Youth Corrections in California

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

SUMMARY

This report describes the use of juvenile confinement space in California and the factors that help to create the policy climate regarding the state's use of secure confinement. It addresses the three principal types of juvenile facilities in California: county detention centers, county probation camps, and state-operated institutions. The report describes recent population levels in each type of facility, the availability of alternatives, and various structural and economic factors that affect the demand for confinement space. Legal and jurisdictional issues affecting facility use are examined, as are the state's plans for new construction, the relationship between private placements and public facilities, and the role of political stakeholders in responding to the demand for juvenile confinement space across the state.

INTRODUCTION

California places more juveniles in secure confinement than any other state in the country. On an average day, according to data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, nearly 20,000 youths are held in the state's secure facilities. In recent years, California accounted for one in five confined juveniles nationwide, even though it contained 13 percent of the juvenile population (Sickmund and Wan 1999).¹

The state's immense juvenile correctional system presents many challenges for policymakers and practitioners. One of their greatest challenges is anticipating future demands for juvenile confinement space. Because the construction of secure facilities requires long-term planning, officials must estimate how many detention and correctional beds will be needed in advance, perhaps one year, five years, or ten years in the future. California has historically invested heavily in the construction of secure facilities in order to ensure that it is able to meet future demands for space.

In California, as in every other state, public officials can make costly errors in determining how much juvenile confinement space to provide in the future. Building too little space can result in crowding, waiting lists for admission, and early releases from custody. Building too much space can lead to empty facilities, or even worse, misused facilities. Agencies may find their unused bed space being filled with less serious offenders who are not appropriate for secure confinement but who are incarcerated as a means of ensuring the delivery of services and supervision.

California's policymakers have traditionally been most concerned with the first type of error—building too little space. The state significantly expanded its juvenile confinement capacity in recent decades, partly in response to a prevailing policy climate that favored tough sanctions for a wide variety of juvenile offenders. While some states actively seek to reduce juvenile incarceration by using alternative-to-incarceration programs for nonviolent and less serious offenders, California policymakers have not assigned a high priority to the development of such programs. In March 2000, California voters fortified this approach by approving Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that increased the severity of penalties for juvenile offenders and had the effect of increasing the demand for juvenile confinement space.

Yet, some California policymakers appear to be taking a different path. Particularly in the wake of Proposition 21, some California officials appear to be reassessing their priorities for juvenile justice. This reassessment may be partly responsible for recent increases in state funding for county-level crime-prevention programs. Some jurisdictions in the state appear to be moving toward a broader use of graduated sanctions, including community-based options for nonviolent juvenile offenders. These local initiatives may signify a new phase in California regarding the use of secure confinement.

This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.