An Overview of Restitution Program Models in the Juvenile Justice System

Why do Some Boundary Organizations Result in New Ideas and Practices and Others only Meet Resistance?

“…The survey identified issues of statutory authority, insurance liability, and fears that the youth would not be able to complete the restitution orders as reasons for not having restitution programs. 2 Most of these programs identified treatment as the primary purpose, although there were some that indicated the use of restitution as punishment and others that paid scant attention to the offender at all and were victim-oriented programs (A. L. Schneider, 1987). Again, at least partly because of the slack time before the programs had been funded, the national evaluators undertook additional special projects based on these studies, including a paper on state-by-state statutory authority to order restitution and community service, a paper on the case law regarding restitution and community service for juveniles, and an analysis of liability case law that would apply (Feinman, 1980).…”

“…RESTTA carried on the diffusion of restitution and community service programs-as alternatives to incarcerationeven during the rapid turn toward a more punitive juvenile system that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. A follow-up survey several years later found that most of the original programs were still in existence and that literally hundreds of new ones had been implemented (A. L. Schneider & Warner, 1987). These changes became part of the restorative justice movement, one of the major reform-oriented movements in criminal and juvenile justice in the United States and internationally (Bazemore & Schiff, 2004).…”