CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY - AB 3121 IMPACT EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - FINAL REPORT

• NCJ Number: 66255
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 12 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; California Office of Criminal Justice Planning
• Corporate Author: California Health and Welfare Agency
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DISCUSSES THE FINAL REPORT EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF CALIFORNIA'S STATUTE (AB 3121) WHICH CHANGED THE JUVENILE COURTS' HANDLING OF JUVENILE CRIMINAL OFFENDERS AND STATUS OFFENDERS.

Abstract

IMPLEMENTED ON JANUARY 1, 1977, THE LAW MANDATED A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO FILE ALL CRIMINAL PETITIONS AND ATTEND ALL HEARINGS, REQUIRED RULES OF EVIDENCE IN JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS, AND EASE MOVEMENT OF 16- AND 17-YEAR-OLD VIOLENT OFFENDERS TO ADULT COURT. MOREOVER, IT CALLED FOR THE DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF STATUS OFFENDERS AND ALLOWED FOR MORE PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES. FOR AN EVALUATION STUDY OF THE LAW'S IMPACT, DATA WERE COLLECTED FROM RECORDS, INTERVIEWS WITH SELECTED COUNTY PERSONNEL, AND AGGREGATE DATA IN STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY INFORMATION SYSTEMS. DATA INDICATED THAT CRIMINAL ARRESTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT REFERRALS TO PROBATION DROPPED SLIGHTLY EACH YEAR FROM 1974 THROUGH 1978. DISPOSITIONS FOR 1977 DID NOT DIFFER FROM 1976. THE DECREASED JUVENILE HALL ADMISSIONS RESULTED FROM THE DECLINE, AND THEN ELIMINATION, OF STATUS OFFENDER ADMISSIONS. COMPARISONS OF A NORTHERN COUNTY WITH A SOUTHERN COUNTY INDICATED SOME VARIATION IN THE LAW'S EFFECT ON INTAKE DISPOSITIONS OF CRIMINAL PROBATION REFERRALS. JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS BECAME MORE FORMAL AND DISPOSITIONS MORE CLOSELY RELATED TO OFFENSE SEVERITY FOLLOWING THE LAW'S IMPLEMENTATION. NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE FOUND IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OF THE 1976 AND 1977 NORTHERN CRIMINAL COHORTS. FOR STATUS OFFENDERS, THERE WERE DECREASES IN ARRESTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT REFERRALS TO PROBATION, SECURE DETENTIONS, DETENTION HEARINGS, AND COURT PETITIONS. RATE OF SUBSEQUENT REARRESTS DID NOT CHANGE. DATA SHOW THAT THE BILL'S PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN LARGELY IMPLEMENTED AND THEIR IMPACT HAS BEEN AS EXPECTED. UNRESOLVED ISSUES INCLUDE (1) OCCASIONALLY INSUFFICIENT STATUS OFFENDER PROGRAMMING AND FUNDING; (2) SECURE VERSUS NONSECURE DETENTION OF STATUS OFFENDERS WHO RESIST FAMILY COUNSELING OR FOSTER CARE; AND (3) THE REMAND PROCESS, WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY FACILITATE VIOLENT OFFENDER MOVEMENT TO THE ADULT COURT. THE LAW HAS NOT AS YET AFFECTED ARREST OR REARREST RATES. FOR A RELATED DOCUMENT, SEE NCJ 66256. (CFW)