Net_12_1_profiles

<= A=20 = href=3D"http://www.crf-usa.org/network/network12_1/Net_12_1_home.html">Network = HomeLead=20 ArticleTalking=20 Points
Project = Profiles
FYIReview=20 Corner
ConferencesResources
About CRFContact=20

Archives

A Step-By-Step Guide to Solving = Community=20 Problems

Take=20 Charge: A Youth Guide to Community=20 Change

NEW!!! =

Teachers=20 Guide
Student = Handbook

<= BR>

Active Citizenship=20 Today=20

CRF=20 Forum
Explore=20 Issues!Express=20 Yourself!Get=20 Involved! =

A brand-new, youth voice = web=20 site
created by and for young=20 = people

Visit = CRF Forum=20 today!=20

Service-Learning=20 NETWORK

John A.=20 Kronstadt President

Todd Clark=20
Executive Director
Marshall=20 Croddy
Director of Programs
Charles=20 Degelman
Editor
Carolyn Pereira, = Executive Director, CRFC
Consultant
Andrew=20 Costly
Production Manager

=A92006,=20 Service-Learning = NETWORK
Constitutional=20 Rights Foundation
601 S. Kingsley Dr.
Los Angeles, CA=20 90005
(213) 487-5590
Fax (213) 386-0459
crf@crf-usa.org

This issue = of Service-Learning=20 NETWORK = is made=20 possible by a generous grant from The Ford=20 Foundation.

SUBSCRIBE =
or
UNSUBSCRIBE
to = Service-Learning=20 NETWORK.

Project=20 Profiles: Two Youth Court Community Service-Learning=20 = Projects

<= BIG>

Two diverse = youth courts,=20 one in New York City and one in rural Placer County, California, = have=20 thoroughly integrated school-based learning components into their=20 community-service programs. Each profile offers its own unique = view of how=20 best to put the "learning" into court-mandated community=20 = service.<= SMALL=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">

<= BIG>

Placer=20 Country Peer Court

Additional Community Service = Learning=20 Profiles=20 =

Placer County Peer Court
Newcastle, = = California

In 1991,=20 Placer County=92s presiding juvenile court judge and chief = probation officer=20 determined that (1) a teen court might divert traffic from the = overloaded=20 juvenile-justice agency and that (2) prevention = and=20 rehabilitation components might reduce juvenile recidivism rates = in the=20 rapidly growing county. The school district=92s superintendent, = also=20 anticipating the county=92s growth, volunteered to help launch the = project.=20 They formed=20 a=20 policy team comprising the heads of the juvenile court and = probation=20 departments, the county school superintendent, and the director of = health=20 and human services. They hired Karen Green as the program = director.=20 Green, a long-time educator with a background in youth counseling, = could=20 create a peer court learning component. =93The policy team = understood from=20 the beginning,=94 Green explained, =93that teaching, learning, and = crime=20 prevention would play an integral part in reducing juvenile = recidivism=20 rates.=94 They decided to introduce a juvenile law curriculum into = local=20 classrooms.

Knowing that=20 the highest probation rates among juveniles are to be found among = high=20 school sophomores, they chose to target freshmen. With the support = of the=20 superintendent of schools, they placed the curriculum in the = county=92s=20 health classes, a freshman-year requirement, reasoning that = juvenile crime=20 was a health issue.

Forty=20 students and their teachers worked closely with Director Green, = law=20 enforcement officers, the district attorney, and county=92s public = defenders=20 to design the Placer County Peer Court=92s first juvenile-law=20 curriculum. Components included:=20

A link = to the=20 school-based health curriculum.=20
A = description of=20 the role, structure, and processes of the justice system. =
Opportunities=20 for students to discuss juvenile law and interact with outside = resource=20 people including judges, public defenders, and police = officers.=20
Reflection=20 pieces including (1) a peer evaluation of how teen court impacts = defendants and (2) a post-trial discussion that allows = defendants, their=20 families, and other court participants to learn how the jury = reached its=20 decision.

Today, = the=20 juvenile law curriculum introduces Peer Court participants to the=20 structure and processes of peer court. Mentor attorneys coach teen = attorneys in the preparation and presentation of cases. Jurors are = shown a=20 short video that explains their responsibilities and the jury = deliberation=20 process.

Community=20 service is one of Placer County=92s most popular sentencing = options. Peer=20 court jurors and staff work together to place young offenders in = community=20 service (1) in their own community, thus creating a direct link = between=20 young offenders, their service, and the community they harmed; (2) = that is=20 linked to their interests; and (3) where defendants can clearly = see the=20 benefits of their service efforts. As part of their = community-service=20 sentence, defendants are ordered to serve on a peer court jury. = Many=20 continue on as peer court volunteers.

To=20 reinforce the learning component of community service, Placer = County Teen=20 Court developed the Youth Enrichment Corps (YEC). In YEC, Peer = court=20 mentors, volunteers, and defendants meet every Wednesday to = explore=20 community problems and review suggestions for addressing these = areas with=20 projects. As in school-based service learning, YEC operates on the = theory=20 that community-service projects should be youth-identified to = maximize=20 youth interest and participation and help ensure the community = service is=20 completed. =20

YEC follows a standard service-learning framework = for=20 dealing with project suggestions. First, they explore the = community to=20 identify its needs or problems. Next, they choose and research = problem=20 they wish to work on, often relying on outside experts such as=20 environmental or social-service practitioners to provide them with = information about the causes and effects of the problem and = who=97if=20 anyone=97is addressing it. Next they identify options to deal with = the=20 problem and plan and implement a community service-learning = project to=20 address it.

YEC=20 is an ongoing program so participants are able to apply the = experience=20 they gained on prior projects to new ones. For example, YEC choose = to=20 clean up a network of neglected nature trails that connect three = Placer=20 County schools. Rather than attempt to make the cleanup a one-day = project,=20 experienced peer court volunteers suggested that they make it a = longer=20 project. They contacted the schools involved, the Lions Club and = an=20 involved citizens organization to help them implement an extended = cleanup=20 and repair of the trail, its fences and bridges, and the immediate = environment surrounding it.

Karen Green=20 cultivates many ongoing partnerships with organizations that = provide=20 service opportunities for Peer Court defendants. =93It hasn=92t = been a hard=20 sell, finding active partnerships with local groups,=94 she says. = =93Most=20 people are open to recognizing that these kids can be positively=20 influenced through community service.=94 Members of partnering = organizations=20 receive orientation about Peer Court and are quick to recognize = that they=20 aren=92t dealing with criminals. Most young defendants are amazed = at how=20 caring the mentors are at the locations where they are = =93sentenced=94 to=20 perform community service. =93They talk and listen to the = youngsters,=94 Green=20 says, =93and it has a big effect on them.=94

Can=20 community service learning work outside of youth courts? Placer = County=20 Peer Court Director Karen Green has proof it is possible.=20

The = probation=20 department approached us and asked if they could = refer=20 some defendants from juvenile court into the peer-court = community-service=20 program. There are real problems with this, Green = explained.=20 Kids on formal probation are deeper into the system. There are = travel=20 restrictions on them. We did, however, have success with kids who = are in=20 the custody of juvenile court schools. We began our work with = these young=20 offenders in the classroom by asking =93If you could have = talked to=20 yourself five years ago, what would have kept you from ending up = here?=94=20 In answering the question, the defendants shared stories about how = they=20 landed in the juvenile justice system, and were able to reflect on = their=20 experience and behavior.

