Restitution Payment and Recidivism

Abstract

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.

Restitution

“…Despite these limitations, we do know a lot, and our knowledge is significantly enhanced by the findings of Ruback et al. (). Although only one study, Ruback et al.…”

“…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, ).…”

“…Ruback et al. (), however, suggested that offenders may be making some distinctions as a higher payment of restitution was related to lower recidivism, but those with higher fees imposed had higher rates of recidivism. As they noted, this finding may be attributable to the financial burden of high levels of economic sanctions and to offenders’ beliefs that the amount of fees imposed were unfair.…”

“…How can the findings of Ruback et al. (), then, be used to help us realize the full potential of restitution? One possibility is to follow the precedent some researchers have set and treat restitution as special.…”

“…The needed research requires gathering data across multiple stages of the criminal justice system (or multiple agencies) as Ruback et al. () have successfully done by getting data from probation and the state police. Ideally, data from law enforcement and probation agencies need to be integrated with data on bail (where it still exists and is imposed) and other court‐ordered financial obligations (e.g., child support) to get a more complete picture of the experiences of offenders.…”