Ventura County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

Utilization of the Ventura County Juvenile Justice Facilities

Published: May 11, 2010 27 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 79 findings

F01
Groundbreaking for the JJF was held in 2001. At the time of construction, it was anticipated that the JJF would be filled to near capacity by 2010 based on demographic trends and juvenile crime projections. [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F02
The JJF has a total CSA rated capacity of 420 youths in detention and commitment housing. Total CSA rated capacity is the number of juveniles that can be housed in a facility according to the CSA of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
No recommendations for this finding
F03
Detention housing has a CSA rated capacity of 240 youths. Detention housing is intended for juveniles requiring custody pending court action and also provides temporary custody for those in need of short term placement or awaiting transfer. Detention housing units are configured as follows: • Matilija, Sycamore, and Wheeler are general population housing, each with two 30-bed living units, which have their own dayrooms, classrooms, staff stations, interview rooms, and outdoor exercise areas • Balcom is special population housing with three 20-bed living units each with its own dayroom, classroom, staff station, and interview rooms and sharing two outdoor exercise areas ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 3 Balcom is designed for juveniles with mental health issues, those who present high security risks, or those who are new to the JJF. [Ref-03]
No recommendations for this finding
F04
Based on current staffing levels, the capacity of detention housing is approximately 140 youths.
No recommendations for this finding
F05
In JJF detention housing, two 15-bed units in Matilija, four 15-bed units in Sycamore, two 15-bed units in Wheeler, and one 20-bed unit in Balcom are in use.
No recommendations for this finding
F06
Commitment housing has a CSA rated capacity of 180 youths and holds juveniles serving court imposed commitments of up to one year. Each of the three commitment housing units, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa has four 15-bed living units which include three 4-person dorms and three single rooms, each unit with its own dayroom and outdoor exercise area and sharing four classrooms, two program rooms, and a dining and activity area. [Ref-03]
No recommendations for this finding
F07
Based on current staffing levels, the capacity of commitment housing is approximately 90 youths.
No recommendations for this finding
F08
In JJF commitment housing, three 15-bed living units in Anacapa and two 15-bed living units in Santa Cruz are in use. In Santa Rosa, two classrooms are in use and the living units are empty.
No recommendations for this finding
F09
The average total daily Census of the JJF over the past 12 months was 188 juveniles, 45% of CSA rated capacity. Average daily Census for detention was 94 juveniles. Average daily census for commitment was 94 juveniles. Average daily census is the average number of juveniles housed each day for a specified period of time.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The JJF no longer houses juveniles separately based on gang affiliation. This practice had reduced the number of youth that could be housed because space was intentionally kept empty in order to separate specific juveniles.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The County has mutual aid agreements with Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County to house juveniles from each other’s jurisdictions in cases of emergency.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
In addition to housing, the JJF includes an intake/booking area, recreation areas, gymnasium, classrooms, visiting center, medical and staff offices, kitchen and dining areas, and a laundry. [Ref-03]
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The JJF was designed for and houses Providence School, an accredited kindergarten through 12th grade school administered by the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools. Each youth at the JJF is required to attend an average of 270 minutes (4.5 hours) of school a day.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Psychiatric, crisis intervention, and group, individual, and family therapy services are provided by the County’s Behavioral Health Department under the Health Care Agency. Probation Agency staff and community based organizations also provide therapy services. Routine outpatient medical services are provided by a private contractor. [Ref-03] __________________________________________________________________________ 4 Juvenile Justice Facilities
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The JJF runs a Leaders’ Program for juveniles 16 to 18 years of age which stresses vocation, education, and socialization. A majority of the participants in the Leaders’ Program subsequently pass the General Educational Development Tests (GED), earn a high school diploma, or pass the California High School Exit Examination.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The JJF offers programs on tolerance, parenting, gender specific issues, anger management, and substance abuse, none of which are court mandated programs.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Classes offered at the JJF include chess, music, and dance.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
