Juvenile Justice Reform in California Presented by: Elizabeth Siggins Chief, Juvenile Justice Policy California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Juvenile Justice Reform in California

Presented by:

Elizabeth Siggins

Chief, Juvenile Justice Policy

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation


The System In Context (2004):

Juvenile Arrests: 206,201Probation 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


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


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

Juvenile Arrests206,201

Probation Department Dispositions

169,681

51% of Dispositions86,283

32% of Disposition

55,129

0.4% of Dispositions 659

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

Youth Committed to the State’s Division of Juvenile Justice

Youth Adjudicated with Formal “Wardship”

Petitions Filed in Juvenile Court


Juvenile Justice Reform in California The Historical Context

Legislative Efforts to Keep Youth LocallySliding Scale Fee Legislation (1995)

Legislative Efforts to Enhance Local ServicesChallenge 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/DJJSB 1793(attempted to eliminate YOPB)SB 459 (limited YOPB’s role)


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


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 2004Inspector General’s Report Jan. 2005


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-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


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.


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.


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 CommitmentPercent of Admissions: 1960-2004

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

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

Violent

Property

Drug

Other

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.

Juvenile Arrests206,201


169,681

51% of Dispositions86,283

32% of Disposition

55,129

0.4% of Dispositions 659

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

Youth Committed to the State’s Division of Juvenile Justice

Youth Adjudicated with Formal “Wardship”

Petitions Filed in Juvenile Court


California Compared to Other StatesPercent of Committed Youth in State or State Contracted Facilities -

Selected States 2003

36.2%

55.1% 59.7%69.7% 74.4% 78.1% 80.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

California Florida UnitedStates

Colorado * Washington Texas Missouri

•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

1.251.43 1.60 1.68 1.73

2.242.51

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

California Colorado * United States Washington Missouri Texas Florida

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


DJJ’s Population: TrendsLength of Stay

Average Length of Stay (months) 1986 - 2005

18.821.5

26.5 25.6 26.1 27.125.6

24.2 25.026.8 27.5

29.8

33.936.2 35.8

37.5 38.135.8 34.7

36.3

13.7 14.4 13.6 14.1 13.6 13.4 12.810.8

9.07.6

22.124.2

26.227.5 27.8 28.8 29.2

26.3 25.5

22.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Initial CommittmentParole Violators

All Youth

•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 36.3months in 2005.



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 SystemDJJ’s COST PER YOUTH

(Estimated)

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

2005-06 Expenditures Juvenile operations $178,589,000Juvenile education & programs $138,523,000Juvenile parole $ 40,468,000Juvenile healthcare $ 56,135,000

Total $413,715,000Less parole $ 40,468,000Total 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 $57,170Washington* $68,564Florida $57,998Texas $56,582Colorado (waiting for data)

*Washington costs do not include education


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.


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.)


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.)


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.”


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 CaliforniaOn 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.

Documents

Juvenile Justice Reform in California Presented by: Elizabeth Siggins Chief, Juvenile Justice Policy California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation