Making Families Pay: The Harmful, Unlawful, and Costly Practice of Charging Juvenile Administrative Fees in California

Campos-Bui, Stephanie; Selbin, Jeffrey; Jaka, Hamza; Kline, Tim; Lavalais, Ahmed; Phillips, Aryn Z.; Ridley-Kerr, Abby

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2937534

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, these direct and indirect effects on offenders’ economic sanctions may have adverse effects on families, especially minority families. For example, research findings on the juvenile justice system in California reveal that administrative fees cause financial hardship to families, particularly to Black and Hispanic families (Campos‐Bui et al., ).…”

Section: Imposition and Payment Of Economic Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

Ruback

Knoth

Gladfelter

et al. 2018

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Restitution is court‐ordered payment by an offender to compensate a crime victim for direct tangible losses resulting from the crime. Making regular restitution payments, it has been argued, may serve as a continual reminder to offenders of the harm they caused and their need to restore justice. In this study, we examined the recidivism of offenders who were delinquent in paying restitution and who had participated in a prior experiment aimed at testing whether receiving monthly letters would increase their payment of restitution. Findings from that experiment revealed that offenders who had received letters containing information about the economic sanctions they had paid and what they still owed paid a significantly larger proportion of the restitution owed and made significantly more monthly payments than did offenders in the other three experimental conditions. Results of the present follow‐up study revealed that even though recidivists (as measured by a new arrest) and nonrecidivists did not differ significantly in the amount of restitution they owed, nonrecidivists were more likely to have paid something toward the restitution they owed and more likely to have made more monthly payments. Statistical tests indicated that payment mediated the relationship between the experimental manipulation of information and observed recidivism, suggesting that the experimental manipulation of information led to more payments that, in turn, led to less recidivism. Policy Implications The findings from the prior experiment indicated that offenders who had received information about the economic sanctions they had paid and what they still owed were more likely to make payments. In that study, scholars concluded that giving offenders this information was cost‐effective, in that for every dollar spent, more than $6 in restitution was received. The results of this follow‐up analysis of recidivism demonstrate that the cost‐effectiveness of providing information is greater than previously indicated. At a cost of $64.19 per day for jail in Pennsylvania, the difference of 46.4 days between offenders who received information and those in the other experimental conditions could be as much as $2,978.42 per offender, less the costs of monitoring payments.

show abstract

Section: Imposition and Payment Of Economic Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

Ruback

Knoth

Gladfelter

et al. 2018

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Restrictive sanctions are associated with negative outcomes for youths (see Mendel, 2011; Weisburd, 2015, for reviews), including higher probability of future offending (e.g., Gatti et al, 2009), low self-efficacy and mental health concerns (e.g., Cuevas et al, 2017), loss of educational progress and interruption or termination of schooling (e.g., Keeley, 2006), sexual victimization (e.g., Heaton et al, 2012), and increased costs to families (e.g., Campos-Bui et al, 2017). Though these negative consequences are well understood by researchers, more than 10,000 youths were held in long-term secure facilities on any given day in 2019, including approximately 1,300 youths ordered to residential placement because of technical violations of probation, status offenses, or drug use (Sawyer, 2019).…”

Section: Impact Of Judicial Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s risk got to do with it: Judges’ and probation officers’ understanding and use of juvenile risk assessments in making residential placement decisions.

McPhee¹,

Heilbrun²,

Cubbon³

et al. 2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This hypothetical vignette-based experiment was designed to better understand judges’ and probation officers’ interpretations and use of juvenile risk assessment tools in their decision-making around restrictive sanctions and confinement of youths on the basis of the youths’ risk level and race. Hypotheses: We expected that estimates of the probability of juvenile recidivism would significantly mediate the relationship between a categorical risk descriptor and decisions regarding the ordering confinement of youths. We also hypothesized that youths’ race would serve as a significant moderator in the model. Method: Judicial and probation staff (N = 309) read a two-part vignette about a youth who was arrested for the first time; in this vignette, race (Black, White) and risk level (low, moderate, high, very high) of the youth were varied. Participants were asked to estimate the likelihood that the youth would recidivate in the following year and their likelihood of ordering or recommending residential placement. Results: Although we found no simple, significant relationship between risk level and confinement decisions, judicial and probation staff estimated higher likelihoods of recidivism as risk-level categories increased and ordered out-of-home placements at increased rates as their estimations of the youth’s likelihood of recidivation increased. The youth’s race did not moderate the model. Conclusion: The greater the probability of recidivism, the more likely each judge or probation officer was to order or recommend out-of-home placement. However, importantly, legal decisionmakers appeared to apply categorical risk assessment data to their confinement decisions using their own interpretations of risk category rather than being guided empirically on the basis of risk-level categories.

show abstract

“…Limited evidence suggests that monetary sanctions can also engender stress and conflict within families. Parents of children with LFOs experience anxiety, anger, frustration, and resentment, weakening relationships with their children (Campos-Bui et al, 2017; Paik & Packard, 2019) and children report worry, stress, and arguments with parents (Campos-Bui et al, 2017). Adults with LFOs discuss feeling guilty about relying on family to pay and relay limited ability to address their debt on their own (Boches et al, 2022; Pleggenkuhle, 2018).…”

Section: The Financial Demands Of Criminal Legal System Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Legal-Financial Obligations on Relationships With Family, Friends, and Acquaintances: A Qualitative Study of Community Supervised Men With Sexual and Nonsexual Offense Convictions

Giuffre

2023

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

System-impacted individuals often rely on others to provide financial support, which aids in the payment of legal-financial obligations (LFOs). LFOs comprise the fines, fees, restitution, surcharges, and assessments imposed on individuals who come into contact with the criminal legal system. Limited evidence suggests that this support can prompt stress and negative emotions for system-impacted individuals and their families. This study examines the process by which a matched sample of 125 men convicted of sexual offenses and nonsexual offenses in Missouri obtain financial support from others and how that process impacts their relationships. Secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with these men reveals that financial support may be governed by resource-sharing norms and LFOs can burden those who cannot pay by indebting them to others and adding “relational work” to their lives.

show abstract

Making Families Pay: The Harmful, Unlawful, and Costly Practice of Charging Juvenile Administrative Fees in California

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

What’s risk got to do with it: Judges’ and probation officers’ understanding and use of juvenile risk assessments in making residential placement decisions.

The Impact of Legal-Financial Obligations on Relationships With Family, Friends, and Acquaintances: A Qualitative Study of Community Supervised Men With Sexual and Nonsexual Offense Convictions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About