CJCJ's Executive Director Daniel Macallair, is a practitioner-in-residence at San Francisco State University (SFSU)'s Department of Criminal Justice Studies. These slides are from his Intervention Policies in Juvenile Justice course materials.

1. Juvenile Justice Reform in California
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

2. California’s Juvenile Justice System
Moving Past the Reform
School System
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

3. Timeline to reform
A Troubled System Exposed
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

4. Prison Law Office files a lawsuit
against State of California (2003)
Lawsuit alleges state’s treatment
of youthful offenders was illegal
and inhumane
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

5. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

6. State’s initial response
California attorney general hires
independent experts to investigate
claims
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

7. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

8. CYA isolation cell block
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

9. CYA isolation cells became major issue
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

10. Response to the expert reports
California acknowledges
unconstitutional conditions and
enters into a consent decree in
November 2004
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

11. Determining what to do
Addressing the Farrell
Lawsuit:
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

12. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

13. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

14. Next Steps
Assign independent experts to
determine the extent of the problem
and recommend remedial steps
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

15. Expert findings:
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
Fred Mills
John Platt
 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

16. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

17. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

18. Typical Dormitory Living Unit
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

19. 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)
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

20. State’s response to expert’s report
Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan:
Implementing Reform in California
(July 10, 2006)
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

21. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

22. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

23. California Division of Juvenile Justice (CYA to 2005)
Institutional Cost Per Ward Per Year 1996 – 2007
$218,000
$200,000
$178,000
$150,000
$115,000
$100,000
$92,545
$83,223
$50,000
$40,528 $43,565
$49,111
$63,961
Sources: CA state budgets, CA Dept.Boardman PlaceCDCR-Div. of Juvenile Facilities
40 of Finance, CA
San Francisco, CA 94103
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
$0
$36,118 $39,425
$56,247
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

24. Governor’s response to lack of
progress on reform
Senate Bill 81 (August 2007)
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

25. 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

26. Little Hoover commission issues
bipartisan report
Calls for eliminating state role in
administering youth correctional
institutions by 2011
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

27. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

28. 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
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

29. Emerging System of Juvenile Justice in California
• County Juvenile Halls, Ranches and Camps become
long term confinement options
• Community-Based Interventions are expanded
• New Federal funding streams are utilized to enhance
programing for high risk youths
• State maintains an oversight sight role but no direct
services
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

30. References
JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM: REALIGNING RESPONSIBILITIES
Little Hoover Commission
Closing California’s Division of Juvenile Facilities: An Analysis of County Institutional Capacity
by
Daniel Macallair, MPA
Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Mike Males, PhD
Senior Research Fellow, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Catherine McCracken, M.S.
Program Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013