the youths.
The process began when a police officer came in contact with a juvenile who was
believed to have committed a misdemeanor offense. The police officer filled out a
juvenile complaint form and gave it to the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice. The
9
program manager of the Department of Juvenile Justice screened the complaints and
referred the cases that met the criteria for teen court to the juvenile court judge. The judge
ordered the teen to participate in teen court. An interview with the juvenile and their
parents was conducted by a coordinator. A court date was selected for the juvenile to
appear in teen court. Meanwhile, the coordinator worked with attorneys and judges in the
community who volunteered their time to train young people interested in teen court.
The types of cases heard in Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court were
misdemeanor cases. Some cases included shoplifting, simple battery, simple assault,
driving without a license, disorderly conduct, possession of alcohol by a minor, and
speeding up to 23 miles over the speed limit. The courtroom setting involved trained
youths serving as the defense attorney, prosecuting attorney, clerk, bailiff, and jury
members. The judge was a volunteering judge or attorney in the local community to
ensure the court process was accurate.
The Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court was a positive, win-win opportunity for
the community and youths involved. Volunteers were able to gain firsthand experience of
the court process. Juvenile offenders acknowledged their mistakes and gave back to their
community through weekly service. Some offenders returned after completing their
sentence as a new and improved youth volunteer. This program was not a punishment; it
was a family of volunteers who promoted restorative justice for youths by youths.
Teen Court Orientation
The orientation portion of the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program was
also recognized as its intake process for the newly recommended juvenile defendants.
10
After the youths’ cases were referred to the Teen Court Program, the families of the
defendants were mailed a packet. This package consisted of documents to explain the
Teen Court process in detail. The entire program and what to expect was described to the
youth and family. There was also an option to opt out if they found this was not a journey
they wanted to take.
If the youth selected not to continue with the Teen Court, their cases were sent
back to the referring source. This usually led back to the district courts, juvenile court
judge, or Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice. Once this action was complete, the
youth could no longer return to the Teen Court Program. They would then stand before
the juvenile court or district court judge and be sentenced to harsher consequences than
those of the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court. Without the support of the Teen Court
Program, the defendant faced punishments such as juvenile detention, probation, fines,
and out-of-home placement.
By entering the Teen Court, the juvenile was admitting guilt and was also
agreeing to accept the court’s decision as final and binding. Furthermore, choosing the
Teen Court meant certain constitutional rights were forfeited. The coordinator set a court
date and location for the defendant to appear with their parent(s) for trial.
The at-risk population included youths ages 11 through 17 who were White,
Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Native, and other/mixed. Assessment instruments
used for the selected target population to screen youths included cases referred from the
juvenile court and the Juvenile Justice Decision Points Report. The coordinator worked
11
with attorneys and judges in the community who volunteered their time to train young
students interested in this Teen Court. The training program involved instruction on legal
procedure, proper conduct, and job duties with each position. The cases were distributed
to the student attorneys. The attorneys reviewed their cases an hour before trial was
scheduled. They took into consideration circumstances surrounding the defendant. Prior
to trial, the defense attorneys were expected to interview the defendant and prepare
opening statements, questions, and closing arguments. The prosecuting and defense
attorney possessed a copy of the juvenile complaint. At all times the volunteers adhered
to the confidentiality requirements as to the identity of the defendant and the facts of their
case.
The jury consisted of seven to 13 youths. The jury included as many of Laurens
County’s schools’ youths as possible. The coordinator assigned teen volunteers to
specific cases on specific dates. A portion of the jury consisted of previous defendants
who served their required duty in Teen Court. Every defendant admitted to Teen Court
was required to serve as a Teen Court juror at least twice.
After the jury issued a constructive sentence to the defendant, the juvenile had 90
days to complete the sentence. If the juvenile did not complete the sentence requirements,
the juvenile was referred back to the juvenile court judge for further legal action and
risked a possible juvenile record. Thus, the Teen Court Program had a deterrence-based
component.
12
Goals
The goals of the teen court orientation were (a) to increase the number and
percentage of youths completing program requirements, (b) to increase the use of
evidence-based practices in Georgia’s juvenile justice system by initiating community-
based juvenile justice programs, (c) to reduce the recidivism rate of youths involved with
Georgia’s juvenile justice system, and (d) to demonstrate a cost savings to citizens of
Georgia through provision of research-informed services to youths in the juvenile justice
system.
Performance Objectives
The performance objectives of the teen court orientation were (a) to demonstrate
project specific reduction in recidivism, (b) to maintain the number of evidence-based
services over the previous year and the overall percentage of the court’s evidence-based
programs, and (c) to report cost savings per youth by calculating average cost to provide
targeted intervention subtracted from average cost to detain youths.
The objective of the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court was to increase the
number and percentage of youths completing program requirements. The goal was to
reduce recidivism and give first-time offenders an opportunity to participate in a program
that was not only educational but also beneficial. The Dublin-Laurens Teen Court existed
to present first-time juvenile offenders with an opportunity to receive community help in
correcting their inappropriate behavior and to be tried by a jury of their peers rather than
by an official court. It was the Dublin-Laurens Teen Court’s policy to uphold local, state,
13
and federal laws; provide support for first-time offenders; and encourage the community
to become an integral part of restoring personal worth to their children.
The aim was also to improve juvenile accountability for offending behaviors
through increased accountability programming for juvenile offenders and improved
juvenile justice system accountability to juvenile offenders. Calculating the number and
percentage of youths completing program requirements began once the youths had been
allowed to participate in the Teen Court program. The youths were not considered to
have completed the program until the executive director signed all necessary paperwork
indicating all requirements assigned for the youths had been met.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to seek understanding of the
nontraditional juvenile court process from the perceptions of juvenile justice workers in a
local teen court program. The research focused on the perceptions of juvenile court
officers who administered the Teen Court to understand why this approach was effective
in reducing recidivism. Understanding all aspects of the Teen Court model utilized in
Dublin-Laurens County may assist in the improvements of not only this program but also
the effectiveness of other youth justice programs around the world. The results of this
study could lead to a positive shift of the criminal justice reform in Georgia as it relates to
juvenile recidivism.
Juveniles who were charged with a crime and summoned to the juvenile court
system when they committed a misdemeanor for the first time, were presented with the
option to be referred to an alternative court program. Youths entered the teen court or
14
they remained in the traditional court system and received a traditional sentencing. The
local Department of Juvenile Justice contributed recidivism data from their program for
Laurens County, Georgia teens. Two hundred thirty-seven juveniles who selected to enter
the traditional court system in Dublin-Laurens County for committing misdemeanor
crimes for the first time had a total of 99 delinquents who reoffended within their first
year over a 5-year span. This totaled a recidivism rate of 41.77% from 2015 to 2019. The
Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program proved to decrease the number of
reoffending youths labeled as first-time offenders of misdemeanor crimes. From 2015 to
2019, the Teen Court Program had a total of 140 youths who successfully completed the
program. Out of this total, three juveniles reoffended over the next 3, 6, or 12-month
periods. These data were a stark contrast to data provided by the region’s Department of
Juvenile Justice and also illustrated the effectiveness of the Dublin-Laurens County Teen
Court Program on juveniles reoffending in their community.
However, research was lacking on youth courts. I aimed to fill the gap in research
literature by exploring additional information and insights regarding alternative
approaches to juvenile delinquency. Findings may be used to support state funding of
similar teen courts and diversion programs and the creation of a Georgia State
Association for Youth Courts to provide secondary support for cities interested in
creating a teen court program but lack financial and physical resources.
I used a descriptive case study approach. Yin (2009) identified five components
of case study research designs that were especially important and are presented in Table
2.
15
Table 2
Explanations of Key Information From Case Study Research Design
Case study item Explanation
Research question How is the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court more
successful in reducing juvenile delinquency recidivism than
traditional juvenile court?
Propositions 1. The teen court is effective at reducing recidivism because it
provides skills to juvenile offenders.
2. The teen court is effective at reducing recidivism because
juveniles fear the punishment of traditional court.
Unit of analysis Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program
Logic linking data
to propositions
The Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program is effective
at reducing recidivism. The design of the Program is aimed at
providing proper skills to avoid recidivism. The Program also
includes the threat of punishment for non-completion.
Criteria for
interpreting
findings
Thematic content analysis of individual surveys with juvenile
justice officers. The focus of the surveys will be on their
experiences with juveniles in both traditional and Teen Court
and specifically how Teen Court reduces recidivism.
Research Question
The research question was the following: How is the Dublin-Laurens County
Teen Court more successful in reducing juvenile delinquency recidivism than traditional
juvenile court?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for the study was deterrence theory, which was a
modernized extension of Beccaria’s 1764 “Essay on Crimes and Punishments” and
Bentham’s 1781 “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
(Introduction to the Principles).” Deterrence theory’s foundational support revived in the
1970s once researchers questioned the reason for committing crimes while also seeking
16
an understanding of how to solve crime (Pratt et al., 2006). There are three assumptions
to the theory: (a) a message of possible sanctions is delivered to a group, (b) the receivers
ingest the information and perceive it as a possible threat to their freedoms, and (c) the
group now considers sanctions prior to making criminalistic choices and decisions
(Tomlinson, 2016). Society faced the same laws and ordinances, yet not everyone
dissected the risks of sanctions and considered consequences the same. Deterrence theory
was used in the current study to explore how the court requirements of the Dublin-
Laurens County Teen Court Program were effective in deterring repeat offenses as
compared to the harsher sanctions of the traditional juvenile courts.
Deterrence theory has a three-level approach to crime: (a) certainty, (b) celerity,
and (c) severity. Once a juvenile has committed a crime, been apprehended, and been
referred to the teen court program by the juvenile courts, the processing and sentencing of
the youth is completed expeditiously. Compared to traditional courts, the consequences
of teen court are not as harsh; however, teen court requirements for sentencing
completions are more time-consuming and are an extended invasion of the delinquent’s
daily freedoms. Dublin-Laurens County, Georgia’s traditional juvenile court sentences
include an immediate charge dismissal after paying a fine, 15–20 hours of community
service, in-home placement, out-of-home placement, and detention centers. Teen Court
does not detain any youths or order youths to serve in-home detention. Teen Court
requires an in-program stay of 3 months for any referred juvenile. The severity of
punishment decreases in Teen Court programs, but the length of stay within the Court’s
monitoring system outweighs the traditional system.
17
Stafford and Warr (1993) challenged the original components of deterrence theory
and questioned the possibility of indirect deterring. The belief that persons were
encouraged to avoid a life of crime due to witnessing sanctions placed on others in their
personal environment was introduced. Paternoster and Piquero (1995) supported Stafford
and Warr’s findings with their study results involving the testimonies of young adults and
their peers. Individuals were deterred from crimes not only to avoid societal
consequences but also from witnessing peers face punishments, which introduced new
perceived risks that deterred as well. The Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court involves
the youth offenders in the courtrooms, but the court officers are youths as well. The
volunteering youth officers witness firsthand accounts of sanctions placed on their peers.
Success of the program is based on the deterrence of reoffending criminal behaviors from
the point of entry into the program for youth defendants and the point of contact of peers
in the courtroom for volunteering youth officers.
Nature of the Study
I used the descriptive qualitative research method identified as a case study.
Detailed accounts of juvenile offenders’ behaviors were recorded. This information
depicted the delinquent activities of juveniles who selected to enter the Dublin-Laurens
County Teen Court (Georgia) and the Department of Juvenile Justice traditional courts.
All participants had direct interactions with 100% of the youths, and the study’s data
were based solely on the numerical rates of juvenile recidivism from both court systems
and the retrieved information from the juvenile officers.
18
Definitions
Department of Juvenile Justice: An agency working to aid in the justice, change,
reshaping, and guidance in the lives of young people, hoping they will eventually be able
to lead responsible lives on their own (Hay, Ladwig & Campion, 2018).
Deterrence: A method of dissuasion against certain goals or situations by
embedding anguish and worry of the outcome (Frank, 2017).
Diversion: An altercation that changes people from their original course or plan of
action (Azim, 2021).
First-time offender: An individual who has been charged with any type of crime
for the first time (Tolou-Shams et al., 2019).
Juvenile courts: A youth court for delinquents under the age of 18 (Frank, 2017).
Juvenile delinquent: A person under the age of 18 who commits behavior in
which the rights of others are violated, often including parents (Azim, 2021).
Misdemeanor: An act less serious than a felony but serious enough to warrant
prosecution and confinement; crimes are normally settled by monetary fines (Tolou-
Shams et al., 2019).
Recidivism: A person’s return to criminal behavior during a timed period after
being released from the justice system’s care (Baglivio et al., 2018).
Restorative justice: An opportunity in which the convicted criminal can face up to
their wrongdoings and satisfactorily admit guilt to the victim and community (Jufri et al.,
2019).
19
Teen court: A court program within the Department of Juvenile Justice System
where most participants are teens. Peers of the same age are entrusted to decide the
sentence of the offender (Walker et al., 2018).
Assumptions
I assumed that the study’s participants would be truthful during data collection. I
also assumed that the survey questions would be fully understood. Confidentiality was
vital during the study. The participation process was voluntary, and participants had the
right to excuse themselves at any time. Based on the population of the study and their
employment duties, I assumed all participants were experienced and knowledgeable
regarding the youth court program.
I also assumed the selected theory would provide a strong foundation for the
study and the supporting information would accurately illustrate the research findings.
Survey questions were used to elicit data for the study, and I assumed the information
collected would yield reliable conclusions.
Scope and Delimitations
This study focused solely on the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program and
the completion results of youths who were arrested for first-time misdemeanor crimes. A
goal was set of completing all actions associated with the research. The program’s youth
offenders had 90 days to complete their sentencing requirements; therefore, they were
tracked upon their entering and dismissal of the program.
20
Limitations
The collected data were obtained from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s
officers. There was a risk that my role as researcher would not be trusted and that
participants’ responses would not be trustworthy. Confidentiality played a key role in
mitigating these limitations.
Regarding the social science foundation used in the study, the outcomes could be
limited by the selected use of terms and definitions. The results of the study may be
limited based on my choice of defined terms. The data collection instruments were
limited based on the reliability and validity of the survey.
Significance
This study may be important in the criminal justice field because of its ability to
shed light on an ongoing problem in the juvenile justice system: recidivism. The goal of
diversion programs is to lead all youths away from delinquency and crime (Development
Services Group. 2017). The current study may inform and possibly advance policy and
similar studies from practitioners locally and abroad.
When reducing recidivism, training for the offenders that provides guidance and
counseling for personal needs outside of the correctional gates is beneficial. The
transitional process into the community for offenders is important. If they are not
properly guided and prepared, they have a higher risk of committing acts of equal or
higher crime levels later in life.
I assumed individual differences, communal surroundings, family, and goals
determine which offenders are not successful. However, others argue that the incoming
21
juvenile offenders have not been correctly assessed during the intake process. This leads
to low-risk and high-risk offenders being placed on the same level of treatment. When
selecting an area in which more focus should be applied, researchers should identify risk
factors that lead to the repeated offenses of youths. It is vital to understand who needs to
be targeted. Ineffective diversion ends with negative results. My goal was to conduct
research and to pique interest in this topic.
Summary
The effectiveness of juvenile diversion programs, such as the Dublin-Laurens
County Teen Court, was highlighted in this study. The problem that was addressed in this
study focused on first-time juvenile offenders and how the Dublin-Laurens Teen Court
has been more successful at reducing recidivism than traditional juvenile court. The first
chapter included the history of juvenile justice and how diversionary programs like teen
courts have been a potential alternative to traditional court. Accurate statistics were
provided to support the study’s problem statement. The first chapter also outlined the
procedures undertaken by the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program. Chapter 2
provides a review of the related research and literature on these topics.
22
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 1 provided an introduction to the importance of juvenile diversion
programs and teen courts. The issue of juvenile recidivism and the effects of teen court
programs was addressed. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to seek
understanding of the nontraditional juvenile court process from the perceptions of
juvenile justice workers in a local teen court program. Selecting case study as the
qualitative method and the program’s definition of measuring success was revealed.
Chapter 2 provides a literature review of vital sources that allowed me to strengthen the
study base, improve plans of action, and provide a clear understanding of the data,
results, and overall study. Juvenile delinquency and reoffending are highlighted
throughout the chapter and its connection to deterrence. Challenges arose during this
review, such as maintaining the ability to ensure quality and credibility of sources.
Evaluating the credibility of sources was one of the most difficult aspects, especially with
the ease of finding information on the internet (see Shuttleworth, 2009). The best
research is that which can be reproduced by other researchers with similar outcomes.
Juvenile Recidivism
Successful juvenile diversion organizations were considered productive evidence-
based programs with detail-oriented strategies to deter youths from reoffending (Seigle et
al., 2014). Programs such as the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court created policies and
practices to address the needs of entering teens and present educational courses within the
agency to prepare delinquent youths to face a life free of criminal activity upon a
successful completion. The program’s success was proven through its low recidivism
23
rates compared to the high numbers of reoffending youths who were adjudicated through
the traditional juvenile court system.
It was vital to recognize and acknowledge the different levels of juvenile
delinquency. Upon entry into the Department of Juvenile Justice, the teens were labeled
within a high- or low-risk assessment. For juveniles who were considered low risk,
providing the most accurate court sentencing was vital to ensure the best corrective
measures. It was possible to over intervene with low-risk youths (Seigle et al., 2014).
Programs such as teen courts were needed for the sentencing and corrections of low-risk
youths. Introducing a low-risk teen to the same sanctions as high-risk juveniles who enter
the traditional court system would present a harsher way of life to a teen who may not
have considered more serious crimes.
Is Juvenile Crime Serious?
Small differences exist between crime and juvenile crime. Status offenses are
considered as troubling behaviors committed by juveniles but are not seen as criminal
acts from adults. The suggestion that status offenses are miniscule on crime scales is a
misguided claim, for it is still considered a crime for juveniles (Rowland, 1996). The
attention of decreasing the number of crimes committed and the lowering of recidivism
rates are placed upon individuals considered as juveniles just the same as they are on
adult offenders (Rowland, 1996).
Puzzanchera et al. (2011) found juvenile offending and especially repeat juvenile
offending to be a serious public health concern. In 2009, law enforcement agencies in the
United States arrested approximately 1.9 million persons under 18 years of age. The
24
Department of Juvenile Justice unit responsible for the cases from the Dublin-Laurens
County Teen Court estimated over 11,000 youths were considered at risk of criminal
behavior in the area of Laurens County and the surrounding counties the unit covered
(Puzzanchera et al., 2011).
Statistics illustrated that when offending occurs at a young age, which is not
limited to delinquency recidivism or violent criminal acts, it is easier to predict adult
offending (Loeber & Farrington, 2011). Barrett et al. (2014) completed sample studies
showing the effects of demographic and early experiential factors causing a difference in
teenage delinquent behaviors versus nondelinquents and juvenile recidivists versus
nonrecidivists. The researchers found there was a stronger relationship between early
environmental factors and juvenile delinquency and recidivism.
Taskiran et al. (2017) deemed juvenile delinquency as an increasingly common
issue that required respect and a deeper understanding from others due to its close history
of deeply rooted psychosocial challenges. Their research depicted a recent survey of
juvenile crime in the United States, which indicated that juvenile crime had increased by
18.4%. Taskiran et al. (2017) feared an unwarranted increase of adult criminal activities
if the juvenile crime rates were not targeted and successfully addressed.
Barrett et al. (2014) maintained that any juvenile who committed one or more
criminal offenses had a higher chance of being arrested as an adult. Barrett et al. (2014)
also argued that youths who were incarcerated at a young age had a 50% greater
likelihood of being arrested as an adult than youths who were never incarcerated. For
juveniles who had a later start of criminal activities, Barrett et al. (2014) found them to be
25
twice as likely to be arrested by the age of 30 and three times more likely to be
incarcerated due to committing felony offenses. Barrett et al.’s 2014 study indicated that
juvenile crime is a serious problem.
Problems of Juvenile Recidivism
Adverse childhood experiences and their relationship with negative emotionality
has received a sizeable amount of research over the years (Wolff & Baglivio, 2016).
These studies highlighted the impact of juvenile recidivism based on the upbringing and
personal environments of the juveniles. It was vital for courts to understand the individual
backgrounds and histories of youths to better understand what contributed to the
delinquent behaviors of these young people.
The study of Wolff and Baglivio (2016) exposed the direct and indirect effects of
adverse childhood experiences and negative emotionality on youths who reoffend in their
juvenile years or into their adulthood stages. Their results supported the argument that
due to influences of adverse childhood experiences, there was a substantial effect on
recidivism and a direct precursor to the cause of juvenile negative emotionality. Wolff
and Baglivio (2016) found that negative emotionality had a significantly higher
possibility of causing juveniles to reoffend, be re-arrested, and be reincarcerated. Adverse
childhood experiences were responsible for a high percentage of juvenile recidivism.
Reducing Juvenile Crime
A definitional change could hold ground between reducing juvenile crimes or not.
If a program eliminated status offenses from under the category of criminal activity, then
the program showed a major deduction in the number of juvenile crimes committed.
26
However, this led to an increase of youths skipping school, spraying graffiti on
abandoned buildings, participating in underage drinking, and committing other offenses.
Not labeling these offenses as crimes did not mean crimes were not being committed. A
simple change of definitions was not a means of depicting a decrease in crimes among
youths (Rowland, 1996).
The main challenge of these definitional changes was proving the programs that
chose to redefine what juvenile meant would manipulate the system by working with
definitions and policy codes. If a juvenile program reduced reports of status offenses,
statistical data would display newsworthy deductions in youth crime rates and reduce the
overall number of youths being sent to detention centers. Supporters claimed now the
system would concentrate on juveniles who were dangerous criminals as opposed to
those who were only breaking petty rules (Rowland, 1996).
An immediate response to solving juvenile crime was to apply harsher
consequences to young lives. Political leaders and community citizens grew tired of the
repeat offenses of teens but failed to create an effective solution. Tougher penalties were
desired due to a rising number of juvenile criminal acts, but this change in the criminal
justice system lacked a solid foundation of support (Rowland, 1996).
The end results differed due to specific situations of each individual young
delinquent. The threat of harsher penalties deterred one youth from a life of crime, but
another youth might choose to ignore established laws regardless of possible
consequences. Some researchers did not admit that stiffer court sentences could make it
appear that youth crime was decreasing, but the statistics did not provide a completely
27
accurate assessment of juvenile crime rates and did not demonstrate substantive positive
change while it appears diversion strategies do show positive change (Rowland, 1996).
History of Juvenile Courts in the United States
The 19
th
century introduced a new wave of strategies and laws design to address
the criminal infractions of delinquent youths. Social change agents, also known as social
reformers, advocated that facilities be opened that were designated for youths only. This
was seen largely in the heavily populated cities (Shelden, 2006). Youths were no longer
being detained within the adult detention centers. The forward-thinking reformers of New
York City led the movement by opening the New York House of Refuge to house
juvenile delinquents in 1825. The Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
established this operation. They were followed by the Chicago Reform School in Illinois
in 1855 (Sheldon, 2006).
Not only were these reformers aiming to separate the juveniles from adult
criminals, they also hoped to focus on rehabilitation for the youths to deter them from
reoffending throughout life. In 1899, the United States introduced its first juvenile court
program. Several states soon followed (Shelden, 2006). By 1924, most states had
mirroring courtrooms catering to juveniles only.
Following the model of the first juvenile justice reformed schools, the early youth
courts held the same expectations and goals when addressing juvenile offenders. The
courts worked toward rehabilitating the youths in place of punishing them with jail time.
The legal doctrine used to describe their 19th century efforts is parens patriae, meaning
parents of the country. The doctrine provided power to the states to serve in the role of
28
guardian to any offenders, whether adult or juvenile, who possessed legal disabilities.
Instead of harsh punishments, courts sought for the best interests of the juvenile. Most
cases were treated as civil action cases. The courts’ overall goal was to lead the juveniles
to a crime-free life. Due to some cases being above the status of civil or misdemeanor,
courts had the power to remove juveniles from the rehabilitative homes and place them
within institutionalized rehabilitation centers (Sheldon, 2006).
Judge Julian Mack was one of the founding judges of Cook County, Illinois’s
juvenile courts. Mack (1909) penned the original goals of the juvenile justice court
system in the Harvard Law Review as follows:
The child who must be brought into court should, of course, be made to know that
he is face to face with the power of the state, but he should at the same time, and
more emphatically, be made to feel that he is the object of its care and solicitude.
The ordinary trappings of the courtroom are out of place in such hearings. The
judge on a bench, looking down upon the boy standing at the bar, can never evoke
a proper sympathetic spirit. Seated at a desk, with the child at his side, where he
can on occasion put his arm around his shoulder and draw the lad to him, the
judge, while losing none of his judicial dignity, will gain immensely in the
effectiveness of his work. (p. 120)
Alternative Programs: Youth Court Models
Butts et al. (2002) described teen courts as effective alternatives to the traditional
juvenile court process. Statistics showed that the number of teen court programs
increased throughout the United States and world over the past 15 years (Gase et al.,
29
2016). Research data improved and gained validity due to there being a larger pool of
programs to conduct statistical analysis comparisons (Butts et al., 2002). In the past,
evaluations of teens courts depicted the positive effects of the program, but researchers
lacked a definitive reason for why these programs were promising for youths’ future.
This study (Butts et al., 2002) proved otherwise.
Though aiming for similar goals and outcomes, not all teen courts were the same.
Some programs were run strictly by the youths, while others were youth-inspired but had
an adult as the leader in the courtroom. Godwin et al. (1998) labeled the four main
models of teen courts globally used. The following list includes the most popular to the
least popular teen courts (National Youth Court Center, 2006):
1. Peer jury: Teen volunteers served as jury members with the group leader
being a trained teen bailiff. The youth offender was sworn under oath into the
courtroom and seated in front of the jury. No attorneys were present, for the
jury acted as the sole questioner of the defendant. Once the examination
process was complete, the jury deliberated and provided the final sentence to
the court.
2. Youth judge model: The youth judge model closely mirrored the adult judge
model; however, the courtroom’s highest rank, judge, was a trained teenager.
Teen volunteers held every court position and witnessed the court process as
completed thoroughly and effectively under the lenient guidance of adult
volunteers.
30
3. Youth tribunal: The tribunal model differed due to there being no jurors in the
court proceedings. The teen defense and prosecuting attorneys presented their
cases before a panel of one to three youth judges. The most experienced teen
judge sat between the two others and acted as the guide for the court hearing.
The juvenile defendant in question sat before a group of trained teens and had
the facts of their case presented to the panel. Once all information was shared,
the tribunal leaders discussed their options and delivered the results and
sentencing to the youth offender.
4. Adult judge model: In adult judge models, teens were the leaders of the court
room. Though an adult, normally an adult volunteer attorney, held the highest
position of court judge, the youths were responsible for ensuring the court
process was successful. Teens served as jurors, juror assistants, forepersons,
court bailiffs, court clerks, and defense/prosecution attorneys. Attorneys were
responsible for meeting with their juvenile offenders, writing their cases, and
presenting their information before a jury of peers to receive a final sentence.
The court clerk retained all the commentary from the proceedings and typed
or wrote it on official documents to later file in court records. The bailiff was
responsible for maintaining a peaceful courtroom where all attendees were
expected to abide by the courtroom rules. The Dublin – Laurens County Teen
Court Program practiced this model.
Though these models were quite different and were utilized across the world, each
program still had one goal: Decreased recidivism among youth offenders. Jeffery A.
31
Butts, Janeen Buck, and Mark B. Coggeshall conducted an Evaluation of Teen Court
Project (ETCP) in 2002. The results supported the findings of juvenile diversion
programs, such as youth courts, significantly lowered the chance of teens reoffending and
being re-referred to the Department of Juvenile Justice and juvenile courts system. It was
found that the youth court process successfully “outperformed” the strategies and
effectiveness of traditional juvenile justice court process (Butts et al., 2002).
Graduated Sanctions: Where Does Teen Court Fit?
Graduated response systems use a tiered-system with array of sanctions and
incentives to reduce incidences of delinquent behaviors while avoiding detention and/or
incarceration (Farrell et al., 2020). The dual elements of prevention programs and secured
youth prisons were in the planning process of implementing the practices of graduated
sanctions. The underlying belief was youth offenders labeled as dangerous and high risk
should be sentenced to detention centers, but youth considered as low risk, nonviolent
offenders needed to be rehabilitated (Rowland, 1996) by implementing programs
targeting restorative justice procedures and not stricter punishment.
A staunch supporter of the graduated sanctions approach was the Clinton
Administration (Rowland, 1996). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention advocated for the three-tiered system, which addressed each youth based on
their level of societal need and crime levels. The approach was compared to the “social
development model” and was deemed effective in preventing severe and violent criminal
acts amongst juveniles. Social development model is supported by a combination of
theories in deviance and focused on enhancing the overall well-being of juveniles while
32
targeting delinquency, crime, and substance abuse. Susan Guarino-Ghezzi and Edward J.
Loughran supported the graduated sanctions style by teaching their similar approach
entitled a “balanced model”. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency also
endorsed a very close system of their own that displayed a similar balanced model
(Rowland, 1996).
There are five major components within graduated sanctions: risk assessment,
support for prevention, low level punishment in combination with rehabilitation
programs, mid-level punishment with rehabilitation programs, and high-level punishment
for the most dangerous offenders (Rowland, 1996; Farrell et al., 2020). No one system of
graduated sanctions was perfect, though many have been implemented.
Juvenile courts practiced extreme caution when selecting the appropriate sanction
for youths. It was vital to acknowledge and understand standards and requirements for
categorizing juveniles into their respective tiers. These standards were effective and
necessary (Rowland, 1996). The programs in the sanctions had clear, definite goals and
strategies in the curriculum and lessons; there were adequate, goal-oriented methods and
objectives available; and a trusted selection process of each tier which ensured all youths
were paired with their best suited program. If courts lacked such a system, youths who
were sent to the juvenile court system were not properly sentenced to the correct or
appropriate rehabilitation program (Rowland, 1996). Farrell et al.’s 2020 study also
added that graduated responses systems that combined sanctions for violations and
incentives for continued progress can significantly reduce incarcerations, limit racial
disparities and improve overall completion rates for youths (p. 6).
33
Richard Wiebush, Christopher Baird, Barry Krisberg, and David Onek (1994)
illustrated supporting evidence of effective, rational standards being formed. Juvenile
offenders possessed the ability to transform the negative, learned behaviors through the
proper form of educational sentencing. Adjudication, removed the youth from troubled
environments, fostered a supportive atmosphere, introduced social skills, encouraged
academic achievement and community and school behavior, limited substance abuse,
practiced stable family, parental, and peer relations (Wiebush et al., 1994).
Prevention programs were rated through levels of risk for the youths. Risk factors
were identified as the single or collective characteristics which animated negative
influence on youths to practice criminal behaviors. Barry Krisberg, Elliot Currie, David
Onek, and Richard Wiebush (1995) supported the risk factor approach toward youth
prevention programs based on over thirty years of research. Krisberg et al. (1995)
asserted that behavior assessments should be properly conducted to ensure the youths
received the correct model treatment. David Hawkins and Richard Catalano (1995)
highlighted five main categories of risk in juvenile justice: community, family, school,
individual, and peer risk factors. The Dublin – Laurens County Teen Court Program
addressed each of these risk factors. Once the youths were placed into their respective
risk sections, Hawkins and Catalano (1995) believed federal grants should be utilized to
provide a secure foundation of support for the formulated interventions aimed to promote
protective factors which would counteract the existing risk factors in young criminals’
lives.
