Does eliminating juvenile justice fees improve outcomes for young people and families?
We are estimating the impact of financial sanctions (fees, fines, and restitution)—especially fees—on families’ financial health and youths’ probation outcomes.
Context & movement toward reform
Juvenile justice agencies often charge administrative fees to offset the cost of youths’ legal representation, detention, and probation supervision. Ultimately, families (not youth) shoulder these financial burdens. Advocacy campaigns like Debt Free Justice have propelled reform efforts, leading to fee repeals in states like California and New Jersey.
Testing the impact of fee repeal & broader financial sanctions
Despite widespread advocacy for reform, the effects of fee repeal and financial sanctions on outcomes are poorly understood. Fees are just one type of financial sanction: families may also face fines (as penalties for offenses) and restitution (as compensation to victims). The extent to which repealing fees reduces families’ overall financial burden—or improves other family and youth outcomes—has not been rigorously examined. Although anecdotal evidence suggests that financial sanctions can exacerbate family debt, stress, and conflict, and youths’ likelihood of re-arrest, existing studies are limited and yield mixed results.
To address these gaps, we applied a rigorous causal inference approach to data on 2,401 youth placed on probation before and after the fee repeal in Alameda County. Our analysis estimated the impact of fee repeal on families’ financial health and youths’ probation outcomes, as well as the broader association between total financial sanctions and these outcomes. Data sources included probation and collections records, state arrest records, and household members’ credit records.
Key findings
- Reduced financial burden. Fee repeal reduced families’ financial obligations by 70% ($1,583). In this progressive county, there was no evidence of increased fines to offset lost revenue. Despite the continuance of fines and restitution, the financial burden on families substantially decreased.
- Limited effect on financial health. Fee repeal did not significantly improve families’ trajectories of credit scores over the two-year period following their child’s probation placement. This may reflect the socioeconomic challenges of this population. Many families lacked credit scores, and those who had them generally remained in the “fair/poor” range.
- Impact on Youth Outcomes: Fee repeal shortened probation terms by about four months but did not significantly affect re-arrest rates. Broader financial sanctions—not fees alone—modestly increased youths’ chances of re-arrest. This suggests a need for comprehensive reform to prevent recidivism.
These findings are detailed in a policy brief, an article on fee repeal, and an article on financial sanctions and recidivism.
Implications and next steps
These findings suggest that fee repeal can be a powerful lever for reducing juvenile justice financial burdens and probation durations without increasing reoffending. However, the results may be influenced by Alameda County’s progressive approach to financial sanctions, characterized by relatively lenient fee imposition and collection practices.
To test the broader applicability of these findings, we are conducting a similar study in Sacramento County, a more conservative jurisdiction with stricter monetary sanction policies. Together, these studies will provide critical insights into how sociopolitical and economic contexts influence the effects of fee repeal.
The growing movement for debt-free justice requires robust empirical evidence. This research provides insights that can guide policymakers’ decisions toward effective reform.
Partners & funding
Jennifer Skeem is leading this project, in collaboration with Luyi Jian, Jaclyn Chambers, and Karin D. Martin. This project was made possible through our partnerships with Alameda Probation, Sacramento Probation, and the California Policy Lab (CPL). Credit panel data and support were provided by CPL. Funding was provided by Arnold Ventures.