Juveniles housed in Commitment are given the opportunity to volunteer for non-profit organizations in the community.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
Since 2002, the Probation Agency has participated in JDAI, a juvenile justice system reform initiative aimed at reducing the unnecessary confinement of youth. Launched in 1992, JDAI focuses on the juvenile detention component of the juvenile justice system and is an initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF), a private charitable organization. JDAI holds that youth are often inappropriately placed in detention at a high cost to the public, with negative consequences for public safety and youth well-being. [Ref-04]
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The Probation Agency approached the AECF to participate in JDAI because prior juvenile facilities were in the midst of an overpopulation crisis. In 2001, ACEF representatives first consulted with Probation Agency officials about JDAI. [Ref-05]
No recommendations for this finding
F21
The AECF initially provided the Probation Agency with a grant of $126,588 to implement JDAI and now gives the Probation Agency $25,000 annually. [Ref-05]
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Groundbreaking for the JJF was held in 2001, prior to the Probation Agency’s adoption of JDAI in 2002.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The goals of JDAI are to: • decrease the number of youth unnecessarily or inappropriately detained • reduce the number of youth who fail to appear in court or re- offend prior to adjudication • redirect public funds toward effective juvenile justice practices and public safety policies • reduce disproportionate minority confinement • improve the juvenile justice system [Ref-06]
No recommendations for this finding
F24
A County JDAI Committee meets monthly to analyze policies and services, identify policies that can be improved, identify gaps in service that should be filled, and create improved policies and services. The ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 5 Committee is co-chaired by the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court and the Chief Probation Officer of the County. Membership includes representatives from: • Ventura County Superior Court • Probation Agency • City of Oxnard Police Department • City of Ventura Police Department • Ventura County Sheriff’s Department • Ventura County District Attorney’s Office • Ventura County Public Defender • Ventura County Behavioral Health Department • Ventura County Health Care Agency • Community Action Partnership • Ventura County Office of Education • Interface Children and Family Services • other community-based groups, community activists, and faith- based organizations [Ref-07]
No recommendations for this finding
F25
According to a Justice Policy Institute (JPI) report, studies have shown that detention has a profoundly negative impact on juveniles’ mental and physical well-being, their education, and their potential for future employment. The JPI is a public policy organization dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration. [Ref-08]
No recommendations for this finding
F26
JDAI has been implemented in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Ventura counties, in over 100 jurisdictions in 25 states, and in the District of Columbia. [Ref-09]
No recommendations for this finding
F27
Other initiatives of the AECF aimed at child welfare reform, assisting youth leaving foster care, collecting data and advocating for the well- being of youth on a state and local level, and helping families and children in higher crime neighborhoods are active in Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, and Riverside counties. JDAI is the only AECF initiative operating in the County. [Ref-10]
No recommendations for this finding
F28
Santa Cruz County is a JDAI model site. According to the AECF, the results of JDAI implementation in Santa Cruz County are as follows: • the average daily juvenile detention population was reduced by 65% between 1997 and 2005 • juvenile felony arrests decreased 47% from 30 youths per 1,000 in 1997 to 16 youths per 1,000 in 2004 __________________________________________________________________________ 6 Juvenile Justice Facilities • the average minority population in juvenile hall was reduced from 64% to 47% • more than $7 million in detention expenses have been redeployed to community alternatives since 1998 [Ref-11]
No recommendations for this finding
F29
According to the JPI report, many counties across the United States implementing JDAI state that they have reduced the number of youth confined and that juvenile crime rates have fallen as much as, or more than, national rates. The report states that these communities experienced an increase in the number of young people who return to court for sentencing after they had been released from detention, further reducing the need for detention. [Ref-08]
No recommendations for this finding
F30
A 2009 study of JDAI in Washington, a JDAI model state, conducted by the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee concluded that participation in JDAI yielded substantial savings in detention costs, with no increase in recidivism or juvenile offenses. Data collected indicates a decrease in average daily population, average length of stay in juvenile detention, detention admissions, and juvenile arrest rates. [Ref-12]
No recommendations for this finding
F31