34
In the graduated response system, the least serious criminal offenses were
categorized under first level punishments. John Wilson (1995) maintained juveniles who
were charged for minor misdemeanors should be punished with educational, corrective
consequences. He found rehabilitative services most effective, such as least intensive
drug treatment programs, peer juries, counseling, informal probation, and other similar
solutions. Farrell et al.’s 2020 study of a graduated response system in the Maryland
Juvenile Justice System underpinned by the deterrence theory appears to agree with the
Wilson (1995) study by suggesting that sanctions need to be certain, swift and
proportionate to the severity of the behavior as an effective means of deterring criminal
actions.
After offenders were found guilty, Rowland (1996) confirmed it is vital for youth
to receive immediate sentencing and placement in successful programs toward reducing
recidivism. He believed immediate introduction to a case worker and professional
confidant lowered the risk of repeat offenders amongst at-risk youth. This step was
beneficial toward youth; however, it was important for the contact to include intensive
sessions, educational classes, behavioral development training, and more of the like.
In the current study’s described program, Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court,
random school and home check-ins were daily practices. After school programs were
included as well, such as tutoring, community service projects, arts and craft projects,
individual and group counseling, life and social developmental skills, anger management,
teen dating violence preventions, and fines. Rowland (1996) described a Pennsylvania
program where youths were involved in day and afterschool intensive programs. Krisberg
35
et al (1995) noted the strongest form of support for community-based diversion programs
was from Massachusetts and their deinstitutionalization attempts. Krisberg and his team
of researchers (1995) studied the Massachusetts strategy of moving the majority of their
first level teen offenders into community-based diversion programs. Only 15% of the
teens, who were considered the most dangerous, were placed in detention facilities.
According to Krisberg et al. (1995), the change in Massachusetts’ system brought a
decrease in teen offending rates and the recidivism rates either improved drastically or
remained the same as other routes taken by juvenile court systems. The recidivism rates
did not increase. In addition to the positive results in youth offending, $11 million per
year was also saved with this deinstitutionalized experience. Similar to Dublin – Laurens
Teen Court, these northeastern programs have found success by focusing on individual
and group educational services, family counseling, and individual or group therapy and
drug prevention (see Krisberg et al., 1995).
Krisberg et al (1995) believed in the importance of diverting youth to community
run programs instead of a jailed institution. Their research included a detailed summary
of several studies spotlighting community sanctions. Krisberg et al. (1995) claimed
diversion programs from community organizations, such as Dublin – Laurens County
Teen Court, act as non-hazardous, cost efficient solutions that can replace the need for
juvenile incarceration.
The juvenile justice system introduced several strategies toward limiting teen
criminal behavior, recidivism, and juvenile incarceration rates, and Rowland (1996)
argued graduated sanctions gained the greatest support. Combining these sanctions of
36
community-based and law enforcement programs and placing accountability on diverted
teens resulted in successful outcomes. Graduated response strategies, like the Dublin-
Laurens County Teen Court had the highest probability of deterring teens from
continuing criminal acts and being sentenced to jail or prison time with their focus on
relating to and addressing the needs of the youths within their community environments
(Wilson, 1995). Krisberg et al. (1995) demonstrated strong justification for graduated
response programs by highlighting how the most well-grounded programs of graduated
sanctions possessed proven records of being highly effective and costing significantly
less than incarceration alternatives. This proposal of graduated sanctions was the most
efficient approach to juvenile crime and justice in today’s literature (Rowland, 1996;
Farrell et al., 2020).
History of Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court
The Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program was founded by a visionary
named Julie S. Driger. Mrs. Driger was a twenty-seven-year veteran city councilwoman,
former secretary to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., civic leader, and an effective social
change agent. While representing the City of Dublin, Georgia during a National League
of Cities – Cities Summit Conference in Texas, Mrs. Driger witnessed a group of
teenagers perform a mock trial. The court case presented illustrated the steps of a
traditional court session, yet was led by teenaged attorneys, jury members, clerks, and
court officers. Intrigued, Mrs. Driger returned home and introduced the idea to her mayor
and city council. The year was 1996. After collaborating and networking with various
37
groups throughout the community, the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program
opened its doors on July 1, 1997 in Dublin, Georgia.
The program initially targeted reducing the local drug / alcohol abuse and limiting
moving and nonmoving traffic violations amongst teenagers. The Georgia Governor’s
Office of Highway Safety (GAOHS) provided a grant to assist in the funding for Dublin’s
teen court early years. The support and funding from GAOHS played a major role in the
community issues being addressed in the community. As the program continued to
evolve, it began to gain the attention of the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice. This
collaboration introduced an additional source of juvenile court cases and types of
misdemeanor cases in the teen court system. The program now served youth who were
arrested for misdemeanors such as theft, affray, simple battery, obstruction, and
disorderly conduct; in addition to the existing drug abuse and vehicular crime cases.
The Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court granted expunged criminal records to
hundreds of local youths. The program continued to serve as a safe haven for troubled
teens who sought individual or family counseling, assistance with restoring positive
behaviors, academic tutoring, mentorship, and a second chance in the criminal justice
system. Such services were implemented to contribute to the juvenile recidivism
reduction efforts.
Overview of Teen Court’s Effectiveness
The Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program was founded in Dublin, GA in
1997. It was considered the first Teen Court Program in the State of Georgia. Presently,
there are over 1,800 teen/peer court programs globally. Since its inception, first time
38
youth offenders have entered, endured, and completed the program successfully.
Examples of the program’s involved cases included, but are not limited to: Affray,
Bullying, Curfew, Disorderly Conduct, Moving Traffic Violations, Non – Moving Traffic
Violation, Possession of Drug (less than 1 ounce), Runaway, Simple Assault, Theft by
Taking – Shoplifting – Deception, and Truancy.
Once a case was heard, several sentencing options were available to the teen jury
for selection during deliberations. Verdict requirements ranged from a list of mandatory,
optional, and recommended sentences. Examples of optional sentencing included:
viewing videos (relevant to the crime), essays (relevant to the crime), curfew with
specified time and duration, and completing a driving course with parent(s) in attendance
at the City of Dublin Police Department. Mandatory requirements included community
service hours and $25 court fee. Recommended services included tutoring, counseling,
individual and/or family therapy, anger management, City of Dublin Police Department
Transformers Program, and the City of Dublin Police Explorers Program. There were
more services available in the community for recommendation, but they were not
currently suggested by the program’s teen juries.
Due to the efforts and effectiveness of the programs and services in Teen Court,
reoffending occurrences in juvenile delinquency dropped locally. The Dublin – Laurens
County Teen Court Program reached success through decreasing the rate of recidivism
for first-time juvenile offenders of misdemeanor crimes. The reoffending rates of the
program were compared to the reoffending rates of the Department of Juvenile Justice’s
traditional courts and illustrated the successes of restorative justice practices in Dublin-
39
Laurens County’s Teen Court. An understanding of the Teen Court’s success was
presented through the perceptions of juvenile justice officers. The current case study used
juvenile officers’ individual perspectives to explain why teen court was more effective at
reducing recidivism than traditional court.
Positive Peer Pressure
Deterrence Theory, the theoretical framework used to underpin the current study,
posits that people learn from others’ experiences. Courts, specifically the Dublin –
Laurens County Teen Court, served as a great example of positive peer influence (Butts,
2002) due to introducing teen offenders to an alternative system for justice and acting as
a major element within the program (Dick, Pence, Jones, & Geersten, 2004). Evidence
suggests that the act of having to testify about one’s criminal activities before a jury and
courtroom of peers served as a positive motivator to shift mindsets and future behaviors
away from additional criminal acts.
The Dublin – Laurens County Teen Court Program was devoted to ensuring the
teens entering the program as defendants and youth offenders were immediately
introduced to peers who had not committed a crime. Though they were not like-minded
initially, the positive influences of the non-offending youths encouraged offenders to
remove themselves from current illegal activities and migrate toward becoming law
abiding teens. Teens who were recommended to the Teen Court organization from the
Department of Juvenile Justice were in desperate need of a change in environment and
peers and were more vulnerable to reoffend by returning to their previous relationships
(Hirschi, 2005).
40
All people, regardless of their age have things and/or people that exert influence
over them or their choices. Having an influence in one’s life only becomes an issue when
the influence is negative. Parents, teachers, commercial advertising, and more encouraged
youths to avoid negative people, dangerous neighborhoods, and participating in criminal
behaviors with peers. H. Swadi and H. Zeitlin (1988) claimed positive influences had just
as powerful of an effect on young lives as negative. Recreational use of drugs and alcohol
influenced teens, but Swadi and Zeitlin (1988) believed if youth were exposed to the
opposite behavior or not abusing drugs/alcohol, it would have the ability to discourage
substance abuse usage.
E. K. Drake’s 2018 study which looked at the costs associated with the shift in
sanctions from incarceration (the most severe and expensive sanction) to other strategies,
including graduated response strategies, like the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court
program, found that since 2009, approximately 161 jurisdictions have adopted similar
models. There is a limited amount of evidence related to how well juvenile justice
programs are doing with implementation of graduated response programs, but toolkits are
being made available (Center for Children’s Law and Policy, 2016). As more data are
collected on the effectiveness of graduated response systems for juvenile offenders,
evidence seems to indicate that graduated systems work best for reducing recidivism.
The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999) supported Swadi and
Zeitlin’s claims. Their study reported higher increases of positive behavior changes from
parental and teacher reports. The research participants illustrated not only decreased use
of substances, but improvements in social interactions, problem solving, and a reduction
41
in physically aggressive actions. Smith and Chonody (2002) admitted a spotlight is
needed on the impact of positive peer pressure amongst youths and an increase of
research is warranted on the matter.
Financial Impact of Teen Court
For the traditional court systems in our country, the value of a young person’s life
was equated to a few hundreds of dollars per day. In stark contrast, taxpayers are paying
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to incarcerate a single juvenile (Justice Policy
Institute - JPI, 2015). Of 47 reporting states, the average costs for a single confined
juvenile was $400/day, $36,000/three months, $72,000/six months, and $146,300/year.
Funding for juvenile incarcerations came from a variety of county, state and federal
funding sources. Despite the fact that juvenile incarcerations were never intended to be
long-term nor revenue-generating enterprises, large amounts of money were beginning to
accrue to the entities responsible for housing juvenile offenders.
Not all youths were placed in an institutional setting when sent before the juvenile
court judge. Some received a much lesser sentencing of probation. Though the juvenile
had the potential to remain in the safety of their home and continue their regular lifestyle
with peers, most states had monthly supervision fees for the teen and their families to
cover. At the time of adjudication, many juvenile offenders were unemployed. Reports
from the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC, 2017) reported that families of
juvenile delinquents had financial burdens to face prior to receiving additional costs from
juvenile probation. Twenty U.S. states reported they did not charge probationary fines for
the juveniles; however, they did charge other fees (NJDC, 2017). Rates varied per state,
42
but the average cost for probation supervision fees was fifty dollars per month.
