CA Crime Primer

7/30/2019 CA Crime Primer

1/76

Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analysts Ofce

Californias

Criminal Justice

SystemA Primer

January 2007


2/76

Contents

Introduction ...........................................................................3

An Overview of Californias Criminal Justice System ............7

The State of Crime in California .......................................... 16Adult Criminal Justice System .............................................. 28

Juvenile Justice System ........................................................ 49

The Costs of Crime and the Criminal Justice System ...........62

Conclusion ...........................................................................71

Acknowledgments

Steenhausen, and reviewed by Dan Carson and Greg Jolivette.

The Legislative Analysts Ofce (LAO) is a nonpartisan ofce which

provides fscal and policy inormation and advice to the Caliornia

Legislature.To request publications call (916) 445-4656.

This report and others, as well as an E-mail subscription service, are

available on the LAOs Internet site at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is

located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814.

This report was prepared by Brian Brown, Edgar Cabral, and Paul


3/76

Chapter 1:

Introduction

In recent years, the Legislature and Governor have con

sidered and enacted numerous laws to respond to the publicsconcerns with crime and the criminal justice system in Caliornia. The measures included stiening penalties or existing criminal oenses, providing treatment or drug oenders,dening new criminal oenses, constructing new correctional acilities, providing nancial assistance to law enorcement,and reorganizing the state corrections system.

In an eort to put the current discussion o crime in Caliornia in perspective, we have prepared this report to answerseveral key questions, including:

How much crime is there in Caliornia? How has thelevel o crime changed over time? How does crimevary within Caliornia, and among the states?

Who are the victims and perpetrators o crime?

How does the Caliornia criminal justice systemlocallaw enorcement, courts, and correctional agenciesdeal with adult and juvenile oenders?

What are the characteristics o adult and juvenilesunder the supervision o local and state correctionalagencies?

What are the costs o crime and the criminal justicesystem?

What are the key criminal justice issues or policymakers today?


4/76

Caliornias Criminal Justice System: A Primer

Although this report is not designed to present comprehensive answers to all o these questions, it does provide basic inormation on these issues. It does this through a quickreerence document that relies heavily on charts to presentthe inormation. This report relies on the most recent dataavailable rom several ederal and state agencies, includingthe U.S. Department o Justice (U.S. DOJ), the Federal Bureauo Investigation (FBI), the Caliornia Department o Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the Criminal Justice

Statistics Center in the Caliornia Department o Justice (stateDOJ). Below we describe the main components o this report.

Overview o the Criminal Justice System. Chapter 2provides a description o how the criminal justice system isstructured in Caliornia, including the various roles o theederal, state, and local governments. In addition, we identiythe major eatures o criminal sentencing law and the mostsignicant criminal laws enacted in recent years.

The State o Crime in Caliornia. Chapter 3 provides amixed picture o the current state o crime in Caliornia. Thecrime rate in Caliornia declined substantially throughoutmost o the 1990s, but has increased somewhat in more recentyears. Violent crime in Caliornia, however, has continuedto decline even in more recent years, but is still signicantlyhigher than the national average.

Adult Criminal Justice System. Despite the decline incrime rates over recent decades, the state has experienceda signicant increase in incarceration with approximately250,000 adult inmates in jail and prison today, as well asanother 450,000 adults supervised on probation or parole.Chapter 4 describes what happens to adult oenders in thecriminal justice system, including a discussion o trends incriminal arrests, disposition o court cases, and incarceration.

We also discuss two important topics in todays adultjustice system: (1) the discretion that police, prosecutors, andjudges have in its operation, and (2) ederal court involve


5/76

Legislative Analysts Ofce

ment in the provision o prison inmate health care. (See ourNovember 2006 report, Californias Fiscal Outlook[page 43],or our projections o the scal eect o three ederal courtcases concerning the states inmate health care system. Futurepublications by our oce will provide more detailed analysiso this important issue.)

Juvenile Justice System. In many ways, juvenile crimetrends are similar to those or adults. For example, the majority o arrests or both groups are or misdemeanor oenses

rather than elonies, and elony arrest rates or both adultsand juveniles have declined in recent years. Chapter 5 describes the juvenile justice system, including arrest trends,disposition o court cases, and incarceration. We also discussthe rehabilitation mission o the juvenile justice system at

both the local and state levels.Costs o Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Chap

ter 6 documents how spending on the criminal justice system in Caliornia has grown steadily over the past decade,reaching $25 billion in 200304. Most o this spending is done

by local governments, including $11 billion or police andsheris. The astestgrowing segment o the states criminal

justice system is state corrections, with these costs growing atan average annual rate o about 10 percent during the past tenyears. These costs have been driven in large part by increases

in employee salaries, courtordered mandates (such as or theprovision o health care services), as well as inmate population growth.

Conclusion. In Chapter 7, we identiy two major statecriminal justice system challenges acing policymakers. Therst challenge is managing prison capacity in light o pro

jected growth in the states prison population. The amounto growth projected suggests that Caliornias incarcerationcapacity, which is already strained, may be unable to adequately meet the uture demand, and policymakers will haveto careully weigh options to balance population demandsand the available capacity to meet those demands.


6/76


The second challenge regards correctional rehabilitationprograms. While the Legislature and Governor have increased unding or programs such as education and substance abuse treatment or state inmates and parolees, thisunding still only represents a very small share o the prisonsystem budget, resulting in low participation rates or theseprograms. Given the number o inmates who are paroled tothe community and then subsequently return to prison, it isimportant or policymakers to urther consider the role that

rehabilitation programs can play in reducing the states highrecidivism rates.


7/76

Chapter 2:

An Overview oCaliornias Criminal

Justice SystemThe criminal justice system operates at multiple levels o

government: the local, state, and ederal levels. Because thevast majority o criminal activity is handled by state and local authorities, we ocus in this report on the role o the state

and local governments in Caliornias criminal justice system.The primary goal o the system is to provide public saety bydeterring and preventing crime, incarcerating individualswho commit crime, and reintegrating criminals back into thecommunity.

Criminal Sentencing Law

The criminal justice system is based on criminal sentencing law,the body o laws that dene crimes and speciy thepunishments or such crimes. The majority o sentencing lawis set at the state level.

Types o Crimes. Crimes are classied by the seriousnesso the oenses as ollows:

A felony is the most serious type o crime, or which anoender may be sentenced to state prison or a minimum

o one year. Caliornia Penal Code also classies certainelonies as violent or serious. Violent elonies includemurder, robbery, and rape. Serious elonies include allviolent elonies, as well as other crimes such as burglaryo a residence and assault with intent to commit robbery.


8/76


A misdemeanor is a less serious oense, or which theoender may be sentenced to probation, county jail, ane, or some combination o the three. Misdemeanorsinclude crimes such as assault, petty thet, and publicdrunkenness. Misdemeanors represent the majority ooenses in Caliornias criminal justice system.

An infraction is the least serious oense and is generally punishable by a ne. Many motor vehicle viola

tions are considered inractions.Caliornia law also gives law enorcement and prosecu

tors the discretion to charge certain crimes as either a elonyor a misdemeanor. These crimes are known as wobblers.

Determinate Sentencing. Prior to 1977, convicted elons received indeterminate sentences in which the termo imprisonment included a minimum with no prescribed

maximum. For example, an individual might receive a veyearstolie sentence. Ater serving ve years in prison, theindividual would remain incarcerated until the state parole

board determined that the individual was ready to return tothe community and was a low risk to commit crimes in theuture.

In 1976, the Legislature and the Governor enacted a newsentencing structure or elonies, called determinate sen

tencing, which took eect the ollowing year. Under thisstructure, most elony punishments have a dened releasedate based on the triad sentencing structure. The triadsentencing structure provides the court with three sentencingoptions or each crime. For example, a rstdegree burglaryoense is punishable by a term in prison o two, our, or sixyears. The middle term is the presumptive term to be given

to an oender ound guilty o the crime. The upper andlower terms provided in statute can be given i circumstancesconcerning the crime or oender warrant more or less timein state prison. We would note that, in January 2007, the U.S.Supreme Court (Cunningham v. California) restricted a judges


9/76


ability to assign the upper term. In some cases, oenders arestill punished by indeterminate sentences today. Specically,indeterminate sentences are provided or some o the mostserious crimes, such as rstdegree murder, as well as orsome repeat oenders. In act, about 19 percent o state prisoninmates are currently serving indeterminate lie sentences.