In 2009, the AECF produced a report reviewing 17 years of JDAI results from its inception in 1992 to 2009. The report concluded that participating jurisdictions have significantly reduced their reliance on secure detention for youth awaiting trial or pending placement. The report also stated that JDAI has generated considerable savings for taxpayers by enabling participating jurisdictions to avoid costs for the construction and operation of secure detention facilities. According to the report, JDAI sites do not have consistent measures of public safety outcomes. However, those sites that do measure indicators of public safety showed outcomes improving during the period of JDAI participation. [Ref-13]
No recommendations for this finding
F32
According to the Probation Agency, the incremental annual staffing costs to open an additional 30-bed detention housing unit at the JJF would be $951,527. The incremental annual staffing costs to open an additional 15-bed commitment unit at the JJF would be $400,360.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
In the “Ventura County Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan” dated April 2008, the County calculated the daily cost of JJF detention per youth at $389.42 and the daily cost of JJF commitment per youth at $280.64. In comparison, intervention and prevention programs aimed at gang violence and repeat offenders cost between $10.39 and $29.56, respectively, per youth per day. The Grand Jury could not find evidence that the County has undertaken a full cost- benefit analysis of its juvenile justice programs. Models for such analyses exist and cost-benefit analyses of juvenile justice programs have been conducted in other jurisdictions. [Ref-14, Ref-15] ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 7
Related Recommendations (2)
R04
The Probation Agency should perform a cost-benefit analysis of all juvenile justice programs in the County. (C-13 and C-14)
R05
The Probation Agency should use data gained from program evaluation and cost-benefit analysis to guide decisions regarding the utilization of the JJF. (C-2, C-3, C-6, C-13, C-14)
F34
The Probation Agency collects and submits data on specific JDAI performance measures to the AECF as part of its ongoing grant. The Probation Agency measures average daily population, average length of stay, failure to appear, pre-adjudication re-arrest rates, and the number and percent of minority youth in secure detention. For the reporting period, January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, failure to appear was 3% and the pre-adjudication re-arrest rate was 10.3%. [Ref-16]
No recommendations for this finding
F35
One of the core strategies of JDAI is the development of objective admissions criteria and an RAI for use by juvenile facilities.
No recommendations for this finding
F36
The JJF Intake Department (Intake) uses the RAI to determine the need for secure, locked confinement by evaluating which youth pose a public safety risk to the community. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F37
The RAI is a written checklist of criteria applied to each juvenile for release versus detention-related risks. The overall risk score, a point value, is used as a guide by Intake to decide whether a juvenile is eligible for secure detention, for Community Confinement Program, or for release on a Promise to Appear in court. Intake can override the results of the RAI if deemed appropriate. [Ref-17]
No recommendations for this finding
F38
Juveniles who are eligible for the Community Confinement Program are allowed to remain at home under strict conditions and close supervision with or without electronic monitoring. [Ref-03]
No recommendations for this finding
F39
The Probation Agency states that the number of juveniles in the JJF has been reduced through the use of the RAI.
No recommendations for this finding
F40
The Director/Chief Probation Officer believes that community alternatives to detention reduce crime and recidivism more effectively than detention, as suggested by the JDAI concept.
No recommendations for this finding
F41
The juvenile crime rate in the County as measured by juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 juveniles aged 10 to 17 has fallen from 1998, when plans for the JJF were completed, to 2007, the latest year for which complete information is available. In 1998, the juvenile crime rate in the County was 14.6 juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 juveniles. In 2007, the juvenile crime rate was 11.4 juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 juveniles. Statewide during the same time period, the juvenile crime rate fell from 20.2 to 14.2 juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 juveniles. [Ref-18]
No recommendations for this finding
F42
Recidivism is a commonly used measure of the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. It is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a tendency to relapse into previous criminal behavior.” The Grand Jury could find no evidence that either the County or the State uses a standard definition or measure of recidivism. [Ref-19]
No recommendations for this finding
F43
The three most common measures of recidivism are: • re-arrest, being charged with a new offense __________________________________________________________________________ 8 Juvenile Justice Facilities • reconviction, being found guilty of a new offense in a court of law • re-incarceration, being sentenced to a secure facility after being found guilty of a new offense [Ref-20]
No recommendations for this finding
F44
The Director/Chief Probation Officer stated that the most useful definition of recidivism is the commission of a new offense, or re-arrest.
