REFORM'S OVERSIGHT: THE LIMITS OF YOUTH RESTITUTION

Abstract

Over the past decade, dozens of state and local jurisdictions across the country and political spectrum have ended fines and fees in juvenile courts. However, one monetary sanction is routinely left out of reform efforts: victim restitution. Unlike most fines and fees, youth restitution-paid to victims or harmed parties for economic loss or injury-continues to enjoy wide support, under the assumption that it promotes youth rehabilitation, deters harmful behavior, and makes harmed persons whole. But does restitution, particularly in juvenile court, deliver on its promises? 

This Article illustrates how restitution functions in practice, and in doing so, sheds light on an often-overlooked corner of the juvenile system. Analyzing original data and hundreds of records gathered from public record requests sent to 117 entities, including juvenile courts, that handle youth restitution orders in California's 58 counties, I find no evidence that youth restitution achieves any of its purported goals. First, imposing restitution burdens youth with insurmountable debt, which undercuts opportunities for accountability and rehabilitation. Second, ordering youth to pay restitution exacerbates harm and incentivizes harmful behavior, particularly for low-income and Black and brown youth, rather than deterring crime. Third, because virtually none of the youth ordered to pay restitution can do so, the people they harm do not receive timely or adequate compensation. Building on these findings, I offer a path forward that focuses on policy reforms that better address harm and promote healing of both harmed parties and system-involved youth.

Keywords: monetary sanctions, juvenile court, rehabilitation, deterrence, restoration, restitution, victim, California, criminal law