Youthful offenders stagger under the impact of restitution payments, report says

Young people caught up in the juvenile justice system are too often punished for being poor, saddled with paying excessive restitution that leaves them broke and leaves their victims out of luck, too, a new report says.

The detailed national study by Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, made public Thursday, says the demands for money mean young offenders can face being jailed again if they fall short on payments or they can be stuck with civil judgments that can destroy their credit. Some will face longer runs on probation or an inability to expunge their criminal records, the report said.

“The big takeaway is that the juvenile justice system is not working for young people or for victims,” said Lindsey E. Smith, a center lawyer. “Young people are being penalized for money they don’t have. It makes it really hard for young people to succeed.”

Her colleague, center attorney Jessica Feierman, said the same system leaves “victims unsatisfied and uncompensated.”

In a breakdown of laws across the nation, the report says Pennsylvania and New Jersey, like most states, place no cap on how much youthful offenders will have to pay. However, the two states, unlike most, do require judges to take into account defendants’ ability to pay.

Nicole El, the assistant chief of the unit for children and youth in Philadelphia’s Public Defender’s Office, noted that her staff provide legal representation to children whose families are too poor to obtain private lawyers — something that can cost them $750 for a single hearing. How, she asked, can such a family “come up with $5,000 to pay restitution money?”

She said young people who have met every other term of a probationary sentence — checking in with the system, attending school — may be kept on probation because of the unpaid restitution. “Even if you have followed all the rules, it is still there,” she said.

In Philadelphia, one defendant who could not come up with cash for $2,500 in restitution ordered in a criminal case was Bre Stoves, who was found guilty of arson at age 15 for a fire that damaged a South Philadelphia condo. No one was hurt in the blaze.

While offenders from a more affluent family might have resolved the debt with a check, Stoves, now 19, worked for months picking up trash and performing other community service to pay down the debt.

“It is an unfair burden,” she said Thursday. “It can take a toll on you.”

While the report detailed the laws on restitution in juvenile court cases in all 50 states, the authors said relatively little statistical information was available on precisely how much offenders pay.

In Pennsylvania, according to a report last year by a juvenile justice task force, judges imposed a wide range of restitution penalties that varied from county to county. In Philadephia, among those ordered to pay restitution, the typical levy was $563, the report said. (It cited 2018 data).

No figures are immediately available on how many youthful defendants in the city — or statewide — are under court order to make these payments, judicial officials said.

In separate data, state court administrators said two out of every 10 juvenile defendants had failed to make their restitution payments last year.

Margaret T. Murphy, the Family Court administrative judge did not respond to a request for an interview Thursday. Nor did Walter J. Olszewski, the supervising judge.

Asked to comment on the Law Center report, Suzanne V. Estrella, the state’s victim advocate, declined to grant an interview. In a statement, she made no direct remarks about restitution, but said she supported “restorative justice practices.”

In its 48-page report, Juvenile Law Center recommends several ways to overhaul the system, including restorative approaches that try to build connections between offenders and victims. The report also notes that a federal fund to recompense victims had a balance of $2.2 billion, but paid out only $400 million in the most recent year for which figures are available. The program’s reach is limited to victims of violence, leaving those who have lost property unassisted.