! ...

r

t

' ... '. ------~-

. ",;\

---~----------~----~~~----~--~--~----~--------------

This microfiche was produced f'rt>m doc,;uroenbreceived for inclH~n in the NCJRS data base. Since NcJRS ~notexerctse control 'over the phs<_at condition of the documen1s'submltted. the i!'»(jJvidu~ ~J:luall4r",1l1 vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate h~ document quality"

. .' "" .. ,

MICRQCOPV RE$WTlON TEST cmRT " , PlATIOHA/. IUIIW Of S\"AHOMos'I~

,

I 1

I .J r I j ,t

"

c ' J . J

-... ":~:::;-.-. .-... --, .. _,,-J."J

1 ·,r !~ '/

.... ~

\"-,

,. -><--,

~.

"' '"

...

:\

\ .. v,

" And .~.... "

Pwt.r R. Behne! dtIr

. r . ~fBmlog p~"";" ~il_ thtt ""he comply with ~:~~ setforth In 4JCfl't 10i",~~.504. " 'y:, , '

~': '--";t." '':.\.' "

, . , ;,-,t, -

, . ';'~·;·, .... 1 ,"

-~.7:::~ •.. :;:.

c; ":"~~t,

, :

, '.~. . ~ "

.---=-~~ <7 '..

'.'

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

-----~- -~--------------~---------------------------------------,*

I t

RBSTRI)CT .

3urntr;il. eOUJ"ts hal"e 21)(;1" •• s2ng1 y bltltn lntll,.est .. d i:'J using ~.;titutiD» itS lit sanction fD~ Juv.»i1. off.ndll~~ bu~ UDtil ~.cII»tl,# vllry lit~le infor».tion hilS been .vil.ilabl. DD th~ .ffltcts of ~#sti~atiDD. To il.ss(Jtss t~ i»pact 01 ",stitutioD on ,..cidivis. rates 01' Juv.DilIlS, • $*ri~s,Df I#x/Htri1H'Tl'tz NilS und.,.tilk.» as p.,.t D'f th. ".tiO".il1 .vill ailtiDD of the 03JDP-~und'd JuvII'nil* Restitution Initi.tivII. This ,..port eo;'t..:t:lt),~ tM rtlSalt.Z fro. 0'11' Df thas. exp .. ri»l1nts.

1b11 findings fro» 'CM Cl.y'to'D cotm7cy, SfPorgi., .XjH!'ri.I1Df; indicil.t. 'th.t youths rltqu.i"~id to ~.k. ,.estit;ution to tMir viet-i.s ei.tbeJ- 'throu.gh cO •• U1),ity slIrvicil' 0,. aODltt.,.y p.YJHtnt.s 9ftfi~".11 y hltd lClHtr "..c i d i vi SII rat.s t;h.n thosl/it giv.'/) th. aor.'f;raditioDilJ JtJ.vItDil. court dispositions., Fu~the".or.l' th. ~*salts cl~.~!y sug9~stt~t rltstitution Horks quit. H,11 on its ONn, ;Jtnd does not '(",.d to b. co»binfld Nith »eDt.1 he.lth cou»sfllling.

In contrast with .aDY other types Qf d*linquflncy pro9r~.s, the r~stitution i"te,.v~ntiQn not only had it po$'itivtr i»pr'j,ct wh4fn cont,.4tsted Hith traditional d.ispositio'Ds~ but actuill1y SlON.d tM d~li't)qu.'ney J"<tt't. of th, gro«p. T~e overall Dff.ns. r.t~·of the r~$titutioD-o»ly gro«p, fo,. .x~.pl', dropped fro •• pproxi».~l, ope off,ns, p(n~ 'toa'thli /J#r Y •• '" to .. 74 offilnslts, ~,.. yit:~~th fo,. -. OD'-y •• r ti»e'peFiod.

U.S.~of~ HetIorIiII ~of~

Thi$ doCument hat been reproduc::ed exactly as !\Qlved fmm 1he prASOO or OI'gI.nization originating It. Pointad vieWot opInlM"~~ In this dOcUment are 1hoIe of tie aulhotS and do .1'Kt't ~Wlif rflP!'eMnt the 'lIfk:I1I poIItionor policieS of lht t.Ia~ IMtitute of Ju-.'fice.

P\lfmI$JIOI\\ to repl'Odtil:(t ~s ..".,.;I'Itd material tItS I) Hn grenI~by

PUbUc llDV,llitUJ/QI.1TlP _u·s, Dept.. of Just; ce tOlheNaIlonllCrimlnll;~ReftrenceServiCl(NCJAS).

Further reproduction ou~ d lhe NC,h~~ ,}'Item nlqUirM ptmIi .. lim of the QIIIIIIIIIfrt owner.

• ,.,/>'" .....•

INl'RODUCTION

Pri or to the p.l anned experi.4l..,ts conduct ad as part of

the National Juvani 1. Resti tuition Program EVi\luation,

onl y scanty 1 nfor .. ati on w... avai 1 ab I e abOt.!t the i i1f)t'lct of

rt.titution nl' recidivism U). 'Empirical studies of

restitution have been reported only since the lilte 19705 And

ecst of the.e defined the effectiveness of restitution in

terms of its impact on vi~tims (Sal_way and Hudson, 1978;

Hu.~50n and Sa1.way, 1977; Schneider, 1975; SLI,ttQn, 1976).

Th~ AtftOunt of los. rtIPturnttd, the numb.,. Dr proportion of

vi c::ti ms pravi ded wi th re.ti tut1 on, vi cti 1ft Silt. i ~f act i on wi th

the outco .. of the ca.e, and victim ~.rc.ption~ of the

~.irn •• s or -justic.u af the sentence wwpe the common

p.:",forIDAnC:. indicators included in the early empirical

.tudi ...

Tha first twa .~udi •• which sought to link restitution

wi til: redu.cltd rltCi di vi SI1 were both conducted wi ttl adul t

paral •• ~ after thair ,.aitiiU,e freUD prison. Hei n:: , Hudson an.d,·· , ..

S.alaw.y in 1976 ,..port..d that the ra.ti tution group hAd fewer

eonvictions after relea •• ·than ill matched 9~euP oT

inc.rcerated of~end.r.. Similar results were found by Hudson

and Chesney (1~7S) in th.~r two-y.ar ~011owup of of adult

offender. ral •••• ed from t.hft Minn •• ota. R.stitution Center.

In a study conducted by Bonta, et. &1. (1983), adult , ~~

offenders 1n a restitution pr~r .. m had high .... recidivism

rat •• th&n tho •• in ~. control grQup, althcugh tn. diff&rence.

~ ______ !j~~~,.:.:1:t:Q';:.:iJl:11.::n:':]i.::':.:q:aM="~-!'~~··:'~'.~)~I':a~W~-~.~'W~·~.~:.~.~I~~~~l~I~'~II~d~[~.~t~r~"~_~I~;~:··~:_:t:'iI:'.:': .. :.:.::":': .. ':":":'.:.~: ... :.::.~:~'~'t~" ____ ~=-~ __ ~ ______ ~~~ .. ~ ~"' - • e t

1

1 •

J

~ . /

,. . . "

·· ... 1

..

...

wer. not statistically significan1:. Both groups ware hcusad

in • cCHDtlMJni'l:y re.ource center. The control progru

permitted offender. t~ Iftaintain employm.nt by .erving their

.entenc •• in the coamunity resource c.nt.r. Th •• ',1thor.

point out that the restitution group was. high.r-risk group

than the others prior to the intervention and that this CC~ld

have diminishad the t.rue imp.-ct of the program.

