1. 1 Pacific Juvenile Defender Center California Juvenile Justice Policy & Legislation Update Loyola Law School, Los Angeles November 20, 2009 Presenter David Steinhart Director, Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program

2. 2 California youth arrest and incarceration trends CA juvenile justice realignment update (SB 81) o o State and county impact since enactment o o 2009 “accountability” amendments to SB 81 CA Legislative Update o o Budget outcomes for juvenile justice programs o o Bill outcomes and two year bills still pending Federal Youth Violence & Gang Legislation o o Youth Promise Act, Feinstein Gang Abatement Act, JJDPA Renewal Major juvenile justice policy issues on the agenda for 2010 PRESENTATION COVERAGE

3. 3 California Youth Arrest & Incarceration Trends

4. 4 Source: California Department of Justice California Juvenile Felony Arrests and Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate Per 100,000 1995-2008

5. 5 California Arrests for VIOLENT CRIMES Juvenile and Adult Arrest Rate Per 100,000 1995-2007 Source: California Department of Justice

6. 6 California Juvenile Justice System Referrals to Probation & Petitions Filed 2002 – 2008 Source: California Department of Justice Referrals 71% Petitions 73%

7. 7 California Juvenile Justice Facilities Average Daily Populations By placement type in mid-2008 (TOTAL ADP = 15,900 ) Sources: CA Corrections Standards Authority, CA Division of Juvenile Justice, CA Department of Social Services (Berkeley Center for Social Services Research)

8. 8 California Juvenile Justice Facilities Admissions of Delinquency Cases by Facility Type in 2008 Total Admissions = 130,000 Juveniles Sources: CA Corrections Standards Authority, CA Division of Juvenile Justice, CA Department of Social Services (Berkeley Center for Social Services Research)

9. 9 California Juvenile Justice Facilities Average Length of Stay for Delinquency Cases By Facility Type (2007/08, in days) Sources: CA Corrections Standards Authority, CA Division of Juvenile Justice, CA Department of Social Services (Berkeley Center for Social Services Research)

10. 10 California Transfers of Juveniles to Adult Criminal Court 2004 - 2008 Source: California Department of Justice

11. 11 Adult Court Dispositions of Juvenile Cases – 2008 (N = 746 dispositions) Convicted 616 (83%) Dismissed, Acquitted or Rt’d to Juv. Ct. 132 (17%) Prison/ Youth Authority 358 (58%) Probation 17 (3%) Probation with Jail 215 (35%) Jail 9 (2 %) Fine / Other 17 (3%)

12. 12 SB 81– Juvenile Justice Realignment Update

13. 13 SB 81- Essential Elements of the Reform  Effective September 2007  Banned all future DJF commitments of “non- violent” youth (“non 707(b) offenders”)  Exception: non-707(b) sex offenders  Phased all non-707(b) wards out of DJF institutions and off the DJF parole caseload  Established the Youthful Offender Block Grant to pay counties for local juvenile offender options

14. 14 SB 81 at the two year mark-- State impact: Steep decline in DJF population SEPT 2007 SEPT 2008 SEPT 2009 Percent Change 2007-09 DJF total inmate population2,4461,8081,639 DOWN 33% Non 707’s in DJF institutions 69626372 DOWN 90% Non 707’s on DJF Parole57619553 DOWN 92%

15. 15 California Division of Juvenile Facilities (former CYA) Institutional Population 1996 – 2008 (as of December 31 each year) Source: Ca. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation

16. 16 ____ __________ __ ____ __ _________ ___ __________ __ _______ _____ ______ _____ ___ ____ __________ __ ____ __ _________ ___ __________ __ _______ _____ ______ _____ ___ DJF First Commitments by Court of Commitment and admissions of “housing” (state prison) cases 2004 – 2009 est Source: CA Division of Juvenile Facilities, Research Branch

17. 17 Sources: CA state budgets, CA Dept. of Finance, CA Div. of Juvenile Justice, Consent decree adopted In Farrell litigation California Division of Juvenile Facilities (former CYA) Per ward/ per year Institutional Cost 1996 - 2008

18. 18  Picture is fragmented due to:  No county plans past year  No state monitoring, no county reports on SB 81 funded programs  “Shift” cases are hard to identify  Where is the displaced caseload going?  Juvenile hall commitments: more of them, & they are longer  Specialized camp programs- e.g. at Challenger in Los Angeles  Older youth paroled from DJF have been banked on adult probation  Program development may be impeded by using SB 81 funds to supplant other probation costs SB 81 at the two year mark- County impact and program development

19. 19 County SB 81- YOBG allocations 10 largest for FY 09/10 (in $ millions)

