Restitution Requirements for Juvenile Offenders: A Survey of the Practices in American Juvenile Courts

BY PETER R. SCHNEIDER, ANNE L. SCHNEIDER, PAUL D. REITER A N D COLLEEN M . CLEARY

Editor's note: Funding for this report and research was provided by Grant No. 77- NI- 99-0005 from the Law Enforcement Assis- tance Administration, Department of Justice, Washington, D .C . Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the au- thors, and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies ofthe Department of Justice.

INTRODUCTION An often-expressed compl~ in t in the litera-

ture on juvenile restitution concerns the lack of information about the extent to which re- stitdive sanctions are emploved by juvenile

courts.' Experts appear to disagree; while some view restitution as a common or even necessary part of the juvenile court structure, others, particularly writers of proposals seek- ing funding for restitution programs, stress the unique and innovative character of the prac- tice.2 There is, moreover, confusion over the purposes of restitution, such as, whether it is victini-oriented or directed toward the re- habilitation of the offender.? Finally, there exist 110 or only very sketchy operational data concerning such things as compliance rates and methods of enforcement. .4s interest in the concept of restitution among juvenile jus- tice policy planners increases. more informa- tion clearly will be required.

Aiithor:c.' ticltlwss: Peter R . Schneider Anne L . Schneider Paul D. Reiter Colleen M . Cleary Institute of Policy Analysis 777 High Street. Suite 221 Eusene. Oregon 97101

PREVIOUS SURVEYS Reliable information conerning the effec-

tiveness of restitution as a preventative of fii- ture crimes and delinquency must await the completion of systematic evaluation efforts4 However, some verv useful information on

November, 1977 I Juvenile Justice 43

P. R . SCHNEIDER, A. L. SCHNEIDER. P. D. R E I T E R and C. M . CLEARY

the operation of selected resitiition programs already has been compiled. The Minnesota Restitution Center, a program for adults estab- lished in 1972, is perhaps the best doc u me 11 t ed . I n add it i o n , co m pa rat i ve s u r- veys were conducted by Herbert Edelhertz (1975) the American Institutes for Research (1976); and Joe Hudson, el al. (1977).6 These surveys focused on the best known of esisting restitution programs and discussed them in accordance with a number of dimensions, such as niajor goals and procedures for reach- ing and enforcing restitution contracts. Edelhertz analyzed seven programs i n this fashion, Hudson discussed nineteen prog- rains, and the American Institute of Re- search, which confined its survey to juvenile restitution programs, dealt with eleven.

While the surveys were appropriate for some purposes, such as the identification of major issues and common problems through the description ofa limited number of illustra- tive eyaniples, they clearly were inappropriate for others. First, no effort was made to sample courts or court officials to determine the ex- tent to which restitution requirements are imposed. Edelhertz sought to obtain such in- formation by writing state planning agencies, hut found that several agencies could not identify even well-known and federally- funded restitution programs in their states. “Perhaps the most significant finding from the survey was the lack of knowledge concern- ing the innovative programs which have been developed,” Edelhertz wrote. “It is clear that restitution programs have not been well pub- licized or circulated among agencies respon- sible for the planning of criminal justice in- nova t ion~ . ’~ This problem must have ham- pered the A.I.R. and Hudson surveys as well. Conducted by telephone, the surveys appa- rently employed a procedure whereby the questioner would ask the interviewee if he knew of any other restitution programs. “We do not know the total number of restitution programs,” Hudson reported, “but our tele- phone survey clearly did not reach all of them.”” A second but related deficiency of the surveys concerns the non-generalizability of the findings. Because no sampling procedure

was employed, the inform;tion generated by the siir\eys is necessarily limited to the pro- grams contacted. “Thus,” Hudson continues, “the information we gathered reflects tenden- cies \vhich mav or may not apply to all such progran~s .”~ .4 third problem is that the data produced by the surveys is descriptive, qual- i ta ti \,e rather than quantitative, and thus u n - suited for more rigorous staiistical analysis. Finally no attempt was made to assess the attitudes of court personnel, such as judges and prohation officers, toward the use of re- stitution as a sanction or rehabilitative treat- ment.

Most ofthese deficiencies were absent from a studv conducted by Steven Chesney in the state of Minnesota. Chesney, deploring the lack ofsystematic efforts to gather information on restitution, surveyed judges, court clerks, probation officers, victims and offenders i n an examination of restitution as a condition of probation.I0 While characterized by strict adherence to scientific procedures and data analytic techniques, the Chesney survey, too, is of limited value: it was confined to the state of Minnesota, and it specifically excluded an examination of restitution as a sole sanction or treatment. However, as a pilot study or prototype for future efforts, the study was in- structive. It tapped attitudes toward restitution among the different groups surveyed, examined compliance rates, and broke out restitution requirements by type of offense.

PURPOSES O F THE STUDY The survey upon which this paper is based

differs from those previously conducted in at least two important respects: first, it was undertaken to serve informational needs for a national evaluation of juvenile restitution programs, and consequently was limited to juvenile courts; and second, it is based on a national sample of all juvenile courts in the United States, and thus the results ofthe study may be generalized to the population from which the sample was drawn. To the writers’ knowledge, this study constitutes the first na- tional survey of juvenile court personnel on questions dealing with the use of restitution.

Experts have identified at least four major

44 Jirvenile Justice I November, 1977

RESTITUTION REQUIREMENTS FOR J U V E N I L E O F F E N D E R S

groups of issues pertinent to the use of restitu- tion." These include the nature ofthe restitu- tion requirement; the amount of restitution ordered; the relationship of restitution to other criminal sanctions; and the involve- ment of the victim in the determination ofthe requirement. Using these basic issues as a guide, the survey instrument was designed to elicit responses on the following sets of ques- tions:

1. Scope and History of Restitution. What proportion of juvenile courts m e restitution? How long have courts used this type of re- quirement? What proportion of juveniles in- volved in different types of offenses is restitu- tion ordered? Of courts which have used re- stitution in the past, how many no longer do so and why?

