Letter: Uniformity needed in youth incarceration data

Nevada should be recognized for its success in reducing the number of incarcerated youth. It’s work through the Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative should be commended and we hope leads to further exploring ways to more effectively invest its resources.

In our report on the costs of youth confinement, we relied on information provided by state officials for the cost to confine youth in juvenile facilities. Our intent was to spur closer examination of the costs of incarcerating youth. If the cost in Nevada that was reported included onetime construction and start-up costs — which might be in the capital budget in another state — this underlines our recommendation calling for uniform standards for calculating such costs. We know from collecting this information that states often have different standards for calculating costs of confinement.

Taxpayers would be better able to assess whether we are achieving good outcomes if there were consistent standards across states for measuring confinement costs. This would help determine how to calculate costs, allow for consistency across states, and allow the public to assess whether we are making the wisest investments when it comes to juvenile justice policy.

Marc Schindler, executive director of Justice Policy Institute

Jason Ziedenberg, director of research & policy

Washington, D.C.

Editor’s note: This letter is in response to an RGJ editorial Dec. 24 headlined “ Bright spot in misleading youth crime report.”