Cost: Investing in the Future
Using a Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) found that diversion treatment programs save between $1 and $98 for every dollar
spent, contingent on state and program type (OJJDP, accessed 2018). The ROI is found by estimating the
cost of the crime reduced by implementing the program, subtracting the expense of implementing said
program, and dividing by the cost of implementing the program (OJJDP, accessed 2018). Funding for
diversion programs is allocated from a sliding scale of federal grants, state grants, local funding, non-
governmental organizations and private foundations.
Although there are start-up costs associated with expanding diversion programming, they do not
compare to the costs associated with building new infrastructure for residential commitment facilities,
[construction costs, land acquisition, etc.]. According to the OJJDP, costs vary by program and the costs
necessary for diversion programming expansion or introduction is also contingent on “the funding and
resources already available in the court system and community” (OJJP, Accessed 2018). Unlike residential
commitment facilities, diversion programs can make use of unpaid volunteers, where the only associated
costs are training and materials (OJJDP, 2018). In addition, in a study involving university students
volunteering for college credit, findings indicated that youth had more positive reactions to mentors who
were unpaid (OJJDP, Accessed 2018). Within the first seven years (2001-08) of operation in Miami-Dade,
it was estimated that the PAD program saved the county $42 million in JJS costs by diverting
approximately 2,000 youth per year (Dembo et al., 2008).
Commitment
Social Factors
Extensive research has been conducted stating the risk and protective factors that lead to
juvenile delinquency or discourage a juvenile from recidivating. In addition to arguing that diversion
helps reduce the risk factors and builds protective factors, research shows that commitment facilities can
also increase the very risk factors that led a child to the JJS. In fact, the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) found
that incarceration can hinder a child’s psychological and brain development and calls on policymakers to
take a “developmental approach” that relies primarily on incarceration alternatives (2014). When youth
must be confined, it should be in a “treatment-rich environment” for “the shortest length of stay
commensurate with the court order, the opinion of professionals, and, increasingly, the family’s
perspective;” where the residential center is as close to the juvenile’s community as possible, and with a
reentry plan that begins immediately upon a youth’s release to ensure a successful transition back into
his or her community (JPI, 2014).
The racial disparities between minority contact with the JJS that results in commitment
dispositions and that of whites is astounding. The Justice Policy Institute found that African American
youth are five times more likely to be sent to confinement than their white counterparts, Hispanic/
Latino youth are twice as likely to be sent to confinement as white youth, and American Indian youth
are three times as likely to be sent to confinement than white youth (JPI, 2014).
Education is also a major concern for juveniles within the JJS. Studies show that a youth’s
involvement with the JJS negatively impacts their likelihood for high school completion. When this is
combined with an increased likelihood of recidivism, the lack of educational achievement can result in
a lower likelihood of successfully earning a living and lower contributions to taxes and the economy at
large (JPI, 2014). The JPI found that less than 20% of confined youth continue on to graduate from high
school or even get a GED (2014). In a 2013 study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic
Research of juveniles in Chicago, youth incarceration reduced the likelihood of high school graduation
by 13.3% (Aizer and Doyle). While other studies have found that increasing the high school graduation
rate can reduce property crimes by upwards of 20% (JPAD, 2016).
48