Components o the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system can be thought o as having

three components: law enorcement, courts, and corrections.Figure 1 (see next page) shows the dierent actors in Caliornias criminal justice system, including inormation on theirlevel o government and responsibilities. We discuss thesecomponents in more detail below.

Law Enorcement. State sentencing laws are primarilyenorced at the local level by the sheri and police ocers

who investigate crimes and apprehend oenders. Law enorcement is a local responsibility in Caliornia, with undingtypically provided by cities and counties. At the state level,the Attorney General provides some assistance and expertiseto local law enorcement in the investigation o crimes thatare multijurisdictional (occur in multiple counties) such asorganized crime. The state also provides grants to local lawenorcement or various crimeghting activities.

Courts. Once an individual is arrested and charged withcommitting a crime, he or she must go through Caliorniastrial court system. Local district attorneys, employed by thecounty, charge them with a specic crime and prosecutethem. I the individual cannot aord an attorney, he or sheis represented by a public deender, also provided by thecounty. Superior Court judges preside over cases that come

through the system. Judge salaries, as well as all other unding or the operation o the states trial courts, are a responsibility o the state. The system is designed in a way that itprovides fexibility or district attorneys and judges to decide


10/76


10

Figure 1

Roles Within Californias Criminal Justice System

Who Are Subject tothe Control of

These CriminalJustice Officials

Must Often DecideWhether or Not or How to

Police/Sheriffs Cities/Counties Enforce laws

Investigate crimes

Search people, premises

Arrest or detain people

Supervise offenders in local correctionalfacilities(primarily county sheriffs)

File charges

Prosecute the accused

District Attorneys(prosecutors)

Counties

Reduce, modify, or drop charges

Judges State Set bail or conditions for release Accept pleas

Determine delinquency for juveniles

Dismiss charges

Impose sentences

Revoke probation

Probation Officials Counties or Recommend sentences to judges

Judges Supervise offenders released on probation

Supervise offenders (especially juveniles) inprobation camps and ranches

Recommend probation revocation to judges

CorrectionalOfficials

State Assign offenders to type of correctional facility

Supervise prisoners

Award privileges, punish for disciplinaryinfractions

Parole Officials State Determine conditions of parole

Supervise parolees released to the community

Revoke parole and return offenders to prison


11/76


11

how to prosecute specic cases and manage overall caseload.(See page 45 or a more detailed discussion o this topic.)

Corrections. The component o the system that supervises oenders is commonly reerred to as corrections or thecorrectional system. In Caliornia, individuals convicted o,or adjudicated or crimes are placed under supervision eitherat the local level (jail and probation) or the state level (prisonand parole) depending on the seriousness o the crime and thelength o incarceration. Generally speaking, lowlevel oenders

are supervised at the local level, while more serious oenderswho are sentenced to more than a year o incarceration are supervised at the state level. By law, individuals who serve prisonsentences are required to be on parole, typically or a minimum o three years. Although those who serve jail sentencesare not required by law to be on probation, the vast majorityare in act placed on probation ater their release rom jail.

What Is the Dierence Between the State andFederal Criminal Justice Systems?

The state criminal justice system (including both state andlocal agencies) and the ederal criminal justice system havemuch in common. For example, both systems have statutorycriminal law, law enorcement agents, courts, and prisons.Procedurally, the systems are also similar, or example, oer

ing the same protections to criminal deendants, such as theright to jury trial.

The key dierence between the two systems relates tothe criminal law statutes. Federal criminal law is limitedto the powers o the ederal government enumerated in theUnited States Constitution. Thereore, most ederal criminallaws relate to the national governments role in the regula

tion o interstate commerce, immigration, and the protectiono ederal acilities and personnel. Consequently, ederal lawenorcement tends to ocus on nonviolent crimes such asdrug tracking, immigration violations, raud, bribery, andextortion.


12/76


12

Bycomparison,state criminal law is

based on thegeneral police powerso the stateand is there

ore broaderin scope. Forexample,as shownin Figure 2,more thanonehal othe ederalprison population is made up o drug oenders, while only21 percent o state prison inmates were imprisoned or a drugoense. However, there is some crossover, such that somecrimesor example, weapons oenses and robberythatare prosecutable under state law may also be prosecutedunder ederal law. Nevertheless, most crimes are prosecuted

under state law.

What Are Some Signifcant Changes inCriminal Law?

The underlying structure o Caliornia sentencing lawhas remained unchanged since the transition to determinatesentencing in 1976. However, concern about certain types ocrimes, oenders, and law enorcement capabilities has led

the Legislature and voters to make some signicant changesto specic areas o law. We highlight below those changes tocriminal law (since 1990) that have aected large numbers ooenders.

Figure 2

Federal and State Inmate Population

2005

Prison Inmates

California Federal

Offense TypeViolent 50% 10%

Property 22 8

Drug 21 53

Immigration 11

Other 8 17

Details may not total due to rounding.

Totals 168,055 187,241


13/76


13

Proposition 115: Speedy Trial Initiative. Approved bythe voters in 1990, this measure made signicant changes tocriminal law and judicial procedures in criminal cases. Themeasure provided the accused with the right to due processo law and a speedy public trial and required elony trialsto be set within 60 days o a deendants arraignment. Otherprovisions expanded the denition o rstdegree murderand the list o special circumstances that could lead to alonger sentence; changed the way juries are selected or crim

inal trials; changed the rules under which prosecutors anddeense attorneys had to reveal inormation to each other;and, under certain circumstances, allowed the use o hearsayevidence at preliminary hearings, which are conducted to determine i the evidence against a person charged with a crimeis sucient to bind them over or trial.

Three Strikes and Youre Out.In 1994, the Legislatureand voters approved the Three Strikes and Youre Out law(the legislative version is Chapter 12, Statutes o 1994 [AB 971,Bill Jones]). The most signicant aspect o the new law was torequire longer prison sentences or certain repeat oenders.Individuals who have one previous serious or violent elonyconviction and are convicted oany new elony (it need not

be serious or violent) generally receive a prison sentence thatis twice the term otherwise required or the new convic

tion. These individuals are reerred to as second strikers.Individuals who have two previous serious or violent elonyconvictions and are convicted oany new elony are generallysentenced to lie imprisonment with a minimum term o 25years (third strikers). In addition, the law also restricted theopportunity to earn credits that reduce time in prison andeliminated alternatives to prison incarceration or those whohave committed serious or violent elonies.

Proposition 21: Juvenile Crime. Proposition 21, approved by the voters in 2000, expanded the types o cases orwhich juveniles can be tried in adult court. The measure alsoincreased penalties or gangrelated crimes and required convicted gang members to register with local law enorcement.


14/76


1

Proposition 36: Drug Prevention and Treatment. Alsoapproved by the voters in 2000, Proposition 36 provided orthe sentencing o individuals convicted o a nonviolent drugpossession oense to probation rather than prison or jail. Asa condition o probation, the oender is required to completea drug treatment program. The measure excluded certainoenders rom these provisions, including those who reusedrug treatment or are also convicted at the same time or aelony or misdemeanor crime unrelated to drug use.

Megans Law Database. As a result o legislation enactedin the 1950s, the state requires sex oenders to register withlocal law enorcement agencies at least once annually, and additionally within 14 days o moving to a new address. Variouspieces o legislation enacted in the 1990s required law enorcement to provide public access to the state DOJ database,commonly reerred to as the Megans Law database, containing inormation on the residences o sex oenders. Initially,this inormation was available via a stateoperated 900 telephone line and a CDROM disc available at local law enorcement agencies. In 2004, the Legislature enacted Chapter 745,Statutes o 2004 (AB 488, Parra), which made the Megans Lawdatabase available electronically via the Internet.

Proposition 69: DNA Samples. Enacted in 2004, thismeasure required state and local law enorcement agencies to

collect samples o deoxyribonucleic acid, commonly knownas DNA, rom all convicted elons, some nonelons, andcertain arrestees or inclusion in the states DNA data bank.Samples rom the data bank are compared to DNA evidencerom unsolved crimes to look or potential matches. Althoughthe state collected DNA samples rom certain elons prior topassage o this measure, this measure greatly expanded thenumber o individuals rom whom the state was required tocollect DNA.

