02/16/2022 Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee Regular Agenda Packet
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC)
Regular Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, February 16, 2022 – 6:00 p.m.
Virtual Meeting
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Vanessa Ashford, Chair Greg Bozzo Michael Sanchez
Jasmine Ledesma, Vice-Chair Makhan (Mak) Gupta Laraine Spencer
Carissa Purnell
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED VIA ONLINE VIRTUAL PORTAL PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 361
MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AT http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter.
Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361, a local legislative body is authorized to hold public meetings
remotely and to make those meetings accessible to all members of the pub lic seeking to observe and
to address the local legislative body by remote means only via a technology solution. As such, the
City will provide various options for the public to participate in the conduct of the meeting, as indicated
in detail below on this cover sheet.
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus, the City will be offering virtual teleconference
services on Zoom and Facebook Live. Additionally, written comments can be submitted by email to
Sandra Nava at Sandra.Nava@cityofgilroy.org.
To Participate via Zoom:
Weblink: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84463608424?pwd=OGM5cTNBdEJQanloZ2RQTGMveTk0d z09
Or via Telephone: +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 844 6360 8424
Passcode: 689252
To View the Meeting Live on Facebook:
Weblink: https://www.facebook.com/GilroyCityHallMeetings
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL NOT BE
TAKEN THROUGH FACEBOOK LIVE.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Assembly Bill 361, the City will make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the Housing and Community Development Technician 72 hours prior to the
meeting at (408) 846-0290. The hearing impaired may reach City staff through the California Relay System at
711 or (800) 735-2929.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
I. Call to Order - Welcome
a. Roll Call
II. Report on Posting of the Agenda
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda: This portion of the meeting is reserved for
persons desiring to address the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee on matters not on
this agenda. The law does not permit the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee action or
extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization Committee action is requested, the Housing and Neighborhood
Revitalization Committee may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided by public
members for Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee agenda item “public comments” will
be limited to 10 pages in hard copy.
IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes (report attached)
a. Minutes from January 12, 2022
b. Public comment
c. Possible Action: Motion to approve minutes
V. FY 2021-2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing Trust Fund
(HTF) Grant Applicant Presentations (report attached)
a. Staff report by Sandra Nava, HCD Technician II
b. 2-minute presentation on proposal from each nonprofit grant applicant
c. Public comment
d. Possible Action: Receive proposal summaries and ask questions
VI. Committee Consolidation Transition Plan
a. Staff report by Bryce Atkins, Senior Management Analyst
b. 2022 Meeting schedule
c. Public comment
d. Possible Action: Provide feedback
VII. Selection of 2022 Leadership (Continued from January 12, 2022)
a. Committee Discussion
b. Public comment
c. Recommended Action: Select Chair and Vice-Chair
VIII. Informational Items
IX. Updates
X. Future Agenda Items
March 9, 2022 Approval of CDBG and HTF Grant Funding Recommendations
March 9, 2022 Committee Consolidation Transition Plan
XI. Adjournment
The next regular meeting is March 9, 2022
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet on the City website at
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNM ENT ORDINANCE.
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, task
forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance
assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s
view.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A
FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT TH E OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC)
Regular Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, February 16, 2022 – 6:00 p.m.
Virtual Meeting
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Vanessa Ashford, Chair Greg Bozzo Michael Sanchez
Jasmine Ledesma, Vice-Chair Makhan (Mak) Gupta Laraine Spencer
Carissa Purnell
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED VIA ONLINE VIRTUAL PORTAL PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 361
MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AT http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter.
Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361, a local legislative body is authorized to hold public meetings
remotely and to make those meetings accessible to all members of the pub lic seeking to observe and
to address the local legislative body by remote means only via a technology solution. As such, the
City will provide various options for the public to participate in the conduct of the meeting, as indicated
in detail below on this cover sheet.
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus, the City will be offering virtual teleconference
services on Zoom and Facebook Live. Additionally, written comments can be submitted by email to
Sandra Nava at Sandra.Nava@cityofgilroy.org.
To Participate via Zoom:
Weblink: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84463608424?pwd=OGM5cTNBdEJQanloZ2RQTGMveTk0d z09
Or via Telephone: +1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 844 6360 8424
Passcode: 689252
To View the Meeting Live on Facebook:
Weblink: https://www.facebook.com/GilroyCityHallMeetings
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL NOT BE
TAKEN THROUGH FACEBOOK LIVE.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Assembly Bill 361, the City will make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the Housing and Community Development Technician 72 hours prior to the
meeting at (408) 846-0290. The hearing impaired may reach City staff through the California Relay System at
711 or (800) 735-2929.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
I. Call to Order - Welcome
a. Roll Call
II. Report on Posting of the Agenda
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda: This portion of the meeting is reserved for
persons desiring to address the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee on matters not on
this agenda. The law does not permit the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee action or
extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Housing and
Neighborhood Revitalization Committee action is requested, the Housing and Neighborhood
Revitalization Committee may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided by public
members for Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee agenda item “public comments” will
be limited to 10 pages in hard copy.
IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes (report attached)
a. Minutes from January 12, 2022
b. Public comment
c. Possible Action: Motion to approve minutes
V. FY 2021-2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing Trust Fund
(HTF) Grant Applicant Presentations (report attached)
a. Staff report by Sandra Nava, HCD Technician II
b. 2-minute presentation on proposal from each nonprofit grant applicant
c. Public comment
d. Possible Action: Receive proposal summaries and ask questions
VI. Committee Consolidation Transition Plan
a. Staff report by Bryce Atkins, Senior Management Analyst
b. 2022 Meeting schedule
c. Public comment
d. Possible Action: Provide feedback
VII. Selection of 2022 Leadership (Continued from January 12, 2022)
a. Committee Discussion
b. Public comment
c. Recommended Action: Select Chair and Vice-Chair
VIII. Informational Items
IX. Updates
X. Future Agenda Items
March 9, 2022 Approval of CDBG and HTF Grant Funding Recommendations
March 9, 2022 Committee Consolidation Transition Plan
XI. Adjournment
The next regular meeting is March 9, 2022
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet on the City website at
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNM ENT ORDINANCE.
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, task
forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance
assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s
view.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A
FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT TH E OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g D i v i s i o n
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC) Special Meeting
Minutes
Wednesday, January 12, 2022 – 6:00 p.m.
I. Call to Order - Welcome
The meeting was called to order by Chair Vanessa Ashford via teleconference at 6:03 p.m. The Chair read
aloud a statement announcing that the meeting was being conducted by teleconference pursuant to the
extension of Brown Act waivers provided for under Assembly Bill 361, as would subsequent meetings so
long as the City Council could make findings that it was necessary in order to protect public safety and the
Governor's declared emergency remained in effect.
Roll call: Chair Vanessa Ashford, Greg Bozzo, Makhan (Mak) Gupta, Carissa Purnell, Michael Sanchez,
Laraine Spencer
Absent: Vice-Chair Jasmine Ledesma (excused)
City staff participating: Crystal Zamora, Program Administrator, Bryce Atkins, Senior Management
Analyst, Thai Pham, City Clerk, Sandra Nava, HCD Technician II
II. Report on Posting of the Agenda
Secretary Nava announced that the agenda was posted on January 11, 2022 at 1:45 p.m.
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda:
There were no public comments.
IV. Selection of Leadership
The committee discussed waiting until discussion is held on the committee consolidation transition plan,
before selecting new leadership. Motion to continue the selection of leadership to February 16, 2022 was
made by Member Bozzo, seconded by Member Gupta and carried 5-1 (Member Sanchez voting no).
There were no public comments
V. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Motion to approve the July 14, 2021 and September 8, 2021 meeting minutes was made by Member
Purnell, seconded by Chair Ashford and unanimously carried 6-0.
There were no public comments.
VI. Approval of 2022 Meeting Schedule
Discussion was held on the proposed 2022 meeting schedule, which was created prior to Council’s decision
to consolidate committees. Staff encouraged the adoption of the schedule and informed members they
could consider amending the schedule at the next meeting. Motion to approve the 2022 meeting schedule
was made by Member Gupta, seconded by Member Sanchez and carried 5-1 (Chair Ashford voting no).
There were no public comments.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g D i v i s i o n
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
VII. Housing Element Update
Cindy McCormick, Customer Service Manager, provided an update on three housing topics: Housing
Element update, potential affordable housing policy, and adopted objective design standards for multi-family
projects and for Senate Bill 9 projects.
There were no public comments.
VIII. FY 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing Trust Fund
(HTF) Grant Funding Cycle Orientation
Sandra Nava, HCD Technician II, gave an overview of the CDBG and HTF 2-year grant funding cycle
timeline, funding availability, and process HNRC members should follow to rate, rank, and provide grant
funding recommendations.
There were no public comments.
IX. Informational Items
Bryce Atkins, Management Analyst, informed members that there will be a recurring agenda item to discuss
the Council approved committee consolidation transition plan.
There were no public comments.
X. Staff Updates
Crystal Zamora, Program Administrator, provided an update on the CARES Act Small Business Relief and
Rent Assistance Grants and rent relief progress.
There were no public comments.
XI. Future Agenda Items
February 16, 2022
Presentations from Applicants for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 CDBG and HTF Grants
Committee Consolidation Transition Plan
Possible Amendment of the 2022 Meeting Schedule
March 9, 2022
Approval of CDBG and HTF Grand Funding Recommendations
Committee Consolidation Transition Plan
XII. Adjournment
Chair Ashford adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting is February 16, 2022.
Memorandum
Date: February 16, 2022
To: Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC)
From: Sandra Nava, Housing & Community Development Technician II
Subject: FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Grant Applicant Presentations and Proposal Rating,
Ranking, and Funding Recommendation Process
BACKGROUND
Members will be asked to disclose if they have a real or apparent conflict of interest that precludes them
from participating in the grant proposal evaluation process. Staff will provide a brief description of the grant
proposal presentation process.
Thirteen competitive and two internal City of Gilroy, non-competitive, proposals were received by the
January 31, 2022 deadline. The committee is tasked with reviewing the competitive proposals. Bay Area
Community Health (BACH) accidentally submitted its eligible proposal on the FY 2021-2022 form, which
was for a 1-year funding cycle; the agency was given the opportunity to transfer the information submitted to
the FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024 form, without adding any additional information. As a result, the
HNRC should only consider the proposed “Community Outreach and Navigation: PrEP” project for the first
year of the funding cycle, FY 2022-2023.
Nonprofit agencies who submitted eligible proposals for FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and local Housing Trust Fund (HTF) grants will provide a 2-minute
summary of the proposal for which they seek funding, followed by up to 8 minutes for questions, after each
presentation. After tonight’s meeting, eligible HNRC members will evaluate eligible proposals from home in
the following manner:
First, members will score each proposal based on the attached evaluation criteria, “Exhibit A”, using the
grant proposal rating worksheet provided. Email this worksheet to staff by February 25th.
Next, wait to complete the funding recommendation worksheet until March 1st, the date staff will receive
direction on the availability of the Housing Trust Fund. From the highest ranked proposal to the lowest,
members will list grant allocation recommendations, and specify the funding type code on the funding
recommendation worksheet. Email this worksheet to staff by end of day March 2nd.
After receiving the HNRC’s grant funding allocation recommendations, staff will create a Council grant
allocation recommendation summary that will be presented to the HNRC for consideration, at the March 9,
2022 meeting. Due to this being a 2-year funding cycle, the grant allocations ultimately approved by the
City Council in May will be for FY 2022-2023, with the same amount awarded for FY 2023-2024, based on
satisfactory progress in the first fiscal year and funding availability.
The City expects to receive approximately the same CDBG grant award in FY 2022-2023 that it received in
FY 2021-2022. If we estimate a grant award of $470,000 and an annual set-aside for internal city
programs, the following is the breakdown:
City of Gilroy
Housing Division
$470,000 CDBG FY 2022-2023 grant award from HUD
-$ 94,000 is allocated to program administration (capped by HUD at 20% of the grant)
-$ 70,500 is allocated to public services, capped by HUD at 15% of the grant. The Recreation Department’s
request is $38,452 for the Gilroy Youth Center, leaving approximately $32,000 available for
distribution.
$305,500 the remaining balance can be distributed to non-public service programs, such as the repair and
accessibility modification program and to eligible public works projects. The Public Works
Department’s request for the Annual Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project is $386,000.
As you consider the CDBG amounts available for distribution, $32,000 for public services and $305,500 for
non-public services, make note that you are not tasked with reviewing or making funding recommendations
for the internal City of Gilroy programs.
The City’s local Housing Trust Fund (HTF) has provided up to $168,000 in grant funding each fiscal year for
housing or homeless related public services. On February 28th the City Council will be reviewing the HTF
and providing direction on the future use of these funds. There is the potential for a reduction or elimination
of this funding source for public services, which if realized, may happen in the upcoming funding cycle, or a
later cycle. On March 1st the outcome of the City Council’s decision will be shared with the HNRC
members.
ANALYSIS
N/A
NEXT STEPS
Staff will be available for questions.
City of Gilroy
APPLICANT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This is to confirm that I have no conflict of interest with any of
the applicants for FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024 Community
Development Block Grant and local Housing Trust Fund grant
funding.
If I do have a conflict, I will so advise the Housing
and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC)
Chairperson at the February 16, 2022 HNRC meeting.
___________________________
Print Name ___________________________ ________________
Signature Date
Agency Time
1.The Health Trust Meals on Wheels 6:10 p.m.
2.South County Compassion Center Outreach for the Unhoused 6:20 p.m.
3.Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with
Disabilities 6:30 p.m.
4.Saint Joseph's Family Center Homeless Prevention Services 6:40 p.m.
5.Saint Joseph's Family Center Gilroy Street Team 6:50 p.m.
6.Project Sentinel Project Sentinel Fair Housing 7:00 p.m.
7.Project Sentinel Landlord-Tenant Counseling & Dispute Resolution 7:10 p.m.
Break 5 Minutes
8.Live Oak Adult Day Services Adult Day Care 7:25 p.m.
9.
Community Agency for Resources
Advocacy and Services (C.A.R.A.S.)Homeward Bound Homeless Prevention Services 7:35 p.m.
10.
Community Agency for Resources
Advocacy and Services (C.A.R.A.S.)
RYSE UP (Reaching our Young people to
Succeed and Empower with Unlimited Potential 7:45 p.m.
11.Boys & Girls Club of Silicon Valley Ochoa Clubhouse CORE Enrichment 7:55 p.m.
12.Bay Area Community Health Community Outreach and Navigation PrEP 8:05 p.m.
1.Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley
Repair and Accessibility Modification Program for
Low-Income Homeowners and Renters 8:15 p.m.
City of Gilroy
Housing Trust Fund & Community Development Block Grant Funding
FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024
Wednesday, February 16, 2022
22-RFP-HCD-471-Request for Proposals
Grant Applicant Presentation Schedule
Virtual Webinar
Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC)
Meeting 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Project Title
NON PUBLIC SERVICES
CITY OF GILROY
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF GILROY – CDBG and HTF
EVALUATION CRITERIA
FYs 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
In evaluating eligible projects, the criteria listed below will be used to determine which projects will be
recommended for funding. Each project proposal will be rated on the degree to which it meets each
of the numerical rating factors.
RATING FACTORS
The rating a project receives will be based on the information provided in the Project Proposal
Use whole numbers only when rating proposals
A high numerical score alone does not guarantee funding
Examples of high, medium, and low degrees needed to meet each criterion are shown. After rat ing
numerically, proposals with tied scores should be further evaluated, for ranking purposes, based on
which proposal meets a greater need.
CRITERION 1: NEED
Measures how effectively the proposed project addresses one or more
FY 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan priority needs.
AGENCY RESPONSE
Found in Section 2, A2 of proposal
HIGH
(6 pts.)
Clearly documents an effective
approach to meeting this need.
MEDIUM
(3 pts.)
Need is clearly documented,
approach is less effective than in
comparative proposals.
LOW
(0 pts.)
Need is not clearly documented
and/or applicant cannot
demonstrate they are addressing a
Consolidated Plan priority goal
being met.
