States like North Dakota need to re-imagine their restitution laws for juvenile offenders, according to a new report, which showed the payments often leave young people in debt and make it harder to turn their lives around.
In its findings, the Juvenile Law Center said as a young person goes through the criminal justice system, they often encounter a range of fees but usually do not have the money to pay them. Some are also required to pay restitution to victims.
Nadia Mozaffar, senior attorney at the Center, said policies vary by state, but overall, the approach is lacking.
"Across the country, restitution is really a broken system that isn't working for young people," Mozaffar asserted. "That actually isn't resulting in victims being appropriately compensated."
North Dakota is not among the states with mandatory restitution. Judges have discretion in ordering a juvenile to repay the victim, but it is on the list of states specifically granting crime victims the right to restitution from children or youth. And unless the offender's parent is part of the order, North Dakota does not place a cap on payment amounts.
The report encouraged states to look for solutions that still bring a sense of closure to victims, without setting up barriers for young offenders. Mozaffar believes it can be accomplished.
"Whether it's through a restorative justice program or some sort of other alternatives," Mozaffar urged. "To ensure that young people are being held accountable, and they are getting support and resources that they need in order to kind of move on from this."
The report also suggested expanded victim compensation funds without financial obligations for youth.
Last year, North Dakota adopted a juvenile justice overhaul for the first time in a half-century. One provision addressed the issue of court costs. It ensures all youth are provided a right to counsel by presuming they are indigent, rather than basing the decision on their parents' ability to pay.
get more stories like this via email
Michigan recently implemented a significant juvenile justice reform package following recommendations from a task force made up of prosecutors, sheriffs, judges and child advocates.
The reforms expand diversion eligibility, allocate state funds for programs, limit diversion periods to three months, and eliminate fines and fees.
Jason Smith, executive director of the Michigan Center for Youth Justice, emphasized the shift toward rehabilitation, community-based alternatives, standardized policies, risk assessments and the removal of fines and fees in the system. He said the new system is much more comprehensive.
"If you don't serve a 10-year-old in the juvenile-justice system, which we believe you shouldn't, what do you do with them?" Smith asked. "If they need services, what happens? What we will see over the next couple of years with the expansion of diversion and community-based options will answer those questions."
The major reform involved changing the child care fund reimbursement model to incentivize local jurisdictions to invest more in community-based services.
Richard A. Mendel, senior research fellow for youth justice at The Sentencing Project and author of a report on the topic, said not only does the Michigan package eliminate most fees and minimize costs which would have previously gone to youths or their parents and the counties serving them, but overall diversion programs save money.
"Diversion tends to be cheaper," Mendel pointed out. "It's not a new cost, it's a net savings, even in the short term. And it's especially in this savings financially in the long term because these young people are much less likely to come back."
Smith added the state can serve 10 kids with high-quality services in the community for the price of one leaving residential placement.
get more stories like this via email
Online conferencing was a lifeline for school lessons and business meetings during the pandemic. However, there is concern about the effects of virtual court hearings on Illinois' juvenile offenders.
The "Justice For Children Policy Brief" said minors reported feeling frustrated and anxious during their hearings because they could not understand court procedures. They also said there was a lack of privacy when speaking with their attorneys.
Angie Vigil, a Miami-based attorney specializing in children's rights, opposes digital proceedings for any substantive hearings for children.
"Judges are people and decision-makers are people and when you're in the presence of other people, you make a humanity-based decision," Vigil argued. "When you're looking at a screen you might not make as much of a humanity-based decision."
In 2022, the Illinois House of Representatives passed House Resolution 616, urging the Illinois Supreme Court to require courts to responsibly transition juvenile delinquency proceedings back to in-person hearings, with priority given to those hearings where the interests of liberty are at stake.
Supporters of virtual hearings pointed to no commute time, traffic jams, or courthouse parking fees as reasons to keep them. Parents who rely on public transportation or worry about missing work can just sign on to attend their child's case. Vigil noted a family law attorney often juggles many foster care, child welfare, and juvenile offender cases, and said virtual hearings can ease their workload.
"They are spending less time sitting in court waiting for their cases to be called and more time out in the community meeting the needs of kids," Vigil contended. "It sounds like I'm saying efficiency, but I'm actually talking about more work done for all of the children."
Vigil called the current status of digital hearings a mixed bag. Some courts have returned to in-person proceedings, others use technology for some, but not all, cases. Still other courtrooms use virtual meetings if all involved parties agree. According to the policy brief report, digital hearings will continue to thrive because of funding constraints.
Disclosure: The Juvenile Justice Initiative contributes to our fund for reporting on Children's Issues, Civic Engagement, Criminal Justice, and Juvenile Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
There is growing concern over what happens to young offenders in Illinois as they await their first court hearing.
A report by European juvenile-justice groups suggests many children worldwide are kept in solitary confinement, and argued the arrangement has the potential for long-term harm. It defined solitary confinement as physical and social isolation more than 22 hours a day, and said detainment should be a last resort and for as short a time as possible.
Elizabeth Clarke, founder of the Evanston-based Juvenile Justice Initiative, said children as young as 10 are regularly locked up and left alone.
"Shockingly, Illinois has no minimum age for prosecution of children in our juvenile court," Clarke pointed out. "Often, they're held in their cell because there simply isn't adequate programming. There's nothing to do with them, and it's very troubling."
Clarke noted there is reason to believe the situation will improve. Last year, the Illinois Legislature passed House Bill 3140, which prohibits the use of room confinement as juvenile punishment unless the youth poses an immediate and serious risk of self-harm or harm to others. It took effect Jan. 1, and Clarke acknowledged it will take time to build up resources under the new law.
An Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice report said the state has 16 detention centers housing an average of 160 youths. A judge closed a Franklin County center last month, citing excessive use of solitary confinement.
Another bill would raise the age to imprison kids for felony convictions. Clarke called it a start, and it is supported by juvenile rights advocates and the Illinois Probation and Court Services Association.
"We do not believe young children ever belong in detention. It's not an appropriate place for them," Clarke asserted. "We want to see this House Bill 2347 pass."
The bill was filed one year ago this week. It said the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission should review and make recommendations to the General Assembly on raising the minimum detention age to 14.
Disclosure: The Juvenile Justice Initiative contributes to our fund for reporting on Children's Issues, Civic Engagement, Criminal Justice, and Juvenile Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email