Juvenile Justice in California
Past, Present and Future
Jackie Phillips
Criminology, Post University
CRJ331 – Community Corrections
Unit 7 Assignment: Research Paper
Juvenile Justice has had many forms in California, from its past, present and future. There is a history of juveniles being given the Death Penalty going back to the 1800s. Then we jump to the 20th Century when camps and detention centers were commonly developed and scattered far and wide throughout the state to house the wide variety of juveniles that would come through the system. Finally, in the 21st Century, we are in the time when all the distant and hard to reach camps are being closed and the Juvenile Justice system is returning to the focus of the smaller counties, rather than to the massive state.
Here is a timeline of the past of Juvenile Justice in California going all the way back to 1850.
“Historical Timeline of Juvenile Justice in California
1850: California became a state. At this time, there were no correctional facilities for juveniles. Some consideration was given to the need for a reform school at that time, but none was authorized. Serious cases, about 300 boys under the age of 20, were sent to the state prisons at San Quentin (Marin County) and Folsom (Sacramento County) between 1850 and 1860. They included 12, 13, and 14-year-old boys.
1876: The training ship Jamestown was transferred from the U.S. Navy to the City of San Francisco to supplement the San Francisco Industrial School. The ship was to provide training in seamanship and navigation for boys of eligible age. After six months, an examination was given and successful trainees were eligible for employment as seamen on regular merchant ships.
1879: The training ship was returned to the Navy due to mismanagement and a hue and cry that the Jamestown was a training ship for criminals.
1903: The Legislature enacted law establishing juvenile courts.
1907: All youths under the age of 18 were transferred out of San Quentin by legislative decree.
1909: County juvenile halls were established.
1942: The Preston School of Industry, the Ventura School for Girls, and the Fred C. Nelles School for Boys were separated from the Division of Institutions and became part of the California Youth Authority (CYA). The first youth committed under the Youth Corrections Authority Act—YA No. 00001—arrived at the new Youth Authority Unit, a diagnostic facility. The youth was transferred from San Quentin Prison, where he had been sent at age 14 after being convicted for second-degree murder. A “lifer,” he had shot an uncle during a quarrel over ranch chores.
1980: The CYA became part of the newly formed Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.
The Legislature removed the state’s young offender paroling authority, the Youth Authority Board, from the CYA and renamed it the Youthful Offender Parole Board (YOPB). The director had also served as chairman of the board. Antonio C. Amador was selected to chair the “new” YOPB.
2010: In February, the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility in Chino—originally known as the Youth Training School and subsequently named for the agency’s longest serving director—was closed after 50 years as a juvenile facility and began transforming into an adult prison. DJJ continues to operate five facilities and two fire camps.
2018: Governor Brown signs Senate Bill 1391, which prevented all 14- and 15-year old’s who were charged with crimes from being transferred to criminal courts for trial–even for violent offenses. The bill cited the necessity of taking adolescent brain development into account, and made California the first state to ensure that children under the age of 16 are retained within the juvenile justice system.
2023: In January, the Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp transitioned from DJJ to the CDCR Division of Adult Institutions to train youth as wildland firefighters under contracts with counties. Pine Grove is the oldest continuously operating fire camp in California, in service since 1945.
On June 30, 2023, all juvenile operations ceased at N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility in Stockton and Ventura Youth Correctional Facility in Camarillo as all DJJ youth were realigned to the care of counties per SB 823.” (No author given, 2024)
Probation and/or Parole for California Juvenile Offenders:
California offers two types of Probation for juveniles, both supervised by parents or supervised by a Probation or Parole officer. I think it is a great idea to offer choices and options for juveniles since some juveniles have stable homes to return to, but, unfortunately, some juveniles do not have stable homes. This second group would need additional help and a place to stay to help them recover and move forward.
“Home on probation is a type of sentence given to minors who commit criminal offenses. The minor is allowed to live at home with his or her parents but ordered to follow certain terms and conditions. At a minimum, every juvenile placed at home on probation must attend school, have a curfew, and pay restitution. If the parents supervise the minor, it is called unsupervised home probation. If supervision is by the probation department it is called supervised home probation.
If a minor home on probation performs poorly, the judge could add additional terms and conditions. In some cases, the minor might even be removed from the home and placed in:
a foster home (suitable placement)
a probation facility or camp,
a level 14 group home
juvenile hall
a Division of Juvenile Justice Facility (DJJ).
If the minor successfully completes probation, the petition will be dismissed. All of the juvenile records are then sealed.” (No Author Given, 2024)
Risk Assessment Needs for Juveniles in California follow a wide range of needs. A Juvenile Risk Assessment (JRA) scores youths in eight areas to assess their risk factors for delinquency:
Juvenile justice history
Family and living arrangements
Peers and social support
Education/employment
Pro-social skill set
Substance abuse
Personality and mental health
Attitudes, values, and beliefs
Here is an example of a program from Washington State called Back on Track Assessment, which California uses as a standard for their similar programs.
