CALIFORNIA YOUTH FACE HEIGHTENED RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE - realignment requires state oversight and safeguards for youth of color

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mia

Explains how California’s Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) exposes youth to harmful conditions far from home, with a disproportionate impact on youth of color. Traces DJJ harms to longstanding patterns that informed juvenile justice realignment efforts moving responsibilities to local systems. Covers SB 81’s start in 2007, May 2020 proposals to close remaining facilities, and SB 823’s oversight and infrastructure provisions. Highlights racial disparities at DJJ commitment and adult court transfer decision points.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

DJJ exposes youth to harmful conditions

Disparate impacts on youth of color

Realignment plans and state oversight

SB 81 and policy shifts

2020 proposal to close DJJ facilities

SB 823 oversight and local infrastructure

Office of Youth Justice (OYJ)

Disparities in commitments and transfers

Likelihood of DJJ commitment by race

Adult court prosecutions and safeguards

Laura Ridolfi, W. Haywood Burns Institute Renée Menart, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Israel Villa , California Alliance of Youth and Community Justice August 2020 CALIFORNIA YOUTH FACE HEIGHTENED RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE DJJ realignment requires state oversight and safeguards for youth of color California’s state youth correctional system, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), exposes youth to harmful conditions far from home. Historically and currently, these harms have a disparate impact on youth of color. Decades of dangerous conditions at DJJ have contributed to policy recommendations in support of juvenile justice realignment, which transfers responsibilities from DJJ to local systems (Brown, 2012; CJCJ, 2020; LAO, 2009; 2012; 2019; LHC, 2008) . The state began this process in 2007 by enacting Senate Bill 81 (SB 81, 2007) . Over the years, DJJ has experienced cycles of public scandal and outcry, followed by failed reform attempts (Macallair, 2015) . These repeated efforts have not addressed the damaging consequences of youth incarceration that continue to disparately impact youth of color. In May 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed closing DJJ’s remaining facilities in favor of local alternatives as part of the 2020-21 state budget (Newsom, 2020) . Communities across California have long organized to bring awareness about the systemic racism and harms of youth detention and incarceration. The closure of DJJ presents a historic opportunity to transform the state’s approach to youth justice. To ensure the responsible realignment of DJJ to local systems , policymakers must address the significant racial and ethnic disparities among youth committed to DJJ and those transferred to adult court for prosecution. A realigned system can respond to youths’ challenges and harmful behavior through a framework focused on youth development, health, and racial justice. The California State Legislature introduced Senate Bill (SB) 823, which proposes alternative budget trailer bill language outlining juvenile justice realignment (SB 823, 2020) . The bill establishes oversight and infrastructure needed to close DJJ successfully. Currently, California is one of only a few states without a state youth justice oversight entity. Realignment provides California with the unique opportunity to address a long-standing need by creating a state-level body that oversees the treatment of our most vulnerable youth.1 Figure 1. CA Youth Population, DJJ Commitments, and Youth Transferred to Adult Court, by Race (2019) | Youth Population 2M, Ages 14-17

14%
28%
6% 52% | DJJ Commitments 345* youth
5% 6%

White Black Latino Other | Adult Court Transfers
64 youth
| | --- | --- | --- | Source: DOJ, 2020; Puzzanchera, 2020. *DJJ population data on race and ethnicity only available for 343 youth. 1 This agency , the Office of Youth Justice (OYJ), will be established in California’s Health and Human Services Agency. The OYJ will have critical responsibilities to oversee county juvenile justice systems, administer funding, and ensure local policies and practices reflect the state’s priorities for children and families. Youth of color bear the brunt of California’s most harmful justice system decisions. As voices across the state demand racial justice, this is a moment for change. Successful realignment requires investment in California’s youth of color who are primarily impacted by the justice system. In 2019, 94 percent of youth committed to DJJ were Black and brown youth (Figure 1) . With the closure of DJJ, counties will be responsible for the care of these vulnerable youth. SB 823 will help guard against simply replicating inequities locally. It will redirect attention and resources away from a system that has consistently failed youth of color and towards a vision that will advance racial justice. According to 2019 data collected by the Califo

FAQs

What problem does the document describe about DJJ conditions and location?

California’s DJJ exposes youth to harmful conditions far from home, and these harms have a disparate impact on youth of color over time.

How does the document connect realignment to addressing racial disparities?

It argues that transferring responsibilities from DJJ to local systems must include state oversight and safeguards so policies do not simply replicate inequities locally and instead advance racial justice.

What does SB 823 propose for successful DJJ closure and realignment?

SB 823 introduces alternative budget trailer language outlining juvenile justice realignment, establishing oversight and infrastructure to close DJJ successfully and create a state-level body (the Office of Youth Justice) to oversee county systems.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mia