Transcript California Juvenile Felony Arrests and Juvenile Felony

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
California Juvenile Justice
Policy & Legislation Update
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
November 20, 2009
Presenter
David Steinhart
Director, Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program
1
PRESENTATION COVERAGE
 California youth arrest and incarceration trends
 CA juvenile justice realignment update (SB 81)
o State and county impact since enactment
o 2009 “accountability” amendments to SB 81
 CA Legislative Update
o Budget outcomes for juvenile justice programs
o Bill outcomes and two year bills still pending
 Federal Youth Violence & Gang Legislation
o Youth Promise Act, Feinstein Gang Abatement Act, JJDPA Renewal
 Major juvenile justice policy issues on the agenda for 2010
2
California Youth Arrest &
Incarceration Trends
3
California Juvenile Felony Arrests and
Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate Per 100,000
1995-2008
100,000
3000
87916
80,000
85640
82748
2500
76104
68503
63889 63993
60,000
65189 66191 65163
61539 60878 59871 61161
2000
1500
40,000
1000
20,000
0
500
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Total Juv. Felony Arrests (left scale)
Fel. Arrest Rate Per 100,000 (right scale)
Source: California Department of Justice
4
California Arrests for VIOLENT CRIMES
Juvenile and Adult Arrest Rate Per 100,000
1995-2007
700
600
500
400
300
200
Juvenile
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1997
1996
1995
100
Adult
Source: California Department of Justice
5
California Juvenile Justice System
Referrals to Probation & Petitions Filed
2002 – 2008
250,000
200,000
150,000
194,670
154,954
207,298
220,896
203,526
Referrals
71%
Petitions
73%
169,681
129,029
100,000
87,297
86,283
98,919
104,094
101,816
112,383
65,151
50,000
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
Referrals to Probation
Source: California Department of Justice
2006
2007
2008
Petitions filed
6
California Juvenile Justice Facilities
Average Daily Populations
By placement type in mid-2008 (TOTAL ADP = 15,900)
3,000
1,800
4,300
State Div. Juv. Facilities
County camps
County juvenile halls
Group Homes
6,800
Sources: CA Corrections Standards Authority, CA Division of Juvenile Justice,
CA Department of Social Services (Berkeley Center for Social Services Research)
7
California Juvenile Justice Facilities
Admissions of Delinquency Cases
by Facility Type in 2008
Total Admissions = 130,000 Juveniles
600
Div Juv Justice
113,000
Co. Juv. Halls
Co. Probation
Camps
13,400
Group home
placement
3,200
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000 100,000 120,000
Sources: CA Corrections Standards Authority, CA Division of Juvenile Justice,
CA Department of Social Services (Berkeley Center for Social Services Research)
8
California Juvenile Justice Facilities
Average Length of Stay for Delinquency Cases
By Facility Type (2007/08, in days)
Group Home
(est.)
305
22
Co. Juv. Hall
Co. Probation
Camp
117
DJF (First
Commits.)
1075
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ALOS in DAYS
Sources: CA Corrections Standards Authority, CA Division of Juvenile Justice,
CA Department of Social Services (Berkeley Center for Social Services Research)
9
California Transfers of Juveniles
to Adult Criminal Court 2004 - 2008
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1123
929
654
1201
866
724
661
535
283
252
2004
343
399
318
275
2005
2006
2007
335
2008
Juvenile court remand to adult court
Prosecutor direct file in adult court
Total transferred to adult court
Source: California Department of Justice
10
Adult Court Dispositions of
Juvenile Cases – 2008
(N = 746 dispositions)
Convicted
616 (83%)
Dismissed,
Acquitted or
Rt’d to Juv. Ct.
132 (17%)
Prison/ Youth Authority
358 (58%)
Probation
17 (3%)
Probation with Jail
215 (35%)
Jail
9 (2 %)
Fine / Other
17 (3%)
11
SB 81– Juvenile Justice
Realignment Update
12
SB 81- Essential Elements of the Reform

Effective September 2007

Banned all future DJF commitments of “nonviolent” youth (“non 707(b) offenders”)

Exception: non-707(b) sex offenders

Phased all non-707(b) wards out of DJF institutions
and off the DJF parole caseload

Established the Youthful Offender Block Grant to
pay counties for local juvenile offender options
13
SB 81 at the two year mark-- State impact:
Steep decline in DJF population
SEPT 2007
SEPT 2008
SEPT 2009
Percent
Change
2007-09
DJF total
inmate
population
2,446
1,808
1,639
DOWN 33%
Non 707’s in
DJF
institutions
696
263
72
DOWN 90%
Non 707’s
on DJF
Parole
576
195
53
DOWN 92%
14
California Division of Juvenile Facilities (former CYA)
Institutional Population
1996 – 2008 (as of December 31 each year)
10,000
9572
9,000
8599
8083
8,000
7666
7,000
7305
6497
6,000
5557
5,000
4696
4,000
3678
2999
3,000
2647
2,000
2293
1734
1,000
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
Source: Ca. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation
15
DJF
____
First__________
Commitments
__ by
____
Court
__ of_________
Commitment
___
__________
and admissions
__ of
_______
“housing”
_____
(state______
prison) _____
cases
2004 –___
2009 est
900
835
810
800
700
641
600
500
462
397
400
330
300
200
100
171
125
90
74
53
6
2
0
2004
2005
82
6
2006
5
2007
5
2008
2
2009 Est
Juvenile Court (DJF commitment)
Criminal Court (sentenced to prison, housed in DJF to age 18)
Criminal Court (direct DJF commitment)
Source: CA Division of Juvenile Facilities, Research Branch
16
California Division of Juvenile Facilities (former CYA)
Per ward/ per year Institutional Cost
1996 - 2008
$300,000
$252,000
$250,000
$218,000
$200,000
$178,000
Consent decree adopted
In Farrell litigation
$150,000
$115,000
$100,000
$50,000
$63,961
$56,247
$49,111
$43,565
$36,118$39,425$40,528
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
$0
$92,545
$83,223
Sources: CA state budgets, CA Dept. of Finance, CA Div. of Juvenile Justice,
17
SB 81 at the two year mark- County
impact and program development

Picture is fragmented due to:




No county plans past year
No state monitoring, no county reports on SB 81 funded
programs
“Shift” cases are hard to identify
Where is the displaced caseload going?