Senate Bill 1128 (Alquist) and Proposition 83: JessicasLaw. In 2006, the Legislature enacted Chapter 337, Statuteso 2006 (SB 1128, E. Alquist), and voters approved Proposi


15/76


1

tion 83, commonly reerred to as Jessicas Law. These newlaws made a number o changes regarding the sentencing osex oenses. Among other changes, they increased penaltiesor certain sex oenses, required global positioning systemmonitoring o elony sex oenders or lie, restricted wheresex oenders can live, and expanded the denition o whoqualies as a sexually violent predator who can be committed to a state mental hospital by the courts or mental healthtreatment.


16/76


1

Chapter 3:

The State oCrime in Caliornia

Measuring Crime in Caliornia

Crime is primarily measured in two dierent ways. Oneapproach is based on ocial reports rom law enorcementagencies, which are compiled and published by the FBI.Caliornia data is published by the Criminal Justice StatisticsCenter in the state DOJ. These are the statistics oten cited inreports and newspaper articles. The other method is throughnational victimization surveys in which researchers ask asample o individuals i they have been victims o crime, regardless o whether the crime was reported to the police.

Crimes Reported to Law Enorcement. Since 1930, theFBI has been charged with collecting and publishing reliablecrime statistics or the nation, which it currently producesthrough the Uniorm Crime Reporting (UCR) program.Local law enorcement agencies in Caliornia and other statessubmit crime inormation, which is orwarded to the FBI. In

order to eliminate dierences among various states statutorydenitions o crime, UCR reports data only on selected generalcrime categories, which are separated into violent and property crimes. The violent crimes measured under UCR includemurder, orcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes include burglary, larcenythet, and motor vehiclethet. All crime rate data provided in this chapter are based

on crimes reported by local law enorcement.The UCR crime inormation is typically presented interms o rates. A rate is dened as the number o occurrenceso a criminal event within a population. Crime rates aretypically presented as a rate per 100,000 people. For example,


17/76


17

Caliornias 2005 murder rate was 6.9, which means that therewere 6.9 murders per 100,000 Caliornians in 2005. Presenting inormation in terms o rates makes it easier to comparecriminal activity in regions with diering population sizes.

Crime Estimates Through Victimization Surveys. Crimestatistics rom law enorcement do not tell the entire story ocrime. There is a signicant amount o crime committed eachyear that goes unreported to law enorcement authorities andthereore is not counted in ocial statistics.

In order to provide a more complete picture o the amounto crime committed, the U.S. DOJ, through its National CrimeVictimization Survey (NCVS), surveys households and askswhether they have been victims o crime. The NCVS is conducted annually at the national level, not on a statebystate

basis. It provides useul nationwide inormation on such issues as the number o violent and property crimes in the nation, the likelihood o victimization or various demographicgroups, the percentage o crimes reported to the police, thecharacteristics o oenders, and the location o crimes. TheNCVS uses victimization rates to compare the requencyo victimization among various demographic groups. Thevictimization rate or a particular group is presented as a rateper 1,000 people and excludes individuals under the age o 12.

What Is the State o Crime in Caliornia?Statewide. Providing an assessment o criminal activity

in Caliornia depends on the time horizon one uses. Froma longerterm perspective, the state has seen substantialdecreases in crime over time. Crime rates have decreased51 percent since reaching their peak in 1980. However, shorterterm trends are not as positive. Although violent crimes

have continued to decline, property crimes have increased7 percent since 2000. Comparing Caliornia to the rest o theU.S. also results in mixed conclusions. Although Caliorniasoverall crime rate was signicantly higher than the nationalcrime rate throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the states


18/76


1

crime rate is now slightly lower than the national rate. Caliornias violent crime rate, however, remains higher than theU.S. rate.

Regional Variation. It is important to note that there isalso signicant variation in crime rates among the regions oCaliornia. Generally, the Central Valley has the highest crimerates o any region in Caliornia. Among the most populousCaliornia counties, three o the our counties with the highest crime rates (San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Fresno) are

located in the Central Valley. The counties with the lowestcrime rates are in Southern Caliornia and the Bay Areaspecically, Ventura, Orange, and Santa Clara Counties, asshown on page 22.

This chapter provides inormation on crime rates inCaliornia. This includes data on the prevalence o crime inCaliorniaincluding comparisons o Caliornias crime ratesto those o other states and comparisons among Caliorniacountiesas well as data on the oenders and victims ocrime. The chapter also discusses two other crimerelatedtopics: (1) the major actors that have caused a decline incrime rates, and (2) the prevalence o drug crimes, which arenot included in traditional crime rate data.


19/76


1

How Prevalent Is Crime in Caliornia?

Rise and Fall of Californias Crime Rates

Rate Per 100,000 Population

1960 Through 2005

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Total ViolentProperty

Caliornia experienced a decline in crime rates or nineconsecutive years, rom 1992 to 2000. During this period,

the overall crime rate decreased by 56 percent. This trend issimilar to declines in crime patterns in the rest o the U.S.

Since 2000, however, overall crime in Caliornia has increased 3 percent. The increase is driven by increases inproperty crime, which has increased 7 percent. The violentcrime rate has continued to decline, dropping 15 percent

since 2000.


20/76


20

Overall, Caliornia reported 3,849 crimes per 100,000people in 2005.

Property crime accounted or about 86 percent o reported

crimes in Caliornia in 2005, and violent crime accountedor 14 percent.

Although the proportion o crime changes slightly everyyear, property crimes consistently represent approximately 85 percent o all reported crimes.

Most Crime Is Property Crime

2005

AggravatedAssault

Burglary

Motor VehicleTheft

Larceny-theft(over $400)

Larceny-theft(under $400)

Robbery

Homicide

Forcible Rape

Violent

Property


21/76


21

Caliornias crime rate was slightly lower than the U.S.crime rate in 2005, and was th highest among the tenlargest states.

Caliornia also has the th highest violent crime rateamong the ten largest states, 11 percent higher than theU.S. rate. Caliornias property crime rate ranks thamong the largest states, 3 percent below the national rate.

Caliornias property crime rate has increased 7 percentsince 2000, the only large state to have experienced aproperty crime increase. Much like the rest o the nation,

however, Caliornia has continued to experience decreasesin violent crime.

Californias Crime Rate Is

Close to National Average


2005

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Illinois

Michigan

California

U.S. Average

Ohio

Georgia

Florida

Texas

U.S. Rate

Violent

Property


22/76


22

Among the 15 largest counties in Caliornia, San Joaquinhad the highest violent crime and property crime rates.

Ventura had the lowest violent and property crime rates.

Since 2000, property crime rates have increased in 12 othe 15 large counties. Violent crime has increased in 5 othe 15 large counties.

Kern had the largest increase in property crime since 2000,at 34 percent, while Fresno had the largest decrease, with a

9 percent decline.

Between 2000 and 2005, San Mateo had the highest increase in violent crime, at 22 percent, while Los Angeleshad a 30 percent decrease, the largest decrease o all thelarge counties.

Crime Rates Vary Among Counties


2005

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

Ventura

Orange

Santa Clara

San Mateo

California

Los Angeles

San Diego

San Bernardino

Contra Costa

San Francisco

Riverside

Kern

Fresno

Alameda

Sacramento

San Joaquin

Violent

Property

California Rate


23/76


23

Who Is Involved in Crime?

Who Commits Crime?

The NCVS, conducted annually by the U.S. DOJ, providesuseul inormation about criminal oenders in the U.S. The2005 NCVS shows that:

About 79 percent o violent crimes involving one oender were committed by a male.

In 52 percent o assaults, the oender was someoneknown to the victim. However, the oender was someone known to the victim in only 20 percent o robberies. In rapes and sexual assaults, oenders were known

by 65 percent o their victims. For all violent crimes,emales were more likely than males to be victimized

by someone they know.

About 45 percent o violent crimes were committed byindividuals ages 15 through 29, despite representingonly 21 percent o the overall population.

About 28 percent o violent crimes involved an oenderwho was perceived to be under the infuence o drugs

or alcohol.


24/76


2

Who Are the Victims o Crime?

The 2005 NCVS also provides inormation on the characteristics o victims o crime. O particular interest are theollowing:

Age. Individuals age 12 to 24those most likely tocommit violent crimeswere also most likely to be thevictims o violent crime. The chances o becoming avictim o violent crime were signicantly lower or allother age groups.

Sex. The likelihood o being a victim o violent crimewas 45 percent higher or males than or emales.

Ethnicity. Violent victimization rates or blacks were37 percent higher than those or whites. Hispanicshad violent victimization rates 24 percent higher thanwhites. Black households were victims o propertycrimes at a rate 7 percent lower than whites, and Hispanic household victimization rates were 35 percenthigher than whites. These rates, however, can varysignicantly rom year to year.

