Clear all

8 results found

reorder grid_view

Sticker Shock: Calculating the Full Price Tag for Youth Incarceration

December 9, 2014

Thirty-three U.S. states and jurisdictions spend $100,000 or more annually to incarcerate a young person, and continue to generate outcomes that result in even greater costs. Our new report, Sticker Shock: Calculating the Full Price Tag for Youth Incarceration, provides estimates of the overall costs resulting from the negative outcomes associated with incarceration. The report finds that these long-term consequences of incarcerating young people could cost taxpayers $8 billion to $21 billion each year.

Sticker Shock: Calculating the Full Price Tag for Youth Incarceration (Executive Summary)

December 9, 2014

Thirty-three U.S. states and jurisdictions spend $100,000 or more annually to incarcerate a young person, and continue to generate outcomes that result in even greater costs. Our new report, Sticker Shock: Calculating the Full Price Tag for Youth Incarceration, provides estimates of the overall costs resulting from the negative outcomes associated with incarceration. The report finds that these long-term consequences of incarcerating young people could cost taxpayers $8 billion to $21 billion each year.

Stakeholders' Views on the Movement to Reduce Youth Incarceration

March 31, 2014

Youth incarceration rates have changed dramatically over the past 10 years . Following two decades of "tough-on-crime" policies and steep surges in juvenile incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s, the field is now seeing sharp reductions in youth confinement . The latest data from the US Justice Department showed that the rate of youth in confinement dropped 41% between 2001 and 2011 . Since 2001, 48 states have experienced such a decline . Several states cut their confinement rates by half or more . Juvenile facilities have closed in a dozen states, with more than 50 facilities closing in the past five years alone .The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) decided to seek the opinions of system stakeholders regarding these changes . These stakeholders included advocates who successfully pressured their local systems to adopt reforms; the majority of study participants work inside the system as judges, probation chiefs, probation officers, directors of child welfare agencies, elected officials, and district attorneys.Through interviews and listening sessions, these system stakeholders expressed their beliefs that declining youth crime and rising costs were key drivers of the current trend . Additionally, respondents said that many of these successes were driven by successful legislation, innovative incentives built into state budgets, decisions to place youth close to home, and supervision strategies that rely on positive relationships between youth and their families.

The Vortex: The Concentrated Racial Impact of Drug Imprisonment and the Characteristics of Punitive Counties

December 1, 2007

This report describes the relationship between drug admission rates and the structural and demographic characteristics of counties -- budgets and spending for law enforcement, unemployment rates, poverty rates, and the percentage of the population that is African American.

Models for Change: Building Momentum for Juvenile Justice Reform

December 1, 2006

Models for Change: Building Momentum for Juvenile Justice Reform tells the story of how innovative state leaders from across the country are creating a new path toward fair, rational, effective and developmentally appropriate models for juvenile justice reform. Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana and Washington are already moving to reform and reshape their juvenile justice systems. These states have demonstrated strong leadership in juvenile justice policy, value collaboration and engagement and, because of their efforts, have changed the political climate to make deeper systems reform possible. Models for Change, a new initiative from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, is seeking to build on their efforts in the hope that these states develop new model policies, practices and procedures that will strengthen their reform work, and possibly represent changes that could be replicated in other states.

The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities

November 1, 2006

This policy brief looks at the consequences of detention on young people, their families, and communities. This policy brief shows that, given the new findings that detaining youth may not make communities safer, the costs of needlessly detaining young people who do not need to be there are simply too high. Policymakers, instead, should look to detention reform as a means to reduce the number of young people needlessly detained, and reinvest the savings in juvenile interventions proven to reduce recidivism and crime, and that can help build healthy and safe communities.

Disparity by Design: How Drug-free Zone Laws Impact Racial Disparity -- and Fail to Protect Youth

March 1, 2006

Thanks to the work of concerned policymakers and reform advocates across the country, public discussions have been sparked in many states about the fairness and efficacy of drug-free zone laws. This report is designed to inform those discussions by reviewing empirical findings, primarily from three states -- Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut -- where enough information is available to answer key questions. The report also documents efforts by policymakers and advocates in a few other states -- Illinois, Utah, and Washington -- to challenge long-held assumptions that drug-free zone laws are protecting children and enhancing public safety.

Cost-effective Youth Corrections: Rationalizing the Fiscal Architecture of Juvenile Justice Systems

March 1, 2006

Locked confinement in a state institution is more expensive, sometimes running in excess of $60,000 annually compared to $10,000 or less for community supervision or services. In the 51 distinct juvenile justice systems that constitute how young people are treated in America's justice system, it is sometimes cheaper for localities in some states and jurisdictions to send youth to state institutions than it is for communities to develop services to treat youth close to home. Such a financial architecture can lead to undesirable results. Counties often lack the financial means or incentive to expand local programs or services, so fewer of these options exist for youth than the demand would otherwise necessitate. Without local programs or services, judges may have little choice but to send youth convicted of marginal offenses to distant, locked facilities. As a result, youth have been locked in the state system simply because there was nowhere for them to go locally -- and no easy way to pay for those services.