Youth restitution fails victims, communities, and young people

In every U.S. state and territory, courts order children to pay restitution. A teenager might be ordered to make payments for a phone he stole and accidentally broke, or to reimburse an insurance company for damage to a car. It sounds like a good idea. After all, if a child caused harm, shouldn’t they pay for the damage?

But our new research shows that, in practice, restitution orders harm children, cause family tension, and leave victims unsatisfied. The good news is that restorative options exist that work better for everyone.

There is one obvious problem with requiring children to pay restitution: they don’t have money. Forty-eight states and territories, including Pennsylvania, place no cap on restitution. But most teenagers cannot legally work before age 16 and are required by law to attend school. Older teens often can’t find jobs. Those who do may be limited to part-time work for low wages.

Pushing teens to work can also do more harm than good. Teens who work longer hours have worse grades and higher dropout rates, while youth involvement in community and extracurricular activities pays dividends in positive outcomes in the long run.

Another problem is that restitution promotes justice by income. Wealthy parents often pay off their children’s bills, preventing or quickly ending any justice system involvement, while poor children spend months or even years facing court hearings, extended probation, civil penalties, and jail time. In Pennsylvania, a child who does not pay restitution may be punished with civil judgment, interest and collection fees, delayed expungement, and, after turning 21, incarceration for restitution incurred as a child.

“Courts order Black children to pay restitution at younger ages than white children.”

Black, Latino, Indigenous, and other teens of color have it even worse. They face harsher consequences in the justice system, including higher rates of arrest, placement, and referral to adult court than white youth who engage in the same behavior. Research in Hennepin County, Minn., revealed that courts order Black children to pay restitution at younger ages than white children. A deep racial wealth gap, forged by centuries of subjugation and discrimination embedded in national policy, also makes it even more difficult for kids of color to pay off restitution orders and exit the justice system.

Today’s restitution policies also fail victims. Though data is limited, many states collect only a fraction of restitution owed. For example, a 2017 study by the Alabama Juvenile Justice Task Force concluded that just 15% of juvenile restitution is ever collected. In some cases, teens’ payments do not even help victims directly, instead going to insurance companies or government agencies. Victims may also prefer other forms of restoration to monetary restitution. When victims in one study were given the opportunity to choose how youth should be held accountable, three out of four asked for nonmonetary reparations, such as an apology, or that the youth get counseling or other services.

There are simple solutions to meet victims’ needs without harming young people in the process. The Pennsylvania General Assembly has introduced a bill that would limit restitution to the amount of money a child can make while under juvenile court supervision, ensure that restitution is paid to victims rather than third parties, and require the court to consider factors such as the child’s age and the victim’s willingness to accept another form of restorative justice in lieu of restitution. The bill also permits the court to modify or forgive restitution under certain circumstances. This is a good first step, but Pennsylvania, and the nation, should go further.

“We should use existing funds to compensate victims.”

First, we should use existing funds to compensate victims. All 50 states and four territories have established victim compensation programs funded by the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). Unfortunately, federal legislation limits these compensation payments to medical expenses, loss of wages, and funeral expenses for specific violent crimes. This leaves many victims without redress, even though the money is there — the federal VOCA fund had a balance of nearly $2.9 billion as of May, yet paid out just $400 million to victims in 2019. Congress should pass legislation permitting a broader use of VOCA funds in juvenile court cases, including for nonviolent offenses.

Second, we should focus on repairing harm, restoring relationships, and preventing court involvement for young people. Pilot programs across the country illustrate the effectiveness of these approaches. The Wodakota Program, run by the Spirit Lake Tribal Council, for example, brought youth who had caused harm into communities with relatives and elders to come up with an action-focused peacemaking compact — all before an arrest or any law enforcement involvement. Restorative Community Pathways in Washington state and the Raphah Institute in Tennessee both divert young people away from the juvenile justice system and replace punishment with restorative justice programs. These programs have promising outcomes: In Restorative Community Pathways’ first year, 40% fewer young people entered the juvenile justice system in King County. Youth who completed the Raphah Institute’s program had a reconviction rate of just 4%, while nearly 90% of victims who completed the program were satisfied with their experience.

» READ MORE: End youth incarceration now | Opinion

And, of course, communities can prevent harm in the first place. We know young people do better when they have the resources they need for positive development and successful transitions to adulthood. Real community safety comes from investment in education, positive youth activities, and social safety nets to address food insecurity and provide health care.

We must replace youth restitution with the healing, restorative, and equitable alternatives already within our reach.

Jessica Feierman is senior managing attorney at Juvenile Law Center. Lindsey E. Smith is a staff attorney at Juvenile Law Center. They are two of the authors of “Reimagining Restitution,” a new report on juvenile restitution.