In October 2006, Pat Kuhi and Lois Brubeck of the League of Women Voters interviewed Dan Macallair, Executive Director, and Megan Corcoran, Director of Communications and Policy, of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ).

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice  was established to promote balanced criminal justice policies. CJCJ’s mission is pursued through the development of model programs, technical assistance, research/policy analysis, and public education. ^[1]

Note: The California Youth Authority (CYA) was incorporated into the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and renamed the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in July 2005.

League: The League of Women Voters of California finished our study of the California Juvenile Justice System in 1995.^[2] There have been a lot of changes since then.  Could you bring us up to date?

CJCJ: Youth corrections in California is at a crossroads.  There is almost universal recognition that we have a failed system at the state level.  In 2003, the Prison Law Office filed Farrell vs. Harper (renamed Farrell vs. Hickman), a taxpayer suit against the director of the CYA, charging that taxpayer funds should not be used to “further the inhumane and illegal conditions that exist in the CYA.”  The lawsuit additionally sought an injunction prohibiting CYA from accepting wards for whom there are not adequate facilities to provide care.

In late 2003, expert reports were released that evaluated the programs and procedures in the CYA and the many abuses faced by the wards in the system. 

Note: The experts found DJJ to be incompetent in every area reviewed: the safety of the facilities, the quality of education and health care, and the efficacy of the mental heath, substance abuse, sex offender and other treatment programs.  The system was not simply failing to rehabilitate; it was demonstrably inflicting damage on incarcerated youth, who were often discharged with increased criminal sophistication, entrenched gang involvement and exacerbated mental illness.^[3]

CJCJ: By November 2004, the parties in Farrell vs. Hickman agreed to a consent decree to guide remedial action responding to the problems cited in the reports and referred to in the lawsuit.  The court-monitored consent decree and subsequent stipulations require improvements to be made to DJJ facilities in the provision of educational, medical and mental health care, disabilities accommodation, and sexual behavior treatment.  In addition, the institutions must increase overall safety and reduce violence, the use of force against wards, and the use of lock-ups.

Since the settlement was reached in 2004, however, little progress has been made towards reform.^[4]

 League: We understand that you have your own plan to reform the Department of Juvenile Justice.

CJCJ: All the DJJ facilities should be closed and the wards returned to the counties that sent them to DJJ.  California has the opportunity of a lifetime right now to bring about real reform.  The population in the DJJ facilities is at an all-time low.  Over the last 11 years the DJJ population fell 75 percent, with a steady decline since 1995, when there were almost 10,000 wards.

 League: What has caused this decline at DJJ?

CJCJ: Although the population of juveniles has increased, the rate of youth crime is down, the lowest in 40 years.  The rate started to decline in 1992.  The total number of youth incarcerated in county juvenile justice facilities has been decreasing since 1988.  See our recent publication Testing Incapacity Theory: Youth Crime and Incarceration in California. ^[5] 

Juvenile Justice officials in many counties have been reluctant to send their juvenile offenders to the DJJ and most have sharply reduced the number of offenders they send to the state facilities.

Most of the non-serious wards of DJJ are from rural counties which lack alternatives to DJJ, due to their low populations and few financial resources.

Note: Recently Steve Lerner of Commonweal visited small towns in northeastern Oregon where 17 counties have joined their resources and expertise in order to build a robust detention alternative program. ^[6]

League: How has DJJ responded to this decline in population?

CJCJ: DJJ has kept all their eight facilities open.

League: At a hearing last  December, Senator Gloria Romero expressed frustration that there was no plan to reduce the population in the DJJ facilities.  Should the DJJ population be reduced even further?

CJCJ: Young people who commit non-violent offenses should not be incarcerated. Senator Romero wants to return these young people to their communities. 

In 1975, the state legislature passed SB 681, which ordered the counties to pay more for sending these non-serious offenders to CYA than for the serious offenders.

League: What about the facilities that you think should be closed?

