Support full juvenile justice realignment

Full juvenile justice realignment promotes long-term public safety and is fiscally responsible. In a year where K-12 schools, child care providers, services for developmentally disabled, colleges and universities are facing across the board budget cuts, any efforts to protect an unsustainable and ineffective state youth correctional facility is irresponsible budget policy.

Advocate

Your name: *

Your email: *

From mailing address

Street 1:

Street 2:

City:

State:

Postal Code:

Stand strong on juvenile justice realignment

Message: *

&#160;


I am writing in support of your proposal to close the state’s Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) and to realign youth offender supervision to counties, along with a percentage of current state DJF funding.  The annual $180,000 it costs to house a youth offender in the state facilities is almost criminal compared to the $8,452 that the state pays for one student per year in California’s public schools. 


&nbsp;


This is especially true when you consider that the state youth correctional system is considered by experts to be broken beyond repair and has an 80% failure rate of juveniles being rearrested within 3 years of release. In a year where K-12 schools, child care providers, services for developmentally disabled, colleges and universities are facing across the board budget cuts, any efforts to protect an unsustainable and ineffective state youth correctional facility is irresponsible budget policy. 


&nbsp;


This is also a positive proposal for long-term public safety.  CDCR Secretary Matt Cate said in several news articles, &quot;The biggest benefit is it keeps wards close to home.  The evidence shows, especially with young people, that it eases the return to communities and reduces victimization.”  Our communities deserve a smart investment in the best practices available for rehabilitating youth offenders, for the sake of their future and our safety. 


&nbsp;


There is broad agreement among juvenile justice stakeholders that all DJF funding reallocated to counties must be focused on youth rehabilitation, towards enhancing long-term public safety through recidivism reduction, and creating disincentives for “direct files” of juveniles into adult courts by county prosecutors.


&nbsp;


Moving ahead with juvenile realignment, your administration must ensure the following:


1.	Sufficient and sustainable funding is realigned to counties to implement the best practices available for rehabilitation of youth offenders.  


2.	Short-term “capacity building” funding is supplied for counties to increase their local infrastructure for housing and rehabilitating serious youth offenders, including community-based services.


3.	Fiscal incentives are in place for counties to utilize nationally recognized best practices, such as smaller living quarters, higher staff-to-youth ratios, and priority placed on family and community engagement.


4.	The new Board of State and Community Corrections has an enhanced role in monitoring county practices, including oversight of county-based facilities developed for highest-need youth offenders.


&nbsp;


Finally, I encourage you to stand strong against the law enforcement-based associations who oppose your proposal for juvenile realignment, yet also call for complete exemption from the mid-year “budget trigger” counties are required to pay for each youth in the state’s facilities.  If exceptions are made for juvenile justice, then surely exceptions should follow for schools, universities, mental health providers, and child-care providers. It is also clear that any planned cuts not leveraged on youth corrections are bound to fall elsewhere in order to balance the state’s increasing budget shortfalls.  


&nbsp;


I strongly urge you to continue to stand strong against the Sacramento law enforcement lobby and to fight for the best outcomes for youth and our communities. 


&#160;

You can add text here to customize your meesage to the recipient.