The wrong questions we ask about restitution reform
A new pilot program in Minnesota removes the burden of restitution from youth and promotes restorative justice
By Jasmine Richardson-Rushin, Attorney at the National Center for Youth Law
When I traveled to Minnesota this year to advocate for restitution reform within the state’s youth justice system — namely, stopping the practice of making children pay restitution costs — I was prepared for difficult conversations.
I’ve engaged in many tough discussions focused on ending the criminalization of poverty (thanks largely to my involvement in the national Debt Free Justice campaign), but this admittedly felt different. When I advocate for ending juvenile court fees and fines, for example, people often quickly see the injustice in charging court costs to children and families who are already struggling financially. Restitution for people who have been harmed, however, is largely viewed not only as fair, but as necessary both to compensate them for that harm as well as to hold accountable those who caused it.
My task in Minnesota, in close collaboration with local grassroots organizations, was to get community members and lawmakers to challenge this short-sighted view of the restitution process. Of course, people who’ve experienced harm deserve to be compensated, but no one wins if that compensation is expected to come from a child, particularly one who’s too young to obtain employment and/or whose family is unable to afford it. An alternative approach, one that prioritizes the well-being of all young people and acknowledges that many so-called offenders are also among those who’ve experienced harm, was desperately needed.
Thankfully, I was met by young people and families who were bravely willing to share their stories, as well as forward-thinking lawmakers who realized the status quo wasn’t working and were open to change. The result: An exciting pilot initiative that will provide compensation to people who’ve been harmed, while also allowing youth who’ve caused financial harm to participate in restorative programs that support their growth without the financial burden of paying restitution. The pilot was approved in an omnibus bill signed in late May by Governor Tim Walz.
The pilot stands to benefit everyone — those who experience harm, by providing them financial compensation, and those who cause it, by supporting them in making amends without devastating their financial futures. So why would discussions surrounding it be difficult? Like most things, it’s complicated.
Typically, conversations around restitution reform are dominated by some form of the same two questions: If restitution is eliminated, how will those who’ve experienced harm be compensated? And, if a young person who caused harm doesn’t have to pay anything from their own pockets, how can we say they were held accountable?
In order to address those, we must first ask ourselves: Why can’t we reconcile both these objectives? Why does the conversation make offender accountability and victim compensation mutually exclusive? When can we admit that the lines drawn between those who have harmed and those who have experienced harm is blurry at best?
Finding solutions
The reason the line is so blurred is because oftentimes youth who cause harm have at some point experienced similar forms of harm. In most situations, the so-called offender and the person deemed to be the victim share the same or similar socioeconomic status, and deal with the same or similar struggles. They may even live in the same neighborhood.
Not only does the typical restitution process fail to address the root of harmful behaviors, it leaves youth who cause harm unsupported, indebted and court-involved long after adjudication. Meanwhile, the person who experienced the harm — assuming it’s a person and not an insurance company or other corporation, as can often be the case with monetary restitution — receives a slow trickle of incremental “accountability,” if any at all.
Fortunately, in Minnesota, there was already a willingness to move away from these damaging youth justice practices.
I met with Representative Sandra Feist (D-39B), a state legislator with a long record of fighting for justice and reform. Feist had previously authored successful legislation to create an Office of Restorative Practices to help cover costs for youth who participate in community-based, restorative justice programs. Feist championed our proposed pilot, which allows restitution to be included among the costs eligible to be covered.
Thanks to this new pilot program, young Minnesotans who are found to have broken the law will have opportunities to participate in community-based programs that acknowledge and address their behaviors and encourage and support them in making better choices — all without compromising their financial futures. Importantly, those who’ve experienced harm will be given financial compensation, as well as the knowledge that the young person who caused their harm is engaged in programming aimed at preventing similar outcomes in the future.
The Minnesota program is only a pilot, but it marks a critical step toward justice for Minnesota’s youth. It’s vital that more states rethink and reframe how they treat restitution — even if those discussions are difficult.
Jasmine Richardson-Rushin is an Attorney on the National Center for Youth Law’s Justice and Equity team. Jasmine works on policy reform to eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline, as well as juvenile fines and fees through the Debt Free Justice campaign.