90th of the first two t .. ts of ~~.stitution"s ttFfeet on ",

recidivism of juvenile offenders ware und.rtak.n by doctoral

candidates. In one of these, conducted by H. L. Wax at

wa.hington Stat.e, juveniles .... 1"'. randomly A5signed into one

M three groups: monetary rastit.ution (with the victim

present .t .entencing>, community .ervice rtestitution, and a

centrol group ...,ic:h had no contac't with vict! ... -"d paid no

restitution. No differerr.: •• in recidivism rates ....... found

to be stAtistically .ignificant i\l1:houghr •• titution was

observed to have positive effects on' soma of the

psychological te.ts(Wu, 1977). Th. size OT the sample in (",

this .tudy, however, WAS so 3mall (36 tatal} that the

possibility ~ finding am impact, evan if one aXl.tad, was

exceptionally lew.

Thm •• ccnd doctoral study axamined recidivi.m rate. Of

APproximately ~O ~..fendar. in th-. Tul •• county 'jUvenile

restitution program (SuedaIia, 1979). Viariabl •• ofoundto b. ;' "

,.ignificantly relatad to reduc:1td reCidiviS., .... r. victi.

contact and re.titution (trd ..... of 1 ... thAn Sl00. The,

la'tt.,.., of c:oursali could SiMply be .. reflection of /. 1 •••

J: ~.~ ·_·t ~ .... ·······~·-·_""'"IM __ _

I

~I I' ,

•

, '

.erious immediate offense (h.n~. the lower amount OT the

re.titution ordar).

'1"NO rttt:antstudi .. of rac:idivism rates Among juvenile

d.1in~ttnts sent.ncad to ras!:itution rapor-tad positive

e4f.cts. CAnnon and Stanfo~d (1981) found a 19 percent

rearrest r&te ..ang re.titutiort ca ... over .. six aonth till.

Per-iodca.p&r.a with a 24 p.rcant rata. fer the

ncnrnti tut10n groups. HoffOl""d (1981) raportltd an 1B percent

recidivi.1I r.t. Tor youths in the juvenile restitution

progrua ca.p.,..,d with a ;SO per-Cttnt rate for the .. on rwvular

probation.

Th. r.sults <framthp ••• tudies ar. instructive and

eneourAQing although th.y are far from being definitive. As

is th. ca •• with virtu.lly all field research, .erious

-thodologie.l probl .. s confound IIOst .. oT the studie ...... king

it nec .... ry to rely mar. heavily on replic.tion of findings

than on any single study. With the exception of Wax~s study

and the adult study by H.inz, et. al., none achieved •

satisfactory deQr •• of_quival.nc. betw .. n the"comparison

grouJ:) ~d t.h. r.cidivism qroup. In the B.,:,nta .T"~y)lt:,.

persons in the r •• titution group W4tr"e more serious o'h~.nder.

than those in the contral:;:-a f.actor which cloarly could ha' ...

produced the "tlQati ve ttffttCt on reel di vi .m. In the oth.r

juvenile .tudl .. , littl.infor •• tion ... a. provided on wh.th.,.

the vroups ..... equivalent and .ultivariat. analysis Has not

" cOnducted in an a~tempt to ~~ld cars~a~t th. differenc •• that II /:("

could have confused the ,. .. ulta •.

. »

, ,;

..

t

If , i

, .• "

,,'

JI .. .

.POJ

•

ThCf .. purpose of thi s paper is to rltpart on the rOUl ts af

. .an axperi .. n't in the U •• M r •• t1 tut.~~ for juveni Ie

offend..,.. which .... s conduct.ed in Clayton c:ounty, &eor;i. ar;

p&rt Of the National Juvenile Restitution Evaluation (2) .. "

TIE PRC:J6RAH AND TIE OESISN

The restitution experiftHlnt in Clayton county eta suburb

ne.,. AtlAnta) was r.t .. igned to COIIpare -four distinct treatMent

str&tegi •• : restitution, counseling, r.stitution and

counseling Combined, and A centrol condition which conSisted

o-E the norINI disposition which cnuld be e1th.,.. proba.ticm or

incarc..,.ation.

through .. .ulti-tiered proc.... Following adjUdictation, all

case. were screened by probation during the pre-sentence

inv .. tigAtion for eligibility to be considered for the

experimeni:.Juvenil •• were eligible for the experiment if

they Wltr. 13 or 01 dar , h .. d UtHtn convi ctttd M .an cH=f en.e wi th

a demonstrable 10 •• , and had not b .. n convicted ~ murder,

tatteMpted ML~d.r, rope, Dr at ta.pt ad rape. Youths aXso were

scr.aned Out.sinel:i.g1ble if they h.d • serious drug or

alcohol probl_, ....,.. _ntallyr.tardltd, or ware -otion.lly

distur-bed.. Eligible c ............ )than r.ndacly as.igned by .. n F

on~it •• valuator in accordan~. with .. fcraaul. that had b.en

devi •• d which wauld permit ~~. proora. to .e.t its

prograMMatic c .... -+low g~!. and, s1.ultanaously, would

//

4 ~ -.--..·---..,._.Il0l _______ _

• . •

.:c

____ , .Iff •. ~ _--

insure that .Ach group was large enough to support the study •

The actual plAcement aT.the youths into the groups wa.

don. by the Judge At disposition. The jUdge coUld, of

cours., overrule the ,.._n,10m assignment but this was; saldom

dane. Of the c .... which were included in the study, seven

randomly •• signed ona.

The tr.ataants a •• ociated with the four groups can ba

summarized .s follows:

Restitution. youths in this group were ordered at

disposition to pay ean.tary restitution andlar to do

ca..unity service ,..astitution. Service restitution was ~ore

cc.mon, involving 60 per=ent of the youths. Of the 40

h.lf found their own jobs and the rest obtained employment

throuQh th.ef~orts ofth. restitution progr ...

The youths k~t so •• of their •• rnings--on the averaQ_,

about 40 percltnt. -l'h ..... NItr. no progriUl subsidie. in Clayton

couni;y and youths Q4In.rally lit.,.. not permitted to pay the

r •• ti tution frOM their s.r,fi-fiv~:rQr to hav. ~Alltil y membars

•• sist i·'.ctt .. paylftant. .R •• titution ca ••• wttre monitored by : --,._- ....

r.stitution ca •• work.,.. who .. lso w .... e responsible for

1n.uring their c'I3mpliance with narmalprob.tion requirements.

The average period C1' supervision was 3.:5 aonths.

eaun .. ltnl. duvenil •• with a couns.ling disposition

... ,..,.s.igned to • IMtntal h •• lth th.,.apist on the coun+:y

wocial _rvtc:e staff. The cauns~lfn; c""aiat.do-i a

fl·

.. _-- - JI£;., ,; ..

-------------------~~~----------------------------~~=-~~~--------~------~.~--------------------~--~----------------~--~~--~~ ~---------------------------~,.,~- . .. •

Ii /1

' ... : ... p

JJjj

• .

"" .

diagnostic •• s.ian followed by assignMlnt to on.R of •• v.rt1l

special kinds of th .... apy: racreaticnal, family, arid .0 forth ..

The probation require .. nts forthe.a youths were, at first,

handled by t.Il_ restitution program ·(to inc:r •• ~. the

.quiv.l~c. with the restitution group) but this practice had

to be abandoned after the first year of operation b.c.u~. the

prograa did not have sufficient staff to moniter the cases.

Th~.after, prObation aonitorad the probationary.

requiraments. The av~age supervision pariod was 5.6 months.

. rt.st:l. tut! an and Caun_l ing. For tid S group, both

rest1 t.ut:i~ and _ntal heal th therapy war. ord ..... d at

disposition. Rest.itution and probation requirements were

handled by the riKtit.ution counsellors. The restitution

requirement. wera quite si_iIar to those -for the re.tituion­

only group: 63 Pllf"'Cltnt were ordered to do CC»iAlnity .ervice

and 44 percant had ... ~.tary r •• 1:1 tution requir"ltnts ..

