Youth, Crime and Public Money

Although the overwhelming majority of young people are law-abiding, crime experts agree that already escalating youth crime will rise even further as the current generation of adolescents grows older. The so-called “superpredators” among young Americans pose a new dilemma for lawmakers: How should society respond to young people who commit violence, even homicide, while at the same time it acts to deter such crimes? A new report by the Rand Corp. offers provocative suggestions as Congress and the California Legislature ponder options.

Arrests for violent crime among those 14 to 17 years old jumped a staggering 47% nationally from 1989 to 1994, according to a recent study. This trend, along with predictions of worse to come, has sparked nearly every state to stiffen its criminal laws in recent years to try more youths as adults and to incarcerate convicted youth felons with adults. Congress is now considering a bill that would largely end federal requirements that the states segregate juveniles from adults in jails and prisons.

Lawmakers want to impose adult punishments on what look like adult crimes. Certainly that makes sense in some cases. Their reasoning is similar to that which prompted passage of California’s “three strikes and you’re out” law: Come down hard on repeat or violent offenders and you may prevent others from following suit. But this strategy is also stunningly expensive. In 1994, Rand estimated that “three strikes” could produce a 21% drop in serious crime statewide. But, it said, enforcement would cost $5.5 billion each year. The extra prosecutors, judges and prison cells needed so far have put huge burdens on already strained public budgets.

Now comes a Rand report reviving an old argument: that if deterrence is the goal, incentive and intervention programs aimed at young people may achieve the same drop in crime at a far lower cost--one-fifth the cost, according to the report. Though prevention programs were widely tried in decades past, they were not targeted as specifically at those who need the help as the programs analyzed in the report.

Rand’s conclusions are admittedly tentative; still, the conclusions should cause fiscally prudent California state lawmakers to pause as they consider 47 pending bills intended to crack down on juvenile offenders. Only four of these provide any rehabilitation or prevention services, and two of these four include no mechanism for funding. This legislative slate raises the obvious question: Is California pursuing the most cost-effective strategy in fighting crime?