Transforming Teens: Measuring the Effects of Restorative Justice Principles in a Teen Court Setting

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of restorative justice principles in a teen court setting. Specifically, our research attempts to quantitatively measure learning of certain restorative justice principles through the teen court process by comparing matched, pre‐ and post‐survey responses to questions involving the adolescent's ability to understand their crime as a violation of relationships within their community, as opposed to merely a violation of law. Qualitative responses regarding the efficacy of the teen court program from both teen participants and their parents are also examined in the context of restorative justice principles. Finally, the efficacy of the teen court model is discussed in terms of recidivism rates compared to teens who do not experience the teen court process.

Oregon Youth Courts: Grand Jury Style

“…Rehabilitation of an offender under restorative justice concerns three main principles: (1) Repair: concerning making reparations to the victim(s); 2Involvement: including the victim(s), defendant, and the community as stakeholders in the offense; and (3) Justice System Facilitation: making sentences into a problem solving and community building process rather than simple punishment (Godwin, 2001). This approach is only ideal for situations in which the victim can fully participate-violent crimes often affect the victims too strongly to expect their participation (Laundra et al, 2013). Youth Courts do not accept violent crimes for this reason.…”

“…Often these principles are measured through participant survey of both court staff (the youth volunteers) and present and past defendants (Forgays, 2005;Greene & Weber 2008, Laundra et al, 2013. Surveys of the volunteer staff focus on reasons for choosing a particular sentence while surveys for defendants are typically administered in a pre-and post-test fashion to measure learning throughout the process.…”

“…Recidivism. Most, if not all, discuss recidivism of either the sample, the court's average, or through summaries of previous literature (Butts & Buck, 2000;Forgays, 2005;Puzach & Hass, 2014;Stickle et al, 2008;Mears et al, 2011;Laundra et al, 2013). Measures of recidivism are rather inconsistent among all studies to date.…”

“…Surveys. Surveys of volunteers or defendants are often included as the qualitative component to measure participant satisfaction and social learning (Laundra et al, 2013;Puzach & Hass, 2014;Greene & Weber, 2008). Another portion of the research uses surveys for a database representation of multiple youth courts either nationally or statewide (Acker et al, 2001;Butts & Buck, 2000;Stickle et al, 2008).…”

“…Comparison groups. Other comparison groups in research literature involve juveniles who are undergoing formal processing or juveniles in other types of diversion programs (Forgays, 2005;Laundra et al, 2013). Many studies have not used comparison groups, which necessarily limits those studies' abilities to assess the program's overall effectiveness (Stickle et al, 2008;Greene & Weber, 2008).…”