No recommendations for this finding
F45
Instead of measuring negative outcomes, some jurisdictions focus on positive results, gathering information on their success rates in meeting specific juvenile justice goals. [Ref-21]
No recommendations for this finding
F46
Outcomes are measured only for specific programs at the JJF including the Boys and Girls Club Targeted Re-Entry, Girls Inc., Health Returns Initiative, and Recovery Classroom.
No recommendations for this finding
F47
Studies of juvenile recidivism rates have been conducted in many jurisdictions, including Washington, Oregon, and Virginia, allowing these states to evaluate the effectiveness of programs intended to reduce recidivism. [Ref-22 through Ref-24]
No recommendations for this finding
F48
The Probation Agency has not established a definition of recidivism and does not measure it for the JJF as a whole. The Probation Agency receives State, federal, and private grants which require the measurement of recidivism for funded programs, but each grant organization uses a different definition of recidivism.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01
The Probation Agency should establish a definition for recidivism and measure juvenile recidivism yearly within the County. (C-05, C-06, C-14)
R03
The Probation Agency should monitor success rates for all juvenile justice programs in the County on a yearly basis. (C-06, C-14)
R05
The Probation Agency should use data gained from program evaluation and cost-benefit analysis to guide decisions regarding the utilization of the JJF. (C-2, C-3, C-6, C-13, C-14)
F49
In 2000, the California Legislature passed the JJCPA, which was designed to provide a stable funding source for community-based programs that have proven effective in reducing crime and delinquency among at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. [Ref-25]
No recommendations for this finding
F50
In 2009, the JJCPA provided over $2 million to the County to support: • aftercare and day reporting centers • enhanced institutional services • expansion of the Early Intervention Program • Gang Violence Prevention Program • HOPE (Habitual Offender Prevention Endeavor) aimed at repeat offender prevention • Juvenile Drug Court • THRIVE (Truancy Habits Reduced Increased Vital Education) aimed at truancy reduction These early intervention and prevention programs are not part of JDAI. [Ref-26] ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 9
No recommendations for this finding
F51
The table below shows the total CSA rated capacity (detention and commitment) and Census for juvenile facilities in other Southern California counties. Capacity and Census of Juvenile Facilities by County NAME OF COUNTY TOTAL CSA RATED AVERAGE DAILY PERCENT OF CAPACITY OF CENSUS LAST 12 CAPACITY FACILITIES MONTHS OF DATA Imperial 72 31 43% Kern 475 440 93% Orange 955* 805* 84% Riverside 368 241 66% San Bernardino 650 359 55% San Diego 1,103 875 79% San Luis Obispo 45 40 89% Santa Barbara 236 190 81% Ventura 420 188 45% *Orange County permanently closed a facility with a rated capacity of 156 juveniles in July 2009. The total capacity includes this facility. The average daily census includes data for this facility from November 2008 to June 2009.
No recommendations for this finding
F52
The Orange County Probation Department attributes the significant reduction in the population of incarcerated minors in Orange County to their adoption of JDAI principles, although they are not a JDAI site.
No recommendations for this finding
F53
The Probation Agency uses unoccupied housing and classroom space within the JJF to add two on-site programs: the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme (BGC) and a Regional Occupational Program (ROP).
No recommendations for this finding
F54
The BGC approached the JJF with funding from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and the State to locate a club within the facility. In Anacapa, the BGC occupies two 15-bed commitment housing units, one classroom, and one office. The Probation Agency provides this space rent free as a grant-in-kind. This BGC opened in 2007 in the JJF and serves only youth from within the facility.
