U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Victims and Delinquents in the Tulsa Juvenile Court

NCJ Number
72224
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 44 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1980) Pages: 42-48
Author(s)
B Galaway; M Henzel; G Ramsay; B Wanyama
Date Published
1980
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Tulsa's Juvenile Court (Okia.) established procedures in 1975 by which some offenders were required to make restitution to their victims, engage in community service, and meet and apologize to their victims.
Abstract
The program aims to bring about some payment of restitution to victims, develop a vehicle for returning victims' property from the property room of the police department, personalize crime by bringing victims and offenders together, develop treatment techniques to prevent recidivism, be a resource for victims in receiving legal or therapeutic help, and to develop better public relations. Two studies were conducted to secure descriptive data regarding the 251 victims and 291 offenders who participated in the victims program between December 1975 and November 1978. The typical youth referred was a male Caucasian, middle adolescent who had committed a property offense and came from a moderate income family. Most victims were individuals or households whose mean loss was $207; the mean restitution ordered was $127; and the mean amount paid was $90. Over half of the victims actually met with their offender and 71 percent expressed a willingness to do so. About a third of the youth were assigned a community service obligation averaging 40 hours. Property offenders were more likely to be referred to the victim program, but only 37 percent of property offenders were actually referred. No significance was found with regard to variables of age, prior referrals to the juvenile court, race, age, or family income. The program showed its ability to handle a large number of victims and offenders with a very small staff. The program could be strengthened, however through more victim-offender contact. An examination of the reasons for attrition in the restitution amounts from the payment ordered and the sum actually paid is needed. More explicit policies regarding referrals of youths to the program should also be developed. Several tables are provided.