Study of the Cost and Benefits of the Washington County Restitution Center

• NCJ Number: 78871
• Author(s): R A Jones; C Goff
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 20 pages
• Grant Number(s): 76-ED-10-0003; 76-ED-10-0004
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: Oregon Law Enforcement Council
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Findings are reported from a study of the costs and benefits of the Washington County Restitution Center (Oregon).

Abstract

The restitution center was designed to provide an alternative to jail for jobless, nonviolent offenders, which would require them to secure a job and contribute a portion of their income for room and board at the center and payment of restitution, fees, and fines. Residents are required to agree to obtain and maintain employment, enter into a restitution contract, and develop a monthly financial plan. Residents progress through a nine-step program, with progress being measured by weekly evaluations. Over the operational period of the LEAA grant, the center had an average resident population of six, and the average daily expenditure per resident was $35.43 (1978). Adjusting this expenditure by the average amount of room and board paid by residents reduced the amount to $32.27 per resident each day. Incarceration in the county jail cost $18.76 per prisoner per day for fiscal year 1976-1977. Adjusting for facility costs by adding a prorated amount for new jail construction results in the center costing about $10 a day more per resident. Had the center maintained an average resident population near 10, the jail and the center would have been cost competitive. The center residents contributed an average of about $10 each day to the economic flow of the community through restitution, fees, fines, savings, allowances, and expenses. Inasmuch as none of the center's residents were arrested for any new crimes, the program could be considered successful, especially as an alternative to jail; however, 15 of 36 residents admitted to the center were returned to jail, with most of the revocations being for violations of the center rules. More of the residents with the lesser amounts of financial restitution completed the program than those with the higher amounts. Eight other variables associated with the residents were analyzed for their relationship with program success, and none were found to be statistically significant. Tabular data are provided. (Author abstract modified)