A Statewide Analysis of the Impact of Restitution and Fees on Juvenile Recidivism in Florida Across Race & Ethnicity

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/15412040231180816
• Author: Alex R. Piquero,Michael T. Baglivio,Kevin T. Wolff
• Date: 01 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2023, Vol. 21(4) 279–308

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040231180816

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

A Statewide Analysis of the

Impact of Restitution and Fees

on Juvenile Recidivism in Florida

Across Race & Ethnicity

Alex R. Piquero, PhD

1

, Michael T. Baglivio, PhD

2

, and

Kevin T. Wolff, PhD

3



Abstract

Whether the imposition of monetary sanctions is related to juvenile recidivism is explored overall

and across race and ethnicity. Leveraging a statewide sample, logistic regression was used to

predict fees and restitution assignment based on youth/case characteristics, hierarchical linear and

logistic random-effects regression examined the association between neighborhood character-

istics with fees and restitution, and propensity score matching examined whether fees and/or

restitution are related to reoffending. No race/ethnic differences were found in the proportion of

youth receiving court fees, yet when fees were administered both Black and Hispanic you th

received higher fees. Neighborhood characteristics have minimal impact on whether (or the

amounts) monetary sanctions were assigned. Post-matching, fees increased recidivism, as did

being Black or Hispanic. Interactions between race/ethnicity and both fees and restitution showed

Black youth with restitution had a higher recidivism likelihood. Monetary sanctions imposed on

youth involved in the juvenile justice system has a potential deleterious impact on recidivism.

Keywords

monetary sanctions, juvenile recidivism, race/ethnic disparities

Introduction

While social, racial, and ethnic injustice has always been an issue in the United States, the May 25,

2020 murder of George Floyd at the hands of a police off‌icer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, set into

motion numerous calls for policy change—not only within police departments, but also

throughout the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Since then, there have been some successes

1

Department of Sociology & Criminology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

2

Research & Development, Analytic Initiatives, LLC, Odessa, FL, USA

3

Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Michael T. Baglivio, Chief Operating Off‌icer, Analytic Initiatives, 12344 Rangeland Blvd., Odessa, FL 33556, USA.

Email: MBaglivio@analyticinitiatives.com

in enacting system-wide change; however, much more action is needed, especially in relation to

one of the oldest sanctions: f‌ines (Ruback & Bergstrom, 2006).

Much of what is known about the adverse impact of f‌inesand fees in the justice system has emerged

from work addressing adults (Beckett & Harris, 2011;Harris, 2016). The overwhelming evidence

shows that such monetary sanctions impose extensive costs on justice-involved persons, their families,

and their communities—and have compounding effects, especially among minority communities (see

UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review, Volume IV,2020;Juvenile Law Center, 2016). Much less work

has been undertaken to ascertain the impact of (adverse) f‌ines/fees upon juveniles with justice system

involvement, and in particular the impact of f‌ines/fees on their subsequent involvement in delinquent

behavior. The key exception is the 2017 study by Piquero and Jennings. Using data from Allegheny

County, PA (the Pittsburgh area), the authors examined the relationship between the imposition of

f‌ines, fees, and/or restitution and recidivism in a sample of juveniles with justice involvement followed

for 2 years. A number of key f‌indings emerged from their effort.

First, youth with restitution imposed upon them had a higher likelihood of recidivism. Se cond,

the amount of these costs was also positively correlated to the risk of recidivism. Third, youth who

still owed fees when their cases were closed also exhibited a higher risk of recidivism. Finally, and

most importantly, non-Whites (primarily African American youth) were more likely to still owe

costs and restitution upon case closing. In short, non-White youth remained at higher risk for

continued involvement in the justice system, which, of course, creates additional burden for their

families and communities.

The Fines and FeesJustice Center and the Juvenile Law Centerhave articulated the repercussions

of imposed fees for juveniles in Florida, the context for the current study, their families, and their

communitiesas increased poverty,increased recidivism, servelonger probation, and exacerbation of

juvenile justice system racial disparities (Fines and Fees Justice Center and Juvenile Law Center,

2022) with the intention of moving towards debt-free justice for youth. In addition, their report

indicatesthat youth with court debt in Floridaare unable to expunge records, obtaindriver’slicenses,

or participatein job corps programs, further diminishing their chances for success. Notably, in2021

alone seven states have passed reforms to eliminate and/or reduce juvenile fees (California,

Louisiana, NewJersey, New Mexico, Oregon,Texas, and Virginia; FFJC and JLC, 2022). Feesand

restitution may be of particular concern for juveniles, especially younger youth, as they often have

no employment or means to pay. Piquero and Jennings (2017) suggest this increases the likelihood

of such youth to engage in criminal behavior in efforts to pay required costs. For youth without

means to pay,the debt falls to their familiesin many cases, which can further exacerbatepoverty and

income inequality, not even to mention shattered parent-child supervision and relationships.

Furthermore, youthinvolved in the child welfare system are disproportionately more likely to enter

the juvenilejustice system and to reoffend oncesystem-involved (e.g., Baglivioet al., 2016) and are

disproportionately less likely to receive f‌inancial support from families.

Unfortunately, childhood maltreatment and adverse childhood experiences are dispropor-

tionately concentrated in disadvantaged neighborhoods (e.g., Baglivio et al., 2017;Coulton et al.,

2007), and both situations exacerbate delinquency risk (e.g., Baglivio et al., 2017;Teague et al.,

2008;Wolff et al., 2017). Furthermore, youth living in areas of concentrated disadvantage are

exposed to fewer protective factors that are demonstrated to mitigate the impact of delinquency

risk (Craig et al., 2021). The concentration of maltreatment, disadvantage, and diminished

protective factors/experiences makes the need to assess the impact of juvenile fees or restitution on

reoffending across race/ethnicity all the more paramount to improving the likelihood of youth

success, increasing public safety, and to prevent against further exacerbating income inequality.

The current study aims to explore these associations and provide a more comprehensive, statewide

analysis to advance the limited understanding garnered from the single county Piquero and

Jennings (2017) study.

280 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 21(4)