Board of State and Community Corrections

State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 2021 Compliance Monitoring Annual Report July 2022 This page left intentionally blank. BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION Rachel Rios ................................................................................................................................. Chair Carol Biondi ......................................................................................................................... Vice Chair The Honorable Brian Back .............................................Ventura County Superior Court Judge (Ret.) Amanda Ayala ………………………………… Founding Member and Co-facilitator, A Way Home America Dr. B.J. Davis …………………………………….………. Adjunct Professor, Alliant International University Dr. Carly Bailey Dierkhising ................. Assistant Professor, California State University, Los Angeles Miguel Garcia ............ …………………………... – County Liaison, Office of Youth and Community Restoration Juan Gomez …………… Executive Director, Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement Michelle Guymon………… Director, Child Trafficking Unit, Los Angeles County Probation Department Susan Harbert ..... Special Legislative Counsel, Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School Elliott Houseman-Turrubiate …………………… Youth Victim Advocate, Native American Health Center Gordon Jackson ………………………………….… Retired Director, California Department of Education Ramon Leija ………………….. Constituent Affairs Representative, Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Kent Mendoza ……………… Manager of Policy and Community Organizing, Anti-Recidivism Coalition Amika Mota ............................................... Prison Reentry Director, Young Women’s Freedom Center Vanessa Najar ...................... Youth Member, Peer Mentor, Puente Project, Sacramento City College District Attorney Nancy O’Malley .............................................................................. Alameda County Winston Peters ……………. Assistant Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office Dr. Mimi Silbert……………………………………. Chief Executive Officer, Delancey Street Foundation Dante Williams …………………………... Former Youth Advocate Manager, Stanford Youth Solutions BSCC Staff Kathleen T. Howard.................................................................................................. Executive Director Tracie Cone. ................................................................................................. Communications Director Allison Ganter. .............................. Deputy Director, Facilities Standards & Operations and Research Ricardo Goodridge .................................... Deputy Director, Corrections Planning & Grant Programs Tameka Shedwin .................................... .Staff Services Manager I, Facilities Standards & Operations This page left intentionally blank. BACKGROUND The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) is the State Administering Agency that receives and disburses federal Title II formula grants to support state and local efforts in delinquency prevention and juvenile justice system improvement. To remain eligible for funds, the BSCC must maintain compliance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 (as amended in 2002 and 2018), which is the enabling legislation for both the Title II formula grants and the state’s juvenile justice 1 advisory group. California’s state advisory group is the State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (SACJJDP). The SACJJDP is a governor- appointed group of subject matter experts. A requirement for compliance with the JJDPA is submission of an annual report from the state’s juvenile justice advisory group to the Governor and Legislature, with recommendations regarding compliance with the first three of the four JJDPA core 2 requirements (those specifically related to compliance monitoring). The fourth core requirement (Racial and Ethnic Disparities) is addressed separately and is not a part of the annual report to the Governor and Legislature. The core requirements relative to compliance monitoring are: 3 1. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Prohibits, with specific exceptions, juveniles who are charged with or who have committed an offense that would not be criminal if committed by an adult (status offenders, truants, in-state runaways) from being held in secure detention. 2. Separation4 Prohibits youth who are under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court from having sight and/or sound contact with adult inmates while in secure detention. 