0
justice alerts
Th Made in America:
e Global Youth Justice Movement
Scott Bernard Peterson
With more than 1,200 local Youth and
Teen Court programs in America—Europe,
Australia, Asia, and Canada are now implementing
this model to harness the positive
peer influence of youth volunteers to reduce
juvenile crime.
K
aren, 13, and her brother David, 17, were arrested
for stealing two music CDs from the local
music store. They admitted their guilt to the arresting
police officer, who then presented them with a
choice. Did they want to proceed in the youth court
program and be sentenced by a jury of their peers—
including some youth who were previously sentenced
by their peers? Or did they want to proceed
in the traditional juvenile justice system where they
would appear in juvenile court with their punishment
determined solely by an adult judge?
In the case of siblings “Karen” and “David,” the
guilty teens received sentences of 35 hours of community
service, were required to write letters of
apology to the music store owner, and had to serve
as jurors at the completion of their peer-imposed
community service sentence. Once they completed
their sentence, they were no longer involved in the
justice system, unless, that is, they chose to serve
their community by becoming youth court volunteers
themselves.
The Global Youth Court Movement
For an increasing and record number of communities
in America and now in other countries, youth
courts are providing a positive alternative to the
juvenile justice system with significant and unexpected
favorable outcomes. Youth court is most
commonly identified as a juvenile justice program,
given that the vast majority of youth cases referred
are from police, probation, juvenile and family
court, and even many of the school referrals for
crimes and offenses. Youth courts in America are
also called teen courts, peer courts, student courts,
and youth peer courts. The first European youth
court, called “peer panel,” was launched in Preston,
England, in September of 2007. Australia is currently
planning the launch of the first youth court, calling
it “youth peer panel,” and Japan uses the name
“teen court.” Regardless of the name, these peer justice
and youth empowerment programs have much
in common.
Since 1994, the number of local youth court programs
has grown from approximately 78 local
programs to more than 1,200 local youth court
programs in America, with more than 100 in various
developmental stages. Forty-nine states and
the District of Columbia all have Youth Court
programs, with Connecticut being the only state
without such a program. This rapid growth in the
number of local youth court programs is a textbook
example of a local grass-roots movement. With the
exception of a few states, the vast majority of this
48 | reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com
growth has been on the local level. Adult leaders are
largely responsible for implementing and operating
this increasingly popular juvenile justice program
that engages volunteer youth in the sentencing of
their peers. Data collection and empirically logical
research are only further fueling the youth court
movement as researchers are finding that youth
courts not only reduce recidivism, but also foster a
healthy attitude toward rules and authority among
youthful offenders.
Youth courts give communities an opportunity
to provide immediate consequences for first-time
youthful offenders. What is more, youth courts provide
a peer-operated sentencing mechanism that
constructively allows young people to take responsibility,
be held accountable, and make restitution
for committing a crime (violation of the rule of law
and/or violation of the school code of conduct). Peer
pressure, which can be a risk factor for delinquency,
is harnessed in youth courts to exert a powerful,
positive influence over adolescent behavior (Peterson
& Beres, 2008). Youth who were referred to the
Teen Court at the Northern Illinois Council on Alcohol
and Substance Abuse for a wide range of crimes
and offenses and who completed their peer-imposed
sentences have much to say about their experiences,
including: “I will now step back and think about a
situation before reacting;” “I have learned to think
of others and how I would like to be treated as a person
and vice-versa;” and even “I will reach out for
help next time and talk to an adult.”
Not all youth involved with youth court are there
because of anti-social, delinquent, and/or criminal
behavior. In addition to providing constructive
consequences for juvenile offenders, youth courts
also offer a civic opportunity for other youth in the
community. Youth volunteers actively participate
in the community decision-making process for dealing
with juvenile delinquency as they gain handson
knowledge of the juvenile and criminal justice
system. They acquire invaluable experience learning
about the careers of police officers, probation
officers, judges, social workers, court management
and administrators, and even youth court directors
and coordinators. While there are about a half
dozen models of local youth courts, most operate as
sentencing programs rather than allow the youth
to plead not guilty. Youth volunteers can serve in a
wide range of roles including prosecutor, defender,
clerk/bailiff, jury foreperson, and even the judge
in some models (Pearson, 2003). Most of the adults
who are responsible for setting up these programs
and their overall daily operation and oversight tend
to agree that a youth who pleads not guilty needs
to see an adult judge or be referred to juvenile probation.