CJCJ: All the DJJ facilities are 40 years old.  They are outmoded.  They were built for a 19th century model of juvenile justice.  It would be extremely expensive to renovate them to state-of-the-art secure facilities.

League: What are some of your concerns about the present efforts at reform of the system?

CJCJ: Present plans in response to the lawsuit are to reduce the number of beds in each DJJ unit from 60 to 35.  On the other hand, the American Correctional Association (ACA) recommends that youth facilities house only 20 residents per unit and 15 per unit if the youth are incarcerated in a secure facility.  No facility should hold more than a total of 150 residents.  Only one new modern 250-bed facility is contemplated, and that would not be ready until 2009 at the earliest.

League:  Would there be room for all serious offenders now in DJJ facilities in  county secure facilities?

CJCJ: Yes!  Over the last 10 years, counties in California have added 3,000 county detention beds by building new maximum secure facilities with federal funds matched by the state and county.  None of these county facilities is full.^[7]  There is room in these new facilities to send back to their home counties all the serious juvenile offenders in the DJJ facilities.

There they would have contact with their families and with community-based agencies that are working with the county juvenile justice systems to rehabilitate delinquent youth.  The administrative structure of the county juvenile justice systems already exists .  The state could give the $400 million that they now spend on DJJ facilities to the counties to care for these offenders.

League: Do you see any obstacles to this plan?

CJCJ: There is a cultural resistance from the DJJ facility correctional counselors, who are actually prison guards working in juvenile institutions.  They would all lose their present positions, although as members of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), they could be transferred to the adult prisons.

There could also be resistance from members of the public who fear these serious offenders returning to their communities.  But these new county facilities are modern, state of the art, and provide maximum security.  In addition, these young people are not being reformed in DJJ.  They have a much better chance at rehabilitation in the present county facilities.  Therefore, their communities would be safer, if the youth were rehabilitated before they returned home.

Most legislators have not been interested in this idea because they think that the six remedial plans in response to the lawsuit should go first. But it could take 10 to 12 years to implement the broad remedial plan, The Safety and Welfare Plan. It has been predicted by experts that it will take seven years to implement the mental health services plan in response to years of litigation.

League: Are there precedents for making such drastic changes?

CJCJ: Yes, in 1971, Massachusetts closed all their large state-wide facilities and moved the kids into an assortment of small community-based programs.  In 1983, Missouri did the same.  These two state systems are now the preferred models for juvenile justice systems.  Components of the model include a holistic design; collaboration with all the county agencies and the schools that need to work together to help the kid and his/her family; and a continuum of care, with intervention options.  The money follows the kid.  Massachusetts and Missouri demonstrate successful deinstitutionalization.  They proved that well-designed and properly implemented rehabilitation programs substantially reduce recidivism, even among the most difficult offenders.^[8]

League: Should there be standards, monitoring and evaluations of the counties and what they are doing with these serious offenders?

CJCJ: Yes.  The state should set the standards and carry out audits (after all, it’s their money), monitoring and evaluations.  There should be a state board to set standards.

League: What are the most important standards to look for in evaluating juvenile justice systems?

CJCJ: The most important standards deal with where and how the kids are housed; the relationship between kids and staff, how the kids are treated , and where they go when they leave the facility.^[9]

Transitional planning is now required in California for prisoners leaving adult prison, with state money available.  There is no reason this should not take place for juveniles as well.

League What would happen to the wards at DJJ who are 18 to 25?  The county facilities are not set up for them.

CJCJ: This is a problem in severe need of an answer.  Presently, a juvenile who commits an offense at age 17.5 may not even be considered for group home placement because he or she cannot remain there after turning 18  (or after he or she achieves a high school diploma). Facilities and specific services for older youth should become local priorities. Transitional and independent living programs can provide consistent supervision for probation youth while introducing them to skills required to lead a productive and stable life.  CJCJ has an independent living program in Washington, DC that provides apartments for youth out of juvenile hall.  The youth are supervised by case managers and assisted with educational, vocational and family goals while also learning how to maintain their apartment.  Upon successful completion of the program by the youth, CJCJ assigns the lease to the youth who then has the skills to maintain his or her stability.

Alternative Placement for DJJ Wards and Parole Violators

SB 795 (Romero) of 2005 would have permitted counties and cities to voluntarily set up local programs for DJJ wards and parole violators.  The programs would provide counseling, education and vocational training.  Enrollment in such programs would cost less than confinement for the same period in DJJ. 

The bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly, and also the Assembly, but was vetoed by the Governor.  It was supported by the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, the California State Association of Counties and the Chief Probation Officers of California, among others.

Support for Similar Alternatives to DJJ

A number of organizations, such as the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) of Northern and Southern California, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Californians for Justice, Commonweal, Mental Health Association in California, Prison Law Office, Youth Law Center, Amnesty International USA and the National Associaton for the  Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), have urged the state to develop an immediate plan to begin phasing out all the DJJ facilities and instead create small home-like secure local facilities like those in Missouri.  The wards would spend their last 12–18 months of confinement in rigorous, evidenced-based, community programs in or very near their own comminutes.  These organizations agree with CJCJ that DJJ wards who have committed non-serious offenses should not be confined at all in a secure facility but should be in community-based alternatives to detention and incarceration. ^[10]

 Governor’s Proposals in 2007-2008 Budget

In his January 2007 budgetproposal, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed to relocate about 1,340 nonviolent youth from DJJ secure facilities to their home counties.  Those relocated would be nonviolent offenders, parole violators and all female offenders.  Also, DJJ would refuse to receive any non-serious offenders or nonviolent parole violators from the counties.^[11]  The population in DJJ facilities would shrink to about 1,400 wards.  The Governor estimated that this would save $33 million in the current DJJ budget.  The Governor proposed reimbursing the counties with block grants to pay for local programs, beginning with $53 million for fiscal year 2007-08.

In the budget, $50 million in 2007-08 and $100 million annually thereafter was proposed to provide funding for local adult probation.  These funds would be used to target 18-25 year olds, the group that makes up the largest percentage of juvenile commitments to state prison.  The Governor also offered the counties $4.4 million in bond revenues for construction of jail and juvenile facilities, with a 25 percent county match. ^[12]

Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) Support of Governor’s Proposal

In its analysis of the proposed budget,the LAO found that this shift in population is fundamentally sound and good criminal justice policy. It offers the potential to leave the state, counties, and juvenile offenders and their families better off than they are now. The offenders would be held in institutions within their home community, with greater opportunities to maintain or strengthen relationships with their families and local organizations that could provide them assistance when they are released back into the community. The state would save money and not be required to renovate all the obsolete DJJ facilities.

The LAO did not support the Governor’s offer of $400 million in bond revenues for construction of juvenile halls and camps, citing the surplus of beds due to decreased juvenile crime, and recent construction of juvenile facilities with aid of state and federal funds.^[7]

David Steinhart of Commonweal writes:  There is merit in the position that DJJ should be abolished, as the evidence of its poor performance is overwhelming. But the practical issue is: what will counties, particularly small counties, do with their serious and violent youthful offenders if there is no state correctional institution for youth?  So, the sensible middle ground is to cut DJJ population on a timetable that will allow counties to build local capacity to handle their own juvenile offenders with adequate and effective programs. ^[12]

The League of Women Voters of California has taken a stand in support of the Governor’s proposal. The League supports building the capacity of the counties so they can take back these non-serious offenders.

SB 81, a trailer bill passed with the 2007-2008 budget, gives counties the option to bring home their nonviolent offenders from DJJ, with reimbursement from the state of $117,000 per ward. In the future, nonviolent offenders and nonviolent parole violators will not be sent to DJJ. Offenders with serious mental health problems will be the responsibility of the state Department of Mental Health rather than DJJ. [13]