3. Jail Removal5 Prohibits the secure detention of youth in a lock-up or jail for longer than six (6) hours, and pursuant to Section 223(a)(11)(B) prohibits the detention of juveniles prosecuted as adults in adult facilities. This report will provide the Governor and Legislature with the most recent data submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), as well as the SACJJDP’s recommendations regarding compliance with the core requirements. 1 34 U.S.C. §§ 11131-11134. 2 34 U.S.C. § 11133(a)(3)(D)(ii). 3 34 U.S.C. § 11133(a)(11). 4 Id. at (a)(12). 5 Id. at (a)(13) and (a)(11)(B) 1 COMPLIANCE WITH CORE REQUIREMENTS BSCC staff monitors 8796 law enforcement facilities for compliance with the core requirements. Through data collection and inspection, the BSCC annually determines the number of violations of core requirements at these facilities, and in accordance with the JJDPA, submits an annual report on compliance to OJJDP. Attachment A contains the BSCC’s annual compliance monitoring data for the 2021 federal fiscal year (FY) reporting period, which runs from October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021. Attachment B is a summary of the FY 2021 compliance monitoring violations. Attachment C is a summary chart of violations of the core requirements since 2003. California maintains compliance with the core requirements so long as its rate of violations does not exceed the “de minimus” number of violations as established by OJJDP. OJJDP recalculates standards for compliance annually using a process described in federal regulation. States that report a rate at or below the standard are in compliance. States that report a rate exceeding the year’s standards are out of compliance. The OJJDP has established the following compliance standards for the FY 2021. Data from the FY 2021 reporting period verifies that California remains in de minimus compliance with all three core requirements. Core Requirement Federal Standard California 2021 Rates DSO 4.71 0.11 Separation 1.18 0.00 Jail Removal 3.95 0.66 Note: OJJDP develops standard rates of compliance per 100,000 juvenile population. California has remained in compliance because its number of JJDPA violations decreased from the previous year (see Attachment B). Overall, the total number of violations has reduced from 75 to 68. Core Requirement FY 2020 Violations FY 2021 Violations DSO 13 10 Separation 0 0 Jail Removal 62 58 6 The total number of facilities in the Compliance Monitoring Universe does not include 420 non-secure city or county law enforcement facilities which BSCC monitors through an annual survey. 2 In comparing the first core requirement, the number of DSO violations decreased by 23 percent from 13 to 10. These violations occurred in two local juvenile halls. The most common reasons reported to the BSCC were: • Holding runaways from out of state, where states did not have an Interstate Compact with California (9 violations) • Holding runaways local to California (1 violation) Just as in previous years, detaining runaways remains one of the main reasons in FY 2021 for DSO violations. All but one of these violations occurred in one Juvenile hall and involved runaways from out of state. In FY 2021, Separation violations remained at zero. Finally, for the last core requirement, the number of Jail Removal violations decreased by six percent from 62 to 58 violations. For these violations, the most common reasons reported to the BSCC were: • Delays, such as booking delays, live scan delays, delays with local child service agencies; and • Danger to self or others Delays, such as booking delays or live scan delays, remain the cause of the largest number of violations, which occur in only one county. Because the local law enforcement agencies have no control or authority over the live scan process, the delays and thus, the violations will continue to occur. Overall, California’s rates of JJDPA violations have been on a downward trend since 2003. During the pandemic, both Jail Removal violations and DSO violations decreased considerably. The BSCC must continue to work with local county and city law enforcement agencies to maintain compliance. 