CRIME COSTS CAN BE ENUMERATED AND CATEGORIZED INTO LINKING RELATIONSHIPS. THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOLLOWS A FRAMEWORK BASED UPON THREE SETS OF LINKAGES WHICH DELINEATE THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COST OF CRIME: (1) THE TRADITIONAL OFFENDER-VICTIM LINKAGES ON DIRECT CRIME COSTS, THE VICTIM (WITNESS)-JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM LINKAGE COMPRISING DIRECT COSTS OF SYSTEM PARTICIPATION, AND THE OFFENDER-JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM LINKAGE INVOLVING PROCESSING COSTS; (2) NON-JUVENILE-JUSTICE GOVERNMENTAL COSTS, SUCH AS VICTIM COMPENSATION; AND (3) INDIRECT COSTS IMPOSED ON COMMUNITIES AT HOUSEHOLD AND SOCIETY LEVELS, INCLUDING TAX RATES AND NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE. COST RELATIONSHIPS ARE SUBDIVIDED INTO (1) PROCESS EVALUATIONS THAT EXAMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH INPUTS BY JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, GOVERNMENT, AND COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTE TO DESIRED PREVENTION/INTERVENTION OUTCOMES; AND (2) OUTCOME EVALUATIONS THAT LOOK AT THE EXTENT TO WHICH INPUTS AND OUTPUTS CONTRIBUTE TO DESIRED PROGRAM OUTCOMES. BOTH EVALUATION TYPES MEASURE THE EXTENT TO WHICH EFFECTIVENESS IS ACHIEVED AND SERIOUS JUVENILE CRIME IS DECREASED. BECAUSE OF DEFICIENCIES IN DATA SOURCES (SUCH AS THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS), THE ANALYSIS WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH EXACT ECONOMIC COST AND IMPACT RELATIONSHIPS. MOREOVER, BECAUSE THE STATE OF THE ART OF OUTCOME-EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS LAGS BEHIND SIMPLE COST ANALYSIS, ONLY A SERIES OF GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ARE OFFERED. AMONG THESE ARE THAT POLICE RESOURCES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS OF THE ESTIMATED, AGGREGATE, SERIOUS CRIME COSTS IMPOSED AND THAT A BALANCE MUST BE STRUCK BETWEEN QUALITY OF JUSTICE TO OFFENDER AND COST TO COMMUNITY. VARIOUS FREE MARKET STRATEGIES FOR CRIME REDUCTION, SUCH AS REQUIRING EXACT CHANGE OR CREDIT CARDS AT GAS STATIONS DURING EVENING HOURS, SHOULD BE EMPLOYED ALSO. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, TABULAR DATA, THE GRAPHIC MODEL, CHARTS, AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.