Closing California's Division of Juvenile Facilities: An Analysis of County Institutional Capacity

• NCJ Number: 229154
• Author(s): Daniel Macallair, M.P.A.; Mike Males, Ph.D.; Catherine McCracken, M.S.
• Date Published: May 2009
• Length: 25 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Haigh-Scatena Foundation; Ernest Van Loben Sels/RembeRock Foundation
• Corporate Author: Ctr on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
• Sale Source: Ctr on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded December 24, 2009

Annotation

This report examines the institutional capacity of California's 58 county-based juvenile justice systems to determine whether sufficient county confinement facilities exist to accommodate the present California Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) population upon closure of remaining DJF facilities.

Abstract

Highlights of summary findings include: 1) county probation departments expanded their institutional capacity over the past 10 years resulting in more modern high security facilities than those offered by the Department of Juvenile Facilities (DJF); 2) housing youth at the county level is significantly less expensive than housing them in State facilities; 3) recent increases in transfers and remands of juveniles to adult court have not led to increased imprisonments either in DJF or in adult prisons; 4) youth currently spend more time in juvenile facilities than adults in adult facilities for comparable crimes; 5) the current per capita cost per DJF ward is $234,029; and 6) closing DJF and transferring the remaining ward population to county facilities would eliminate the State's obligation under the Farrell v. Cate consent decree. State policy analysts have proposed the transfer of State juvenile justice responsibilities to county probation systems since the 1990s. The rationale for this transfer is in recognition of the need to create a streamlined and coordinated system of services at the county level. In addition, realignment will further strengthen the prohibitive costs of further attempts to bring the DJF in compliance with the Farrell v. Cate consent decree (a 5-year old consent decree resulting from abusive conditions, systemic mismanagement, and ineffectual services). The transfer of responsibilities to county probation departments carries many administrative and programmatic advantages. This study was a comprehensive attempt to examine the capacity of California's 58 county-based juvenile justice systems to absorb the current DJF population (6 facilities housing 1,637 wards). Data were gathered on juveniles in DJF and adult prisons, juveniles in county detention, juvenile crime by offense, year, and county, and juvenile populations by year and county. Tables, figures, references, and appendix