Role of the State

Many recent analyses of juvenile justice issues in California recommend that the state's role, functions, and possibly structure, regarding the reduction of juvenile crime, need to change in order for any real improvement to take place.

In testimony before the Little Hoover Commission, the LAO noted that both CYA and the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) produce research and results from pilot projects that are never used because there is no mechanism to transmit the information to local communities and governments. What is needed, the Analyst's Office said, is a central point for state leadership, not as a directive body, but as an advisory one that could facilitate an exchange of useful information.

The general consensus of the Little Hoover Commission and those testifying before them was that these efforts are neither well coordinated, accessible nor effective. <94> The Little Hoover Commission, therefore, recommended the consolidation of juvenile anti-crime efforts in a single agency to provide strong leadership and accountability for results. This body would provide:

1. leadership to highlight issues and concerns of the public,

2. a clearinghouse for central assessment and evaluation of programs, promotion of models that work, and technical assistance for local governments and communities,

3. data gathering and assessment that would provide reliable statistics on a statewide basis about trends in crime, results of programs and funds expended,

4. standardization of training for those connected with juvenile justice, district attorneys, probation officers, parole officials and public defenders,

5. identification and dissemination of information about available sources of federal, state and private funding, and

6. targeted information campaigns to bring about behavioral changes, by individuals at risk and businesses that unwittingly glorify violence and crime. <95>

Peter Greenwood of RAND notes that:

One final impediment to formulating and testing early interventions for crime prevention is the lack of an obvious governmental authority with an interest in such approaches. California state agencies are divided into those charged with enforcing the law and implementing sanctions on the one hand and those charged with human-resource development and sustainment - education, public health, and welfare - on the other....

It may take an interagency consortium to effect the testing of the prevention approaches suggested (under Effective Prevention/Intervention). Activists interested primarily in social services and those interested primarily in crime prevention might find common cause in establishing an interagency consortium devoted to early intervention and assisting with its program. <96>

David Steinhart, Director of Commonweal, has described several other state models.

Virginia (has an) Office of Prevention and Children's Resources, within the Department of Mental Health, (which) houses a Partnership for the Prevention of Youth Violence. The Partnership is a forum for public and private agencies to address youth violence issues. <97>

Illinois has a Council for the Prevention of Violence, a non-profit entity with public participation. The Illinois Council performs central planning, funding of local community anti-violence programs, and research on new violence prevention models. It has... broad support and participation from public and private organizations at the community level. <98> See also Appendix C, Illinois Council for the Prevention of Violence.

New York State's Division for Youth oversees comprehensive youth development and delinquency plans by the state's 57 counties and larger cities. The state provides matching funds to these local governments for a variety of programs serving high-risk youth. The emphasis is on youth development rather than on violence prevention.

Steinhart recommends that states need to:

establish new violence prevention planning capability ... such as a dedicated and central planning authority, to perform the following tasks:

1. formulate state violence prevention goals,

2. establish ground rules for inter-agency involvement, responsibility and collaboration,

3. collect data and information on the nature and extent of violence within the state, including regional needs,

4. review violence prevention models and evaluations from other jurisdictions and make recommendations on programs and strategies that are appropriate for the state,

5. identify federal funding streams for violence prevention programs,

6. convene violence prevention forums and information sessions, and

7. fund model juvenile crime prevention programs. <99>

Previous section. Juvenile Justice in California: Facts & Issues TOC.