Depending on the judge’s sentencing, probation lasted from an average of four months to
five years. From these numbers provided by the National Juvenile Defender Center
(2017), supervision fees reached up to $3,000 for some youth.
Similar to teen courts, juvenile probation required the teens to have accountability
and maintain a crime free life while promoting positive behaviors. Yet, the practice of
charging juveniles for probation supervision fees risked the teens having an extended stay
in the system and also incurring debt at a young age. Probation fees provided the exact
opposite of what restorative justice and rehabilitation programs were attempting to
achieve with juveniles (NJDC, 2017).
As part of the data collection process, I was allowed to observe the Teen Court
processes in person. The Dublin – Laurens County Teen Court and similar
youth/peer/diversion court programs required a less dramatic budget for survival. The
teen offenders were not removed from their homes or placed inside of the traditional
court rooms. Costs were not accumulated to cover typical judicial court charges. In
Dublin-Laurens County, Georgia, a male juvenile was stopped for speeding on a state
highway by a Georgia State Trooper. The teen was traveling ninety-one miles per hour in
a fifty-five miles per hour zone. The ticket was considered a max-super speeder violation.
Additionally, the youth had several teenagers in his vehicle and received extra criminal
charges. According to the local Department of Juvenile Justice, his ticket would
potentially cost up to $2000.00. Thankfully, this was the teen’s first offense and he was
recommended for the Teen Court program. His expensive traditional juvenile court fine
43
was now reduced to a one-time fee of $25 for court services required by Teen Court. This
was a stark difference in comparison to the fees charged by traditional court systems.
Through this teen court program, no youths were incarcerated and separated from their
families; nor were they placed in a probation system which required monthly fees which
could function as an additional penalty for the teens and their guardians if they failed to
pay the assessed amount. The financial impact of Teen Court assisted in the stabilization
of families by not forcing debt into homes and introducing additional stressors into the
lives of juveniles.
Summary and Conclusions
Chapter two presented supporting literature of diversion programs’ effectiveness
toward juvenile recidivism. The histories of America’s juvenile court system and the
Dublin – Laurens County Teen Court were explained to illustrate the background of two
differing court systems for first-time youth offenders. Additional relevant information
was provided including discussion of the financial burden traditional courts placed on
juveniles versus the money saving strategy of teen courts. Chapter three introduced an in-
depth view of the study’s research design.
44
Chapter 3: Research Method
This third chapter introduces the methodology that was used for this study and is
separated into different sections. The first section depicts the role of the researcher,
collection procedures, and how data were analyzed. The problem, purpose, and research
question of the study are then covered. The selected research design (case study) is
explained, including what steps were taken to select the study’s participants. Ethical
considerations of the work with adult participants are shared, as well as the research
stakeholders. Appendix C displays a letter of permission from the City of Dublin,
Georgia’s interim mayor. As the researcher, I received clearance to use the Dublin-
Laurens County Teen Court’s name and to provide the location of the program in Dublin-
Laurens County, Georgia.
The problem addressed in the study was to document the personal perspectives of
juvenile officers as they compared the reduction of juvenile recidivism in a graduated
response system Teen Court in Dublin, Georgia to the recidivism rate for juveniles
involved in the traditional court system. There was an established need for effective
diversion programs for youths in the juvenile justice system (Latimer et al., 2005). To
address the issue, diversionary programs such as the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court
were implemented. This Teen Court was never evaluated, although its impact on juvenile
recidivism was significant compared to traditional court. From 2015 to 2019, the
recidivism rate for traditional court for first-time juvenile offenders in Dublin-Laurens
was 42%, and the recidivism rate for Teen Court was 2% (Dublin-Laurens (GA)
Department of Juvenile Justice. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to seek
45
understanding of the nontraditional juvenile court process from the perceptions of
juvenile justice workers in a local teen court program.
Research Design and Rationale
There was one research question that was addressed in this study: How is the
Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court more successful in reducing juvenile delinquency
recidivism than traditional juvenile court? To provide the most accurate answer, I used
the case study qualitative design. Gaining insight into participants’ professional
livelihood required asking quality interview questions. The qualitative approach was
deemed best suited to this inquiry (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This form of research
that encouraged understanding and discovery from the viewpoints of active participants
had the strongest promise of bringing positive change into the lives of others. Compared
to quantitative research paradigms that involve numeric data and statistical analysis,
qualitative methodology is used to obtain textual data from participants as they interact
and absorb information from life’s occurrences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The current
investigation of the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program, the study’s unit of
analysis, qualified as a qualitative case study due to being considered a bounded system
(see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Research is characteristically categorized into separate groupings of basic and
applied. The foundation and motivating goal of basic research is to extend knowledge in
a program, phenomenon, or activity. Applied research aims to expand the customs of a
specific discipline or field. Outside of the researcher’s knowledge, the study addresses
insight gathered from associated audiences. It was my hope the information presented
46
from the current study would assist in updating policies and informing administrators of
the teen court programs’ importance (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
The Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court Program (Georgia) followed each teen
who successfully completed the program for a year following the exit from the program.
The data were gathered through follow-ups of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
agency for 3-, 6-, and 12-month increments. If a teen reoffended within this time period,
the teen court program was notified by the DJJ office. A teen who had not yet reached the
age to no longer be considered a juvenile, but they had been released from the Teen Court
for a year, the Teen Court, the teen court staff would follow up with the juvenile
offender’s records. If a former teen court defendant had reoffended any time after being
released from the program, their data were updated and saved with the teen court
program.
Case study had been used in conjunction with qualitative research. However, case
study had enough strength to stand on its own when compared to phenomenology,
ethnography, grounded theory, or narrative inquiry (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In the
current case study, the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court served as the unit of analysis
and not the group being investigated. The unit was analyzed based on its success and
effectiveness on juvenile recidivism. Case study research had the potential to become
historical works from its impact on programs (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Typically, the cases were individuals, but some cases consisted of families,
organizations, or some other unit of analysis. The teen court program was the unit of
analysis for the current study. The youths were observed when entering the Dublin-
47
Laurens County Teen Court program. They had already encountered the DJJ officers
prior to being sent into the diversion program. The juvenile justice officers were surveyed
to obtain information on the transformation and new developments of the juveniles.
To maintain validity and reliability in the study, I selected a design that aligned
with the research question and was consistent with my personality and skills. Before
selecting the case study design, I acquired a full understanding of all other research
designs and their philosophical foundations (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). To properly
present this work as a case study, I needed to ensure that the data collection would
provide in-depth, highly descriptive information. The data were collected from multiple
participants with detailed accounts and themes (see Creswell, 2013). Similar to other
forms of qualitative research, case studies are conducted to enhance understanding by
allowing the researcher to act as the main data collection instrument. Through case
studies, the collection of data gathered through investigative techniques is considered to
produce vivid, descriptive information (see Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The importance of
the case study design was emphasized in the emails and personal communications with
participants. Researchers who spend time defining the problem, planning the study,
debating it with others, and reviewing related research improve their work and experience
fewer disappointments and wasted efforts (see Creswell, 2013).
Role of the Researcher
As a qualitative researcher, I explored how the DJJ officers expressed their
thoughts and ideas on the teen court program and investigated their firsthand experiences
with the juveniles’ journey from entry to dismissal. Data were collected by emailing eight
48
open-ended questions to each participant. To maintain high energy and excitement over
the survey process, the participants were not held for extended periods of time with
survey time of receiving and completion. During the first point of contact between me
and the participant, the participant was emailed a detailed explanation of the study, the
consent form, and the survey questions. The participants had 2 weeks to complete the
questions and return them. The entire process was confidential and separated from the
normal daily office activities and events. The use of emailed survey questions had been
approved by the supervising personnel from the target agency and confidentiality had
been identified as a necessity.
The gathered information was received from the study’s participants and reviewed
in great detail. As the researcher, I reviewed the responses and created a categorized code
system. Following these steps, themes and labels were formed with the participants’ and
organization’s well-being in mind. All collected data were analyzed to provide the most
accurate depiction of the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court’s officers’ perspectives of
the graduated system’s effect on juvenile reducing delinquency and recidivism.
Methodology
Participation Selection
Juvenile justice workers act as the first entry point into the juvenile court system.
When teens commit a crime, the local police department contacts these justice workers at
the scene of the crime to be advised of their next steps: send the teen to jail or release
them to their legal guardian for a future court date. In the current study, the juveniles
were under the care of the justice workers before entering Dublin-Lauren County Teen
49
Court. Once the program they finished the program, the teens were returned to their
placement with the DJJ officers until they were successfully dismissed by the juvenile
justice judge. DJJ officers had firsthand experience and perspectives regarding the effect
of the teen court on the juveniles. Through detailed, descriptive email responses, the
officers provided their personal observations regarding the successes and areas needing
improvements in the Teen Court program.
These participants were responsible for the teens being referred from the DJJ
office into the diversion program. The study participants, juvenile justice officers,
personally observed the teens before adjudication in the juvenile justice courts and after
they had completed the Teen Court process. Teens who had successfully completed the
program but reoffended after transitioning back to their home communities, were
reported to the DJJ, who then contacted the teen court office and updated the reoffending
youths’ records for the program. Based on the interactions between the DJJ officers and
the juvenile offenders, the officers had firsthand experience of happy endings and sad
endings of juvenile reoffenders. The survey questions were open-ended and allowed the
participants to speak without limitations (see Appendix B). All participants’ identities
remained confidential.
Sampling Strategy
The research plan was to retrieve a list from the agency’s authorization official,
which contained names and contact information of DJJ officers who may have been
willing to participate in the study. These persons were contacted individually and
informed of the study and its purpose. They were asked if their interest had been piqued
50
and if they would like to participate. Ten officers were contacted, and a date and
convenient time were selected for emailed surveys to be received, completed, and
submitted. Participation in the study was voluntary. The goal was to recruit enough
participants to complete the study in one round of questioning. Due to the survey
questions being open-ended and available through email, the expectation of follow-up
questions was decreased. Once surveys were completed, the participants were no longer
expected to contribute to the study.
Instrumentation
I served as the sole instrument in the study. My duty was to collect data through
notes, complete thorough journaling of the experience, respond consistently to any
questions from participants, and ensure all data were reliable and valid. The COVID-19
pandemic was not a barrier to data collection. The quality of the data was ensured due to
the use of email questions enhancing the study experience for me and the participants
(see Fritz & Vandermause, 2017). The study was not exposed to any threat of missing
information.