3 BARRIERS TO COMPLIANCE AND STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME THEM To maintain compliance, the BSCC identifies barriers to compliance and develops strategies on an on-going and annual basis. Barrier Strategy The turnover in local detention and During the pandemic, the BSCC continues correctional staff creates a gap of to observe a great number of local staff knowledge with respect to core turnover, whether for transfer, retirement, requirements in some facilities; sick leave, or other reason. constant training is required. The BSCC continues to provide on-going technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and probation departments, both general and targeted. The BSCC staff continues to provide pre- inspection briefings to law enforcement agencies and probation departments; all information relevant to the upcoming inspection is provided, including detailed information on core requirements and essential data. The BSCC continues to manage and update its contacts databases on an on- going basis. The addition of new BSCC staff. The BSCC streamlined its internal orientation and training for new FSO staff. The BSCC continues to provide general and tailored training to FSO staff, focusing on the applicability of core requirements at different facilities. BSCC revises its compliance monitoring manual on an annual and on-going basis. The BSCC encourages new staff to observe compliance monitoring inspections as part of the orientation and training process. The opportunity to 4 observe or conduct joint compliance monitoring inspections remains available to current staff. Compliance Monitor continues to provide technical assistance to fellow FSO staff, as well as to the field. Our state advisory group is composed The BSCC developed a policy and of subject matter experts from across procedure for SACJJDP to stay informed the state. Members’ ability to join and of on-going CM inspections and a observe compliance monitoring process for members to join and observe inspections would greatly enhance them. The implementation was delayed their understanding of the JJDPA and due to the on-going pandemic. core requirements. Yet there was not a clear process in place for members to learn about upcoming compliance monitoring inspections. The FY 2021 data shows continued Whether local to California or from out of DSO violations in juvenile facilities. state, detained runaways remain a primary reason for DSO violations in juvenile facilities. The BSCC will provide technical assistance and training to the specific facilities in the counties with higher numbers of DSO violations. The FY 2021 data shows decreased The BSCC should collaborate with local Jail Removal violations during the juvenile justice commissions to ensure pandemic. Continued outreach and that the number of violations continue to education is required to the field, trend downward. especially with new staff at local agencies, to reinforce the importance The BSCC will continue to conduct of the JJDPA’s core requirements. outreach and education to juvenile courts, local commissions, and local law enforcement agencies. 5 Implementing the new reporting and The BSCC developed and implemented a data collection requirements for court plan to provide outreach and education to holding facilities has faced many counties on the application of core challenges, such as a high turnover requirements for court holding facilities, rate among staff at such facilities and such as communicating directly to general unfamiliarity with the core probation departments, juvenile courts, requirements under the JJDPA. The local juvenile justice commissions, and number of local agencies that share court holding facility managers. The jurisdiction and responsibilities over BSCC also developed new data court holding facilities has also posed collection tools for these facilities, such unique challenges in data collection as an annual survey and a formal self- and reporting efforts. reporting tool. The BSCC also modified its internal training to staff on how this change impacts compliance monitoring inspections and biennial inspections of court holding facilities. 6 SACJJDP RECOMMENDATIONS The SACJJDP recommends that the Governor and Legislature continue to support the BSCC’s approach to compliance monitoring, including strategies to overcome the barriers mentioned above. The SACJJDP bases its recommendation on the decreasing violation rates and the continuous training and technical assistance BSCC provides to the field. The SACJJDP also recommends that BSCC highlight California’s effort and commitment to maintaining compliance with the core requirements through outreach and collaboration with state and local entities. ATTACHMENTS: A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 B: OJJDP California Compliance Data Summary Report FY 2021 C: Summary of California Violations of JJDPA Since 2003 7 California Compliance Data Collection - 2021 Detailed Report Metric Value STATE PROFILE STATE JUVENILE POPULATION DATA Age at which original juvenile court jurisdiction ends (upper age at 17 which a person is still classified as a juvenile). Total population, at and below the age at which original juvenile court 8894641 jurisdiction ends. Total population under the age of 18. 