6

/.

tETHDDOLOSV

The .valuillt~ve (:r1ter-:l.. t.:overad in this report are

.ucca.slful coaaplaticn of the resti t.uti on requirements and

.. ·.c1 di vi s.. Each of the groups is crossed wi th -the c:;thers in

~Jch • way as to ident.ifV the unique and combined effects of

r.~.titui:1on and counselling.

"' •• sur1ng Succ ... f ... l Catlpletion

Five difTerent indic.to~s of successful completion were

used. ana of th ••• was the program definition Qf whether the

c ••• wa. closed ·successfully· or not. Although some element

of sUbjectivitt .ay be involved in this variable, the data

indicate that unsuccessful closures war'. those which either

did not p.y all Of.thv restitution or which rttOffended while

under progr.m juri.diction even if they ',*'leni:ually did repay

all of the loss.

The second .... ur ....... the pa,-c.ntage of the,..e.titui:icn

ordttr which was paid (ar wol"'kltd) by the youths and the third

..... the' p .... ellMta,.. 0+ youths who pa.id tOr) perr:en;: of the

altOUnc .crderltd. The final .. _sure .... the propor';:10n of

ju.vatnil •• whose r.stitution actt.tal1y r:overed all of the

outst.nding victim loss. This •••• ur. turn.d out to be of

1 ••• value than initially hoped becau •• of the fact th.t many

c.... 1 nvol vltd co-of'~ttndttr.. Thus, the .amount pa.i d by one f,

Off.nd.r di d n~t n.c .... ,.,1 1 y cover the total . vi t:ti" 1 o .. s~~~j "--our1n; R.c1d1v1 ••

Recidivi •• w •• d_Tin.d •• recontActs with the ClaytQn

7 .. • . ...

J

--,--.. ------~--------------------~--------------------~ .. ~------~----------------------------~~---------------------------------------------­f~ .1

I •

""T

'1 ,)

- - ~ ...:::.

coun~y juvenile Qr adul~ court. Acoaplate •• arch of all

. j uveni 1. and adul t court recOrda ""as undert"ken by a team of

'trAined individuals frDtlt the na~io~al eVAl;ua~ion group at the

In.~it:ute of Pottey Analysis", an

thr .. ye~r. af ri.kti~lncluded

/1 , j

the .vr.;., th.,.e ...-rra . :,

,:/

in the follow-up par1/oct. . .' /!

;: '/

treatment.lithe at-riskti_ pltl"'iQd. was .... urad frOlti!program

r.f"''-~l rather tn.n from pro;ra. exi t. Thu., the rtlf;ontacts

include any that were •• dewhile the youth "'as under program

supe,-visien.

Multiple •• asurn af r.cidivi!~m were used to inccrpor«te i

- , both the seri\:Jusness and frequency! of reof-randing AS ,.,.11 as " Ii

to .1n1.12. possible ais1nt.,.pr>.t_1tions ,basttd on s1ng1.-, ,

variable analysis. The __ sur lit. usitd were:

Dv8ral1 ~idivi... Overall recidivis. was • compo.it~

seer. including allracontacts with the court fer d.linq~ent

acts during the follow-up period. FrequencY'i'was used as or..

ma.sure af overall recidivism (i.e., the total numb~ of

'"Kantacts) and the ov.,..all rilta Dot: rec:idiyiftli wa. calc:ul .. t.d

by dividing the nulDber of reof-F.ns .. r:OfD"i~t.d by the youth

by t". amount of titut t.he youth had baen .t risk. Juv.nile.

with no reoffens •• had differing follow-up peri ads, ho~ver,

, because they ent.,.ed ~h. prDQraas at differ-lint point~.ln

ti... A .imple del inquency rate faund for thJMi.- youthw

involve. dividing Zf,rO reoffttna.s by th.~risk ti· ... which, of

cour.e" produc.,. a Kore Of z.,.o -rllQardl .. s of whether t,he

youth had .1)( months of ti_ at risk 01'" four ye.r ••. To ,

e -----------------------.--------

'" Ii .c If"

• «

---.,;_,..-_1 ~_ -<.h~"";'"·''"·''' 'iA"',·"'··

','

distinguish among the non-r.cidivi.~s so th.:lt tho';,", with

longer periods of time at risk have lowe,. scor-fits, a smatll

constant (.01) was addad to the numerator of thi~ measure

(Sut.ton, 1980).

Cri .. Fpacific Recidivisa. The ~r.quency and rate of

r.cidivism for each of S1X different categories. of crimes

~~ also calculated. The categories were viQl~nt offenses

(Table 2 centains a complete listlng of the cr-ime_ in each

category), serious property off.nse. (burglary and arson),

other felony proporty oTfenses, minor praperty offenses,

ftllnar p.,..anal afTonse., and trivial c:ri!f.nses.

&.riouan ... Indices. Thre. variable. rapre$Enting

seriousne.s indices wer~~ •• d. One of these was an

ordinally __ adltd variAble r.pr ••.• nting the IM:)St !Hrious

off.n •• cc:unei tted by the juveni Ie. Violent p .... aonal ofTanses

........ Coded "6" followed b,y .rious propertYoff.nses _zal, other felany prope,,'ty offjltns.s "41t

, ntinol'" parsonal offenses . ~\

indicator • rat.. in which the ov.,.all score -For .ach youth

was d1vldltd by the .. aunt of tiM at risk tht:reby taking into

account ,:that yOuthS wi th longer follow-up peri ods woul d b. II' r/

~:.-- '

axpec:tttd to have Mer. rltQffens ....

*.tabll~tng causality

•• 4~ u,.L' ___ "'~~ ... ' •• ~;;r _.;;;_.,...: _",

• . .

,

---------~----------------~--------------~--~----~--.c-----~~~~~--~~~~----~------~------.~~=~------~~--~--------------~~--__ --__ --~4.--~----------------------____ ~ -. ·c

~ " .. _.~w_. " ''' .. ,...... '"''"'" " .. ' '" __ _ • , • """".e·· ---'" ,... ..,...._ . "" " •• r::'--I"""" , ". .

..

"!iiI pt: f

randomly .... ign.d into tn. BecaUse the juveni I.. were . ..'

grouJ:., the b~ variate;relatianilhip bet.wtitJ.tri the t\-,2&:OT

:·~"C9rant$.n~ the dependent v ... riab~ •• houldb. su..f.f:icittnt to

. ..... f p. ro"'ram im~.ct.' . Nttverthele.s, establish th.'IIr.~,,~t.Ud...... •

.ul t1 var'i at. arial y.as a1 ~-o ....... ~ ..... r.· co~..aut:ted bec:aus'--APparo".tl y

due to sampling variat:ion--thti,..· wttr. SOBa dif.f.r.n:~.s amang

Th·e ... , estittltion only group, .for exuapla, . the four grcups. •

had a substantially higher pra-intarvention delinquency

Onthewt101a, a. is shown below,the aultivari.ate

·he bivariate result. werm the sama. rees'.ll ts and '"' .

Another problem was t a no . h t t all the, . youths actu.,11 y

rf,c:ei ved the treatment to whi ch they-had bean random} y

The "rossover p" rob, 1 •• was handled. by ."a1 y?!ing the' lJ~ssi 9n.d. ...

data with each ca.sa tre.ted_s1., it~. in th.~roup trl

which it had been ranQQlly __ SSi9~~d.. The.erasult. were

1" n .... hi c:h •• Ch ca'.. WilS eodad in compared with analyse,; .....

accordance wi Ich ,sctual tr .... t. ... ntand . there WlH"'W" no

di-Fferences between the anal yses. Thus, on1 yth • .for-mer are

reported here.

