Skip to main content

A Jury of Their Peers: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Teen Court on Criminal Recidivism

Journal of Youth and Adolescence volume 46, pages 1472–1487 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Juvenile delinquency has been on the decline for a number of years, yet, juvenile courts continue to assess more than 1 million cases per year. Involvement with the juvenile justice system has been linked to a number of risk factors and consequences that may impact positive youth development; however, evidence-based correctional programs that divert juvenile offenders away from formal processing are limited. Teen Court is a specialized diversion intervention that offers an alternative to traditional court processing for juvenile offenders. Despite the rapid expansion of Teen Courts, there is little comprehensive and systematic evidence available to justify this expansion. This meta-analytic study examines the effects of Teen Court on the recidivism of juvenile offenders. The literature search resulted in the selection of 14 studies, which contributed 18 unique effect sizes with a total sample of 2125 treatment group and 979 comparison group youth. The findings suggest that Teen Court is no more effective at reducing recidivism than (a) formal processing or (b) other diversion programs. Implications of formal and informal court processing for low-risk, first-time young offenders are discussed. The authors draw on the Risk-Need-Responsivity model to provide recommendations for policies and practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. For example, randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs in which participants were matched on at least some variables (e.g., criminal history, age, sex).

  2. Due to inconsistent reporting of some variables across studies, the variables that were selected for examination in the moderator analysis were restricted to those that were reported in sufficient frequency across all of the studies in the set.

  3. To ensure independence of effect sizes in each set of studies, the following decision rules were used: (1) choosing one study among multiple studies with overlapping samples (e.g., Dugas (2006), Stickle et al. (2008) and Wilson et al. (2009)); and, (2) choosing one outcome measure from a study that reported on multiple recidivism outcomes (e.g., Gase et al. (2016a)).

  4. When a group (gender, ethnicity) composed of over 60% of the entire group of participants, that group was identified as the predominant group (see Appendix E of Lipsey and Wilson 2001).

  5. As expected, the pooled effect from the fixed effects model was smaller, but similar to the random effects model, was not statistically significant (LOR = 0.072, z = 0.71, p = 0. 476).

  6. While a rating of “2” on the Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods may be considered comparatively weak on the spectrum of methodological rigor (although there is a control group, there is little to no matching of participants), the significance of the pooled effect remained unchanged when such studies were excluded from the analysis (n = 3; LOR = 0.311, z = 1.03, p = 0.304).

  7. The findings from the fixed effects model suggest that the random effects model may have slightly overestimated the pooled effect, however, the findings remained non-significant (LOR = 0.173, z = 1.32, p = 0.187).

  8. It is worth noting that while the Q-between statistics for the Gender and Ethnicity variables were not significant, both nearly reached statistical significance at the .05 level. As such, while these results cannot be considered conclusive, they provide insight toward possible participant characteristics associated with beneficial impacts.

  9. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on the set of studies; however, as the funnel plot was reasonably symmetric and there was nothing substantive to report from the analysis, these findings are not discussed here.

  10. Again, the robustness of the pooled effect with respect to methodological rigor was tested, and despite the exclusion of studies rated as a “2” on the Maryland Scale (n = 2), the non-significance of the pooled effect remained unchanged (LOR = 0.409, z = 1.64, p = 0.101)

References

  • *Note: Studies indicated with an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis

  • Abram, K. M., Choe, J. Y., Washburn, J. J., Romero, E. G., & Teplin, L. A. (2009). Functional impairment in youth three years after detention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 528–535. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.10.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. doi:10.1037/a0018362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52. doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. W., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 88–100. doi:10.1177/0306624X05282556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonowicz, D. H., & Ross, R. R. (1994). Essential components of successful rehabilitation programs for offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38(2), 97–104. doi:10.1177/0306624X9403800202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, P., Pintoff, R., & Pozen, D. (2004). Building criminal capital behind bars: Peer effects in juvenile corrections (paper no. 864), Yale University, Economic Growth Center Discussion, New Haven Retrieved from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/1996/Bayer_building_criminal_capital_behind_bars.pdf?sequence=1.