Juvenile hall commitments: more of them, & they are longer
Specialized camp programs- e.g. at Challenger in Los Angeles
Older youth paroled from DJF have been banked on adult
probation
Program development may be impeded by using SB 81 funds to
supplant other probation costs
18
County SB 81- YOBG allocations
10 largest for FY 09/10 (in $ millions)
L.A.
$22.0
S. B'do
$8.2
S. Diego
$7.7
Orange
$6.9
Riverside
$5.8
Sac'mento
$4.4
Alameda
$3.1
Kern
$3.1
S. Clara
$3.1
Fresno
$2.6
All others
$26.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
$ Millions FY 09-10
19
SB 81 Amendments (2009)
YOBG “accountability” requirements
Why were amendments needed?



No monitoring of how counties spend $93 million/year
Complaints about how counties are spending YOBG funds
Need to document spending to sustain YOBG funding
What the amendments do

Annual plan requirement


County must file annual spending plan w/ CSA
Annual expenditure reports


(SB 13X4 effective 7-28-09)
Must be filed by Oct. 1 each year with CSA
Performance outcome measures



Modeled on JJCPA measures
Youth outcomes must be tracked for YOBG programs
CSA must compile & publish annual summaries
20
California Legislative
California
Juvenile Report:
Justice
Juvenile
Justice
Budget
Budget
and
Bill Outcomes
and Bill Outcomes
for 2009 for 2009
21
State-Local Juvenile Justice Funds
Budget outcomes FY 07/08 – FY 09/10
Program
Juv. Justice Crime
Prevention Act
Juvenile Probation
and Camp Funds
Youthful Offender
Block Grant (SB 81)
CalGRIP gang
program grants
FY 07/08
Final Budget
FY 08/09
Final Budget
with VLF backfill
FY 09/10
Final Budget
With VLF backfill
$ 119 million
$ 82 million
$ 107 million
$ 201 million
$ 139 million
$ 181 million
$ 24 million
$ 66 million
$ 93 million
$10 million
$10 million
$ 9 million
22
California Legislation

Division of Juvenile Justice bills to cut incarceration time

AB 1053 (Solorio), signed: Advances release dates for DJF wards
AB 999 (Skinner), two year bill– new time-add & time-credit rules

SB 399 (Yee): Juvenile LWOP


Modified version stopped again in the Assembly

SB 678 (Leno): Community corrections for probation violators

State pays counties to keep probation violators in local programs
County fund based on # violators not sent to state prison
Goal: cut state prison pop. and cost, improve community offender services

AB 1516 (Lieu): Prosecution-directed mental health exams




Defendant (juv. or adult) must submit to prosecution MH exam if def. counsel
discloses expert on defendant’s mental state
Responds to Verdin v. Sup. Ct. holding that only Legislature can so authorize
23
California Legislation
 Two year bills “still on the table” for 2010

AB 12 (Beall): Extended foster care benefits to age 21

AB 114 (Carter): Balanced and Restorative Justice programs

AB 438 (Beall): Juvenile & adult offenders with developmental
disabilities

SB 134 (Lieu): Rights of incarcerated juveniles to communicate with
their children

SB 441 (Ducheny): Reconfigure the Corrections Standards Authority
See Steinhart Leg. Digest for details, or go to www.leginfo.ca.gov
24
Federal Legislation

Youth Promise Act (Rep. Bobby Scott- H.R. 3846)

Would invest $3 billion in youth crime prevention & gang outreach programs
Local Promise Coordinating Councils allocate funds
Heavy emphasis on alternatives to incarceration, evidence-based practices
Broad bi-partisan support in the House of Rep.

Gang Abatement Act (Feinstein– S. 132)




Competes with Youth Promise Act- only 1 bill likely to emerge from Congress
Focuses federal funds on law enforcement, gang suppression programs
Increases federal penalties, widens definitions of criminal gang activity

JJDPA Reauthorization





Senate renewal version (Leahy, Kohl & Specter)- S. 678
Strengthens core JJDPA mandates on jail removal, status offenders, DMC
May include new incentive grants for mental health, re-entry services
25
California Policy Issues in Play for 2010
A. Shut down the state Div. of Juvenile Facilities?
 Proponents and proposals in play
 Cost pressures on CDCR and DJF are paramount
 Pros/ cons/ prospects for total closure
B. Overhaul state-local JJ program funding?




Consolidation proposals to merge JJ funding streams
Evidence based requirements tied to funds
Restructure state agencies that administer funds
State budget crisis / deficit still dominates in 2010
26
California Policy Issues in Play for 2010
C. Mentally ill juvenile offenders?





JJ facilities (state & local) packed with mental health cases
Loss of funds– MHSA not filling gaps
MediCal eligibility problems for incarcerated youth
Models of reform: Cal Endowment “HRI”, MIOCR programs
Legislator interest in reform
D. Election year politics
 AG and Governor’s candidates will square off on crime &
corrections
 Gang violence likely to be a hot issue
 Budget will be still be a mess in 2010: another big deficit year
 Administration will turn over in 2011– lame duck year ahead
27