A Statewide Analysis of the Impact of Restitution and Fees on Juvenile Recidivism in Florida Across Race & Ethnicity

Abstract

Whether the imposition of monetary sanctions is related to juvenile recidivism is explored overall and across race and ethnicity. Leveraging a statewide sample, logistic regression was used to predict fees and restitution assignment based on youth/case characteristics, hierarchical linear and logistic random-effects regression examined the association between neighborhood characteristics with fees and restitution, and propensity score matching examined whether fees and/or restitution are related to reoffending. No race/ethnic differences were found in the proportion of youth receiving court fees, yet when fees were administered both Black and Hispanic youth received higher fees. Neighborhood characteristics have minimal impact on whether (or the amounts) monetary sanctions were assigned. Post-matching, fees increased recidivism, as did being Black or Hispanic. Interactions between race/ethnicity and both fees and restitution showed Black youth with restitution had a higher recidivism likelihood. Monetary sanctions imposed on youth involved in the juvenile justice system has a potential deleterious impact on recidivism.

Keywords

monetary sanctions juvenile recidivism race/ethnic disparities

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agnew

(2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Oxford University Press.

Agnew

Brezina

(2019). General strain theory. In Krohn

M. D.

Hendrix

Hall

G. P.

Lizotte

A. J.

(Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (2nd ed.). Springer.

Apel

R. J.

Sweeten

(2010). Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 543–562). Springer.

Baglivio

M. T.

(2009). The assessment of risk to recidivate among a juvenile offending population. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 596–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.09.008

Baglivio

M. T.

Jackowski

(2013). Examining the validity of a juvenile offending risk assessment instrument across gender and race/ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012440107

Baglivio

M. T.

Wolff

K. T.

Epps

Nelson

(2017). Predicting adverse childhood experiences: The importance of neighborhood context in youth trauma among delinquent youth. Crime & Delinquency, 63(2), 166–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715570628

Baglivio

M. T.

Wolff

K. T.

Piquero

A. R.

Bilchik

Jackowski

Greenwald

M. A.

Epps

(2016). Maltreatment, child welfare, and recidivism in a sample of deep-end crossover youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(4), 625–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0407-9

Baird

Healy

Johnson

Bogie

Dankert

E. W.

Scharenbroch

(2013). A comparison of risk assessment instruments in juvenile justice. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Bazemore

Umbreit

(1995). Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive and restorative responses to youth crime. Crime & Delinquency, 41(3), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128795041003002

10.

Beckett

Harris

A. M.

(2011). On cash and conviction: Monetary sanctions as misguided policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 10(3), 505–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00726.x.

11.

Capowich

G. E.

Mazerolle

Piquero

(2001). General strain theory, situational anger, and social networks: An assessment of conditioning influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(5), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2352(01)00101-5

12.

Cook

T. D.

Trulson

C. R. .

(2022). Comparing official measures of recidivism in juvenile justice. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09672-x

13.

Coulton

C. J.

Crampton

D. S.

Irwin

Spilsbury

J. C.

Korbin

J. E.

(2007). How neighborhoods influence child maltreatment: A review of the literature and alternative pathways. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11-12), 1117–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.023

14.

Craig

J. M.

Wolff

K. T.

Baglivio

M. T.

(2021). Resilience in context: The association between neighborhood disadvantage and cumulative positive childhood experiences among justice-involved youth. Crime & Delinquency, 67(11), 1647–1675. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211029852

15.

Feld

B. C.

(1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. Oxford University Press.

16.

Fines and Fees Justice Center and Juvenile Law Center . (2022). Dreams deferred: The impact of juvenile fees on Florida’s children, families, and future. https://jlc.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2022-01/Dreams_Deferred_Florida_Juvenile_Fees_Report_2022_0.pdf

17.

Harris

2016. A pound of flesh: Monetary sanctions as a punishment for the poor. Russell Sage. (American Sociological Association’s Rose Monograph Series).

18.

Harris

Smith

(2022). Monetary sanctions as chronic and acute health stressors: The emotional strain of people who owe court fines and fees. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(2), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2022.8.2.02

19.

Juvenile Law Center . (2016). Debtor’s prison for kids? The high cost of fines and fees in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile Law Center.

20.

Leuven

Sianesi

(2003). Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Department of Economics, Boston College: Statistical Software Components S432001.

21.

Lunt

(2014). Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt212

22.

Morris

Tonry

M. H.

(1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. Oxford University Press.

23.

Mustillo

S. A.

Lizardo

O. A.

McVeigh

R. M.

(2018). Editors’ Comment: A Few Guidelines for Quantitative Submissions. American Sociological Review, 83, 1281–1283. DOI:10.1177/0003122418806282.

24.

Pattillo

Kirk

(2020). Pay unto Caesar: Breaches of justice in the monetary sanctions regime. UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review, 4(1), 49–77. 34179696.

25.

Piquero

A. R.

Gomez-Smith

Langton

(2004), Discerning unfairness where others may not: Low self-control and unfair sanction perceptions. Criminology, 42(3), 699–734. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00534.x

26.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

(2017). Research note: Justice system–imposed financial penalties increase the likelihood of recidivism in a sample of adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(3), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016669213

27.

Rodriguez

(2013). Concentrated disadvantage and the incarceration of youth: Examining how context affects juvenile justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 189–215. DOI:10.11177/0022427811425538

28.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41

29.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383

30.

Ruback

Bergstrom

(2006). Economic sanctions in criminal justice: Purposes, effects, and implications. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(2), 242–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854805284414

31.

Smith

D. J.

(2007). The foundations of legitimacy. In Tyler

T. R.

(Ed.), Legitimacy and criminal justice; an international perspective (pp. 30–58). : Russell Sage Foundation.

32.

Smith

L. E.

Mozaffar

N. S.

Feierman

Parker

NeMoyer

Goldstein

N. E.

Spennce

J. M. H.

Thompson

M. C.

Jenkins

V. L.

(2022). Reimagining restitution: New approaches to support youth and communities. https://www.jlc.org/resources/reimagining-restitution-new-approaches-support-youth-and-communities

33.

Teague

Mazerolle

Legosz

Sanderson

(2008). Linking childhood exposure to physical abuse and adult offending: Examining mediating factors and gendered relationships. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 313–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802024689

34.

Thibaut

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

35.

Tyler

(1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22(1), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053563

36.

Tyler

(2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice (pp. 283–357). University of Chicago Press.

37.

Tyler

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038.

38.

UCLA criminal justice law Review . (2020). Volume IV. Entire Special Issue.

39.

Winokur-Early

Hand

G. A.

Blankenship

(2012). Validity and reliability of the Florida positive achievement change tool (PACT) risk and needs assessment instrument: A three-phase evaluation (validation study, factor analysis, inter-rater reliability). Justice Research Center.

40.

Wolff

K. T.

Baglivio

M. T.

Piquero

A. R.

(2017). The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and recidivism in a sample of juvenile offenders in community-based treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(11), 1210–1242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15613992