Economic Status. Poorer households were much morelikely to experience an unlawul entry into their homes

(burglary) than wealthier households. However, whilewealthier households do not experience burglary asoten, they were more likely to be victims o thet,which includes the taking o household items, motorvehicle accessories, or other objects without entry intothe home.


25/76


2

Key Topics in Caliornia Crime Trends

What Major Factors Have CausedDeclining Crime Rates?

During the 1990s, the U.S. experienced an unprecedenteddecrease in crime rates at a time when many experts werepredicting that crime would reach alltime highs. This decrease was consistent throughout the nation, rom large

urban cities to small rural areas. Numerous studies have beenconducted to examine the causes o this drop in crime levels.Although there is no consensus on all causes o the decreasesin the crime rate, the ollowing actors are widely consideredto be among the most signicant actors in the crime drop:

Increased Prison Population. Higher rates o incarceration reduce crime or two reasons. First, keeping

a higher proportion o criminals in prison keeps themrom committing new crimes. Second, high incarceration rates are believed to serve as a deterrent, discouraging others rom committing uture crimes. In Caliornia, the boom in the prison population was due toactors such as increases in the number o individualssentenced to prison by the courts, higher rates o paroleviolators returning to prison, and the use o sentenceenhancements.

More Police. Studies have also shown that a nationwideincrease in police ocers per capita has been a actor inreducing crime rates. There has been little conclusiveresearch, however, ocusing on whether certain types opolice strategies, such as socalled community policing,

have been eective strategies or reducing crime.

Demographic Factors. Changes in the states crime rateollow changes in the portion o the population aged 18through 24, the age group most likely to be involved in


26/76


2

criminal activity. In Caliornia, the share o the population in the 18 to 24 age group increased throughout the1970s until reaching its peak in 1978, when 18 to 24 yearolds represented 14 percent o the population. The shareo 18 to 24 yearolds decreased consistently throughoutthe 1980s and 1990s, until 1997, when the share haddropped to 10 percent. This pattern ollows the peaksand valleys o the states crime rates; Caliornia reachedits peak crime rate in 1980 and its lowest crime rate in

2000, consistent with increases and decreases in theshare o 18 to 24 yearolds in the population. During thenext 15 years, the share o 18 to 24 yearolds in the statespopulation is projected to remain stable at approximately 10 percent o the population.

Economic Factors. Changes in unemployment, poverty, and mean household income also aect crime rates.

In the U.S., the economic boom o the late 1990s likelyplayed a role in the reduction o crime rates. Althougheconomic actors are oten considered a central component to variations in crime, research shows that actorssuch as police ocers per capita and prison populationmay have a greater impact on the crime rate.

Drug CrimesA Signifcant Share o Felony Arrests and Incarceration.

The FBI Crime Index ocuses solely on crimes that involve violence against persons or the loss o personal property. Thesestatistics do not include crimes related to the possession,sale, or manuacture o illegal drugs. However, drug crimesdo represent a signicant portion o all crimes committed in

the U.S. and within Caliornia. In 2005, elony drug arrestsrepresented 30 percent o all elony arrests in Caliornia. Asa result, approximately 21 percent o inmates in Caliorniasprisons were incarcerated or a drugrelated crime. This is asignicant increase as compared to 20 years ago when only


27/76


27

11 percent o state inmates were incarcerated or drug oenses. This increase is likely due to changes in drug lawsparticularly in the 1980sthat increased penalties or the possession and sale o illegal drugs.

Although there has not been a recent change in arrest orincarceration rates or drug crimes, there has been a changein the type o drugs most commonly used. Caliornia hasexperienced growth in the use o methamphetamines, whichhas become an increasingly popular drug in the western U.S.

In addition, Caliornia is the primary source o methamphetamine sold in the U.S.

Drug Courts. Because a signicant number o individuals are requently imprisoned solely or drugrelated crimes,several Caliornia counties began using drug courts ormanaging individuals with substance abuse problems. Therst drug court was established in Alameda County in 1993.Rather than seeking imprisonment, drug courts use judiciallysupervised treatment, mandatory drug testing, and a systemo sanctions and rewards to help individuals become soberand successully return to their communities.

This ocus on treatment rather than incarceration becamea statewide priority ater the enactment o Proposition 36 in2000, which provided the option o treatment or drug oenders who had been convicted o only drugrelated crimes.

In 2006, the Legislature increased the states annual undingor Proposition 36 programs, providing counties with a totalGeneral Fund appropriation o $145 million or this purposein 200607. This action was intended to allow counties tomaintain the level o support or these programs in 200506using unding carried over rom prior years. The Governors200708 budget plan proposes a net reduction o $25 millionin support or Proposition 36 programs.


28/76


2

Chapter :

Adult CriminalJustice System

As indicated in the prior chapter, victimization studies

show that a substantial amount o crime goes unreported tolaw enorcement. According to NCVS studies, about 60 percent o all crimes are not discovered or reported to lawenorcement authorities. In addition, o the crimes reported tolaw enorcement ocials, only about oneth are solved. In2005, or example, only about 17 percent o all reported crimeswere solved or cleared (that is, a person was charged with acrime). This gure has remained relatively stable or a num

ber o years.Following an arrest, a law enorcement agency may le a

complaint against the individual and he or she may be prosecuted. Prosecution may result in the person being convicted.Persons who are convicted are given a ne and/or are sentenced to county probation, county jail, county probationwith a jail term, or state prison. The vast majority o convicted

oenders end up on county probation and/or in county jail(as shown on page 33).Although the Legislature and Governor enact laws that

dene crimes and set penalties, criminal justice ocialsexercise a great deal o discretion in enorcing these laws. Thegreatest discretion is at the local level, when police decidewhether to arrest someone or a crime, prosecutors decidewhether or how to charge a person with a crime, and courts

adjudicate suspected oenders (as discussed on page 45).This chapter provides inormation on the adult criminal

justice system. This includes data on what happens to adultoenders rom arrest through incarceration. The chapter alsoprovides inormation on the characteristics o those in the


29/76


2

criminal justice system, such as demographics and criminalhistory. In addition, this chapter discusses two topics aecting the adult criminal justice system: (1) the discretion opolice ocers, prosecutors, and judges aecting outcomesor adult oenders, and (2) ederal court intervention in theprison health care system.


30/76


30

What Happens to Adult Oenders?

Most Crimes Are Not Reported to Authorities

Percentage of Crimes Reported

2005

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90%

Total

Theft

Household Burglary

Motor Vehicle Theft

Property

Rape/Sexual Assault

Robbery

Aggravated Assault

Violenta

Rate for All Crime

aDoes not include homicide.

According to NCVS studies, 41 percent o the crimescommitted were reported to authorities in 2005. About

47 percent o all violent crimes were reported, while only40 percent o property crimes were reported. (This reportgenerally uses the term violent crimes to signiy a category o oenses committed against personssuch as homicides and assaultsand is broader than the list o eloniesdened as violent under the Three Strikes law.)

About 83 percent o motor vehicle thets were reported to

the police, the highest rate o the major crime categories.This is likely due to the act that individuals must lepolice reports in order to le auto insurance claims.

Only 38 percent o rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police, lowest among violent crimes.


31/76


31

In 2005, 44 percent o violent crimes in Caliornia weresolved, while 13 percent o property crimes were solved.

A crime is typically considered solved, or cleared, when

someone has been arrested, charged or the crime, andturned over or prosecution.

Generally, those crimes in which the oender is morelikely to be a relative or acquaintance o the victim, such ashomicide and aggravated assault, have a higher likelihoodo being solved.

Most Reported Crimes Are Not Solved

Percentage of Crimes Solved2005

10 20 30 40 50 60%

Motor Vehicle Theft

Violent

Property

Burglary

Larceny-Theft

Robbery

Forcible Rape

Homicide

Aggravated Assault

Total

Rate for All Crime


32/76


32

There were almost 1.5 million arrests o adults and juveniles or elonies and misdemeanors in Caliornia in 2005.

About 64 percent o the arrests were or misdemeanors,while 36 percent were or elonies.

The share o arrests that are misdemeanors and elonieshas remained constant over the past ten years.

Most Arrests Are for Misdemeanors

2005

Felony

Misdemeanor


33/76


33

Outcomes of Adult Felony Arrests in California

a Other includes no sentence given, sentence suspended, sentence stayed, CaliforniaRehabilitation Center, Youth Authority, fine, and death sentence.

Complaints Dismissed

15%

Complaints Filed

85%

Not Convicted

14%

Convicted

71%

Total Arrests

477,005

42% Probation With Jail

13% State Prison

11% Probation

3% Jail

3% Othera

Detail may not total due torounding.

2005


34/76


3

In 200405, there were 1.2 million elony and misdemeanordispositions in Caliornias Superior Courts. Only 8,000 othose cases, or 0.6 percent o all dispositions, reach a jurytrial.

Only 0.3 percent o misdemeanor cases reach a jury trial.

About 2.2 percent o elony cases go to a jury trial, a signicantly higher proportion than or misdemeanor cases,

but still a very small portion o the total.

O elony cases that do not go to jury trial, 80 percent

are pleabargained and 20 percent result in acquittals,dismissals, or transers. For misdemeanor cases, approximately 70 percent o cases that do not go to trial lead to aguilty plea by the deendant.

Very Few Criminal Cases Go to Jury Trial

Cases Ending in Jury Trial

2004-05

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0%

MisdemeanorTotal Felony


35/76


3

Between 1985 and 2005, the jail population grew rom51,000 inmates to 81,000 inmates (about 2 percent annually). Most o this growth occurred during the 1980s.

The relative stability in the jail population since 1989 is inpart due to ederallyimposed caps on jail population. By2005, 20 counties had jails placed under such caps.

Many more oenders are on probation than in jail. Thenumber o adults on probation in Caliornia grew by lessthan 3 percent annually between 1985 and 2005, goingrom 210,000 to approximately 344,000 probationers.

O the 344,000 adults on probation in 2005, 77 percent wereon probation or a elony, with the remainder misdemeanors. In some counties all probationers are convicted o aelony. In other counties, less than 50 percent o probationers are convicted o a elony.

Growth in Adult Jail and Probation Populations

Average Daily Population

1985 Through 2005

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Jail

Probation


36/76


3

The prison population grew rom about 59,000 inmates in1986 to 173,000 inmates in 2006 (5 percent average annualgrowth). Similarly, the prison incarceration rate grew rom220 to 460 inmates per 100,000 Caliornians over the same

period (4 percent average annual growth).

Most o this growth occurred between 1986 and 1998. Thisperiod was one o declining crime rates but also includedthe implementation o tougher sentencing laws and aprison construction boom that activated 20 state prisons.

The prison population is projected to grow by more than

17,000 inmates over the next six years. This level o growthwould signicantly exceed the total bed capacity o theprison system in the near term, including housing in nontraditional beds in gyms and dayrooms.

State Prison Population and Incarceration Rate

Slowed in Recent Years

1986 Through 2006

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

100

200

300

400

500

600Prison Population

(left axis)

Prison Incarceration Rate

(right axis)Prison PopulationIncarceration Rate

(Per 100,000)


37/76


37

Caliornias total incarceration rate, including both inmates in local jails and prisons is 683 (per 100,000 population). This is relatively close to the national average o 740.

As with most states, roughly twothirds o Caliorniasincarcerated population is housed in state prisons.

O the ten largest states, Georgia has the highest incarceration rate (1,022), more than twice the rate o New York (480).

Total California Incarceration Rate

Similar to U.S. Average

Total Incarceration Rate Per 100,000 Population

2005

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

New York

Illinois

New Jersey

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Michigan

California

U.S. Average

Florida

Texas

Georgia

Prison

Jail

U.S. Incarceration Rate


38/76


3

Most parole violators (PVs) are returned to custody (PVRTC) or violations o the conditions o their parole, whileothers are convicted in courts or new crimes with newterms (PVWNT).

The total number o parole violations that resulted in anoender being returned to prison has increased veoldover the past 20 years rom about 16,000 PVs in 1985 to81,000 in 2005. There were about 115,000 individuals understate parole supervision at the end o 2005.

The larger number o parole returns mostly refects increas

es in the total prison and parole populations, which havegrown by almost ourold since 1985. This increase alsorefects a rise in the rate at which parolees are returned toprison as PVRTCs. The PVRTC rate has increased by about15 percent during the past 20 years due in part to changesin parole revocation regulations.

Growth in Number of Parole Returns to Prison

1985 Through 2005

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

PV-WNTs

PV-RTCs


39/76


3

Who Is in Corrections?

Relatively Few Jail Inmates and Probationers

Convicted for Violent Crimes

2005

Violent Crimes

Property Crimes

Other Crimes

Drug Crimes

About 176,000 individuals were sentenced to local correctionsjail, probation, or bothin 2005. About 76 percent

o the total were sentenced to both jail and probation.

O this total, about 18 percent were convicted or violentcrimes, while 55 percent were convicted or property ordrug oenses. About 27 percent were convicted or othercrimes, including driving under the infuence or possession o a weapon.

The act that individuals committing violent crimes makeup a relatively small share o the total sentenced to localcorrections largely refects the act that violent crimes represent less than 19 percent o all elony convictions.


40/76


0

Almost twothirds o court admissions to state prison areor property and drug oenses, including drug possession(15 percent), drug sales (15 percent), burglary (9 percent),and auto thet (7 percent).

About onequarter o admissions to prison rom the courtsare or violent crimes. O these, the most common oensesare assault (13 percent) and robbery (5 percent).

The other crimes category include weapons possession(5 percent) and driving under the infuence (2 percent).

Most Inmates Sent to PrisonFor Property and Drug Crimes

2005

Violent Crimes

Property Crimes

Other Crimes

Drug Crimes


41/76


1

The prison population is predominantly comprised omale blacks and Hispanics age 20 through 39.

By comparison, the Caliornia population has signicantlyhigher percentages o women, whites, and older individuals than are in prison.

During the past 20 years, the percentage o inmates whoare Hispanic has increased by about 10 percent, while thepercentage that is white or black has decreased. Over thisperiod, the percentage o inmates age 50 or older, morethan doubled. The gender distribution o the prison population has remained stable.

Demographics of the

Prison Population

2006

PrisonPopulation

California AdultPopulation

Gender

Male 93% 50%Female 7 50

Ethnicity

Black 29% 6%

Hispanic 38 29

White 28 51

Other 6 14

Age

18-19 1% 4%20-29 31 19

30-39 31 20

40-49 26 21

50-59 9 16

60 and older 2 20

Details may not total due to rounding.

Total Population 172,508 27,648,604


42/76


2

About 40 percent o all strikers committed a violent crimeas their current oense, while 50 percent committed aproperty or drug oense.

Third strikers are more likely than second strikers to havea current oense that is a violent crime. About 44 percento third strikers (3,514) and 39 percent o second strikers(12,935) are currently incarcerated or a violent crime.

In 2006, strikers made up about 24 percent o the totalprison population.

Striker Population by Most Recent Offense

2006

Total

Current Offense

ThirdStrikers

SecondStrikers Number Percent

Violent Crimes 3,514 12,935 16,449 40%Robbery 1,821 4,884 6,705 16

Assault With a DeadlyWeapon 458 2,645 3,103 8

Assault/Battery 426 2,432 2,858 7

Property Crimes 2,414 9,147 11,561 28%1st Degree Burglary 931 2,502 3,433 8

2nd Degree Burglary 479 1,701 2,180 5

Petty Theft With a Prior 359 1,400 1,759 4

Drug Crimes 1,295 7,880 9,175 22%

Possession of a ControlledSubstance 681 3,782 4,463 11

Possession of a ControlledSubstance for Sale

313 2,369 2,682 7

Sale of a ControlledSubstance 198 1,091 1,289 3

Other Crimesa 722 3,313 4,035 10%Possession of a Weapon 432 1,825 2,257 5

Totals 7,945 33,275 41,220 100%

a For example, arson and driving under the influence.


43/76


3

In 2005, there were more than 64,000 inmates released romprison ater completing their prison sentence. On average,these inmates were incarcerated or two years.

About 78 percent o inmates released served time or aproperty, drug, or other nonviolent oense. These oenders were incarcerated or an average o less than two years.On average, inmates who committed violent crimessuchas kidnapping, sex oenses, or homicide (including murder and manslaughter)were incarcerated or an averageo more than three years.

Data on the average time served in prison shown above isor oenders released rom prison. But some oenders arenever released. As o December 31, 2005, about 31,700 inmates (19 percent o the inmate population) were servinglie terms in prison and over 600 inmates were on deathrow awaiting execution.

