Juvenile justice reform in california l.jpg
Sponsored Links
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
1 / 33

Juvenile Justice Reform in California PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 193 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: General

Juvenile Justice Reform in California. Presented by: Elizabeth Siggins Chief, Juvenile Justice Policy California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Juvenile Justice Reform in California. The System In Context (2004) : Juvenile Arrests: 206,201

Download Presentation

Juvenile Justice Reform in California

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Juvenile Justice Reform in California

Presented by:

Elizabeth Siggins

Chief, Juvenile Justice Policy

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation


Juvenile Justice Reform in California

The System In Context (2004):

  • Juvenile Arrests: 206,201

  • Probation Department Dispositions: 169,681

    • Closed at Intake: 60,942 (36%)

    • Informal Probation: 5,444 (3%)

    • Diversion: 7,881 (5%)

    • Transferred: 8,848 (5%)

    • Petitions Filed: 86,283 (51%)

      Source: CA Department of Justice. Juvenile Justice in California, 2004


Juvenile Justice Reform in California

Petitions Filed in Juvenile Court: 86,283

  • Dismissed: 17,411 (20%)

  • Diversion/DEJ/Transferred: 5,396 (6%)

  • Informal Probation: 4,842 (6%)

  • Non Ward Probation: 3,255 (4%)

  • Remanded to Adult Court: 252 (<1%)

  • Wardship: 55,129 (64%)

    Source: CA Department of Justice. Juvenile Justice in CA, 2004


Juvenile Justice Reform in California

Wardship Dispositions: 55,129

  • Own or Relative’s Home: 34,613 (63%)

  • Secure County Facility: 13,223 (24%)

  • Non-Secure County Facility: 1,966 (4%)

  • Other Public/Private Agency: 4,668 (8%)

  • Division of Juvenile Justice (CYA): 659 (1.2%)

    Source: CA Department of Justice. Juvenile Justice in CA, 2004


The Juvenile Justice System in California 2004: Most Youthful Offenders Are Kept Locally

Juvenile Arrests

206,201

Probation Department Dispositions

169,681

Probation Department Dispositions

51% of Dispositions

86,283

Petitions Filed in Juvenile Court

32% of Disposition 55,129

Youth Adjudicated with Formal “Wardship”

0.4% of Dispositions 659

Youth Committed to the

State’s Division of Juvenile Justice


Juvenile Justice Reform in CaliforniaThe Historical Context

  • Legislative Efforts to Keep Youth Locally

    • Sliding Scale Fee Legislation (1995)

  • Legislative Efforts to Enhance Local Services

    • Challenge Grants I & II (1996-98), JJCPA (2000)

    • VOI/TIS (beginning 1997/98)

  • Despite these efforts, ongoing tensions betweenstate and 58 counties

  • Increasing Frustrations with CYA/DJJ

    • SB 1793(attempted to eliminate YOPB)

    • SB 459 (limited YOPB’s role)


  • Juvenile Justice Reform in CaliforniaThe Historical Context

    • Very early in the Schwarzenegger Administration, problems at DJJ (then CYA) became high profile.

    • Expert reports in Farrell v. Hickman revealed significant deficiencies throughout the department (Jan 2004):

      • DJJ’s failure to ensure safety from violence

      • Due process violations

      • Improper and illegal conditions of confinement

      • Inadequate medical and mental health care


    Juvenile Justice Reform in CaliforniaThe Historical Context

    Problems at State Facilities Highlighted (cont’d)

    • Inadequate access to education, substance abuse treatment, and sex offender programs

    • Denial of religious rights

    • Disability discrimination

  • Extensive legislative and media attention throughout winter and spring 2004

  • Inspector General’s Report Jan. 2005


  • Juvenile Justice Reform in California

    High Profile Commitment to Juvenile Justice Reform:

    • Governor Schwarzenegger at N.A. Chaderjian in November 2004.

    • Stipulated Agreement in January 2005.


    Juvenile Justice Reform in CaliforniaIncarceration Rates

    Note: Total at-riskpopulation: 10-69 years of age; Adult at-risk: 18-69 years of age; Juvenile at-risk:

    10-17 years of age.

    Source: CA Department of Justice, Crime in California, 2003


    Juvenile Justice Reform in CaliforniaDJJ Commitment Compared to the Arrest Rate

    Source:Office of Research, Juvenile Justice Branch, Information Systems Unit


    Juvenile Justice Reform in California

    DJJ Institutions and Parole Populations 1974-2004

    Source:Office of Research, Juvenile Justice Branch, Information Systems Unit


    What does Juvenile Justice “Reform” mean?


    CA COMPARED TO OTHER STATES

    Unusual Features of the California Juvenile Justice System

    • Longer extended age for juvenile court jurisdiction (age 24) than most states.

    • One of 6 states where length of stay is based on an indeterminate commitment with a maximum.

    • One of 11 states which have the juvenile authority within an adult corrections agency.

    • One of 7 states with a juvenile parole board.


    Juvenile Justice Reform Working Group 2004

    • There was no consensus in significant areas:

      • Separate Juvenile Justice agency?

      • Reduce age of jurisdiction?

      • Make local courts responsible for release authority?

      • Replace sliding scale with an incentive system (realignment)?

      • Even transferring aftercare to counties was later abandoned.

        Note: Everyone agreed the State needed to take a stronger leadership role.


    Juvenile Justice Reform in California

    Pressure in Farrell lawsuit continued to increase:

    • State failed to implement early commitments.

      • Separate high and low risk offenders.

      • “Open programming.”

      • Reduce violence.

  • State committed to transforming the state system to a rehabilitative model.

  • Lots of pressure to eliminate the state juvenile justice system all together.


  • What does Juvenile Justice “Reform” mean?

    • Reform what happens in state system?

    • Reform who goes to state system?

    • Do we need a state system?


    DJJ’s Population Trends:Primary Offense on First Commitment

    • The percentage of youth committed for a violent offense has increased significantly since the 1960’s, from less than 15% to over 60% today.


    The Juvenile Justice System in California 2004: Most Youthful Offenders Are Kept Locally

    Juvenile Arrests

    206,201

    Probation Department Dispositions

    169,681

    Probation Department Dispositions

    51% of Dispositions

    86,283

    Petitions Filed in Juvenile Court

    32% of Disposition 55,129

    Youth Adjudicated with Formal “Wardship”

    0.4% of Dispositions 659

    Youth Committed to the

    State’s Division of Juvenile Justice


    California Compared to Other States

    • California houses a lower percentage of committed youth in its state facilities than the national average and other comparison states.

    • Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook, 2005 (Chris Murray analysis of data)


    State “Incarceration Rate”

    • The state “incarceration rate” for youth in California is lower than other comparison states.

  • Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook, 2005 (Chris Murray analysis of data)


  • DJJ’s Population: TrendsLength of Stay

    • The increase in violent offenses has been accompanied by an increase in the

    • average length of stay for initial commitments from 18.8 months in 1986 to 36.3

    • months in 2005.

  • Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook, 2005 (Chris Murray analysis of data)


  • What does Juvenile Justice “Reform” mean?

    • Do we need a state system?

    • Reform who goes to state system?

      • Need Risk/Needs Assessment

    • Reform what happens in state system?


    Implementing an Effective Rehabilitative Model within State Juvenile Justice System

    Challenges:

    Applying research to an operational model that can be supported financially and politically.

    • Staff

    • Training

    • Quality Assurance

    • Evaluation


    Cost of DJJ’s System

    • DJJ’s COST PER YOUTH

    • (Estimated)

    • DJJ institutions cost more than $120,000 per youth in FY 05-06

    • 2005-06 Expenditures

    • Juvenile operations$178,589,000

    • Juvenile education & programs$138,523,000

    • Juvenile parole$ 40,468,000

    • Juvenile healthcare$ 56,135,000

    • Total$413,715,000

    • Less parole$ 40,468,000

    • Total for institutions$373,247,000

      • Average daily population for 2005 3,100

        • Cost per bed per year $ 120,402

    Source: Governor’s Budget, Budget Year 2006/07 (Prepared by Chris Murray)


    Cost of DJJ’s System

    Other States Cost Far Less

    The five comparison states that were visited generally cost less than half of DJJ costs.

    Missouri$57,170

    Washington*$68,564

    Florida$57,998

    Texas$56,582

    Colorado (waiting for data)

    *Washington costs do not include education

    Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook, 2005 (Chris Murray analysis of data)


    Cost of DJJ’s System:Why is DJJ so much more expensive?

    The analysis is not complete but preliminary findings (subject to refinement) show that:

    • In Washington State, the average salary for the position equivalent to a Youth Correctional Officer (YCO) is 55% of that earned by a typical YCO in California.

      • The average for the position equivalent to a Youth Correctional Counselor (YCC) is 67% of a YCC in California.

      • Adjusting for wage differences, the “Washington” program in California would cost about $113,000 per youth per year – a figure which does not include educational costs.

    Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook, 2005 (Chris Murray analysis of data)


    Cost of DJJ’s System:(cont’d)

    • In Missouri, the average salary for the position equivalent to a Youth

    • Correctional Counselor is 41% of that earned by a typical YCC in

    • California (Missouri does not employ Youth Correctional Officers).

      • Adjusting for wage differences, the “Missouri” program in

        California would cost about $141,000 per youth per year.

        (This calculation also subject to refinement.)

    Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook, 2005 (Chris Murray analysis of data)


    Juvenile Justice Reform Plan

    • All six remedial plans have been filed in court.

    • Safety & Welfare (the most comprehensive)

      • Eliminates “general population”

      • Risk/Needs Assessment

      • Plans based on principles of effective intervention:

        • Need

        • Responsibility

        • Dosage

        • Treatment

    • Reduces living unit size

    • Enhances staffing

    Source: (Gendreau, 1997; Andrews& Bonta, 1998; Guerra 1995; Palmer, 1995; Miller& Rolnick, 1991, 2001; etc.)


    Juvenile Justice Reform Plan

    Some Controversial elements of DJJ’s Plan:

    • Explores the possibility of placing female offenders in contract placements

    • New staff classifications

    • Requires significant resources

    • Ultimately seeks new facilities

    • Unfortunately, energy is not concentrated on effective implementation or quality assurance, but on trying to get support for the “reform plan.”


    Juvenile Justice Reform Plan

    Why is it so difficult?

    • What does “reform” mean?

    • What would “success” mean?

    • Field is reactive in nature.

    • Stakeholders not educated about evidence

      (e.g., importance of risk/needs assessment, etc.).


    How could we do (or should we have done) this differently?


    Juvenile Justice Reform in California

    On a positive note…

    • In many circles, evidence-based language is becoming the “norm.”

    • State and counties are working together.

    • California Juvenile Justice Accountability Project.

      • Survey of Current Practices

      • Common Indicators /Outcome Measures

  • Moving toward a stronger continuum?

  • Change takes time.


  • Login