~. -",

" 'I,

.. , ----=- " ... '..,

,'."-" ." ." "

,'/'

FIND!NSS

. , ,"

Claytgn caunt'YjUv.nif.delinq~(mt5 tt1.igib1e 401-' the .,'

.xPtrri~f.t Wi,... ov~rwh.lminglY~ Wbit~: (as is the Popul at1 on as

.. whc.le

), tllpPr'Qx1f1ate!y lS y.ar"s Of ';taga,and pr.dOlfti~atlJ!ly '.

-;;-.

u1. (.eeTable 1),. Juvenile1liln th .... vestitution-only (Jlroup 'U

had mer-a prior., on th. average,; than cI'id youths ir. the other ., . , , "

thr .. treatment catlitg~~.ie •• ' .,

and Ona';"hal f 0": 1:'7;." juvani 1.. wer ... ::r~.rred+Qr ·-.fltl',Pn'Y'.' I;' . .._ It: 11,'

Mfenses and ADOstJQ;f'tha ethers had. bAn' invdl,v.d in ,minor .- '. , , ','

. pr"cprty cTf.., ••• Such as ~hQPlift1'~g"V4\ndal;h~nf, or,:cther-,"L,,,

t"'lt'ft-., ···· .. Th~., we,.. no status . Of i an ... an~~,_i:y:\~~ fewd-f;:. ~h. '- ~, 'c":' " .

.xtrH&l~ y .i ncr -tri vi ill " cJ.F.fen ... t3~eh «S. tl~espass a.hd , .

Tight.ing,. "

·.·t: .. .:-... ".- - i, ''::';; ~ >

"!h.~\&Rltiiti;N~';:~¥';ro~~\~~.C:b~ar.d .. ~.~. tf1 tJ",: ", "J; "

!"'a .. t;;. tut:i0::1...iCounsal11ru)Qraup tOd.t..".~in. Whether :the latter

pr-oducad amy impr:;avamenf.in the .Lu=e.ss.#Ul~bmpl.tiQrt· rates. " .,' .

A •• hawn in TAble 3, the sucees'sfiJI· completion rat ... .,... •

.. v.ryh:igh Ilnd. th .. ,.. 111-'" no important. i.o1 T-F.r.ncit$ .. b.tween . the . ,.

- .~ i :;;";_-:,:~~;,

, cOflPi.'i:ion. ~.~H, •• dHinltd bvttitf'progr.u., although, th. ",- - ~ ~, '\ ", , .

.' ",

!.

..

.. ~;.fi.>".,._

~~~",-,-,-.

-----~--------~--~--.------~--. ,,----------------------------~-----------------------~-~---- - p I .

'. __ llr .. __ ... __ ! __ ... _~ __ ........ ,_ .. ..,_,~_

PRDFI~ CF REF'ERRALS '!O THE EVALUATIo.'t. 8RDl.Ps IN a..AVTDN CtA.!N"rY . .

----.... --..,---.-. _ ....... _. _. --.... ---•• - .. -... - .. ~ ... :t.", _~ ........................ ~ .... _ •• 'iii ... ' .......

JidiI •• .". --'N:i!';" ........... • ,.." _~.

SCHOOL. STATUS (. of ~a._)

Full Tl_ ftiat in School

RACE' (0 o-F CaB.a)

White Bla.ck

'AGE" U. of Ca_>

13 and Und.,.. 14 1S 16

, 17 1S arid Over

".

PRIOR OFFENSES <.o-f·C.sesJ

None One Two to Four

'Five or More ,1-'

SE~ Ut 0-1 C ••• c>

Rltatltut1c;r. R.tn" 'Rlce

", ' ... :.. ...... LA' _._ .., .... b_.

(71) (74)

76% 24

(72)

94% 6

\(73)

12% 16 26 34 11 o

S2X 18

(72)

96% 4

1t)!. 11 28 , 46

4 '0

(74)

Nmu .... ti tut10n C Control

"WitT J ' 'II '-.;;_ ........ _ ....... __

(55), (:55)

7SX eox 2S 14

96X l00X 4 9

'. (~)

, ·44~ '< ... 3:$.

18 lit ~,.,.

7ft eox '22 20,

":' .. ,;

.. ..

--__ ,iIilu •• j ... _ -"...'-

TAIL£ 2. TYPES OF Rll='ERRAL. OFFENSES IN a.AVTON COUNTY

. VIOLENT Armed Rabbitry Aggravatittd Assault

."~' x of &r-cqp Tet.al

!lERlOUS ~:rv _B'urqliliry"

. X aT 'Group Tot.al

OTHER FELONY PRQPfmTY 11ct.0I"" Vlthicl. Th."t fDr"Qlfry, . f:r~tt E#Iib:p!l .. .. ', % 'Crf' Srw.q Total

MINOR ~_.<"J"; - SiMple Assault

AlJAul t''''d Batt.,.y Inti.:1 dati on

X of Sroup Total

MINOR PROPERTY Sh~li4tinQ V.ndall .. ' Thtl'ft fro. I1ctor Vtthc. Stol.., Prap.rty (Buying,

Rae.tvihg, SellinQ) l\tcycla Thlt'ft. Pursen •• tcn & Pickpkt. CriMinal JIIi.chi • ., Oth.,. Theft.·· .

X o-fSt"oup TDt.1

TRIVIAL OFFENSES Dr"1 vi"Q UndiH'" the 'II'H 1. --Tr...!..~.. ." (.> .

Fi;"tin!;'8rOUp''"t~t.l

R .. tltuti'on R •• tn. Rite

o 1 ., 1

0% 3X

8 4 : 1

4 1 o

, 10 10

6

~ 'x 7~ '-

7X

,. ..

12 9 I

4

4 1 13 o . 0 o "'1

13 12

1 .~

o

60 X ~71.

1 o ". 1

ax

Nonf"'wstit.utlon C C(,",A1tr~l

o 0 i 0

2% 02.

22 14 40%2:51.

3: '3 1 0

7% 5%

e s 6 12 1 9

i 1 1 4 :3 0 o 0 6 1

471. 63X

\j " o 0 () 0

.04 OX

••• ... -.. ~ ..... ~-, ---, ..... -. ·~~-':.~j~H.' ~-..;-:":'",.I(I_. __ ..... ;t .... _._ ........... ___ _

'--"'-'--_. -------.....;..... ';;- - .. ,... ....• , i ."_ ... -----..~---........... ~~-~.~-.----.-. ~---.-~ .

I ,,~ ,.

... I .

._------"''''''_._ .. ,."

SUCCESSFUL CDl1PL..'UIDN OF, RESTITUTION .f.'IRJJERs IN a.AY'J'ON COUNTY

R_titution Only

Rntitution and Coun.elling

.~-:-;~~-. _. ---! ...... ~ .. _ .. _._, _11 ____ ........ _ ....... _ .. ______ ._ .. ____ .. ~ __ , _ ... ~, __ _

SucCRSsful Ccapl.tion (as De-finltd by Provr&fIIS)

I'IlNETARV RESTITUTION (. of Ca_>

R .. tttution P~y.ants •• PropDf"'t.ion of Rttsti tuticn I. Order fAver"'a;... pttr youth

I,'

P.,.ctmtage aT Youths PAying 1001. of R •• titutfoh Ot'drttd.;·

. P.,.c8r,'tageo-f Youths Pay1n9 411 aof the Outs't,anding VictiM Loss (1),

"

CDI'ltUNITY SEh.'VlCE (. of ca,,~.s)·

P"'.t:ttntage O'f Youth. Workit1Q all the HoL~s Ordered

86%

27

·96%

96%

24% 26%

42·

.....--......."... "·~:-:~·:.4~~"": • U III! *'. L" • III! "tto., I .Ii.,... • _--.-.._._. ___ _ (1) SOfiltt inclttUnts involvf!dco-ofofend ... , And the full pAyMent jDay ha,~.c~b~., Md. to the victi" 'whon the a.aounts froa all o-F.fanders ~~~~ombinitd. I

. :->

.~ .-

Rec;i.divi_

Tabl. 4 contains a considar.ible aJlQunt C'fdescriptive

infor-.tion reg.rding the raD'F"en •• pattwrns of youths in all

lour group ••

The re.tt tut:l on Qroup. ware.OItfiIh.at 1... 1 i ka1 y to

COtHti t sub •• quantQffwn... during tho t.hree-year foIl DWUp

period .s ~1 p.,..cant aT tharestitui;;ion-only group did not

rCloffttndand 54 percent of th. resti t.utian-couns.1, 1 ing group

also diQ net C~-$ t anoth.,.. o.,f..,_. Th ... figur •• compare

with a 40 Pttr"Clmt and 4S percent far t.he c:oun_lling-only

group and t.he controls. Tabla 4 ~lso shaws tha propertion \ -,

cou.i ttt ng ItGCh type O'f off..,.... About two-thi rds of th~

aub_quttnt offen ... .... r. in the Minar property and trivi.l

c:attIQcrte,s wfthabaut ana-fOW"'1:h to en.-third in the felony

c:.t1l9or1.... Again. ~h. restitution groups t..-adltd to haVii

1 .... .,..ious reeff." ... than the oth ...... . ,

8t"oup 04"e"" rat_ haye be.., calc:ulc:attfd and also are -"'-

'"~~:~~splaYad -in T~~. 4. Th ... rat .. prait • Mora rltfined

~ Juug_n1:: about -tn. sub_quent behavior of youth. in •• ch

group .i"~. the total nuaber of of~en ... COMmitted by all of

the yduths in ~h. group can be sum •• ri:ed in ... ingle figure.

Th. overall group ~~f-"s. rat •• should ~ interpreted •• II

the nuMb.,. 9'f offen.". ~~it:t..d by\th. group, per 100

youths, per yttar' .... ~ .n, th«' ,.. .. tttution groups hay. b.tta,.. ,.

scar" ..,1 th th. r .. tt tut1on-onlygraup c~i ttin; 64 ftew

off..,_, p .... 100 youths, p .... y • .,., ce..p&red tilt tin 47 for the. u

,. .. t.i1:ut1on-cQUn .. l1ing O"~, 84 f,CIf" th.~oun •• llino only .""

12

/1

..

f

_C"~I

I ...... ,

I .*1.'---

•

TABLE 4.. REDFFENSE PAIiERNS"tF ..lUYEHlLE CFFENDERS IN a.AVTON COUNTY

,''''' .... , • d L .if ....

----___ ._Ia~, ________ • ___________ , __ • ____ .--.-----____ 1 _____ .,_ •• _ .. __ • _______ •• ._.* __

• of Cas ••

OVERALL RECIDIVISM X with 0 R8OT~en ••• X with 1 Reaffan_ X with 2 Reaffen ••• % with 3 ReoTfensas X with 4-6 Raoifan ••• X with 7+ RaaTfan ...

V1OL.ENT SUSSEQUENT X With 0 X with lor .ara

SERIOUS ~ERTV (BURaS) X with 0 X wi th 1 or ear.

OTHER FELONY PROPERTY X. with 0 X with 1 or .ore

MINOR PERSONAL X with 0 X wi th 1 or Il0l'''.

MINOR PROPERTY X with 0 X with 1 Dr' mor.

TRIVIAL X with 0 % with 1 01"" fJOt"'.

R •• titution RHtn. R&cC

51X 10

S 11 12 B

sa 12

99 1

92 a

69 31

74

54% 11 14 8

11 3

97 3

ea, 12

100 4)

S9 11

77 2S

~8 72

Nanr •• t1tution C Control

40% 26

7 6

1:5 7

94 4

e2 18

S6 14

80 20

71 29

62 3S

4SX 20

7 7 7

11

9S 2

86 14

91 9

93 7

66 ~4

68 32

---·----~~ ______________ t ____ ._P_. ___ . __ II ____ • __ , __ . __ . _______ ~~~_~_~~~~_~~~~

----~~----------~------------------

TABLE 4. CCONTINlEDJ

-- ........... _ a ..... 1 , __ .................. ". ___ ., ._ ................................... -. ... ___ ........... ~ .... ~ ....... __ ... ..

Restitution Rutn. R&C

Nonr •• titution C Control ----·-_1 ._._. ___ .... __ ... _. ____ .... __ ..... ~ .. ~,..,. ___ ,. ____ .................. . ........

