Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Review of Teen Court Evaluation Studies: A Focus on Evaluation Design Characteristics and Program Components and Processes

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Adolescent Research Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Teen Court is a restorative justice program serving non-chronic juvenile offenders. A number of Teen Court evaluation studies exist, however, considerable heterogeneity across Teen Court programs suggests the need to more closely examine the program components (i.e., elements of Teen Court such as sanctions) and processes (i.e., how Teen Court operates such as referral sources and participation criteria) of these existing evaluation studies. The aim of the current systematic review was to provide a comprehensive review of existing Teen Court evaluation studies by synthesizing (1) evaluation design characteristics and (2) program components and processes. Using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) guidelines, the authors used identical key words to search 12 databases for relevant articles, book chapters, dissertations, and theses. Pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to evaluate each document; 46 articles reporting results from 35 studies were included in the review. Program participation criteria and referral sources varied considerably across studies. Twenty studies included a comparison group and only two used random assignment. Most studies reported recidivism rates, however the definition and measurement of recidivism were inconsistent across studies. Distinct differences in participation criteria and referral sources across programs suggested that some programs serve youth who would otherwise be served by the juvenile justice system whereas other programs serve youth who would otherwise face school disciplinary measures. Rigorous research on Teen Court is minimal and additional studies using strong study designs are needed in order to draw confident conclusions about the impact of Teen Court. Terminology for distinguishing between Teen Court programs based on participation and referral criteria and standards for assessing recidivism are offered.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

*Indicates that the reference was a study that was included in the systematic review

  • *Administrative Office of the Courts. (1995). Report on the Teen Court programs in North Carolina. Unpublished report.

  • Beck, V. S., Ramsey, R. J., Lipps, T. R., & Travis, L. F. (2006). Juvenile diversion: An outcome study of Hamilton County, Ohio unofficial juvenile community courts. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 57(2), 1–10.

    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. Unpublished report.

  • Blumstein, A., & Larson, R. C. (1971). Problems in modeling and measuring recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 8, 124–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bright, C. L., Young, D. W., Bessaha, M. L., & Falls, B. J. (2015). Perceptions and outcomes following teen court involvement. Social Work Research, 39, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Buchholz, M. M. (2014). Effectiveness of restorative justice programs in the prevention of juvenile crime. Unpublished Master’s thesis. UMI: 1556137.

  • *Butler-Mejia, K. (1998). Seen but not heard: The role of voice in juvenile justice. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (2011). Juvenile diversion guidebook. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Models for Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on School Health (2003). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 112(5), 1206–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Developmental Services Group. (2010). Teen youth court literature review. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Washington, DC. http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Teen_Youth_Court.pdf.

  • *Dick, A. J., Geertsen, R., & Jones, R. M. (2003). Self-reported delinquency among teen court participants. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 18, 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Doroski, L., & Burke, C. (2007). Diverting youth and repairing harm: An evaluation of San Diego Teen Court final report. Unpublished report.

  • *Dugas, D. M. (2006). Is the effectiveness of Teen Court dependent upon gender? Unpublished Master’s thesis. UMI #: 1440070.

  • *Evans, C. B. R., Smokowski, P. R., Barbee, J., Bower, M., & Barefoot, S. (2016). Restorative justice programing Teen Court: A path to improved interpersonal relationships and psychological functioning for high-risk rural youth. Journal of Rural Mental Health, 40, 15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. E. (2007). Youth cases for youth courts: A guide to the typical offenses handled by youth courts. Chicago: American Bar Association. http://www.americanbar.68.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/youthcases_youthcourts.authcheckdam.pdf.

  • *Flowers, A. S. (2010). Time dollar youth court 2010 evaluation final report. Unpublished report.

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Forgays, D. K., & DiMilio, L. (2005). Is teen court effective for repeat offenders? A test of the restorative justice approach. The International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, M. W., Richman, J. M., Galinsky, M. J., & Day, S. H. (2009). Intervention research: Developing social programs. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, C. A. & Dobrin, A. (2006). Deaths in juvenile justice residential facilities. Journal of Adolescent Health 38(6), 662–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Garrison, A. H. (2001). An evaluation of a Delaware Teen Court: An outcome evaluation. Unpublished report.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gase, L. N., Schooley, T., DeFosset, A., Stoll, M. A., & Kuo, T. (2016a). The impact of teen courts on youth outcomes: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 1, 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gase, L. N., Kuo, T., Lai, E. S., Stoll, M. A., & Ponce, N. A. (2016b). The impact of two Los Angeles County Teen courts on youth recidivism: Comparing two informal probation programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12, 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Youth Justice. (2016). Youth justice statistics. http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/STATISTICS.html.

  • Harris, P. W., Lockwood, B., & Mengers, L. (2009). A CJCA white paper: Defining and measuring recidivism [White paper]. http://cjca.net.

  • Harris, P. W., Lockwood, B., & Mengers, L. (2011). Measuring recidivism in juvenile corrections. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Harrison, P., Maupin, J. R., & Mays, G. L. (2000). Are teen courts an answer to our juvenile delinquency problems? Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Fall, 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hissong, R. (1991). Teen Court—is it an effective alternative to traditional sanctions? Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 1991, 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The dangers of detention. A Justice Policy report. Justice Policy Report. Washington DC: Justice Policy Institute. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06-11_rep_dangersofdetention_jj.pdf.

  • *Jacobsen, J. L. E. (2013). The relationship between juvenile diversion programs and recidivism for juvenile offenders. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. UMI: 1540187.

  • *Jones, R. M., Dick, A. D., Geertson, H. R., Cook, J. L., & Coyl, D. D. (2003). Ego identity status as an indicator of peer court efficacy. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54, 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juvenile Law Center. (2011). Diversion: Juvenile and criminal justice. http://www.jlc.org/current-initiatives/minimizing-court-and-systems-involvement/diversion

  • *Koch, B., & Wood, R. (2009). Teen court works: Research and evaluation report. Unpublished report.

  • *Laundra, K., Rodgers, K., & Zapp, H. (2013). Transforming teens: Measuring the effects of restorative justice principles on a teen court setting. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 64, 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Logalbo, A. P. (1998). Is Teen Court a fair and effective juvenile crime diversion program? Unpublished Manuscript.

  • *Logalbo, A. P., & Callahan, C. M (2001). An evaluation of teen court as a juvenile crime diversion program. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Spring, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *McDowell Group. (2010). Alaska youth courts: Evaluation and impact assessment. Unpublished report.

  • *Miller, H. V. (2008). Restorative justice and youth courts: A new approach to delinquency prevention. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 11, 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., Soderstrom, I. R., & Williamson, D. (1999). Sentence completion and recidivism among juveniles referred to teen courts. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Youth Courts. (2016). Significance of youth courts. http://www.youthcourt.net/?page_id=559.

  • National Institute of Justice. (2007). Working definitions of restorative justice. http://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/restorative-justice/pages/definitions1.aspx.

  • *Nochajski, T. H. (2010). Hillside Children’s Center: Livingston County youth court and community services evaluation. Unpublished report.

  • *Norris, M., Twill, S., & Kim, C. (2011). Smells like teen spirit: Evaluating a Midwestern teen court. Crime and Delinquency, 57, 199–221.

    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. http://8rri53pm0cs22jk3vvqna1ub-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RFA_Chester_Youth_Courts_April_2013.pdf.

  • *Patrick, S., & Marsh, R. (2005). Juvenile diversion: Results of a 3-year experimental study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Patrick, S., Marsh, R., Bundy, W., Mimura, S., & Perkins, T. (2004). Control group study of juvenile diversion programs: An experiment in juvenile diversion—the comparison of three methods and a control group. The Social Science Journal, 41, 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Review, 1, 1–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Povitsky, W. T. (2005). Teen Court: Does it reduce recidivism? Unpublished Master’s Thesis. UMI: 1431558.

  • *Puzach, C., & Hass, A. (2014). Addressing the needs of juvenile offenders: A study of the Greene County Missouri Teen Court model. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 2, 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rasmussen, A. (2002). Evaluation of Peer Court, Inc.: 1993–2001 Statistics and recidivism. Unpublished report.

  • *Rasmussen, A. (2004a). Teen court referral, sentencing, and subsequent recidivism: Two proportional hazards models and a little speculation. Crime and Delinquency, 50, 615–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rasmussen, A., & Diener, C. I. (2005). A prospective longitudinal study of teen court’s impact on offending youths’ behavior. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Winter 2005, 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rasmussen, A. E. (2004b). Teen court offenders, their experience, and re-offending: Processing the soft end of juvenile justice. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. UMI: 31311012.

  • *Rothstein, R. N. (1987). Teen court: A way to combat teenage crime and chemical abuse. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 38, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Seyfrit, C. L., Reichel, P. L., & Stutts, B. L. (1987). Peer juries as a juvenile justice technique. Youth Society, 18, 302–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Bouter, L. M. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(10), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 National report. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Skaruppa, C. L., LeBlance, P., Lacey, C. H. (2001). Youth court: Advocating for all children. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teachers Educators, New Orleans.

  • *Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R. A., Evans, C. B. R., Barbee, J., Cotter, K. L., & Bower, M. (2017). The impact of teen court on rural adolescents: Improved social relationships, psychological functioning, and school experiences. Journal of Primary Prevention. doi:10.1007/s10935-017-0470-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Society for Prevention Research, Standards of Evidence Committee. (2007). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. http://www.preventionresearch.org/StandardsofEvidencebook.pdf.

  • *Stickle, W. P., Connell, N. M., Wilson, D. M., & Gottfredson, D. (2008). An experimental evaluation of Teen Courts. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Juvenile Arrests 2011. Office of Justice Programs. National Report Series. http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/244476.pdf

  • *Vose, B., & Vannan, K. (2013). A jury of your peers: Recidivism among teen court participants. Journal of Juvenile Justice, Fall, 2013, 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Weisz, V., Lott, R. C., & Thai, N. D. (2002). A teen court evaluation with a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 381–392.

    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, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, H. A., & Hoge, R. D. (2013). The effect of youth diversion programs on recidivism: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 497–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the Developing Knowledge About What Makes Schools Safer grant through the National Institute of Justice (NIJ-2014-3878).

Author contributions

KC conceived of the study; KC and CBRE collaborated to identify search terms, databases, and inclusion and exclusion criteria; KC and CBRE searched the databases, abstracted data, and wrote the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, School of Social Work, 340 N Commerce Park Loop, Suite 250, Tucson, AZ, 85745, USA

    Katie L. Cotter

  2. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Caroline B. R. Evans

Authors
  1. Katie L. Cotter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline B. R. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katie L. Cotter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cotter, K.L., Evans, C.B.R. A Systematic Review of Teen Court Evaluation Studies: A Focus on Evaluation Design Characteristics and Program Components and Processes. Adolescent Res Rev 3, 425–447 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0056-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0056-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation