Governor's Crime Commission juvenile age study : a study of the impact of expanding the jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention : final report to the Governor of North Carolina and to the 2009 session of the General A - Page 136 |
Previous | 136 of 227 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
127
APPENDIX A. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO REDUCE
SECURE CONFINEMENT
State: Ohio
Program: Reclaim Ohio
The State of Ohio allocates money to counties to be used for providing community programs.
Allocation is based on population size and delinquency levels and is reduced based on the
number of persons who are committed to the State. The formula does not reduce funding for
commitment dispositions of persons adjudicated for serious and violent crimes because the State
has decided that there is a need to confine these types of offenders. Because community
programs are cheaper, counties were willing to invest in developing them and were less likely to
send youth to state commitment. Over the 18 years since legislation was enacted in 1992, the
State has seen a 42 percent reduction in recidivism. Between May 1992 and June 2004, the
number of committed persons decreased from 2,600 to 1,800.
State: Illinois
Program: Redeploy Illinois
Illinois implemented the program in 2004. Counties opt in to the program and agree to reduce the
number of secure commitments. They commit to decreasing the number of youth sent to secure
facilities by 25 percent of the average number sent in the prior 3 years. In turn, the State provides
counties with funds to serve the targeted. In four pilot sites, 382 youth were diverted from secure
commitment within three years, which saved $18.7 million. The number of commitments
reduced by 51 percent; however, an evaluation of the program states that the results are not all
attributable to the program, as other juvenile justice programs have also been implemented at the
same time.
State: Pennsylvania
Program: Act 148
The State reimburses counties for 80 percent of the cost of community-based programming,
whereas the lowest reimbursement rates are for secure detention in local facilities (50 percent)
and secure residential or institutional commitments (60 percent). The Act was enacted in the late
1970s; within three years, state reimbursement for community programs increased by 75 percent
(from $65 million to $114 million). Secure placements for youth decreased by 24 percent by the
early 1980s. In 2006, the proportion of committed youth placed in State facilities was as low as
14 percent.
State: California
Program: SB 81
SB 81 was signed in 2007, and banned the commitment of youth adjudicated for non-violent
offenses from being committed to State residential facilities. It also established block grants to
provide $130,000 per youth for placement in community alternatives to commitment. Initial
projections for program impact included a reduction of the number of youth in residential
facilities by about 1,000 in two years (from 2,500 to 1,500). Prior to SB 81, the State required
counties to pay a monthly rate per youth in secure confinement based on a sliding scale by
offense type, ranging from $150 for murder to $2,600 for technical violations.
Object Description
Description
| Title | Governor's Crime Commission juvenile age study : a study of the impact of expanding the jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention : final report to the Governor of North Carolina and to the 2009 session of the General A - Page 136 |
| Full Text | 127 APPENDIX A. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO REDUCE SECURE CONFINEMENT State: Ohio Program: Reclaim Ohio The State of Ohio allocates money to counties to be used for providing community programs. Allocation is based on population size and delinquency levels and is reduced based on the number of persons who are committed to the State. The formula does not reduce funding for commitment dispositions of persons adjudicated for serious and violent crimes because the State has decided that there is a need to confine these types of offenders. Because community programs are cheaper, counties were willing to invest in developing them and were less likely to send youth to state commitment. Over the 18 years since legislation was enacted in 1992, the State has seen a 42 percent reduction in recidivism. Between May 1992 and June 2004, the number of committed persons decreased from 2,600 to 1,800. State: Illinois Program: Redeploy Illinois Illinois implemented the program in 2004. Counties opt in to the program and agree to reduce the number of secure commitments. They commit to decreasing the number of youth sent to secure facilities by 25 percent of the average number sent in the prior 3 years. In turn, the State provides counties with funds to serve the targeted. In four pilot sites, 382 youth were diverted from secure commitment within three years, which saved $18.7 million. The number of commitments reduced by 51 percent; however, an evaluation of the program states that the results are not all attributable to the program, as other juvenile justice programs have also been implemented at the same time. State: Pennsylvania Program: Act 148 The State reimburses counties for 80 percent of the cost of community-based programming, whereas the lowest reimbursement rates are for secure detention in local facilities (50 percent) and secure residential or institutional commitments (60 percent). The Act was enacted in the late 1970s; within three years, state reimbursement for community programs increased by 75 percent (from $65 million to $114 million). Secure placements for youth decreased by 24 percent by the early 1980s. In 2006, the proportion of committed youth placed in State facilities was as low as 14 percent. State: California Program: SB 81 SB 81 was signed in 2007, and banned the commitment of youth adjudicated for non-violent offenses from being committed to State residential facilities. It also established block grants to provide $130,000 per youth for placement in community alternatives to commitment. Initial projections for program impact included a reduction of the number of youth in residential facilities by about 1,000 in two years (from 2,500 to 1,500). Prior to SB 81, the State required counties to pay a monthly rate per youth in secure confinement based on a sliding scale by offense type, ranging from $150 for murder to $2,600 for technical violations. |
