Tri County Juvenile Restitution Program

• NCJ Number: 72961
• Author(s): R W Kigin
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 16 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Program/Project Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Written for the Third National Restitution Symposium, September 27th and 28, 1979

Annotation

This report describes a juvenile restitution program funded by a LEAA grant and sponsored by Stearns, Benton, and Sherburn counties in central Minnesota.

Abstract

The program began operation on January 1, 1978. Its goal is to bring the victim and the offender together to reach an agreeable settlement. The Tri County court judge initiated the program. After the judge orders restitution, a restitution officer becomes involved and a restitution conference is scheduled. Conference goal is to get the parties involved to talk about the criminal act and to determine the amount of monetary loss to be paid by the offender. For status offenses or other crimes for which the judge feels that restitution is warranted, a delinquency matrix is used to determine the amount of restitution. Relating the volunteer work to the offense committed is a method of increasing the juvenile's awareness of the consequences of his actions. A restitution contract specifies the amount of damages and/or volunteer hours to be worked. If the offender does not comply with the contract's terms, the restitution officer determines the cause and may turn the matter over to the juvenile court. The five types of restitution include direct monetary restitution to the victim, monetary restitution through a restitution account, money to a community organization, volunteer service to the victim, and volunteer services to the community. During the program's first 18 months, 353 clients with a mean age of 15.6 years have been involved. Most were white males. During clients' participation in the program, 97 percent had no further police contacts. During the 6-month followup period, 88 percent had no further police contact. Most victims either met directly with the offenders or were consulted by the restitution officer. The mean amount of monetary restitution was $163; mean personal service, 15 hours. It is concluded that restitution benefits both the victim and the offender and may be a successful answer to the question of juvenile criminal sanctions.