2 . Types of Restitution. What types of re- stitution are used? To whom is the paymgnt made and what is the forin of payment? Who determines the amount of restitution and ac- cording to what criteria? What is the role of the victim? How is the requirement enforced? What is the rate of compliance with the re- stitution order? Are parents permitted to assist in the payment of restitution?

3 . Penetration into the System. Does re- stitution increase or decrease the amount of contact between the offender and the court? At what point after intake is the requirement made? Are youths who pay restitution more likely than others to be formally adjudicated? Is restitution usually combined with other requirements?

4. Program Goals. Is the major purpose of restitution to rehabilitate the offender or assist (compensate) the victim? Are there other go- als?

5. Attitudes and Expectations About Re- stitution. Is restitution perceived as an effec- tive strategy in the reduction of recidivism? Are victims who receive restitution believed to be more satisfied with the operation of the criniinal justice system? To what extent-in the opinion of court officials-would the in- troduction of restitution be supported by police, judges and the community? Are the opinions on these issues in jurisdiction which

use restitution different than those in jurisdic- tions which do not?

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS SAMPLING PROCEDURE A N D RESPONSE RATES

At the outset of the study, the decision was made to draw a relatively small sample and concentrate efforts upon obtaining a high proportion of completed questionnaires.'2 The population from which the sample was drawn consisted of 3,544 courts on the mail- ing list of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.I3 The list is ordered geographically (rather than alphabetically) by states, and a sample of 197 juvenile courts was drawn by selecting every eighteenth court.

Questionnaires were sent by mail and fol- lowed by telephone calls approximately thirty days later to those who had not yet responded. A total of 133 completed questionnaires were obtained for a response rate of sixty-eight per- cent. This included sixty-nine courts which re t u r ned the q ue s t i on n a i re s w i t h o u t a prompting call, fifty-five which were inter- viewed over the telephone, and nine courts which returned questionnaires after a tele- phone prompt. Of the sixty-four courts for which no responses were obtained, twenty- two explained that the appropriate official was not available, twenty promised to mail the questionnaire at a later date, and seven re- fused to participate in the study. Interviewers were unsuccessful in repeated efforts to con- tact the remaining fifteen courts. Virtually all of the courts contacted were highly coopera- tive and a fair percentage accompanied their questionnaires with toughtful letters, copies of state legislation concerning restitution, and so forth.

J u ve n i I e co u r t j u d ge s c o n s t i t 11 t ed the largest single block of respondents, with a total of 106 (77 percent) completing question- naires. Thirteen (nine percent) of the instru- ments were signed by juvenile probation of- ficers, and four (three percent) identified themselves as social case workers. Other court personnel made up the remaining fourteen (10 percent) of the respondents. At least one,

NovembLr, 1977 I Juvenile Justicp 45

I? I<. S C I I N E I I I E R , A . L. SCHNEIDER. P. D. R E I T E R and C. M . CLEARY

I l i it I I O iiiorc than six, completed question- ii i i irv5 ncrv ol)t;iiiicd from each of the fifty \t;itcs. ‘ l ’ l i c frcqiicncy of responses by geog- rapliic rcgion is given in Table I .

TABLE 1 RESPONSES B Y REGION Region Freqitency

uc\\, P:ngl~lnd , . . . . . , , . . . I 2 \litltllc.itlantic . . . . , . . . . . . 7 P A North Centr,il . . . . , . , 72 Ll’eqt North Ccntral . . . . . . . 19 South Atlantic . . . . . , . . . . . 1 5 East South Cciitrul , , . . . , . \I’d SoLltll Central . . . . . . . 10 \lorintain . . . . . , . . . . , . . . 1 1 Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 11

1 It

- I

__

Per( ctit

1 0 . 5 6.1

19. i 15.; l i . 2 6.1 x. Y 9. 6 9.6 99.9* ~

*Percentqes do not siiiii to 100 due to rtii i i icl ing crror,

USE OF RESTITUTION Two questionnaires were sent to each ofthe

courts drawn in the sample, one to be re- turned by courts which do not use restitution, and another, somewhat longer and more de- tailed, to be returned by courts which use restitution. For purposes ofthe survey, restitu- tion was defined as any type of monetary or non-monetary payment that the youth is asked to make directly to the victim or indi- rectly through “community service” or other similar activit ie~.’~

A rather surprising finding was the extent to which restitution is used by juvenile courts in the United States. The use of restitution was reported by 114 courts, or eighty-six percent of all respondent^.'^ Moreover, only one of the restitution programs identified in previous surveys-the Victim Assistance Program in Las Vegas (Clark County), Nevada-was drawn in the sample. Of the nineteen courts in the survey which do not use restitution, seven indicated they plan to introduce the practice at some point in the future. Six of the remaining twelve reported they lacked the statutory power to impose restitution, and three expressed opposition to the concept on the grounds that offenders usually are unable to pay. Five of the nineteen said that restitu-

tion had been used in the past, but that the practice had been discontinued.

Clearlv, the iinposition of restitutive re- quirements is a coininon practice in ju\,enile courts and is not as innovati\re as some pro- ponents seem to believe. Nor is it new. As seen in Table 2 , courts have used restitution for an awrage of 16.9 years, with eighty per- cent having used it for more than six years, and ten percent for more than twenty-six years. It is interesting to note that the resti- tution programs identified in previous surveys tended to be newer, typically having bcgun in 1973 or later, and usually were funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA).16 T h e greater notoriety of the federally-funded programs probably is as- sociated with the fact that the funding process generally involc.es the circulation of proposals for review and public announcement of awards. Nonetheless, the lack of knowledge concerning some large and well-established programs is surprising. O n e noteworthy example of a program overlooked in previous surveys has been operated by the Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio, juvenile court since 1959. The Restitution Department in that jurisdiction handled nearly 1,500 restitu- tion cases in 1976, with 1,250 being success- fully terminated.