atotP REOF'FENSE RATES

.. of ea ••• 74

• Of Sub •• quttnt Offens.. for Qrou~ 136 101

Months of Risk Ti.. 2S4S 2626 -far Qr"oup

Ava. Risk Ti .. per Youth (1n .anths)

Ava. No. of Off.n ... p.,. V .. r 1.86 1.36

av.ral1 Rec4~ltn .. Rata, p.,.. 100 Ycuth_, per Year 64 47

DtIftE SPECIFIC RATES (p.,. 100 youth., pttr y ..... )

V'l 01 lint

Sttr1ou. Prop.,.ty (Burglary and Arson)

oth... Fel any Prop.,.ty

Minor P.,..onal

Hiner Property Offan •• s

Trivial Of.,." .. s

1

o

6

21

---__ ._a. __ u._._ ..... _... .... • I d _ .... 1

1

8

o

6

14

17

•

139 129

1976 2066

2 .. :53 2.30

1

16

=s

7

27

27

1

a

:3

:3

:S6

24

In I., ............... ...........

-----------~-=~:'~~--------~------~----~---.-------:~----~------~--------.-~--~--~--~.-~~~~~.~--~----~~----.. .. L-______________ .:..-___ a ______ • pI I

. .

•

....

and 7~ for the control ••

The type. of .ubs.q~ant offense. Tor the group rat.. are

clustered in the ainor and trivial categori.s rather than the

ofeloni_.

Additional descriptive infer •• tion about the reaTfanding

patterns is shown in Table S. 14ora, the group r.afofensa

r~t.s prior to the intervention and after-tne int.,..vention

... shawn for comparati ve purpose.. For the r_ti tution-onl y

group, the pra-prOgram rat., per 100 youths per year, was 101

offen ... (i.e., about ane par juvenile during a y.ar". ti_>.

After the intervention, this had dropped to 74 per year, par

100 youths. Since the pre-intervention records .earch

extandltd back for two y •• rs pri or to program r.f .... r .. l, the ••

data show that the restitutian-anly group c~itt~ about one

oTfen.e pitt'" y •• r b.t ..... n the aQ" of 13 .and 1:5 (an the

average) and about .7S p.... y •• r b.tltHtltM the ag_ of 1:5 .and

18-a decline large Wlough to b. oT soma int ...... t.

Drops in the post-i ntervanti en rate. of si Iftl 1 ar

.. gnt tudes ware not abs.,..ved for any of the oth.,.. thr_

Qroups. Tha restitution .and counselling group had an ofTan.e

rata: pr.-progra., oT ~~--only about hal~ that of the

'rostitution-only group. This rat. also dttclinad (frCHI s:s par

100 youths Pili'" y.ar to 47). The couns.111ng-only group

shoWltd an iacr •••• aft.,. the intervantion (froa 64 to 84) and

the control. had ex.ctly the .... Vroup 04f~ •• r.te before

MId aft.,.. the intervention.

13

...

•

.. . '

TABLE S. PRE POST CDtIPARISONS OF &ROUP OFFENSE RATES

R.stitution Restn. R3cC

Nonr •• t.itution Counsl. Control

Pr. Post Pre Post Pre Post Pro. Post ---...~ ................. ,...... .............. - •• - ... _--... --.. ............. II .... _______ ..... __ ..................... _~ ... _

0VEkALL RATES (Par 100 youths, par y •• r) 101 74

Violtmt

Serious Propert.y

2 1

!55 47 64 84

1 2 1 1 1

(Bura " Ar.on) 14 13 8 11 16 7 s other Felony Property

Minor Per.on.l

Minor Prop .... ty

Trivial

1 o

7

~1 21

26 3Q

o

21 14

11 17

11

6 7

21 27

13 27

11

44 36

10 24

Figur •• in the cell. for the u pr." partod show t.he rat.. of eTTen •• s p.r year co .. itt~ by each 100 youth. during the pre-intervent.ion tiMe period which covered two y • .,... Fer the post.tiMtt priod, siltilarly computed ye.rly rate. ta,.. diSPlayed b.sad on apprOXiMately 36 ~nths aT data. 80th fiQur .. , of cour •• , ar. corr.cted to .how the offanse rata, per y.ar, for a group of 100 youth ••

... ' .. tie .

.­I :'<1

. .. ~

• e ••

..

C.usal Anal ys1S,

Bivariate and multiple regression an.lyse. were

conducted to.a.sist in the determination of whether the

difference. obserVed among the four groups were produced by

the differences in programs Dr whether distinctions aT the

size observed Might have been the result of chance cov_riance

or othar variables.

The first caaaparison ( ... Table 6) is betwe.n both aT

the restitution groups and the two nonre.tit.ution groups.

(The resitution-only and the r.stitution-counselling groups

ware combined for this analysis .s w.re the coun •• lling-cnly

and the control groups). The bivari~te analysis (zaro-order

correlations) show that the restitution yroups did somewhat

better (r-.l1 ~or both the frequency and rate of

raoffanding). The significance levels of .OS and .04~

respectively, indicate only _ small probability that the

di ff.,..ences .... ,.. produced by chance.

In a similar way, the mult.ivariat. analYSis indicat ••

that the r~titution program had a positive effwct of

reducing recidivism ayen when prior of TenseS, age, race,

school statu., and sex w.ra controlled in tn. equation.

The pO.iti~e ~TT.ct of re.titution wa. obseryed ~ormost

of the difTltrttnt tyP" o.f property crt ... but no difftlf"'ence

appears between the groups Tar par.onal cri,.S--whether

violent 0I"".1nOl"". This could be at. l ••• t partially

attributable to the s .... 11 number of c •••• in the p ..... onal

cri_ c::atatgori... The pOllit1ve It'ffKt. 0+ ~titution also

14

TABLE 6. CDl'PARISDN OF REC%DIVISH RATES OF YOUTHS WITH RESTITUTION·~ WITHOUT RESTITUTION

Partial Partial b.... beta csI R sq --------------------,----.----------------.. --~--~-.a---~~~~~ ____ ~~~

OVERALL. RECIDIVISM

Fr.quency Rate

VIOLENT OFFENSES

Fr.quency Rate

SERIOUS PROPERTY

Frequ.ncy Rate

OTHER FELONY PROPERTY

Frequ.ncy Rate

MINOR PF!OPERTV

Frequency Rate

MINOR PERSONAL

Frequency Rate

TRIVIAL FrequenC"y

.··Rat..

SERIOUSNESS . INDICES

, Most S.,..1 aus ..... 1ou.n ...

kerB ""iou.n ...

.11

.11

-.03 -.03

.07 .06

.23

.23

.10

.11

-.0J. -.01

.31 -.01

.31 -.00

.13 .14

.IS .05

.01 .13 .01 .04

.O~ .47 .04 .16

.44

.47

.. 32

.34

.. os

.os

-.02 -.01

.11

.04

.93

.45 .11

.14 .. 13

.03 -.02

.01 -.02

.14 .06 .OS .06

.03 .24

.01 .24

.26 .11

.os .13

.07

.02

.1S

.06

.24

.71

- ... 02 -.01

.Q4

.04

.07

.os

.07 .14

.04 .11

.76 • OS

.79 .0:5

.33 .04 .32 .03

.00 .12

.00 .12

.os .12

.04 .12

.72

.82

.:54 .. 48

.19

.04

.03

.12

Rat. .:;; .OS .09 .32 • .2~ .09 .16 .07

Positive. valu •• (fOr r, b;··:and bata> i~d,ic.t. that "th;--­rB.t1tu1on group recidivated 1.... OSL r~er. to ob .. rved s1gn1fic::ance level for a two-tailed test.

' ... '"'"-------~.-.--.. ~ .

\ .

l' ~ .-'.". '~h

~------------------~--------~--------~----~--------~--~--~~--~------~----~.----~----------~~----------------~~~---------~--.-

•• l.

...

