While it costs approximately $193,111 per ward annually to house youth in California’s state youth correctional system (Division of Juvenile Facilities: DJF), under the budget triggers (implemented Jan 1, 2012) counties would pick up approx. 65% of that tab ($125,000 per youth), while the rest continues to be paid for by California taxpayers.

Counties like Monterey, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Kings have voiced concerns that they would not be able to pay for the 20+ youth they each have in DJF currently, and they do not have the resources at the county level to serve them locally.

However, the triggers must be considered within the context of individual county sentencing practices and the conditions and cost of the state system.  Monterey County, for example, is one of the most state-dependent counties in California – they rely heavily on the state institutions as a solution to local problems.  According to 2010-11 data, the County sent juveniles to DJF at the highest rate per felony arrest of all populous counties (population 100,000+).  Also, more than one-third of the juveniles Monterey County sent to DJF in 2010 were considered category 4-6 offenders (the least severe offenses DJF accepts, eg. concealable firearms, possession of explosives) – just 1 was category 1 (the most serious, eg. murder, kidnapping).  Most counties in California serve category 4-6 offenders at the local level already.  The same trends of state-dependence can be seen in Stanislaus, Tulare and Kings Counties. It is this historical overuse of DJF that helped create the crisis that led to state juvenile justice realignment in the first place, first in 1996 with the establishment of sliding scale fees and then in 2007 with Senate Bill 81.

In addition, DJF provides notoriously minimal services, including documented inadequate mental health treatment and special education, to this high-needs population.  The cost of the facilities is so high because the state is involved in a consent decree and has to maintain high staff ratios, bureaucratic and legal costs associated with its attempts at compliance.  Currently, DJF has an 80% failure rate of juveniles being rearrested within 3 years of release.

While it is true that some counties would encounter a self-created struggle to serve all of the youth they currently house at DJF because of their historically state-dependent practices; they are not representative of the majority of California counties, and in fact stand as particularly state-dependent outliers.  Other counties already serve this high-needs population at the local level in accordance with best practices and would largely not be affected by the budget triggers. 

Now, with the Governor's proposed budget including a new juvenile justice realignment plan that would give the counties a grace on the triggers, in exchange for full closure of DJF with no new commitments as of Jan. 1, 2013, it seems as though either way the counties will be faced with the decision to serve an increased number of youthful offenders locally.

It is not tenable to continue supporting such a large irreparable and failed institutional state system when every other facet of social services is experiencing such deep fiscal cuts.  In fact, if full juvenile justice realignment is adopted – as was proposed in June 2011, aswell as in the FY 2012-13 budget – counties could benefit from funding to serve this population.  This in fact would allow counties, such as Monterey, to implement local best practices while securing a stable funding stream.  Wouldn’t this ensure long-term public rather than investing state taxpayers’ dollars in an archaic system with demonstrated failure?

A recent report by the W. Haywood Burns Institute indicates that while California’s current corrections policies appear to be race-neutral, data shows that many young people of color are being incarcerated at higher rates than white youth for non-criminal acts rather than being treated for mental health and behavioral health needs.     The report, titled “Non-Judicial Drivers into the Juvenile Justice System for Youth of Color” , highlights multiple studies that point to the same conclusion:

The Burns Institute highlights the “non-judicial drivers” that result in high rates of incarceration among youth of color.  An example of a non-judicial driver is school referrals for disorderly conduct accounting for 40 percent of annual juvenile arrests in California. The authors also highlight cases where low-risk youth with high mental health needs are placed in long-term detention with no treatment of the underlying trauma that is contributing to their delinquent behavior.

In their data analysis, the Burns Institute found that white youth are more likely to be diverted away from formal court processing than youth of color.  Similar racial disparities exist with deeper involvement for youth of color in the California justice system.  From the report:

The report concludes that, “The racial and ethnic inequities present in our current justice system create the perception that incarceration is the most appropriate option for black and brown people with high needs, such as mental illness, but low risk for public safety.”   Burns Institute finds that incarceration is increasingly being used as an “instrument of social control” and makes a negligible impact on changing delinquent behaviors.  Rather, incarcerating juveniles is regularly found to increase harm, “piles trauma on top of trauma” for youth offenders, increases the chances for re-arrest upon release, and is enormously expensive to California taxpayers.  

The Burns Institute calls for a variety of changes in California’s juvenile justice systems ranging from retraining staff for trauma-informed interventions, taking family history into account when determining rehabilitation resources, developing culturally competent programming, and enhancing the use of community alternatives to incarceration for those youth with high needs but who pose a moderate risk to public safety.  CJCJ recognizes these are all important components of a 21st century juvenile justice system .

This report sheds light on an uncomfortable topic in discussions about California’s justice system: Not only are California’s youth experiencing “justice by geography” as CJCJ’s extensive studies have found, but also “justice by skin color”. 

Alameda County’s Chief Probation Officer David Muhammad demonstrates innovative and determined leadership through his new approach to serving juvenile justice involved youth.  He employs a youth development framework that views youthful offenders not simply as a “bundle of needs and problems”, but rather as individuals with real resiliency and strengths that can be incorporated into their plan for rehabilitation and reentry.  In his recent keynote address at the California Wellness Foundation’s 2011 Conference on Violence Prevention, Chief Muhammad discussed nine principles for reform that his department has begun implementing.  Their overarching goals are reducing recidivism rates, increasing public safety, and improving the long-term outcomes for youth under county supervision.  

Chief Muhammad made a compelling case that developing the right staff culture, with the right commitment to young people, is as important as introducing the right practices based on data and research.  He clearly has an understanding of youthful offenders as whole people and values the positive role that families and communities play in rehabilitation.  The following are highlights from his nine principles:

Trauma-Informed Interventions
Chief Muhammad articulates that “hurt people, hurt people” and proposes that many of the delinquent behaviors committed by young people come from their deep experiences of trauma.  He asks, “If we ignore the trauma and just try to correct the delinquent behavior, will we ever see true rehabilitation?”  He is redirecting his department to develop interventions that are “trauma-informed” by training his staff in how to identify trauma and connect youth to the appropriate services.

Risk-Assessments Combined with Need-Assessments
Alameda County has begun conducting “needs assessments” in addition to “risk assessments” so that lower-risk youth do not consume excess staff resources and encounter excessive contact with the criminal justice system that can do more harm than good.  High-risk youth in Alameda County develop collaborative “individual achievement plans” with their probation.  Individualized approaches and interventions have shown improved results in safety and rehabilitation.

Community-Based Alternatives
Alameda County recently opened their first evening reporting center that provides youth with connections to community-based services.  This center allows youth to be at home and to report in everyday after school, maintaining positive contacts with family.  It serves as a geographical hub for probation officers to connect youth to adequate resources.  The state has recognized this innovation and has awarded Alameda County a grant to open two more evening reporting centers in the coming year.

Clear Policies for Sanctions
Chief Muhammad argues for “graduated sanctions” where there are clear outlines for staff to provide consequences for negative behavior.  A fellow Chief Probation Officer told him that too many juveniles are violated for “poo-poo”, which stands for pissed off probation officers.  Staff and youth under supervision need clear policies of when to violate.  The department is working with the Burns Institute in developing these policies for Alameda County.

California needs more probation chiefs who willing to innovate, to embrace the importance of data-driven approaches and best practices, and to lead their counties in building juvenile justice systems for the 21st century.