CRITERION 2: TARGETED INCOME
Measures the income levels of proposed beneficiaries.
AGENCY RESPONSE
Found in Section 2, B1 of proposal
HIGH
(6 pts.)
All proposed beneficiaries are
extremely low income
MEDIUM
(4 pts.)
All proposed beneficiaries are
Very low income or lower
LOW
(2 pts.)
All proposed beneficiaries are
low income or lower
CRITERION 3: EXPERIENCE
Measures the extent of experience the agency has providing the
proposed service or similar service.
AGENCY RESPONSE
Found in Section 2, C3 of proposal
HIGH
(4 pts.)
Agency has experience providing
the same service proposed.
MEDIUM
(2 pts.)
Agency has experience providing a
similar service to that proposed.
LOW
(0 pts.)
Agency has no organizational or
staff experience providing the type
of service proposed.
CRITERION 4: LEVERAGED FUNDS
Measures the total revenue the agency proposes to acquire from other
funding sources in order to operate the proposed program.
AGENCY RESPONSE
Found in Section 3, D of proposal
HIGH
(4 pts.)
25% or higher of total proposed
project revenues are budgeted
from other sources.
LOW
(1 pt.)
Less than 25% of total proposed
project revenues are budgeted
from other sources.
BELOW
(0 pts.)
No proposed project revenues are
budgeted from other sources.
CRITERION 5: WORKING WITH OTHER
AGENCIES
Measures the agency’s efforts to collaborate in
order to augment rather than duplicate services to
beneficiaries.
BONUS POINTS: measures the use of leveraging
staff and resources to enhance services.
AGENCY RESPONSE
Found in Section 2, A5 & A6 of proposal
Found in Section 2, A6
HIGH
(4 pts.)
Agency clearly
demonstrates how it
actively works with
other agencies in
delivering program
services.
MEDIUM
(2 pts.)
Agency actively
participates in a
consortium of service
providers related to
project services. The
South County
Collaborative or Santa
Clara County
Collaborative on
Affordable Housing and
Homeless Issues are
examples.
LOW
(1pt.)
Agency has
informal but
established
working
relationships
with other
public service
providers.
NO SCORE
(0 pt.)
Applicant
shows no
evidence of
working with
other
agencies.
BONUS POINTS
(2 pts.)
Collaboration with other
service providers
including elements such
as shared staff,
locations or budgets
that resulted in
increased, expanded, or
different services.
CRITERION 6: MEASURABLE OUTCOMES AND SYSTEM
Measures the extent to which the application proposes outcome
measures and a feasible measurement system.
AGENCY RESPONSE
Found in Section 2, B3, #1 and #2 of
proposal
HIGH
(4 pts.)
Application identifies outcome
measures for proposed services
and has implemented a feasible
outcome measurement system.
MEDIUM
(1 pt.)
Application identifies outcome
measures and measurement
methods, but has not implemented
a feasible outcome measurement
system.
BELOW
(0 pts.)
Application does not identify
outcome measures and/or feasible
outcome measurement system.
CRITERION 7: PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE
Measures applicant's history or track
record of meeting goals and completing
projects.
WHERE TO FIND
Information to be provided by Housing & Community Development staff.
High
(4 pts.)
Applicant has
demonstrated
history of
exceeding all 3
performance
benchmarks
(i.e.
unduplicated
participants,
activities and
outcomes).
Medium
(2 pts.)
Applicant has
demonstrated
history of meeting
at least 2 of 3
performance
benchmarks and
has no pending or
unresolved
monitoring or
financial audit
findings requiring
corrective actions.
Low
(1 pt.)
Applicant has
demonstrated
history of
meeting at
least 1 of 3
standard
performance
benchmarks
and has no
pending or
unresolved
monitoring or
financial audit
findings
requiring
corrective
actions.
NEW
APPLICANT
(0 pt.)
CORRECTIVE
ACTIONS
PENDING
(-2 pt.)
A project with
pending
corrective actions
identified in
monitoring
reports from the
City, another
funding source or
financial audit.
This includes
projects subject
to a corrective
action plan,
including
probationary
status from any
funding source.
CORRECTIVE
ACTIONS
UNRESOLVED
(-4 pts.)
A project with
unresolved
corrective
actions not being
adequately
addressed at the
time of
application.
Rating also
applies to
applicants who
have shown
substantial
delays in
implementing
past projects
and have not
corrected past
performance
problems.
Name:
SAMPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Project:Community Outreach and
Navigation: PrEP
Ochoa Clubhouse CORE
Enrichmnet
Homeward Bound
Homeless Prevention
Services
RYSE UP (Reaching our
Young people to Succeed
and Empower with
Unlimited Potential
Adult Day Care Project Sentinel Inc. Project Sentinel Fair
Housing Gilroy Street Team Homeless Prevention
Services
Housing Services
Program for Gilroy
Residents with
Disabilities
Outreach for the
Unhoused Meals on Wheels
Repair and Accessibility
Modification Program for
Low-Income
Homeowners and Renters
Agency:Bay Area Community
Health
Boys and Girls Club of
Silicon Valley
Community Agency for
Resources Advocacy and
Services (C.A.R.A.S.)
Community Agency for
Resources Advocacy and
Services (C.A.R.A.S.)
Live Oak Adult Day
Services Project Sentinel Inc. Project Sentinel Inc. St. Joseph's Family
Center
St. Joseph's Family
Center
Silicon Valley
Independent Living
Center
South County
Compassion Center The Health Trust Rebuilding Together
Silicon Valley
1. Need (Section 2, A2)
High ( 6 pts.)
Med ( 3 pts.)3
Low ( 0 pt.)
2. Targeted Income (Section 2, B1)
High ( 6 pts.)
Med (4 pts.)4
Low (2 pts.)
3. Experience (Section 2, C3)
High (4 pts.)
Med (2 pts.)2
Low ( 0 pts.)
4. Leveraged Funds (Section 3, D)
High (4 pts.)4
Low (1 pt.)
Below (0 pts.)
5. Working with Other Agencies (Section 2, A5 and A6)
High (4 pts.)
Med ( 2 pts.)2
Low ( 1 pt.)
No Score (0 pts.)
Bonus (2 pts.)2
6. Measurable Outcomes and System (Section 2, B3, #1, #2)
High (4 pts.)
Med (1 pt.)
Below (0 pts.)0
7. Program Performance (Information to be provided by HCD staff)
High ( 4pts.)
Med (2 pts.)
Low (1 pts.)
New Applicants (0 pts.)
Corrective Actions
Pending (-2 pts.)
Unresolved (-4 pts.)
-2
TOTALS:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22-RFP-HCD-471
Gilroy CDBG and HTF FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-2024 Grant Proposal Rating Worksheet
Instructions: Please enter the numeric value of your criterion score in the boxes below. Totals for each project will add up in the bottom row
FUNDING RECOMMENDATION WORKSHEET Name:
Project Number Agency Project Rating Ranking
Current City
Funding FY 2021-
2022
Amount Requested
for FY 2022-2023
and FY
2023-2024
Eligible Funding
Types
HNRC MEMBER
Recommended
Funding Amount
(min. $7,500)
Funding Type (Enter
Funding Code)
1 Bay Area Community
Health
*Community Outreach
and Navigation: PrEP 0 1 10,250$ 15,000$ CDBGPS
2 Boys and Girls Club of
Silicon Valley
Ochoa Clubhouse CORE
Enrichment 0 1 -$ 15,000$ CDBGPS
3
Community Agency for
Resources Advocacy
and Services (C.A.R.A.S.)
Homeward Bound
Homeless Prevention
Services
0 1 -$ 37,000$ CDBGPS and HTF
4
Community Agency for
Resources Advocacy
and Services (C.A.R.A.S.)
RYSE UP (Reaching our
Young people to
Succeed and Empower
with Unlimited Potential
0 1 -$ 37,000$ CDBGPS
5 Live Oak Adult Day
Services Adult Day Care 0 1 8,560$ 10,000$ CDBGPS
6 Project Sentinel Inc. Landlord- Tenant
Counseling and Dispute
Resolution
0 1 15,960$ 36,000$ CDBGPS and HTF
7 Project Sentinel Inc. Project Sentinel Fair
Housing 0 1 14,590$ 21,000$ CDBGPS and HTF
8 St. Joseph's Family
Center Gilroy Street Team 0 1 23,780$ 35,000$ HTF
9 St. Joseph's Family
Center
Homeless Prevention
Services 0 1 54,650$ 65,000$ CDBGPS and HTF
10
Silicon Valley
Independent Living
Center
Housing Services
Program for Gilroy
Residents with
Disabilities
0 1 -$ 36,803$ CDBGPS and HTF
11 South County
Compassion Center
Outreach for the
Unhoused 45,660$ 52,211$ CDBGPS and HTF
12 The Health Trust Meals on Wheels 21,990$ 27,000$ CDBGPS and HTF
13 Rebuilding Together
Silicon Valley
Repair and Accessibility
Modification Program for
Low-Income
Homeowners and
Renters
0 1 140,000$ 198,726$ CDBGHR
14 City of Gilroy Recreation
Department Gilroy Youth Center
38,452$ 38,452$
CDBGPS -Council
sets aside $40,000
annually
38,452$ CDBGPS
Total:373,892$ 624,192$ 38,452$
*BACH will be only be considered for 1 year of funding.
Remaining
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Amount Available 168,000$ 168,000$ (City Council will discuss use of this fund 2-28-22, which may result in reduction/elimination for public services)
CDBG Public Service (CDBGPS) Amount Available 70,500$ 32,048$
CDBG Housing Rehabilitation (CDBGHR) Available*305,500$ 305,500$ *(Funding from this pot will also be allocated to the Public Works Dept. project request totaling $386,000)
Project Sentinel, Dispute Resolution
Funding EVALUATION CRITERIA
FYs 2022-2023 and 2023-2024
CRITERION 1: NEED - 6 Points
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to help low to extremely low-income Gilroy
residents resolve their housing problems.
Consolidated Plan, Goal #7: Fair housing complaint investigations and landlord/tenant
counseling and dispute resolution.
Landlord/tenant cases of 1 to 1 counseling and problem resolution: return security deposits,
maintain privacy, improve habitability, avoid eviction, assist with emergency rental assistance,
eliminate poor management, repair broken TLL relationship.
We have many cases where we have convinced the landlord to give the tenant household the
opportunity to remain in the rented unit allowing the children to remain in school, in a familiar
environment with their friends and close to other support systems.
CRITERION 2: TARGETED INCOME – 2 Points
Population served is low to extremely low income
CRITERION 3: EXPERIENCE – 4 Points
Project Sentinel has over 40 years of experience providing fair housing and TLL Dispute
Resolution services and is regarded as a high performing agency by HUD.
We average over 600 phone calls and walk-ins from Gilroy residents a year. In FY 2021 we
helped 62 Gilroy households resolve their housing problem. Currently we are helping low-
income households apply for emergency rental assistance.
CRITERION 4: LEVERAGED FUNDS – 4 Points
We are requesting $36,000 with an additional $14,000 of leveraged funding. This exceeds 25%
of the proposed budget. Leveraged funding comes from the Superior Court fees and the
balance from Santa Clara County CV3 funding.
CRITERION 5: WORKING WITH OTHER AGENCIES – 4 Points
Project Sentinel is an active participant in the South County Collaborative. We are a sub-
recipient with The Law Foundation for County funding, and we are the lead agency with the
Asian Law Alliance as a partner. In each of these grants we are sharing a budget and
collaborating on services for low-income tenants. We have worked closely with St. Joseph,
Carry The Vision, and the San Ysidro neighborhood at San Ysidro Park.
Bonus Points (2), We provide staff for ERAP outreach events in South County and other areas.
We partner with SVILC to contribute funds to help with retrofits for low-income households. PS
initiated and is currently active in the SC County Eviction, Tenant/Landlord Disputes & Rent
Relief Collaborative.
CRITERION 6: MEASURABLE OUTCOMES AND SYSTEM – 4 Points
On a regular basis we surpass the goals and outcome measurements by servicing everyone
who requests services. The staff are dedicated to community service and care about meeting
the needs of each person and each household that requests help.
In FY2021, we took in 611 I&R calls (goal 600); handled 62 cases (goal 52) and served 226
unduplicated participants (goal 200). Contract compliance is important to Project Sentinel.
Project Sentinel, Dispute Resolution
Funding EVALUATION CRITERIA
FYs 2022-2023 and 2023-2024
So far in FY21/22 we have achieved 94% of the I&R calls and walk-ins and 78% of the case
work at only 50% of the year. Our case resolution rate is 72%.
CRITERION 7: PROGRAM PERFORMANCE – 4 Points
Project Sentinel, Fair Housing
Funding EVALUATION CRITERIA
FYs 2022-2023 and 2023-2024
CRITERION 1: NEED - 6 Points
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to provide comprehensive fair housing services to ensure
civil rights protection in the City of Gilroy. HUD requires all CDBG entitlements to affirmatively further
fair housing.
Consolidated Plan, Goal #7: Fair housing complaint investigations and landlord/tenant counseling and
dispute resolution. Provision of these services will help create and maintain healthy communities and
will assist the City of Gilroy in meeting its CDBG obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
CRITERION 2: TARGETED INCOME – 2 Points
Population served is low to extremely low income.
CRITERION 3: EXPERIENCE – 4 Points
Project Sentinel has over 40 years of experience providing fair housing and TLL Dispute Resolution
services and is regarded as a high performing agency by HUD. We have investigated and pursued
through enforcement some of the highest awards in the state which shows that Project Sentinel has the
capacity and experience to be an effective fair housing service provider. Each year we investigate an
average of 300 to 400 complaints of housing discrimination, including those in Gilroy.
Resolved FH Cases over time:
A victim of domestic abuse needed to break her lease early without penalty.
Children were told to not play outside without parental supervision (14 years and younger)
Individual had been denied emotional support cat
Landlord was denying a Licensed home day care.
Property owner was sexually harassing female tenants.
CRITERION 4: LEVERAGED FUNDS – 4 Points
We are requesting $21,000 with an additional $8,630 of leveraged funding. This exceeds 25% of the
proposed budget. Leveraged funding comes from a federal HUD grant (Fair Housing Initiative Program)
that has been approved for the next two years.
CRITERION 5: WORKING WITH OTHER AGENCIES – 4 Points
Agency Collaboration: Project Sentinel reaches out to other social service agencies and public interest
legal services: Catholic Charities, St. Joseph’s, Rebekah’s Children, PACT, Gavilan College, Law
Foundation of Silicon Valley, Community Solutions.
We share contracts/budgets with The Law Foundation and Asian Law Alliance for the delivery of fair
housing services.
Bonus Points (2) We bring funding to cases shared with the SVILC to assist with home retrofits. We
provide staff for ERAP outreach events in South County and other areas. PS initiated and is currently
active in the SC County Eviction, Tenant/Landlord Disputes & Rent Relief Collaborative. We are also
active in the Race Equity Action Leadership network hosted by Sacred Heart.
CRITERION 6: MEASURABLE OUTCOMES AND SYSTEM – 4 Points
Callers are asked if services meet their needs, workshop attendees are surveyed to determine increased
knowledge, case outcomes are tracked. On a regular basis we surpass the goals and outcome
measurements by servicing everyone who requests services.
