Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

JTF JuvenileJusticeJTF

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(26) "JTF_JuvenileJusticeJTF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "124658" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(6865) "www.ppic.org JUVENILE JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA Sonya Tafoya and Jose ph Hayes  California’s juvenile justice system is a network of county and state agencies and programs . In recognition of developmental differ ences between adults and juveniles, t he juvenile justice system is intended to emphasize guidance, education , treatment , and rehabilitation over punishmen t. The system deals with juveniles who w ere under age 18 at the time of their offense. In addition to local law enforcement, county probation departments and juvenile courts work with local school districts and c hild welfare and behavioral h ealth departments. County probation departments are also responsible for operating juvenile halls, camps, and ranches. A t the state level, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ ) maintain s three secure facilities and a conservation camp for lower -risk offenders .  Minors can be arrested for felony, misdemeanor, or status offenses. In 2012, 30% of reported arrests were for felonies, 56% for misdemean ors , and 13% for status offenses (truancy , curfew violations , or other charges applicable only t o minors). Of the 36,289 juvenile felony arrests reported in 2012, 23% were of African American s, 20% were of white s, and 52% were of Latino s. Of the 67,817 reported misdemeanor arrests, 15% were of African Americans, 24% were of whites, and 54% were of Latinos .  Local law enforcement, probation departments, and juvenile courts have many options short of incarceration . The response to a juvenile offense depends on its seriousness and also on t he offender’s background . For example, a 15- year -old arrested for the first time for skipping school might be counseled and released . At the other extreme, the most serious cases may be directly filed in or remanded to the adult criminal system. M ost of th e time, however, law enforcement refers the arrestee to a county juvenile probation department . (Referral s may also come from other agencies or individuals—e.g., schools or parents.) About half the time, the probation department either closes the case or prescribes informal probation or a diversion program (including education, community service, or restorative justice ). M ore serious cases warrant a juvenile court hearing , but judges have a range of options short of co mmitting y outh to a county or DJJ facility . Of the approximately 150,000 juvenile arrests made in 2011, only 11% resulted in confinement, and fewer than 1 % result ed in commitment to a DJJ facility.  A series of reforms has lowered the number and changed the composition of DJJ wards. I n the mid -1990s, the state began to shift responsibility for juvenile offenders to the counties. A 2007 reform permitted counties to commit only the most serious offenders to state facilities . Between 2007 and 2013, t he year -end number of juvenile offender s in DJJ institutions and camps fell from 2,115 to 659. The share of youth in DJJ facilities for homicide increased from 5% to 12.4% and for assault from 32.2% to 39.7%. A subsequent reform gave counties responsibility for all offenders released from DJJ , resulting in a drop in state parole numbers from 2,462 to zero between 2007 and 2013.  The reforms have not increased county caseloads —in part due to declining youth felony arrest rate s. At year -end 2007, counties held an average of 10,843 youths in their juvenile halls and camps. By year -end 2012 that figure fell to 6,892—a 36% decline. The number of youth supervised under alternative programs dropped from 2,268 to 1,645 during the same period. One contributing factor is that between 2007 and 2012 the juve nile arrest rate fell by 42% —to its lowest level in decades . This trend mirrored a general decline in felony arrest rates for young adults.  Mainta ining the remaining state juvenile facilities is costly. The educational and specialized treatment needs of DJJ wards , their diminishing numbers, and court -imposed remediation of deficiencies in staffing, facilities , and education al, medical , and mental health ser vices have result ed in a high per -ward cost. The annual cost to house a DJJ ward is $179,400—more th an three times the per -inmate cost in the adult system . DJJ has contained some of these costs by closing four institutions and one conservation camp. The remaining facilities were filled to about 60% capacity in 2012. May 2014 JUVENILE JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA May 2014 www.ppic.org County probation departments and juvenile courts have a range of options Probation referral outcomes Juvenile court outcomes Source: Californ ia Department of Justice , 2011 Juvenile Justice in California . Notes: “Transfer” i ncludes cases referred to traffic court and Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportations . Non -ward probation , informal probation , diversion, and deferred entry of judgment are statutorily defined options that judges can use to give youth the opportunity to avoid deeper involvement in the justice system . For further detail, see Welfare and Institutions C ode §652.2, §725(a), §790. Felony arrest rates have dropped for both juveniles and young adults Sources: California Dept. of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center , published tables. (accessed Feb. 19, 2014). California Dept. of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, July 2000 –2010, and Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990– 1999 (May 2009). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population. April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (June 2013). Sources: BSCC, Juvenile Detention Profile Survey Query. CDCR Division of Juvenile Justice Population Overview (Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2013). California Department of Finance : Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, July 2000 –2010; Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990 –1999 (May 2009). California Department of Justice: Criminal Justice Statistics Center , published tables. (accessed Feb. 19, 2014); 2011 Juvenile Justice in California . Legislative Analyst’s Office: California’s Criminal Justice System: A Primer; The 2012–13 Budget: Completing Juvenile Justice Realignment in California . U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population. April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (June 2013). Contact: tafoya@ppic.org or hayes@ppic.org Closed at intake 37.7% Informal probation 2.5% Diversion 6.8% Transfer 2.8% Juvenile court petition filed 49.7% Direct file in adult court 0.5% Wardship declared 64.7% Dismissed 14.8% Diversion, deferred entry of judgment, or transfer 7.5% Informal probation 6.6% Non -ward probation 6.1% Remanded to adult court 0.3% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000Felony arrest rates per 100,000 residents Felony rate ages 10–17 Felony rate ages 18–19 Felony rate ages 20–29" } ["___content":protected]=> string(130) "

JTF JuvenileJusticeJTF

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(87) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/juvenile-justice-in-california/jtf_juvenilejusticejtf/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8914) ["ID"]=> int(8914) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:42:05" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(4364) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(22) "JTF JuvenileJusticeJTF" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(22) "jtf_juvenilejusticejtf" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(26) "JTF_JuvenileJusticeJTF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "124658" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(6865) "www.ppic.org JUVENILE JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA Sonya Tafoya and Jose ph Hayes  California’s juvenile justice system is a network of county and state agencies and programs . In recognition of developmental differ ences between adults and juveniles, t he juvenile justice system is intended to emphasize guidance, education , treatment , and rehabilitation over punishmen t. The system deals with juveniles who w ere under age 18 at the time of their offense. In addition to local law enforcement, county probation departments and juvenile courts work with local school districts and c hild welfare and behavioral h ealth departments. County probation departments are also responsible for operating juvenile halls, camps, and ranches. A t the state level, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ ) maintain s three secure facilities and a conservation camp for lower -risk offenders .  Minors can be arrested for felony, misdemeanor, or status offenses. In 2012, 30% of reported arrests were for felonies, 56% for misdemean ors , and 13% for status offenses (truancy , curfew violations , or other charges applicable only t o minors). Of the 36,289 juvenile felony arrests reported in 2012, 23% were of African American s, 20% were of white s, and 52% were of Latino s. Of the 67,817 reported misdemeanor arrests, 15% were of African Americans, 24% were of whites, and 54% were of Latinos .  Local law enforcement, probation departments, and juvenile courts have many options short of incarceration . The response to a juvenile offense depends on its seriousness and also on t he offender’s background . For example, a 15- year -old arrested for the first time for skipping school might be counseled and released . At the other extreme, the most serious cases may be directly filed in or remanded to the adult criminal system. M ost of th e time, however, law enforcement refers the arrestee to a county juvenile probation department . (Referral s may also come from other agencies or individuals—e.g., schools or parents.) About half the time, the probation department either closes the case or prescribes informal probation or a diversion program (including education, community service, or restorative justice ). M ore serious cases warrant a juvenile court hearing , but judges have a range of options short of co mmitting y outh to a county or DJJ facility . Of the approximately 150,000 juvenile arrests made in 2011, only 11% resulted in confinement, and fewer than 1 % result ed in commitment to a DJJ facility.  A series of reforms has lowered the number and changed the composition of DJJ wards. I n the mid -1990s, the state began to shift responsibility for juvenile offenders to the counties. A 2007 reform permitted counties to commit only the most serious offenders to state facilities . Between 2007 and 2013, t he year -end number of juvenile offender s in DJJ institutions and camps fell from 2,115 to 659. The share of youth in DJJ facilities for homicide increased from 5% to 12.4% and for assault from 32.2% to 39.7%. A subsequent reform gave counties responsibility for all offenders released from DJJ , resulting in a drop in state parole numbers from 2,462 to zero between 2007 and 2013.  The reforms have not increased county caseloads —in part due to declining youth felony arrest rate s. At year -end 2007, counties held an average of 10,843 youths in their juvenile halls and camps. By year -end 2012 that figure fell to 6,892—a 36% decline. The number of youth supervised under alternative programs dropped from 2,268 to 1,645 during the same period. One contributing factor is that between 2007 and 2012 the juve nile arrest rate fell by 42% —to its lowest level in decades . This trend mirrored a general decline in felony arrest rates for young adults.  Mainta ining the remaining state juvenile facilities is costly. The educational and specialized treatment needs of DJJ wards , their diminishing numbers, and court -imposed remediation of deficiencies in staffing, facilities , and education al, medical , and mental health ser vices have result ed in a high per -ward cost. The annual cost to house a DJJ ward is $179,400—more th an three times the per -inmate cost in the adult system . DJJ has contained some of these costs by closing four institutions and one conservation camp. The remaining facilities were filled to about 60% capacity in 2012. May 2014 JUVENILE JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA May 2014 www.ppic.org County probation departments and juvenile courts have a range of options Probation referral outcomes Juvenile court outcomes Source: Californ ia Department of Justice , 2011 Juvenile Justice in California . Notes: “Transfer” i ncludes cases referred to traffic court and Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportations . Non -ward probation , informal probation , diversion, and deferred entry of judgment are statutorily defined options that judges can use to give youth the opportunity to avoid deeper involvement in the justice system . For further detail, see Welfare and Institutions C ode §652.2, §725(a), §790. Felony arrest rates have dropped for both juveniles and young adults Sources: California Dept. of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center , published tables. (accessed Feb. 19, 2014). California Dept. of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, July 2000 –2010, and Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990– 1999 (May 2009). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population. April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (June 2013). Sources: BSCC, Juvenile Detention Profile Survey Query. CDCR Division of Juvenile Justice Population Overview (Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2013). California Department of Finance : Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, July 2000 –2010; Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990 –1999 (May 2009). California Department of Justice: Criminal Justice Statistics Center , published tables. (accessed Feb. 19, 2014); 2011 Juvenile Justice in California . Legislative Analyst’s Office: California’s Criminal Justice System: A Primer; The 2012–13 Budget: Completing Juvenile Justice Realignment in California . U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population. April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (June 2013). Contact: tafoya@ppic.org or hayes@ppic.org Closed at intake 37.7% Informal probation 2.5% Diversion 6.8% Transfer 2.8% Juvenile court petition filed 49.7% Direct file in adult court 0.5% Wardship declared 64.7% Dismissed 14.8% Diversion, deferred entry of judgment, or transfer 7.5% Informal probation 6.6% Non -ward probation 6.1% Remanded to adult court 0.3% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000Felony arrest rates per 100,000 residents Felony rate ages 10–17 Felony rate ages 18–19 Felony rate ages 20–29" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:42:05" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(22) "jtf_juvenilejusticejtf" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:42:05" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:42:05" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(64) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/JTF_JuvenileJusticeJTF.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }