A comparison of programmatic and ‘ad hoc’ restitution in juvenile courts

Abstract

“Programmatic” and “ad hoc” approaches to restitution can be distinguished by the fact that the former usually involves a full-fledged restitution program with counselors or case workers who are responsible for liaison with victims, documentation of victim losses, development of restitution recommendations as part of the pre-sentence investigation, and implementation and monitoring of the restitution requirements. In an “ad hoc” approach, restitution is ordered on a relatively infrequent basis and, when ordered, it tends to be viewed as a relatively minor part of the probationary requirements, with little or no assistance given to either victims or offenders. The findings in this study show, first, that a programmatic, as compared to an ad hoc, approach to restitution in Dane County, Wisconsin clearly increased the likelihood that juveniles would repay victims and increased the amount of restitution. The second finding is that juveniles who completed their restitution requirements were less likely to reoffend than were youths who did not complete their restitution. A multiple regression analysis indicated that this effect was probably independent of other factors.*** Funding for this research was provided by Grant Nos. 77-NI-99-0005, 79-JN-AX-0009, and 82-JS-AX-0025 from the Office of Justice Administration and Research, National Institute of Juvenile Justice, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. to the Institute of Policy Analysis, Eugene, Oregon. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Department of Justice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.