Set Up for Failure? Examining the Influence of Monetary Sanctions on Probation Success

Abstract

Recent critiques of the decision to make monetary sanctions a condition of probation have suggested that the practice could hinder the successful completion of probation. However, few studies have explored this relationship empirically, and among those that do, the findings are relatively inconclusive and often dependent on the sample and measures used. Building on this research, the current study examines the imposition of four monetary sanctions on a sample of felony cases involving indigent adult probationers from a Florida public defender’s office. The results indicate that although monetary sanctions have relatively little impact on probation violations generally, the effects of these penalties vary based on the severity of the violation. Legal factors are consistently the most significant predictors of the likelihood and severity of probation violations.

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

“…Two recent studies have been aimed at examining the link between all types of economic sanctions and recidivism. With a sample of 358 individuals whose cases were handled by a public defender's office in Florida, Iratzoqui and Metcalfe () found that the imposition of fees and restitution were unrelated to a probation violation. Legal factors (e.g., new charges, drug possession, and weapon possession), not fees or restitution, had the greatest impact on the recidivism of this undoubtedly impoverished group.…”

Twice Punished: Perceived Procedural Fairness and Legitimacy of Monetary Sanctions

“…There has also been a parallel growth in the assessment of costs associated with correctional supervision (Pleggenkuhle, 2018;Ruhland, 2019;Ruhland et al, 2017). There is emerging evidence that suggests that monetary sanctions can complicate the reintegration process for individuals under correctional supervision (Harris et al, 2010;Pleggenkuhle, 2018) and can have negative effects on postconviction success (Heaton et al, 2017;Ruhland, 2019) including higher rates of recidivism (Iratzoqui & Metcalfe, 2017;Piquero & Jennings, 2017).…”

Restitution

“…Compared with other economic sanctions, then, restitution holds the potential of positive outcomes for offenders, victims, and the community. The “specialness” of restitution has been recognized in that many researchers have tried to isolate information about restitution in their analyses as Barry Ruback, Lauren Knoth, Andrew Gladfelter, and Brendan Lantz did (: 789–813; see also Haynes, Cares, and Ruback, ; Iratzoqui and Metcalfe, ). Furthermore, calls to limit or eliminate the use of economic sanctions have been explicit that this does not apply to restitution (Beckett and Harris, ).…”

“…Current knowledge regarding the imposition and payment of economic sanctions in general is mostly limited to a few states or to a few jurisdictions within those states (e.g., Alabama—Meredith and Morse, ; New Jersey—Weisburd et al., ; Louisiana—Henrichson et al., ; Pennsylvania—Ruback and Clark, ; Washington—Harris et al., ). Research aimed at examining recidivism is even more limited (e.g., Florida—Iratzoqui and Metcalfe, ; Pennsylvania—Ruback et al., ; and for juveniles—Haynes et al., , and Piquero and Jennings, ).…”

“…Are offenders less supportive of restitution being paid to a state victim compensation fund, thereby undermining payment and any positive impact on recidivism? Recidivism can also be expanded to include additional measures, such as probation and parole violations and revocations and extensions of probation (e.g., Haynes et al., ; Iratzoqui and Metcalfe, ). In addition to receipt of payment, it is also important to look at other victim outcomes, such as victim satisfaction with the process and future willingness to engage with the criminal justice system (e.g., Ruback, Cares, and Hoskins, ).…”