Violent Offenders Serve Longer

Sentences Than Others

2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Total All Crimes

Theft

Drug Possession

Driving Under the Influence

Possession of Weapon

Burglary

Drug Sales, Manufacturing

Arson

AssaultOther Sex Offenses

Robbery

Rape

Homicide

Kidnapping

Average Time Served

Years Served


44/76


Under state law, all inmates released rom prison mustserve a term on parole. In the 200708 budget, the Governor proposed modication o this policy, which wouldprovide an exception or certain lowlevel oenders.

Generally, inmates leaving prison are required by law toparole to the county in which they were prosecuted. About75 percent o the 117,000 parolees statewide are concentrated in ten counties. These counties represent 72 percento the total Caliornia population.

Los Angeles County has more than 35,000 (30 percent) o

the total parole population. In total, 28 percent o Caliornians reside in Los Angeles County.

Three-Fourths of Parole

Population Resides in Ten Counties

2006

County Parolees Percent

Los Angeles 35,376 30%

San Bernardino 8,815 8

San Diego 7,626 7

Orange 7,229 6Riverside 7,193 6

Santa Clara 5,344 5

Fresno 4,743 4

Kern 4,106 4

Sacramento 3,603 3

Alameda 3,309 3

All other counties 29,453 25

Total California 116,797 100%Detail may not total due to rounding.


45/76


Key Topics in Adult Criminal Justice

Discretion Among Police Ofcers, Judges, and

District Attorneys

Although it is sometimes overlooked, police (includingcounty sheris), judges and district attorneys (DAs) have agreat deal o discretion in carrying out their responsibilitiesthat can signicantly aect trends in punishment and incar

ceration within county jails and the state prison system.Police. The actions o law enorcement agencies primarily

aect the nature o the criminal cases that will be reviewedby DAs and judges. Law enorcement agencies decide how todistribute ocers throughout their jurisdiction and prioritizethe use o their resources in enorcing criminal laws. Whenthey encounter dierent types o crime, police ocers decide

which investigations to conduct and which individuals toarrest. Once an arrest has been made, police ocers also candecide to release an arrestee without ling criminal charges.

District Attorneys. The DAs have a signicant amount oauthority that aects the outcome o many criminal cases. TheDAs review inormation or various cases and decide whichcases to prosecute and which to dismiss, based on availableevidence and the countys priorities. Once they decide to pros

ecute a case, they also decide whether to plea bargain witha deendant, thereby oregoing a jury trial in exchange or aguilty plea to a lesser oense. Since a very small percentage ocases end up in a jury trial (as shown onpage 34), the bargaining decisions o DAs ultimately determine the punishment orvirtually all criminal cases. In addition, DAs can have a signicant impact on the cases that do end up in a jury trial. For

example, the DA decides whether to pursue the death penaltyor an individual who has been charged with murder. Also,DAs can decide whether to seek a sentencing enhancementthat would ensure a longer prison sentence upon conviction,such as under the Three Strikes law.


46/76


Judges. Once an individual has been convicted o a crime,judges have nal discretion in determining prison or jailsentences. Under Caliornia sentencing law, a range o punishments is provided or many types o crimes. For example,rstdegree burglary is punishable by imprisonment oreither two, our, or six years; the particular sentence that aconvicted burglar receives depends on the decision o the

judge. However, we would note that a ruling made by the U.S.Supreme Court in January 2007 (Cunningham v. California),

restricts a judges ability to assign sentences that are higherthan the presumptive term. In addition, judges have the discretion to sentence a convicted elon to probation in lieu o aprison term, and dismiss prior strikes so that a elon is not required to serve additional prison time as otherwise required

by the Three Strikes and Youre Out law.Overall. A number o actors play a role in the decisions

made by police, DAs, and judges. Some relate to the specicso each case, such as the severity o the crime and the criminal history o the deendant. Other, broader considerationscan also come into play. For example, a judge might be lesslikely to require jail time or a deendant i county jails areover capacity. Similarly, a DA might be more likely to plea

bargain i the court is acing an overwhelming number o cases. On the other hand, a growing problem in the community,

such as drugs or gangs, might lead to stronger action by lawenorcement, judges, and DAs, leading to higher arrest rates,less plea bargaining, and longer sentences. County sheris,county DAs, and superior court judges are publicly elected ineach county. This explains in part why certain counties tendto hand down harsher sentences to criminal oenders thanothers. For example, ater adjusting or population and arrestrates, Kern County is much more likely to impose longerprison sentences under the states Three Strikes law than SanFrancisco County.

The discretion that police, judges, and DAs have in thesematters can have signicant eects on the state criminal


47/76


7

justice system. Together they aect rates o arrest, lengthso imprisonment, the number o individuals incarcerated incounty jails and state prison, the length o parole and probation, and, ultimately, the overall costs o the state criminal

justice system and the share o these costs borne by the stateand local governments.

Correctional Health Care:Federal Court Supervision

Court Findings. The CDCR operates three main typeso health care programs: medical, mental health, and dentalcare. Each program is currently under varying levels o ederal court supervision based on court rulings that the statehas ailed to provide inmates with adequate care as requiredunder the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thecourts ound key deciencies in the states correctional pro

grams, including: (1) an inadequate number o sta to deliverhealth care services, (2) an inadequate amount o clinical spacewithin prisons, (3) ailures to ollow nationally recognizedhealth care guidelines or treating inmatepatients, and (4)poor coordination between health care sta and custody sta.

The health care case with the greatest level o courtinvolvement relates to CDCRs medical program. Since April2006, medical services have been administered by a ederal

receiver, whose mandate is to bring the department into compliance with constitutional standards. To that end, the receivers powers include hiring and ring medical sta, enteringinto contracts with community providers, and acquiring anddisposing o property, including new inormation technologysystems.

Potential Costs. Compliance with court requirements

in the three health care programs is expected to result insignicant additional costs to the department over the nextseveral years, including costs to attract highquality healthcare proessionals and expand clinical space to accommodateadded sta. We have estimated that these costs could even


48/76


49/76


Chapter :

Juvenile JusticeSystem

Unlike the adult criminal justice system, the stated pur

pose o the juvenile justice system is to ocusprimarily onrehabilitation rather than punishment. To this end, counties and state juvenile acilities provide signicantly moreeducation, treatment, and counseling programs to juvenileoenders as compared to adult oenders. Consequently, correctional programs or juveniles tend to be more expensive tooperate than or adults.

Generally, the juvenile justice system is a local responsi

bility. Following the arrest o a juvenile, the law enorcementocer has the discretion to release the juvenile to his or herparents, or to take the suspect to juvenile hall and reer thecase to the county probation department. Probation ocialsdecide how to process the cases reerred to them. For example, they can choose to close the case at intake or, with thepermission o the juveniles parents, place a juvenile oender

on inormal probation. About onehal o the cases reerredto probation result in the ling o a petition with the juvenilecourt or a hearing. In 2005 approximately 99,000 petitionswere led in juvenile court (as shown on page 57).

Taking into account the recommendations o probationdepartment sta, juvenile court judges decide whether tomake the oender a ward o the court and, ultimately, determine the appropriate placement and treatment or the

juvenile. Placement decisions are based on such actors as thejuveniles oense, prior record, criminal sophistication, andthe countys capacity to provide treatment. Judges declare the

juvenile a ward o the court almost twothirds o the time.


50/76


0

Most wards are placed under the supervision o the countyprobation department. These youth are typically placed in acounty acility or treatment (such as juvenile hall or camp) orsupervised at home. Other wards are placed in oster care ora group home.

A small number o wards (under 2 percent annually),generally constituting the states most serious and chronic

juvenile oenders, are committed by the juvenile court to theCDCRs Division o Juvenile Justice (DJJ) (previously known

as the Department o the Youth Authority) and become a stateresponsibility (as shown on page 57). In addition, juvenilestried in adult criminal court or particularly serious or violentcrimes are placed in a DJJ acility until their 18th birthday, atwhich time they are transerred to state prison or the remainder o their sentence.

This chapter provides inormation on the juvenile justicesystem. This includes data on juvenile arrest rates, the characteristics o juvenile oenders, and the outcomes or juvenilearrestees. The chapter also discusses two topics aecting the

juvenile justice system: (1) reorming DJJ juvenile acilities,and (2) the changing roles o the state and local governmentsin the juvenile justice system.


