Impact of Juvenile Facilities Closure on Adult Criminal Court Filings

Governor Brown’s plan to shut down all DJJ facilities has been scratched, due to budgetary difficulties. Nonetheless, it is important to pay attention to two recent reports by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice on juvenile justice realignment.
The first report assesses the potential impact of DJJ institutional closures on adult charges. This, you may recall, was a cause for concern in some quarters. Nonetheless, the report finds that, while “California counties drastically vary in arrest and incarceration policies. . . even radical variations in reliance on State incarceration have no effect on juvenile crime rates or trends.” Here are the main findings:
In 2009, 24 counties employed locally self-reliant juvenile justice practices. Those counties were Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Inyo, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Mendocino, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Trinity, and Tulare.

In 2009, 13 counties employed State-dependent juvenile justice practices that would significantly obstruct juvenile justice reform. Those counties were Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura.

The thirteen State-dependent counties accounted for 37% of juvenile felony arrests but 61% of all direct adult criminal court filings and 46% of all DJF commitments, in 2009.

Kings County is the most State-dependent county, direct filing in adult criminal court 50 times more than Los Angeles, 39 times more than San Diego, and 36 times more than San Francisco in 2009.

Twelve California counties did not utilize the state system during 2009; either for a DJF commitment or an adult criminal court filing despite experiencing juvenile felony arrests during that year (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra, and Trinity).

Despite having the highest juvenile felony arrest rate in the State, San Francisco County utilized direct adult criminal court filing one-eighth as much as the county with the lowest rate of juvenile felony arrests (El Dorado).
It would appear from the report that adult criminal court filings are a matter of organizational and prosecutorial culture, and the policies are not sensitive to the adult/juvenile divide. It is important to say that these findings make sense in the aggregate. I’m sure that, in single cases that raise true dilemmas, juvenile justice practices might be taken into account by individual prosecutors when making the call whether to charge someone as a juvenile or an adult. But the big picture does not seem to support a structural connection between the two.
The second report examined the capacity of county facilities to house juveniles. As the table shows, California counties currently have the space and infrastructure to house all juveniles who are now held in state prisons.
What does all this mean now that the governor has changed his plans? Perhaps it means that law enforcement officials making charging decisions can, and should, be more amenable to the possibility of charging juveniles with misdemeanors rather than felonies when possible. If the change does not occur as a grand top-down policy, it may have to occur as a bottom-up aggregate set of decisionmaking on the part of prosecutors.

Panel on Isolation Units

Almost once a week I receive mail from inmates or family members concerning the solitary confinement conditions at the SHU unit in Pelican Bay. We have previously blogged about the discontents of solitary confinement and behavioral modification here and here. Now, the Center for Constitutional Rights is organizing an upcoming panel about the conditions in isolation units.

Where: The Women’s Building, Audre Lorde Room, 3543 18th Street #8, San Francisco, CA
When: Tuesday, April 5, 6:30pm-8:00pm
Who:
  • Dr. Terry Kupers, M.D.
  • Alexis Agathocleous, Staff Attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights
  • Zahra Baloo, Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-San Francisco Bay Area
  • Keramet Reiter, JD, PhD Candidate Berkeley Law

More on Youth Correctional Facilities

The New York Times provides a well-written story from the Bay Citizen on the sides to the debate over Brown’s initiative to close all CA youth correctional facilities. The initiative’s roots are traced to an informal policy that

has been centered in the Bay Area after accusations of abuse and neglect at the institutions surfaced in a 2003 Alameda County lawsuit. In recent years, some local judges often refused to send young offenders to state institutions, preferring to confine them in county facilities regarded as safer and more effective.

Mr. Brown’s initiative would take that unofficial policy further. It would scrap the state juvenile justice system and shift responsibility for confining the most violent young offenders to the local level, where they are nearer to family and have more community treatment options. The move would affect the 1,300 youths in state care, down from 10,000 in 1996.

The main concerns offered by the experts featured in the story concern the lack of funding for improving local facilities and equipping them to handle severely troubled young people, as well as the concern that the intentions behind the initiative will be circumvented by opting to try more juveniles as adults. There is an additional concern over the new responsibilities shouldered by local probation officers.

Jerry Corrections Watch: Abolishing State Juvenile Facilities?


Today we begin a new CCC enterprise: Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll be closely monitoring Governor Jerry Brown’s correctional policies. During the gubernatorial race, we posted on Brown’s history with corrections, and with CCPOA, as former governor and as attorney general. It will be interesting to see whether Brown follows in Schwarzenegger’s footsteps in terms of thinking outside the box (perhaps sometimes too far out) about our correctional crisis.

Brown’s new budget deviates from Schwarzenegger’s pattern of budgetary cuts in the correctional apparatus, especially compared with painful cuts to other aspects of government. In fact, the Brown administration plans —
an ongoing augmentation of $395.2 million within the CDCR’s budget to correct previous budget shortfalls and more accurately reflect the operational costs within the adult institutions’ budgets. This augmentation will allow the Department to fully fund the salary and wages of authorized Correctional Officers, Sergeants, and Lieutenants, which is critical to ensuring that the adult institutions have the resources to pay security staff. The augmentation also provides funding to correct for a decline in the number of overtime hours available to CDCR to use within its adult institutions. Due to salary and wage increases for correctional officers over the last eight years, and no increase in departmental overtime funding, the overtime base does not go as far as it originally did. The use of overtime is critical to ensuring that all necessary staffing levels are maintained at CDCR’s institutions, and the decline in funded overtime hours has been a primary cause for redirections of funding from other activities.
In other respects, however, the Brown administration continues a trend from the Schwarzenegger administration: Diverting inmates from the states system to county-level jails. This move continues to draw ire from county officials, given the overcrowding in jails. The latest incarnation of these efforts is Brown’s plan to abolish the state youth correctional system and incarcerate juveniles exclusively at county-level facilities. Given the distressing facts we know about state juvenile facilities, and the decline in juvenile crime, this is not necessarily a bad idea. Barry Krisberg, however, voices a serious concern that counties will prosecute more juveniles as adults, to circumvent Brown’s policies.

Children on the Outside

This week, Justice Strategies rolled out their excellent new report, “Children on the Outside: Voicing the Pain and Human Costs of Parental Incarceration,” by Patricia Allard and Judith Greene. Read it here.

We knew that the USA’s enormous prison population has high monetary costs and even higher human costs, but this paper documents the particular costs of separating families. Parental incarceration triples the odds that children will engage in violence or drug abuse, and doubles their odds of developing serious mental health issues. There are more children of incarcerated parents than there are total incarcerated persons; nearly 25% of the 1.7 million children with incarcerated parents are under age four, and over 33% will become adults while their parents are locked up.

The Fight Over Preston Youth Correctional Facility

On occasion, we have covered the abysmal state of juvenile prisons in California. Since our juvenile prison population has been declining, Some of them, like the juvenile institution in Chino, have been closed and repurposed into adult incarceration facilities. The Books Not Bars project at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights lists some of the atrocious occurrences in these institutions:

  • Young people locked in 20- to 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement for days, weeks and months on end;
  • Young people locked in 4’x4′ cages for temporary detention;
  • Guard and staff abuse, neglect, manipulation, and humiliation of the young people in their care;
  • Rampant sexual assault;
  • Guard/staff abuse of chemical weapons against the young people;
  • Virtually non-existent care for young people with mental health or substance abuse needs;
  • Shocking negligence in medical care, especially emergency care;
  • Woefully inadequate educational programming;
  • A culture and atmosphere of constant intimidation, isolation, fear and violence;
  • Five deaths of young people in less than three years.
Their report states,

Stark and Preston youth prisons are the most severe examples of the DJJ’s continuing failures, where daily chaos prevents most youth from participating in programs. Even where programs are administered with regularity, almost no programming proven to reduce recidivism is available, and at many prisons, only a small minority of youth participates. The DJJ has so dramatically failed to comply with court-ordered remedial plans that in 2008, plaintiffs sought a receiver to take over the reforms.

Today’s Chron article is about one of these most notorious juvenile facilities, Preston Youth Correctional Facility. And, it appears that the hurdle in the path of doing the right thing and closing Preston is a lawmaker concerned about job losses among her constituents.

Preston, located an hour northeast of Stockton, houses just 224 youths and, as one of the state’s oldest correctional facilities, is in terrible condition. Most of the youths serving time there are hours away from their families.

The facility employs about 450 people in a county with just 38,000 residents and a 12.4 percent unemployment rate. Closing it would save the state $30 million this fiscal year and more in future years, officials estimate.

“It’s like closing a military base,” said Don Specter, director of the Prison Law Office. “People want to keep it just for jobs, but that shouldn’t be the reason that the state or government implements a program.”

Huber’s arguments against the closure are as follows:

Huber said the closure of Preston would “kill an entire county,” because it is one of the largest employers in the area.

“This is going to turn the city of Ione into Flint, Mich.,” Huber said, referring to the depressing impacts the closure of General Motors facilities had on that company town 20 years ago. “I’m not disagreeing with the fact that a facility needs to be closed … the question is how do we decide which is the best facility to close.”

Huber contends that Preston has higher graduation rates than other youth facilities; is best complying with the settlement that came out of the 2003 lawsuit; and, because of its dorm settings, offers a better setting for youths.

“The five facilities we have are like a school district,” she said. “I think Preston is the best school – if you have to save $30 million, do you close the best-performing school?”

I recommend reading the entire article – it provides more information on Preston, quoting references to it as a “dungeon”.

Who Benefits from Arizona’s SB 1070?

NPR reports:

The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it’s not about prisons. It’s about what’s best for the country.

“Enough is enough,” Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading “Let Freedom Reign.” “People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation.”

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

This is quite a shocking story. It turns out that private prison corporations are among the main financiers of Arizona’s anti-immigration bill. This puts a shocking, cynical slant on what would be deemed a disgraceful bill even if it were sincere, and not profit driven.

Black Alcatraz Screening Today

This evening we will be screening Black Alcatraz, a documentary about the African American experience at Alcatraz in the era of segregation. Director Kevin Epps (“Straight Outta Hunters Point”) will join us for Q&A and dinner will be served.

Where: UC Hastings, 198 McAllister Street, 2nd Floor, Room F
When: 7pm