skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

CrimeSolutions.gov

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar

LIBRARY

Abstract Database

Document Details

JUSTINFO

Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

How to Obtain Documents

To download this abstract, check the box next to the NCJ number then click the "Back To Search Results" link. Click the "Download" button on the Search Results page.

 

NCJ Number: 234310 Find in a Library
Title: Making Restitution Real: Five Case Studies on Improving Restitution Collection
Corporate Author: National Ctr for Victims of Crime
United States of America
Date Published: 2011
Page Count: 140
Sponsoring Agency: National Ctr for Victims of Crime
Washington, DC 20036
Office for Victims of Crime
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 2009-SZ-B9-K006
Sale Source: National Ctr for Victims of Crime
2000 M Street, NW
Suite 480
Washington, DC 20036
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Program/Project Description
Format: Document - Designates non-commercial publications, such as Government and gray literature reports.
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Five papers by expert practitioners in the field of restitution discuss their jurisdictions’ current issues, challenges, and promising practices in restitution collection from offenders.
Abstract: Two of the restitution-collection programs, California and Michigan, differ in scale and some of the methods used, but both are grounded in a commitment by the State’s chief justice to make increased restitution collections a priority. Both programs have adopted statewide mandates that allow local jurisdictions to use a certain number of best practices from a list developed at the State level. Both States have tools to help local courts improve their tracking and reporting of collections. A third paper addresses a statewide effort in Vermont that has a different framework than California and Michigan. Rather than improving local collection efforts throughout the State, Vermont has created a centralized Restitution Unit that pays individual victims upfront and then assumes the responsibility of collecting restitution payments from offenders. Two local restitution-collection programs are also featured. In Maricopa County, AZ, the commitment of a local judge and the probation department led to the creation of a Restitution Court that uses existing legal tools in order to improve restitution collection from offenders. In Florida’s Eighth Judicial Circuit, Project Payback prioritizes victim restitution as a means of rehabilitating juvenile defendants and repair the harm done to their victims. All of the five programs have key elements in common: leadership from an individual with the authority to change the status quo; commitment to change and the development of collaboration; and openness to new thinking about the importance of restitution collection and ways of doing it. Each case study includes attachments of tools and documents used in the restitution-collection program.
Main Term(s): Victim compensation
Index Term(s): Arizona; California; Florida; Michigan; OVC grant-related documents; Restitution; Restitution programs; Vermont
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=256265

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's Web site is provided.
Tell us how you use the Library and the Abstracts Database. Send us your Feedback.