United States of Disparities

United States

One-day count

Data in this section show how many youth are detained, committed, or otherwise sleeping somewhere other than their homes per orders of the court on "any given day" in select years. Data is available for the nation and on a state-by-state basis, and are based upon one-day counts of youth in residential placement facilities conducted in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015. Learn more »

Show table and download this data

Click column headers to sort Download

Year White Black Latino Native American Asian Other All youth of color All youth

Annual decision points

This section includes data at nine key juvenile justice annual decision points. Data are available at the county and state-level, but only for counties that report. This section allows you to view the data from many different angles and all of the data is broken down by race and ethnicity. Learn more »


Data not available for every year. (Why?)

Available years are those for which states have submitted data to OJJDP. States do not submit data on an annual basis.

Case flow diagram

Click on a decision-making point to see the data for that point. Click additional decision-making points to the graph to compare.

  1. Youth population

  • 1Comparison of arrest to population is rate per 1,000 youth. All other annual decision points are rate per 100 youth at the prior decision-making point.
  • 2Due to differences in how states define arrests and referrals to court, some states may have more referrals to court than arrests.
Show table and download this data

Click column headers to sort Download

Decision White Black Latino American Indian or Alaskan Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Asian Other All youth of color All youth

58 of 58 counties (Why?)

Originally, states were only required to examine three counties: those with the greatest proportions of minority youth within their juvenile population, as well as those that contained the greatest numbers of minority youth. Only recently has OJJDP required that states track DMC data for all potential DMC reduction sites on a regular basis (at least every 3 years). If a county is not a DMC reduction site, data may not be available.

Detention statute

Juvenile courts may hold delinquents in a secure detention facility if the court believes it is in the best interest of the community or the child. After arrest a youth is often brought to the local juvenile detention facility by law enforcement. Juvenile probation officers or detention workers review the case and decide if the juvenile should be held pending a hearing by a judge.

Jurisdiction ages


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.


Please email Anna Wong with any updates to contact information for your DMC coordinator, JJS coordinator, or DMC subcommittee chair.

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


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

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

Reform efforts

States that wish to post their most recent three-year plans or share other relevant publications about their reform work should contact Anna Wong. We would be happy to link to relevant documents and information.

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

State Advisory Group (SAG)

Core Principles:
Strategy - a coalition of knowledgeable stakeholders and communities, current or former wards, and local elected officials; Advocacy - a plan to prevent juvenile crime while providing treatment and rehabilitation for juvenile offenders; Compliance - a means of monitoring program compliance and ensuring adherence with the core protections of federal law.The State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (SACJJDP) fundamental Responsibilities include: 1) participating in the development and review of the State's three-year juvenile justice plan; 2) reviewing grant applications; 3) providing recommendations regarding the State's compliance with the core protections of the JJDP Act; and 4) reviewing the progress of projects funded under the State plan.

SAG 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

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.


DMC, Planning


  • 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