Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:33 am
Time: 11:33 am
Results for teen courts
4 results foundAuthor: Povitsky, Wendy Title: An Evaluation Partnership Project to Enhance the State of Maryland's Capacity to Evaluate Juvenile Justice Programs: Final Report Summary: During 2004, the University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice began a project aimed at providing a model for evaluation of juvenile justice diversion projects in Maryland. The project, funded by the Justice Research and Statistics Association’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Council solicitation, was intended to demonstrate the advantages of using a systematic, collaborative, and coordinated approach to the evaluation of one type of diversion project funded through the Maryland State Advisory Board’s Youth Strategies Grant (YSG) Competition: Teen Courts (TCs). This project applied a model of researcher-practitioner collaboration (Program Development Evaluation, PDE) to develop a framework for evaluation in collaboration with the project and county-level practitioners involved in managing the TCs as well as the state-level administrators charged with overseeing the grants. The evaluation involves (1) a process evaluation to determine whether the TCs met the standards they had created for themselves; and (2) an outcome evaluation utilizing a randomized design to determine the effectiveness of TCs in reducing future recidivism. The PDE process allowed the TC coordinators and Local Management Board representatives to be directly involved in developing both parts of the evaluation. This report summarizes the preliminary findings of the process evaluation. Despite challenges encountered during this evaluation, the broader aims of this evaluation partnership project were met. The PDE method was successfully used to involve researchers and practitioners in a collaborative process resulting in a clear plan for the evaluation of a juvenile justice diversion project in Maryland. The advantages of using a systematic, collaborative, and coordinated approach to evaluate one type of diversion program funded through the YSG Competition have been demonstrated. Details: College Park, MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, 2005. 101p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/juv-justice/reports/maryland-evaluation_partnership.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/juv-justice/reports/maryland-evaluation_partnership.pdf Shelf Number: 121151 Keywords: DiversionJustice Justice SystemsJuvenile Justice (Maryland)Juvenile OffendersTeen Courts |
Author: Crisler, Lane Title: Recidivism within Salt Lake Peer Court:A Program Evaluation of Salt Lake Peer Court based on Recidivism Analysis Between Salt Lake Peer Court and the Juvenile Division of Salt Lake City Justice Courts Summary: Background - The younger an individual begins criminal behavior the more costly that individual is to society. - The value of diverting a youth from a lifetime of crime ranges from $2.6 to $5.3 million in 2008 (Cohen M. A., 2009). - Intended to divert youth becoming career criminals, peer courts attempt to leverage the social influence peers have over one another in order to implement restorative justice practices. - Salt Lake Peer Court (SLPC) began in 1993, as peer courts were just emerging in the juvenile justice arena. -- The, program managed 40 youth offender cases and required 15 volunteers. -- Currently, program handles approximately 300 youth offender cases and requires over 120 volunteers. Research - This study analyzed calendar year SLPC cases from 2007 through 2011. - 1101 cases were analyzed (Male=618, Female=467, Unidentified=16). - Of the 1101 cases, 60% of SLPC deferred youth had juvenile court records, disproportionately weighted by males (Male=406, Female=260). - This study seeks to identify characteristics of youth offenders who are most likely to recidivate to Juvenile Court within one year of being deferred to SLPC. - Dependent Variables = ordinal or binary recidivism variables. - Independent Variables = demographics, offenses, sentences, sentence completion, and sentence length. Program Recommendations - Improve treatment for substance abuse and violence offenders. - Attempt to identify benefits of case management. - Develop crisis management plan to help facilitate contract completion. - Emphasize role of SLPC as first point of contact for juvenile offenders - Develop metrics, improve data control , administer follow up surveys Details: Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, 2013. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Peer_Court_Research.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Peer_Court_Research.pdf Shelf Number: 131899 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile DiversionJuvenile OffendersRecidivismTeen Courts |
Author: Wilson, Pam Elizabeth Title: Program Evaluation of the Monongalia County Teen Court Summary: A review of the history of the juvenile courts would not be complete without mention of teen courts. Teen courts are juvenile diversion programs which allow first time offenders with minor offenses a second chance. Instead of facing the traditional court system, these juveniles are given the opportunity to go before a jury of their peers and complete a sentence that jury imposes. If the juvenile offender completes their sentence in the allotted time, their juvenile record is expunged and they are given the opportunity to ‗start over.‘ Teen courts have been in existence since the 1970‘s and received national recognition in the 1990‘s. Teen courts have played a significant role in rehabilitating juvenile offenders and teaching youth volunteers and offenders about the court system. Juvenile offenders are also given the opportunity to serve their community in a constructive way, which gives them a chance to reengage in a positive way. This research project is a program evaluation of the Monongalia County teen court located in Morgantown, West Virginia. This study has looked at the preexisting data set available for juveniles who have been sentenced through this court from 2002-2009. The statistical analysis will give basic information for the program and will make recommendations based on analysis for future improvements. Details: Fairmont, WV: Fairmont State University, 2010. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Monongalia_Teen_Court.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/Monongalia_Teen_Court.pdf Shelf Number: 132125 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CourtsJuvenile DiversionJuvenile OffendersTeen Courts |
Author: Bright, Charlotte Title: Multijurisdictional Teen Court Evaluation: A Comparative Evaluation of Three Teen Court Models Summary: Teen Courts, also called Youth Courts and Peer Courts, are increasingly used to divert youth with minor offenses from the juvenile justice system. Ten Teen Courts currently operate in Maryland, and the widespread use of Teen Courts underscores the importance of understanding their process and effectiveness. To facilitate a better understanding of Maryland's Teen Courts, this report presents data on the processes, outcomes, and perspectives of Teen Courts using data gathered in three geographically diverse Teen Courts in Maryland: Baltimore City, Charles County, and Montgomery County Teen Courts. The study also assessed recidivism data collected by matching cases from the three Teen Courts with data from the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services. Observations and structured interviews yielded process data while survey and interview data provided rich information from the perspectives of Teen Court volunteers, youth respondents involved in Teen Court, and parents or guardians of these respondents. The evaluation was conducted by the University of Maryland School of Social Work, the Institute for Governmental Service and Research, and the Court Operations Department of the Administrative Office of the Courts, with substantial input from the three Teen Courts and the Maryland Teen Court Association. Overall, the study found the three Teen Court programs offer an alternative to traditional case processing with lower recidivism rates while garnering support from youth and parents. The study notes that Teen Courts in Charles County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore City have a similar structure and procedure. They emphasize youth decision-making with support from adult volunteers. One structural difference in the three counties is the practice of conducting concurrent versus sequential cases in the same courtroom. Also, the observed jurisdictions handle different types of offenses and, accordingly, recommend different sanctions. Analysis of data from the Department of Juvenile Services revealed lower rates of recidivism for program completers. Recidivism rates measured at six months and 12 months after Teen Court showed dramatic differences depending on program completion. In all three Teen Court locations, youth who did not complete the Teen Court program were more likely to have a DJS referral and to recidivate more quickly than were youth who completed the program. a. In Baltimore City Teen Court, which accepts youth with a prior DJS history and with more serious offenses than the other teen court locations in this study, non-completers were at least 2.5 times more likely to recidivate at both the six- and twelve-month follow-up. b. In Charles County, non-completers were about 10 times more likely to be referred to DJS at the six-month follow-up and nearly six times more likely to be referred to DJS at the twelve-month follow-up. c. In Montgomery County Teen Court, non-completers were seven times more likely to be referred to DJS at the six-month follow-up and four times more likely to be referred to DJS at the twelve-month follow-up. Additionally, the percent of youth who did not complete the program and the percent of youth who recidivate was higher for given subgroups (e.g., prior DJS involvement, particular case types), suggesting that program enrichments targeted at particular subgroups may be warranted. These differences varied by court location. The study further reveals that youth respondents and their parents/guardians scored relatively high on standardized measures of functioning and coping. Their scores indicate that this population of youth offenders possesses substantial strengths. Notably, youth respondents and parents/guardians did not show statistically significant improvement between pre-intervention and post-intervention in standardized measures of coping, family functioning, and civic engagement. Youth respondents and their parents/guardians reported very low rates of problems at home, with friends, in school, and with the law at approximately four months post-intervention. This suggests that Teen Court may be effective at preventing recidivism and also may be helping youth curb problematic behaviors. Qualitative data indicate substantial support for Teen Court from respondents, parents/guardians, and volunteers. For example, 86.4% (19) of respondents interviewed indicated that Teen Court was beneficial to them. Nearly 95 percent of respondents interviewed considered their sanctions fair, with many of them saying they learned their lesson, they understood what they did wrong, and they deserved the sanctions, and 83.3% of the 17 parents/guardians interviewed found the Teen Court experience positive. When asked whether the Teen Court experience was valuable for their children, 82% (14 of the 17 parents/guardians) said yes. Furthermore, a number of benefits are noted to accrue to youth who volunteer in Teen Court settings, in addition to respondents and their families. These benefits include an opportunity to serve others and their community, education, experience in a legal setting, and the chance to become a positive role model. After thorough review, the overall findings of this comprehensive two-year evaluation strongly support the continued operation of Teen court programs in Maryland. Details: Baltimore, MD: Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, 2013. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/New_Teen_Court_Evaluation.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.globalyouthjustice.org/uploads/New_Teen_Court_Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 136143 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersTeen Courts |