51/76


1

Legal Categories of Juvenile Offenders

Juveniles who have committed a minor offense.Informal ProbationersWelfare and InstitutionsCode Section 654

Known as 654s

Probation officers have a great deal of flexibilityand can place a juvenile on informal probation if

the officer decides the juvenile is under thejurisdiction of the juvenile court or is likelyto beunder its jurisdiction in the future.

These juveniles are often diverted into substanceabuse, mental health, crisis shelters, or otherservices.

Juveniles who have committed offenses unique toa juvenile, such as truancy, a curfew violation, and

incorrigibility.

Status OffendersWelfare and Institutions

Code Section 601Known as 601s They can be placed on formal probation but cannot

be detained or incarcerated with criminal offenders.

Offenders under the age of 18 years who commit amisdemeanor or felony.

Subject to the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.

Criminal OffendersWelfare and InstitutionsCode Section 602

Known as 602s Can be placed on formal probation, detained beforeadjudication in a juvenile hall, and/or incarcerated

after adjudication in a county or state facility.

They are treated differently from adults; they arenot tried, but adjudicated; they are notconvicted, but rather, their petition is sustained.

Any juvenile age 14 or older, who commitsspecified felonies and is determined not fit foradjudication in juvenile court.

Tried in superior court as an adult.

If convicted, is sentenced to state prison and heldin a DJJ facility for all or part of sentence.

Juveniles Remandedto Superior CourtWelfare and InstitutionsCode Section 707

Known as 707Bsor remands If convicted, is sentenced to state prison and held in

a DJJ facility for all or part of sentence.

Who Are Juvenile Oenders?


52/76


2

In 2005, males accounted or about 74 percent o all juvenile arrests in Caliornia. Males accounted or more than80 percent o all juvenilefelony arrests.

Most juveniles arrested in 2005 were age 15 through 17.

Only 2 percent o juvenile arrests were in the 10 and 11 agegroup.

Black and Hispanic juveniles represented about onehal oCaliornias juvenile population age 10 through 17 in 2005,

but they accounted or almost twothirds o juvenile arrests.

Juvenile Arrests by

Gender, Race, and Age

2005

JuvenileArrests

CaliforniaYouth Population

Male 74% 51%

Female 26 49

Black 17% 8%

Hispanic 48 46

White 28 33

Other 7 14

Ages 10-11 2% 24%

Ages 12-14 27 38

Ages 15-17 71 38

Totals 222,512 4,493,439


53/76


3

How Prevalent Is Juvenile

Crime in Caliornia?

Most Juvenile Arrests Are

For Misdemeanor Crimes

2005

Total Arrests

223,000

FeloniesMisdemeanors

Status Offenses

There were almost 223,000 juvenile arrests in Caliornia in2005.

Misdemeanor crimesincluding crimes such as pettythet and assault and batteryaccounted or 60 percent oall juvenile arrests.

Felony arrests, such as burglary, accounted or 27 percent

o all juvenile arrests.

Socalled status oenses, which include truancy and curew violations, accounted or 13 percent o juvenile arrestsin 2005.


54/76


Although the population o juveniles in Caliornia hasincreased by about 24 percent since 1995, the number o

juvenile elony arrests has decreased by 33 percent.

Juvenile misdemeanor arrests declined by about 6 percentbetween 1995 and 2005, rom about 142,000 arrests in 1995to less than 134,000 arrests a decade later.

There is no consensus among researchers as to the causeo the declining juvenile arrest rates. One possible explanation is the implementation o more eective preventionand intervention programs. In addition, some o the same

actors that have led to declining crime rates nationwidesuch as increased law enorcement personnel and economic actorsmay be contributing to declining juvenilecrime.

Californias Juvenile Population Is Up,

But Juvenile Felony Arrests Are Down

1995 Through 2005

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

19971995 1999 2001 2003 2005

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

State Juvenile Population(left axis)

Juvenile Felony Arrests(right axis)

Juvenile PopulationAges 10 Through 17

(In Miillions)Juvenile

Felony Arrests


55/76


Felony Arrest Rates for Adults Overtook

Those for Juveniles in the Late 1990s

Arrests Per 100,000 Population

1995 Through 2005

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate

Adult Felony Arrest Rate

The juvenile elony arrest rate in Caliornia decreased by46 percent between 1995 and 2005. Specically, the numbero juvenile elony arrests per 100,000 juveniles ell rommore than 2,400 in 1995 to about 1,300 in 2005.

The adult elony arrest rate also decreased during this period but has increased in more recent years. The numbero adult elony arrests per 100,000 adults was almost 2,000in 2005.

The adult elony arrest rate surpassed the juvenile elonyarrest rate in 1999 and the gap between the two rates has

widened every year since that time.


56/76


There were about 60,000 juvenile elony arrests in 2005.

Property crimessuch as burglary and thetaccountedor about 40 percent o all juvenile elony arrests.

Drug oenses accounted or 10 percent o juvenile elonyarrests in 2005. The other crimes category, which includes such elonies as illegal possession o a rearm,accounted or 25 percent o arrests.

Violent crimes, including homicide, rape, and robbery, accounted or 25 percent o all juvenile elony arrests. There

were a total o 171 juvenile arrests or homicide in 2005,less than onehal o 1 percent o all juvenile elony arrests.

Three-Quarters of Juvenile Felony Arrests

Area For Nonviolent Crimes

2005

Violent Crimes

Property Crimes

Other Crimes

Drug Crimes

Total Arrests

60,000


57/76


7

What Happens to Juvenile Oenders?

Outcomes of Juvenile Arrests In California

Detail may not total due to rounding.

Juveniles Released

13%

Police Referrals

To Probation

87%

Cases Heard inJuvenile Court

45%

Juveniles MadeWard of Court

28%

Total Arrests

222,512

43%

32% Cases dismissedor transferred.

7% Juveniles sent toalternative diversionprogram.

5% Cases heard intraffic court.

0.2% Cases referred toadult court.

17%

10% Cases dismissedor transferred.

5% Juveniles sent toalternative diversionprogram.

2% Cases deferred entryof judgment.

0.1% Cases sent to adultcourt.

17% Juveniles placed inhome supervision.

9% Juveniles placed incounty facility.

3% Juveniles placed in

other public orprivate facility.0.3% Juveniles sent to

state facility.

2005


58/76


The population o juveniles incarcerated in state or countyacilities has decreased every year since 2000 rom about19,000 in 2000 to 14,000 in 2005, a 27 percent decrease.

Since 1999, the number o juveniles incarcerated in countyacilities has declined by about 4 percent, rom about11,400 to 10,900.

The number o juveniles incarcerated in state acilitiesdeclined by about 60 percent between 1999 and 2005, romalmost 7,600 in 1999 to about 3,000 in 2005.

The decline in juvenile incarceration is due largely to thedecline in juvenile arrest rates and the implementation

by counties o more alternatives to incarceration, such asplacements in home supervision and group homes.

Number of Offenders in Youth Correctional

Facilities is Decreasing

Average Daily Population

1999 Through 2005

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

State Facilities

County Facilities


59/76


Key Topics in Juvenile Justice

Reorming the Division o Juvenile Justice

Farrell Lawsuit. In January 2003, a lawsuit, Farrell v.Allen, was led against the Department o Youth Authority(as noted above, later renamed DJJ), contending that it ailedto provide adequate care and eective treatment programsto youthul oenders (known as wards) incarcerated in

state acilities. In November 2004, the administration agreedto plaintis demand that the state develop and implementremedial plans that addressed operational and programmaticdeciencies identied by court experts in six areas: education, sex behavior treatment, disabilities, health care, mentalhealth, and ward saety and welare. The overarching goalo these reorms is to transorm the states youth correctionalsystem into a rehabilitative model o care and treatment or

youthul oenders.Remedial Plans. During the next several years, DJJ is

required to implement reorms consistent with the remedialplans. The rst priority is to reduce the level o wardonwardand wardonsta violence in the correctional acilities inorder to create a suitable environment or treatment and reha

bilitation. To do this, the remedial plan requires the division

to hire various additional sta, particularly security ocers,and place them in living units that will be limited to no morethan 38 wards. Another priority is to train sta on treatmentpractices that have been successully implemented in otherstates such as Texas and Washington. These best practicesare intended to improve treatment or substance abuse, mental illness, and sexoender behavior.