It is important to note the youth volunteers
operate within guidelines and roles approved by
adults who are involved at a minimum in an oversight
capacity. Adults make every effort to empower
the youth and not be overbearing.
A newly released report from George Washington
University concluded that a record 129,540 juvenile
cases were referred to local youth court programs
across America in just a one-year period. The report
also noted that 116,144 cases were accepted by local
youth court programs and an impressive 111,868
cases proceeded in youth court with 97,578 completing
their peer imposed sentence. These numbers
represent an 88% completion rate for youth
who proceed in Youth Court. Probation departments
typically report only 70% to 75% of youthful
offenders mandated to community service successfully
complete this sanction. Approximately 15%
more youth who proceed in youth court per 100
youth referred complete the program than those
referred to community service by probation. This is
15 fewer youth per 100 that need to be referred back
to juvenile probation or juvenile court (Peterson,
Dagelman, & Pereira, 2007). This frees up more time
for probation officers and judges to allocate time for
more serious cases that need their expert attention.
Many probation and juvenile courts operate youth
court programs and staff report very satisfactory
results beyond the usually more transparent outcomes
such as completion rates which are easier to
track than recidivism.
Youth courts give communities
an opportunity to provide
immediate consequences for
first-time youthful offenders.
In most communities, youth courts operate as a
joint venture among several agencies and organizations
including schools, police, probation, juvenile
and family courts, and not-for-profit organizations.
There does not seem to be one particular
organization or agency that is better situated to
run a youth court. The youth court program and
those involved benefit from collaboration and cooperation
among all the agencies to help provide
resources such as training for youth, use of courtrooms,
completing and coordinating community
service, and a wide range of other resources including
financial, human, and in-kind. Law enforcement
agencies are among the strongest advocates
leading the charge to implement more local youth
summer 2009 volume 18, number 2 | 49
court programs. One Chief of Police from the Antioch
Police Department notes, “I believe that
their first minor juvenile crime should teach them
about accountability without damaging their selfesteem.”
Another Chief of Police from Lindenhurst
notes, “Youth Court is both tougher on the kid who
makes a mistake and, simultaneously, healthier for
that kid and society.” Still another Chief of Police
from Grayslake says, “Teen Court is a great way to
keep first-time young offenders out of the formal
court system, and an equally great opportunity for
high school students to volunteer and serve their
community as jurors on cases of their peers.”
that were literally unknown to most of America just
a decade ago (Pericak, Peterson, & Lockart, 1996).
Highlighting the importance of volunteering at an
early age, a report by the Independent Sector and
Youth Service America revealed that two-thirds of
all adult volunteers began volunteering their time
when they were young. The study also showed that
volunteering among high school students recently
reached the highest levels in the past 50 years.
Youth court is now a leading national example of
a program that engages several hundred thousand
youth volunteers and youthful offenders each year
in both volunteer service and mandated community
service in communities
across America.
Volunteering Time to Reduce Crime
The number of youth volunteering in the more
than 1,200 local youth courts across America is staggering.
In a one-year period a minimum of 117,310
youth typically ages 12–19 volunteered in a local
youth court program. The 2008 national data collection
report on youth court also revealed that 16,522
adults volunteered alongside the record-breaking
number of youth who now volunteer in local youth
courts. This is a combined 133,832 adults and youth
volunteering for local youth court programs in the
United States in a one-year period. America’s youth
are responding to the call of service for this unique
juvenile justice program that engages and empowers
youth to assist their peers who have committed
minor crimes and offenses. Support among adults
who establish these local programs only appears to
be increasing, given that the most recent year also
posted record numbers of adults involved in these
local community-based juvenile justice programs
Service can take on several
meanings including public service,
community service, and
elected service. Beyond its value
to the community, service
in programs like youth court
can help provide young people
with the knowledge, skills,
and attitudes they need to assume
the most important role
they have in society—that of a
citizen. In youth court, volunteer
youth impose mandated
community service hours to
their peers for committing minor
crimes and offenses. As a
result, these youth assigned to
mandated service may experience
service to their community
for the first time. Youth court programs and
the staff and volunteers involved are widely known
to make their service as meaningful as if it were
volunteer service. An increasing number of youth
courts undertake service projects that include both
the youth who are volunteering and those mandated,
and it is difficult to tell the difference (Peterson
& Colydas, 2001).