was observed in" all three tests involving the •• riousn ...

indices.

A similar analysis was dane to detarmine whether

counselling had an iaapact. on recidivism when contrasted with

the non-coun.elling dispositions. Fer this analysis, thatwo

counselling groups (restitutian-counsellingand counselling

only) were combined and tasted against that combination of the

other two groups (control and rest1tutian-only) •. The data

(s .. Tabl. 7) show that there was no i.pact attrtb~tabl. to

counselling. Positive signs on tn_ corralation e~ficient

or regresSion c~Ticiants ~.AnS that the counselling group

did better.

In the bivariate analYSiS, the two •• asure. aT ~veral1

recidivism show avery small positive ~fect for counselling

but the significance test indicat •• a substantial likelihood

that the effect was actually produced by chance. Also, th.

multivariate test results in n-oative correlations--also very

tiny and probably &ttributable to ch'lnce cover1ation. The

t .. ts of the ..... iousn.s. indic_ indicate negative eT.-ttlCts

-for c~uns.llin;--especi~lly in the multivariate ~.lysis--but

the significance tasts SUQQEst that this, too, may ba a

chance .finding.

The ?inal comp.rison ,is between ... estitutian-only and

rastitution-couns.l1ing tc determine if counselling

contribute. tD tha av.,..all trifltCti ven ••• of r.u~t~ tution. As

shown in Tabl. B, th.,.. i. no evidence that counsellino is

n_ded. Negative relationships, in fact, :i~,,;:::ic:ate that the

1~

•

••

TABLE 7. cnt1PARlSON OF RECIDIVISH R.t\TES OF yot.."'THS IN COUNSEU.IN8 PRD6RAMs WITH YOUTHS NDT IN ~IN6

Zero-Orde,. Partial Partial ,- c.1Il b s.e. beta os1 R sq

OVERALL RECIDIVISM

Fr.quency Rat""e

VIOLENT OFFENSES

Frequency Rat.

SERIOUS PROPERTY

Frequency R~1;1t

OTHER FEt..ONY PROPERTV

Frequency R.t.

MINOR PROPERiY

.03

.02

-.02 -.03

-.07 -.os

-.03 -.02

Frequency .06 Rate .16

MINOR PERSONAL. Frequency -.OS Rat. -.os

TRIVIAL OFFENSES

Frequency Rate

SERIOUSNESS INDICES

.07

.06

Motli: 5.,.1 aua . -.02 Sr1pu.n ...

ScOrIt -.07 Sriau.n •••

~at. -.09

.34 -.13

.39 -.06

.39 -.00

.29 -.00

ac13 -.19 .10 -.07

.. 32 -.03

.37-.01

.1B .07

.16 .03

.20 -.oe

.10 -.04

~11 .03

.37 -.2~

.1~ -1.09

.. 0$ -.42

.45 -.02

.14 -.03

.o:s: -.00

.01 .... 02

.14 -.09

.OS -.09

.03 -.06

.01 -.~

.26 .02

.09 .02

.07 -.os

.02 -.10

.1B

.06

.24

.70

.04

.03 .!

-.07

-.10

-.12

.77 .13

.69 .10

.93 .0:5 .73 .OS

.18 .04

.14 .04

.32 • ::sa

.79

.71

.23

.10

.29

.13

.06

.07

.07

.11

.. 11

.04 • o:s

.09

.OS

.12

.09.

.08 ___ I ...... _.... I ....... P t' II • • _ .. ~ I.M" .-............ _ ... ~~ ..... ;_';.i,,_ ..... _ ............ _

NeQat:iv. valu .. for r, b, and beta _An that the couns.lling group did wor... DSL r-+.r. to the ob.e,.ved.ignific.n~e lev.l, two-tailed tnt. "

•• -

~I

';;r

.~ :.~.

~!~

J,t ;

".

" ,

...

was observed in" all three tests involving the •• riousn ...

indices.

A similar analysis was dane to detarmine whether

counselling had an iaapact. on recidivism when contrasted with

the non-coun.elling dispositions. Fer this analysis, thatwo

counselling groups (restitutian-counsellingand counselling

only) were combined and tasted against that combination of the

other two groups (control and rest1tutian-only) •. The data

(s .. Tabl. 7) show that there was no i.pact attrtb~tabl. to

counselling. Positive signs on tn_ corralation e~ficient

or regresSion c~Ticiants ~.AnS that the counselling group

did better.

In the bivariate analYSiS, the two •• asure. aT ~veral1

recidivism show avery small positive e-ffect far counselling

but the significance test indicat •• a substantial likelihood

that the effect was actually produced by chance. Also, th.

multivariate test results in n-oative correlations--also very

tiny and probably &ttributable to ch'lnce cover1ation. The

t .. ts of the ..... iousn.s. indic_ indicate negative eT.-ttlCts

for c~uns.llin;--especi~lly in the multivariate ~.lysis--but

the significance tests SUQQEst that this, too, may b ••

chance .finding.

The ?inal comp.rison ,is betwean ... estitutian-only and

rastitution-couns.l1ing to determina if counselling

contribute. tD tha av.,..all trifltCti ven ••• of r.u~t~ tution. As

shown in Tabl. S, there i. no evidenca that counsellino is

n_ded. Negative relatianships, in ?act, :i~,,;:::ic:ate that the

1~

•

••

TABLE 7. cnt1PARlSON OF RECIDIVISH R.t\TES OF yot.."'THS IN COUNSEU.IN8 PRD6RAMs WITH YOUTHS NDT IN ~IN6

Zra-Orde,. Partial Partial ,- c.1Il b s.e. beta os1 R sq

.,.'" ,. .. ~-..... -~ ........... --------.. -... -.......................... -.... -....-----.. ~ ..... --.... - ... -~~ OVERALL RECIDIVISM

Frequency Rat""e

VIOLENT OFFENSES

Frequency Rat.

SERIOUS PROPERTY

Frequency R~1;1t

OTHER FEt..ONY PROPERTV

.03

.02

-.02 -.03

-.07 -.os

Frequency -.03 Rate -.02

MINOR PROPERiY Frequency .06 Rate .16

MINOR PERSONAL. Frequ.ncy -.OS Rat. -.os

TRIVIAL OFFENSES

Frequency Rate

SERIOUSNESS INDICES

.07

.06

Motli: 5.,.1 aua . -.02 Sr1pusn ...

ScOrIt -.07 Sriau.n •••

~at. -.09

.34

.39

.39

.29

-.13 -.06

-.00 -.00

-.19 -.07

.. 32 -.03

.37-.01

.18 .07

.16 .03

.20 -.OS

.10 -.04

~11 .03

.37 -.2~

.1~ -1.09

.. 0$ -.42

.45 -.02

.14 -.03

.o:s: -.00

.01 .... 02

.14 -.09

.OS -.09

.03 - .. 06

.01 -.~

.26 .02

.OS .02

.07 -.os

.02 -.10

.1S

.06

.24

.10

.04

.03 .!

-.07

-.10

-.12

.77

.69 .13 .10

.93 .0:5 .73 .OS

.18 .04

.14 .04

.32 • ::sa

.79

.71

.23

.10

.29

.13

.06

.07

.07

.11

.11

.04 • o:s

.09

.OS

.12

.09.

.os ___ I ...... _.... I ....... P t' II • • _ .. ~ I.M" .-............ _ ... ~~ ..... ;_';.i,,_ ..... _ ............ _

~.t:iv. valu .. for r, b, and beta _An that the couns.lling group did wor... DSL ra+.r. to the ob.e,.ved.ignific.n~e level, two-tailed tnt. "

•• -

~!t;

J,~ ;

".

" ,

.,,~ ...

~"'~~ .....

Partial Partial b s •• ,. beta osl R sq

"~ . .;;.: ::-~ .. '.

. , ...-........ - .... ~ .... _~ ....... '11111 ............. sv pm

.. ~

RECIDlvIS!1 Frequency Rat.

VIOLENT DFFENSES

Friiquency Rate

SERIOUS PROPERTY

Frequency Rat..

OTHER FELONY . PROPERTY

".. .. 1t,) -.09

-.00 .01

.06 • 07

Frequency -.os Rate .. -.03

MINOR PROPERl'Y F~~quency -.09

.. ,~'li"'t. -. 10

HINOR PERSONAL. Frequency -.00 Rata. .02

TRIVIAL OFFENSES

Fr.quency -.16 Rate -.14

SERIOUSNESS INDICES

