Cost of Crimes and Status Offenses Compared With Cost of Processing Suspects and Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System

• NCJ Number: 79778
• Author(s): D V Babst; C P Smith; L Phillips
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 75 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-JN-AX-0013; 77-JN-99-0008; 77-JN-99-0008(S-2); 77-NI-99-0009; 77-JN-99-0008(S-1)
• Sponsoring Agency: US Securities and Exchange Cmssn
• Corporate Author: American Justice Institute
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Statistics
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Based on an analytical cost-benefit model, this report provides insight into how the juvenile justice system spends relatively too little time processing serious offenses and too much time processing less serious and status offenses. It is intended to help decisionmakers plan future budgets and work priorities.

Abstract

The basic procedure used in the assessment was to compare the crime losses to society with the cost of processing persons alleged or adjudicated for involvement in these activities. The comparisons were made within offense categories (i.e., murder, robbery, runaways). The analysis is carried out at key decision points (i.e., arrest, court referral, and assignment to custody) so that the findings can be redily useable by decisionmakers in the areas where they have authority. Overall, findings indicate that too little time is spent by justice agencies processing serious offenses, compared with the great cost of these offenses to society. For example, the ratio of law enforcement processing cost to society losses for robbery is $1 to $62. Also, too little time is spent in processing less serious offenses, compared with the low cost of such offenses to society. For instance, the ratio of processing cost to society losses for loitering is $1 to $0.2. Moreover, direct crime losses in 1977 by serious juvenile offenders was $9.7 billion compared with $1 billion for the less serious and status offenders combined. Despite the great differences in crime losses by the two juvenile groups, the amount spent for law enforcement processing costs on them is the same. This inefficiency also applies to judicial and custody processing. To show how these problems are solvable, two encouraging programs are described: (1) a large State correctional treatment program for narcotic addicts, which saves society millions of dollars over what it costs society for the program and (2) a county program that diverts status offenders from the juvenile justice system in a way that saves society money and is more humane. Study procedures and work tables, 33 references, cost estimating procedures, and the names of project staff members are appended. Tables, a few graphs, and footnotes are included. (Author summary modified)