. TABLE 2 NUMBER OF YEARS RESTITUTION

HAS BEEN USED Yelrrs Frequency

1- 5 20 6- 10 40

1 1 - 1 5 18 16-20 10 21-25 2 + 26 10

mai N = 100 % = 16.9 N = 100

Table 3 presents data on the proportion of cases involving different types of offenses for which restitution is ordered. It is apparent that restitution dispositions are most common for cases involving property loss, including prop-

46 Juvenile Justice / November, 1977

RESTITUTION REQUIREMENTS FOR J U V E N I L E OFFENDERS

erty offenses and robbery, and used far more sparingly in cases in\.olving attacks on the person. In this table, the proportion ofcases in each offense type for which restitution is or- dered was averaged over all courts using re- stitution. Because averages can be misleading without knowing the distribution of the vari- able, the median was calculated and is pre- sented as well. The median clarifies these data considerably: for example, courts on the av- erage ordered restitution in 10.04 percent of all sexual cases; however, i n at least half the courts restitution was ordered in less than one percent of sexual cases. In other words, re- stitution for sexual offenses and assult is even more rare than the averages would indicate.

TABLE 3 PROPORTION O F CASES I N V O L V I N G

WHICH RESTITUTION Is ORDERED DIFFERENT TYPES OF OFFENSES FOR

Types of Offense

- X Median N

Property . . . . . . . 69.7 89.6 105 Robbery . . . . . . . 45.3 31.0 92 Assault . . . . . . . . 24.4 4.4 95 Sexual . . . . . . . . 10.4 . 13 90

TYPE OF RESTITUTION Virtually all of the courts (109 out of 114)

provide for some sort of monetary payments directly or indirectly to the victim as a part of the restitution order, with about half ( 5 2 ) re- quiring restitutive work. Apparently, courts prefer to limit the juvenile’s contact with the victim. As shown in Table 4, only fourteen courts specified that monetary payments are made directly to the victim, and only five specified that work is performed directly for the victim. The more common procedure, when monetary payments are required, is for the youth to make the payments to the court or a probation officer for disbursement to the victim. When work is required, it most fre- quently involves community service (such as work in hospitals or at recreation centers) or some combination of community service and work for the victim. As an example of the latter, a court in Rockland, Maine, reported

that false fire alarms always result in restitu- tion to the city for the cost of answering the alarm-usually at the Fire Depart~nent “where supen~ision is abundant.”

TABLE 4 TYPE OF RESTITUTION*

Monetary (109) Work ( 5 2 ) l b \’ictim . . . . . . It b ‘ o r \‘rctiin . . . . . 5 PO. f o r \’ictiin , It Coiiiiiitiiiit! Court for \’ictim 17 Sen icc . . . . . . . 19 Sot Specified . . . 63 Coininiiiiit! /

\ ‘ I C t l l l l . . . . . . . 10 Otfcnhc Related . Z Uot Spccifictl . . . 18

*Note: Data ti1 this table were codcd from an opcil-ended question (Question No. 3): many re\pondcnts did not specify u liere rcstitutioii payircilt\ .ire n ~ a d e or work performed. Oh\.ioiirl>. a nuillher of court5 i ~ \ e hot11 monetary and work rcstitiition

Data relating to the determination of the amount of restitution ordered are presented in Table 5 . The amount of loss suffered by the victim appears to be the most important criter- ion in determining the amount of restitution to be paid, with only ten percent of the re- spondents indicating that the offender’s ability to pay was more important. This finding should be interpreted with caution, however, as it is probable that ability to pay may be critical i n determining the youth’s eligibilit!, for a restitution requirement i n the first place. In his study of restitution practices i n Min- nesota, Chesney noted that restitution was most frequently ordered for middle-class whites, and that few probation officers be- lieved the restitution requirement constituted a hardship for the offender and his fa~iiily.’~ Chesney concluded: “It is clear that the most important determinant of whetlier an other- wise eligible defendant was ordered to makc restitution was h i s presumed ‘ability to pay.’

whom the courts had little faith that restitu- tion would be completed, were not ordered to make restitution.’18 As also shown in Table 5 , judges have the predominant role in deter- mining the amount of restitution, with proba- tion officers given the responhility in some jurisdictions. Victims are given the right to

. . . Clearly, a large group of offenders, i n

November, 1977 ,‘Juvenile Justice 47

P. R . SCHNEIDER, A. L. SCHNEIDER. P. D. K E ~ T E R and C. M . CLEARY

determine the amount of restitution in only fourteen percent of the jurisdictions, due, ap- parently, to suspicions that victims may inflate their ~1a in i s . l~

TABLE 5

OF RESTITUTION REQUIRED DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT

How N 9 Who N %-

Victiin Loss 5 5 50 Judge . . . . . 74 66 ,4hility topay 11 10 Probation Both . . . . . 45 t 0 (jfficer.. . 22 20

_ - Victim - _ 16 14 111 100 112 100

The manner in which restitution require- ments are enforced, when it is made a condi- tion of probation, is shown in Table 6 . As one would expect, probation officers are responsi- ble for enforcing the order in about two-thirds of the jurisdictions, while about one-third of the jurisdictions provide for some sort of fol- low up by the court. T h e reluctance of juvenile courts to place young offenders in institutions is indicated by the fact that only eleven jurisdictions reported they resort to incarceration if the restitution requirement is not fulfilled. However, twenty-five courts say that noncompliance can result in revocation ofprobation, and it often was unclear whether revocation of probation meant institutionali- zation or merely modification of the condi- tions of probation so that the offender was removed from the restitution program. Ex- tension of the probationary period results from noncompliance in twenty-one of the jurisdictions, and five courts would issue con- tempt citations.