8894641 FEDERAL DEFINITIONS During the State's monitoring effort, were Federal definitions (under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act or its implementing Yes regulations) used? FACILITY SUB-TYPE - SECURE DETENTION or CORRECTION FACILITIES Number of Juvenile Detention Facilities (facility sub-type). 50 Number of Juvenile Detention Facilities (facility sub-type) that reported 50 data. Percent of Juvenile Detention Facilities (facility sub-type) that reported 100% data. Number of Juvenile Detention Facilities (facility sub-type) that received 11 onsite inspections. Percent of Juvenile Detention Facilities (facility sub-type) that received 22% onsite inspections. Number of Juvenile Correctional Facilities (facility sub-type). 42 Number of Juvenile Correctional Facilities (facility sub-type) that 38 reported data. Percent of Juvenile Correctional Facilities (facility sub-type) that 90% reported data. Number of Juvenile Correctional Facilities (facility sub-type) that 11 received onsite inspections. Percent of Juvenile Correctional Facilities (facility sub-type) that 26% received onsite inspections. Number of Adult Jails (facility sub-type). 120 Number of Adult Jails (facility sub-type) that reported data. 120 Percent of Adult Jails (facility sub-type) that reported data. 100% Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 1 of 9 Metric Value Number of Adult Jails (facility sub-type) that received onsite 48 inspections. Percent of Adult Jails (facility sub-type) that received onsite inspections. 40% Number of Adult Lockups (facility sub-type). 469 Number of Adult Lockups (facility sub-type) that reported data. 462 Percent of Adult Lockups (facility sub-type) that reported data. 99% Number of Adult Lockups (facility sub-type) that received onsite 80 inspections. Percent of Adult Lockups (facility sub-type) that received onsite 17% inspections. Number of Prisons (facility sub-type). 34 Number of Prisons (facility sub-type) that received onsite inspections. 0 Percent of Prisons (facility sub-type) that received onsite inspections. 0% Number of other secure residential facilities (facility sub-type) used for the placement of individuals accused or adjudicated/convicted of a 0 criminal offense. Number of other secure residential facilities (facility sub-type) used for the placement of individuals accused or adjudicated/convicted of a 0 criminal offense that received onsite inspections. Percent of other secure residential facilities (facility sub-type) used for the placement of individuals accused or adjudicated/convicted of a 0% criminal offense that received onsite inspections. Total number of facility sub-types (Note: this sum excludes prisons and 681 other secure residential facilities). Total number of facility sub-types that reported data (Note: this sum 670 excludes prisons and other secure residential facilities). Percent of facility sub-types that reported data. 98% Total number of facility sub-types that received onsite inspections (Note: 150 this sum excludes prisons and other secure residential facilities). Percent of facility sub-types that received onsite inspections. 22% FACILITY SUB-TYPE - INSTITUTIONS Number of Juvenile Detention Facilities (institution sub-type). 50 Number of Juvenile Detention Facilities (institution sub-type) that 11 received onsite inspections. Percent of Juvenile Detention Facilities (institution sub-type) that 22% received onsite inspections. Number of Juvenile Correctional Facilities (institution sub-type). 42 Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 2 of 9 Metric Value Number of Juvenile Correctional Facilities (institution sub-type) that 11 received onsite inspections. Percent of Juvenile Correctional Facilities (institution sub-type) that 26% received onsite inspections. Number of Adult Jails (institution sub-type). 120 Number of Adult Jails (institution sub-type) that received onsite 48 inspections. Percent of Adult Jails (institution sub-type) that received onsite 40% inspections. Number of Adult Lockups (institution sub-type). 469 Number of Adult Lockups (institution sub-type) that received onsite 80 inspections. Percent of Adult Lockups (institution sub-type) that received onsite 17% inspections. Number of Prisons (institution sub-type). 34 Number of Prisons (institution sub-type) that received onsite inspections. 0 Percent of Prisons (institution sub-type) that received onsite inspections. 0% Number of Court Holding facilities (institution sub-type). 135 Number of Court Holding facilities (institution sub-type) that received 34 onsite inspections. Percent of Court Holding facilities (institution sub-type) that received 25% onsite inspections. Number of other secure residential facilities (institution sub-type) used for the placement of individuals accused or adjudicated/convicted of a 0 criminal offense. Number of other secure residential facilities (institution sub-type) used for the placement of individuals accused or adjudicated/convicted of a 0 criminal offense that received onsite inspections. Percent of other secure residential facilities (institution sub-type) used for the placement of individuals accused or adjudicated/convicted of a 0% criminal offense that received onsite inspections. Total number of institution sub-types. 850 Total number of institution sub-types that received onsite inspections. 184 Percent of institution sub-types that received onsite inspections. 22% FACILITY SUB-TYPE - ADULT JAIL or LOCKUP Number of Adult Jails (adult jail or lockup sub-type). 120 Number of Adult Jails (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that reported data. 120 Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 3 of 9 Metric Value Percent of Adult Jails (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that reported data. 100% Number of Adult Jails (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that received onsite 48 inspections. Percent of Adult Jails (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that received onsite 40% inspections. Number of Adult Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type). 469 Number of Adult Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that reported 462 data.. Percent of Adult Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that reported 99% data.. Number of Adult Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that received 80 onsite inspections. Percent of Adult Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that received 17% onsite inspections. Total number of Adult Jails and Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type). 589 Total number of Adult Jails and Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type) 582 that reported data.. Percent of Adult Jails and Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that 99% reported data. Total number of Adult Jails and Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type) 128 that received onsite inspections. Percent of Adult Jails and Lockups (adult jail or lockup sub-type) that 22% received onsite inspections. FACILITY SUB-TYPE - COLLOCATED Number of secure Juvenile Detention or Correctional Facilities that are 5 Collocated with an Adult Jail or Lockup. Number of secure Juvenile Detention or Correctional Facilities that are 5 Collocated with an Adult Jail or Lockup that received onsite inspections. Percent of secure Juvenile Detention or Correctional Facilities that are 100% Collocated with an Adult Jail or Lockup that received onsite inspections. SUMMARY OF FACILITIES REQUIRED TO REPORT COMPLIANCE DATA - 85% RULE Cumulative percent of facilities reporting data that are required to report 98% compliance data (85% rule). DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF STATUS OFFENDERS (DSO) STATUS OFFENDERS AND NON-OFFENDERS PLACED IN SECURE DETENTION OR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 4 of 9 Metric Value Number of accused status offenders who were placed in secure detention or secure correctional facilities (both juvenile and adult facility types). Include status offender Valid Court Order violators (where applicable) 12 and out of state runaways. Do not include juveniles held in violation of the Youth Handgun Safety Act or similar state law. Number of adjudicated status offenders who were placed in secure detention or secure correctional facilities (both juvenile and adult facility types). Include status offender Valid Court Order violators (where 0 applicable) and out of state runaways. Do not include juveniles held in violation of the Youth Handgun Safety Act or similar state law. Number of accused and adjudicated status offenders who were placed in secure juvenile detention or secure juvenile correctional facilities who were charged with or committed a violation of a valid court order. (Note: 0 This is a statutory exception to the total number of instances of non- compliance with DSO.) Number of accused and adjudicated status offenders who were placed in secure juvenile detention or secure juvenile correctional facilities in accordance with the Interstate Compact on Juveniles as enacted by the 2 State. (Note: This is a statutory exception to the total number of instances of non-compliance with DSO.) Calculated total number of status offenders placed in secure detention or secure correctional facilities that do not meet one of the statutory 10 exceptions and therefore result in instances of non-compliance with DSO. Number of non-offenders who are aliens or who were alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused, who were placed in secure detention or 0 secure correctional facilities. Calculated total number of DSO violations. 