No particular scheme can pay for the assortment of diversion programs required to successfully interject in the imprisonment and detention of individuals with recurring conditions. Most specifically, when an assortment of methods is overstretched in its efforts to identify a favorable diversion resource, every proposed process typically declares funding deficiency to its fellow method, thus initiating the bureaucratic back and forth in constructing the crucial choice of services for the diversion planning. Ultimately, every projected diversion program must convey the resources that will be accessible for mutual endeavors. Additionally, resources should not be limited to quantifiable dollars, but contain workforce time, space and the agreement in changing policies and procedures that preclude amalgamation and efficient diversion programs. Uncompromising and rigid state and federal funding issues offer many hurdles to the vital assimilation of amenities offered towards individuals with substance use conditions and mental health disorders who are implicated in the criminal justice system.
For decades, jail diversion programs have been looked upon as a humanitarian resolution for individuals with mental disorders, in diverting individuals from prison to community-based mental health treatment thus benefiting the public, criminal justice system, and the individual. In general, money from categorical funding has been focused towards suppliers, particularized populations, and facilities with no known cohesive approach in providing and funding services needed for individuals with re-occurring disorders who could be diverted from incarceration. Specific traits of civic service organizations signify that an incremental budgeting process suits comfortably to the overall public funding structure of diversion programs.
States, cities and towns, are frequently multifaceted, large and satisfy an assortment of tasks in diverse policies within its regions. Resolutions can, nevertheless, occasionally be decided instantly; allowing acceptance in the dissemination of most expenditures thus concentrating on abnormalities from the present arrangement. At time, the existing social service background is scarcely beneficial to funding costly systems amalgamation plans and prison diversion programs. Customarily taxpayers’ feelings have endorsed an increased disbursement of limited public capitals to supply and construct additional prisons more willingly than providing community-based treatment facilities or diversion programs that could aid individuals within the public sector.
Community-Based Organizations (Non-Profit)
Diversion Programs have been an integrate part of Community-Based Organizations, as it benefits juveniles in obtaining physical, communal, emotional, and academic success while developing their behavior and lifestyle. In recent years, the disturbing growth of juvenile apprehension has produced a concern, as this increase has caused individuals to consider programs that may deter youths from being part of the juvenile court system. Today, efforts have been made to invest in diversion program by the notion that these programs may have the ability to reduce recidivism, control overpopulation in prison and provide youth with alternative methods of rehabilitation. Most recently, the State of Ohio has implemented many intervention and diversion programs to intervene and divert youth. The “Youth Men and Women for Change (YMWFC)” and the “Peace in the Hood Program” are two prominent programs within communities of Ohio. In 2006, The YMWFC program was created by Mr. Shawn Mahone Sr. with the purpose of providing youth with organized and educational training to transform their lives. Upon reviewing juvenile delinquency statistics, Mr. Mahone began to realize many juveniles were not reaching their full potential due to lack of direction, support, and discipline (YMWFC, 2006).
The program is based on the belief that youth can transform their lives in becoming a useful participant of the general public with the proper tools, resources and understanding. Another program that has been instrumental within the community operated out of Cleveland, Ohio developed by Brother Samad and Omar Ali-Bey in the 1990’s (The Peace in the Hood, n.d.). The project he program was inspired as another way of addressing the serious problems that face the youth in our communities. Peace in the Hood continues its involvement in Ohio and the nation as a founding member of the International Council for Urban Peace, Justice and Empowerment (Peace in the Hood, n.d.).
Bond Issuance and Grants
Towards the conclusion of the year, budget numbers are linked with concrete outcomes and a pretentious genuine-budget variance contrast is designed. Variance outcomes are typically used for revising monetary amounts for the next planning and budgeting cycle, and also for very simple departmental performance tracking. This innovative methodology to budget analysis and utilization are several paces forward of the modern methods. For instance, a legislative project to advance the communal well-being of women in an isolated region can aid in clarifying the performance-oriented methodology. Diversion Programs can typically be organized by long-term strategies, based on the government’s decision on objectives, activities and the requirement to accomplish its goal. Let’s say, a practical way of enhancing social welfare of women in a rural area could involve rising the levels of literacy of women within the area. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness studies could be included in the budget planning to assist in comparing the efficiency of exploring what programs could be utilized to raise the levels of literacy that will allow policymakers to achieve the largest possible result for a given level of funding.