Their = stories were=20 so powerful that we decided to organize them = into=20 presentation to benefit at-risk youngsters, Green = continued.=20 We taught the kids how to create power point presentations, had = them=20 work on their public-speaking skills and broke them into teams of = four.=20 They began working with a local school district delivering = hour-long=20 interactive programs that address truancy, substance abuse, and = family and=20 other issues. The challenge was great,=94 Green added, = =93but these=20 kids, serious juvenile offenders, created effective presentations = that=20 were appropriate for kids who often spoke English as a second = language and=20 were enrolled in Title One schools where poverty was a real = community=20 issue. The project has been a success.=94

Placer=20 County Peer Court=92s community service-learning efforts have paid = off.=20 =93Recidivism rates from the peer court have never been more than = 3 percent=20 at the highest,=94 Green says. =93We track our Peer Court = defendants until=20 they are 18 and we are notified if they become involved with other = branches of the juvenile court system. She describes the Placer = County=20 Peer Court as =93a joyful project to work on because of the = collaboration=20 between all the member agencies and their commitment to integrate = learning=20 into mandated community service. The schools accepted the courts = and young=20 people get to see first hand the importance of having = citizens=97even young=20 citizens=97participate in government and the = community.=94=20

National=20 Youth Court Center =

East=20 Harlem Youth Court

Harlem=20 Youth Justice Center

New York, New = York=20

The = Harlem Youth=20 Court handles low-level cases including truancy, shoplifting, and = public=20 drinking. Youth Court cases are presided over by a jury of = peers=97teenagers=20 from the neighborhood who have been trained to perform the roles = of judge,=20 jury and attorneys. Typical sanctions include community service,=20 anger-management workshops, and letters of apology. Ninety four = percent of=20 the court=92s mandated participants complete their sanctions and = more than=20 50 percent continue their involvement with the court. =

This = active youth=20 court is sponsored by the Center for Court Innovation, a = youth-leadership=20 program developed in partnership the New York State Unified Court = System=20 and the Fund for the City of New York.

According=20 to Ray Barbieri, Project Director at the Center, =93youth = participants are=20 not just mandated offenders. Many are voluntary participants, a = mix,=20 really, with no distinctions made between defendants and = volunteers.=94=20 Service projects are designed to allow high levels of youth = participation=20 and decision making with participants working with facilitators=20 to choose the issues they wish to address. = Projects are=20 usually long-term (two to four months); many are ongoing. =

In a=20 typical project, the first weeks are devoted to identifying a = topic=20 participants wish to address, such as environmental justice or=20 neighborhood pollution. These long-term and ongoing projects often = generate ongoing, sustainable partnerships between the Court and = local=20 schools, businesses, and faith-based organizations.

More=20 than half the mandated youth who participate in the Court=92s=20 community-service projects stay on to volunteer=97often with their = families=20 =97to see the project through to completion and often participate = in the=20 planning and implementation of other community-service projects.=20

The=20 program has made a strong commitment to research and evaluation,=20 collecting data on each participant and each of the projects. They = keep=20 extensive case management files and collect data from partnering=20 organizations on the effectiveness of each project. Finally, they = debrief=20 each project involving mandated youth, volunteers, partnering=20 organizations, and group and individual victims. Because each = project=20 develops its own set of goals, they can then revisit them to = determine the=20 success of a project.

The=20 recidivism rate among participants in the Court=92s community = service=20 projects is currently at 13.7 percent, significantly lower than = the=20 national average. Completion rate for community-service sanctions = runs at=20 94 percent.

What=20 do the directors in charge of the Center=92s community = service-learning=20 projects say about their success? =93These kids have been punished = left and=20 right,=94 says Director Barbieri. =93Beating them over the head = with a vest=20 and a garbage bag won=92t help them at all. They are highly = compliant with=20 the requirements of the Court because of the high level of = ownership they=20 acquire about their projects. That is the best way to give back to = the=20 community.=94

Danielle=20 Sered, a Program associate at the center says, =93These kids have = one thing=20 in common. They tend not to be engaged elsewhere. None of them = would ever=20 volunteer to participate in a community-service project on their = own. They=20 are way too alienated. However,=94 Sered continues, =93as they = participate in=20 a project=92s design and implementation, they see that they = aren=92t=20 participating in just their own rehabilitation. They are altering = the role=20 they played in the community that got them there in the first=20 place.=94