10 DSO SUMMARY Calculated total number of DSO violations adjusting for non-reporting 10.16 facilities. RATE of non-compliance with DSO per 100,000 juvenile population. 0.11 RATE of non-compliance with DSO per 100,000 juvenile population, 0.11 adjusting for non-reporting facilities. SEPARATION POLICY IMPACTING SEPARATION Does the state have a policy in effect that requires individuals who work with both juveniles and adult inmates to have been trained and certified Yes to work with juveniles? Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 5 of 9 Metric Value SIGHT and SOUND SEPARATION in SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION or CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Number of juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent detained or confined in secure juvenile detention and secure juvenile correctional 0 facilities who were not sight and sound separated from adult inmates, including inmate trustees. Number of juvenile status offenders and juvenile non-offenders who were aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, abused, detained or confined in secure juvenile detention and secure juvenile correctional 0 facilities who were not sight and sound separated from adult inmates, including inmate trustees. TOTAL number of juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, juvenile status offenders, and juvenile non-offenders who are aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, abused, detained or confined in 0 secure juvenile detention and secure juvenile correctional facilities who were not sight and sound separated from adult inmates, including inmate trustees. SIGHT and SOUND SEPARATION in ADULT JAILS, ADULT LOCKUPS, or PRISONS Number of juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, detained or confined in jails or lockups for adults or adult prisons who were not 0 sight and sound separated from adult inmates. Number of juvenile status offenders and juvenile non-offenders who are aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused, detained or 0 confined in jails or lockups for adults or adult prisons, without sight and sound separation from adult inmates. TOTAL number of juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, juvenile status offenders, and juvenile non-offenders who are aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused, who were detained or 0 confined in jails or lockups for adults or adult prisons without sight and sound separation. SIGHT and SOUND SEPARATION in COURT HOLDING FACILITIES Number of juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, detained or confined in court holding facilities who were not sight and sound 0 separated from adult inmates. Number of juvenile status offenders and juvenile non-offenders who are aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused detained or 0 confined in court holding facilities who were not sight and sound separated from adult inmates. Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 6 of 9 Metric Value TOTAL number of juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, juvenile status offenders, and juvenile non-offenders who are aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused detained or confined in 0 court holding facilities who were not sight and sound separated from adult inmates. SIGHT and SOUND SEPARATION SUMMARY TOTAL number of juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, juvenile status offenders, and juvenile non-offenders who are aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused, not sight and sound 0 separated from adult inmates in Secure Juvenile Detention Facilities, Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities, Adult Jails, Adult Lockups, Prisons, and Court Holding Facilities. RATE of non-compliance with separation per 100,000 juveniles at and 0.00 below the age at which original juvenile court jurisdiction ends. JAIL REMOVAL POLICY IMPACTING JAIL REMOVAL Is there a state policy in effect requiring individuals who work with both adult inmates and juveniles to be trained and certified to work with Yes juveniles? FACILITIES IN WHICH JUVENILES WERE DETAINED OR CONFINED Number of Adult Jails and Adult Lockups in which juveniles were detained or confined that meet rural exception criteria (pursuant to 0 Section 223(a)(13)(B)(ii)(I) of the JJDPA) and for which approval has been granted by OJJDP. JUVENILES DETAINED WITHIN SIGHT OR SOUND CONTACT OF ADULT INMATES Number of juveniles accused of delinquent offenses detained or confined in Adult Jails or Adult Lockups 6 hours or less for processing or