Fiscal Impact. Implementing these reorms will be a

longterm project. States such as Colorado report that it cantake ten years or more to transorm an underachieving youthcorrectional system into a successul rehabilitative model.Current estimates are that the implementation o these


60/76


0

reorms will cost the state more than $100 million annuallyonce ully implemented. This amounts to approximately a 25percent increase in state spending on juvenile corrections.

Defning State and Local Responsibilities orJuvenile Oenders

Current Local Role. As noted earlier, the juvenile justicesystem is primarily a local responsibility. Counties currentlyare responsible or more than 98 percent o all juvenile o

ender cases, typically through their probation departments,which provide incarceration, rehabilitation services, and community supervision. The state, through DJJ, provides theseservices or the relatively small number o remaining juvenileoenders who generally have committed crimes that aremore serious in nature or have repeatedly ailed to respond tolocal juvenile justice programs.

Current State Role. The states role in the juvenile justice system has been changing in recent years. The numbero oenders held in the state acilities operated by DJJ hasdropped dramatically, as shown on page 58, rom about 7,600wards in 1999 to about 3,000 in 2005. (The number o wards instate acilities is even lower now and still dropping.) Meanwhile, the state has invested signicant additional unding inrecent years to improve its institutional programs (largely in

response to litigation over conditions in DJJ acilities), as wellas to expand grants to counties or community services toprevent atrisk youth rom being involved in criminal activities.

Future Roles. What roles the state and the countiesshould play in the juvenile justice system in the uturebothin terms o unding and in setting overall policy governing

the states approach to dealing with juvenile oendersis thesubject o continuing policy debate and discussion amongcriminal justice experts and governmental ocials. Oneperspective is that, since criminal justice policies are otenestablished by actions at the state level (such as by voter ap


61/76


1

proval o Proposition 21 in 2000, which expanded the typeso cases or which juveniles can be tried in adult court), thestate is obligated to retain a signicant role in unding andoperating youth institutions as well as parole supervision owards who have been released into the community. In ourpast analyses o these issues, however, we have noted that,upon their release rom state acilities, most juvenile oenders return to their home communities and that these localcommunities thus have a signicant interest in their uture

behavior. Counties also already administer many o theprograms these individuals need to reduce their likelihood orecidivism, such as drug and alcohol treatment programs andmental health treatment.

Accordingly, one option is or part or all o the operation o existing DJJ institutions as well as parole supervision responsibilities to be shited to counties, along with theresources to continue these programs. The Governors200708 budget plan proposes to shit part o the DJJ institutional populationprimarily lowerlevel juvenile oendersto counties along with block grant unding to oset theadditional cost o this shit.


62/76


2

Chapter :

The Costs o CrimeAnd the CriminalJustice System

A number o studies have attempted to estimate the totaldirect and indirect costs o crime to government and society.The estimates resulting rom these studies have varied, butgenerally conclude that nationwide costs o crime range romthe tens to hundreds o billions annually.

Some components o the cost o crime can be readily estimated. For example, in 200304, Caliornia spent more than

$25 billion to ght crime, which included costs or police,prosecution, courts, probation, and incarceration (as shownon page 63). This amount was primarily unded by the stateand local governments.

Other costs cannot be easily measured. For example,many crimessuch as raud, embezzlement, or arsonotengo undetected or unreported and thus their costs to societyare not ully captured in some estimates. Also, some costs are

dicult to estimate because the costs are transerred romone party to another. For example, the costs o crime in termso the loss o goods and services may be transerred rommanuacturers and retailers to consumers as the price o theirproducts are adjusted to refect the costs or crime preventionactivities or losses rom crime.

This chapter provides inormation on the costs o the

criminal justice system. This includes data on the costs tostate and local governments over time, criminal justice personnel compared to other states, and state expenditures onyouth and adult corrections. The chapter also discusses twotopics related to the costs o crime: (1) the cost o crime tosociety and (2) costeective crime prevention strategies.


63/76


3

What Does It Cost to Operate the

Caliornia Criminal Justice System?

California Spends More than $25 BillionAnnually to Fight Crime

1993-04 Through 2003-04

(In Billions)

5

10

15

20

25

$30

93-94 95-96 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04

Other State Criminal Justice

Jails and Probation

Courts and Judiciary

Prisons and Parole

Police and Sheriffs

Total state spending on criminal justice grew rom about$15 billion in 199394 to more than $25 billion in 200304(the most recent complete data available).

Criminal justice spending grew by about 6 percent annually during this period. Spending on prisons and parolegrew slightly aster than other criminal justice programs,at a rate o 7 percent annually.

Local governments support about 62 percent o totalannual criminal justice costs, including approximately$11 billion or police and sheris.


64/76


In 2003, Caliornia had about 240,000 personnel (as measured by the number o ulltime equivalent sta) workingin the state and local criminal justice system, the highesttotal o any state.

However, Caliornia ranked eighth among the ten largeststates in terms o the number o criminal justice personnelper population. Specically, Caliornia had less than 700criminal justice sta per 100,000 people, slightly less thanthe U.S. average. O these ten states, New York had themost criminal justice personnel per capita, with 900 per100,000 population.

Onehal o Caliornia criminal justice personnel workedin local corrections and law enorcement, 27 percentworked in state corrections and law enorcement, and23 percent worked in the court system.

California Has Comparatively Fewer Criminal

Justice Personnel Than Most Other Large States

Criminal Justice Staffing Rate (Per 100,000 Population)

2003

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

Michigan

Pennsylvania

California

Illinois

Ohio

U.S. Average

Texas

Georgia

Florida

New Jersey

New York

Local Corrections and Law Enforcement

State Corrections and Law Enforcement

Courts and Judicial Branch

U.S. Average


65/76


State spending or criminal justice reached $14 billion in200607, an average annual increase o about 10 percentsince 199697. This growth rate outpaced that or total statespending and was only eclipsed by the growth in unding

or resources/environmental programs.

Most o the increase in spending in criminal justice programs is due to increases in salary costs, as well as courtordered mandates to improve parts o the prison system,such as medical care. The prisoninmate population grewat an average annual rate o 2 percent over this period.

Spending on criminal justice programs takes up a greatershare o total state expenditures today than a decade ago,increasing rom about 6 percent o total expenditures in199697, to about 7 percent in 200607. Spending or corrections makes up twothirds o total state criminal justiceexpenditures in the current year.

California Criminal Justice Spending Grew Faster

Than Total State Spending

1996-97 Through 2006-07

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16%

Social Services

All Other

Higher Education

Total

Transportation

K-12 Education

Health

Criminal Justice

Resources and Environment

Statewide AverageAnnual Growth Rate


66/76


California Annual Costs to

Incarcerate an Inmate in Prison

2006-07

Type of ExpenditurePer Inmate

Costs

Security $19,561

Inmate Health Care $9,330Medical care $6,186

Psychiatric services 1,751

Pharmaceuticals 977

Dental care 416

Operations $6,216

Facility operations (maintenance, utilities, etc.) $4,377

Classification and inmate services 1,582

Reception, testing, assignment 240

Transportation 17

Administration $3,351

Inmate Support $2,527

Food $1,437

Inmate activities and canteen 485Clothing 309

Inmate employment 296

Employment/Training $2,053

Academic education $949

Substance abuse programs 823

Vocational training 281

Miscellaneous $246

Total $43,287


67/76


7

Adjusting or infation, state expenditures or juvenile corrections declined by about $137 million or 22 percent since199596.

The ward population declined much more quickly overthat period, alling rom about 10,000 wards in 199596 toewer than 3,000 projected in 200607, a decrease o morethan 70 percent. This decrease is due primarily to thedecline in juvenile arrest rates and the implementation

by counties o more alternatives to incarceration, such asplacements in home supervision and group homes.

The annual cost o housing a ward in a state acility is estimated to be approximately $180,000 in 200607. These costsare substantially higher than the state costs to house adultoenders, primarily because juvenile acilities have higherstang ratios and provide more education and rehabilitation programs than adult acilities.

Spending for State Juvenile Corrections

Declined More Slowly Than Ward Population

1995-96 Through 2006-07

100

200

300

400

500

600

$700

95-96 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000Expenditures (2006-07 Dollars)(left axis)

Ward Population(right axis)

Expenditures(In Millions)

WardPopulation


68/76


Key Topics in

Criminal Justice System Spending

The Cost o Crime to Society

While the states criminal justice system requires substantial investment o government personnel and public resources, it is also important t

CA Crime Primer

Documents

Transcript of CA Crime Primer