Data Collection
I used a survey technique that was considered a form of qualitative research. The
collected data revealed the effectiveness and value of the Dublin-Laurens County Teen
Court program and its effect on recidivism. An important objective of the study was to
present an accurate judgment of the program and to identify strategies to improve future
programming (see Patton, 2015). The officers’ words were collected from open-ended
questions through surveys, and the responses were analyzed to identify themes (see
51
Braun & Clark, 2013). This form of qualitative research was different from other types of
qualitative research due to the study’s focus on a unit.
Due to limiting any interactions with juveniles and risking the validity of the
study, the juveniles were not contacted directly during data collection. The teens were
observed firsthand by officers as their court-involved experience started, during the
assignment to and matriculation through the Teen Court program, all the way through to
their completion and exit from the DJJ.
The study’s emailed surveys depicted the views of this diversion program through
collected data. Introducing the qualitative steps of the research brought the lives and
experiences of these teens to life through the responses of the DJJ workers. The purpose
of the interviews was to collect deep, rich qualitative data discussing juvenile officers'
personal perspectives on the effectiveness of a teen court as compared to a traditional
court system. Due to the heightened threat of Covid-19 in our community, the survey
process was conducted through the participants’ workplace emailing service. Millions of
institutions and places of employment relied heavily on technology to ensure the
continuation of their agency’s production. Currently, social distancing guidelines and a
sharp increase of local coronavirus active cases caused the offices of the local juvenile
justice offices to no longer allow in-person public access or to function at full capacity of
employees on a daily basis. Though this introduced a new challenge to the study’s data
collection process, technology served as an appropriate solution.
52
Data Analysis Plan
The study’s emailed survey questions were answered via a typed email response.
This guaranteed the data was automatically transcribed. The plan utilized Nvivo to
complete thematic coding of the study. The text was coded and any similarities or themes
were identified properly. Thematic analysis presented itself as a cost-effective tool to
assist in the analyzation and triangulation of data retrieved from the study’s participants
(Bree and Gallagher, 2016). Nvivo was widely accessible and contained the necessary
services to code, organize, and categorize the data.
Issues of Trustworthiness
Credibility
The study provided a strong foundation of truth and realistic testimony from
participants. The study’s audience was confident in the collected data and the final results
of the research. This was achieved by allowing adequate time span for the participants to
complete their questions. It was also vital for the researcher and participants to be
knowledgeable of the study’s unit of analysis – Dublin – Laurens County Teen Court
Program.
Transferability
The importance of transferability was depicted in the ability to apply this study
with other populations and settings while achieving similar finalized results. A goal of
this research was to successfully apply and introduce the present research process to
groups beyond the current study’s scope. Applicability, externally, was key.
53
Dependability
Establishing a detailed account of each research period was necessary to ensure
dependability in the study. Descriptive accounts of methods and procedures were
recorded to depict key findings. Examples of recorded measures in need of uniformity
included participant selection, coding strategies, context, and the collection process. As
the researcher, each phase of the study was found reliable.
Confirmability
Confirmability highlighted the importance of fellow researchers having the ability
to confirm the study’s findings (Nowell et al., 2017). Results were neutral and any
interpretations of the data was not founded from my own interpretations or beliefs
(Korstjens & Moser, 2018). As the researcher, I acknowledged the need to remain self-
aware and unbiased when practicing descriptive note taking during data collection
process.
Ethical Considerations
Nolen and Putten (2007) argued action research studies raised complex ethical
issues that were not present in traditional research. Nevertheless, such projects, like this
one, were valuable when knowledge, working relationships, access, and credibility are
established. It was vital the nature of the research created a special relationship between
the researcher and the participants (O’Sullivan, Rassel, and Berner, 2008). The study
required the cooperation of all participants in order for the data collection to be
conducted. Those surveyed relied on me to treat them respectfully and ethically. They
expected to not be harmed by merely participating in the research. As a researcher who is
54
familiar with the juvenile justice environment, it was my responsibility to introduce an
atmosphere of trust and respect while conducting the study. My background and history
in the field helped build a rapport with the study’s participants and provide an
understanding of their testimonies. Prior to completing the survey, all participants
received a contract – Consent Form (Appendix B) - IRB approval number is 03-30-21-
0083212.
Confidentiality is common to the criminal justice system; however, there were
certain concerns with underage persons. For this reason, juveniles did not play a role in
the study. In today’s era, most judicial information or records remained accessible, but
everyone was accountable for confidentiality. Caution was practiced when asking
questions and receiving answers from the adult DJJ participants during the survey
portion. Examples of this included: questions were respectable, the participants acted
individually, and their identity remained confidential. Specific information was not
included to protect juveniles’ cases.
Research Stakeholders
As the researcher, I paid great attention to managing relationships and
communicating with those outside the research team who had an interest in the project’s
outcome (The Strategy Unit, 2004). Stakeholders were the individuals and groups
affected by and capable of influencing the development and implementation of strategy
and policy proposals. Identifying key stakeholders and their issues was therefore a
valuable exercise that was conducted as early on in the study as possible. Stakeholders
made an extreme contribution to the success of the study. Effectively engaging with
55
stakeholders was key to motivating them and obtaining their commitment. This was done
through contact and involvement throughout the project’s lifecycle. It helped to reduce
the risk of any surprises later on. Developing a stakeholder engagement plan was a useful
way of planning how to effectively engage with each stakeholder.
A major practice among the researcher and the stakeholders was communication.
It was critical to have the voice of other agencies and volunteer organizations in the
incident planning process of restorative justice. They all had a strong comprehension of
their duties and responsibilities. This involved being aware of potential risks in the
community, program, and teens’ lives. Personal plans needed to be available, and it is
vital for all to adhere to their local government’s regulations. These individuals and
stakeholders included immediate families, the public, state and community officials, case
managers, Department of Juvenile Justice probation officers and staff, volunteer groups,
counselors, therapists, school officers, and local law enforcement. However, this caused a
challenge amongst these stakeholders. Governmental organizations were not willing to
admit appropriate services for first time juvenile offenders were not provided in some
instances.
Summary
Chapter 3 discussed the study’s methodology, research design, unit of analysis,
researcher’s role, trustworthiness, stakeholders, and ethical considerations. The
researcher identified the greatest source of testimonies to illustrate the experience of
juveniles in teen court programs in the form of juvenile justice workers. Nvivo was
utilized to effectively decipher the participants’ responses. The software was also applied
56
to categorize, code, and reveal themes. The study’s credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability were also discussed in the chapter. Chapter 4 discusses
the necessary steps and procedures for collecting detailed information from all study
participants. Highlighted sections in the chapter included the study’s research setting,
demographics, collection process, analyzation, evidence of trustworthiness, and the
results.
57
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to seek understanding of the
nontraditional juvenile court process from the perceptions of juvenile justice workers in a
local teen court program. The study answered one main research question: How is the
Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court more successful in reducing juvenile delinquency
recidivism than traditional juvenile court? The primary focus of the collected research
data was to document and report the officers’ personal experiences with juveniles in
traditional and teen court, respectively. Chapter 4 includes detailed accounts of the
emailed survey results, the setting of the study, data collection, data analysis, and
evidence of trustworthiness.
Research Setting
Due to precautionary measures being taken by the local offices in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the study’s survey process was transformed into electronic
correspondence of open-ended questions via email. Participants of the study were located
in their personal environment. No known professional or personal conflicts affected the
experience of the participants during the duration of their study participation, and the
results were not affected by outside forces.
Demographics
The recorded demographics included race, gender, years of experience, and
number of cases involved. Twelve surveys were conducted. One survey was not included
in the final study due to insufficient information. The 11 participants included seven
58
females and four males. The race of the participants was seven African Americans and
four White (see Table 3).
Table 3
Demographics of Study Participants
Participant Race Gender Years of
experience
Number of
cases involved
Participant 1 White Female 2 30
Participant 2 African
American
Male 8 50
Participant 3 African
American
Female 5 100
Participant 4 White Male 6 70+
Participant 5 African
American
Male 18 NA
Participant 6 African
American
Female 2 30
Participant 7 African
American
Female 6 300+
Participant 8 White Female 22 900+
Participant 9 African
American
Female 5 100
Participant 10 African
American
Female 2 200
Participant 11 White Male 27.5 1,000–2,000
Data Collection
Data collection was conducted through electronic surveys with open-ended
questions. An authorizing official provided the names and contact information of 15
juvenile justice workers. Once the names and contact information were received, I sent an
invitation with a consent letter to each potential participant through individual email. Due
to system security, not all invitations were received by potential study participants.
Adjustments to the email correspondence was completed and a second attempt was made.
59
To maintain confidentiality and to not reveal justice workers’ identity, all contacts on the
original list were sent the same invitation and consent form again.
Participants were provided a timespan of two weeks to submit their emailed
survey responses. At the end of Week 1, one submission was received. After 14
additional days, 11 other officers agreed to participate. The goal was to successfully
interact with 10 justice workers. This was surpassed. The plans presented in Chapter 3
were accomplished and not changed during any portion of data collection. Data collection
ceased once the received information no longer provided new testimony from
participants. As the researcher, I determined saturation of the data had been reached.
Each participating justice worker responded to the invitation and consent form
with two words: “I consent.” The study involved the personal experiences and thoughts
of juvenile justice workers. Original communication between participants and me was
through the workers’ employee email address. Employers had the capability to access the
email accounts of each employee. Because responses of participants would be personal
and could have a negative effect on job environment if employers were not pleased with
retrieved information from the study, participants may not have felt comfortable
expressing their true experiences if they feared possible retaliation from their
administration. To ensure the protection and confidentiality of the participants and
eliminate the possibility of employers gaining access to study surveys, private email
addresses were created for each participant. Everyone had their own email and password
for the data collection process. The only access for each account was through the single
participant.
60
Data Analysis
Thematic qualitative analysis was used to code the collected data through NVivo
software. Thematic analysis is considered a direct form of analysis by categorizing
nonnumerical data and by recognizing the formation of patterns through theme
development (Roberts et al., 2019). Transcription of the email surveys was not necessary
due to all submissions being typed responses. After receiving enough suitable
information from participants, I labeled each submission as Participant 1 to Participant
11.
To gain a thorough understanding of the retrieved data, I repeatedly read the
responses for complete comprehension. This method assisted me in identifying similar
experiences or interpretations of the officers, and I was able to apply codes to the
information. As the researcher, I detected appropriate themes through data repetition.
This process was accomplished by the participants’ detailed accounts that provided
replications of information (see Roberts et al., 2019). An example of this is seen with
Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 5, Participant 8, Participant 9, and Participant 10.
Participant 2 stated
If a youth fails to abide by the conditions of the orders set forth by Teen Court,
their case that was held in abeyance (a temporary halt) will be forwarded to the
juvenile court for disposition. In juvenile court they could then be ordered to
probation or placed in detention for their committed offense.