No recommendations for this finding
F55
The BGC operates the Targeted Re-entry Program, a partnership among the BGC, the Probation Agency, the Coalition to End Family Violence, and the Palmer Drug Abuse Program, which provides services to juveniles at the JJF based on each youth’s needs, interests, and strengths. [Ref-27] __________________________________________________________________________ 10 Juvenile Justice Facilities
No recommendations for this finding
F56
The BGC counsels youth after their release, assisting them with finding employment, completing school, and receiving health and counseling services.
No recommendations for this finding
F57
The Probation Agency offers ROP in previously unused space within the JJF. ROP occupies three commitment classrooms in Anacapa originally intended for use by the Providence School, but unused because of the lower than expected Census. ROP is a public education service offered through the Ventura County Office of Education.
No recommendations for this finding
F58
The goal of ROP is to provide hands-on career preparation by offering classes in silk screening, computer repair, and landscaping services, and by stressing work ethic and employment-seeking skills. [Ref-28]
No recommendations for this finding
F59
Upon satisfactory completion of an ROP class, students earn a Certificate of Proficiency which can be shown to potential employers.
No recommendations for this finding
F60
Police departments within the County and the Sheriff’s Department have extensive written policies and procedures regarding the detention, arrest, and disposition of juvenile offenders as required by State law.
No recommendations for this finding
F61
The majority of Officers interviewed by the Grand Jury contact Intake to receive prior approval before transporting juveniles to the JJF. The Grand Jury was unable to find any instance where doing so is a specific written policy.
No recommendations for this finding
F62
Officers from several jurisdictions said that they found it difficult to get juveniles admitted to the JJF and, therefore, assumed that the JJF was, in their word, “full.”
No recommendations for this finding
F63
Officers said that they believe all felony and violent misdemeanor offenses should qualify for booking into the JJF.
No recommendations for this finding
F64
Felony and violent misdemeanor crimes do not automatically meet the RAI criteria for booking into the JJF. (Att-01)
Related Recommendations (1)
R07
The Probation Agency should modify the RAI so that any felony or violent misdemeanor offense is sufficient basis for housing a juvenile at the JJF. (C-10)
F65
Officers expressed concern that some chronic repeat offenders did not meet the RAI criteria for acceptance into the JJF and expressed belief that such offenders should be accepted. (Att-01)
Related Recommendations (1)
R08
The Probation Agency should modify the RAI to assign higher point values for multiple repeat offenses. (C-11)
F66
The majority of Officers interviewed were unfamiliar with the use of the RAI and with JDAI policies.
Related Recommendations (4)
R02
The Probation Agency should conduct a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of JDAI in the County which should include input from police departments and the Sheriff’s Department. (C-05 through C-12, C-14, C-21 through 23) ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 15
R06
The Probation Agency should modify the RAI to include the recommendations of police officers and Sheriff’s deputies in the decision of whether a juvenile is to be housed at the JJF. (C-22)
R09
The Probation Agency should make certain that all police departments and the Sheriff’s Department receive information on the criteria for accepting juveniles into the JJF, on the use of the RAI, and on JDAI. (C-21 through C-23)
R10
Police chiefs and the Sheriff should provide 0fficers with Probation Agency information regarding the criteria for accepting juveniles into the JJF, the use of the RAI, and JDAI. (C-21 through C-23)
F67
Officers indicated interest in having the RAI available for their use in preliminary screening in order to understand subsequent actions taken by Intake.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02
The Probation Agency should conduct a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of JDAI in the County which should include input from police departments and the Sheriff’s Department. (C-05 through C-12, C-14, C-21 through 23) ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 15
F68
The Probation Agency states that it has made police departments and the Sheriff’s Department aware of the RAI and of JDAI by contacting police chiefs and by attending some shift briefings on an ongoing basis.
No recommendations for this finding
F69
The Director/Chief Probation Officer stated that Officers’ recommendations regarding juveniles are considered by Intake. ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 11
No recommendations for this finding
F70
Officers interviewed stated that either their recommendations are not taken into consideration by Intake or that they stopped making recommendations because they were not followed by the JJF.
Related Recommendations (2)
R02
The Probation Agency should conduct a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of JDAI in the County which should include input from police departments and the Sheriff’s Department. (C-05 through C-12, C-14, C-21 through 23) ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 15
R06
The Probation Agency should modify the RAI to include the recommendations of police officers and Sheriff’s deputies in the decision of whether a juvenile is to be housed at the JJF. (C-22)
F71
The Officers said that Intake personnel are professional in their dealings with juveniles and with law enforcement.
No recommendations for this finding
F72
All Officers interviewed said that they are usually at the JJF for 15 to 20 minutes when bringing a juvenile to Intake.
No recommendations for this finding
F73
Some Officers interviewed stated that they were not informed when juveniles with probation histories moved into their jurisdiction from other jurisdictions in the County. In their opinion, this lack of notification results in crimes that might otherwise have been prevented through intervention or surveillance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
The Probation Agency should develop a formal procedure to inform police departments and the Sheriff’s Department when juveniles with probation histories move into their jurisdiction from elsewhere in the County. (C-24)
F74
The Probation Agency confirmed that no formal process exists to notify officers when juveniles with probation histories move into their jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
The Probation Agency should develop a formal procedure to inform police departments and the Sheriff’s Department when juveniles with probation histories move into their jurisdiction from elsewhere in the County. (C-24)
F75
Intake is staffed from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. During regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., telephones are answered by the reception staff at the JJF. After regular business hours, the reception telephone line rolls calls over to Central Control. Central Control is staffed 24 hours per day, seven days a week. If Central Control staff cannot answer a question, the call is transferred to the on-duty Watch Commander. Watch Commander coverage is provided by either a Supervising Deputy Probation Officer or a Senior Deputy Probation Officer 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Watch Commanders are able to answer most questions, but, if necessary, the on-call Division Manager is contacted. All of these personnel are JJF staff. According to the JJF Chief Deputy Probation Officer, the after-hours determination of whether a juvenile meets booking criteria is often made by the Watch Commander who has the discretion to override the RAI.
No recommendations for this finding
F76
Some Officers reported that after regular business hours they were unable to speak directly to a member of the Intake staff regarding juveniles but, instead, spoke with whomever was on call for the Probation Agency. They stated that they sometimes had difficulty getting answers to questions regarding juveniles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
The Probation Agency should ensure that members of law enforcement who deal directly with juveniles in the community have easy, direct after-hours access to JJF personnel able to answer their questions. (C-25) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-09, R-11 and R-12) City Council, City of Oxnard (R-10) City Council, City of Port Hueneme (R-10) City Council, City of Santa Paula (R-10) City Council, City of Simi Valley (R-10) City Council, City of Ventura (R-10) Sheriff, County of Ventura (R-10) __________________________________________________________________________ 16 Juvenile Justice Facilities References Ref-01. 1997-98 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Juvenile Justice System of Ventura County. Report. County of Ventura, 1997-98. Web. Aug. 2009. . Ref-02. Farbstein, Jay & Associates, Inc., Mark Morris Associates, and Patrick Sullivan Associates. Ventura County Juvenile Justice Center: Master Plan Program Requirements Draft: December 11, 1998. 1998. Print. Ref-03. “Juvenile Facility.” County of Ventura. Ventura County Probation Agency, 2009. Web. Jul. 2009. . Ref-04. "Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative." The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2009. Web. Aug. 2009. . Ref-05. Director/Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County Probation Agency. "Approval to Receive Grant Funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation to Implement a Local Juvenile Detention Initiative.” Letter to Ventura County Board of Supervisors. Oct. 2002. Ref-06. “About JDAI, JDAI Objectives and Core Strategies.” JDAI Help Desk. Pretrial Justice Institute. Web. Jan. 2010. Ref-07. Ventura County - Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative. VC-JDAI 09- 2008. Ventura: Ventura County Probation Agency, 2008. Print. Ref-08. Holman, Barry, and Jason