2

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