Consequences of restitution

A group of 419 adult property offenders granted probation and ordered to repay their victims for the direct monetary losses or property damage incurred as a result of their crime were matched on 28 variables to a group of 179 offenders who were not ordered to pay restitution to their victims. Compared to those not ordered to repay their victims, the offenders ordered to pay restitution had a more difficult probation experience, having more revocations filed against them and showing a greater frequency of reporting, physical health, and money problems. No difference in arrest rate or time on probation was discovered. Those offenders ordered to pay restitution but who did not pay in full had the greatest problems of all, showing the highest revocation filing and actual revocation rate, rate of convictions, and time served. Payment characteristics were described for offenders who paid all, part, or none of their restitution debt by probation's end. It was suggested that closer probation officer scrutiny of offenders ordered to pay restitution may have accounted for the more difficult experience of the restitution group and that cost of administration of restitution programs may not be worth the benefits.This research was funded in part by grant No. 76-ED-99-0027 from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Special thanks are given the directors of Denver District Court Probation, without whose permission to enter the probation archives, and without whose day-to-day cooperation, this study would have been impossible.