2018
ANNUAL
REPORT
Juvenile Justice
Santa Clara County
Helping to Build Positive Futures
Families Community Growth
“The children who need love the most
will always ask for it in the most unloving ways”
~ Russel Barkley
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................... i
FIGURES AND TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 5
REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 15
Youth in Santa Clara County ................................................................................................................... 16
What is Juvenile Probation? ................................................................................................................... 16
JUVENILE JUSTICE WORK GROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES ........................................................................ 17
INNOVATIONS IN 2018 ................................................................................................................................ 21
Dismissal Assessment Worksheet ........................................................................................................... 21
Educational Screening Process ............................................................................................................... 22
NEW LAWS IN 2018 ..................................................................................................................................... 23
SB190: Elimination of Juvenile Fees ........................................................................................................ 23
SB395: Juvenile Miranda ......................................................................................................................... 23
UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM .................................................... 24
SB439: Minimum Age of Prosecution ..................................................................................................... 24
AB1214: Juvenile Competency ................................................................................................................ 24
SB1391: Elimination of Judical Transfer of 14 and 15 Year Olds ............................................................ 25
PREVENTIVE AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES .............................................................................................. 25
Youth Advisory Council (YAC) ................................................................................................................. 26
South County Youth Task Force (SCYTF) ................................................................................................. 26
Neighborhood Safety Unit (NSU) ............................................................................................................ 27
YOUTH AT ENTRY TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ................................................................................ 28
Juvenile Traffic Court .............................................................................................................................. 29
Youth Arrests/Citations ........................................................................................................................... 29
Demographics of Youth Arrested/Cited .............................................................................................................. 31
Where Do Youth Arrested or Cited Live? ............................................................................................................. 32
Moving from Arrest/Citation to a Petition .......................................................................................................... 33
Proposition 57 Eliminated Direct File ..................................................................................................... 34
Transfer to Adult Court (Newly Filed Post-Proposition 57 Cases) ................................................................... 34
Role of Defense Counsel ......................................................................................................................... 35
Social Workers ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
Community Outreach Attorney ........................................................................................................................... 37
Admission to Custody ............................................................................................................................. 37
Detention Overrides ............................................................................................................................................ 38
Offenses of Youth Detained ................................................................................................................................. 40
Demographics of Youth Detained ........................................................................................................................ 41
Age and Sex of Youth Detained ....................................................................................................................... 41
Where Youth Detained Reside......................................................................................................................... 41
Intake and Admission Trends .............................................................................................................................. 41
Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)/Community Release Program (CRP) ......................................... 42
Arrests/Citations Filed as Petitions ......................................................................................................... 43
FACTORS THAT LEAD YOUTH TO ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR ......................................................................... 44
Child Welfare History Checks .................................................................................................................. 44
Criminogenic Risk .................................................................................................................................... 46
Risk Assessment for Boys ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Risk Assessment for Girls ..................................................................................................................................... 47
Criminogenic Needs ................................................................................................................................ 48
Criminogenic Needs for Boys ............................................................................................................................... 49
Criminogenic Needs for Girls ............................................................................................................................... 52
Comparing Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls ...................................................................................... 55
Supervising Youth on Probation .......................................................................................................................... 56
EXAMINING DISPROPORTIONALITY AT KEY ENTRY POINTS IN THE SYSTEM .............................................. 57
Arrest and Citations ................................................................................................................................ 57
Youth Detention ...................................................................................................................................... 60
Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population ................................................................................................... 62
Petitions .................................................................................................................................................. 62
COLLABORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS ................................................................................. 64
Dually Involved Youth Initiative/Unit .................................................................................................................. 65
WIC 241.1 Referrals and Assessments ................................................................................................................. 65
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC) ............................................................................................... 65
Specialty Courts ................................................................................................................................................... 66
Family Violence/Domestic Violence Court (FV/DV) ......................................................................................... 67
Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) ........................................................................ 67
Opportunity Court ........................................................................................................................................... 67
Victim-Centered Approaches ............................................................................................................................... 68
Probation Victim Services ................................................................................................................................ 68
District Attorney Juvenile Victim Advocate ..................................................................................................... 69
Victim Offender Mediation Program (VOMP) ................................................................................................. 69
Behavioral Health and Substance Use Treatment Services ................................................................................. 70
Ranch Re-Entry Behavioral Health Services ......................................................................................................... 72
Collaborative Intensive Interventions ..................................................................................................... 73
EDGE/PEAK .......................................................................................................................................................... 73
Wraparound Services .......................................................................................................................................... 73
RESTRICTIVE SANCTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 75
Out of Home Placements ................................................................................................................................. 75
AB12 Non-Minor Dependent Youth ................................................................................................................ 76
Juvenile Hall ..................................................................................................................................................... 78
William F. James Ranch Program ..................................................................................................................... 79
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) ...................................................................................................................... 79
Commitments & Placements ............................................................................................................................... 80
Health and Wellness in Secure Care .................................................................................................................... 82
Physical Health ................................................................................................................................................. 82
Behavioral Health ............................................................................................................................................ 83
Pharmacy Services ........................................................................................................................................... 85
Dental .............................................................................................................................................................. 85
Medical Outreach Program ............................................................................................................................. 85
Eligibility for Healthcare Project ...................................................................................................................... 86
Alternative Education Department (AED) ............................................................................................................ 87
Chronic Absenteeism ........................................................................................................................................... 88
LOOKING AHEAD TO 2019 .......................................................................................................................... 90
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Annoucement Regarding Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) ......................... 90
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) ................................................................................................................. 90
Probation Continuum of Services to Reentry (PRO-CSR) ........................................................................ 91
Upcoming New Probation Case Management System ........................................................................... 91
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 92
Appendix A: The County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice System Map.................................................... 93
Appendix B: County Gender Responsive Task Force (GRTF) ................................................................... 94
Female Arrest and Citation Trends ...................................................................................................................... 94
Female Admission and Intake Trends .................................................................................................................. 98
Female DEJ and Placement Trends .................................................................................................................... 100
Appendix C: Arrests/Citations by Zip Code 2014-2018 ......................................................................... 101
Appendix D: Training for Community Based Organizations.................................................................. 102
Appendix E: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview ..................................................................... 104
Appendix F: Offense Categories by Charge Description ....................................................................... 105
5
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Core Components of NSU ............................................................................................................................. 27
Figure 2: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Year 2014 -2018 ................................................................................... 29
Figure 3: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2018 ........................................................................ 30
Figure 4: Duplicated Offense Classification 2018 ........................................................................................................ 30
Figure 5: Age of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited by Offense Category .................................................................... 31
Figure 6: Sex of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited 2018 .............................................................................................. 31
Figure 7: Santa Clara County Top Ten ZIP Codes for Duplicated Arrests/Citations 2018 ............................................ 32
Figure 8: Santa Clara County Duplicated Offense Classification for Top Ten ZIP codes .............................................. 33
Figure 9: All Referrals to Public Defense Counsel ........................................................................................................ 35
Figure 10: All Cases by Type of Defense Counsel ........................................................................................................ 36
Figure 11: Number of Youth Detained (duplicate count) by Process Step 2018 ......................................................... 38
Figure 12: Duplicated Admissions by Offense Category 2018 ..................................................................................... 40
Figure 13: Number of Duplicated Admissions to Juvenile Hall by ZIP Code 2018 ....................................................... 41
Figure 14: Juvenile Hall Intake Decision Trend 2014-2018 .......................................................................................... 42
Figure 15: Duplicated Top 10 Most Frequent Charges at Time of Petition 2018 ........................................................ 43
Figure 16: Duplicated Petitions per Year ..................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 17: Child Welfare History 2018 ......................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 18: Race/Ethnicity and Sex for Probation Youth With At Least One Child Welfare Referral as the Alleged
Victim 2018 (Unduplicated) ......................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 19: Risk Level for Boys and Girls 2018 .............................................................................................................. 48
Figure 20: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys ............................................................................................................... 52
Figure 21: Top Criminogenic Needs for Girls ............................................................................................................... 55
Figure 22: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 23: Youth Population Percentage (2017) and Youth Arrest Percentage (2018) ............................................... 58
Figure 24: Rate of Arrest and Citation per 1,000 youth 2018 ...................................................................................... 59
Figure 25: Arrest Rates per 1,000 Youth 2014 – 2018 ................................................................................................. 60
Figure 26: Rate of Detention per 1,000 youth 2018 .................................................................................................... 61
Figure 27: Average Daily Population by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................... 62
Figure 28: Santa Clara County Petitions in 2018.......................................................................................................... 63
Figure 29: Rate of Petition for 2018 (per 1,000 youth in population) ......................................................................... 63
Figure 30: CSE-IT Results.............................................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 31: Number of Youth in Family Violence/ Domestic Violence Court ................................................................ 67
Figure 32: Victim Awareness Participants ................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 33: Behavioral Health Resource Center Referrals 2018.................................................................................... 70
Figure 34: Behavioral Health Treatment by Sex .......................................................................................................... 71
Figure 35 : Behavioral Health Treatment by Age Range .............................................................................................. 71
Figure 36: Behavioral Health Treatment by Race/Ethnicity ........................................................................................ 72
Figure 37: Behavioral Health Diagnosis ....................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 38: Monthly Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population Compared to Wraparound Services and Placement
(2014-2019) ................................................................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 39: Santa Clara County DJJ Placements 2015-2018 .......................................................................................... 79
Figure 40: Commitments and Placements 2015-2018 Trends .................................................................................... 80
6
Figure 41: Youth in Commitments and Placements 2018 ........................................................................................... 80
Figure 42: Percentage of Commitments and Placements 2018 .................................................................................. 81
Figure 43: Behavioral Health Services ......................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 44: Medical Outreach Common Issues/Commons from Youth a nd/or Parents ............................................... 86
Figure 45: Medical Clinic Outreach Program 2018 ...................................................................................................... 86
Figure 46: Osborne (Juvenile Hall) Enrollment by Ethnicity (n=711) ........................................................................... 87
Figure 47: Blue Ridge (James Ranch) Enrollment by Ethnicity (n=125) ....................................................................... 88
Figure 48: Youth Served Through Mediation Services ................................................................................................. 89
Figure 49: Female Arrests 2015-2018 .......................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 50: Female Arrests by Age Category 2016-2018............................................................................................... 95
Figure 51: Arrests/Citations by ZIP Code 2014-2018 ................................................................................................. 101
TABLES
Table 1: Percentage of Total Youth Population Ages 10-17 ........................................................................................ 16
Table 2: Santa Clara County Change in Youth Population Ages 10-17 1993-2017 ...................................................... 16
Table 3: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative: Race Equity in Justice Systems Workgroups ................................... 17
Table 4: Other Collaborative Efforts with Justice Systems Stakeholders .................................................................... 19
Table 5: Risk Assessment Instrument Override Percentage 2018 ............................................................................... 39
Table 6: Risk Assessment Instrument Mandatory Detention Reasons 2018 ............................................................... 39
Table 7: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Reasons 2018 .............................................................. 40
Table 8: Age and Sex of Duplicated Youth Detained 2018 .......................................................................................... 41
Table 9: Duplicated Number of Youth in Alternatives to Custody 2018 ...................................................................... 42
Table 10: Boys Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=760) ...................................................................................... 56
Table 11: Girls Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=154) ....................................................................................... 57
Table 12: Number and Rate of Arrests and Citations (2018) and Youth Population (2017) ........................................ 58
Table 13: Arrest and Citation Yearly Trends ................................................................................................................ 59
Table 14: Numbers and Rate of Admission to Secure Detention 2018 ....................................................................... 60
Table 15: Admission Numbers 2014-2018 ................................................................................................................... 61
Table 16: Duplicated Petition Numbers 2014-2018 .................................................................................................... 63
Table 17: Numbers and Rate of Duplicated Petitions 2018 ......................................................................................... 64
Table 18: Petition Rates per 1,000 Youth by Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 64
Table 19: Average Daily Population by Status 2014-2018 Trend ................................................................................ 78
Table 20: Placement from Dispositions ....................................................................................................................... 81
Table 21: Juvenile Hall Medical Clinic 2018 ................................................................................................................. 83
Table 22: James Ranch Medical Clinic 2018 ................................................................................................................ 83
Table 23: Female Arrest Numbers 2015-2018 ............................................................................................................. 95
Table 24: Female Age Categories by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2018 ................................................................................. 96
Table 25: Top 5 Zip Code Arrests for Females in 2018 ................................................................................................ 96
Table 26: Female Arrest Categories 2015-2018........................................................................................................... 97
Table 27: Female Age Category by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2018 .................................................................................... 98
Table 28: Female Age Category by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2018 .................................................................................... 98
Table 29: Top 5 Zip Code Admissions for Females in 2018 .......................................................................................... 99
Table 30: Female Admission Categories 2015-2018 .................................................................................................... 99
Table 31: Females in DEJ 2015-2018 ......................................................................................................................... 100
Table 32: Female Placements 2015- 2018 ................................................................................................................. 100
7
Table 33: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview .............................................................................................. 104
Table 34: Offense Categories by Code Description, Charge Description, and Offense Code .................................... 105
8
SUPERVISING JUDGE’S FOREWORD
In 2018 we continued to bring collaborative interventions to the
juvenile justice system while ensuring that victims are made whole
whenever possible. In 2018 we faced some new challenges. While
there continues to be a general decrease in juvenile crime, there
was an increase in two areas: younger youth and more serious
offenses. Both of these factors have also resulted in an increase in
our Juvenile Hall and Ranch populations.
Our Department of Juvenile Justice population has also increased.
We continue to resolve or hold hearings for the judicial transfer
cases. After the passage of Proposition 57 in late 2016, which
mandated that all juvenile cases must be filed in Juvenile Court,
the juvenile justice landscape has shifted slightly to absorb
previously direct filed cases. This shift, along with the other new challenges, has encouraged all of our
government and community stakeholders to work together to respond accordingly.
This report documents the continuum of what may happen to families and youth that enter the Juvenile
Justice System in Santa Clara County. We are proud of the focus we give to balancing accountability ,
public safety and access to rehabilitative services when a family touches our systems in an attempt to
divert our youth from further law enforcement involvement as adults.
Access to services such as mental health services, medical services, mediation services with a focus on
restorative justice, victim services, educational services, substance use education and prevention are
some of the interventions we promote. In spite of recent challenges, we continue to believe that
whenever possible youth and their families should receive services at home and in their community for
optimal rehabilitation rather than while in custody. If our youth must remain in custody while undergoing
rehabilitative treatment services, those services are evidence based and developed with the goal of
bridging the youth back to the community successfully as soon as possible with intensive after-care
services.
What this report does not directly reflect is the numerous meetings of the stakeholders that make it
possible for us to breakdown systemic barriers and build opportunities for our families and youth to be
successful in these otherwise daunting systems. We aim to be as transparent, gender and culturally
respectful and healing informed as a system can be with all of our different legal mandates and the reality
of how complex each family circumstance is presented.
I want to thank all of the professionals who work with these families on a daily basis who enable us to be
proud of how we serve our most vulnerable populations in every aspect of each case from the youth, to
the family, and to the victim. It is truly because of the dedication and commitment of each of the
stakeholders, including policy makers at the highest levels, that we can present this report which
highlights best practices, system collaboration, creative problem-solving and compassion.
9
Sincerely,
The Honorable Katherine Lucero
Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court
County of Santa Clara
10
CHIEF PROBATION OFFI CER’S FOREWORD
Welcome to the County of Santa Clara’s Juvenile Justice Annual
Report for 2018. The report began in 2011 as part of the Juvenile
Justice Model Courts program and was designed with partnering
juvenile justice organizations to facilitate information sharing,
evaluate performance, and better understand how to improve
outcomes for youth in the County. Each year the report is refined
and modified based upon stakeholder and community feedback.
While this report is data intensive, please remember that these
numbers represent real young people, real families and real
victims. They all deserve to have our systems operate in a way that
helps and protects our youth and communities.
This report represents the collaborative effort of many stakeholders in the County, including the Juvenile
Justice Courts, the offices of the District Attorney, Public Defender and Alternate Defender, the
Department of Family and Children’s Services, the Department of Behavioral Health Services and the
County Office of Education. The report’s findings also demonstrate our strong partnership with
community-based providers and local community advocates. We thank all our partners for their
willingness to be transparent and collaborative as we address large societal issues.
I want to personally recognize the Probation Department’s Research and Development (RaD) team led by
Dr. Holly Child. They have invested hundreds of hours scrubbing, interpreting, analyzing and presenting
the data found in this report. It takes courage to looks at issues critically and without defense. My hope is
that our County continues this high-level, honest analysis and partnership so that we can all understand
how the system’s response either helps or harms our youth and community.
Juvenile Justice is a complex system ranging from youth who commit minor offenses that are usually age
related to youth who engage in serious criminal conduct. This year there was an increase in residential
burglaries, robberies and car theft. Questions remain regarding this trend, is this uptick related to better
technology that identifies people after the fact, an increase in police officers on the street, or simply more
crimes being committed? It is only through continued investigation and analysis that we can find ways to
intervene before there are more victims.