“The Back on Track Assessment
The Back on Track (BOT) juvenile assessment instrument, also known as the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA), was developed by the Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, and Assessments.com. Validation studies have shown that risk classifications on both prescreen and full assessments are associated with recidivism rates. (No author given, 2011)
Death Penalty or Life in Prison for Juveniles in history
I applaud the Supreme Court of the State of California for recently upholding a state law passed in 2013 that allowed youths to be allowed parole after a certain amount of time as been served. However, they did uphold the law that prohibited parole for people convicted of Life Without Parole!
“In 2013, the Legislature passed a bill that required parole hearings for people convicted as juveniles by their 25th year of incarceration, but made an exception for those sentenced to life without parole. In 2017, the Legislature expanded that law to include everyone convicted of an offense committed when they were 25 or younger, but once again left in the exception for people in prison for life without parole.” (Duara, N., 2024)
I believe that Juvenile Offenders should be offered a wide variety of alternatives to only prison or confinement. It is known that the bodies of juveniles don’t develop until well into adulthood and I discuss that also here in this paper
“Juvenile Offenders – Alternatives to Confinement
There are many different types of alternative programs that are available to juveniles besides sending them to juvenile facilities. They include, but are not limited to, house arrest, which often includes a GPS monitoring device to be worn at all times. Also many communities will have foster homes if the juvenile is not able to be properly supervised at home in a safe environment. These programs can also include drug testing, professional behavioral therapy and regular visits with a community service officer.” (Kraut M., 2024)
Intermediate Sanctions for Juveniles
I do believe that juveniles should be treated differently with their sanctions and that their sanctions should not equal those of adult offenders. Rather than prison, rehabilitation should focus on education and job training, counseling and therapy and community service.
“Rehabilitation programs can help juveniles develop a sense of hope and a positive outlook for the future. Through rehabilitation programs, juveniles can gain the skills, education, and support they need to succeed, which can help them develop a sense of hope and a positive outlook for their future.” (Walsh K., 2023)
Restorative Community Conferencing is a great program to help the offender work directly with the community and victim to restore the harm and damage done by their illegal actions. This helps to support healing and accountability for all involved on all sides.
“Restorative Community Conferencing is an evidence-based restorative justice practice where we collaborate with the District Attorney in Alameda and San Francisco counties to divert youth facing criminal charges from traditional juvenile justice systems into a process where they will meet the needs of those who have been harmed by their actions. Youth who agree to participate and address the harm to the victim will be given a plan for making things right. When the youth has completed the plan, the DA will not file criminal charges. Restorative Community Conferences are confidential by agreement with the DA’s office.” (No author given, 2021)
Should juveniles be treated the same as adults in the justice system?
The more violent type of offenses would require more discipline and stricter punishment. There should be regulations that the conviction can be reviewed after a certain amount of time, and that parole should be considered and offered. No juvenile should be convicted of any crime to a life sentence without the possibility of parole. In addition, there needs to be rethinking about the age of range of various activities like driving, voting and purchasing alcohol, which decides on the age of responsibility for a person of various ages. These same responsibilities should fall along with the juvenile justice system.
“In our book, Rethinking Juvenile Justice, Elizabeth Scott and I have argued that this is how the nation should structure the justice system, treating adolescent offenders as an intermediate category, neither as children, whose crimes society excuses, nor as adults, whom society holds fully responsible for their acts. While there are some areas of the law where a three-way sys- tem would be difficult to imagine, such as voting, it has been suggested that society should apply this model to other areas of the law. For example, we could permit individuals between 18 and 20 to purchase beer and wine, but not hard liquor, and implement especially stiff punishment for adolescents who become intoxicated or engage in wrongdoing under the influence of alcohol.” (Steinberg, L., 2014,)
Housing of male and female juveniles
There must be care taken when housing female and male juveniles together in addition to where male and female juveniles are under the care of both male and female staff.
When male and female juveniles are housed in the same facility under the care of both male and female supervisors, there must be standards to ensure that no improper behavior occurs between staff and offenders.
“About the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
Congress enacted the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) to address the problem of sexual abuse of persons in the custody of U.S. correctional agencies. PREA calls for Federal, State, and local corrections systems to have a zero-tolerance policy regarding prison rape (as defined by PREA) in prisons, jails, police lock-ups, and other confinement facilities.
Highlights of PREA include:
Requires development of standards for detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape.
Standardizes collection and dissemination of information on the incidence of prison rape.
