This document discusses key findings about restitution in the juvenile justice system from a new report by the Juvenile Law Center. It summarizes that: 1) Youth restitution often does not work for victims and youth lack resources to pay 2) Victims can be compensated through other funds without relying on youth payments 3) Restitution does not effectively hold youth accountable and punishes them for being poor 4) There are promising alternative programs that are more restorative than monetary restitution 5) Defenders should challenge unjust restitution orders in court

1. Renew Your ABA Membership
It's time to renew your membership and keep access to free
CLE, valuable publications and more.
Your membership has expired - last chance for uninterrupted
access to free CLE and other benefits.
Renew
Now

2. Search ABA

3. Skip to contentMy ABAEventsCLEShop ABAMember
DirectoryJoinLog InLog In
Shopping Cart
Join the - ABA
Litigation
Section Membership
Publications
More
Programs & CLE
Committees
Resources
Diversity
Public Service

4. Search This Group
Main Menu
Search
Search

5. Submit
Clear

6. Close

7. Search
Submit
Clear
ABA GroupsLitigationCommitteesChildren's Rights
LitigationPractice Points
September 28, 2022
Practice Points
Five Key Findings About Restitution in the Juvenile
Justice System
No matter the situation, a child should never be punished
because they are too poor to pay a debt, including restitution.By
Lindsey E. Smith and Nadia Mozaffar

8. Share:
As leaders on the national Debt Free Justice campaign, we’ve
seen a sea change in recent years around financial punishments
for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Advocates and
lawmakers across the country are realizing what youth and
families have long known: Ordering kids to pay money doesn’t
work. In fact, 15 states have already passed laws that eliminate
some or all juvenile system fines and fees.
Yet one type of financial punishment is often left behind:
restitution. Intended to make a victim whole from harm caused
by a young person, restitution carries with it a host of negative
impacts in practice—including low victim satisfaction. In our
new report,
Reimagining Restitution: New Approaches for Youth
and Communities [PDF], we examine these problems as well as
alternatives that communities are building that are more
humane, restorative, and that prevent unnecessary justice
system involvement for young people.
Below are five key findings youth advocates should know about
restitution in the juvenile justice system.1. Youth Restitution
Often Does Not Work for People Harmed by Crime
Youth involved in the juvenile system and their families
frequently lack the financial resources to pay restitution orders.

9. Youth aren’t trying to avoid their obligation—after all,
punishments for nonpayment are serious, including
incarceration or detention in 38 states and territories. They just
lack the resources. Research also shows victims may prefer non-
monetary reparations instead of money from youth.
Connections between youth payment and victim compensation
are often tenuous. Youth in some states pay restitution into a
large fund, and victims have to apply separately and meet
sometimes-strict criteria to be compensated. Dr. Karin Martin
calls this set-up “indirect restitution,” and notes that it has
reduced the restorative impact of restitution for both youth and
victims. On the other hand, some states define “victim” so
broadly that youth may be ordered to pay restitution to
government agencies, police, and even multi-billion-dollar
insurance companies.2. Victims Can Be Compensated Even
Without Youth Restitution
Victim compensation funds are much more effective in making
victims financially whole than youth restitution that depends on
payments by children. This is particularly true because system-
involved youth are often from low-income families. All states
and most territories already operate federally funded Victim of
Crime Act (VOCA) funds, which compensate victims for harm.
While $400 million was paid out to victims in 2019, the last
year for which this data is available, the federal budget for
these funds is far greater at a healthy $1.7 billion.
VOCA funds are limited to victims of violent crime but
expanding the eligibility criteria for these funds to cover all
types of harm caused by a young person could ensure victims
receive compensation without relying on payments by a young
person. This would free communities to hold youth accountable
in developmentally appropriate ways that do not involve
money.3. Restitution Does Not Effectively Hold Youth
Accountable
Restitution does not work to hold children accountable for harm
because children, as a class, cannot pay. This means families,
not kids, end up footing the bill. Nine states have joint and

10. several liability statutes that further undermine accountability
by imposing financial obligations on children for someone
else’s actions.
Restitution also creates a two-tiered justice system. Young
people from well-off families pay and end their cases early,
while youth from poor families remain trapped in the juvenile
system for years—up to age 28 in Washington, for example—
just because they cannot afford to pay. Yet the research shows
children’s brains do not respond to long-term negative
consequences like these.
Black, Latinx, and Indigenous youth, already disadvantaged by
the racial wealth gap, are more likely to be punished in juvenile
justice systems and less likely to be able to afford restitution.
These disparities then deepen because states punish nonpayment
of restitution especially harshly, including via incarceration,
extended probation, denial of record-clearing, and civil
judgment.4. There Are Promising Alternatives to Restitution,
Some Outside the Juvenile Justice System
Diversion programs, particularly those that use restorative
justice principles, can rebuild trust and meet victims’ material
needs without imposing monetary restitution. These programs
show promising early results for reducing recidivism and
increasing victim and youth satisfaction. If a child does end up
in court, judges can use age-appropriate approaches to meet
youth’s needs instead of restitution, like mediation, treatment,
counseling, and pro-social programming.
Moreover, in many cases the best response to youth harm does
not involve the juvenile justice system at all. Local
communities, religious organizations, Indigenous tribes, and
families regularly resolve problems informally, meeting both
victims’ and youth’s needs without the collateral harms caused
by the system. Investing in communities means more resources
available for this kind of problem-solving.5. Defenders Can and
Should Challenge Restitution in Court
While restitution can be mandatory in some states, most states
provide at least some protections for youth facing possible

11. restitution orders, like hearings, limits on restitution, or access
to alternative programs like those described above. Youth
defenders do not have to take restitution for granted and can
instead use these protections to reach a disposition that does not
punish young clients for poverty. To see your state or territory’s
restitution statutes, see
here.
Even in jurisdictions with no specific limits on restitution,
restitution typically must serve the “rehabilitative” purpose of
the juvenile code. Our research shows it frequently does not.
And regardless of jurisdiction, attorneys may argue that
restitution is unconstitutional under the equal protection and
due process clauses’ prohibitions on punishment for poverty or
the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.
No matter the situation, a child should never be punished
because they are too poor to pay a debt, including restitution.
Lindsey E. Smith is an attorney and
Nadia Mozaffar is a senior attorney with the Juvenile
Law Center on their Debt Free Justice Campaign staff in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Entity:
Litigation
Topic:
Children's RightsCriminal Law
The material in all ABA publications is copyrighted and
may be reprinted by permission only. Request reprint
permission
here.
Copyright © 2022, American Bar Association. All rights
reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be
copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or
downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval
system without the express written consent of the American Bar
Association. The views expressed in this article are those of the

12. author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies
of the American Bar Association, the Litigation Section, this
committee, or the employer(s) of the author(s).
More on This Topic
Explore - Litigation Publications
ABA ResourcesABA JournalABA-Approved Law SchoolsLaw
School AccreditationBar ServicesLegal Resources for the
PublicABA Career CenterModel Rules of Professional
ConductEmployment at the ABA
The ABAAbout the ABAABA Member BenefitsOffice of the
PresidentABA NewsroomJoin the ABA
ConnectContact UsContact Media RelationsWeb Staff
PortalTerms of UseCode of ConductPrivacy PolicyCopyright &
IP PolicyAdvertising & SponsorshipCookie Settings
®

13. ®
© 2022 American Bar Association, all rights reserved.
American Bar Association|/content/aba-cms-
dotorg/en/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-
rights/practice/2022/5-key-findings-about-restitution-in-the-
juvenile-justice-system