Teen court diversion programs have grown exponentially in the US over the past few decades, beginning first in Odessa, Texas, in 1983. The initiatives offer lower level, usually first-time justice-involved youth with an alternative sentencing model: being judged by one’s peers. The program involves teen and adult volunteers serving as judges and attorneys; Specifically teen volunteers serve as the jury members who propose and impose sentencing.
Teen courts are designed to minimize juveniles’ involvement with the conventional justice system, as it has been shown to increase the likelihood of recidivism. Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach, by the National Research Council, echoed what many criminologists, specialists, and data say: “In as much as formal juvenile justice systems tend to remove “problem” juveniles from families, peers, and communities, the psychosocial effect for youth is the likely interruption of developmental processes and the heightened potential for further system involvement.” Teen courts, using key restorative justice principles of community, accountability, and collective healing, work to keep youth out of the system; successful completion of the teen jury’s sanctions results in the youth’s criminal record being erased. Alongside removing the formal involvement and the resulting psychosocial impacts, teen courts allow justice-involved youth to have a more positive life trajectory, with no criminal record preventing them from continuing their education or acquiring employment or housing.
Common sanctions for the justice-involved youth include paying restitution, completing community service, serving on another offender’s teen court jury, writing apology letters, or attending courses designed to deter the potential of recidivism. The goal is for the justice-involved youth to make amends for the harm they caused to their community or individual victims affected by the offense, rather than solely punishing the youth. With this approach, teen courts hope to restore the justice-involved youth to their former life and community more effectively than traditional, standardized courts do.
The National Youth Court Center classifies teen courts by four distinct models: those with a peer jury, a teen judge, an adult judge, and a youth tribunal. The two most popular models are those of the adult judge and the peer jury, making up roughly 47% and 26%, respectively. Another common approach is the mixed model, utilized by 34% of teen court programs operated by law enforcement agencies. A fact sheet published in 2021 by the Judicial Council of California indicated that there were 1400 known youth courts in 49 states, a rise from the 78 known youth courts in 1994.
Restorative approaches in the justice system, although welcomed and growing in popularity, are still relatively new and therefore lack substantial, peer-reviewed data. A report published by the Adolescent Research Review analyzed and summarized results from 22 studies on the efficacy of teen courts- specifically, those with teens involved in sentencing. Out of the selected studies that examined the statistical significance of recidivism, 15 were considered: four supported teen courts, one favored the traditional justice system, and 10 reported null findings. The varied outcomes and inconsistencies in research design among the studies complicated the deduction of a conclusive result. Additional research on teen courts is essential to comprehensively assess the effects of diversion programs on youth and the rate of recidivism.