TABLE 6 ENFORCEMENT OF RESTITUTION AS

CONDITION OF PROBATION Who How

Probation Officer . 42 Revocation . . . . . . 25 Court.. . . . . , . , . . 26 Extension . . . . . . . 21

Attach Salary . . . . 2 Contempt . . . . . . . 5

N = 68 Incarceration. . . . . 11 Never Enforced . . 4

Only two courts reported they would attach the youth’s d a r y for failure to pay restitution, which probably indicates the extent to which this strategy i5 i iable. Employment probleins among young people are well known, and of course are worse for ju\,eniles who have had contact with the criminal justice svstem. While i t is likely true that “i,obs are the best deterrent to crime,” as a Texas judge wrote in returning his questionnaire, finding and hold- ing jobs are very difficult. “At this tiine our major problem has been in the area of youth employinent,” an officer in the Clark County (Nevada) Victim’s Assistance Program wrote. “We have had some success in getting youth jobs, but to date have had only a thirty-five percent success rate in keeping these youth in jobs for longer than a month.”

While only four of the courts reported that the restitution orders are never enforced, it should be pointed out that only sixty-eight of the 114 courts using restitution responded to the question in a direct fashion. Some simply skipped it, while others avoided a direct ans- wer by listing the positive and/or negative incentives for compliance.

The data in Table 7 indicate that the rate of compliance with restitution orders is very high. About seventh percent of the respon- dents reported compliance rates of greater than nonety percent, and only two of the courts said that more than fifty percent of offenders required to pay restitution fail to do so. While these data are impressive, it should be mentioned that they refer only to the track records of juveniles for whom restitution was considered an appropriate disposition. There was no indication by any of the courts that restitution was ordered for all offenders, or that youths were assigned to restitution pro- grams on a random basis. If restitution were required regardless of whether the offender appeared to be a safe bet, the rate of non- compliance might be greater.

The role of parents in the payment of re- stitution is shown in Table 8. In the majority of cases the courts apparently do not prescribe a role for parents, which results in the parents paying (and the court encouraging the youth

48 Juvenile Justice 1 November, 1977

RESTITUTION REQUIREMENTS FOR J UVENlLE OFFENDERS

to repay the parents) or the parents assisting the youth in making payments. I n fifteen courts the parents are required to pay what- ever restitution is ordered, and in twenty-nine courts they are specifically prohibited from paying. While the survey did not assess the reasons that the courts instituted the require- ments, it is possible the courts are acting in accordance with competing theories of delin- quency control. One theory, which would be reflected in the requirement that parents pay, holds the parents responsible for the behavior of their children; the other theory would focus on efforts to make the youth accept responsi- bility for his actions. The latter theory fre- quently is cited as a goal of juvenile restitution programs. 2o

TABLE 7 COMPLIANCE WITH

RESTITUTION ORDERS Percent Who Fail

t0 cOl?lD/V Frequency

Less than 5 . . . . . . . 27 5-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 46

11-25 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 26-50 . . . . . . . . . . . 10

103 More than 50 . . . . . 2

TABLE 8 PARENT’S ROLE IN

PAYING RESTITUTION N

Parents Required to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Parents Pay and Juvenile

Encouraged to Pay Parents . . . . . . . . 13 Parents Soinetiiiies Help . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Parents Prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 Don’t Know, Not Specified . . . . . . . . .J

1 09

PENETRATION INTO THE SYSTEM The predominant model for courts using

restitution is to combine the requirement with supervised probation: only six of the courts reported that restitution is ever used as a sole sanction. As restitution requirements generally take some time to complete, one consequence of this procedure is that it tends

to lengthen the youth’s contact with the crim- inal justice system. Forty-eight percent of the respondents said restitution increases the juvenile’s length of contact with the system, thirty percent said they perceived no change, and only nineteen percent said the length of contact was decreased by restitution.

Table 9 shows where in the court system the restitution requirement is made. Because re- stitution almost always is a condition of proba- tion, the requirement rarely is made prior to a formal hearing before a judge or other court referee. While only one of the courts indi- cated that juveniles are diverted to a restitu- tion program at the intake stage, this almost certainly does not accurately represent the amount of pre-ad judicatory diversion involv- ing restitution that actually takes place.2’ At the police level, restitution is a routine part of a policeman’s job, and it greatly reduces the number of cases brought to court.22 Although diversion has long been practiced informally in the juvenile justice system, there is a grow- ing trend toward formalizing the practice through the use of restitution. Five of the eleven restitution programs identified by the A.I .R . survey, none of wliicli were begun prior to 1973, were designed as diversion programs. 23

TABLE 9 WHERE I N COURT SYSTEM

RESTITUTION REQUIREMENT Is MADE

N ‘7r

Always at intake . . . . . . . . . 1 .01 At or After Informal Hearing 8 8 At or After Formal Hearing 40 36 After Either Informal

or Formal Hearing . . . . . 57 5 1

The relationship between formal adiudica- tion of juvenile court cases and the use of restitution is shown in Table 10. Again, the data reflect the tendency of restitution to be made a condition of probation, probably due to the potential legal problems involved in ordering restitution (or imposing any other sanction) prior to a judicial hearing. In cases involving restitution, an average of sixty- seven percent had been brought before a

November, 1977 J Juvenile Justice 49

P. R . SCHNEIDER, A . L. SCHNEIDER. P. D. R E I T E R and C. M . CLEARY

TABLE 10 PROPORTION OF JUVENILE COURT CASES WHICH ARE FORMALLY ADJUDICATED*

- Restitution !on- Restitution X Median X Median

Formal Hearing by Judge or Referee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67% 80.0% 58% 60.0% Iiiforinal Hearing by Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14% 0.2% 16% 0.3% Informal Hearing by Other Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19% 0.5% 2 6% 10.0% *Formal adjudication is defined 2s a disposition made by a judge, or a disposition made after a fact-finding hearing

presided over by the judge or other referee of the court.

judge or other court referee for a disposition, and, in half the courts, more than eighty per- cent had been dealt with formally. Cases not in\.ol\ing restitution were less likely to have been formally adjudicated, and more likely to have been disposed of through an informal hearing presided over by someone other than a judge or court referee.

PROGRAM GOALS A major issue concerning restitution is the

extent to which programs are designed to as- sist victims or reduce recidi\ism, thereby aid- ing in the rehahilitation of the offender. Edelhertz suggests that the current popular interest in redressing wrongs done to victims has stimulated support for restitution, but that “this factor is necessarily subordinated to offender-related considerations simply be- causeofthe limited capacity of most offenders to adequately atone to their victims in a mate- rial way.” Consequently, “the political im- petus for restitution prograins is thus victim- oriented while the programs which are actu- ally established are invariably focused on cor- rection or rehabilitation of offenders.” He adds: “No restitution program has come to my attention which has the delivery ofbenefits to victims as its primary or cven very important operational goal.’*4

.-\sked to characterize their programs as being designed to assist tictims or reduce re- cidivism, nearly three-quarters of the respon- dents (82 out of 114) said that both goals were equally important. Twenty-one (18 percent) said the primary purpose of their programs tvas to reduce recidivism, while eight (seven percent) reported that their major goal was to provide assistance to iktims. O f the reinain-

ing three, one court volunteered the ohserva- tion that the major goal of restitution was punishment, another said it was to detcr other juveniles from delinquent acts, and the third said the primary purpose was to promote grea- ter involvement of parents with their chil- dren:F activities.

ATTITUDES A N D EXPECTATIONS ABOUT RESTITUTION

Attitudes toward restitution held by re- spondents from both the courts that use re- stitution and those that do not are depicted in Table 11. Consistent support for and belief in the effectiveness of restitution would be indi- cated by agreement with statements num- bered one through four, six, and nine through ten, and disagreement with the statements numbered five, seven and eight. As is evident from the table, large majorities of both users and non-users tend to support restitution, but larger percentages of users support the prac- tice than non-users. O f course, it is impossi- ble to infer from these data whether stipport for restitution generates use, or use of restitu- tion generates support.

While the two categories of courts differed significantly on most ofthe statements in their support for restitution, they were remarkably similar i n their pattern of responses. It should be noted, for example, that statements refer- ring to victim satisfaction drew more support from both sets of courts than statements refer- ring to the reduction of recidivism; however, both restitution and non-restitution courts perceive differences with respect to property offenses and personal offenses. Apparently, the respondents believe that juveniles who commit personal offenses (such as assault and

50 Juvenile Justice I November, 1977

RESTITUTION REQUIREMENTS FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS

TABLE 11 COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES TOWAR.D RESTITUTION

Percentage of Respondents in Agreement

Statement Probability* Restitution Non-resti- (114) tution (19)

1.

2.

3.

3.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Restitution reduces recidivism among property offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restitution reduces recidi\ism among offenders who have committed personal offenses. . . . . . . . . Restitution to victinis of property offenses increases victim satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restitution to victiiiis of personal offenses increases victim satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restitution would increase the victim’s fear of future offenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restitution would increase the offender’s sympathy (or empathy) with the victini. . . . . . . . . Restitution would encourage future offenses because it is an easy sentence. . . . . . . . . . Restitution requirenients would make victims less satisfied with the criminal justice system because they seldom receive the full amount they were supposed to receive. . . Restitution for jiivenile offenders would enjoy widespread support froin the coiiiniiinity. . . . . . . . Restitution for jnvenile offenders would

Restitution for iuvenile offenders would enjoy widespread support from juvenile coiirt judges. . .

enjoy widespread support from the police. . . . . . .

87

61

99

88

18

47

7

21

96

90

91

72

56

84

77

16

18

22

47

83

79

63

<. 10

11 s

<.01

I1 s

ns

<.05

<.05

<.01

c .05

<. 10

<.01 *Refers to the probability that the observed differences in percentages could be due to chance. Probability levels are based on the t-test with N-2 degrees of freedom. -

sexual offenses) would be less susceptible to the rehabilitative aspects of restitution. In ad- dition, the respondents believe the victims of personal offenses would be less likely (in comparison with the victims of property of- fenses) to be satisfied with the operation ofthe criminal justice system iftheir case received a restitution disposition. Interestingly, the dif- ferences between the two sets of courts on the statements dealing with personal offenses were not significant, indicating agreement be- tween both users and non-users of restitution on the issue.

Predictably, the two sets of courts differed to the greatest extent on the question of support for restitution among juvenile court judges. Only nine percent of the courts which use restitution believe other juvenile court judges would not support restitution, while forty-

seven percent of the non-restitution courts believe it would not be supported by other judges. Differences between users and non- users on this question are perhaps symbolized by the volunteered comments of two judges from Missouri and Ohio. T h e Missouri judge, who stated that he has imposed restitu- tion requirements on every court day for the past four years, expressed the opinion that “if all juvenile judges used restitution, it would soon reduce delinquency.” The Ohio judge told an interviewer that the use of restitutive sanctions is “inappropriate.” He gave two reasons: first, it assumes that parents are re- sponsible, which, in his experience, is not usually the case; and second, it leaves the judge with no choice but to incarcerate thc juvenile if he (or his parents) does not pay.

Further analysis of the data was directed

November, 1977 I Juvenile Justice 5 1

P. R . SCHNEIDER. A . L. SCHNEIDER, P. D. REITER and C. M . CLEARY

toward identifying the types of programs and communities that seem to facilitate a greater belief in the effectiveness of restitution and a higher compliance rate by the youths. Belief in the effectiveness of the program was mea- sured by creating an additive index of the attitudinal questions, excluding those calling for an assessment by the respondents of the extent to which restitution is supported by the community, police, and other juvenile court judges. The compliance rate was based on responses provided on the survey question- naire. This variable represents estimates of the compliance rate, rather than an actual objective measure of compliance.

The independent (predictor) variables of interest included the social and demographic characteristics of the jurisdiction, the scope of the program, and the type of program.

T h e socio-economic characteristics of areas served by the juvenile court were in- cluded in order to determine whether the belief in restitution or the estimated com- pliance rates differs in accordance with the overall social class of the area served.

The scope of the program refers to the pro- portion of cases in several offense categories for which restitution is used as a part of the disposition. It is reasonable to presume that courts which use restitution only for a small proportion of the cases would select the per- sons who are the best risk and, therefore, would have higher compliance rates and a greater belief in the effectiveness of restitu- tion. As jurisdictions increase the proportion of youths eligible for the restitution disposi- tion, they would begin to use this disposition for juveniles who are poorer risks and, there- fore, would have less belief in the effective- ness and lower compliance rates.

The type of program refers to its operating characteristics. Of particular interest was whether the court used restitution in a pro- grammatic fashion or whether the use was more casual and simply a disposition some- times required by the judge. It was, however, quite difficult to make a clear distinction be- tween courts that take a programmatic rather than a casual approach to restitution. Five of

the better known federally-funded restitution programs were selected, and a copy of the questionnaire was sent to them. The com- parison of operating characteristics for these pro-grams and those in the original sample revealed only a few differences and several of the non-funded programs were operated in virtually the same way as the federally-funded ones.

In order to construct an index of organiza- tional development (e .g. , a programmatic approach to restitution), we identified the operating characteristics that were common to the five federally-funded programs and which were found less frequently in the non- funded programs. The additive index of pro- grammatic development used the following variables: the use of restitution in assault cases, the availability of work restitution, the availability of community service work, the willingness to use restitution at the pread- judicatory stage, and the enforcement of re- stitution by the court rather than by probation officers.

The data shown in Table 12 are the zero- order correlation coefficients (r) between each of the independent variables listed on the left and the two dependent variables.*

The social and economic characteristics of the community are generally unrelated to the strength ofbelief in the effectiveness of restitu- tion and to the compliance rate. There is no evidence in the data that court personnel in white, middle-class areas are any more or less

*Technical Note: For readers unfamiliar with regres- sion analysis, it should be explained that the correlation coefficient “r” represents the strength of the relationship between two variables. while the regression coefficient “beta” indicates in addition the impact of the indepen- dent variable on the dependent variable. Both coeffi- cients range in value from + 1.0 (perfect positive relation- ship) to -2.0 (perfect negative relationship). A correla- tion of 1.0 would indicate that two variables are perfectly related, while a beta of 1.0 would indicate that a unit change in the independent variable is accompanied by a unit change in the dependent variable. In multiple re- gression, the beta measures the effect of a given indepen- dent variable with all other t-ariables in theequation hefd statistically constant. The other coefficient in Tables 13 and I t is the multiple correlation coefficient “R2” which represents the amount of variance in the dependent vari- able which is explained, or accounted for, by the inde- pendent variables collectively.

5 2 Juvenile Justice I November, 1977

RESTITLITION REQUIREMENTS FOR J U V E N I L E OFFENDERS

TABLE 12 CORRELATES OF BELIEF I N RESTITUTION

A N D ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE RATES Belief irr Resrirution Compliunce Rate

Demographic ’7r pop~ilation black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.06 . l 0 9 belon poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 1 . l I l l ed ian education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .05 - . I 3 % uneit~ployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . I 1 .02 Population of area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .01 - .11

% property offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .07 .09 % rohhery offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .06 .01

(?r assault offenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 . Ot

Payment direct to \.ictitii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19* - . I 2 Work restitution a\ailalilc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16* .09 Coinmiinity sen ice a\ailal)le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22** .01 Enforced h!, court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19* .oo After formal adjudicatioii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02 - . I0 Parents prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 i .02 Shortens CIS contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 ti* .32** Number of years used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.16* - .01 Program goal to hcnefit voi i t l i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20* . I 1 Program developiiiciit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .%I** .02

Scope of Use

% sex offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.01 .05

Qpe of Program

* Significant at or beyond . O S . **Significant a t or hcyond ,001

likely to believe in the effectiveness of restitu- tion than are court personnel in other types of areas. Likewise, the social and economic characteristics of the corninunity are not as- sociated with the compliance rates.

The proportion of cases in which restitu- tion is used also has no relationship with the dependent variables. Courts which use re- stitution for a larger proportion of the offenses do not differ from those that use it in a small percentage of the eases in terms of C0171-

pliance rates or belief in its effectiveness. The \rariables that are associated with grea-

ter belief in restitution all fall into the general category of “type of program.” Belief in the effectiveness of restitution is greater for pro- grams characterized by:

1. Direct payment to the victim rather than through an intermediary;

2 . The availability of work restitution ( i n addition to monetary restitution);

3. The a\,ailabilit) of community service work ( in addition to monetary restitution);

4. Enforcement of the restitution order by the court rather than by indi\idual probation officers;

5. T h e program goal for restitution is to benefit the youth rather than to provide com- pensation to the victim.

In addition, jurisdictions in which the re- stitution requirement tends to shorten the youth’s contact with the system tend to have more belief in its effectiveness than do juris- dictions where the requirements lengthen contact. The courts that have newer restitu- tion programs tend to hold somewhat stronger beliefs in its effectiveness. It should be noted as well that belief in restitution effectiveness is not related to whether the parents are pro- hibited (or required) to pay and is not related to whether the requirement is made after a formal or informal hearing.

November, I977 I Juvenile Jirstice 53

P. R . S C H N E I D E R . A . L. SCHNEIDER, P. D. R E ~ T E R and C. M . CLEARY

The data in Table 12 also indicate that tlie cstiinated compliance rate is not associated with the type of program, except for tlie length of contact, with the youth.

