Practice Profile: Teen Court

Evidence Rating for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Date: This profile was posted on July 29, 2020

This is a specialized diversion intervention that offers an alternative to traditional court processing for first-time, nonviolent juveniles. The goal is to hold juveniles accountable for their behavior, repair the harm caused to the community by their offenses, and reduce juvenile recidivism. The practice is rated Ineffective for reducing juvenile recidivism.

Practice Goals/Target Population

Teen court (also known as youth court or peer court) is a specialized diversion program that offers an alternative to traditional court processing for first-time, nonviolent juveniles (i.e., juveniles who have committed misdemeanor or status offenses and are at low risk of reoffending). The goal of teen court is to hold juveniles accountable for their behavior, repair the harm caused to the community by their offenses, and ultimately reduce juvenile recidivism.

Practice Components

Procedures may vary across different teen court programs, but there are certain components most programs encompass. First, participation is voluntary for juveniles, and they can opt out at any part of the process; however, if they decide to leave the program, they will be sent back to traditional juvenile court processing. Second, the focus of teen court is to have accused juveniles accept responsibility for their actions and repair harm done to the community; therefore, to participate, juveniles must admit guilt for their offenses.

Further, a defining feature of teen court is that volunteer youth serve in the role of at least some of the court personnel (i.e., defense attorney, prosecutor, judge, and/or jury). There are four courtroom models of teen court: adult judge, peer jury, youth judge, and youth tribunal. In the youth judge model, youth assume all roles (the judge, defense attorney, prosecuting attorney, and the jury). The adult judge model has a similar structure except that an adult serves in the role of the judge. Like the youth judge model, the roles in the peer jury model are all assumed by youth but there is no defense attorney or prosecutor. Rather, the peer jury model operates like a grand jury: the youth presents the facts of the case and a panel of youth jurors questions the juvenile defendant directly. Finally, in the youth tribunal model, a panel (usually of three) takes on the role of the courtroom judge, youth attorneys present the case to the panel of judges, and there is no youth jury (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall 2002; Development Services Group, Inc. 2010; Bouchard and Wong 2017).

When a jury is used, youth must listen to the attorneys’ presentations, question the juvenile defendant, reach a unanimous verdict, and recommend an appropriate sentence. Sentences may include community service, apology letters to victims, education workshops, or paying restitution to victims. If juvenile defendants successfully complete the program, they usually have the offense erased from their criminal record.

Practice Theory

There are several theoretical perspectives underlying teen court. One theory, called peer justice, suggests that positive peer pressure (from the youth volunteers in the program) can push delinquent juveniles toward more prosocial behavior. The theory also suggests that youth may respond better to prosocial peers than adult authority figures (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall 2002; Development Services Group, Inc. 2010).

Some research summarizing the theories behind teen courts indicates that the use of restorative justice principles, which emphasize repairing the harm caused by the offense, holds juveniles responsible and accountable for their actions and ensures that they are directly involved in the process of restoration (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall 2002; Bouchard and Wong 2017). Some researchers hypothesize that an emphasis on reparation and enabling the juvenile offender to be directly involved with the process of restoration will prevent future offending (Evans et al. 2016). However, other researchers have noted variations in how teen courts are implemented and concerns about whether restorative justice principles are actually applied. For example, some programs may not actively involve juveniles in the teen court process (Laundra, Rodgers, and Zapp 2013; Walker, Rodgers, and Umbreit 2018).

Finally, another theory that pertains to teen court is labeling. By diverting juveniles away from formal court processing, they can avoid the social consequences of being labeled negatively and should be less likely to internalize a deviant/criminal identity because they are being judged and sentenced by a jury of peers, rather than the court system (Becker 1963; Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall 2002).

Meta-Analysis Snapshot
	Literature Coverage Dates	Number of Studies	Number of Study Participants
Meta Analysis 1	1987-2016	11	0

Meta Analysis 1

Bouchard and Wong (2017) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of teen courts at reducing juvenile recidivism. A comprehensive search and systematic review of the literature was conducted by searching 21 electronic journals, hand searching relevant academic journals, and searching the grey literature to identify any unpublished studies. To be included in the review, studies had to 1) report on the findings of a primary evaluation of a teen court program or strategy; 2) have a moderately rigorous design (i.e., scored at least a “2”on the Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods); 3) include a control group deemed to constitute a valid comparison (such as randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs in which participants were matched on at least some characteristics such as age or criminal history); 4) have a minimum treatment group sample size of 20; 5) report on at least one individual-level outcome measure of crime or delinquency; and 6) provide sufficient data to allow for calculation of an effect size.

A total of 11 studies, which compared youth who completed teen court with youth who were formally processed, were identified and included in the review. All 11 studies were conducted in the United States. Eight studies included predominately male participants, two studies included an equivalent number of male and female participants, and one study did not provide information on gender. For race/ethnicity, eight studies included mostly white participants, two studies included mostly minority or mixed race/ethnicities, and one study did not report that information. With regard to the specific teen court model under examination, five studies looked at the peer jury model, two studies looked at the youth judge model, one study looked at the adult judge model, and one study looked at the youth tribunal model. The types of offenses committed by teen court participants in the studies included status or misdemeanor offenses such as minor property offenses, minor drug and alcohol violations, shoplifting, traffic violations, and disorderly conduct.

The impact of teen court programs on juvenile recidivism was calculated using odds ratios. Odds ratios were log-transformed to logged odds ratios, which center the values around 0. A logged odds ratio of 0 indicates no different treatment impact between the treatment and control groups. A random effects model was used to synthesize the odds ratios across the studies.

Date Created: July 17, 2024

Rating Process

Learn how this and other practices are rated

Practice Snapshot

Age: 0 - 18

Gender: Male, Female

Race/Ethnicity: White, Other

Targeted Population: Status Offenders, Young Offenders

Setting (Delivery): Other Community Setting, Courts

Practice Type: Diversion, Teen/Youth Court

Unit of Analysis: Persons

Practice Profile: Teen Court

Notice

Practice Summary

Practice Description

Practice Goals/Target Population

Practice Components

Practice Theory

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

Meta-Analysis Methodology

Cost

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

Additional References

Related Programs