Placement of Restitution Programs - Probation Model - Outside Agency Model - Court, City, County and State Models (From Restitution Programs in Juvenile and Family Court, 1982, Tape R-3 - See NCJ-91403)

• NCJ Number: 91406
• Author(s): C Lowe; M Katz; T S Oswald; A H Devine
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 0 pages
• Sale Source: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. Running time: 1 hr. 20 mins.

Annotation

Speakers describe restitution programs (juvenile) in their jurisdictions which have been initiated by a State organization (Nevada), a private community-based organization (Minnesota), and a county juvenile court (Ohio).

Abstract

The Nevada statewide project for juvenile restitution programs involved the State's Division of Youth receiving the grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and then subgranting the money to the nine judicial districts, which were responsible for developing their own restitution programs. The State provided the fiscal administration of the program while giving localities the autonomy to devise their own programs. This structure proved to be workable in Nevada. The private, community-based juvenile restitution program funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice in one Minnesota locality was undertaken by an existing agency with an established network with government and other community agencies. The success of the program has depended on the support of juvenile judges and their willingness to accept the policies set by the program. Some of the disadvantages of the private, community-based program are financial instability and lack of daily routine access to court records. The Ohio restitution program described was begun by a county juvenile court, with the program under the supervision of a probation officer. The program is viewed as but one tool in a battery of juvenile court alternatives for providing a positive influence upon juveniles under its jurisdiction. Efforts to develop work opportunities for juveniles with private employers did not work, largely because the youth were unskilled and of low intelligence; consequently, the county pays the youth for work in county projects. Questions and answere following the presentations are included on the tape.