Juvenile Justice Reform in California

Juvenile Justice Reform in California

California s Juvenile Justice System MOVING PAST THE TRAINING SCHOOL SYSTEM

Timeline to reform A TROUBLED SYSTEM EXPOSED

Prison Law Office files a lawsuit against State of California (2003) LAWSUIT ALLEGES STATE S TREATMENT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS WAS ILLEGAL AND INHUMANE

Lawsuit cites constitutional violations in six program areas Overall safety and welfare Education Mental health treatment Medical treatment Sex offender treatment Access for wards with disabilities

State s initial response CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL HIRES INDEPENDENT EXPERTS TO INVESTIGATE CLAIMS

What the experts found Unprecedented levels of violence Substantial use of force by correctional staff Lack of adequate educational programs Substandard or non existent mental health services Wards locked in decrepit isolation cells for 23 hours a day for months

CYA isolation cell block

CYA isolation cells became major issue

Response to the expert reports CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGES UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS AND ENTERS INTO A CONSENT DECREE IN NOVEMBER 2004

Determining what to do ADDRESSING THE FARRELL LAWSUIT:

Conditions of consent decree State agreed to oversight by court-appointed special master State promises to engage in a series of actions to overhaul entire youth corrections system

First steps Governor restructures California s corrections system s administrative structure. California Youth Authority is eliminated as an independent agency. Youth corrections institutions merged with adult corrections system as Division of Juvenile Facilities

Next Steps ASSIGN INDEPENDENT EXPERTS TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM AND RECOMMEND REMEDIAL STEPS

State s independent experts issue report detailing a system that is broken almost everywhere you look, citing: Safety and Welfare Plan: Implementing Reform in California March 31, 2006 Christopher Murray Chris Baird Ned Loughran High levels of violence and fear in the institutions Unsafe conditions for wards and staff Antiquated facilities unsuited for any mission An adult corrections mentality with adult juvenile mix Fred Mills John Platt

Expert findings continued: Management by crisis with little time to make changes Frequent lockdowns to manage violence with subsequent program reductions Time adds for infractions adding over 8 months to average lengths of stay Lengths of stay almost triple the average for nation Hours on end when youths have nothing to do

Experts finding continued Vocational classrooms that are idle or running at half speed Capitulation to gang culture with youths housed by gang affiliation Low levels of staffing and huge living units Abysmal achievement despite enormous outlays for education Information management systems incapable of supporting management

Typical Dormitory Living Unit

Expert findings continued Little partnership with counties and a fragmented system Poor re-entry planning and too few services on parole Enormous costs with little to show for it (California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice Safety and Welfare Plan March 2006)

State s response to expert s report SAFETY AND WELFARE REMEDIAL PLAN: IMPLEMENTING REFORM IN CALIFORNIA (JULY 10, 2006)

California s route to promised reform Create capacity for change Reduce fear and violence Identify a rehabilitative treatment model Lay the foundation for treatment reform Convert facilities to rehabilitative model

State fails to make progress on Farrell reforms SERIES OF REPORTS BY INDEPENDENT COURT APPOINTED MONITORS FINDS LITTLE PROGRESS DESPITE DECLINING INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION AND INCREASED EXPENDITURES

California Division of Juvenile Justice (CYA to 2005) Institutional Cost Per Ward Per Year 1996 2007 $218,000 $200,000 $178,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $56,247 $63,961 $36,118 $39,425 $40,528 $43,565$49,111 $92,545 $83,223 $115,000 $0 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Sources: CA state budgets, CA Dept. of Finance, CA CDCR-Div. of Juvenile Facilities

Governor s response to lack of progress on reform SENATE BILL 81 (AUGUST 2007)

SB 81: juvenile justice reform through realignment DJF Population will be downsized to about one half its current level Non-violent juvenile offenders will stay in county programs and facilities No DJF State will pay counties for new juvenile disposition and aftercare programs DJF will continue to accept serious- violent offenders committed by county courts

Little Hoover commission issues bipartisan report CALLS FOR ELIMINATING STATE ROLE IN ADMINISTERING YOUTH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS BY 2011

Commission s Recommendations Create an independent office of juvenile justice to plan, develop, fund, and oversee a comprehensive continuum of services at the county level Consolidate all state juvenile justice funding into one dedicated funding stream Elimination of the state s role in administering juvenile correctional institutions and shifting responsibilities to the counties

Governor Brown and the Future of Juvenile Justice in California Elimination of the DJJ Transfer of all Juvenile Justice functions to the counties Provide resources to the counties to augment capacity