Describing theoretical underpinnings in juvenile justice diversion: A case study explicating Teen Court program theory to guide research and practice

Abstract

In light of evidence that justice system involvement contributes to poor social, economic, and health consequences for youth, many jurisdictions have begun to implement diversion programs for first-time or low-level juvenile offenders. While Teen Court—a program in which youth are judged by their peers and assigned development-oriented sentences—is a prevalent model of juvenile justice diversion, its theoretical basis has not been empirically examined. This in-depth case study sought to describe current practice and characterize theoretical assumptions of the Los Angeles County Teen Court program. Methods included: 1) structured observations of Teen Court hearings (n=12); and 2) key informant interviews with youth processed through Teen Court (n=10). Case findings illustrate the Los Angeles County Teen Court program's focus on hierarchical decision-making, procedural consistency, and deterrence paired with development-oriented supports and services. Practices reflect a combination of retributive and rehabilitative theoretical perspectives, with limited alignment to the reparative perspective. Results from qualitative interviews support the possible positive impacts of Teen Court on program participants; however, given the potentially competing theoretical assumptions that influence local practice, additional work is needed to better understand the relative value of this approach. The practice-grounded logic model developed through this case study provides a foundation for future research and practice locally, including outcome evaluation. The processes and tools described in this study provide an example for other jurisdictions seeking to conduct theory-informed planning and assessment of juvenile diversion efforts.