The service that volunteers provide in youth court
is absolutely critical to the operation of local youth
court programs. It is also one of the reasons youth
court is among the least expensive juvenile justice
and community youth programs in existence in
the United States. The national data collection survey
recently released by George Washington University
calculated the average cost of operating a local
youth court program at $55,000 per year. These
costs vary when considering such factors as numbers
of cases, adult and youth volunteer roles, and
50 | reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com
other support and wraparound services. Without
strong youth involvement these programs would
not exist. Through meaningful service, the young
person gains insight about the value of service
which is reinforced throughout their involvement
in the youth court program.
Most youth involved in youth court programs are
in their adolescent
years—a very formative
time in their lives.
At this critical point in
their social development,
youth need and
are looking for a way to
make the world a better
place. Many adults involved in local youth court
programs see their involvement as making a difference
in the lives of both the youth volunteers and
youth offenders who proceed in youth court. Most
youth volunteers see their involvement as positively
impacting their peers who have violated the
rule of law and could face more juvenile and likely
adult crime if they do not adhere to the rule of
law. Most youth courts strive to have the youthful
offenders experience making a difference in their
own lives by sitting in judgment of their peers and
giving back to their community through constructive
mandated community service projects that
are much more than a “make work” project (Pericak,
Peterson, & Lockart, 1996). Maybe in the end
the greatest benefit of youth court is improving the
quality of life for one, more, or all involved.
Youth court should not be a negative experience
for any of the youth involved. It is generally agreed
if youth or adults are treated as criminals, they are
going to act like it. Youth courts mostly agree it is
a forum for allowing youth who have committed a
minor offense to accept responsibility for their actions
and allow their peers to hear the good, bad,
and indifferent and arrive at a fair and just sentence
largely comprised of mandated community service
hours. A common sentiment of the adults behind
the operation and administration of these programs
is “It is not you we do not like—it is your behavior
we do not like” (Peterson & Eppink, 2007).
Almost all local youth court staff encourage and specially
request the youth sentenced in youth court to
return and volunteer after they have completed their
peer-imposed sentence. Local youth court programs
vary based on the models the adults have set in place.
One of the most well-known youth court directors
in America is Candace Fuji from a large youth court
program in Illinois. In her program it is made clear
that youth court is not only about punishment—it is
about changing behavior. Candace noted, “We not
only acknowledge and express the needs of the victim
in youth court, we look at the needs of the youthful
offender and their family.” Candace wisely capIf
youth or adults are treated as
criminals, they are going to act
like it.
tured a critical aspect of the program when she said,
“Youth court provides an environment for change
through youth assessments, drug and alcohol treatment,
and character building
opportunities.” Most
adults who come from a
youth development background
to a juvenile justice
background acknowledge
little to nothing is
done when youth commit
their first few minor crimes. It is a disservice to youth
to not hold them accountable and make time to help
them realize they have done wrong (Fisher, 2002).
Youth court makes time for juvenile crime and as
Candace noted, “It is worth its weight in gold.”
Even those familiar with youth court on a national
and international levels were pleasantly shocked
when George Washington University recently
released national data showing that more than
1,925,596 mandated community service hours were
assigned by the 1,200 plus youth courts in America
in just a one-year period (Peterson & Elmendorf,
2001). If the minimum wage rate of $5.85 is applied
to those hours, a total of $11,264,735 dollars were
contributed to local communities benefiting from
these local youth court programs assigning community
service to the youthful offenders. Even if
only half of that amount was accurate, one would
be hard pressed to not support a local youth court
that was operating a fairly solid program. The benefits
of youth court programs to the community and
its residents are substantial and increasing with a
quality operational local program.
It is often said in local youth court programs that the
only thing better than a volunteer is a well-trained
volunteer. Therefore, the service volunteers provide
for youth courts is enhanced through effective volunteer
training. If volunteers are adequately trained
to assume their roles in youth court, the youthful
offenders appearing in youth court will likely take
their appearance before and during the peer imposes
sanction much more seriously than if the young
people volunteering in the various court roles are
inadequately prepared. Youth volunteers need to be
trained in not only how to assume the various court
roles, but how to ask questions in a non-combative
or threatening manner, how to prepare for the case,
and a wide range of other considerations. Most youth
summer 2009 volume 18, number 2 | 51
court programs utilize adults from the legal and law
enforcement communities to train youth volunteers
both prior to and during their service in youth court.
