California’s Local Juvenile Facilities Can Absorb the State Youth Correctional Population - Capacity Trends and Realignment Proposal

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret

California’s local juvenile facilities show increased ability to house youth despite long-term declines in the state’s confined juvenile population. Evidence compares total confined youth against county capacity from January 1999 to June 2017 and finds county facilities generally operate below capacity. County and DJJ populations in June 2017 indicate remaining capacity could accommodate DJJ. A phased youth realignment is presented as a way to reduce DJJ size, supported by June 2017 capacity and DJJ population appendix tables.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages6

Reading Time15 min

AccessFree to download

Capacity trends for confined youth

Figure 1: Total confined youth vs. county capacity (Jan 1999–Jun 2017)

Figure 2: County and DJJ populations vs. county capacity (Jun 2017)

Realignment proposal

Phased realignment to reduce DJJ size

Appendix data

Available county juvenile facility capacity vs. DJJ population (Jun 2017)

CALIFORNIA’S LOCAL JUVENILE FACILITIES CAN ABSORB THE STATE YOUTH CORRECTIONAL POPULATION 􀁸 Local facility capacity has increased despite historic declines in California’s confined population. Figure 1: Total confined youth population vs. county capacity, January 1999-June 2017 | 25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
- |
+14%
-73% | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Total confined youth population (county facilities + DJJ) Local juvenile facility capacity | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sources: BSCC, 2018; CDCR, 2018a; 2018b. Notes: The Board of State and Community Corrections reports monthly juvenile facility statistics beginning in 1999. Monthly average daily populations for DJJ are not consistently available prior to October 2004; for January 1999 through September 2004, end-of-month population reports are substituted for monthly average daily population. 􀁸 County facilities are operating well under capacity and could accommodate the population of DJJ. Figure 2: County and DJJ populations vs. county capacity, counties with ≥5 youth at DJJ, June 2017 | Alameda
Contra Costa
Fresno
Kern
Kings
Los Angeles
Merced
Monterey
Riverside
Sacramento
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Tulare
Ventura
Yuba | 93
141
235
280
42
1,127
48
67
152
134
206
356
53
123
105
94
124
20
31
60
66
129
100
44 24
6
12
11
7 153
1
5
44
10
5 39
16
8
6
31
34
5
11
16
19 36
19
16
20
5 346
210
179
199
27
2,274
56
105
246
246
247
465
139
81
150
127
326
17
106
88
142
182
253
71
| | --- | --- | | 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
County juvenile facility population DJJ population Remaining county capacity | | Sources: BSCC, 2018; CDCR, 2018c. 􀁸 A phased realignment of youth to county facilities would reduce the size of DJJ. References Appendix Available county juvenile facility capacity vs. DJJ population, June 2017 | County | County juvenile facility population | County juvenile
facility capacity | Available county capacity | DJJ Population | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Alameda | 93 | 463 | 370 | 24 | | Alpine | - | - | - | - | | Amador | - | - | - | - | | Butte | 29 | 120 | 91 | - | | Calaveras | - | - | - | 1 | | Colusa | - | - | - | - | | Contra Costa | 141 | 390 | 249 | 39 | | Del Norte | 15 | 62 | 47 | - | | El Dorado | 34 | 80 | 46 | 1 | | County | County juvenile facility population | County juvenile
facility capacity | Available county capacity | DJJ Population | | Fresno | 235 | 450 | 215 | 36 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Glenn | 7 | 22 | 15 | - | | Humboldt | 18 | 44 | 26 | 1 | | Imperial | 15 | 72 | 57 | - | | Inyo | - | 14 | 14 | 1 | | Kern | 280 | 498 | 218 | 19 | | Kings | 42 | 85 | 43 | 16 | | Lake | - | - | - | 1 | | Lassen | 2 | 40 | 38 | - | | Los Angeles | 1,127 | 3,554 | 2,427 | 153 | | Madera | 49 | 70 | 21 | 2 | | Marin | 15 | 40 | 25 | 1 | | Mariposa | - | 4 | 4 | - | | Mendocino | 17 | 43 | 26 | - | | Merced | 48 | 120 | 72 | 16 | | Modoc | - | - | - | - | | Mono | - | - | - | - | | Monterey | 67 | 190 | 123 | 18 | | Napa | 16 | 50 | 34 | - | | Nevada | 10 | 60 | 50 | 1 | | Orange | 280 | 743 | 463 | 4 | | Placer | 25 | 78 | 53 | 1 | | Plumas | - | - | - | - | | Riverside | 152 | 454 | 302 | 56 | | Sacramento | 134 | 424 | 290 | 44 | | San Benito | 8 | 20 | 12 | - | | San Bernardino | 206 | 484 | 278 | 31 | | San Diego | 356 | 855 | 499 | 34 | | San Francisco | 53 | 198 | 145 | 6 | | San J

FAQs

What does the analysis show about changes in county juvenile facility capacity over time?

Local facility capacity increased despite historic declines in California’s confined youth population.

How do county facilities compare to DJJ in June 2017 capacity and population?

County facilities were operating under capacity, with remaining county capacity capable of accommodating DJJ youth levels shown for June 2017.

What is the proposed policy approach to reduce DJJ size?

A phased realignment of youth to county facilities is suggested to reduce the overall size of DJJ.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret