Deadline looms for change in state juvenile justice system

As the deadline looms for California to begin overhauling its juvenile justice system, major stakeholders weighed in on the most pressing issues following the enactment of the bill last year.

Many advocates in favor of an overhaul of the juvenile justice system have questioned whether the Legislature rushed the bill.

SB 823, which was signed into law last year, effectively shuts down the state Division of Juvenile Justice, known as DJJ , and places the responsibility for minors who commit crimes into the hands of counties and probation departments.

Starting July 1, courts will mostly stop referring youths to the division, although those in existing facilities will serve out their terms.

Some advocates for change, like Maureen T. Pacheco, juvenile legislative liaison at the California Public Defenders Association, hoped an anticipated trailer bill would clear up nagging open questions, such as whether the new system does enough to convince courts that rehabilitation programs are sufficient to help youths stay out of the adult prison system.

“One of the ways that we can prevent youth from going into the adult system is because we can cite the programming and resources available to our kids at DJJ,” Pacheco said. “And with that being taken away, we are, of course, very nervous that that’s going to lead to a jump back to the time when more kids were being transferred into the adult court.”

According to a Commonwealth Justice Program report, the inmate population in the division declined from an all-time high of 10,000 over 20 years ago to fewer than 800 in 2020. In 2007, changes were made that banned intake of minors into the division, except for those accused of serious and violent crimes.

Part of the latest overhaul is to keep youths closer to home, rather than sending them to one of the three facilities. According to Pacheco, the low number of youths in the current system risks undercutting the goal.

“You’ll have some counties where they’ll have very small numbers of kids who the closure would impact,” Pacheco said. “You can’t create a multi-million-dollar facility just for three or four kids. What we’re seeing is that there’s going to be a development of regional facilities, which undercuts the goal of keeping kids closer to home.”

Under the bill, the age at which young criminals can continue to be confined in juvenile facilities is raised to 25. But courts must be convinced that programs are in place, which they are not at the moment, said Judge Jerilyn L. Borack, presiding judge of the Sacramento County Juvenile Court.

“Our counties are going to be concerned about the safety of the youth and that they are being housed appropriately and given rehabilitation services,” Borack said. “But they’re also concerned about the safety of the community.”

Juvenile court officials in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Kern counties shared Borack’s sentiment, saying that the challenge right now is to make sure that there are services available. San Francisco juvenile courts have historically not admitted a large number of young people to the division given suitable alternatives. Any division replacement at the local level would continue to be the disposition of last resort, the court’s Communication Director Ken Garcia stated.

“However, it is too early to say what the local plan will be,” Garcia said. “The local plan will also be contingent on receiving sufficient funding from the state.”

Kern County Superior Court Judge Susan M. Gill and Judge Wendy L. Avila said the county’s current facility could provide housing, education and rehabilitate services that would have been at the state division.

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has also committed to trying fewer youths as adults. The risk of youths going to adult prison does not exist, said Alex Bastian, special adviser to Gascón.

“Los Angeles County has been working diligently to create the infrastructure for the county to handle the transition,” Bastian said. “The rehabilitation programs exist. The details to be worked out focus more on adjusting the existing programs to a confined setting.”

But Elizabeth S. Braunstein, a deputy public defender in Los Angeles County, said there are still uncertainties surrounding local alternatives to the division.

“The board of supervisors has yet to decide where such a facility will be located,” Braunstein said. “We are hoping that the board will choose a location that will facilitate an environment that is more therapeutic and less punitive than DJJ.”

San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin supported SB 823 and is on the bill’s committee, said Rachel R. Marshall, director of communications and policy adviser.

“As part of SB 823, the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant program was created to reinvest the funds into county-based custody, care and supervision of youth,” Marshall said. “As the committee works towards identifying those programs that will serve as alternatives to a DJJ commitment, one challenge is making sure those programs are adequately funded.”

But for other district attorneys, the bill’s implementation has been troubling.

Larry D. Morse II, legislative director of the California District Attorneys Association, said DAs will have a great responsibility in making the system work. So far, the association has not been included in conversations about changes and updates to the law, he said. The most notable impact on DAs would be how to handle youths who have committed the most serious crimes, such as murder, Morse said.

“We’re not sure exactly how that is going to be handled,” Morse said. “What the arrangement is going to be for the counties to assume responsibility for housing and programming for the most challenging juvenile cases, which would be sexual offenders or juveniles with significant mental health issues, and those who have committed the most serious crimes.”

Details of the new program have been sparse, according to Morse. Senior juvenile prosecutors in California have expressed concerns “about the paucity of information that has been provided to them thus far as the clock is ticking,” Morse said.

For probation departments, the stark differences in capabilities to house and rehabilitate youths among California’s 58 counties pose a whole range of issues, according to Brian Richart, past president of the Chief Probation Officers of California and currently the chief probation officer for El Dorado County.

Some smaller counties, such as Colusa, do not have the services necessary to provide for the needs of high-risk youths, Richart said. Some minors who have committed crimes will have to be placed in nearby counties that have more capabilities, he said.

More than $200 million will be disbursed to local governments to help with the transition.

“And then to add to the problem, we need to start doing it by July 1 of this year,” Richart said. “We have less than 90 days at this point to spin up the system.”