Santa Clara County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

Right Facility, Wrong Time: The Role of James Ranch in Today’s Juvenile Justice Landscape

Published: June 17, 2025 28 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
Probation broke ground on the expansion of James Ranch in 2016 when the data for the County, the State, and the nation had shown a consistent declining population of youth in detention facilities like James Ranch.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Although the number of youth at James Ranch has dropped, the Probation Department has not significantly reduced its operating costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2b
The County should explore whether both James Ranch and Juvenile Hall are needed. Probation should report to the County Board of Supervisors by March 31, 2026, with a plan for reducing the costs of running James Ranch and an analysis of whether both James Ranch and Juvenile Hall are needed.
F3
Except for recidivism, Probation has not captured or reported on any other success measures while youth are on probation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a
Immediately expand what is tracked during probation and offer incentives for youth and their caregivers to participate in post-probation check-ins.
R3b
Explore hiring a third party to collect data for youth post probation on measures of success and determine what would be meaningful incentives. Probation should implement these recommendations
F4a
The County does not account for the full cost to run James Ranch, i.e., the County does not accumulate the cost of all the departments that provide services to James Ranch.
No recommendations for this finding
F4b
Complete recidivism data is difficult to obtain for James Ranch.
No recommendations for this finding
F4c
Despite repeated requests from JJC and the Management Audit in 2022, the County does not have measurable outcomes demonstrating the success of James Ranch beyond some recidivism data.
No recommendations for this finding