Transcript Juvenile Justice Reform in California

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
51% of Dispositions
86,283
32% of
Disposition
55,129
0.4% of
Dispositions 659
Probation Department
Dispositions
Petitions Filed in Juvenile Court
Youth Adjudicated with Formal
“Wardship”
Youth Committed to the
State’s Division of Juvenile Justice
Juvenile Justice Reform in California
The 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
between state and 58 counties
Increasing Frustrations with CYA/DJJ
SB 1793(attempted to eliminate YOPB)
SB 459 (limited YOPB’s role)
Juvenile Justice Reform in California
The 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 California
The 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 California
Incarceration Rates
Note: Total at-risk population: 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 California
DJJ 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
Primary Offense on First Commitment
Percent of Admissions: 1960-2004
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Violent
Property
Drug
Other
10%
0%
60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Year
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
51% of Dispositions
86,283
32% of
Disposition
55,129
0.4% of
Dispositions 659
Probation Department
Dispositions
Petitions Filed in Juvenile Court
Youth Adjudicated with Formal
“Wardship”
Youth Committed to the
State’s Division of Juvenile Justice
California Compared to Other States
Percent of Committed Youth in State or State Contracted Facilities Selected States 2003
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
55.1%
59.7%
Florida
United
States
69.7%
74.4%
78.1%
80.8%
Washington
Texas
Missouri
36.2%
10%
0%
California
Colorado *
•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”
Committed Youth in State or State Contracted Facilities
per 1,000 Youth Age 12 to 17 - Selected States 2003
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.24
1.0
0.5
1.25
1.43
1.60
1.68
1.73
United States
Washington
Missouri
2.51
0.0
California
Colorado *
Texas
Florida
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: Trends
Length of Stay
Average Length of Stay (months)
1986 - 2005
45
40
36.2 35.8
35.8
33.9
35
29.8
30
26.5 25.6 26.1 27.1 25.6
25
20
37.5 38.1
24.2 25.0
26.8 27.5
26.2
27.5 27.8
34.7
28.8 29.2
26.3 25.5
24.2
22.8
22.1
21.5
36.3
18.8
Initial Committment
Parole Violators
All Youth
15
10
13.7 14.4 13.6 14.1 13.6 13.4 12.8
10.8
9.0
7.6
5
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
0
•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
Juvenile education & programs
Juvenile parole
Juvenile healthcare
Less parole
Total for institutions
$178,589,000
$138,523,000
$ 40,468,000
$ 56,135,000
Total
$413,715,000
$ 40,468,000
$373,247,000
Average daily population for 2005
Cost per bed per year
3,100
$
Source: Governor’s Budget, Budget Year 2006/07 (Prepared by Chris Murray)
120,402
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
Washington*
Florida
Texas
Colorado
$57,170
$68,564
$57,998
$56,582
(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.