This was coded as failure to comply within the analyzation process. A total of 42
codes were identified in the original steps of combing through the data. These codes were
61
then decreased into a smaller number of categories, which then revealed the common
themes throughout the data (see Table 4).
62
Table 4
Codes, Categories, and Themes of Collected Data
Code Category Theme
Alternate court process
Juvenile offenders
Case intake process
Juvenile defendant
Juvenile complaint Teen court
Successful completion
Stakeholders
Volunteers
Support Forms of court
Juvenile court
Standard court proceedings
Criminal courts
Formal court setting
Court system
Court setting Traditional court
Court cases
Juvenile delinquent
Juvenile judge
Lacks support
House arrest
Detention center
Monitor tracking
Juvenile probation Court punishment
Disposal of youth
Community service Behavior diversion Sentencing outcome
Restorative services
Learned criminal behaviors
Sentencing violations
Recidivate Habits of nondiversion court
juvenile participants
Failure to comply
Reoffenders
Rejecting authority
Educational experience
Second chance
Learning
Rehabilitate
Commitment to change Customs of juveniles in the teen
court system
Overall experience
Positive impact
Knowledgeable
Positive peer pressure
New opportunity
Respecting authority
63
The formation of categories was my second stage in the thematic analysis process.
These categories were created by collecting groups of familiar data through the larger
number of codes. By dissecting the codes and placing them into smaller pods, I was able
to introduce six categories into data results. The thematic analysis process was completed
in three steps.
The final phase was to identify the themes. Vaismoradi and Snelgrove (2019)
maintained that a study’s themes should be innovative but also should be capable of
illustrating the participants’ experiences and unfiltered feedback without losing its purity.
The final step of data analysis revealed three themes for the study: forms of court,
sentencing outcomes, and overall experience. The themes are discussed later in this
chapter.
Evidence of Trustworthiness
Credibility
Prior to participants completing the survey process, they were encouraged to
provide truthful, unbiased testimony. Because the participants were in the comfort of
their personal environment and were assured confidentiality, they felt no stressors toward
concealing their truths or giving false testimony. Participants were able to feel confident
in their responses and had time to make corrections to their original feedback due to
having a longer time span to complete the survey. Once participants indicated their
consent by typing “I consent” in an email after reading the invitation letter and consent
form, many participants submitted their responses within the first week. However, others
took the full 2 weeks to complete their survey. This presented no threat to the credibility
64
of the study and indicated the participants took their time to provide well thought-out
responses. Every participant had a connection with the juvenile offenders within the
juvenile justice system. Participants provided firsthand accounts of the juveniles’
experiences while transitioning through the traditional court and the teen court system.
Due to participants’ understanding of both systems, their testimony was considered valid
and reliable.
Transferability
In Chapter 3, I mentioned the importance of applying this work to several
populations and settings. With teen courts being formed worldwide, cities, states, and
countries face similar challenges or concerns. The current study may provide information
that will serve as an effective blueprint for other teen courts. Mirroring the Dublin-
Laurens County Teen Court, other populations with similar programs may work together
with juvenile justice workers, social services, and school disciplining boards. The
audiences may change throughout different contexts, but readers may apply findings from
this study. Who has access to the juvenile offenders will not make a difference in the
program’s effectiveness. The foundational guide of this study may be applied in various
contexts.
Dependability
Chapter 3 described the importance of highlighting key findings from the
collected data. In order to depict the results accurately, there was a need for uniformity in
participant selection, coding strategies, context, and the collection process. As previously
explained, all participants were required to serve the juvenile courts as justice workers.
65
They also must have a connection with the young offenders entering and exiting the
traditional juvenile courts and the teen courts systems, respectively. All retrieved data
was coded utilizing the same software and coding methods. Nothing changed from the
planned coding strategies. The study’s contextual framework remained steady in the
questioning and answering process. No information deterred from the exploration of
juvenile recidivism and its relationship with the traditional and non-traditional courts.
Confirmability
As the researcher, I was challenged with remaining self-aware and unbiased of
any received data. Confirmability, as stated in chapter 3, means ensuring the chance of
other researchers being free to solidify the findings of the study (Nowell et al., 2017).
While processing the data and through the stages of formalizing codes, categories, and
themes I did not attempt to interpret any findings from the participants. The data
collection process changed due to the dangers of Covid-19, the planned in-person surveys
became electronically delivered responses. As a researcher, it was my duty to ensure each
participant’s feedback is what drove the study’s results and not my own beliefs.
Receiving the information electronically and having the ability to adjust testimonies to
my own desired outcome was not an option. Neutrality was key in the completion of the
study.
Results
This research study was conducted and completed through 11 open ended surveys
of juvenile justice workers via email correspondence. The surveys were solidified with
eight open-ended questions which focused on the experiences of juvenile justice workers
66
within the teen court and traditional court environment. Officers provided direct insight
of the effects traditional juvenile court and teen court, respectively, have on recidivism
rates of juvenile offenders. Three themes developed after the data were collected, coded,
and categorized. The themes were forms of court, sentencing outcomes, and overall
experience. The study’s research question, “How is the Dublin-Laurens County Teen
Court more successful in reducing juvenile delinquency recidivism than traditional
juvenile court?” was answered with the emerging themes.
Theme 1: Forms of Court
The two main types of judicial systems discussed in the study and during
participant participation were traditional juvenile court and teen court. Courts were
mentioned 113 times, traditional court was shared 39 times, and teen court was stated 39
times throughout the survey process.
When asked to describe the differences between teen court and traditional court,
the issue of stress was shared. Participant 2 highlighted their viewpoint of teen court and
traditional court having strong differences. Based on P2’s accounts, youth potentially
encounter extreme “levels of anxiety not knowing if they can possibly be detained for
their offenses” when experiencing the traditional court system. “In teen court, a youth can
have certain assurances that if they are compliant with the orders that are given, they will
not face any possible detention time”. Participant 11’s feedback paralleled Participant 2’s
testimony by explaining the teen court process as using the defendant’s peers to provide
rehabilitation guidelines for the youth. Whereas traditional court utilizes an adult judge to
provide sentences in hopes of a change from the juvenile defendant. Participant 4 stated
67
that teen court provides court room experience while reducing the stress by students
acting in the roles of prosecutor and defender. Participant 5 provided a similar response
with their testimony by expressing the youths’ participation in their own court
procedures. “Teen court teenagers have more input in the process than with traditional
court. They are more aware of the process”.
Another example of court differences were the types of cases heard within the
systems. Participant 7 shared, “Teen court deals with more misdemeanor offenses and
traditional court handles teens with high level felonies and more likely to require
intensive rehabilitation”.
A third trend in the responses for teen court and traditional court differences was
the high demand from case involvement and case workers within traditional court.
Participant 5 explained that unfortunately, traditional court is much busier and has
constant high caseload counts. This included the probation caseloads being high, too.
There is not extra time to focus on all youth needs. Participant 8 expressed similar
concern by stating the case load counts for traditional court and for the juveniles on
probation were very high. Participant 8 continued to say that if a juvenile is in traditional
court and being disposed of there, they are not receiving a second chance as they would
in teen court. They are already “in the system so to speak and therefore feel they have
nothing to gain. Youth in the system are also unfortunately labeled and therefore are
treated differently”.
Participant 10 presented an important factor in what separated teen court and
traditional court. The participant added that teen court was successful because there was
68
buy-in from key stakeholders within the community. Examples of these stakeholders
include judges, local attorneys, mayor, city council members, local board of
commissioners, parents, and students. The teen volunteers committed their time and
efforts to the forward progression of the program and that’s what makes it work. “I
believe traditional court lacks this support component. In teen court, juvenile offenders
have an opportunity to get the support they need (counseling - small group/individual and
someone to check on them and their progress in the program).
Theme 2: Sentencing Outcomes
The sentencing of juveniles from traditional and teen court programs can
determine the future of youth offenders, if effective strategies are not in place to assist the
youth. Informational codes of house arrest, monitor tracking, disposal of youth,
probation, and detention centers as sanctions of traditional courts derived from the
collected data from the study’s participants. Examples of community service and
restorative justice practices were mentioned when explaining teen courts. The differences
of these court practices will be dissected below to highlight the positive outcomes that
can result when restoration of juvenile offenders is the focus of the intervention as
opposed to a traditional system, which has punishment as its primary focus.
Outcomes of the juvenile court process are vital to the success of a program or
court method. If delinquent behavior is not corrected or a juvenile offender fails to abide
by the court’s requirements, the approach to the criminal acts of the youth is not
beneficial or effective. The sentencing process is important and carries a large impact on
the success or unsuccessful outcomes.
69
The selection of sentencing guidelines or court requirements have a direct effect
on the juveniles’ outcome in the respective court programs. Participant 1 felt teen court
acted as a diversionary program to teach accountability in a manner less punitive than the
traditional justice system. Participant 2 continued this discussion with their response of
teen court delivering various non-punitive options that do not involve any time in
detention – community service, completing essays on various topics, or other options that
do not involve out of home or detention placement of the youth. In traditional courts,
youth do not have the option of a jury trial. The decision of adjudication is left in the
hands of the adult juvenile judge. The judge has the discretion to order the youth to
complete an informal adjustment period, a period of probation or be detained for a period
of time based on the severity of the offense. Participant 6 discussed teen court having
additional resources to provide in their sentencing requirements and when handling the
teens. Teen court focuses on the needs of the juvenile to ensure future criminal acts are
not committed. Participant 6 listed tutoring, counseling, one on one mentoring, and more
are offered to youth who enter the program, as opposed to the traditional court system
procedures.
All participants were asked their thoughts on the recidivism rates of teen court vs.
the recidivism rates of traditional court. Participant 2 shared they felt teen court is more
successful in reducing recidivism because it gives youth offenders the opportunity to
experience a formal court setting and allows them the opportunity to hear how their
actions impact their victims as well as the impact that criminal activity has on the
community as a whole. Participant 7 stated that teen court is helpful to the teens who
70
successfully complete the program. “You rarely see kids who took advantage of teen
court return to the traditional court on new charges. The majority of teens who complete
teen court are not repeat offenders”.
Another topic was found to trend in the participants’ feedback. Authority.
Participant 9 expressed that in teen court juveniles are respected and taught to respect
authority and others. Services are provided to help in reducing recidivism and increasing
rehabilitation. “Youth will respond better to peers than to adult authority figures”.
Participant 11 stated, “The recidivism is higher with traditional court due to the rebellion
to authority. Teen court provides positive peer pressure that directs youth to proper
behavior and decision making. In contrast, an adult judge is often seen as another
authority figure telling the young person what they need to do. The young person
continues rebelling against authority by disobey the authority.”