As shown at tlie bottom of Table 12, the index of program development is tlie single best predictor of belief in effecti\.eness but is not related to the estimated proportion of y u t h s who coinply with tlie restitution order.

I n order to examine the combined iiiipxt of several independent variables on belief and compliance rates, a multiple regression analysis was performed and tlie results are shown in Tables 13 and 14.

TABLE 13 PREDICTORS TO B E L I E F IN

EFFECTIVENESS OF RESTITUTION

Bctii R Relotionship qf I' ( x r o - Belief Tor ctrtlerj

Program organi/.cition . , , , , ? O . 25* .09 Program goi11 to hencfit

!oritli r;itlier tlian \ ictiin . 20 . 17 . I Z Shorter cont'ict , . . . . . , , . . I S , 12 .It Years of rcatitrition , , . . , . - . I6 - .07 . It Paynent direct to \ Ictini . . 1 Z .07 . 1 5 N = 8-t *Sigiiificaiit at o r hcymd .05 .

As indicated by Table 13, the composite variable, prograin organization, is the most potent for explaining belief in the effcctive- ness of restitution, as it accounts for the bulk of the explained \.arialice. Two explanations for this finding are likely: either courts which stipport the concept of restitution are iiiore likely to administer it more pro~raii~ii~atically, or more programmatic administration results in better experiences for the courts and thus generates more support. If better experience were measured only in terms of compliance with restitution requireinents, then tlie latter explanation would have to be eliminated as those variables are virtually independent (Y= .02). Tlie only other variable having much explanatory power is tlie one labeled "pro- gram goal." Tlie direction of the relationship suggests support for restitution is greater in courts whose programs a r e intended more for the reduction of recidivism than for assistance

to victiins. Tire remaining three \xiable\ in

the equation iidd little in terms of explmatorv power; liowewr, tlie direction of the relation- ship of belief with the nuniber of years the court has used restitution is interesting. I t indicates t h t courts which have adopted re- stitution iiiost recently are more likely to be- lievc i i i its effecti\,eness.

'The rclationsliip of belief in the effecti1.e- iiess of restitution to compliance with restitu- tion rcquirements is \ w y slight ( r = -.06). In an effort to deteriiiine the types of programs the most likely to result in the completion of requirement\, compliance was substituted for belief as the dependent variable in the regres- sion equation. Tlie results are displayed in Table I t . '4s may be seen, only one variable--"leugth of contact"-has much explanatory power. The coefficients indicate (iiiisurprisiiigly) that compliance is greater i n those corirts where restitution requirements lengthen tlie ju\.enile's contact with the crim- inal justice system. The second variable in the eq ti3 t i o 11 - rec i pie n t rest i t ii t io 11

pay men t s -co n t ri b 11 tes 1 i ttle i n te rin s of explained variance, but suggests an interest- ing possibility: apparently, courts which re- quire offenders to make restitution payments directlv to the victim may have compliance rates grcater than those in which payments are made indirectlv.

of

TABLE 14 PREDICTORS OF COMPLIANCE

WITH RESTITUTION REQUIREMENTS

Relurro~itirrp of r (zero- Cornrhoiice To orrler) Beti' R'

SUM M A R Y A N D CONCLUSIONS The study reported upon in this paper was

undertaken primarily because of the paucity of inforniation about restitution in general and, in particular, about the manner in which

54 Jiwenile Justice I November, 1977

R E S T I T U T I O N REQUIREMENTS FOR J U V E N I L E OFFENDERS

rcstitution was practiced i i i juwnile courts. Prebioua studies have been of t m o types: either they were based on description:, and compari- sons of a relatively siiiall n u m l x r of programs (mostly iicw and federally-funded), or they focused on the practice of restitution in a single state. This study is based on data drawn from what apparently is the oril). nationwide systematic survey 011 the operatioii of restitri- tion programs i i i jii\wiile courts ever con- ducted. As a consequelice of the survey. re- stitiitivc practices and reqriircmcnts i n courts across the country were sul,iected, for the first time, to systcniatic iiieasurcment and quan- titative analysis.

An important aspect of the survey was that it captured tlie variety of restitution programs which have been iiiiplemented while reveal- ing, at the same time, regularities and similarities across the different approaches. In spite of the lack of inforiiiatioii most iiirisdic- tions have about programs in existence across the country, few programs are operated in a manner that other courts would find siirpris- iiig. Thcre exists, for csamplc, considerable agreeiiient OH tlie purposccs of restittition, how it should be combined with other sanctions, where in the court systeni it should be or- dered, and what criteria sliould be used in establishing requirements. Even the levels of compliance across the courts are remarkably similar. On the other halid, programs \.ary greatly with respect to such things as the type of restitution ordered. methods of enforce- ment, and the role ofparents in paying restitu- tlon.

The data suggest the following conclusioiis: Fiist, restitution seeiiis to be in iiiore gen-

eral use than preilously wiis suspccted. While a number of writers haw stiggestcd that re- stitution was in “coiiiiiioii use” i n jiivenile courts, none went so far as to indicate that it was used in all hut fourteen percent of the courts, or that it was required i n such a high percentage of property offenses o r robbery cases. Moreover, courts Iia\.e wed restitution for some time, with tlic merage program in existence for almost se\enteen years.

Second, there exists among judges and

other juvenile court officials a large rewrwir ofsupport for restitution and belief in its effec- tiveness. Wliilc courts which use restitution arc niore supportive than those which do not, a majority of courts in the latter category \.iem restitution favorably and many apparently plan to implement programs in the future. The number probably would be e\’en larger were it not for the restraint of statutes. The most frequent reason giwn for not using re- stitution was the lack of legal authority.

Third, the problem of enforcing restitution requirements may not be as critical as many tend to believe. When made a condition of probation, restitution becomes subjected to the same enforcement machinery that is used for any other probationary requirement. Moreover, in the experience of a large niajor- ity of courts. the history of compliance with restitution orders has been very good. Courts run greater risks, however, when they require that a iuvenile obtain and keep a job in order to meet the requirements of monetary restitu- tion.