Awards grants to help State and local governments implement the Act's provisions.” (No author given, 2014)
Alameda County, the county where I live here in California, has committed to providing safe and secure facilities to ensure that both males and females and their supervisors follow the federal guidelines set in the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.
“The Alameda County Probation Department (ACPD) is committed to creating and maintaining a safe and humane environment for the youth housed at the Facilities. To create and sustain such an environment, the ACPD maintains a zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual misconduct involving youth.” (No author given, 2014)
Prisons must also provide full services for females who are pregnant and/or deliver their babies while in prison. Obviously, that is not necessary for a juvenile male only facility. Some of these services include the possibility of pregnancy termination, counseling, and adoption options. If the child is to remain in the facility with the mother, even for a short time, care must be for private rooms for breast feeding.
“Qualified medical professionals develop a plan for pregnant youth that includes direct communication of medical information and transfer of medical records regarding prenatal care to the obstetrician who will be providing prenatal care and delivery in the community.” (No author given, 2019)
Juvenile Justice in the 21st Century
Juvenile Corrections in California is going through a huge change since 2023, and the future looks much better and more positive for juveniles and future adults.
“On June 30, CDCR announced the last youths in the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) were transferred to counties, completing juvenile justice realignment as required under Senate Bill 823.” (No Author Given, 2023)
“It also failed at its basic goal — rehabilitation. While DJJ promised education and treatment, its programs could never negate the harm of institutionalization. Recidivism rates among youth released from DJJ were staggeringly high, and many young people returned to their communities without plans for school, jobs, or a safe place to live. Youth left DJJ worse than when they arrived, many saddled with lifelong trauma. Some never returned at all.” (No Author Given, 2024)
Conclusion
As a lifelong resident of California, I am very proud that my state has remained so progressive in how Juvenile Justice cases have been handled and how the state has evolved away from the Death Penalty and turned towards more progressive and rehabilitative options for Juvenile offenders. As with other subjects, California continues to be the leader in innovation and making sure that their humans and animals are treated humanely and with respect. Great job, California!
References
Duara, N., 2024, Cal Matters, No parole for youth with life sentences, California Supreme Court rules, https://calmatters.org/justice/2024/03/youth-offender-parole/
Kraut M., 2024, Child Crime Prevention and Safety Center, Juvenile Offenders – Alternatives to Confinement, https://childsafety.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/juvenile-offenders-alternatives-to-confinement.html
No Author Given, 2024, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Juvenile Corrections in California, https://www.cjcj.org/history-education/juvenile-corrections-reform-in-california
No Author Given, 2023, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, DJJ ceases operations, transfers last youths to counties, https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/insidecdcr/2023/07/05/djj-ceases-operations-transfers-last-youths-to-counties/
No Author Given, 2024, Shouse California Law Group, “Home on Probation” As a Sentence for Juvenile Delinquents, https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/juvenile/disposition/home-on-probation/#:~:text=The%20minor%20is%20allowed%20to,a%20curfew%2C%20and%20pay%20restitution
No author given, 2024, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Historical Timeline, https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/juvenile-justice/historical-timeline/
No author given, 2011, Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Risk and Needs Screenings and Assessments, https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/AOCBrief_RiskAndNeedsAssessement_rev011012.pdf
No author given, 2024, San Francisco District Attorney, A New Approach to Juvenile Delinquency in San Francisco, https://sfdistrictattorney.org/policy/restorative-justice/make-it-right/
No author given, 2014, National Institute of Justice, Prison Rape Elimination Act, https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/prison-rape-elimination-act#:~:text=About%20the%20Prison%20Rape%20Elimination%20Act%20of%202003&text=Requires%20development%20of%20standards%20for,governments%20implement%20the%20Act's%20provisions.
No author given, 2014, Alameda County Probation Department, Juvenile Facilities, https://probation.acgov.org/juvenile-services/juvenile-facilities.page
No author given, 2019, Board of State and Community Corrections, Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, Page 50, https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Juvenile-Title-15-Effective-2019-1-1.pdf
No author given, 2021, Findhelp, Restorative Community Conferencing, https://www.findhelp.org/community-works--oakland-ca--restorative-community-conferencing/5930423527407616?postal=94103
Steinberg, L., 2014, CLBB NeuroLaw Library, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy, https://clbbneurolawlibrary.com/resource/article/should-the-science-of-adolescent-brain-development-inform-public-policy
Walsh K., 2023, Law Offices of Katie Walsh, The Benefits of Rehabilitation Programs for Juvenile Offenders in Orange County, https://www.katiewalshlaw.com/blog/the-benefits-of-rehabilitation-programs-for-juvenile-offenders-in-orange-county/
