United States of Disparities

Jurisdiction ages

0–17

Extended Age of Delinquency Jurisdiction: 24

Extended Age of Jurisdiction: California's extended age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 21; however, if a juvenile is committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for certain offenses, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction until the offender is 25 years old. For youth committed to a state hospital or public/private mental health facility for the certain offenses, the court may retain jurisdiction until the offender's 25th birthday.

Standard for detention

(a) Upon delivery to the probation officer of a minor who has been taken into temporary custody under the provisions of this article, the probation officer shall immediately investigate the circumstances of the minor and the facts surrounding his or her being taken into custody and shall immediately release the minor to the custody of his or her parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative unless it can be demonstrated upon the evidence before the court that continuance in the home is contrary to the minor's welfare and one or more of the following conditions exist:

(1) The minor is in need of proper and effective parental care or control and has no parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative; or has no parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative willing to exercise or capable of exercising that care or control; or has no parent, legal guardian, or responsible relative actually exercising that care or control.

(2) The minor is destitute or is not provided with the necessities of life or is not provided with a home or suitable place of abode.

(3) The minor is provided with a home which is an unfit place for him or her by reason of neglect, cruelty, depravity or physical abuse by either of his or her parents, or by his or her legal guardian or other person in whose custody or care he or she is entrusted.

(4) Continued detention of the minor is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the minor or reasonable necessity for the protection of the person or property of another.

(5) The minor is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court.

(6) The minor has violated an order of the juvenile court.

(7) The minor is physically dangerous to the public because of a mental or physical deficiency, disorder or abnormality.

(b) If the probation officer has reason to believe that the minor is at risk of entering foster care placement as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 727.4, then the probation officer shall, as part of the investigation undertaken pursuant to subdivision (a), make reasonable efforts, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (d) of Section 727.4, to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the minor from his or her home.

Detention hearing timeline

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 632.

As soon as possible, but before the expiration of the next judicial day after a petition.

DMC coordinator

Eloisa Rivera Tuitama
Board of State and Community Corrections
2590 Ventura Oaks Way, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone: 916-341-7328
Fax: 916-327-3317
Eloisa.tuitama@bscc.ca.gov

Website

JJS coordinator

Nicole Woodman
Board of State and Community Corrections
2590 Ventura Oaks Way, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone: 916-322-1427
Fax: 916-327-3317
Nicole.woodman@bscc.ca.gov

DMC subcommittee chair

Rachel R. Rios
Executive Director
La Familia Counseling Center, Inc.
5523 34th St.
Sacramento, CA  95820
Phone: 916-452-3601
Fax: 916-452-7628
rachelr@lafcc.org

DMC reform efforts

Currently, there are 13 county probation departments invested in an effort to reduce the 
disparity within their juvenile justice system. The approach to allow each county to determine their need for addressing disparity and disproportionality was developed by looking at lessons learned from around the country which indicated reducing disparity is particular to each individual jurisdiction and that interventions must be determined accordingly and by the leadership of that community. As a result, to impact disparity and disproportionality, the State leadership must provide resources accordingly, and to that end, California bolstered the funding allocation from $0 to almost $2 million dollars annually in less than five years to ensure the prioritization of reducing youth of color coming into contact with the justice system.

December of 2012, the six DMC Support Grants came to a close. At the time of this report, the final report on outcomes is not yet available; it is anticipated to be complete by the end of next quarter (June 2013) and available for review. The second component of the multi-faceted approach is identified as the educational component. Widespread education across youth-serving systems is a necessary step in shifting youth-serving systems toward improved outcomes for youth of color. California opted to commence this education in a strategic format targeting the educational system as the first step.

National data and academic research have coined the phrase “school to prison pipeline” and in doing so, have elevated the importance of ensuring our school partners are better informed regarding the impact of school disciplinary processes, especially as they relate to youth of color.

To that end, California has made training, education and advocacy a priority by utilizing federal formula monies to tackle the “school to prison pipeline” through a statewide training/education and intervention(s).

State plans

There is no link available to the current State Plan

Organizational structure

The CSA is responsible for assuring that the SACJJDP membership complies with all federal statutes. In order to allow the SACJJDP to compliment this highly successful ESC approach, the Governor has entrusted the Chair of the CSA with the responsibility for developing recommendations on appointments to the SACJJDP, including the chair (who must always be an eligible member of the CSA). The Governor makes all appointments to the SACJJDP.

Committees

DMC, Planning

Membership

• Rachel R. Rios, Executive Director, La Familia Counseling Center, Inc., Chair
• Carol Biondi, Commissioner, Los Angeles County Commission for Children and Families, Vice Chair
• James Anderson, Program Administrator, The Anti-Recidivism Coalition
• Honorable Brian Back, Judge, Ventura County Superior Court
• Michelle Scray Brown, Chief Probation Officer of San Bernardino
• Dr. B.J. Davis, Executive Director and Clinical Director, Strategies for Change
• Dr. Carly Bailey Dierkhising, Assistant Professor, California State University, Los Angeles School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics
• Miguel Garcia, Student, University of California, Riverside
• Juan Gomez, Co-founder/Director of Programs and Innovation, Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement
• Susan Harbert, Special Legislative Counsel, Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law and Policy
• Gordon Jackson, Assistant Superintendent, California Department of Education
• Sharon King, Regional Compliance Manager, Walmart
• Ramon Leija, Juvenile Justice Reform Advocate, The Anti-Recidivism Coalition
• Susan Manheimer, Chief of Police, City of San Mateo
• Kent Mendoza, Community and Members Relations Coordinator, The Anti-Recidivism Coalition
• Nancy O’Malley, District Attorney, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office
• Winston Peters, Assistance Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office
• Dr. Mimi Silbert, Chief Executive Officer/President, Delancey Street Foundation
• Dante Williams, Youth Advocate Manager, Stanford Youth Solutions