The youth volunteers will considerably benefit and
enjoy their volunteer time in youth court if they are
well trained and feel good about their time in youth
court (Fisher, 2002). This will also increase their
continued involvement in youth court and they are
likely to encourage their friends to volunteer. Training
the adults to train the youth to volunteer is also
critical and necessary.
Youth volunteers in the local youth court in Northern
Illinois have much to say about their program,
including “I love volunteering for youth court—it
gives me a sense of pride helping others;” “We have
a number of youthful offenders who completed the
program and now are volunteers for the program;”
and “Our program enforces a message to peers that
the norm of underage drinking is not acceptable.”
Parents of referred youth who were sentenced to
youth court also report things like “She woke up after
the youth court experience;” “Our child has taken
responsibility for his actions and is more aware
of how bad decisions can have adverse effects;”
and “We felt it was good for our child to hear from
her peers what we have been telling her for years.”
While some youth and parents may have a negative
experience in a local youth court, it appears favorable
experiences outnumber negative experiences.
Harnessing Positive Peer Influence
Youth court is set apart from other juvenile justice
programs in that it utilizes peers to help determine
the appropriate sentence for other youth who have
committed a crime or offense. This critical aspect
seems to have touched a good nerve with the adults
in local communities who are established and operate
the daily logistics of the programs. If peer
pressure contributes to the approximately 2.2 million
juvenile arrests each year, it can be redirected
to become a force leading juveniles to law abiding
behavior. Beside the obvious affordability of the
youth court program, adult leaders on local, state,
and national levels familiar with juvenile crime
know all too well the reality of managing juvenile
crime and what really takes place in more communities
that they want to publicly admit. The courts
and probation departments are so backlogged that
often a juvenile offender will not have any consequence
until the second, third, or even fourth arrest.
Youth court is popular because it provides law
enforcement with a consequence—a real tangible
step in a system of graduated sanctions.
Based on the new National Youth Court Data Collection
Report released by George Washington University
in 2008, and other reports in recent years, the next
two to three years will bring the number to a staggering
one million youth and adults who have already
been involved with a local youth court in America. By
all indications, officials only see this number increasing
at a rate consistent with the rapid establishment
of youth courts. Social change is rare and in the case
of the rapidly expanding youth court movement, it
is a rare, unexpected, and most welcome movement
that will resonate for many years to come.
Scott Bernard Peterson serves as the national director
for criminal and juvenile justice at YouthBuild
USA, and as founder and president of Global Youth
Justice, LLC, Boston, Massachusetts. He is an international
leader in the movement to establish youth
courts. For more information contact him by email:
Scott.Peterson@GlobalYouthJustice.org
Photo on page 50 used with permission. Copyright Candace Fuji.
References
Fisher, M. (2002). Youth courts: Young people delivering
justice. Roadmaps. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Also available at http://www.abanet.org/justice/pdf/
youthcourtsroadmap.pdf
Pearson, S. S. (2003, September). Youth court: A path to
civic engagement. National Youth Court Center Policy
Brief. Lexington, KY: National Youth Court Center,
American Probation and Parole Association. Also
available this fall at www.GlobalYouthJustice.org
Pericak, W. C., Peterson, S. B., & Lockart, P. (1996, Fall).
Youth court: The Colonie, New York experience. Journal
for Juvenile Justice and Detention, National Juvenile
Detention Association, 2(2).
Peterson, S. B., & Beres, J. (2008). 1st Report to the Nation,
1993 to 2008: The Global Youth Justice Movement: 15
Year Update on Youth Courts and Teen Courts. (42
pages). Available this fall at www.GlobalYouthJustice.org
Peterson, S. B., & Colydas, V. (2001, Fall). In youth courts,
teen holds teens accountable. The Safety Zone, 3(3).
Peterson, S. B., Dagelman, C., & Pereira, C. (2007). Introducing
Community Service Learning. The Journal of
the American Probation and Parole Association, 31(2),
22-27. www.appa-net.org
Peterson, S. B., & Elmendorf, M., II. (2001, December).
Youth Courts: A National Movement. Corrections
Today. American Correctional Association, Juvenile
Corrections Annual Journal.
Peterson, S. B., & Eppink, R. (2007). The next big thing:
Teen courts in America. Law Now: Relating Life to Law
in Canada, 31 (5), 20-26.
52 | reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com
1
Publizr
Index
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Home