There have also been substantial changes to the juvenile law in California, including that only youth aged
16 and older can be transferred to the adult court. For decades, youth as young as 14 were charged in
adult court for certain serious crimes. The juvenile system is now adapting to address the rehabilitative
needs of these youth. This includes a significant increase in the number of youth sentenced to the
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for crimes like murder, rape or assault with serious injuries. Our
system has changed and as leaders, it’s our responsibility to make sure our responses match these
changes. This year has been one of transformation and growth.
11
The Department remains committed to the mission of promoting public safety by implementing proven
strategies which enhance and support:
• Positive change in our clients, families and neighborhoods
• Reparation of the harm caused by criminal behavior
• Exemplary conditions of secure care
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this document and who work tirelessly every day to help our
youth succeed and to keep our community safe. And thanks to all who take the time to read this report.
Sincerely,
Laura Garnette
Chief Probation Officer
County of Santa Clara
12
13
Youth
Detentions
Helping to Build Positive Futures
Juvenile Justice Trends Over Time (duplicated counts of youth)
Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2018
Arrests/citations in 2018 saw a decrease compared to 2017 (three percent down to 3,668). 2017 was the first year since this
report started in 2011 that Santa Clara County had an increase in juvenile arrests/citations compared to the previous year.
Overall, arrests/citations have been declining since 2015.
1,340 youth (or 37%
of all arrests and
citations) referred to
Juvenile Hall
(duplicate count).
1,212 youth (or 90%)
detained (duplicate
count). This accounts
for a 20% increase
compared to 2017.
987 detentions (or
81%) held until
detention hearing
(duplicate count)
Arrests/citations for 2018 decreased; however, arrests/citations for felony offenses increased. Property Crimes (which includes
felony and misdemeanor offenses) and Felony Crimes Against People (e.g., burglary: first degree, car theft, robbery) combined
to account for approximately 52 percent of the total 3,668 arrests/citations compared to 42 percent of arrests/citations in
2017.
2018
ANNUAL REPORT AT A GLANCE
Juvenile Justice
Santa Clara County
Helping to Build Positive Futures
5,636
1,595 1,299 1,560
3,990
1,239 1,017 1,414
3,310
1,048 921 1,201
3,792
1,147 1,013 1,390
3,668
1,340 1,212 1,535
Arrests/Citations Refer to Juvenile Hall Admission to Juvenile Hall Petitions Filed
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
33%
18%
16%
12%
7%
7%
6%
Property Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Other Crimes
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Return From Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other Admits
Weapon Crimes
14
Despite the decrease in arrests/citations, a total of 1,535 petitions were filed in 2018 (ten percent increase compared to 2017).
In 2018, the number of duplicated petitions increased to levels previously seen in 2014. Of the 1,535 petitions filed in 2018 ,
the most likely offenses to be petitioned were residential burglary (315), robbery (302), and auto theft (235).
Sex and Age of Youth Arrested
•78% of youth arrested were male.
•45% of youth arrested were 15 & 16 years old.
•33% were 17 years or older.
•3% were 12 years old and younger.
Home Life
•The zip codes where most youth reside
include 95116, 95122, 95127 and 95020.
•Girls had more family history problems
(63%) compared to boys (39%).
Child Abuse and Neglect
•48% of youth had at least one referral as
the alleged victim.
•Girls (42%) self-reported more
abuse/neglect and trauma compared to
boys (21%).
Education
•School Inadequacy was similar for boys (37%)
and girls (34%).
•Issues due to lack of intellectual capacity
(boys 22%, girls 16%) and due to
achievement problems (boys 38%, girls 41%).
Criminogenic Needs
•For boys, Criminal Orientation was higher
(26%) compared to girls (19%).
•Just over 40% of boys and girls had anti-
social peers.
Behavioral Health
•33% of girls attempted or thought about
committing suicide versus 10% of boys.
•81% of girls and 63% of boys had
significant issues with depression, anxiety,
and other emotional factors.
Youth in the Juvenile
Justice System
Rate of Arrest and Citation per
1,000 youth 2018
8
72
38
3
White Black Latino Asian/PI
Duplicated Petitions by Top 10 Offense Categories 2018
315
302
235
190
178
100
65
61
55
54
Residential Burglary
Robbery
Auto Theft
Resisting Arrest
Possession of a Stolen Vehicle
Carjacking
Battery
Vandalism
Commercial Burglary
Assault w/Deadly Weapon
15
REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
The Santa Clara County Juvenile Justice annual report provides insight into the juvenile justice process by
reporting the number of arrests, referrals to the Probation Department, petitions filed, and dispositions
for juveniles tried in court, while highlighting various programs and services available to youth and families
throughout the juvenile justice system. Additionally, the report focuses on racial and ethnic disparities
and sex1 differences at various decisions points.
Since 2011 2 , the Probation Department in Santa Clara County, in strong collaboration with system
partners, has developed a Juvenile Justice Annual report as part of the Juvenile Justice Model Courts
program. This is not a report of Probation only, but rather a report of collaborative efforts Probation has
with all of the system partners. Throughout the years, this annual report has evolved into a comprehensive
source of information that describes the youths’ needs and sheds light on the services and programs
provided to youth who are part of the juvenile justice system. As a result, the reporting process has
enabled information sharing between system partners to evaluate performance and better understand
how to improve the outcomes for youth in the County. The information sharing process is done through
sharing of aggregate data from each Probation partner and is compiled and added to the report.
The structure of the report is organized into key sections that outline the continuum of care that youth
and their families might be involved in through the juvenile justice system:
1. Introduction to Santa Clara County juvenile justice
system
2. Innovation and changes to the juvenile justice
system in 2018
3. Preventive and community initiatives
4. Youth at entry to the juvenile justice system
5. Factors that lead youth to anti-social behavior
6. Examining disproportionality at key entry points in
the system
7. Collaborative juvenile justice interventions
8. Looking ahead to 2019
Due to variation in methods and approaches to data collection and reporting by system partners, there
may be various reporting formats. In most cases the annual data reflects the calendar year, unless
otherwise specified. For each section of this report, the data source and other relevant information about
the data is provided in the footnotes for reference. In addition, this report is not an evaluation of each
program or service but has historically been a presentation of the process outcomes and outputs for each
area. Due to the magnitude of services in the juvenile system and covered in the annual report, it is not
1 Probation is currently updating how we track Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression (SOGIE) measures.
In the near future, probation will track sex and SOGIE as two distinct measures.
2 Juvenile Justice Annual Reports: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/probation/reports/Pages/Annual-Reports.aspx
16
feasible to discuss every program and service at length. For additional probation reports, please visit the
probation county website. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/probation/Pages/default.aspx
YOUTH IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Over the last two decades, Santa Clara County’s youth population (ages 10-17) has changed dramatically.
Since 1993 the youth population has increased by 24 percent and there has been a significant increase in
the number of youth of color in the County as shown in the U.S. Census categories listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Percentage of Total Youth Population Ages 10-173
Percentage of total youth population White Black Latino Asian/PI Native
1993 44% 4% 29% 22% 0.5%
2017 27% 3% 35% 36% 0.3%
The table below shows the greatest change has been in the Asian/Pacific Islander (Asian/PI) population
which increased by 99 percent since 1993. During the same period, the Latino youth population has
increased by 48 percent to become the largest racial/ethnic population. Meanwhile the White youth
population decreased by 25 percent since 1993 and is no longer a majority. Decreases have also occurred
in the youth populations of Black youth (-17 percent), and Native American youth (-23 percent). Overall,
the youth population in Santa Clara County increased by 24 percent since 1993.
Table 2: Santa Clara County Change in Youth Population Ages 10-17 1993-20174
Population Change 1993-2017 White Black Latino Asian/PI Native Total
1993 68,387 6,243 45,567 34,649 753 155,599
2017 51,209 5,155 67,508 68,792 577 193,241
Percent Change 1993-2017 -25% -17% 48% 99% -23% 24%
W HAT IS JUVENILE PROB ATION?
Probation is an opportunity for youth to remain at home, when possible, under supervision of the Court
and the Probation Department while receiving services to address their needs. Services vary by type and
level of intensity depending on many factors. In some cases, youth may be detained at Juvenile Hall or
ordered to the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility William F. James Ranch (Ranch) or another placement
3 Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2018). Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2017. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/
4 2017 is the most recent year for which population estimates are available.
17
depending upon their offense(s) and needs. A youth may be ordered to follow certain conditions set forth
by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. In Santa Clara County (County), a
thorough assessment is completed in order to determine a youth’s intervention level. The intervention
level is determined after an evaluation of a variety of factors such as offense, age, areas of need (such as
mental health, substance use, pro-social activities, family therapy, etc.), risk of reoffending and other
factors. Appendix A describes some of the key decision points within the juvenile justice system. At each
of these points, one or more justice system stakeholders has decision-making power over the trajectory
of a youth’s case. These stakeholders strive to stay informed of the most current best practices for working
with families and communities. Some of these trainings include Sex Offender Treatment Advisory Review
Panel, Forensic Psychological Examiners, Probation Brown Bags and Probation Provider Meet and Greet
Resource Fair. Appendix D highlights collaborative trainings provided countywide to all system partners.
JUVENILE JUSTICE WORK GROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES
The Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC) was established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors
on June 3, 2008, after several years of juvenile detention reform efforts, and has been extended through
June 30, 2020. The Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC) provides a channel for system partners to
work together in the best interest of the minors in the juvenile justice system, while preventing or
reducing the unnecessary detention of minors. The JJSC works with other juvenile justice bodies to
maximize resource efficiency and avoid duplication of efforts. The JJSC addresses the issue of
disproportionate minority representation in the juvenile justice system through constant examination of
decision points through a race equity lens. The JJSC is committed to upholding racial equity and
combatting racism in all its forms throughout the youth justice system.
The JJSC has two workgroups and Probation mainly participates in the Race Equity in Justice Systems (REJS)
workgroup, which has several subcommittees that focus on how youth of color are impacted by the
decisions made at various points in the justice system. The Race Equity through Prevention (REP)
workgroup has focused their efforts on reducing the suspension and expulsion of youth of color in the
schools, as well as improving community engagement and school engagement practices on individual
campuses throughout Santa Clara County. The JJSC meets quarterly, while the workgroups and their
subcommittees meet monthly or as needed.
Table 3: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative: Race Equity in Justice Systems Workgroups
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Electronic
Monitoring
Program
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup. Public
Defender
Jean Pennypacker, Chair,
Juvenile Justice Commission
The Electronic Monitoring
subcommittee goals are to promote
best practice and ensure equity in use
of EMP; to ensure the use of EMP aligns
with its purpose; to identify eligibility
criteria for EMP to ensure equity; to
Monthly
18
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
determine EMP success for youth of
color and to develop policy
recommendations related to the use of
EMP.
Discretionary
Bench
Warrants
Carl Tademaru, Probation
Division Manager
Implement/Adopt DBW policy for the
Probation Department and the Courts.
Completed
2018
High Risk
Youth
Carolyn Powell, Sup. District
Attorney
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup. Public
Defender
The High Risk Youth subcommittee
goals are to identify youth who appear
to be at risk for escalating juvenile
justice involvement based on the
number of arrests and crimes;
investigate interventions and potential
interventions for this target population
and to develop policy recommendations
to ensure youth of color receive
appropriate dispositions.
Monthly
Gender
Responsive
Task Force
Judge Katherine Lucero,
Presiding and Supervising
Judge of the Juvenile Division
Nick Birchard, Deputy Chief
Probation Officer
Protima Pandey, Director
Office of Women’s Policy
The Gender Responsive Task Force
(GRTF) was established in 2015 to
create a comprehensive case plan and
treatment model for moderate and
high-risk girls on probation in Santa
Clara County that decreases their risk of
recidivism and victimization while also
increasing their life outcomes. For more
information on GRTF please see
Appendix B.
Monthly
Reducing
Term on
Probation
for Youth of
Color
Vone Kegarice and Alex Villa,
Probation Division Managers
Ensure equity in length of time on
probation. Investigate circumstances for
long probation terms for youth of color.
Develop policy recommendations to
ensure youth of color do not remain on
probation unnecessarily.
Completed
2018
Direct File /
Judicial
Transfer
Carolyn Powell, Sup. District
Attorney
Reducing the number of youth of color
transferred to adult court on non-life
term cases. Account for how cases are
Completed
2018
19
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup. Public
Defender
handled through the Judicial Transfer
Process to Adult Court. Although the
committee sunsetted in 2018, system
partners requested and agreed that
there would continue to be a bi-annual
report out with respect to the number
of judicial transfer motions sought,
dispositions, and data and statistics with
respect to disproportionality.
Table 4: Other Collaborative Efforts with Justice Systems Stakeholders
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Juvenile Court
Aligned Action
Network
(JCAAN)
Judge Katherine Lucero,
Presiding and Supervising
Judge of the Juvenile
Division
Joy Hernandez, National
Center for Youth Law
Alex Villa, Probation
Division Manager
Supported by: Dana
Bunnett, Kids in Common
The goal of JCAAN is for youth in the
juvenile justice system to achieve
parity in graduation rates with the
general population. Work includes
identifying baseline data for education
outcomes for youth in the justice
system; on-going literature review to
find effective and promising practices;
deep landscape analysis to identify
services and gaps; and utilizing data to
improve education results for these
youth.
Monthly
Juvenile Justice
Data Crosswalk
Dana Bunnett, Kids in
Common
The Juvenile Justice Data Crosswalk
Project was created to align data
collection and data sharing efforts for
many groups currently working with
juvenile justice involved youth such as
NYCL, VERA, DIY, JCAAN, Burns
Institute/Racial Equity Through
Prevention, Kids in Common, Juvenile
Court Aligned Action Network, Juvenile
Justice Commission, SCCOE and
Probation.
Monthly
20
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
CSEC Steering
Committee
Francesca LeRue, Director
of Family and Children’s
Services
The CSEC Steering Committee consists
of DFCS, JPD, PH, BHSD, Community
Solutions, YWCA, LACY, Public
Defender, and other partners as
identified. The CSEC Steering
Committee shall: Provide ongoing
oversight and leadership to ensure the
county agencies and partners
effectively collaborate to better
identify and serve youth who are at
risk of or have been commercially
sexually exploited.
Quarterly
CSEC
Implementation
The Implementation Team
members consist of the
following system partners:
DFCS, JPD, PH, BHSD,
Community Solutions,
YWCA, LACY, Public
Defender, and other
partners as identified.
The CSEC Implementation Team
(hereafter referred to as “The
Implementation Team”) is responsible
for trauma informed program
development and training using data
to ensure the implementation of the
Commercially Sexually Exploited
Children (CSEC) protocol. The team will
utilize continuous quality improvement
(CQI) as well as a feedback process to
identify and address gaps, challenges
and maximize opportunities for
program enhancement.
Monthly
DIY Steering
Committee
Laura Garnette, Chief
Probation Officer
Judge Julie Alloggiamento,
Judge for DIY calendar
The goals of the Dually Involved Youth
(DIY) Steering Committee are (1)
Prevent youth ¡n the child welfare
system from formally penetrating the
juvenile justice system. (2) Use
evidence-based research and
promising practices to inform changes
in both systems so that we can better
serve youth and families. (3) Eliminate
disproportionate minority contact in
the child welfare and juvenile justice
systems. (4) Strengthen the ability of
families to rise above the challenges
they confront.
Monthly
21
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
DIY Under 14
Subcommittee
Christian Bijoux, Dually
Involved Youth Director
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup.
Public Defender
The purpose of the group is to engage
system partners to provide support to
the dually involved youth who are
under 14 years old as this population
might need specific supports to
address their needs. The workgroup is
currently developing a protocol for
SB439 for youth who are under 12
years old and cannot be detained as
outlined by new legislation.
Monthly
Title IVE Well-
Being Waiver
Steering
Committee
Laura Garnette, Chief
Probation Officer
Robert Menicocci, Director
Department of Social
Services
The Title IVE Well-Being Waiver
Steering Committee was developed
when Santa Clara County joined the
Title IVE Well-Being Waiver Project.
The Steering Committee meets
monthly to discuss the Waiver Project
and other issues as it relates to
providing best practices for the
community. The committee is
composed of key staff from Probation,
Department of Family and Children’s
Services (DFCS), Behavioral Health and
Fiscal.
Monthly
INNOVATIONS IN 2018
Santa Clara County prides itself on collaborative efforts to provide best practices and programs to youth
in the juvenile justice system. This section of the report highlights innovations which are improving the
services offered to youth and families in Santa Clara County within a juvenile justice scope.
D ISMISSAL A SSESSMENT W ORKSHEET
The work surrounding the development of the Dismissal Assessment Worksheet (DAW) resulted from the
Race Equity in Justice Systems (REJS) Workgroup combined with the Santa Clara County Probation
Department Results Based Leadership (Results Count) work which was a collaboration with the Annie E.
Casey Foundation and Probation. The Results Based Leadership team conducted an evaluation which
resulted in a pilot with five supervision units and a specialized Gang Unit. The pilot sought to determine
to what extent there were supervision cases within the six identified units wherein the Deputy Probation
Officer (DPO) could appropriately submit the case for dismissal. A prototype DAW was applied to each
22
supervision case in the six selected units. The results of the pilot revealed that 44 percent of cases
evaluated would have resulted in being designated as appropriate for dismissal under the new approach.
The paradigm shift comes from the “appropriateness” of cases for dismissal. Juvenile Probation, unlike
Adult Probation in the State of California, is indeterminate and after conducting an analysis of youth time
on probation, the Department observed that compliance was not the only factor in determining the
appropriateness for a case being considered for dismissal from probation. Some other factors were school
attendance, restitution satisfied, new law violations, Violations of Probation, substance use, and failure
to complete programming. As a result, a workgroup of five Deputy Probation Officers (DPOs) and two
Supervising Probation Officers (SPOs) was created to assist in development of the DAW. A prototype was
developed which focused on: identifiers revolving around demographics, risk assessment results (low,
moderate, or high), progress at home, school and community, adherence to Court Orders, and
adjudications (Violations of Probation, Misdemeanor and Felony sustained Petitions).
Upon completion of DAW prototype, the team engaged the Probation Departments Youth Advisory
Council (YAC) to review the policy/procedure and form. The YAC formally recommended suggestions
which were insightful, valuable, and implemented. Full implementation of the DAW commenced on
August 6th, 2018, with incorporation into the probation case management system in October 2018 so that
there was an electronic format to collecting data related to the DAW. To date, there have been some
process modifications as lessons are learned based on the data and feedback from stakeholders and staff.
Data collection continues and reporting will begin when there is sufficient data for comparison and
evaluation. This process is the only one of its kind within the state of California and representatives from
the County of Santa Clara presented on the development of the DAW at the Juvenile Justice Coalition’s,
National Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Conference in Baltimore, MD in 2018.
E DUCATIONAL S CREENING P ROCESS
In August of 2018 the Education Services Unit implemented a
new screening process for educational services within the
Probation Department’s Juvenile Division. The new screening
process focuses upon youth adjudicated as Wards of the Court
or participants in the Deferred Entry of Judgement Program
(DEJ). Upon adjudication the Deputy Probation Officer
generates an Education Services Screening referral which is
received by the Supervising Probation Officer of the Education
Services Unit. The referral is evaluated for assignment to one
of three service modalities5:
1. Legal Advocates for Children and Youth (LACY) for legal representation related to the youth’s
education;
5 Youth can be in more than one service modality, but this is unlikely. It is more likely that a youth will move from one modality
to another as the need is resolved.
23
2. Project YEA! (Youth Educational Advocates) for advocacy, support, and guidance related to the
students Special Education needs and educational planning; or
3. The National Center for Youth Law’s Justice Ed. Program. The goal of the Justice Ed. Program is
for juvenile justice involved youth to have an Education Champion who, through the Justice Ed.
Program, is supported in developing the advocacy, confidence, knowledge, and resources
necessary to take an active and committed role in supporting youth as they navigate the
education system. The focus is for natural supports to be identified and fostered for committed
educational support beyond system involvement.
The new Education Services Screening referral process allows for focused and intentional educational
support for justice involved youth and their families.
NEW LAWS IN 2018
The following section highlights changes in legislation which took place in 2018 and had an effect on
juvenile justice systems in Santa Clara County.
SB190 : ELIMINATION OF JUVE NILE FEES
Effective January 1, 2018, counties can no longer charge fees to parents/guardians with youth in the
juvenile justice system. Specifically, the parents/guardians cannot be charged: Detention and placement
fees (including probation placements via the Department of Child Support Services) (WIC 903), Lawyer
fees (WIC 903.1, 903.15), Electronic monitoring fees (WIC 903.2), Probation and home supervision fees
(WIC 903.2), and Drug testing fees (WIC 729.9).
Young adults not over 21 years of age who are under the jurisdiction of the criminal (adult) court cannot
be charged: Home detention fees (PC 1203.016), Electronic monitoring fees (PC 1208.2), Drug testing fees
(PC 1203.1ab). Restitution and restitution fines (WIC 730.6, 730.7) can still be charged, and counties can
still collect old fees assessed before January 1, 2018.
Prior to the passage of SB190, County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors had already permanently
eliminated certain fines and fees charged to families of youth in detention. In 2017, the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a proposal to eliminate the fines and fees – six (6) months
after a one-year moratorium had been placed - making the County of Santa Clara the fourth in the state
to permanently eliminate the practice of assessing and collecting juvenile administrative fees.
SB395: JUVENILE MIRA NDA
On January 1, 2018, SB 395 (codified in Welfare & Institutions Code §625.6), went into effect, mandating
that prior to any custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, all youth fifteen
(15) and younger shall consult with legal counsel by person, telephone, or video conference. The law does
not permit the youth to waive the legal consultation as the reason for the law is rooted in the science that
24
youth have a lesser ability as compared to adults to comprehend the meaning of their rights and
consequences of a waiver.
The County of Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office began providing 24/7 consultations in 2018. A
dedicated phone number was provided to all law enforcement agencies. During business hours, the
juvenile team fields all incoming calls from law enforcement and will often provide an in-person
consultation with the youth. After business hours, the dedicated phone is handed to a volunteer attorney
who fields the call and provides the consultation.
UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
This section of the report focuses on legislative changes which will greatly affect youth in the juvenile
justice system. For this report, major reforms and programmatic changes are highlighted for which a great
impact is expected within Santa Clara County.
SB439 : M INIMUM A GE OF P ROSEC UTION
Senate Bill 439 was signed into law by Governor Brown in September 2018, setting the minimum age of
prosecution in California at twelve (12). Beginning January 1, 2019, youth under 12 cannot be prosecuted
except for murder, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration, by force, violence, duress,
menace, or threat of immediate and unlawful bodily injury.
In all other cases involving children under the age of 12, the law directs counties to pursue appropriate
measures to serve and protect a child only as needed, avoiding any intervention whenever possible, and
using the least restrictive alternatives through available school, health, and community-based services.
SB439 amends Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 601 and 602 and requires all counties to develop a
protocol for addressing alternatives to prosecution for youth under 12 by January 1, 2020. Santa Clara
County juvenile justice stakeholders are currently working on a countywide protocol.
AB121 4 : JUVENILE COMPETENCY
Effective January 1, 2019, AB1214 amends Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 709, known as the juvenile
competency statute, and establishes timelines and processes relating to the determination of competency
in juvenile court proceedings and the evaluation and delivery of remediation services. Previously, there
were operational ambiguities among juvenile justice practitioners for which this law seeks to provide
additional guidance.
Some of the most significant changes made to WIC 709 include:
• If a youth is incompetent and the petition contains only misdemeanor offenses, the petition shall
be dismissed.
• If the court, after six months from the finding of incompetence, finds the youth cannot be
remediated within six months, the court shall dismiss the petition. If the court finds the youth is
25
likely to be remediated within six months, the court shall order the youth to return to the
mediation program. The total remediation period shall not exceed one year from the finding of
incompetency or 18 months for 707(b) offenses.
• Secure confinement for any youth found to lack competence is limited to six (6) months from the
finding of incompetence for non-707(b) offenses absent special findings, and 18 months for 707(b)
offenses.
• Experts appointed to evaluate youth must consult with the youth’s counsel, be proficient in the
language preferred by the youth if feasible or employ the services of a certified interpreter and
use assessment tools that are linguistically and culturally appropriate for the youth.
• For youth under the age of fourteen (14), the court must first determine the youth’s capacity
pursuant to Penal Code 26 prior to deciding the issue of competency.
The Judicial Council is tasked with adopting a rule of court identifying the training and experience needed
for an expert to be competent in forensic evaluations of juveniles, as well as develop and adopt rules for
the implementation of the other requirements with respect to experts. The rules are expected to be
announced in late 2019.
SB1391: ELIMINATION OF JUDICAL TRANSFER OF 14 AND 15 YEAR OL DS
Senate Bill 1391 eliminates adult court prosecutions of 14 and 15-year-old youth and was signed into law
in September of 2018 by Governor Brown. The law goes into effect January 1, 2019. Currently, prosecutors
can request that the juvenile court transfer a 14 or 15-year-old youth to adult court and face significant
prison time if they are charged with a serious offense such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. This law
completely prohibits transfer to adult court altogether and helps increase the number of youth retained
under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. An exception exists if the youth was “not apprehended prior
to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction.” For youth who may be considered extremely dangerous, in his
signing message, Governor Brown indicated that he considered the fact that young people adjudicated in
juvenile court could be held beyond their original sentence by way of Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC)
sections §1800 and §1800.5. This already existing legal mechanism allows either the Director of the
Division of Juvenile Justice, or the Board of Juvenile Hearings, to petition for extended incarceration past
the original commitment time if the youth is deemed to have a mental or physical deficiency, disorder or
abnormality that causes the youth to have serious difficulty controlling his or her behavior. The statues
require a jury trial on the issue every two years.
PREVENTIVE AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
The Probation Department in collaboration with system partners focuses on implementing preventative
and community initiatives which emphasize reducing the likelihood of youth penetrating deeper the
juvenile justice system.
26
YOUTH ADVISORY COUNC IL (YAC)
Members of the Probation Department’s Youth Advisory Council (YAC) serve as Justice Consultants and
work collaboratively with system partners to inform and enhance current Juvenile Justice related
processes, policies and practices. Consultants also have opportunities to participate in monthly
community meetings and commissions, and to conduct presentations. Some examples include:
• The YAC facilitated a focus group on behalf of the Probation Department, the W. Haywood Burns
Institute and Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) to discuss the experiences of youth who participated
in the Deferred Entry of Judgement (DEJ) Program;
• The YAC participated in a focus group with the Youth Law Center to discuss the best ways to
support Transition Aged Youth (TAY);
• The YAC also participated in a focus group with Tipping Point Community (T-Lab) to give input on
the new Young Adult-DEJ program in Juvenile Hall.; The YAC facilitated focus groups at Mt.
Pleasant High School to gather data from students regarding the school’s discipline policies; and
• The YAC recently was invited to provide input on the work being done within the Juvenile Justice
Systems Collaborative (JJSC) subcommittees, Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), Mayor’s Gang
Prevention Task Force (MGPTF) - Community Engagement Subcommittee and the Juvenile Court
Aligned Action Network (JCAAN).
Furthermore, the YAC members worked diligently
to create an orientation for youth and families
who have recently entered the Juvenile Justice
System. The orientation has been named
Redemption, Education and Purpose (REP) after
contributions by three founding members who
participated while in-custody. This orientation is
designed to communicate Probation expectations,
improve understanding and share possible
consequences to youth and their caregivers.
Overall, the goal is to support system involved
youth in making better decisions through support
from young adults who have experienced being
involved in the system themselves.
SOUTH COUNTY YOUTH T ASK FORCE (SCYTF)
In January 2012, the City of Gilroy, the City of Morgan Hill, Gilroy and Morgan Hill Unified School Districts,
local community-based agencies and the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors met and created the
South County Youth Task Force (SCYTF) to address the effects of violence and gangs on the youth in the
South County communities. Chaired by County Supervisor Mike Wasserman, the Task Force has brought
together a collaborative of local government, law enforcement, schools, and community-based agencies,
27
and resident voice through a thorough community engagement process to provide positive opportunities
for youth and their families. The newly updated 2017-2020 Strategic Plan stems from a second community
engagement process and can be found on the new website: https://www.scytf.org/.
NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY UNIT (NSU)
The Neighborhood Safety/Services Unit (NSU) is a unique unit within the Probation Department. The core
components of the NSU include community engagement, leadership development, and violence
prevention programming through pro-social activities/services (see figure below).
Figure 1: Core Components of NSU
NSU Community Impact ZIP Code 95122
• Soccer Field & Expansion of Valley Palms Family Resource Center (FRC) – Valley Palms Unidos
successfully advocated for San Jose City Council to approve the release of Revenue Bond funds
based on the inclusion of their requests for a soccer field and enhanced FRC as part of the
renovation projects.
• Participatory Budgeting and Root Cause Analysis of Violence in their Neighborhood – Valley
Palms Unidos completed a root-cause analysis of violence in their neighborhood. The result of this
analysis is the driving force behind their participatory budgeting process to come to a collective
agreement on expenditure of funds to address violence in their neighborhood.
• Valley Palms Unidos Community Action and Pro-Social Funding used to address root causes of
violence – The results of the participatory budgeting process included use of VP Unidos funds to
certify residents in First Aid/CPR and Mental Health First Aid, (youth and adults) engage Valley
Palms Mothers in Art Therapy and offer further economic opportunities by train-the-trainer and
preference for resident-led programs/workshops.
NSU Community Impact ZIP Code 95020
• San Ysidro Nueva Vida 2nd Annual Spirit Night – The 2nd Annual Spirit Night committee included
a Trunk-or-Treat and 600 wrapped gifts were distributed to children and youth. The night was
filled with energy amplified by activities such as arts and crafts, music, performances, and Latin
American food for all to enjoy. The attending partners included local businesses, community-
based organizations, City Council candidates, Nueva Vida Instructors, ample volunteers, and
community members at large.
28
• SPARK Youth and Pro-Social Funds Painting Series Class – East Gilroy local artist, Nacho Moya,
provided a series of painting classes to expose youth ages eight to 17 to artmaking. Four
consecutive classes were offered to 16 youth. The activity included, sketching and painting Pixar’s
Coco characters on their canvas. Due to the success of the activity, youth requested additional
classes.
NSU Community Impact ZIP Code 95020 and 95122
• Community Champions Award Ceremony – To commemorate the dedication and contributions
of neighborhood leaders in each of the NSU partner communities. The event brought together
neighborhood leaders, NSU Youth Fellows, partner agencies, and distinguished guests for a
community dinner, awards ceremony, and dance in celebration of the collective efforts in East
San Jose and East Gilroy with over 200 attendees.
YOUTH AT ENTRY TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
This report section shares information on how youth enter the system including arrests, type of offenses,
demographics, where they live, and how arrests move into petitions.
Arrests and citations mark the initial point of contact a youth has with the juvenile justice system. In Santa
Clara County, this includes both paper tickets (citations, summons to appear, etc.) and physical arrests. In
2018 there were 3,668 arrests/citations 6 of 2,207 unduplicated youth. Of those, approximately 947
arrests/citations (26 percent) were accepted by the Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Unit. Thus, 26
percent of all arrests/citations (947 cases) were lower level offenses or first-time juveniles handled
through diversionary programs. Possible reasons PEI numbers are down from 2017 could be attributed to
legislation changes in which marijuana became an infraction and youth aged 12 years and younger can no
longer be cited.
It is important to note once a youth is arrested, they may accrue additional charges from offenses that
took place prior to their apprehension by law enforcement. These matches to previous crimes are often
made once a youth has been fingerprinted and these open cases become attributed to them once they
become known to the criminal justice system. This means that although arrests/citations are for 2018 not
all offenses for each arrest/citation may have occurred in 2018. Offense dates for arrests/citations for
2018 range from 2011-2018; therefore, multiple youth had offense dates one to seven years before their
arrest/citation date.
