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”. 

On the subject of the Governor’s juvenile justice budget triggers, the California District Attorney’s Association (CDAA) announced in the New York Times on Sunday, “Obviously we would like him to drop that cut, and cut from other places,” said Scott Thorpe, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Association.

On January 1, 2012 Governor Brown’s budget triggers came into effect. Among many deep cuts across government agencies, the triggers require counties to pay approximately 65% of their state juvenile justice tab (a large sum compared to the minor sliding scale fees they had been paying).  Of course, this did not affect all counties – in fact as of June 2011, 14 counties had no youth in the state youth correctional facilities at all.  However, some state-dependent counties did voice concern that the bill would be too high for them to bear and they would be forced to serve their highest-risk youth at the county level without adequate resources.

One wonders where CDAA would prefer the cut to take place.  Why should the state’s youth correctional facilities be exempt from the triggers while all other areas of social services are being cut so severely?  Especially when the cost of maintaining the state facilities is so high ($193,111 per youth per year) and the state, who has been under a consent decree to remedy their unconstitutional conditions for seven years, provides notoriously minimal services, including documented inadequate mental health treatment and special education, to this high-risk population with very little to show for it. 

CDAA’s spokesperson continues, “If it’s going to be so prohibitive to send young people to D.J.J., the reality is that with the cost factor we should file those cases in adult court.”

That’s presumably because when a prosecutor files a youth in adult court, counties are not charged for housing that youth in state youth correctional facilities, thus they can subvert the $125,000 trigger cost, while keeping the youth in the broken youth facilities until the age of 18 or 21.

Which poses another interesting question: Why are prosecutors not considering the lack of adequate rehabilitative programming, the 80% re-arrest rate, the decrepit and inappropriate architecture, or the lack of re-entry services provided by the state facilities as factors in keeping a youth local under juvenile court jurisdiction, rather than filing them in adult court?

While it is not tenable to continue supporting such a large irreparable and failed state institutional system when every other facet of social services is experiencing such deep fiscal cuts; the state must provide counties with an opportunity to offer an appropriate local alternative.  In fact, if a full juvenile justice realignment plan is brought back on the table – as was proposed in June 2011 – counties could benefit from funding to serve their high-risk population, and state taxpayers would not continue to shoulder the egregious cost of maintaining an expensive and archaic state system for a select few counties that still overuse the facilities.