  • Beck, R. J. (1997). Communications in a Teen Court: Implications for probation. Federal Probation, 61(4), 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287–1318. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01020.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal imbeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67–88. doi:10.1177/0022427805280068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, J., & Wong, J. S. (2017). Examining the effects of intensive supervision and aftercare programs for at-risk youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. doi:10.1177/0306624X17690449.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Buchholz, M. (2014). Effectiveness of restorative justice programs in the prevention of juvenile crime. (Masters thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1556137).

  • Butts, J., & Buck, J. (2000). Teen Courts: A focus on research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/183472.pdf.

  • *Butts, J., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. (2002). The impact of Teen Court on young offenders: Research report. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

  • Card, N. A. (2011). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Court Innovation. (2010). Recommended practices for youth courts: A manual for New York youth court coordinators and practitioners. Albany, NY: The New York Bar Foundation. http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Youth_Court_Manual1.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001). Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In M. Egger, G. Smith, & D. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. 2nd edn. (pp. 285–312). London: BMJ Publishing Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugas, D. (2006). Does the effectiveness of teen court depend upon gender? Master’s thesis, University of Maryland.

  • Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. B., Smokowski, P. R., Barbee, J., Bower, M., & Barefoot, S. (2016). Restorative justice programming in Teen Court: A path to improved interpersonal relationships and psychological functioning for high-risk rural youth. Journal of Rural Mental Health, 40(1), 15–30. doi:10.1037/rmh0000042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • French, S. A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(2), 185–218. doi:10.1177/0093854805284406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gase, L. N., Kuo, T., Lai, E. S., Stoll, M. A., & Ponce, N. A. (2016a). The impact of two Los Angeles county Teen Courts on youth recidivism: Comparing two informal probation programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(1), 105–126. doi:10.1007/s11292-016-9255-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • *Gase, L. N., Schooley, T., DeFosset, A., Stoll, M. A., & Kuo, T. (2016b). The impact of Teen Courts on youth outcomes: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 1(1), 51–67. doi:10.1007/s40894-015-0012-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 991–998. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02057.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guolo, A., & Varin, C. (2015). Random-effects meta-analysis: The number of studies matters. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 0(0), 1–19. doi:10.1177/0962280215583568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, P., Maupin, J. R., & Mays, G. L. (2001). Teen Court: An examination of processes and outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 47(2), 243–264. doi:10.1177/2F0011128701047002005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P. T., Thomson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • *Hissong, R. (1991). Teen Court: Is it an effective alternative to traditional sanctions? Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 6(2), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockenberry, S., & Puzzanchera, C. (2015). Juvenile court statistics 2013 (National Report Series Bulletin). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jacobsen, J. (2013). The relationship between juvenile diversion programs and recidivism for juvenile offenders. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1540187).

  • *Laundra, K., Rodgers, K., & Zapp, H. (2013). Transforming teens: Measuring the effects of restorative justice principles in a Teen Court setting. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 64(4), 21–34. doi:10.1111/jfcj.12012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Applied Social Research Methods Series: Volume 49. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoGalbo, A. P. (1998). Is Teen Court a fair and effective juvenile crime diversion program?. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, New College.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2007). The impact of system contact on patterns of desistance from offending. European Society of Criminology, 4, 315–345. doi:10.1177/147737080777186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H. V. (2008). Restorative justice and youth courts: A new approach to delinquency prevention. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 11, 189–205. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1016/S1521-6136(08)00408-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/jessor/psych7536-805/readings/moffitt-1993_674-701.pdf.

  • Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 355–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Youth Courts. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.youthcourt.net/.

  • *Nochajski, T. E., Hayes, E., Kramer, L., Michaels, T., Hill, B., Schreck, L., et al. (2010). Hillside Children’s Center: Livingston County youth court and community services evaluation. New York: State University of New York, Buffalo. http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Livingston_County_Youth_Court_Evaluation.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Norris, M., Twill, S., & Kim, C. (2011). Smells like teen spirit: Evaluating a Midwestern Teen Court. Crime & Delinquency, 57(2), 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • *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 

  • Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2013). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. no. 9 of crime prevention research review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p265-pub.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Povitsky, W. (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.