In line with national trends, the number of juvenile arrests in Santa Clara County has declined in recent
years. Multiple factors may be contributing to the reduction, including law enforcement staffing patterns
throughout the County and a focus on school based and prevention-oriented programs and services. In
2018, juvenile arrest/citation numbers show a three percent decrease in youth arrests/citations in
comparison to 2017 and highlights an overall declining trend in arrests/citations since 2014.
6 This is a count of arrests/citations, not of individual youth. For example, a single young person may have been arrested or
cited multiple times during the year. Each of their arrests/citations is included in the total of 3,668.
29
Figure 2: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Year 2014-2018
J UVENILE T RAFFIC C OURT
Upon the closure of the Informal Juvenile Traffic Court (IJTC) on January 3, 2017, which previously handled
traffic and truancy citations, the County of Santa Clara stakeholders met and created an informal protocol,
to be finalized in 2019, on how the traffic citations should be handled going forward. The parties have
agreed that most misdemeanor traffic citations will be handled informally by the Juvenile Probation
Department’s Prevention and Early Intervention Unit (PEI). As required by law, certain misdemeanors
would be reviewed with the district attorney. Finally, traffic infractions would be handled in the County
of Santa Clara Traffic Court, however, the Traffic Court commissioners will consider the age, nature of
violation, personal, family or financial hardship, adolescent brain development and other mitigating
and/or aggravating factors when determining the appropriate consequence. The Traffic Court
commissioners may consider ordering the youth to attend and complete traffic school; waiving fines and
fees; ordering community service hours in lieu of traffic school for a dismissal; or ordering California
Highway Patrol’s “Start Smart” course for a dismissal when such an alternative disposition is in the interest
of justice.
For more information on truancy matters please refer to the chronic absenteeism section (page 88).
YOUTH ARRESTS/CITATI ONS
This section highlights trends in offense categories7 and offense classification for all arrests/citations in
2018. Property Crimes involve felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions (e.g., arson, petty theft and
vandalism). The more serious (felony) property crimes (e.g., burglary: first degree and grand theft) and
felony crimes against people (e.g., robbery and carjacking) combined to account for approximately 42
percent of the total 3,668 arrests/citations (n=1,541).
7 Appendix F breaks down some examples of charge codes, charge descriptions, and offense classifications by offense category.
5,636
3,990
3,310
3,792 3,668
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
30
Property crimes8 decreased by one percent for overall juvenile offenses in 2018, compared to 2017, and
accounted for 33 percent of total arrests/citations in 2018. Felony Crimes Against People increased from
14 percent in 2017 to 18 percent of total arrests/citations in 2018. Arrests/citations for drug/alcohol
related offenses in 2018 accounted for seven percent of all arrests/citations. Arrests/citations for
violations of probation and courtesy holds increased by one percent in 2018 and accounted for seven
percent of all arrests/citations. Arrests/citations for weapon crimes remained the same when comparing
2018 to 2017 (six percent).
Figure 3: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2018
Offense classification data also indicate the nature
of offenses committed by youth in Santa Clara
County. In 2018 infractions, status offenses and
misdemeanors combined to account for 52
percent (n=1,909) of arrests/citations while more
serious felony offenses accounted for the
remaining 48 percent (n=1,759).
Although 2018 shows an overall decrease in
the number of arrests/citations compared to
2017 , the number of felony offenses has
increased from 41 percent in 2017 to 48
percent in 2018. More serious offenses
reflect the complexity of needs experienced by youth involved in the juvenile justice system
8 In 2013, Probation moved Burglary in the First Degree from Felony Crimes against People to Property Crimes for purposes of
categorization.
33%
18%
16%
12%
7%
7%
6%
Property Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Other Crimes
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Return From Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
Figure 4: Duplicated Offense Classification 2018
48%
40%
7%5%
Felony Misdemeanor Status Infraction
31
and requires a more comprehensive approach from all system partners to support these youth
and families in Santa Clara County.
Demographics of Youth Arrested/Cited
In 2018, 45 percent (n=1,666) of youth arrested/cited were youth 15 or 16 years old, and 33 percent
(n=1,197) were youth aged 17 years or older. Three percent (n=127) of arrests/citations were of youth
aged 12 years or younger by comparison in 2017 four percent of arrests/citations were of youth 12 or
younger. Thirty-seven percent of youth aged 15-16 years old were arrested/cited from property crimes
(n=620). Property Crimes was also the largest proportion of arrests/citations for youth aged 17 and older
(27 percent, n=328). Property crimes includes felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions.
Figure 5: Age of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited by Offense Category
Of youth arrested/cited in 2018, 78 percent
(n=2,843) were male and 22 percent (n=825) were
female. Across all crime categories, female youth
accounted for fewer arrests compared to male
youth. In 2018, females accounted for 22 percent
(n=825) of all arrests/citations a decrease in
comparison to 2017 where females made up 23
percent (n=860) of all youth arrested/cited.
23
35
6
41
4
18
246
138
61
114
38
31
50
620
288
230
179
124
128
97
328
214
289
91
103
106
66
Property Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Other Crimes
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
12 and Under 13-14 15-16 17 and Older
Figure 6: Sex of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited
2018
22%
78%
Female Male
32
Where Do Youth Arrested or Cited Live?
Analyzing the home address information of youth arrested or cited in Santa Clara County helps to
determine the neighborhoods in which youth live. This allows stakeholders to understand whether there
are relevant resources in the right areas and to identify opportunities to collaborate with community
partners to develop or provide support to youth and their families. In 2018, the highest number of arrests
and citations in a single Santa Clara County ZIP code were of youth who lived in San Jose ZIP code 95116
(eight percent) followed by San Jose ZIP code 95122 (seven percent). In 2018, the ZIP codes 95122 and
95116 changed places (first to second place, respectively). ZIP Code 95116 was previously the highest ZIP
Code for arrests/citations in 2013. The East San Jose ZIP codes of 95127 and 95122 accounted for 13
percent of all arrests and citations combined. The South and Downtown San Jose ZIP codes of 95111 and
95112 accounted for five and three percent of all arrests and citations. Youth who live outside of Santa
Clara County accounted for seven percent of all arrests and citations, which is the second highest group
when compared to Santa Clara County ZIP codes. Any youth who reside outside of Santa Clara County is
counted as part of the out of county total. Breaking down the top out of county ZIP Code 95023, which is
Hollister made up one percent of all arrests/citations (n=25), followed by 94541 which is Hayward with
eight arrest/citations. All other out of county ZIP Codes had seven or fewer arrests/citations in 2018.
Since 2017, the number of arrests and citations decreased in seven out of ten of the top ZIP codes. For
example, in the Morgan Hill 95037 ZIP code, arrests and citations decreased by 16 percent compared to
2017. In the San Jose 95128 ZIP code, arrests and citations decreased by 15 percent and in the Gilroy
95020 ZIP code they fell by 12 percent. In contrast, arrest and citations of youth who live in 95117
increased by 48 percent, but only totaled 118 arrests or citations. The out of county youth also had a
decrease in arrests and citations for 2018 of four percent compared to 2017.
Figure 7: Santa Clara County Top Ten ZIP Codes for Duplicated Arrests/Citations 2018
The figure below shows how offense classifications vary among the top ten ZIP codes. For example, the
proportion of arrests/citations for misdemeanor offenses in Gilroy (58 percent) is higher than in the 95116
309
243 234
204 189
125 119 118 108 100
95116
San Jose
95122
San Jose
95127
San Jose
95020
Gilroy
95111
San Jose
95112
San Jose
95037
Morgan
Hill
95117
San Jose
95123
San Jose
95128
San Jose
33
ZIP code (28 percent). In contrast, 95116 and 95122 have the highest proportions of felony arrests (60
percent each). This provides us with some insight into areas of focus for prevention and intervention
services and programs that could be deployed.
Figure 8: Santa Clara County Duplicated Offense Classification for Top Ten ZIP codes
Moving from Arrest/Citation to a Petition
A law enforcement officer, who is arresting a youth in Santa Clara County, has the discretion to bring the
youth to Juvenile Hall to be booked and admitted or to cite and release the youth to the care of the
parent/legal guardian. The arresting officer makes the determination based on a countywide juvenile
booking protocol, the police officer may decide to bring a youth to Juvenile Hall or cite and release them.
If cited, the citation is sent to the Juvenile Services Division of the Probation Department. When a law
enforcement agency cites a youth for any crime, the citation is sent to the Juvenile Services Division of
the Probation Department.
Upon receipt of the citation or in-custody notification, a probation officer determines whether the citation
must be reviewed by the District Attorney’s Office for a decision regarding whether to file a petition or
whether the case can and should be handled informally by Probation. Which offenses mandate a referral
to the District Attorney’s Office are outlined in section 653.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC).
Any youth over the age of 14 with a felony charge, a second felony for a youth under the age of 14, or any
violent felony listed under WIC Section 707(b), requires review by the District Attorney’s Office, otherwise
submitting the case to the district attorney for potential filing of a petition is at the discretion of the
Probation Department. For mandatory referrals to the district attorney, the probation officer must review
the citation or in-custody case with the District Attorney’s Office within 48 hours excluding weekends and
holidays. The District Attorney’s Office decides whether to file a petition immediately or allow time for
60%60%
45%
30%
53%59%
39%47%46%42%
28%29%
41%
58%
35%30%
46%
45%44%
38%
3%2%3%3%6%6%8%2%4%
4%
10%9%11%9%6%5%7%7%6%16%
95116
San Jose
95122
San Jose
95127
San Jose
95020
Gilroy
95111
San Jose
95112
San Jose
95037
Morgan
Hill
95117
San Jose
95123
San Jose
95128
San Jose
Felony Misdemeanor Infraction Status
34
the probation officer to investigate the case if a youth is not in custody. By policy, petitions are brought
to the District Attorney’s Office once a youth has been accused of committing a felony or specified
misdemeanor (e.g., Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Domestic Violence). Once an out-of-custody
petition is filed, the probation officer must serve the minor and parents with a notice of the upcoming
court date. If a youth is in-custody, his or her case must be scheduled for court within 48 to 72 hours of
arrest, excluding weekends and holidays.
PROPOSITION 57 ELIMI NATED DIRECT FILE
Since Proposition 57 passed, the County of Santa Clara continues handling these special cases and below
is an update on these efforts.
TRANSFER TO ADULT CO URT (NEWLY FILED POS T -PROP OSITION 57 CASES)
Since Proposition 57 (the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016), the County has devised new
procedures to handle judicial transfer cases. Since the law was enacted, the only way in which a youth
can have their case adjudicated in adult court is after a transfer hearing before a judge (previously known
as a fitness hearing), as described in WIC Section 707(a). In 2018, the district attorney may move to
transfer to adult court: any youth who was 16 years or older at the time of any alleged felony offense, or
any youth who was 14 or 15 years at the time of an alleged felony offense listed in section 707(b)9. The
motion can be made at any time before jeopardy attaches and asks a judge to decide if the youth should
be retained in juvenile court or transferred to adult court based on the court’s consideration of the five
(5) criteria discussed below.
Upon a motion by the district attorney to transfer a youth to adult court, the court shall order the
probation department to submit a report on the behavioral patterns and social history of the minor. The
report must include any written or oral statements offered by the victim pursuant to WIC 656.2. For the
transfer hearing, the probation officer provides a report to the Court that includes a review of the five
criteria listed below, and a victim impact statement, if one is provided. If the court, under WIC 281, orders
the probation officer to include a recommendation, the probation officer must make a recommendation
to the court as to whether the child should be retained under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or
transferred to the jurisdiction of the criminal court. In Santa Clara County, all probation reports include a
recommendation with respect to the issue of transfer. At the hearing, the judge receives the probation
report and any other relevant evidence or information provided by the District Attorney and the youth’s
defense attorney. If the judge decides that the youth should be retained in juvenile court, the case
proceeds to a jurisdiction hearing in juvenile court like any other juvenile matter. If the judge decides
that the youth should be transferred to adult court, the Court must make orders under WIC 707.1 relating
to bail and to the appropriate facility for the custody of the youth or release the youth on their own
9 SB 1391, which amends WIC 707, will go effect on January 1, 2019, and bars prosecutors from seeking to transfer to adult court
any youth who was 14 or 15 years old at the time of the offense. The only exception is if the individual was not apprehended
prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction. It is anticipated that there will be a constitutional challenge to the law by some
district attorneys in the state and the issue may reach the California Supreme Court. See “Upcoming Changes” section below in
this report.
35
recognizance pending prosecution. The court then sets a date for the youth to appear in criminal court
and dismisses the petition without prejudice upon the date of that appearance. The youth must also be
advised of their right to file an extraordinary writ for appellate review. 10 The five criteria the Court must
evaluate in deciding whether to transfer the case include:
1. The degree of sophistication of the crime;
2. If the youth can be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice system;
3. The youth’s previous criminal history;
4. What happened on prior attempts to rehabilitate the youth; and
5. The circumstances and gravity of the current offense.
Additionally, each of the five criteria includes mitigating factors related specifically to the minor such as
age, intellectual ability, degree of involvement in the crime, mental and emotional health at the time of
the offense, ability to appreciate risks and consequences of criminal behavior, history of trauma,
seriousness of previous delinquent history and adequacy of the services previously provided to address
the minor’s needs, whether the youth was influenced by family, peers, his or her community environment,
and the youth’s impulsiveness, level of maturity, and potential for growth.
In 2018, there were a total of nine youth who went through the transfer process. There were other cases
where transfer was sought, but those transfer hearings were not completed by the end of 2018. Of the
nine youth whose transfer proceedings concluded in 2018, two remained under the jurisdiction of the
Juvenile Justice Court and seven were transferred to adult criminal court. Some had full hearings with
witnesses and testimony, and some cases were resolved by stipulation or by allowing the court to simply
decide based upon the probation report, with no live testimony.
ROLE OF DEFEN S E COUN S EL
Once a case has been petitioned, all youth are eligible for defense counsel services, and youth are
presumed to be indigent. All cases petitioned in Juvenile Justice Court are referred to the Public Defender
Office (PDO). If the Public Defender discovers that there is a
conflict of interest in the representation of a youth, the youth
is referred to the Alternate Defender Office (ADO) and/or the
Independent Defense Counsel Office (IDO). It is the policy of
the Public Defender and the Alternate Defender that if the
ADO has represented a youth on a previous petition and the
youth is charged with a new petition, the ADO rather than
the PDO, will represent the youth on that new petition for
purposes of continuity of representation, even if the PDO
would not have had to declare a conflict of interest. A similar
policy exists for most IDO cases. If the ADO discovers that
there is a conflict of interest in the representation of a youth,
10 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara www.scscourt.org/self_help/juvenile/jjustice/process.shtml
Figure 9: All Referrals to Public Defense
Counsel
1,590
1,371
906 956 1,013
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
36
the youth is referred to the IDO for representation. The IDO assigns juvenile justice cases to private
attorneys based on a contractual relationship. The PDO, ADO and IDO are governmental
departments/offices within the County of Santa Clara government structure.
The juvenile units of the PDO, the ADO and the IDO are responsible for the representation of a youth in
the Juvenile Justice Court from the beginning of the case to disposition, and in some cases, in post-
dispositional hearings. The juvenile units of the PDO, ADO, and IDO are also responsible for filing petitions
for record sealing, as well as Proposition 47 and Proposition 64 reductions. The agencies are also
responsible for assisting youth seeking immigration relief, namely Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS).
The attorneys begin the process in Juvenile Justice Court by seeking preliminary legal findings, and the
cases are thereafter referred to Legal Advocates for Children and Youth (LACY) to complete the
applications to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The PDO and ADO represented youth in 1,013 cases in 2018 (681 with the PDO and 332 with the ADO),
with 532 cases either referred to IDO or the youth secured private counsel. Of the 1,013 cases
represented by the PDO and ADO, 700 were felonies, 143 were misdemeanors, and 170 were violations
of probation as shown in Figure 9 and 10. In total, the PDO, ADO, and IDO/private counsel collectively
represented youth in 1,545 cases.
