The Division of Juvenile Corrections (DJC) has released a report in response to 2011 Act 32 in which they were directed to gather information about juvenile justice expenditures and services throughout Wisconsin, including both expenditures by the DJC as well as by counties, related to intervening in juvenile crime.
Variations in how counties categorized and reported information creates some problems in analyzing the results (refer to the report for information about the methodology and potential data variations), but based on the information reported, there are a few items worth of note:
· Counties reported spending over $217 million on juvenile delinquency related services in 2010
· Approximately $100.7 million in state Youth Aids funding was distributed to counties in 2010, accounting for about 46.3% of all delinquency related spending
· The Division of Juvenile Corrections spent approximately $46.5 million on institutional, other residential, supervision, and treatment services.
· Over 13,500 youth received some form of delinquency supervision at the county level and 942 youth were served by DJC in institutions and/or on community supervision.
DJC and the counties participating in the study should be commended for their effort in pulling together very complex data sources to provide a reasonable picture of the costs associated with delinquency in Wisconsin. What is clear now is that:
1. Dealing with delinquency “after the fact” is costly to our citizens, not only in terms of fiscal cost but costs to those affected by the actions of others. This report does not even include law enforcement costs, court-related costs, or losses to victims. Therefore, we need to invest more in proven prevention strategies – strategies that include promoting positive youth development, access to pro-social opportunities for at-risk youth, and quality education for all ages.
2. The Division of Juvenile Corrections and the counties are interdependent, and continued cooperation to ensure that all funds, whether expended at the state or local level, are directed toward what works with youthful offenders must remain a high priority for all.
3. Counties are investing a considerable amount of their own levy and other funds to deal more effectively with youthful offenders, and as more counties develop evidence-based practices and programs, it will be important to document the outcomes of those efforts.
4. At a statewide policy level, data collection related to process, costs, and outcomes is difficult, at best, to obtain and monitor. We should undertake a cautious and thoughtful process to determine what data collection improvements can be made and what value that data may add to future policy decisions.
Jim Moeser