.. Most SIt ... i OU8 - .. 02 s.....iou.n.s.

Score -.01 Seriousn .. r;/

Rate ",/' .01 , .

.11 -.36 '.14 -.07

.24-

.19

.00

.00

.14

.0:5

.16 -.01 .1. -.00

.1:5 ~-. 18

.11 ";'.06

.49 .02 _,42 .. 02

.03 -.33 • 0:5 -.0Es

.41 '.14 ': . ::--- .. ~

.43 .20

.40 ,-.07

.13 , -.0:5

.()5

.02

.12

.04

.00

.02

.. 10

.,12

.• 01 -,.04 .01 -.04

.• 1S -.oe .06 -.09

.11. .01 ·.;03 .04

.20 -.14 • 07 -.11 r

.31 .04 -._.-'-"'

.76 .03

.2S .0'1 ....-.....-....-.........,. •. ,Mt l ..... , ••• t I ,. • ....

Posit.iv.r;"(·'scor .. ".1111'1 -that ..... t1tutian .... bett.,. cou.,~.Yli~;J nooative _an. that r_tttution ..... wi tjJ·;;.wt. counsell in;_ OSL. rlt4 ..... to th. ob •• rved l~:.l ..

----l.'r-· ) . ; q

• >

.14

.18

.07

.07

.6580:5

.63 ...• ~.<

.31 .13

.32'" .. 09

"

• 87 .. 04 .65 .03

.11 .12

.22 .01

.6S .14'

~;... ..

.42 .07 lA....... • .~. without NOr.e s1;n141c:: • .,c.

'.

r.,.~i tut.l oh-anl y' .... nctt on wcr~~d·bei:t:.'r th.n rest;!. tuti en '.;.' .,'

cCHRbin.c:i withcau'; •• llin\j. ·TIl.·diffe~enclH", howevar, _r~

.. " . --:'. : ~

':~ec1all'Yin the IkJl~iv1Rf"iat.· .na.1Y'sis, indicate that there,

.,..,.a nc true di-ffltl"'enc: •• between t.he groups •

Recidi vJ .. ·"Hadels

TibIa 9 displays th.,?estJlts of the multiple regresSion

."alvais Tor fotar aT'~~he r.cidivisli variables.. The ' .. " . " _."

" "\ '

rest! tution ,.roup. war. c:cultbj;n.Q •.. and c04Ipared against the

nonrni::itut1on Qr~. in this il.rlellysis ,~d,.ddition .. ltY!l t.he

relation.hip betweait., •• c:h aT •• veral at.h.... prQti1ctar

variabl •• ill .hown •

The ,.. •• ul t.. int:~~at,~A·"s al,... •• dy r.7t1intaq cn.lt·.;...th.t the '! .~

"Hti tutl on groups glfn(7W"al1 y did ti.t:i!IItI"'al tr.~Qhth. ,'pat t lilyn'> .. ~, ,..:, ~: ... ,,, .-~

- - '.

Tho beta wei gilt,s ,for:: .,'

r_titution with th.~v.rtlll.d.'ljtlqu.ru:Yi,nd.x, coni:r~}ij1"t~l

for risk 1:1 ... ,. is .. 11 ~~,th atwo-·ttJt11.a signi,f!cQnc. l.~~f!:l 0 ... ;

.. O?j wi 1:h tho *Jb •• qt1,\tn-t rn:tili·· (i~, ~+i~',~h1::h"iOff".~t$t.;·~f! .... , . ... -_. . ." ,,:.-. '. "/'

.J..'/~(

divided by t.ho risk tiM :,'O.th.,. thtln c:ontf'-oll.,inQ' 1;h. latt. .... " i. - _ . .'.'.: ~;. ,.- ~,

in tti~'.qu.tiO"), th. ~tHlllf-fi c:ient. .1a t'l~~tth •• ig':'i"fl;:anc. ~ ..' '. J • ~-:;... .' ••.• -

r;.:,t:'"

1.y.1 of .04. Far,., tt~e·.etJu.tarJ ~~tiU81'.~fi"',,\",., whi ell .... I _ ... ' . _/ .. -...• : .. J. •..• \ ,_ ••• ,,.,~).:::,:!.' ,< ." •

.. i ncorpor.t~; bothf ';".q\&~P~:t-;;~~:.fw;i .,~iti.n.~., tho b.t~ ttJti'i \:fht .. '~ .[; ,.. . ,,,,,~.,..;'.: r'. ).~.;) I ,

15 of about th.· •• ~/'1~9f!.i:t\td.· (.'O~),b.~t tho .igni'H~ancf7 . -;:;.' .' .. . .. ~

tMtl i. .SS •.. ;'n'l,;r~~a'!:W8~9htlj;t'1f" ~h. or-dir.~11 y";l'od,,;:~ co",,, '"c::.~c:·~~",- _",~>.. C,_. :,;-- .j) /.;,-::.~. ;:<-' ' _

."'iousn_';";:~cor'. Qf the .oat' '.~r:lOU~ iee'!CU,vlut o~,"',,".l! ie /.;-(J':: .. -' ~1 _ ".!,.;;..>" :' .

.07 .<with ~·j.oOb .... ytld.igMi~~;~.rtc. l~l"~" .. 23,,' Ort the ~- 3 ;,.-. • .,1 " " .. ~:'

, -~~, ~>y . ..-;:,::",7· .,- . "'-'I ':;'

," ' '''0f-: I. t apptt"'~·r.,jonabr..t~~tu .. i:h,;G. th"'ltth. r~.ti t~,.It.i cn ;;;o;7}

.,

16

I ·,1;····.· \' ... ~';-. '

."i ~~~. "l

I r f

" . ,

..

-TABLE '9. HtL TIPLE REGRESSION I'IOJ)EI...S, FQ{ SELECnm ~

. OF REClDIViSH IN CLAYTON tnJNTY --_._. --.-....................... '..,....-............. ....-. .... ..-.-......... ----------_. _ ... ____ i-.. .......... ,~ .... ¥ __ ~~ .............

Total SuhSftquant Sub •• qul!l',,''tg Rat.

Restit.ution vs. Nonrestn.

Age" . .- ·l.·",

Sex (1-..1. 2=female)

NwDb.,. oT Priors

School (l-in schoo1;2-not

b

.. 11 .07

.00 ." -.04- ,.~3

.2S .00

in school) .07 .27

RAce Cl=einority, 2-white) -.02 ... 6~

Risk Time .17 .0(,

2 Multiple R .14

.13 .04

-.01 .92

--.or, • • 45

'~2«1 .¢O .,"',

.<f7 1.3-,

-.02 .7S

N/A

.. 11

Adjusted Mt1~tSerlous SI£.'t"iwsnltss Ri20T.fen ...

it.t& bOSL b OSL

, -----.... -~ ............. --..... " _--. ...

.09 .~ .0" .23

-.os .S! ~-. "09- ..,18

- .. 12 .¢7 -.17 .01

.10 .11 .18 • Of)

.19 .01 .10 .... l~

-.01 .94 -.03 .61

MIA .20 .. 00

.07 .12

u ~~itive values ,for therestituti'on' v~;."i.b~.';;;n:th.t "ih;-~-­restitution youths did ba,tter. r.~ prob&bllity ~~ t i. b •• ed ona' t~--·tai lwd t •• t .. , . ~l"'r;~ &~) j;fJ,~ t4tiiC:;' ha~ a (tJ) t b.l ow ~ OS .... ro not in the eqt.:.'Iti.an ;:Of"tn.t,;;,;,tl.t:tU.tlOM Oot the IM.lltlpl.

. .• I R squia..... .

! ,,'

" .. " .. Q r tn. __ .,.,. .........

• • " ...

F .l

, ,

2. In Cl.yton count.y, pV"ticul~r recognition and thanks

should go to JUdQ8 MArtha Glaze ior her cooperAtion

throughout the study .nd t·o FrAnCis Brown whQ ..... v.d, .first.

Gordon Baz.more o? the IPA stAf~ was largely responsible for

:.: ~~ . '.

'.', ---

18 ~.-.. ~ ....... --..... ----

• .':\ . .

J

~.; ... r

. .. ..

- ' '-.I"P' ·n

•

BIBLIOSRAPHY

Beck-lierclt, N. /fi "Tri County. Juvenil. Rest1tutJOIi Program,'k Hinnesotil Crime Control Planning BOelrd RClSi1iarc:h ~nd Evaluation Unit ,_ st. Paul, tIN, 1930. .

. CiL'"lnon, A., and R .. tI. S·tan-ford, ItEvaluai:.ion a-f the Juvenile Alternative sarvice. PrOject,· Florida DepartMent Qf Health .,d "ehabilitative Sal"'vicltf"; .. 1981_.

SUedalia, L. J. "Predicting Recidivism of Juvanil. Delinquent$ en Restitutionary P~ob.tion from Sel_ct.d Background, Subject, and Progr.tJt Variable.,ll Doct.oral dissertation, American Univ.rsity, 1979~

HafTard, Merry, ItJuvttnilii Restitution ProgrUt,· Final Report, Trident United Way, Charleston, se, 1981.

Hudson, Joe and Bur'i: Gal.way. Victi.s, OfflfndlH"'s, and Alternative Sanctions. Heath/Lexington Books, LeXington, MA, . 1980.

Schn.i~ftr, AnneL., and Paul Reiter, "Victim Attitude. Taward the Cri.inAl Justic. Syst.em: Final Ev~lu.tion Raport for the tfultnomah County Victim Assistanc. Program," Institute of Policy Analysis, 1975.

Sutton, R. L., ·Victim·. AssistanCR Program: A Summary F.valuation, I. Cl.ark county Juvenile Court Servien, Las Vegas, NV" 1976.

Wax, W. L., uET-TIi·t:ts of Symbol i c Rest.i tution and PresRnea o-f Victim en Delinquent Shopli'f'ters,R Doctor.l Dissertat.ion, W.$."'1 "gtan State Uni versi tv, 1977.

. ",:.

...

,- ',.L',_-'.'-- "

,

..

.:>~.

., ' .. -.,

t.,

..

1 , ,

~ ..

• ,

" '\1 .. ' '"

1

'"

..

.. _ ...... \ I

r

,-. ':

" ••

...

•

~".-... , ... , '!

1 ~ .~

• .,