Figure 10: All Cases by Type of Defense Counsel
Social Workers
In 2016, the Public Defender’s Office was able to add a social worker position, which was split between
adult and juvenile cases. In 2018, the Public Defender’s Office was able to add an additional social worker
position, dedicated solely to juvenile cases. An additional social worker eliminated the need for the
previous social worker to split his or her time between adult and juvenile and can now focus solely on
866
774
637 676 681
340 316 269 280
332
402
294 281
425
532
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Total PDO Cases Total ADO Cases Total IDO Cases
37
juvenile cases. The social worker receives referrals from the juvenile public defenders. The referrals
include housing, educational and family support, mental health linkage, substance use treatment,
homelessness resourcing, safety planning, school placement/advocacy, treatment placement
coordination, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) consultations, and general assistance support. The
social worker also consults with attorneys on San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) services. The social
worker often works closely with juvenile probation officers and other juvenile justice system partners,
attends Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings on behalf of the youth, visits incarcerated youth, and
submits psychosocial assessments on behalf of the youth to the juvenile court for consideration. The social
worker also works on judicial transfer cases.
In 2018, the Alternate Defender Office also added a new social worker position. The social worker provides
services and consultations for both adult and juvenile clients of the ADO including psychosocial
assessments, mental health diversion, exit planning, placement, and reentry, housing and community-
based programs referrals, competency determination, juvenile transfer cases and Youthful Offender
Parole hearings.
Community Outreach At torney
In 2018, the Public Defender’s Office also added a new position: a Community Outreach Attorney. The
Community Outreach Attorney is dedicated to empowering local communities to advocate for better
outcomes for justice involved or exposed adults and juveniles through education and networking. This
includes working alongside community-based organizations, schools, courts and other partners to
coordinate efforts. The Community Outreach Attorney commits to helping underserved or vulnerable
communities by engaging in outreach to respond to their needs, facilitating access to care and services,
and raising awareness of existing PDO services. The Community Outreach Attorney provides outreach to
the homeless population by maintaining a presence at homeless encampments and homeless shelters.
The Community Outreach Attorney also assists members in the community with warrant recalls, post-
conviction relief and questions about pending criminal court cases and helps community members
navigate quality of life issues to avoid further contact with the justice system.
The Community Outreach Attorney also has developed a connection to local high schools with at-risk
youth. The Community Outreach Attorney receives referrals and requests from staff at local high schools
to provide one-on-one mentorship, class presentations, and strategic interventions to prevent at-risk
youth from becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. The attorney is responsible for providing and
organizing “De-escalation & Know Your Rights” trainings to empower youth by knowing the law,
encourage de-escalation in police contact, and promote youth interest in legal-related professions.
ADMISSION TO CUSTODY
At Juvenile Hall intake, a detention risk assessment instrument (RAI) is administered by a Probation
Screening Officer to determine whether a youth should be detained in secure confinement pre-
adjudication. The objectivity, uniformity, and risk-based format of a RAI helps to protect against disparate
38
treatment at intake and focuses on reducing the likelihood the youth will fail to appear in court or reoffend
before adjudication. Objective and standardized criteria anchor admission decisions in ascertainable and
equally evaluated facts. For example, RAI indicators include the nature and severity of the offense and the
number of prior referrals. The overall risk score in conjunction with the County booking protocols
(developed and approved by various stakeholders) and state laws are then used to guide the Screening
Officer in making the critical decision of whether to admit the youth to a secure facility, refer them to a
non-secure detention alternative, or release them.
In 2018, of the 3,668 duplicated youth arrests/citations in Santa Clara County, 1,340 duplicated youth (37
percent of all youth arrested) were referred to Juvenile Hall with 1,212 duplicated youth detained (726
unique youth). Of the 1,340 youth (796 unique youth) referred to Juvenile Hall in 2018, 90 percent were
detained (1,212 of 1,340 youth) and nine percent (128 youth) were released at detention screening. Of
the 1,212 youth initially detained at intake, 19 percent (225 youth) were subsequently released by
Probation prior to their detention hearing, for a variety of reasons. These reasons include: a
parent/guardian now being available to pick up their youth from juvenile hall or the charges or
circumstances were less serious than originally believed once supplemental information was provided.
The figure below demonstrates the number of duplicated youth detained at every step in the process.
Figure 11: Number of Youth Detained (duplicate count) by Process Step 2018
Detention Overrides
In some cases, a decision to admit or release a youth differs from the recommended action of the RAI
tool. The detention override percentage is the proportion of youth who score below the detention
threshold score and are nevertheless detained. Some of these youth are detained or released due to a
local or state policy mandating detention regardless of their RAI score, while others are detained at the
discretion of the Probation Screening Officer. A high percentage of detention overrides undermines the
integrity of the risk-screening process.
Of the total 734 youth who were eligible for release based on their RAI score alone (low and medium
scoring youth), 608 youth (83 percent) were detained. Of those 608 youth, 56 percent (341 youth) were
detained under mandatory detention policies. Mandatory detention policies require a youth to be held
due to state law and/or mandatory policy. Mandatory detention policies include, but are not limited to:
Warrant, EMP/CRP failure, and Weapon Used in the Commission of a Crime. The remaining 44 percent
1,340 youth (or 37% of all
arrests and citations)
referred to Juvenile Hall
(duplicate count)
1,212 youth (or 90%)
detained (duplicate count)
987 detentions (or 81%)
held until detention
hearing (duplicate count)
39
(267 youth) were held under discretionary detention policies (see figure below for breakdown). The 2018
discretionary detention override rate was 36 percent.
The table below depicts the breakdown of youth held by means of a discretionary override by race and
ethnicity. There was no statistically significant difference by race/ethnicity in overrides.
Table 5: Risk Assessment Instrument Override Percentage 2018
The table below illustrates the reasons why youth were detained due to mandatory detention policy. The
most frequent mandatory detention reasons include Pre/Post Court Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)
failures and Warrants (Failure to Appear: FTA, Arrest, and Violation of Probation: VOP). These two
categories combined, accounted for 79 percent of mandatory policy admissions.
Table 6: Risk Assessment Instrument Mandatory Detention Reasons 2018
Mandatory Detention Reasons (341)
EMP/CRP Failure 147
Warrant 114
Weapon used in commission of crime 34
Ranch Failure/Escape 23
Placement Failure 12
Inter-County Transfer 10
All other reasons 1
The table below illustrates the reasons why the risk assessment instrument was overridden by
discretionary overrides. The most frequent discretionary override reasons include:
victim/community/youth safety (e.g., victim lives in the home or in close proximity to the youth, the
youth’s actions in the offense pose a serious risk to the public) (134 youth), all other reasons (e.g., youth
refuses to return home, history of runaways) (53 youth), and parent related reasons (e.g., both parent(s)
cannot be located (26 youth), and parent(s) refusing to pick up their children from Juvenile Hall (19 youth).
Discretionary Override Percentage for 2018 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Total Eligible for Release (Low/Medium RAI
Score) 59 66 563 2 2 734
Eligible for Release (Low/Medium RAI
Score) but Detained 20 28 202 14 3 267
Override Percentage 34% 42% 36% 14% 67% 36%
40
Table 7: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Reasons 2018
Discretionary Override Reasons (267)
Self-Victim Community Safety 134
All Other Reasons 53
Parent/Guardian Reasons 45
All other Violations of Probation 15
Family Violence 12
DV with mitigating factor 5
Violations of Probation – Gang 3
Offenses of Youth Detained
Of the 1,212 duplicated youth detained, 36 percent were admitted for property crimes (including first-
degree burglary and auto theft; n=433). Another 31 percent of youth were admitted for felony crimes
against people (e.g. assaults and carjacking; n=379), 13 percent of admissions were for technical violations
of probation (VOPs; n=155), and seven percent for weapon related offenses (n=88). Admissions for drug
and alcohol related offenses accounted for only two percent of the total admissions to Juvenile Hall
(n=24).11
Figure 12: Duplicated Admissions by Offense Category 2018
11 Typically, youth are only admitted for drug and alcohol related offenses if the offense is sales-related or the youth’s safety is
at-risk due to being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Most youth admitted to detention for being under the influence are
released to a parent/guardian before the detention hearing phase.
36%
31%
13%
8%
7%
3%
2%
Property Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Other Crimes
Weapon Crimes
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
41
Demographics of Youth Detained
This section describes the demographic information of youth detained at Juvenile Hall following their RAI
screening.
AGE AND SEX OF YOUTH DETAINED
In 2018, 78 percent of youth detained in Juvenile Hall were male and 51 percent were 15 to 16 years old.
Female youth made up 22 percent of those detained. The proportion of age distribution was similar across
both sexes.
Table 8: Age and Sex of Duplicated Youth Detained 2018
Age Male Female Grand Total
12 & Under 7 1 8
13-14 163 70 233
15-16 488 133 621
17 & Older 286 64 350
Grand Total 944 268 1,212
WHERE YOUTH DETAINED RESIDE
Fifty-three percent of those detained reside within the top ten ZIP Codes for arrests/citations. All ZIP
Codes were located within the City of San Jose, except for 95020 (Gilroy) and Morgan Hill (95037).
Figure 13: Number of Duplicated Admissions to Juvenile Hall by ZIP Code 2018
Intake and Admission Trends
The number of duplicated youth detained in Juvenile Hall decreased by seven percent between 2014 and
2018. However, in 2018 there was a 20 percent increase in the number of youth detained at intake
compared to 2017. Based on the number of youth brought to Juvenile Hall, the percentage of youth
127
103
92
75 69
49
34 33 32 31
95116 95122 95127 95020 95111 95112 95037 95117 95110 95123
42
detained in 2017 was 88 percent and 2018 was 90 percent. As the proportion of serious/violent felonies
increases, the likelihood of detention increases.
Figure 14: Juvenile Hall Intake Decision Trend 2014-2018
ELECTRONIC MONITORIN G PROGRAM (EMP)/COMMUNITY RELE ASE PROGRAM (CRP)
The Probation Department continues to strive to keep youth safely in the community and in their homes
with appropriate services. In 2018, 909 duplicated youth were eligible for detention but released on home
supervision alternatives to detention.
The pre/post-Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) allows youth to be monitored while remaining in the
community by wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. In addition, these youth also receive
intensive supervision and limitation of their freedom. The population served by EMP is primarily Latino
(78 percent) and between the ages of 14 and 17 (94 percent). In addition, 81 percent of youth on EMP
were male and 19 percent were female.
Table 9: Duplicated Number of Youth in Alternatives to Custody 2018
1,299
1,017 921 1,013 1,212
276
222
127 134
128
2014
(82% Detained)
2015
(82% Detained)
2016
(88% Detained)
2017
(88% Detained)
2018
(90% Detained)
JH Detained JH Released
Number of Youth in Alternatives
2018 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Pre-Disposition EMP 20 50 356 18 16 460
Post-Disposition EMP 16 26 201 10 5 258
Pre-Disposition CRP 6 14 122 12 6 160
Post-Disposition CRP 2 5 21 3 0 31
Total 56 68 495 30 17 909
43
The Community Release Program (CRP) provides intensive supervision in the community. Latino youth (75
percent) made up the largest portion of the 191 youth on the pre/post-Community Release Program
(CRP). White youth represented four percent, ten percent were Black, and 11 percent were
Asian/PI/Other. Reflecting the typical sex and age composition of pre/post-CRP youth at other points
within the system, 75 percent were male, and 84 percent were between the ages of 14 and 17.
ARRESTS/CITATIONS FI LED AS PETITIONS
Not all arrests/citations lead to a filed petition. In some cases, these referrals are handled informally,
especially for youth with no previous offenses. In 2018, infractions, status offenses and misdemeanors
combined accounted for 52 percent of arrests/citations while more serious felony offenses, which often
led to a filed petition, accounted for the remaining 48 percent. Of the 1,535 petitions filed in 2018, the
most common petitioned offenses were residential burglaries (315), robberies (302), auto thefts (235),
and resisting arrest (190). Each charge is counted individually and there may be more than one charge on
a petition. The figure below shows the top ten most frequent charges at time of petition for 2018 and
reflects the number of individual petitions, regardless of the number of charges included in each petition
per youth.
Figure 15: Duplicated Top 10 Most Frequent Charges at Time of Petition 2018
315
302
235
190
178
100
65
61
55
54
Residential Burglary
Robbery
Auto Theft
Resisting Arrest
Possession of a Stolen Vehicle
Carjacking
Battery
Vandalism
Commercial Burglary
Assault w/Deadly Weapon
44
As shown in Figure 16, over the last two years, the
number of petitions filed each year has generally
increased. From 2014 through 2016, there had been a
steady decrease in petitions filed. In 2017 that trend
ended. In 2017, there were 189 more petitions filed
than in 2016, and in 2018, there were 145 more
petitions filed than in 2017. In 2018, the number of
duplicated petitions increased to levels previously
seen in 2014.
FACTORS THAT LEAD YOUTH TO ANTI -SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Youth involved in the juvenile justice system often are experiencing many adversities such as family issues,
difficulties at school, substance use, traumatic experiences and other factors which can lead to anti-social
behavior. The following section focuses on factors that lead to anti-social behavior in youth.
CHILD WELFARE HISTOR Y CHECKS
Youth who have been involved in the child welfare system have a greater risk of being involved in the
juvenile justice system. It is estimated that as many as 50 percent of youth referred to the juvenile court
for a juvenile justice matter have been involved with the child welfare system, depending on how broadly
dual status is defined.12 In August 2015, the County of Santa Clara’s Probation Department implemented
a new protocol to check for child welfare history whenever a youth is referred to probation. This process
screens for child welfare history for every youth referred to probation services. Probation also developed
a database to track records regarding dual involvement in both the child welfare and juvenile justice
systems. SCC Probation is jointly working with DFCS, BHSD, the court system, and many community
partners to provide best practices and support to youth who have a dual-status and to their families. The
Dually Involved Youth (DIY) Executive Steering Committee is also working with the Robert F. Kennedy
National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice (RFK) to create innovative measures that will best support
the challenges faced by this population.
Whenever a new referral is received by Probation, Records staff check the child welfare system
(CWS/CMS) for child welfare history involvement for the referred youth and family. Youth who are
referred to PEI are also checked for child welfare history involvement. The child welfare history check is
completed to answer questions such as:
• Has the family had any involvement in the child welfare system?
12 Thomas, D. (Ed.). (2015). When Systems Collaborate: How Three Jurisdictions Improved Their Handling of Dual-
Status Cases. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. www.ncifcj.org/resource-
library/publications/when-systems-collaborate-how-three-jurisdictions-improved-their.
Figure 16: Duplicated Petitions per Year
1560 1414
1201
1390 1535
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
45
• Has the referred youth (probation target youth) been identified as the alleged victim of a child
welfare referral?
Cases identified as sensitive13 in CWS/CMS are those cases which are only accessible to supervisors at child
welfare and are not accessible to probation staff.
In 2018, a total of 1,543 unduplicated youth were screened for child welfare history through CWS/CMS
after receiving a probation referral for a total of 2,663 child welfare history checks. A total of 958 (62
percent) unduplicated families were identified as having a history of child welfare with at least one referral
including sensitive cases. There were 743 (48 percent) unduplicated youth who had at least one child
welfare referral where the target youth (probation youth) was the alleged victim of neglect and/or abuse
(excludes sensitive cases).
Figure 17: Child Welfare History 2018
The figure below shows race/ethnicity and sex for all unduplicated youth who were screened for child
welfare in 2018 and had at least one referral listing them as the alleged victim. Results shown are consistent
with general probation numbers for race/ethnicity and sex. Latino youth represent 67 percent of
unduplicated youth who were screened in CWS/CMS for child welfare history, followed by White youth (14
percent) and Black youth (nine percent). These results exclude Sensitive Cases as it is unknown if the
probation youth was the alleged victim of abuse and/or neglect.
13 A sensitive case means there is family history in CWS/CMS, but it is unknown if the probation youth is the
alleged victim of abuse and/or neglect. Total number of referrals received in 2018 differ from total number of child
welfare checks since some referrals such as Courtesy Holds, Warrant Requests, Violation of Probations (VOPs), and
Transfer Ins referrals are not checked for child welfare referrals.
