Upload
shonda-willis
View
217
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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: 206,201Probation 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
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
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
Probation Department Dispositions
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)
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 2004Inspector 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-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 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
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
Probation Department Dispositions
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.
Source: Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook, 2005 (Chris Murray analysis of data)
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.
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 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
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 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.