20. 20 SB 81 Amendments (2009) YOBG “accountability” requirements Why were amendments needed?  No monitoring of how counties spend $93 million/year  Complaints about how counties are spending YOBG funds  Need to document spending to sustain YOBG funding What the amendments do (SB 13X4 effective 7-28-09 )  Annual plan requirement  County must file annual spending plan w/ CSA  Annual expenditure reports  Must be filed by Oct. 1 each year with CSA  Performance outcome measures  Modeled on JJCPA measures  Youth outcomes must be tracked for YOBG programs  CSA must compile & publish annual summaries

21. 21 California Legislative Report: Juvenile Justice Budget and Bill Outcomes for 2009 and Bill Outcomes for 2009 California Juvenile Justice Budget and Bill Outcomes for 2009

22. 22 State-Local Juvenile Justice Funds Budget outcomes FY 07/08 – FY 09/10 Program FY 07/08 Final Budget FY 08/09 Final Budget with VLF backfill FY 09/10 Final Budget With VLF backfill Juv. Justice Crime Prevention Act $ 119 million $ 82 million $ 107 million Juvenile Probation and Camp Funds $ 201 million $ 139 million $ 181 million Youthful Offender Block Grant (SB 81) $ 24 million $ 66 million $ 93 million CalGRIP gang program grants $10 million $ 9 million

23. 23 California Legislation  Division of Juvenile Justice bills to cut incarceration time  AB 1053 (Solorio), signed: Advances release dates for DJF wards  AB 999 (Skinner), two year bill– new time-add & time-credit rules  SB 399 (Yee): Juvenile LWOP  Modified version stopped again in the Assembly  SB 678 (Leno): Community corrections for probation violators  State pays counties to keep probation violators in local programs  County fund based on # violators not sent to state prison  Goal: cut state prison pop. and cost, improve community offender services  AB 1516 (Lieu): Prosecution-directed mental health exams  Defendant (juv. or adult) must submit to prosecution MH exam if def. counsel discloses expert on defendant’s mental state  Responds to Verdin v. Sup. Ct. holding that only Legislature can so authorize

24. 24  Two year bills “still on the table” for 2010  AB 12 (Beall): Extended foster care benefits to age 21  AB 114 (Carter): Balanced and Restorative Justice programs  AB 438 (Beall): Juvenile & adult offenders with developmental disabilities  SB 134 (Lieu): Rights of incarcerated juveniles to communicate with their children  SB 441 (Ducheny): Reconfigure the Corrections Standards Authority See Steinhart Leg. Digest for details, or go to www.leginfo.ca.gov California Legislation

25. 25  Youth Promise Act (Rep. Bobby Scott- H.R. 3846) Would invest $3 billion in youth crime prevention & gang outreach programs Would invest $3 billion in youth crime prevention & gang outreach programs Local Promise Coordinating Councils allocate funds Local Promise Coordinating Councils allocate funds Heavy emphasis on alternatives to incarceration, evidence-based practices Heavy emphasis on alternatives to incarceration, evidence-based practices Broad bi-partisan support in the House of Rep. Broad bi-partisan support in the House of Rep.  Gang Abatement Act (Feinstein– S. 132) Competes with Youth Promise Act- only 1 bill likely to emerge from Congress Competes with Youth Promise Act- only 1 bill likely to emerge from Congress Focuses federal funds on law enforcement, gang suppression programs Focuses federal funds on law enforcement, gang suppression programs Increases federal penalties, widens definitions of criminal gang activity Increases federal penalties, widens definitions of criminal gang activity  JJDPA Reauthorization Senate renewal version (Leahy, Kohl & Specter)- S. 678 Senate renewal version (Leahy, Kohl & Specter)- S. 678 Strengthens core JJDPA mandates on jail removal, status offenders, DMC Strengthens core JJDPA mandates on jail removal, status offenders, DMC May include new incentive grants for mental health, re-entry services May include new incentive grants for mental health, re-entry services Federal Legislation

26. 26 California Policy Issues in Play for 2010 A. Shut down the state Div. of Juvenile Facilities?  Proponents and proposals in play  Cost pressures on CDCR and DJF are paramount  Pros/ cons/ prospects for total closure B. Overhaul state-local JJ program funding?  Consolidation proposals to merge JJ funding streams  Evidence based requirements tied to funds  Restructure state agencies that administer funds  State budget crisis / deficit still dominates in 2010

27. 27 California Policy Issues in Play for 2010 C. Mentally ill juvenile offenders?  JJ facilities (state & local) packed with mental health cases  Loss of funds– MHSA not filling gaps  MediCal eligibility problems for incarcerated youth  Models of reform: Cal Endowment “HRI”, MIOCR programs  Legislator interest in reform D. Election year politics  AG and Governor’s candidates will square off on crime & corrections  Gang violence likely to be a hot issue  Budget will be still be a mess in 2010: another big deficit year  Administration will turn over in 2011– lame duck year ahead