1 Pacific Juvenile Defender Center California Juvenile Justice Policy & Legislation Update Loyola Law School, Los Angeles November 20, 2009 Presenter David.

1

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

2

California youth arrest and incarceration trends

CA juvenile justice realignment update (SB 81)o State and county impact since enactmento 2009 “accountability” amendments to SB 81

CA Legislative Updateo Budget outcomes for juvenile justice programso Bill outcomes and two year bills still pending

Federal Youth Violence & Gang Legislationo Youth Promise Act, Feinstein Gang Abatement Act, JJDPA Renewal

Major juvenile justice policy issues on the agenda for 2010

PRESENTATION COVERAGE

3

California Youth Arrest & Incarceration Trends

4

8791685640

82748

76104

6850363889 63993

61539 60878 59871 6116165189 66191 65163

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Total Juv. Felony Arrests (left scale) Fel. Arrest Rate Per 100,000 (right scale)

Source: California Department of Justice

California Juvenile Felony Arrests andJuvenile Felony Arrest Rate Per 100,000

1995-2008

5

California Arrests for VIOLENT CRIMESJuvenile and Adult Arrest Rate Per 100,000

1995-2007

100

200

300

400

500

600

70019

95

1996

1997

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Juvenile Adult

Source: California Department of Justice

6

California Juvenile Justice SystemReferrals to Probation & Petitions Filed

2002 – 2008

129,029

65,151

154,954

87,297

169,681

86,283

194,670

98,919

207,298

104,094

203,526

101,816

220,896

112,383

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Referrals to Probation Petitions filed

Source: California Department of Justice

Referrals 71%

Petitions 73%

7

California Juvenile Justice FacilitiesAverage Daily Populations

By placement type in mid-2008 (TOTAL ADP = 15,900)

4,300

6,800

3,0001,800

State Div. Juv. Facilities

County camps

County juvenile halls

Group Homes

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 FacilitiesAdmissions of Delinquency Cases

by Facility Type in 2008Total Admissions = 130,000 Juveniles

3,200

13,400

600

113,000

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

Group homeplacement

Co. ProbationCamps

Co. Juv. Halls

Div Juv Justice

Sources: CA Corrections Standards Authority, CA Division of Juvenile Justice, CA Department of Social Services (Berkeley Center for Social Services Research)

9

California Juvenile Justice FacilitiesAverage Length of Stay for Delinquency Cases

By Facility Type (2007/08, in days)

1075

117

22

305

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

DJF (FirstCommits.)

Co. ProbationCamp

Co. Juv. Hall

Group Home(est.)

ALOS in DAYS

Sources: CA Corrections Standards Authority, CA Division of Juvenile Justice, CA Department of Social Services (Berkeley Center for Social Services Research)

10

California Transfers of Juveniles to Adult Criminal Court 2004 - 2008

252318 275

335

283343

724

866

535661

929

11231201

399

654

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Juvenile court remand to adult court

Prosecutor direct file in adult court

Total transferred to adult court

Source: California Department of Justice

11

Adult Court Dispositions of Juvenile Cases – 2008

(N = 746 dispositions)

Convicted616 (83%)

Dismissed,Acquitted orRt’d to Juv.

Ct.132 (17%)

Prison/ Youth Authority358 (58%)

Probation17 (3%)

Probation with Jail215 (35%)

Jail9 (2 %)

Fine / Other17 (3%)

12

SB 81– Juvenile Justice Realignment Update

13

SB 81- Essential Elements of the Reform

Effective September 2007 Banned all future DJF commitments of “non-

violent” 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

14

SB 81 at the two year mark-- State impact:

Steep decline in DJF population

SEPT 2007 SEPT 2008 SEPT 2009Percent Change2007-09

DJF total inmate

population2,446 1,808 1,639 DOWN 33%

Non 707’s in DJF

institutions696 263 72 DOWN

90%

Non 707’s on DJF Parole

576 195 53 DOWN 92%

15

California Division of Juvenile Facilities (former CYA)

Institutional Population1996 – 2008 (as of December 31 each year)

9572

85998083

76667305

6497

5557

4696

36782999

26472293

1734

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

Source: Ca. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation

16

835

532

810

90

6

641

74

6

462

82

5

397

125

5

330

171

20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Est

Juvenile Court (DJF commitment)

Criminal Court (sentenced to prison, housed in DJF to age 18)

Criminal Court (direct DJF commitment)

____ __________ __ ____ __ _________ ___ __________ __ _______ _____ ______ _____

___

DJF First Commitments by Court of Commitment and admissions of “housing”

(state prison) cases 2004 – 2009 est

Source: CA Division of Juvenile Facilities, Research Branch

17

$36,118$39,425$40,528$43,565$49,111$56,247

$63,961

$83,223$92,545

$115,000

$178,000

$218,000

$252,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

Sources: CA state budgets, CA Dept. of Finance, CA Div. of Juvenile Justice,

Consent decree adoptedIn Farrell litigation

California Division of Juvenile Facilities (former CYA)

Per ward/ per year Institutional Cost1996 - 2008

18

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

SB 81 at the two year mark- County impact and program development

19

County SB 81- YOBG allocations 10 largest for FY 09/10 (in $ millions)

$26.4

$2.6

$3.1

$3.1

$3.1

$4.4

$5.8

$6.9

$7.7

$8.2

$22.0

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

All others

Fresno

S. Clara

Kern

Alameda

Sac'mento

Riverside

Orange

S. Diego

S. B'do

L.A.

$ Millions FY 09-10

20

SB 81 Amendments (2009)YOBG “accountability”

requirementsWhy 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 (SB 13X4 effective 7-28-09) Annual plan requirement

County must file annual spending plan w/ CSA

Annual expenditure reports 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

21

California Legislative Report:Juvenile Justice Budget

and Bill Outcomes for 2009

California Juvenile JusticeBudget and Bill Outcomes

for 2009

22

State-Local Juvenile Justice FundsBudget outcomes FY 07/08 – FY 09/10

ProgramFY 07/08

Final Budget

FY 08/09Final Budget

with VLF backfill

FY 09/10Final Budget

With VLF backfill

Juv. Justice CrimePrevention Act $ 119 million $ 82 million $ 107 million

Juvenile Probation and Camp Funds $ 201 million $ 139 million $ 181 million

Youthful OffenderBlock Grant (SB 81)

$ 24 million $ 66 million $ 93 million

CalGRIP gang program grants $10 million $10 million $ 9 million

23

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

24

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

California Legislation

25

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

Federal Legislation

26

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

27

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