release, awaiting transfer to a juvenile facility, or prior to/following a court 0 appearance, but who had contact with adult inmates (pursuant to Section 223(a)(13)(A) of the JJDP Act). JUVENILES ACCUSED OF DELINQUENT OFFENSES OR ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT Number of juveniles accused of delinquent offenses detained or confined in Adult Jails and Adult Lockups in excess of 6 hours, and not pursuant 47 to a valid use of the rural, travel conditions or safety exceptions, as detailed in Section 223(a)(13)(B) of the JJDP Act. Number of juveniles accused of delinquent offenses detained or confined 0 in Adult Jails and Adult Lockups, for 6 hours or less for purposes other Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 7 of 9 Metric Value than processing or release, while awaiting transfer to a juvenile facility, or periods during which such juveniles are making court appearances (pursuant to Section 223(a)(13)(A) of the JJDP Act). Number of juveniles accused of delinquent offenses who were detained or confined in excess of 6 hours but less than 48 hours (not including weekends and legal holidays) awaiting an initial court appearance in an Adult Jail or Adult Lockup approved by OJJDP for use of the rural 0 exception, provided that during this time there was no contact with adult inmates (pursuant to Section 223(a)(13)(B)(ii)(I) of the JJDPA) (Note: This is a statutory exception to the total number of instances of non- compliance with jail removal.) Number of juveniles accused of delinquent offenses who were detained or confined in excess of 48 hours but less than 96 hours (not including weekends and legal holidays) awaiting an initial court appearance in an Adult Jail or Adult Lockup due to conditions of distance to be traveled or the lack of highway, road, or transportation, provided that during this 0 time there was no contact with adult inmates (pursuant to Section 223(a)((13)(B)(ii)(II) of the JJDP Act) (Note: This is a statutory exception to the total number of instances of non-compliance with jail removal.) Number of juveniles accused of delinquent offenses awaiting an initial court appearance in an Adult Jail or Adult Lockup where conditions of safety existed (e.g., severe adverse, life-threatening weather conditions that do not allow for reasonably safe travel) and who were detained or confined for in excess of 6 hours but not more than 24 hours after the 0 time that such conditions allowed for reasonably safe travel, provided that during this time there was no contact with adult inmates (pursuant to Section 223(a)((13)(B)(ii)(III) of the JJDP Act) (Note: This is a statutory exception to the total number of instances of non-compliance with jail removal.) Number of juveniles adjudicated of delinquent offenses who were detained or confined in Adult Jails and Adult Lockups for any length of 0 time. JUVENILE STATUS AND NONOFFENDERS Number of accused or adjudicated status offenders detained or confined 4 for any length of time in Adult Jails or Adult Lockups. Number of juvenile non-offenders detained or confined for any length of 7 time in Adult Jails or Adult Lockups. JAIL REMOVAL SUMMARY Total instances of non-compliance with the Jail removal requirement as a result of juveniles detained or confined in Adult Jails and Adult 58.00 Lockups. Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 8 of 9 Metric Value Total instances in which the state used the rural, travel conditions, or conditions of safety exceptions to detain or confine juveniles in Adult 0 Jails and Adult Lockups in excess of 6 hours. Total instances of non-compliance with the Jail removal requirement as a result of juveniles detained or confined in Adult Jails and Adult 58.70 Lockups adjusting for non-reporting facilities. Rate of non-compliance with jail removal per 100,000 juvenile population at and below the age at which original juvenile court 0.65 jurisdiction ends. Rate of non-compliance with jail removal per 100,000 juvenile population at and below the age at which original juvenile court 0.66 jurisdiction ends, adjusting for non-reporting facilities. Total Number Number Facilities Percent Facilities Year Secure Receiving On-Site Receiving On-Site Facilities Inspections Inspections 1 844 325 38.51 % ✔ 2 816 184 22.55 % 3 816 509 62.38 % Attachment A: OJJDP California Compliance Data Collection FY 2021 Page 9 of 9 California Compliance Data Collection - 2021 Summary Report Metric Value STATE PROFILE STATE JUVENILE POPULATION DATA Age at which original juvenile court jurisdiction ends (upper age at 17 which a person is still classified as a juvenile). Total population, at and below the age at which original juvenile court 8894641 jurisdiction ends. Total population under the age of 18. 