Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The impact of two Los Angeles County Teen Courts on youth recidivism: comparing two informal probation programs

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study sought to examine the impact of two Teen Courts operating in Los Angeles County, a juvenile justice system diversion program in which youths are judged by their peers and given restorative sentences to complete during a period of supervision.

Methods

A quasi-experimental design was used to compare youths who participated in Teen Courts (n = 112) to youths who participated in another diversion program administered by the Probation Department (the 654 Contract program) (n = 194). Administrative data were abstracted from the probation records for all youths who participated in these programs between January 1, 2012 and June 20, 2014. Logistic and survival models were used to examine differences in recidivism, measured as whether the minor had any subsequent arrest or arrests for which the charge was filed.

Results

Comparison group participants had higher rates of recidivism than Teen Court participants, after controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and risk level. While the magnitude of the program effects were fairly consistent across model specifications (odd ratios comparing Teen Court [referent] to school-based 654 Contract ranging from 1.95 to 3.07, hazard ratios ranging from 1.62 to 2.27), differences were not statistically significant in all scenarios.

Conclusions

While this study provides modest support for the positive impact of Teen Court, additional research is needed in order to better understand how juvenile diversion programs can improve youth outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2013). Youth incarceration in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

  • Berger, M. L., Mamdani, M., Atkins, D., & Johnson, M. L. (2009). Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force—Part I. Value in Health, 12, 1044–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnie, R. J., Johnson, R. L., Chemers, B. M., & Schuck, J. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: a developmental approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bright, C., Morris-Compton, D., Walter, J., Falls, B., & Young, D. (2013). Multijurisdictional teen court evaluation: a comparative evaluation of three teen court models. Williamsburg, VA: Administrative Office of the Courts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butts, J. A., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2002). The impact of teen court on young offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crutchfeld, R. D., Skinner, M. L., Haggerty, K. P., McGlynn, A., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). Racial disparity in police contacts. Race and Justice, 2(3), 179–202. doi:10.1177/2153368712448063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 170–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fain, T., Greathouse, S. M., & Turner, S. (2014). Los Angeles County juvenile justice crime prevention act. Fiscal year 2012–2013 report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feld, B. C. (1995). The social context of juvenile justice administration: racial disparities in an urban juvenile court. In K. Kempf-Leonard, C. Pope, & W. Feyerherm (Eds.), Minorities in juvenile justice (pp. 66–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgays, D. K. (2008). Three years of teen court offender outcomes. Adolescence, 43(171), 473–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gase, L.N., Schooley, T., DeFosset, A., Stoll, M.A., & Kuo, T. (2015) The impact of Teen Courts on youth outcomes: a systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 1(1), 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Lowery, B. S. (2004). Priming unconscious racial stereotypes about adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 483–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hissong, R. (1991). Teen court: Is it an effective alternative to traditional sanctions? Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 6(14), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjalmarsson, R. (2008). Criminal justice involvement and high school completion. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(2), 613–630. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2007.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, C., & Sickmund, M. (2012). Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 2009. Washington, DC: Juvenile Offenders and Victims National Report Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(3), 448–459. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: a meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Youth Courts. (2015). Facts and stats. Retrieved from: http://www.youthcourt.net/?page_id=24

  • National Center for Juvenile Justice. (n.d.). Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2010. Retrieved from: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs

  • Nochajski, T. H., Hayes, E., Kramer, L., Michaels, T., Hill, B., Schreck, L., Johnson, K., Sabino, A., Odell, M., Wiehe, A., Noonan, E., & Dingman, M. (n.d.). Hillside Children’s Center: Livingston County youth court and community services evaluation. New York, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo. Retrieved from: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Livingston_County_Youth_Court_Evaluation.pdf.

  • Norris, M., Twill, S., & Kim, C. (2011). Smells like teen spirit: evaluating a midwestern teen court. Crime and Delinquency, 57(2), 199–221. doi:10.1177/0011128709354037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, M. H., Gold, E., & Peralta, R. (2013). Youth courts and their educational value: an examination of youth courts in Chester, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action. Retrieved from: https://www.researchforaction.org/publications/youth-courts-and-their-educational-value-an-examination-of-youth-courts-in-chester-pennsylvania/

  • Patrick, S., & Marsh, R. (2005). Juvenile diversion: results of a 3-year experimental study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), 59–73. doi:10.1177/0887403404266584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petteruti, A., Schindler, M., & Ziedenberg, J. (2014). Sticker shock: calculating the full price tag for youth incarceration. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R. (2008). Disproportionate minority contact. The Future of Children, 18(2), 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Povitsky, W. T. (2005). Teen court: does it reduce recidivism? Unpublished master’s thesis. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Retrieved from: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/3274/1/umi-umd-3102.pdf.

  • Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E., MacKenzie, M. J., Brewer, K. B., & Ibrahim, R. (2012). A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(1), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seigle, E., Walsh, N., & Weber, J. (2014). Core principles for reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyfrit, C. L., Reichel, P. L., & Stutts, B. L. (1987). Peer juries as a juvenile justice diversion technique. Youth and Society, 18(3), 302–316. doi:10.1177/0044118X87018003005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sickmund, M. (2010). Juveniles in residential placement, 1997–2008. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Fact Sheet.

  • State of California Department of Justice (2015) Law enforcement code tables: offense codes. Retrieved from: http://oag.ca.gov/law/code-tables

  • Stickle, W. P., Connell, N. M., Wilson, D. M., & Gottfredson, D. (2008). An experimental evaluation of teen courts. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4(2), 137–163. doi:10.1007/s11292-008-9050-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., Fain, T., & Sehgal, A. (2005). Validation of the risk and resiliency assessment tool for juveniles in the Los Angeles County probation system. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, B. C., & Rocque, M. (2014). When crime prevention harms: a review of systematic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 245–266. doi:10.1007/s11292-014-9199-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. H., & Hoge, R. D. (2013). Diverting our attention to what works: evaluating the effectiveness of a youth diversion program. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(4), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. M., Gottfredson, D. C., & Stickle, W. P. (2009). Gender differences in effects of teen courts on delinquency: a theory-guided evaluation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 21–27. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarbrough, A. (2013). Budget cuts jeopardize health of nation’s court systems. California Bar Journal. Retrieved from: http://calbarjournal.com/September2013/TopHeadlines/TH9.aspx

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Deborah Weathersby, Tanesha Lockhart, and Edward Howard from the Los Angeles County Probation Department for their support and contributions to the project. The authors also thank Scott Comulada from the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Community Health and Joni Ricks-Oddie from the University of California, Los Angeles Institute for Digital Research and Education for their statistical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren N. Gase.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Science, University of California, Los Angeles Clinical Translational Science Institute (grant number: TL1TR000121).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gase, L.N., Kuo, T., Lai, E.S. et al. The impact of two Los Angeles County Teen Courts on youth recidivism: comparing two informal probation programs. J Exp Criminol 12, 105–126 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9255-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9255-1

Keywords

Navigation