As to the composition of the sample, most PAD youth placement was a result of an arrest for a
property misdemeanor (i.e. retail theft) (58%), public disorder misdemeanor (i.e. trespassing) (20%), or
drug misdemeanor (i.e. marijuana possession) (17%) charge (Dembo et al., 2008). No felonies were
included in Dembo’s study. Recidivism rates were measured in a 12-month follow up period
immediately following completion of the PAD program (Dembo et al., 2008). Most youth in the program
were between 8th and 10th grade and were still attending and struggling in school, 12% of which
reported placement in a special educational program” (Dembo et al., 2008).
However, twice as many youths failing to complete PAD (18%) reported placement in a special
education program, compared to PAD completers (9%) (Dembo et al., 2008). Dembo found that 33% of
youth who did not complete the PAD program were arrested within 12 months, as opposed to 15% of
PAD completers (Dembo et al., 2008). Also, 35.3% of youth who did not complete PAD had an arrest
charge within 12 months, as opposed to only 16.4% of PAD completers (Dembo et al., 2008). All in all,
Dembo found that juveniles who completed PAD received significantly fewer arrests and charges than
youth who did not complete PAD and recommends further research be geared toward improving
psychosocial functioning and Juvenile Justice System (JJS) cost reduction (Dembo et al., 2008).
Further research should also be conducted to improve program completion rates, as completion
rates, in some ways should be viewed as a potential marker of a successful program. However, Dembo
states that overall the results strongly indicate that successful PAD completion significantly decreases a
juvenile’s likelihood of further arrests, even after controlling for sociodemographic factors, first arrest/
charge type, and recidivism risk level (Dembo et al., 2008). Dembo’s (et al.) results also further
validated the YSL/CMI recidivism risk assessment instrument (2008). Most importantly, Dembo’s
research demonstrates that diversion programming that is based on individual assessments of risk
factors and needs across multiple areas of life is an effective means of recidivism prevention (Dembo et
al., 2008).
Program Effectiveness
Teen Court (TC) uses informal processing and sanctions to reduce recidivism (Stickle et al., 2008).
Although there are different operating models for the program, most have similar structures- generally
accepting first-time misdemeanor or status offenders [minors who committed acts that would be legal
if they were adults, such as drinking or violating curfew] (Stickle et al., 2008). TC hearings are held in a
courtroom where youth volunteers act as peer juries, attorneys, and sometimes, judges. The TC program
allows youth to take an active role in providing consequences for the illegal actions of their peers (Stickle
et al., 2008). Adults often serve as judges and volunteers. Most hearings result in offenders completing
community service, jury duty in future TC proceedings, apology letters, substance abuse evaluations
counseling, and educational projects, [etc.] (Stickle et al., 2008). The TC process begins with a meeting
between the offender, parents and a TC coordinator, in which the offender admits guilt and agrees to
participate in the program [as do the parents], after which is the hearing (Stickle et al., 2008).
Typically, a TC hearing contains opening and closing statements by youth attorneys, who also
question the offender. A jury of youth then deliberates and determines sanctions for the defendant that
are later agreed upon by the offender, the parents, and the TC coordinator, in which the offender signs a
contract stating that (s)he will complete said sanctions (Stickle et al., 2008). Through the “victim
impact statements” (where those affected by the crime explain to the juvenile who committed the of-
fense, how that offense has negatively affected the victim personally), the offender is able to see how his
or her behavior has directly affected the victim(s) (Stickle et al., 2008). Upon completion of the sanctions,
the youth’s record is expunged (Stickle et al., 2008). Youth offenders have the opportunity to network
with, learn from, and be inspired by local leaders in their community who volunteer, such as local
attorneys, judges, college administrators, and other community leaders (Stickle et al., 2008).
42