TWO TYPES OF JUVENILE RESTITUTION PROGRAMS IN TWO MIDWESTERN COUNTIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

• NCJ Number: 146965
• Journal: Federal Probation Volume: 57 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1993) Pages: 48-53
• Author(s): S Roy
• Date Published: 1993
• Length: 6 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article compares the effectiveness of two juvenile restitution programs: a Victim Offender Reconciliation Project and a court-based program.

Abstract

The Victim Offender Reconciliation Program in Elkhart County, Ind., began in 1979. The program's main feature is a face-to-face meeting between the offender and the victim. A trained mediator makes initial personal contacts with the offender and the victim and schedules a joint meeting. In the mediator's presence the facts of the case are discussed, restitution is negotiated, and a contract is developed. The program intends to make the offender accountable for the offense. Project staff monitor the offender's restitution payments and inform the victim about the offender's progress in fulfilling the contract. The court-based program in Kalamazoo County, Mich., began in 1984. It is a court diversion project that provides an alternative to adjudication for cases where victims suffer property loss or damage. Participation in the program is voluntary. Program objectives are to hold offenders accountable for their offenses by completing the terms of their restitution contracts. Community work is a restitution option. To evaluate the two programs, data were collected on 114 randomly selected juveniles in Elkhart and 109 juveniles in Kalamazoo. The dependent variable was the outcome of the programs. This was measured by completion of restitution contracts and offender recidivism. Seventy-six percent of the subjects in the Elkhart sample and 78 percent of the juveniles in the Kalamazoo sample completed their restitution contracts. During the 2-year followup, 28.7 percent of the Elkhart sample and 27.05 percent of the Kalamazoo sample committed recidivist offenses. The programs thus showed no significant differences in outcome based on the two measures. Recidivists in both programs tended to be repeat offenders. Additional research must be conducted before any generalizations can be made about the effectiveness of these two types of programs. 2 tables and 21 references