The explanation of traditional court and teen court sentencing was prevalent
throughout the data collection process. Participant 9 explained that having a criminal
history because of traditional court limits future employment opportunities and wages for
young offenders. Yet, if the teen had the chance to complete teen court, his or her record
would be wiped clean. Participant 10 shared similar thoughts like Participant 9 with,
“The sentencing options (of teen court) were designed to encourage and give the offender
a second chance without having a juvenile criminal record. Also, a requirement of
sentencing would be for the offender to return and serve on the jury. This provided the
teen an understanding of the judicial system and an opportunity to serve in an important
71
role. Traditional court often operates on the premise of punishment and not rehabilitating
the individual.”
The final outcome of the traditional or teen court programs depends on
sentencing. Through observations, Participant 2 shared that youth who fail to abide by the
conditions of the orders set forth by teen court, their case which had been held in
abeyance would be forwarded to the juvenile court for disposition. Once back in juvenile
or traditional court the juvenile could be ordered to have extended probation or placed in
detention for their crimes. Participant 11 explained the opposite side of the journey
through his observation on teen court. “Teen court is a positive program and is effective.
Administrative violations of probation that send many youths deeper into the juvenile
justice system could be sanctioned through teen court and possibly end a cycle that is
sending many cases and youths deeper into the traditional court system.”
Theme 3: Overall Experience
The final theme is a result of themes one and two. Selecting the appropriate court
program for youths and providing the most beneficial sanctions impacts the overall
experience of juveniles within either court system. Six codes formed when discussing the
experiences of traditional court systems: learned behaviors, sentencing violations,
recidivism, criminal behavior, reoffenders, and rejecting authority. Eleven codes
developed when participants shared the witnessed experiences from teen court:
educational experience, second chances, learning, rehabilitation, commitment to change,
positive impact, complete court process, knowledgeable, positive peer pressure, new
72
opportunity, and respecting authority. These codes were categorized and formed into the
final theme: overall experience.
The theme of overall experience was seen throughout the responses. The juvenile
officers provided their views on the differences between the journey of traditional
juvenile court and teen court. Expressions of learned criminal behaviors, reoffending,
new opportunities, and commitments to making positive changes are examples of codes
which appeared throughout the surveys.
Throughout the process of analyzation, officers presented concerns of why the
experience in traditional courts differed from teen court. Participant 1 stated recidivism
rates are lower in teen court defendants “due to a combination of factors including, but
not limited to: the types of charges which were diverted, the lessened stigma of teen court
as opposed to the adversarial open-court set up of traditional court, and the lessened
chance of receiving technical violation that led to new charges such as Violations of
Probation and Felony Tampering with Electronic Monitors”. Participant 5 added
additional factors to Participant 1’s stance. “The youths feel like everybody is against
them. If a youth is in traditional court and being disposed of there, there is no second
chance. They are in the system already”. Participant 6 mentioned the experience of going
through traditional court as, the youth being “already judged before his or her case is
heard. The youth is almost always labeled as a bad kid for getting into trouble”.
A second code which appeared under this theme is educating the teens on the
process. Participant 2 stated that traditional courts are more formalized and do not
actually make appeals to youth where they understand the consequences and impacts of
73
their behaviors. In teen court, the group of volunteers that help to make the program work
are able to speak with the youth on a personal level to help them understand the impacts
of their actions with the hope the teen will not reoffend. Participant 6 said, in teen court,
“juveniles can have more of a learning experience because they are involved in the
process”. Participant 8 agreed by sharing, “While both (traditional and teen court) are
formal, I feel teen court is a more valuable learning experience in that time is taken to
ensure all parties completely understand the process. I feel the juvenile has more of a
learning experience in teen court and also feel the juvenile may take the process more
serious since they are surrounded by their peers”. Participant 9 believed, “…with the
onset of delinquent behavior, peer pressure from peers may push youth toward improved
behavior. Teen courts can also make an impact on juvenile offenders by increasing their
knowledge of the criminal justice system and influencing their perceived fairness of the
system”. Participant 10 provided a detailed explanation of the overall teen court
experience:
Nothing compares to the experience that an individual receives in teen court,
whether they are a defendant or volunteer. It gives the offender an opportunity to
learn about the judicial system, an opportunity to correct their behavior by
receiving services that will help them make better choices (individual counseling,
group sessions, etc.). Having to come back and serve as juror says to the offender
that they do matter and they have the opportunity to extend empathy and
compassion to the other offenders that come in. Teen court is a great self – esteem
booster. Teen volunteers can decide if they are interested in the field of criminal
74
justice because they are being exposed to different positions within the court
system. They receive training to do their jobs and are given opportunities to
develop leadership skills. The goal of providing a second chance to teen offenders
send a message of “we care”. Knowing that someone cares and is willing to give
you a second chance is sometimes all a person needs to change their behavior. At
the end of the program, offenders knew they had key people cheering them on
wishing for their success.
Participant 11 supports Participants 10’s stance through his explanation. “I perceive the
experience of the youth as an opportunity to make amends for their behavior and the
majority utilized the opportunity to make the needed changes in their life. I believe
juveniles respond to peer pressure, both negative and positive.”
Participant 3 spoke from another view in stating teens can receive guidance from
the wrong side as well. Through traditional court, “our goal is to rehabilitate the youth
with treatment and services to help the youth not to reoffend and become a law-abiding
citizen”, but “because of the youths’ environment, … the youth will reoffend because
they return back to the same environment with no discipline and supervision”. Participant
7 continued this understanding of learning incorrect behaviors by sharing, “Traditional
court will sometimes place juveniles in detention or group homes with other delinquent
juveniles. The juveniles then learn criminal ways from other juveniles that can cause
them to reoffend.”
In closing, the participants were asked if they would recommend any changes to
the teen court program. Out of the 11 participants, 10 stated they recommended no
75
changes for the program. Participant 7 requested for the teen court program to check in
on the juveniles who completed the program. Participant 2 declared, “‘My first
experience with teen court I was totally amazed at how the program was organized for it
not to be a formal traditional court setting. I was impressed with the knowledge of the
youth that participated in the program as volunteers as well as the adult mentors that help
to guide and instruct the youth volunteers as well as the youthful offenders that appear in
the court. At the present time, I would not change anything about the teen court process.”
Summary
The study’s research question was answered by three discovered themes: forms of
court, sentencing outcome, and overall experience. The themes derived from a strong set
of categories and group of codes which were provided through detailed testimonies from
juvenile justice workers. The collected information illustrated the stark contrast between
teen court and traditional juvenile courts. The data proved the form of sentencing
provided to juvenile offenders has a major influence on if the youth will successfully
complete sentencing requirements. The data also proved the court experience of the
juvenile begins the moment they are detained. Within the traditional court system, youth
feel labeled and treated differently. Juveniles in teen court are not as exposed and their
experiences are not open for public viewing. Chapter 5 addresses the implications of
study’s findings, limitations of the research, recommendations for the program, and
implications for positive social change.
76
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to seek understanding of the
nontraditional juvenile court process from the perceptions of juvenile justice workers in a
local teen court program. The research and collected data focused on the perception of
juvenile court officers who work in the Dublin-Laurens County Teen Court to understand
why this approach was more effective in reducing recidivism. I used the Dublin-Laurens
County Teen Court as the unit of analysis, and the case study method was applied.
Purposive sampling was used for the recruitment of participants. Thematic analysis
through NVivo software was used to identify emerging codes, categories, and themes.
The current study was necessary to understand diversion program strategies to
counter juvenile recidivism. Similar programs serve as an accountability technique
toward youth criminal activities. Acting as a replacement to traditional court settings,
teen court programs are intended to reject the stigma of juvenile court systems, eliminate
intimidation and forced entry into youth courts, lower recidivism rates, introduce
effective rehabilitation and programming for youths, and redirect appropriate services to
troubled youths (Harris et al., 2011; Leve & Chamberlain, 2005; Osgood &
Weichselbaum, 1984).
The findings revealed three themes within the teen court and traditional court
systems. These themes were confirmed through the direct responses of juvenile justice
workers. The three themes were forms of court, sentencing outcome, and overall
experience.
77
Interpretation of the Findings
The center of Beccaria’s (1764) beliefs was founded upon the argument “it is
better to prevent crime than punish them” (p. X). The participants in the current study
provided detailed accounts that confirmed the findings in the literature review. The
collected data were consistent with Beccaria’s stance on correction in place of harsher
punishments. The following section illustrates the participants’ stance on the positives
and negatives of traditional juvenile courts and teen courts, respectively.
Forms of Court
This study addressed two forms of juvenile courts: teen court and traditional
court. Each participant provided feedback on both forms and shared insight on their
personal experiences inside both systems. Participants also identified the teen court
program as the better option for juvenile defendants in terms of rehabilitation and
correcting their behaviors. Similar to studies addressed in Chapter 2, the current study
indicated that juvenile diversion programs, such as youth courts, significantly lower the
chance of teens reoffending and being re-referred to the Department of Juvenile Justice
and juvenile court system. Butts et al. (2002) found that the youth [teen] court process
can outperform the strategies and effectiveness of the traditional juvenile justice court
process.
The present study indicated that juveniles who had committed serious offenses
should be sentenced with more severe consequences. Participants agreed that teen court
strategies are for lesser offenses and will not work on juveniles arrested for violent
crimes. This supports findings from other studies. The argument is youth offenders
78
labeled as dangerous and high risk should be sentenced to detention centers, but youths
considered low-risk, nonviolent offenders need to be rehabilitated (Rowland, 1996) in
less harsh programs targeting restorative justice procedures and not stricter punishment.
Sentencing Outcome
The current study spotlighted the importance of the sentencing process.
Participants acknowledged that the success or lack of success of juvenile sentencing
outcomes weighed heavily on court sentencing. This was consistent with findings
reported in Chapter 2. Teens are assessed with high- or low-risk labels upon entering the
juvenile justice system. For juveniles who are considered low risk, providing the most
accurate court sentencing is as important as ensuring the best corrective measures for
high-risk youths (Seigle et al., 2014). Introducing a low-risk teen to the same sanction as
high-risk juveniles who enter the traditional court system can present a harsher way of
life to a teen who may not have considered more severe crimes. The threat of harsher
penalties may deter a youth from a life of crime, while another youth may ignore the laws
regardless of possible consequences. Hardening the court sentences could assist with
temporarily lowering youth crime, but this effort would not produce substantial positive
change (Rowland, 1996), unlike diversion strategies and programs.
Another finding in the current study was how teen court ensures the youth is
never incarcerated. Youths who were incarcerated at a young age had a 50% greater
chance of being arrested as an adult than youths who were never incarcerated (Barrett et
al., 2014). Juveniles who are incarcerated are more likely to be arrested as adults based
on the participants’ responses in the current study.