Fourth, belief i n the effectiveness of restitu- tion for reducing recidivism and impro\ing victim attitudes toward the system is high and is not confined to court personnel from white, middle-class areas who use restitution only i n a limited number of cases. The degree of belief in restitution effectiveness is greater for courts that use it than for those tha t do not and tends to be higher in courts that have iiiore types of restitution available. including work restitution and comiiiiinity service.

Fifth, the estimated extent of compliance with restitution requireinents does not differ with the socio-economic characteristics of the area nor with tlie proportion ofcases in ivliicli restitution is a requirement. The estimated proportion of youths who successfullv com- plete the restitution requirement also is not related to the type of program used in the court. Of particular interest is the finding that the proportion of youths who successfully comply with the requirement is as high for courts that use restitution frequently as i t is for courts that use it only in a small number of cases. I t is also of interest to note that courts in

November. 1977 7 Juirenile Justice 5 5

P. R. SCHNEIDER. A . L. SCHNEIDER. P. D. REITER and C. M . CLEARY

which the parents are prohibited from paying ha1.e approxiinatelv the same compliance rates as those in which parents are required to pay if the youth is unable to do so.

FOOTNOTES 'Set., for c\Jiiiplc. Burt G,IIJVJ\, " l \ \ i ics 111 the I l \ c [if

Rc~tituti~iii ils ,i Saiiction f u r Criiiie." prc\ciitcd .it tlic Natiuiidl Iii\titiite OII Criiiie ~ n d I)eliiiqiiciic!, \ l i i i -

iieilprilis. Jrine, 1975; Stc\en L,. Clic\ncy, " \ii .\sscss- iiicnt of Rc\titiitioii i i i the \liniic\ot.i t'riiI).iti~iii Scr-

in Joe I ludsiiii icd. 1. Restitrrrioii in C'riniimr/ Jrts- \fiiiiicsiitLi 1lcp.irtincnt of Correc-

tions, 1975, and the \iiicricaii Institiitc\ f o r Rcseilrch. "Ju\ c i i i l c Restitution," paper prcp.ircc1 for tlie Office r i f j i i \ c i i i l e j i i r t iec .tiid Dcl i i iq i ienc \ I'rc\ciitiiin. LF \.\. 1977.

?For d i i exprcssioii of tlic foriiier \ ien. \ec Riclidrd E. Ldstcr, "Criminal Re\titution: \ Sur\c\ of Its f'\i\t F lictor!. and .111 , \ i idysis of I t \ he\eiit [iscfiilnc.;\." Uriiiwsin of Riclitnoi7d Larcs Rri.ieic: \'<iI. 5 . Uri. 71. 197U. ipp. ; I - 9X. 'l'he latter \,ie\\ is comnionly held I)!) the iiicdia a \

and Operatioiial Isriics in tlie Ii~ipleiiiciit,~ti~iii of Rc\titiititin \\ i tli the Criniiiial Jiisticc Sy\tciii." 111 tlutl\oii (1975).

4r1\\u iiation\vidc c \ ;iliiaticiiis of c\pcriiiiciit.il re\titii- tion prograins ;ire ciirrciitly ~iiidcruci\. 'l 'lic Criiiiii~~il jiistice Research Cciitcr iii .\lhiiiiy. h.Y, is e\,ilii'itiiig 'idtilt restitutiiin priigraiii\. ~ii id hie institute of Piilic!. : \ i i ~ I y i s , Kiigenc, Ore., I\ c\alii~tiiig rc\titriti~iii pr(ig- raiiis for iii\eiiile\. 'l'lie priiieipdl ~ i i t h i r of this paper is directing the Litter pruject. Both the c\~~iIiiatiiiiis and tlie prugr;iiii\ arc f i i i idcd b y LE.1 \. ' h o i i g the iitiiiierous piihlicatioiis c~iiiceriiing the

\ r w k ofthe cciitcr .ire Da\ id E'riqel. Burt Galaway aiitl jite Iludsoi i . "Re\titritiitn 111 Criiiiiiial Jii\tice: \ Iliiiiicsota F~pcriiiicnt," Critnrntd Lttw Br#//etin, 5 , 1972: Joe tliid\oii ;ind Biirt GiI;i\\ AY. "lndoiiig tlic Wrong."Socitr/ Work, \ i l l . 19, \ l a y 197J. a i d Joe lHciii/., Biirt Gd,i\v;iy .itid jiie H i i d s o n . "Rcstitiitloii o r P.irtile. ,\ E;illoa.-lf~~ Stiidv of \diilt Offeiidcr\," Socitr/ S e r i ~ r ~ . c Rei,iew. \ larch. 1976, pp. 148-156.

6 f Icrhcrt FdelliertL, Resrifutii~e Justice: A Generul Survry trnd Antr/wis. Law and Jiisticc Study Center. Battclle H u i i i J i i .\ff3irs Rc\carch Center\. Seattle, \\'ash., jaiiiidrv, 1975: ' 1 ' h .\iiiericaii Institiites of Re- \ecircIi, "A Prcliiiiiii~ry Siirtey of]u\enile Jristicc Restitti- tion Program\," Jii i ie. 1976, aiid Joe I l~ id \ i i i i . Burt G i l a - way md Stc\eii L.. Cliesiiey, "U'hen Criminal\ Repi! 'I'heir l'ictiiii,: .A Siirvey of Restitution l'rogrciiii$," Jrrdi- cufitre, \'oI. 60, hi). 7, E'cliriiar!, 1977.

'Edelhertz. RtZsritrr/ii*r Jrt.~ric.e. p t9. R t l ~ ~ d s ~ i i i . ef u / . , "\Vlieii Criiiiiii ,il\ . , ." p. 314.

Paul. \liiiii

56 Juvenile Justice I November, 1977