California Budget Crunch Drives New Juvenile Justice Reforms—Like ‘Em or Not

California’s still dismal budget picture has persuaded Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to propose further changes in the state’s youth correctional system. Now, the Governor wants to lower the age of jurisdiction at the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). California is unique among states in that it permits youthful offenders to remain in rehabilitative programs at DJJ until age 25. The Governor is now asking the Legislature to drop the maximum DJJ custody age from 25 to 21. His goal: cut the DJJ population and save nearly $50 million per year in state funds. It is now costing the state about $225,000 per year to incarcerate a single youth in a DJJ facility.

Many youth advocates oppose the Governor’s age-reduction proposal. Why? Because it means that more youthful offenders will be sent to state prisons to serve the full adult term, instead of going to DJJ. In order to avoid a “short sentence” capped at age 21, prosecutors will file more eligible cases in adult court in order to get the longer adult prison sentence. Minors convicted as adults in California can be (and often are) sentenced to state prison for the full adult term.

How many youth would be sacrificed in this manner to the adult prison system? Based on a review of the available DJJ commitment data, Commonweal estimates that 50 to 60 youth per year would lose their access to DJJ and its rehabilitative programs under the Governor’s plan. The number would be even larger, but for the fact that prosecutors have already pushed more and more youth into the adult system over the last several years.

From the youth advocacy perspective, the Governor’s age reduction proposal is not all bad. First of all, limiting the DJJ population to those under 21 would transform the California system into a more traditional juvenile justice model, allowing programs to be tailored to a younger overall population. Lowering the age also means cutting the DJJ population by another 15 percent or so—a result that meets the “downsizing” goals espoused by DJJ reform advocates. Already, SB 81—the major California realignment law adopted in 2007—has removed non-violent youth from DJJ, dropping the population by about 40 percent from pre-2007 levels (to under 1500 by March 2010, down from about 2,500 in 2007). These benefits of capping DJJ jurisdiction at age 21 are, nevertheless, dismissed by a core of youth advocates who say that we should not force one single young person into state prison if that can be avoided.

So far, California lawmakers have not rushed to embrace the DJJ age change proposal. Cutting state corrections cost, including DJJ cost, remains a top legislative priority. Along these lines, legislative Budget Committees have already adopted the Governor’s cost savings target for DJJ (a $48 million cut), but without specifically endorsing the DJJ age cap. Some of the more liberal lawmakers do not want to terminate DJJ as an option for older youth. County stakeholders, too, are broadly skeptical of the proposal. Among their concerns: higher local cost due to more jury trials of juveniles in adult courts, if DJJ is capped at 21. If DJJ and legislative decision makers cannot find other ways to cut DJJ cost, the age change may wind up being adopted as the “lesser evil” among various cost cutting strategies. Final decisions on DJJ age will likely be made by June of this year, in time to be included in the state budget and budget trailer bills for FY 2010–11.

The Juvenile Justice Program is supported by grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, the California Wellness Foundation, the van Loben Sels/RembeRock Foundation, and the Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation.