Juvenile justice systems in the United States—responsible for addressing legal violations by youth under a certain age (typically age 18)—operate under a variety of complex financial structures that reflect an interplay of federal, state, and local policies. These systems rely on diverse funding sources, each playing a critical role in supporting operations, programs, and services. While state and local funding form the backbone of financial support to juvenile justice systems, additional funding sources—such as federal funding, fines and fees, and philanthropic contributions—also play a role. However, there is limited information available regarding juvenile justice financing, particularly information synthesized across states and localities. As a result, variations in financing among juvenile justice systems are not well understood, limiting opportunities to examine how different structures support (or limit) communities’ juvenile justice objectives—for example, reducing recidivism, expanding community-based alternatives to incarceration, and increasing access to rehabilitative services. This lack of clarity hinders opportunities to strategize and allocate resources effectively, improve program quality, and achieve safe communities.
To enhance understanding of juvenile justice system financing, the Annie E. Casey Foundation funded Child Trends to conduct a mixed-methods study of juvenile justice systems’ financing across select states and localities.
Download
The Juvenile Justice Financing Study is part of a broader initiative
funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation to enhance understanding of juvenile justice system financing. By examining system structures, funding processes, and expenditures, this project aims to empower advocates, policymakers, and system administrators to drive meaningful change.
Key project deliverables include:
- A strategic brief that offers a high-level overview of juvenile justice financing and a roadmap for crafting transformative strategies tailored to unique state and local system contexts
- Factsheets that provide comprehensive insights into the financing of select jurisdictions, highlighting funding streams, the appropriation process, and expenditure patterns
Together, these resources lay the groundwork for initiating and sustaining juvenile justice system transformations while encouraging innovative, data-driven financial strategies.
Key Findings
Strategic Brief: Transforming Juvenile Justice Through Strategic Financing
- Our study’s findings, presented in the brief, reveal notable variation in both the financing and expenditures of juvenile justice services across and within the five states, impacting how services are delivered and how funding is allocated between state and local levels.
- Conversations with state and local juvenile justice system leaders highlight several challenges with budget structures and funding streams, including limited flexibility and discretion in spending, shifts in funding due to changes in political leadership, and difficulties carrying over unspent funds.
- The brief also presents a proposed roadmap for strategic juvenile justice financing. Strategic financing requires intentional planning, diverse stakeholder involvement, an advocacy and communication strategy, and a continuous quality improvement plan.
Financing Case Study for Juvenile Justice
Case Study 1: Central County Juvenile Probation Department
Case Study 2: Goldridge County Juvenile Probation Department
To maintain confidentiality, the factsheets use a pseudonym in place of the probation department’s actual name.
- The factsheets illustrate how juvenile justice expenditures from two local juvenile probation agencies varied widely in fund allocation and spending during State Fiscal Year 2019.
- One agency primarily relied on state funding to support its juvenile justice services (GCJPD), while the other agency (CCJPD) depended on local funding, highlighting differences in financial structures and resource allocation. Foundations, fines, and federal funds make up a small portion of the agencies’ overall budget. Of these, federal funding is the largest but still accounts for only 1 percent of the total budget.
- Among expenditures for community supervision—including diversion, probation, home-based monitoring services, and reentry—most funds were allocated to probation supervision. However, the two agencies differ significantly in their estimated average daily expenditures per youth: CCJPD’s costs increase with higher levels of oversight and supervision, while GCJPD’s costs decrease.
- Overall, the estimated average daily expenditures per youth are much lower than the cost per youth in out-of-home care. In some jurisdictions, agencies like the GCJPD may have cost sharing arrangements with the state to jointly pay for the costs of residential placements for youth under the jurisdiction’s care.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Annie E. Casey Foundation for their funding and support throughout the project, especially the guidance provided by Rod Martinez. We would also like to extend our sincere gratitude to the participating state and local juvenile justice agencies for generously sharing their expertise, time, and commitment in providing the necessary data. This resource would not have been possible without their invaluable support. Please note that the findings and conclusions presented in this report are those of the author(s) alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Foundation.
Suggested citation
Chan, K., Murphy, K., Gilbertsen, J., Harper, K., & Reyes, O. (2025). Transforming juvenile justice through strategic financing. Child Trends. DOI: 10.56417/7374m5524h
© Copyright 2025 ChildTrendsPrivacy Statement
Newsletter SignupLinkedInYouTubeBlueskyInstagram