Teen (or youth or peer) courts are much like traditional courts in that there are prosecutors and defense attorneys, offenders and victims, and judges and juries, but young people rather than adults fill these roles and, most important, determine the disposition. The principal goal of a teen court is to hold young offenders accountable for their behavior by imposing sanctions that will repair some of the harm imposed on the victim and community. At its most basic level, then, teen courts are programs in which young people who engage in delinquent or problem behavior are held accountable for their offense by peers through a wide array of sentencing options (Godwin, 2000).

Teen courts are rapidly spreading across the country. A recent survey estimates that there are at least 675 teen courts operating in the United States, most of them small and relatively new (Butts and Buck, 2000). Teen courts are generally used for younger juveniles (ages 10 to 15), who were charged with less serious offenses (e.g., shoplifting, vandalism, and disorderly conduct) and have no prior arrest records. Typically, young offenders are offered teen court as a voluntary alternative to the traditional juvenile justice system (Butts and Buck, 2000).

The basic theory behind the use of young people in court is that youths will respond better to prosocial peers than to adult authority figures. This peer justice appraoch assumes that, similar to the way in which an association with delinquent peers is highly correlated with the onset of delinquent behavior (Loeber and Dishion, 1987) , peer pressure from prosocial peers may push youth toward prosocial behavior (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall, 2002).

In general, teen courts follow one of four models: the adult judge, the youth judge, the youth tribunal, and peer jury (Godwin, 1998). The adult judge model is most popular, representing about half of all teen courts. It uses youth volunteers to serve in the roles of defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, and jurors but requires an adult volunteer to serve as the judge. The youth judge model uses a similar organizational structure but uses a youth to serve in the role of judge. The youth tribunal model differs from the other models in that there are no youth jurors. The case is presented by the youth attorneys to a youth judge or judges. Finally, the peer jury model does not use youth as defense or prosecuting attorneys. Instead, it operates much like a grand jury. The facts of the case are introduced by a case presenter, and a panel of youth jurors interrogates the defendant directly.

Regardless of the model used, the primary function of most teen courts is to determine a fair and approriate disposition for a youth who has already admitted to the charge (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall, 2002). Participating youth are subject to a wide variety of creative and innovative dispositions that the court may order. Guiding principles are that dispositions should be designed to address needs of the victim/community, be based on restorative justice principles, and promote positive youth development (Godwin, 2000). Typical dispositions include paying restitution, performing community service, writing formal apologies, or serving on a subsequent teen court jury. Teen courts may also order offenders to attend classes designed to improve their decisionmaking skills, enhance victim awareness, or deter them from future theft (Butts and Buck, 2000).

Recently, Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall (2002) completed the most comprehensive evaluation of teen courts by examining four different sites (Alaska, Arizona, Maryland, and Missouri). The research used a quasi-experimental design to measure differences in recidivism between youths participating in teen court and youths participating in the traditional juvenile justice system. The evaluation suggests that teen courts are a promising alternative for the juvenile justice system. All four teen court sites reported relatively low recidivism rates. In two sites (Alaska and Missouri), youth participating in teen courts were significantly less likely to be re-referred to the juvenile justice system for a new offense within 6 months of the original offense. In the other two sites (Arizona and Maryland), the difference was statistically insignificant. Consequently, the findings indicate that in some jurisdictions teen courts may be preferable to the traditional juvenile justice system.

Finally, some evidence suggests that teen courts may provide other benefits for offending youth. For instance, participation in teen courts may provide a general satisfaction with the experience (McLeod, 1999; Swink, 1998; Wells, Minor, and Fox, 1998), improved attitudes toward authority (LoGalbo, 1998; Wells, Minor, and Fox, 1998), and greater knowledge of the legal system (LoGalbo, 1998; Wells, Minor, and Fox, 1998).

Search for Teen Court Programs

References