E California juvenile justice

Jurisdictional boundaries ^[3]

States vary in how each sets the basic playing field for juvenile justice with lower and upper age boundaries. State legislatures further create a range of complex exceptions for transfer to criminal court based on case-by-case, age and offense specifics.

• Delinquency age boundaries 2018

  • Upper age

    17 years old

  • Lower age

    None specified

  • Extended age

    24 years old

• Transfer provisions 2016

  Transfer pathways

  • Discretionary waiver
  • Presumptive waiver
  • Mandatory waiver
  • Statutory exclusion
  • Once/always adult
  • Prosecutor discretion

  Mitigating provisions

  • Reverse waiver (remand)
  • Juvenile blended sentencing
  • Criminal blended sentencing

• Transfer trends

  Loading…
• State details National comparison

Juvenile defense ^[4]

Much is at stake in a juvenile court action for delinquency, and successful outcomes are influenced by a family's ability to retain effective counsel early-on and retain them until a permanent resolution to all aspects of the legal matter is resolved.

• Defense structure 2017

  • Organization

    Localized

  • Oversight

    No oversight

• Waiver of counsel 2014

  Factors for consideration in juvenile justice statutes:

  • Age

  • Crime

  • Hearing

  • Placement

• Indigency requirements 2013

  Indigency determination: Judicially

• State details National comparison

Racial/ethnic fairness ^[1][2][5]

Youth of color are overrepresented in many aspects of the juvenile justice system, from arrest to court referral and confinement. Thus a core requirement of federal juvenile justice policy requires each state to identify where disparities may exist.

• Indicator data 2017

  Publishes assessment research only.

• DMC coordinators 2016

  Full-time state-level DMC coordinator

• Tribal delinquency jurisdiction 2016

  Shared with: State (mandatory)

• Monitoring data

  Loading…

  • N/A: Insufficient data to compute arrest rates
  • * Rates used to compute ratio based on fewer than 10 observations
  • † White detained rate is 0
• State details National comparison

Juvenile court

Each state has established a court with juvenile jurisdiction to address the law violating conduct of youth. Explore the structural and procedural differences.

• Judicial selection 2022

  • Elected

  • Appointed

  • Combination

• Judicial specialization 2022

  • All mixed case types

  • Mostly mixed

  • Mostly specialized

• Caseload assignment 2022

  • Mixed assignment methods

  • Individual discretion

  • Statute/State court rules

• Judicial experience, training, and tools 2022

  • Qualification Requirements

  • Required Annual Training

  • Required Risk/Need Assessments and Pre-Dispositional Reports

  • Juvenile Justice Bench Books

• Courtroom shackling 2015

  Courtroom shackling is restricted by the state court

• Competency 2015

  • No juvenile standard

  • Juvenile standard is the adult standard

  • Juvenile justice standard exists

  • JJ standard includes developmental immaturity

• State details National comparison

Juvenile justice services ^[6][7]

Every state has a set of laws establishing a system of juvenile courts and a corresponding intervention system commonly referred to as juvenile justice services. The different frameworks effectively create 51 distinctly different juvenile justice systems.

• Purpose clauses 2016

  • No clause

  • Parens patriae

  • Due process era

  • Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)

  • Developmental Approach

• Organization structure 2022

  • Overall

    Locally operated

  • Detention

    Locally operated

  • Probation

    Locally operated

  • Reentry

    Locally operated

• Corrections agency 2015

  • Independent juvenile corrections agency

  • Family/child welfare agency or division

  • Broad human services agency

  • Adult corrections agency or division

• Intake and diversion 2016

  Initial intake and court diversion decision is at the discretion of the prosecutor or the juvenile court intake officer, divided by offense and statutory time limits for pre- & post-petition court diversions exist.

• Solitary confinement 2016

  • Prohibits punitive confinement

  • Limits punitive confinement

  • No limits on punitive confinement

  • Did not respond

• Release decision 2016

  • Agency

  • Court

  • Parole board

  • Agency and court

• Risk assessment 2020

  • Statewide uniform assessment

  • Layered/regional assessment

  • Locally administered assessment

• Sex offense registry 2015

  Registers

• Risk instruments 2017

  • Statute or agency policy

  • Agency recommended

  No statewide tool in use

• Mental health screening 2014

  Required in the following services:

  • Secure detention

  • Probation

  • Corrections

• EBP support center 2014

  Does not have a support center or collaboratives dedicated to coordinating activities around implementing, evaluating, and sustaining EBPs.

• Recidivism indicators 2016

  • Study populations: Placement
  • Re-offense events: Placement
  • Follow-up periods: 36 months with interval and adult systems reporting
• State details National comparison

Status offense issues ^[3]

A wide range of non-criminal behaviors by youth are grouped as status offenses. Actions such as truancy, running away or acting stubborn can thrust an adolescent into formal juvenile court actions for services and safety but also where their liberty may be at-risk.

• Labeling 2015

  Spectrum of labels

  Victim Child welfare perspective

  Offender Public safety perspective

  • In need of aid, assistance, or care

  • In need of services

  • In need of supervision

  • Unruly

  • Status offender

• Age boundaries 2016

  • Status offense jurisdiction: Up through 17 years old. (lower age not specified)
  • Delinquency jurisdiction: Up through 17 years old. (lower age not specified)

• Reported data

  Loading…
• State details National comparison

Systems integration ^[9][10]

Youth involved in more than one system require special attention and coordination.  State and local policy-makers are increasingly sharing data concerning dual status youth and establishing a wide range of exciting coordination models.

• Agency integration 2016

  One or all are decentralized

• State coordination 2014

  • Data sharing

  • Committees or advisory groups

  • Formal interagency MOUs

  • Informal interagency agreements

  • Statute and/or court rules

• Reported data

  
  

  Loading…
• State details National comparison

Data sources

1. ^ ^{a b c d} Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics
   For offense category definitions, please see the glossary.
2. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Easy Access to Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement
   For offense category definitions, please see the glossary.
3. ^ ^{a b} Juvenile Justice In California (Annual Report)
   Kamala D. Harris, California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center
4. ^ Juvenile Justice in California
   California Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis
5. ^ California Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Assessment
   Board of State and Community Corrections
6. ^ 2010 Juvenile Justice Outcome Evaluation Report: Youth Released from the Division of Juvenile Justice in Fiscal Year 2004-2005
   California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research
7. ^ 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report
   California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research
8. ^ Annual Progress and Services Report
   California Department of Social Services, Children and Family Services Division
9. ^ Annual Progress and Services Report
   California Department of Social Services, Children and Family Services Division

State resources

Juvenile justice leadership

• California Board of State and Community Corrections, State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention is the state advisory group (SAG) charged with oversight of juvenile justice in the counties.
• Is the federally required, 3-year state juvenile justice federal formula grant plan available on the SAG website? No.
• California Judicial Branch (see Court Finder Directory to locate directories by county for Superior Court Judges and Court Services staff. Also see CPOC's County Probation Department Directory, and California’s County Directory to locate executive branch agencies that provide community and residential services for juveniles. County Court Services generally provide juvenile probation and placement coordination units that work with executive branch (usually human service) agencies to coordinate services for youth involved with the court).
• The Judicial Council of California is the Administrative Office of the Court.
• California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) maintains secure correctional facilities for higher level or transferred 'youthful offenders' and parole/ aftercare services.
• California Department of Social Services (CDSS), Children and Family Services Division (CFSD) provides administrative policy to counties and compliance oversight for many services that are provided by counties to youth involved with juvenile justice. For example, group home (residential) facilities must be licensed by its Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD).

Other stakeholders

• California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association (CPPCA)
• Chief Probation Officers of CA (CPOC)
• Criminal Justice Statistics Center, California Department of Justice is the statistical analysis center (SAC).

Policy (legal) research

• California Statutes contain juvenile-related sections in the Welfare and Institutions Code [Division 2 (Children) and 2.5 (Youths)].
• California Rules of Court, Title 5 (Family and Juvenile Rules) and Title 4 (Criminal Rules)
• California Regulations, Title 15, Division 4 (Division of Juvenile Justice)
• California Bar Association
• CDCR, DJJ Policy and Procedure, CDSS' Office of Regulations Development and link to other guidelines

Read more »