Unfortunately, the problem in recognizing effective programs is a lack of regularity in exactly how forecasters review the research, as it difficult to equate programs. Dissimilar reviewers frequently come to diverse assumptions about “what does and does not work.” Quite often they may create a diverse list of “recognized” and “auspicious” diversion programs for the reason that they focused in on unalike consequences or since they applied uncommon principles in assessing the programs. Certain reviews may purely recap the material enclosed in certain research, thus grouping each evaluation collectively in arriving to a conclusion about certain approaches or strategies that they may have defined. Such assessments are exceedingly biased, with no typical rule for selecting the evaluation or how the results should be interpreted. The bottom line is cutting diversion funding is an unreliable tactic to budget difficulties that exacerbate society’s problems, which will include long-term public safety consequences and the potential for taxpayers to shoulder the additional burden of costly prison and jail construction.
Multi-Level Government Financing
The U.S. Code Section 290bb–38 authorizes one-hundred twenty-five million dollars towards Indian tribes, states, and political subdivisions of states, tribal organizations functioning openly or via contracts with non-profit bodies or other public, to acquire and employ programs to divert individuals with mental illness from the criminal justice system to community-based services. The regulation goal is to ensure the collaboration of the various agencies and organizations working towards ensuring all U.S. citizens enjoy healthy and fruitful lives. Through these combined efforts, prearranged, obtainable resources can be taken full advantage thus providing the greatest assistance for every community. In the United States, they have what they called the “Second Chance Act” program which is aimed towards the reduction of recidivism among inmates. This program was proposed by a bilateral party with the House of Representatives which offered regional and state government the assets in developing transient services to inmates who will be released back into society.
“The FY-14 Budget submitted by the President including a one-hundred fifteen million sustained support for the Second Chance Act program. This signifies a significant federal venture in evidence-centered strategy to enhance community protection and lessen recidivism by approving capital in the management and expansion of reentry amenities, such as mentoring, substance abuse treatment, and employment training. So far, approximately six-hundred grants have been given across the District of Columbia and forty-nine states (President’s Budget Proposes Continued Funding for Second Chance Act and Justice Reinvestment Initiative. (n.d.).” The Second Chance Act is a good first step that will provide a directional approach to a better understanding what works to increase public safety, reduce crime, and lower the recidivism rate.
No matter what, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and jobs are the cures to incarceration. It is vital for adolescence to obtain help via some diversion method than authoritarian reprimand so they can acquire proper manners thus becoming a useful participant of society. Not all of the programs will be effective for all children, as such it is imperative to pair the adolescence to the applicable program. As shown, the state of Ohio compromises of several programs that operates in a different way thus providing a dissimilar atmosphere. If youths continue to be in trouble and come across police force, the courts will regulate which program will help the youth.
Studies show that Diversionary Programs is much less costly than sending a case through court. In addition, diversion gives the defendant an opportunity to compensate victims, by means of restitution orders and community service (Diversion Programs: Avoid Conviction & Trial, 2014). Activity-based budgeting is a tactic established from activity-based assessment managed in the private sector. Rather than assuming that overheads are correlated to the measurements of service or production, the procedure attempts to recognize what impels costs by connecting overheads to activities. Must every program be assessed on an equivalent foundation? “Various studies take into account merely savings within the criminal justice system, while others deem this matter more extensive; as costs should be encompassed and savings are just savings no matter where in government they arise (M. R. Gold, 1996).” This broader approach requires collecting data reflecting the effect of an intervention on all government spending.
For example, the “David Olds’ Nurse Home Visiting Program,” is not solely a cost-effective as a delinquency-prevention program, however, when crime-reduction benefits both the child and mother are collective with condensed school expenses and welfare aid exceed costs by several orders of magnitude (Karoly, L. A. (1998).” Consequently, the criminal justice system has trailed fields such as medicine, engineering, environmental protection, public health, and in efforts to monetize benefits. Victim analyses offer objectively estimate of direct out-of-pocket expenditures which includes; the cost of misplaced or broken property, lost wages and medical expenses. These direct costs, nevertheless, are only a minor portion of the complete expenditures to victims levied by criminalities against individuals. The question is how to measure the indirect costs of security expenditures, controlled lifestyle, pain and suffering which can be somewhat large for some more severe criminalities.
Diversion Programs: Avoid Conviction & Trial | Nolo.com. (n.d.). Nolo.com. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. (2007). Saving children from a life of crime: early risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gold, M. R. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press
Peace In The Hood. (n.d.). Peace In The Hood. Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://www.peaceinthehood.com/default.asp
Karoly, L. A. (1998). Investing in our children what we know and don’t know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand
President’s Budget Proposes Continued Funding for Second Chance Act and Justice Reinvestment Initiative. (n.d.). CSG Justice Center. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://csgjusticecenter.org/jc/presidents-budget-proposes-continued-funding-for-second-chance-act-and-justice-reinvestment-initiative/
Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig. Gun Violence: The Real Costs. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.
Young Men and Women for Change. (n.d.). Young Men and Women for Change. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from http://youngmenandwomenforchange.com/history.html