Correct Course is another non-judicial program that diverts youth at their first point of contact
with the JJS and is a partnership between youth and their families, the JJS, and more local youth
assistance programs (YAPs), which offer services to the youth and families within their own
communities, alleviating the potential barrier of transportation that low-income families could
encounter (Hodges et al., 2011). In locating YAPs within the neighborhoods they serve, these programs
ensure cultural competence in services rendered (Hodges et al., 2011).
By consenting to participation in the program, the juvenile waives the right to a trial for their
charges but will have his or her charges dropped upon completion of the program in 3 to 6 months
(Hodges et al., 2011). Upon graduation, when the youth complete the program, some of the YAPs
celebrate and review the youth’s progress with the youth and his or her family and connect families
with further resources available to them after the program is complete (Hodges et al., 2011). An exit
JIFF was given to a subset of the population [259 youth], measuring JIFF goals across the
aforementioned domains; increased school attendance in the school domain or increased monitoring
on the home subscale, for instance (Hodges et al., 2011).
Statistically speaking, 93% of the sample was charged with lesser felonies (13%) [retail fraud,
breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny], misdemeanors (48%) [alcohol consumption,
domestic violence], or status offenses (32%) [truancy] (Hodges et al., 2011). Recidivism was measured as
adjudication for another offense within 1-year post-YAP service – noting that measuring by arrests
instead of adjudication would show disproportionate minority contact [a noted issue for Detroit]
(Hodges et al., 2011). The resulting recidivism rate for all 1,017 youth was 7.7% and only 1.3% of the total
youth recidivated to a higher charge class than their initial offense [committing a felony after the first
misdemeanor or status offense] (Hodges et al., 2011).
The cost of six months of the program per youth was calculated to be $1,500 [though most
youth spent only three months in the program] (Hodges et al., 2011). Although an exact estimate of
cost savings of the program could not be calculated, Hodges accounted for the cost savings during the
time period of the program’s implementation. Conducting a cost analysis for the first full year Correct
Course was implemented, Hodges found that probation costs were down by 53.1%, due to a 32.6%
reduction in probation adjudications, which cost around $50 a day per child ($9,000 for 6 months per
youth) (Hodges et al., 2011).
In terms of avoiding commitment costs, because the Correct Course diversion alternative was
available, some juveniles were able to be released from commitment much earlier than usual (Hodges
et al., 2011). In fact, “during the initial implementation of this diversion option [Correct Course], two
alternative detention facilities with capacity of 58 beds were able to be closed” (Hodges et al., 2011).
Housing a juvenile in one of these facilities initially cost Wayne county $200 per child per day or
$36,000 for an average of 6 months per youth (Hodges et al., 2011). Hodges estimated the potential
savings to Wayne county as ranging between $7,500 and $22,000 per juvenile (Hodges et al., 2011).
Hodges research showed that, “significant improvement was observed for the [exit] JIFF total score
and each subscale for youth and caregivers” with the exception of the peer influences subscale, which
Hodges notes as an area of improvement (Hodges et al., 2011). Hodges observed “large to moderate
impacts” for overall functioning and school and home domains, noting “these are critically important
findings given that poor school functioning (i.e. in attendance, grades, and behavior) is a predictor of
poor adjustment as an adult and that high noncompliance in the home puts the youth at risk for
out-of-home care.” (Hodges et al., 2011).
However, the exit JIFF was taken by a sample of the population that were less likely to
recidivate and represented a higher percentage of African American youth, so this finding may not be
generalizable (Hodges et al., 2011). Despite this potential flaw, Hodges’ findings strongly support the
recommendation that “psychosocial functioning be assessed for all youth and be reported as an
outcome indicator. Poorer psychosocial functioning at entry predicted recidivism and change in
psychosocial functioning was successfully measured” (Hodges et al., 2011). Correct Course reduced
recidivism, increased system efficiency, reduced costs, and lessened the youth’s involvement in the JJS
(Hodges et al., 2011).
47