Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense

• NCJ Number: 232178
• Author(s): Amanda Petteruti; Nastassia Walsh; Tracy Velazquez
• Date Published: May 2009
• Length: 25 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Public Welfare Foundation; Open Society Foundation
• Sale Source: Justice Policy Institute
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This policy brief explains how States can achieve a net reduction in expenditures by reducing their use of large care facilities for youth (often called "training schools") and investing the money saved in community-based alternatives.

Abstract

Evidence is growing that there are proven cost-effective policies and programs for delinquent youth that improve community safety as well as outcomes for the youth. Currently, States spend approximately $5.7 billion annually imprisoning youth, most for nonviolent offenses. Recognizing research findings that show community-based interventions are more effective and less costly than incarceration, many large States are redirecting funds once spent on the custody and care of youth in large residential facilities to less expensive and more effective programs that reduce reoffending. Such a policy is supported by 10 years of data on incarceration and crime trends that show States which have increased the number of youth in juvenile facilities have not necessarily experienced a decrease in crime during the same time period. In contrast to the often criminalizing effects of secure custody with other delinquent youth, community-based programs conducted outside of the criminal or juvenile justice system have been shown to reduce reoffending by up to 22 percent. Examples that support the cost-effectiveness of community-based corrections for youth are provided from Ohio, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Wisconsin. This paper recommends that States provide incentives for counties to send fewer youth to secure residential facilities by shifting the fiscal architecture of the State juvenile justice system. Other recommendations are to invest in intermediate interventions, not buildings; invest in proven approaches for reducing youth crime and recidivism; develop, support, and evaluate new approaches for reducing crime and recidivism by youth; and invest in policies that increase youth employment, educational achievement, and treatment for those who need it. 98 references