  • Puzzanchera, C. (2013). Juvenile arrests 2011 (National Report Series Bulletin). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, A. (2004). Teen Court referral, sentencing, and subsequent recidivism: Two proportional hazards models and a little speculation. Crime & Delinquency, 50, 615–635. doi:10.1177/0011128703261616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, A. A., Dill, P. L., Husain, J., & Undesser, C. (2004). Prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse disorders among incarcerated juvenile offenders in Mississippi. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 35(1), 55–74. doi:10.1023/B:CHUD.0000039320.40382.91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Chacón-Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 448–467. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.448.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J. (2008). Youth courts: An empirical update and analysis of future organizational and research needs. Washington, DC: George Washington University. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdles1/ojjdp/grants/222592.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, R. (2007). Current methods for meta-analysis: Approaches, issues, and developments. Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 90–103. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwalbe, C., Gearing, R., MacKenzie, M., Brewer, K., & Ibrahim, R. (2012). A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 26–33. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.10.002.

    Article  PubMed  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:10.1177/2F0044118X87018003005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S D. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171676.PDF.

  • Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4(2), 148–169. doi:10.1080/15564880802612581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf.

  • Sterne, J. A., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., & Lau, J., et al. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343(7818), 1–8. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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 

  • Taylor, T. J. (2014). Youth violence prevention. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(1), 1–4. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2014.860737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Voorhis, P., Spruance, L. M., Ritchey, P. N., Listwan, S. J., & Seabrook, R. (2004). The Georgia cognitive skills experiment: A replication of reasoning and rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(3), 282–305. doi:10.1177/0093854803262506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Schwalbe, C. S., Keating, J. M., & Jones, S. A. (2010). Psychiatric disorder, comorbidity, and suicidal behavior in juvenile justice youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1361–1376. doi:10.1177/0093854810382751.

    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 

  • Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative justice diversion programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 1310–1329. doi:10.1177/0093854816640835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

J.B. and J.W. conceived of the study together. J.B. participated in the study design, extracted the data from the set of studies, conducted data analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and participated in multiple manuscript revisions. J.W. participated in the study design, conducted the systematic literature search, participated in the coordination and interpretation of data, and participated in multiple manuscript revisions. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jessica Bouchard School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada

    Jessica Bouchard & Jennifer S. Wong

Authors
  1. Jessica Bouchard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer S. Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Bouchard.

Ethics declarations

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This project complies with all known ethical standards for research

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

No ethics approval was necessary for this project, as it was based on existing, publicly available research.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was not necessary for this project, as it was based on existing, publicly available research.

Appendix

Appendix

Electronic searches included the following 21 databases:

  1. 1.

    Academic Search Complete

  2. 2.

    Academic Search Premier

  3. 3.

    Canadian Research Index

  4. 4.

    Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

  5. 5.

    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

  6. 6.

    Criminal Justice Abstracts

  7. 7.

    Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects

  8. 8.

    Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)

  9. 9.

    Medline

  10. 10.

    National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)

  11. 11.

    Open Access Theses and Dissertations

  12. 12.

    ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text

  13. 13.

    PsycARTICLES

  14. 14.

    PsycBOOKS

  15. 15.

    PsycINFO

  16. 16.

    Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS) International

  17. 17.

    Social Sciences Abstracts

  18. 18.

    Social Sciences Full Text

  19. 19.

    Social Services Abstracts

  20. 20.

    Sociological Abstracts

  21. 21.

    Web of Science

Hand searches included the following journals:

  1. 1.

    Crime and Delinquency

  2. 2.

    Criminal Justice Policy Review

  3. 3.

    Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services

  4. 4.

    Journal of Criminal Justice

  5. 5.

    Journal of Experimental Criminology

  6. 6.

    Journal of Juvenile Justice

  7. 7.

    Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

  8. 8.

    Juvenile and Family Court Journal

Grey literature searches included the following websites:

  1. 1.

    Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/)

  2. 2.

    Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/)

  3. 3.

    Google (www.google.ca)

  4. 4.

    Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.ca)

  5. 5.

    Home Office Research Unit (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/about/research)

  6. 6.

    National Association of Youth Courts (http://www.youthcourt.net/)

  7. 7.

    Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (https://www.ojjdp.gov/)

  8. 8.

    The Youth Court of New Zealand (https://www.youthcourt.govt.nz/)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bouchard, J., Wong, J.S. A Jury of Their Peers: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Teen Court on Criminal Recidivism. J Youth Adolescence 46, 1472–1487 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0667-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0667-7

Keywords

  • Teen court
  • Youth court
  • Peer court
  • Diversion
  • Recidivism
  • Meta-analysis