8894641 DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF STATUS OFFENDERS (DSO) DSO SUMMARY Calculated total number of DSO violations adjusting for non-reporting 10.16 facilities. RATE of non-compliance with DSO per 100,000 juvenile population. 0.11 RATE of non-compliance with DSO per 100,000 juvenile population, 0.11 adjusting for non-reporting facilities. SEPARATION SIGHT and SOUND SEPARATION SUMMARY TOTAL number of juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, juvenile status offenders, and juvenile non-offenders who are aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused, not sight and sound 0 separated from adult inmates in Secure Juvenile Detention Facilities, Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities, Adult Jails, Adult Lockups, Prisons, and Court Holding Facilities. RATE of non-compliance with separation per 100,000 juveniles at and 0.00 below the age at which original juvenile court jurisdiction ends. JAIL REMOVAL JAIL REMOVAL SUMMARY Total instances of non-compliance with the Jail removal requirement as a result of juveniles detained or confined in Adult Jails and Adult 58.00 Lockups. Total instances in which the state used the rural, travel conditions, or conditions of safety exceptions to detain or confine juveniles in Adult 0 Jails and Adult Lockups in excess of 6 hours. Attachment B: OJJDP California Compliance Data Summary Report FY 2021 Page 1 of 2 Metric Value Total instances of non-compliance with the Jail removal requirement as a result of juveniles detained or confined in Adult Jails and Adult 58.70 Lockups adjusting for non-reporting facilities. Rate of non-compliance with jail removal per 100,000 juvenile population at and below the age at which original juvenile court 0.65 jurisdiction ends. Rate of non-compliance with jail removal per 100,000 juvenile population at and below the age at which original juvenile court 0.66 jurisdiction ends, adjusting for non-reporting facilities. Number of Number of Facilities Percent of Facilities Year Secure Receiving On-Site Receiving On-Site Facilities Inspections Inspections 1 844 325 38.51 % ✔ 2 816 184 22.55 % 3 Planning Cycle 816 509 62.38 % Summary: Planning Cycle Summary: 1. If the number of secure facilities increases or decreases, percent of on-site inspections are calculated using the most recent change 2. In recognition that on-site inspections may exceed the number of secure facilities, percentages are capped at 100% Attachment B: OJJDP California Compliance Data Summary Report FY 2021 Page 2 of 2 California Violations of JJDPA Since 2003 Attachment C 2021 % change 2020 % chang 2 e 019 % change 2018 % change 2017 % change 2016 % change 2015 % change 2014 % change 2013 % change 2012 % change % change % Change 2009 % Change 2008 % Change 2007 % Change 2006 % Change 2005 % Change 2004 % Change 2003 2011 2010 DSO JH 10 -23% 13 44% 9 -70% 30 88% 16 7% 15 -6% 16 -60% 40 -7% 43 13% 38 -22% 49 -39% 80 -20% 75 11% 90 70% 53 -47% 100.6 -63% 270 28% 211 -11% 237 DSO LOCKUPS 11 120% 5 -79% 24 0% 24 -11% 27 -27% 37 0% 37 -31% 54 20% 45 -48% 87 43% 61 177% 22 -12% 25 -38% 40 -13% 46 n/a DSO TOTAL (JH + LU) 21 17% 18 -45% 33 -39% 54 -26% 43 -17% 52 -2% 53 -44% 94 7% 88 -30% 125 14% 110 8% 102.00 2% 100 -23% 130 31% 99.37 -1% 100.6 -63% 270 28% 211 -11% 237 DSO TOTAL RATE 0.11 0.15 50% 0.10 0.62 0.47 -34% 0.71 0% 0.71 -30% 1.01 6% 0.95 -29% 1.34 14% 1.18 8% 1.09 2% 1.07 -23% 1.39 36% 1.02 -2% 1.04 -64% 2.86 28% 2.23 -11% 2.51 Separation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 -100% 1 100% 0 -100% 2 200% 0 0% 0 -100% 1 0% 1 0% 1 -97% 33 -25% 44 100% 0 0% 0 Jail Removal Total (6 hr Rule) 47 -18% 57 -29% 80 38% 58 -21% 73 -4% 76 15% 66 -7% 71 25% 57 -17% 69 6% 65 -13% 75 -17% 90 18% 76.21 -29% 107 -52% 225 185% 79 0% 79 -25% 106 Jail Removal Rate TBD 0 -100% 2.33 177% 0.84 0% 0.84 -25% 1.12 Jail Removal (total with SO) 58 -6% 62 -38% 100 -3% 103 -3% 100 -12% 113 10% 103 -18% 125 23% 102 -35% 156 24% 126 30% 97.12 -16% 115 -1% 116 -25% 154.2 Jail Removal Rate 0.65 -10% 0.72 1.10 1.14 1.1 -11% 1.24 12% 1.11 -17% 1.34 22% 1.1 -35% 1.68 24% 1.36 32% 1.03 -16% 1.23 -1% 1.24 -22% 1.59 In 2006, we increased our lockup universe and also began to clean up status offender reporting methods and training. In 2007, we began reporting status offenders held in lockups, therefore increasing the DSO TOTAL and the JAIL REMOVAL TOTAL numbers. In 2016 the reporting period changed from a 12-month calendar year to a 12-month federal fiscal year beginning October 1st and ending September 31st. -92%percentage change between 2003 total DSO and 2021 (page 3 of the Gov/Leg Report) -46%percentage change between 2003 Jail Removal and 2021 (page 3 of the Gov/Leg Report)