Ziedenberg. “The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Facilities.” Justice Policy Institute. Justice Policy Institute, 2006. Web. Jan. 2010. . Ref-09. “JDAI Replication Sites.” JDAI Help Desk. Pretrial Justice Institute. Web. Dec. 2009. Ref-10. “Casey Places.” The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010. Web. Jan. 2010. . Ref-11. “Results from the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative.” The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010. Web. 26 ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 17 Jan. 2010. . Ref-12. “The Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee Policy Brief: The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, A Successful Start in Washington.” Department of Social and Health Services. State of Washington, Mar. 2009. Web. Sept. 2009. . Ref-13. Mendel, Richard A. “Two Decades of JDAI From Demonstration Project to National Standard A Progress Report.” JDAI National. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2009. Web. Oct. 2009. . Ref-14. County of Ventura and the Ventura County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Ventura County Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. Ventura: County of Ventura, 2008. Print. Ref-15. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Juvenile Justice Programs. Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, United States Department of Justice, 2002. Web. Jan. 2010. . Ref-16. Final/Annual Progress Report to The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Report. Ventura County Board of Supervisors, 2009. Print. Ref-17. Steinhart, David. Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2006. Web. Sept. 2009. <http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Docs/Documents/Objective%20Admissi ons%20Criteria%20and%20Instruments/Juvenile%20Detention%20Ri sk%20Assessment/Practice%20Guide%20to%20Juvenile%20Detentio n%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf> Ref-18. Juvenile Felony Arrests by Gender, Offense and Arrest Rate, Ventura County and Statewide. Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. Web. Jan. 2010. . Ref-19. “Recidivism: Definition from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.” Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2010. Web. Jan. 2010. Ref-20. Data Spotlight Recidivism. MTC Institute, 2003. Web. Oct. 2009. Ref-21. Snyder, Howard N. and Melissa Sickmund. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2006. Web. Oct. 2009. . __________________________________________________________________________ 18 Juvenile Justice Facilities Ref-22. Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders Fiscal Year 2005. Sentencing Guidelines Commission, State of Washington, 2005. Web. Oct. 2009. . Ref-23. Juvenile Recidivism, Oregon's Statewide Report on Juvenile Recidivism 1998 through 2002. Oregon Youth Authority, State of Oregon, 2004. Web. Oct. 2009. . Ref-24. “Juvenile and Adult Recidivism.” Measuring Recidivism in Virginia - Virginia Performs. Council on Virginia's Future, 2009. Web. Oct. 2009. . Ref-25. Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2009. Web. Nov. 2009. Ref-26. The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, Program Descriptions and Allocated Funds. State of California. Web. Nov. 2009. . Ref-27. “Targeted Re-Entry.” Positive Place 4 Kids. Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme, 2009. Web. Nov. 2009. . Ref-28. Wheeler Career Technology Classes. Ventura County Probation Agency, Juvenile Facilities. Print. Ref-29. California Welfare and Institutions Codes § 601-608. Attachments Att-01. Ventura County Probation Agency, Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument Glossary (AECF) The Annie E. Casey Foundation (BGC) Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme (Census) Average Daily Census (County) Ventura County ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 19 (CSA) Corrections Standards Authority of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CTC) Clifton Tatum Center (GED) General Educational Development Tests (Grand Jury) 2009 – 2010 Ventura County Grand Jury (Intake) Ventura County Juvenile Justice Facilities Intake Department (JDAI) Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JJCPA) Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJF) Ventura County Juvenile Justice Facilities (JPI) Justice Policy Institute (Officers) Police officers, school resource officers, and Sheriff’s deputies (Probation Agency) Ventura County Probation Agency (RAI) Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument (ROP) Regional Occupational Program (Sheriff’s Department) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (State) State of California __________________________________________________________________________ 20 Juvenile Justice Facilities (This page intentionally blank) ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 21 Attachment-01 Ventura County Probation Agency Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument __________________________________________________________________________ 22 Juvenile Justice Facilities (This page intentionally blank) ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 23 __________________________________________________________________________ 24 Juvenile Justice Facilities ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 25
F77
Some Officers thought that persons 18 years of age and older should automatically be transferred from juvenile to adult probation.
No recommendations for this finding
F78
The Director/Chief Probation Officer believes that only youth who have committed very serious offenses or who owe restitution should remain on juvenile probation after the age of 18, but noted that the Court makes this determination. An individual can be on both juvenile and adult probation at the same time. __________________________________________________________________________ 12 Juvenile Justice Facilities
No recommendations for this finding
F79
California Welfare and Institution Code § 601 through 608 delineate who is under juvenile court jurisdiction. In California, the extended age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 21. If a juvenile is committed to the California Department of Juvenile Justice or to a mental health facility for certain offenses, jurisdiction may be extended until the offender's 25th birthday. [Ref-29] Conclusions C-01. The Probation Agency provides a wide range of services to juveniles housed at the JJF. (F-3, F-6, F-12 through F-18, F-55, F-56, F-58, F-59) C-02. Capacity planning for the JJF was done using the information available at the time (1998), but did not take into account the potential future impact of the implementation of JDAI since the design and construction of the JJF began prior to the Probation Agency’s adoption of JDAI. (F-1 through F-3, F-6, F-20, F-22) C-03. The housing components of both the detention and commitment units of the JJF are underutilized based on a comparison of the Census and CSA rated capacity, but the JJF is operating at near capacity based on present staffing levels. (F-2 through F-9, F-51) C-04. Many factors may have contributed to a lower than expected Census at the JJF including the Probation Agency’s participation in JDAI, use of the RAI, reduced juvenile crime rates, early intervention and crime prevention programs, and programs supported by the JJCPA. (F-10, F-19, F-20, F-23, F-28 through F-31, F-36 through F-39, F-41, F- 49, F-50, F-52) C-05. In order to be considered effective, JDAI results should show lower numbers of youth in confinement, increased public safety as demonstrated by lower juvenile crime rates, lower recidivism rates, an increase in the number of youth who appear in court, and decreased costs. (F-19, F-23, F-28 through F-31, F-34 through F-40) C-06. Measuring recidivism rates and program success rates can provide useful information to indicate the success or failure of juvenile justice programs. (F-42 through F-48) C-07. Studies of JDAI in other jurisdictions appear to indicate that the implementation of JDAI has led to decreased numbers of youth incarcerations and lowered costs without increasing the risk to public safety as measured by juvenile crime rates. However, juvenile crime rates have fallen throughout the State, not just at JDAI sites. (F-28 through F-31) C-08. While literature on the dangers of detention for youth supports the basic principles behind JDAI, some of the studies of JDAI effectiveness appear ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 13 to have been produced or funded by the AECF, the originator of JDAI. (F-28, F-31) C-09. It is unclear whether the Probation Agency makes use of JDAI performance measures which it collects for submission to the AECF. (F-24, F-34) C-10. The RAI does not necessarily advise the detention of juveniles alleged to have committed felony or violent misdemeanor offenses, contrary to the recommendations of officers interviewed. (F-63, F-64) C-11. The RAI does not necessarily advise the detention of chronic repeat juvenile offenders. (F-65) C-12. The issue of the utilization of the JJF is, at its core, one of public safety. The RAI has lowered the Census at the JJF, resulting in lower than anticipated staffing levels and costs. Whether the right juveniles are being diverted to detention alternatives, and whether those detention alternative programs are working to enhance public safety, however, have yet to be conclusively demonstrated eight years after the implementation of JDAI in the County. (F-23, F-28 through F-39, F-41,
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 3

No Responses Found 7

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Oxnard City
Port Hueneme City
San Buenaventura City
Santa Paula City
Simi Valley City
Ventura County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office
Ventura County Sheriff Elected County Office