2,663
•Number of
duplicated referrals
screened for child
welfare history in
2018 (1,543
unduplicated youth
were screened for
child welfare history
in 2018).
958
•Number of
unduplicated
families with at least
one referral to child
welfare at any given
point including
Sensitive cases (62
percent).
743
•Number of
unduplicated
probation youth
with at least one
child welfare
referral where they
were identified as
the alleged victim of
abuse and/or
neglect (48 percent).
40
•Number of
unduplicated
sensitive cases in
2018 (three
percent).
46
Figure 18: Race/Ethnicity and Sex for Probation Youth With At Least One Child Welfare Referral as the
Alleged Victim 2018 (Unduplicated)
CRIMINOGENIC RISK
Over the past few decades, experts have developed and refined risk/needs instruments to measure the
likelihood of an individual re-offending. The County of Santa Clara Probation uses the Juvenile Assessment
Intervention System (JAIS). The JAIS is a gender-responsive tool that has been validated by the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). This tool is used by the Probation Department to identify the
risk and criminogenic needs of the youth. The first component of the JAIS is a risk tool (commonly known
as the Pre-JAIS) to determine if the youth is low, moderate or high-risk for re-offending. One key finding
over the past several years in the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) evaluations is that the JAIS
risk tool is statistically one of the best methods to determine the possibility of a youth re-offending.
Although no tool offers perfect prediction, the JAIS has been helpful in determining the appropriate level
of service for youth. Differentiating youth by risk level is important—intensive programming can work
well with higher-risk youth but can increase recidivism rates among lower-risk youth. There are two
versions for each tool, one for females and one for males. Youth are assessed based on how they self-
identify.
For the analysis in this report, we are focusing on the first JAIS risk tool administered for each youth who
received probation services in 2018 so that a glimpse of youth at entry is possible. The first risk tool could
have been administered prior to 2018. Numbers for the risk assessment might differ from the numbers of
unduplicated youth with a new referral in 2018 due to timing of the assessment or because some youth
may not receive a risk assessment as their involvement in probation is limited. The purpose of the JAIS
risk tool is to measure the likelihood of re-offending.
Risk Assessment for Boys
The initial risk assessment for boys contains ten questions and generates a risk category for the youth. A
total of 1,766 boys JAIS risk assessments were completed in 2018 resulting in 95 boys (five percent) in the
3%3%
20%
2%1%
11%
6%
47%
3%4%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Female Male
47
high-risk category, 558 (32 percent) in the moderate-risk category, and 1,113 (63 percent) in the low-risk
category.
The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for boys based on the most
reliable source of information. This could be a combination between the youth being interviewed and
data that is available to the Probation Officer completing the risk assessment tool. Court or court services
include but are not limited to juvenile, teen, family, and municipal courts.
Less than half of the boys (44 percent) stated that they were attending school regularly and had no issues
at school. Another 38 percent stated that they had been suspended at least once and 19 percent reported
having major truancy issues or having dropped out of school. Of the 1,766 youth, 55 percent stated their
friends had been in legal trouble, were associated/gang members or a mixture of both. Sixty percent of
youth indicated not having any problems with drugs or experimenting a few times only. For 22 percent of
youth, drugs and/or alcohol interfered with their daily functioning. Frequent/chronic usage accounted for
18 percent of youth. A little over one-third of these boys (36 percent) said their parents had been reported
to child welfare for child abuse or neglecting them whether the allegations were substantiated or not. At
the time this risk assessment was completed, 20 percent of youth reported having at least one parent or
sibling incarcerated or on probation at some time in the previous three years. Over half of these boys
received their earliest arrest between the ages of 14-16 (55 percent). The earliest arrest for boys aged 13
or younger accounted for 27 percent. Some boys received referrals to court services: none or one referral
(82 percent), two or three referrals (16 percent), and four or more referrals (two percent). Furthermore,
29 percent of these boys received a referral to court services as a result for a violent/assaultive offense.
Probation continues to work diligently to reduce the use of out-of-home placements and 93 percent of
youth had no out-of-home placement, five percent had one placement, and two percent had two or more
placements. Parental supervision was reported as ineffective/inconsistent for almost half of these boys
(45 percent).
Risk Assessment for G irls
The initial risk assessment for girls contains eight questions and generates a risk category for the youth. A
total of 526 girls JAIS risk assessments were completed in 2018 resulting in 22 girls (four percent) in the
high-risk category, 186 (35 percent) in the moderate-risk category, and 318 (61 percent) in the low-risk
category.
The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for girls based on the most
reliable source of information. This could be a combination between the youth being interviewed and
data that is available to the Probation Officer completing the risk assessment tool. Court or court services
include but are not limited to juvenile, teen, family, and municipal courts.
At the time of these risk assessment, 53 percent of these girls reported being enrolled in two or more
schools, not attending school or having dropped out altogether at some point in the previous two years.
Regarding their friends, 56 percent stated that their friends had been in legal trouble, had some level of
gang-involvement or a combination of the two. Like the boys, 64 percent of girls stated having no issues
48
with substance use or having experimented only. Girls who reported substance use which interfered with
their functioning accounted for 19 percent and girls who had frequent/chronic substance use accounted
for 17 percent. Most girls received their earliest arrest or referral to court services at age 13 or older (90
percent). However, 53 girls (ten percent) were 12 years old or younger when they received their earliest
arrest or referral to court services. Girls with two or three arrests or referrals to court services accounted
for 14 percent of the group, and girls with four or more referrals accounted for three percent. The
remainder of girls had one or no arrest/referral to court services (84 percent). Arrests or referrals to court
services due to drug offenses accounted for 11 percent. Thirty-four percent (n=179) of girls had at least
one referral for violent/assaultive offenses. Girls with at least one out-of-home placement accounted for
12 percent from this sample.
Below is a table summarizing the risk level for both boys and girls. Percentage of youth in each risk level
are very similar among boys and girls.
Figure 19: Risk Level for Boys and Girls 2018
Risk Level Boys Girls
High 95 (5%) 22 (4%)
Moderate 558 (32%) 186 (35%)
Low 1,113 (63%) 318 (61%)
Total 1,766 (100%) 526 (100%)
CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS
Various factors are related to the underlying causes of a youth’s delinquent behavior. These factors are
referred to as criminogenic needs. The section below details the challenges faced by youth who received
probation services in 2018.
The Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System (JAIS) was designed to assist staff to effectively and
efficiently supervise youth, both in institutional settings and in the community. The goal of the system is
to aid with adjustments, to reduce recidivism, and to help youth succeed in school and in the community.
There are three versions to the JAIS assessments:
a) Initial pre-screener (commonly known as Pre-JAIS): consisting of eight (girl version) or ten (boy
version) items which, depending on the score, will determine the need for a full JAIS assessment;
b) The full JAIS assessment is divided into four main sections: General Information, Objective History,
Conduct-related Observations, and Interviewer Impressions/Youth Strengths and Needs;
c) JAIS re-assessment: takes place every six months after the initial full JAIS assessment.
As defined by the JAIS, court or court services include but are not limited to juvenile, teen, family, and
municipal courts. The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for boys
and girls based on the most reliable source of information. This could be a combination of the youth being
interviewed (self-disclosure) and data that is available to the probation officer completing the risk
assessment tool.
49
The full JAIS assessment is only provided to youth who have a sustained Petition before the Court, as the
first section (8-9 questions) of the JAIS assessment is directly related to the Petition before the Court and
delinquent behavior in the community. If a youth answered those questions without a sustained petition
before the Court, the youth opens his or herself up to questioning related to offenses that have yet to be
sustained before the Court. This means most of the youth who received a full JAIS assessment are
adjudicated youth (Wards of the Court).
Criminogenic Needs for Boys
For this analysis, the first full JAIS Assessment was used for boys who were actively receiving probation
services in 2018 (n=865). However, due to changes in the way data is captured and recorded, individual
question level data was only available for 760 boys. The following is a summary of the trends found based
on the first full JAIS assessment for each youth (n=760):
Criminal History: Emotional reasons (e.g., anger, sex) were identified by over half (59 percent) of male
youth as the reason for committing their most recent offense. Material (monetary) reasons accounted for
23 percent and a combination of both for 18 percent. Most of the male youth admitted to committing
their offense (65 percent) and made no excuses for their actions. Twenty-two percent admitted
committing the crime, but emphasized excuses and 12 percent denied committing their offense. For over
half of the youth (56 percent) this was their first offense. However, 32 percent stated being involved in
the justice system before mainly for criminal offenses. From the above offenses as reported by these boys,
59 percent of male youth stated never being armed or hurting someone and 34 percent admitted to
hurting someone in non-sexual offenses. Impulsivity was a determining factor as to why youth decided to
commit these offenses (65 percent) and only 15 percent admitted to planning out their crimes in advance.
Most boys were with their accomplices when they got in trouble (57 percent) and 31 percent were alone.
Most of these boys have never been arrested for committing crimes against their families (91 percent)
and they also reported never being assaultive toward a family member (85 percent).
School Adjustment: Over half of the male youth stated having issues with schoolwork (60 percent). For
22 percent of the boys, the problems were related to lack of intellectual capacity (i.e., needing special
education services) while 38 percent was due to other achievement problems (i.e., lack of interest,
dyslexia, dropouts). However, an alarming 70 percent of youth self-reported not receiving additional
learning support or special education for their learning deficiencies. This number is consistent with youth
who reported not receiving special help for emotional or behavioral problems in school (71 percent).
Truancy was another big issue for these boys and 46 percent reported extensive truancy followed by 26
percent with minor truancy issues (72 percent combined). Only 27 percent of these boys reported not
having truancy issues at school. Almost half of the boys reported having major issues completing their
homework (42 percent). About a quarter of these boys (27 percent) had issues with teachers and
principals (authority figures). Getting suspended from school was another major issue for these boys (70
percent). Forty-four percent of boys had a positive attitude towards school, 34 percent were neutral or
had mixed feelings, and 22 percent had a generally negative attitude. Some positive trends included 85
percent of the boys being enrolled in school at the time their assessment was completed, and most boys
50
had educational goals (obtaining a high school diploma/GED accounted for 38 percent and 59 percent
planned post-high school training).
Interpersonal Relationships: Regarding their friends, 38 percent of boys preferred hanging out with one
or two friends, 26 percent preferred groups, and the rest preferred a mixture of both (35 percent). Most
of these boys’ friends have had issues ranging from being associated with gangs (16 percent), legal
troubles (14 percent), and a combination of both (43 percent). Like their friends, most of these boys
admitted to frequent and/or chronic alcohol and drug use (32 and 44 percent respectively). Marijuana
was the drug of choice for three-quarters of the boys (77 percent). One in four parents disapproved of
their kids’ friends (27 percent). However, 39 percent of parents had mixed or neutral feelings towards
their kids’ friends and 33 percent approved of them. When asked who generally decided what to do, 77
percent said it was a combination between their friends and themselves, taking accountability for their
actions. Half of these boys (50 percent) reported having a romantic partner similar in age to them and 36
percent stated not having a current or prior romantic relationship.
Feelings: When feeling depressed, boys sought an activity to distract themselves (34 percent). However,
some boys turned to drinking, using drugs and/or self-mutilation (16 percent), some boys isolated
themselves (17 percent) and some boys denied getting depressed altogether (23 percent). Boys who had
attempted suicide or had definite thoughts of committing suicide accounted for ten percent. Anger issues
are present for these boys and 20 percent admitted to being physically aggressive toward people, 23
percent had trouble expressing anger appropriately, and 20 percent avoided expressing anger. Some of
these boys (61 percent) emphasized their strengths when describing themselves by making statements of
their positive qualities. Almost half of them had trouble trusting others (42 percent) and some had mixed
or complex views when it came to trusting people (31 percent).
Family Attitudes: Most youth considered their current living situation suitable (94 percent). Boys reported
having a close relationship with their mothers (71 percent) and whenever they got in trouble their mother
would handle the situation verbally or by withdrawing privileges (86 percent). Numbers were lower when
it came to their relationship with their father: 47 percent reported being close to them and 61 percent of
their fathers would handle the situation verbally or by withdrawing privileges when the youth was in
trouble while another 26 percent answered not applicable to this question. A big difference is that when
it came to mothers, only five percent were found not applicable compared to 26 percent for fathers. It is
not clear why this difference exists. For some of these boys, parental supervision was often
ineffective/inconsistent (52 percent). Only 11 percent of boys admitted to ever been abused by their
parents. However, 40 percent stated that their parents had been reported to the child welfare system for
abusing or neglecting them. Furthermore, five percent of these boys admitted being physically or sexually
abused by someone else. Most youth (65 percent) have experienced a traumatic event that significantly
impacted their lives, such as witnessing violence, death of parent/sibling/friend, domestic violence,
divorce, serious accident or another major event. Prior to age ten, most boys believed their parents would
have described them as good kids (86 percent). Most of these boys agreed with their parents (85 percent)
and they reported being happy during their childhood (89 percent). Families receiving Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) accounted for 22 percent. Boys reported having parents with a
history of criminal behavior (52 percent) and parents with a history of probation, jail, or prison accounted
51
for 50 percent. Parents with a history of drinking and/or drug problems accounted for 44 percent. Some
boys had at least one sibling who had ever been arrested (27 percent). About one-third of these boys (31
percent) reported having a parent and/or sibling incarcerated or on probation within the last three years.
At the time of these assessments, seven percent of these boys reported having a parent and/or sibling
incarcerated. Fourteen boys reported being fathers and of these boys six had no custody of their children.
Plans and Problems: Aside from trouble with the law, education was identified as the biggest problem
these boys were facing (34 percent), followed by personal issues such as drinking and/or drugs (20
percent) and relationship issues such as getting along better with parents (eight percent). Seventy-one
percent of these youth reported having long-term goals and knowing of resources to help them achieve
their goals (70 percent). Boys believed that being supervised will help to keep them out of trouble (36
percent) and an additional 11 percent stated that receiving counseling services will help them.
Objective History: Almost half of these boys had their first arrest or referral to court services at age 15-
16 (45 percent). Boys with their first arrest at age 14 accounted for 20 percent, boys at age 13 accounted
for nine percent, and boys at age 12 and younger accounted for four percent. Youth with one referral
accounted for 41 percent and youth with two to three arrests and/or referrals for criminal offenses
accounted for 37 percent. Drug offenses or referrals to court services accounted for 14 percent. Referrals
to court services for violent/assaultive offenses (including the current offense) accounted for 45 percent
and status offenses accounted for 13 percent as self-reported by these boys. The Probation Department
continues working hard to keep youth at home. Only nine percent of these boys had a placement in a
correctional institution and only seven percent had a court-ordered out-of-home placement. For 81
percent of these boys, this was their first time under probation supervision. Twelve percent of these boys
received psychological/psychiatric treatment.
Interviewer Impressions – The following issues were found to be significant to highly significant for these
boys:
52
Figure 20: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys
Criminogenic Needs for Girls
For this analysis, the first full JAIS Assessment was used for girls who were actively receiving probation
services in 2018 (n=172). However, due to changes in the way data is captured and recorded, individual
question level data was only available for 154 girls. The following is a summary of the trends found based
on the full JAIS assessment (n=154):
Criminal History: Girls who received a full JAIS Assessment listed emotional reasons such as anger and sex
as the primary reason for committing an offense (57 percent), followed by material (monetary) reasons
(22 percent) and a combination of both (21 percent). Most girls admitted committing their offense and
took responsibility for their actions (70 percent). Another 25 percent also admitted committing their
offenses, but they emphasized excuses for their behavior. For half of these girls, this was their first time
getting in trouble with the law (53 percent). However, 32 percent of the girls reported getting in trouble
before mainly as a result of criminal offenses and not because of status offenses. About 37 percent of
these girls admitted to being armed or hurting someone while committing these offenses. Impulsivity was
a determining factor as to why these girls decided to commit these offenses (77 percent) and only 12
percent admitted to planning out their crimes in advance. Most of them were with accomplices when they
got in trouble (71 percent). Most offenses were not against their family members (81 percent) and most
girls have never been assaultive toward a family member (78 percent).
63%
•Emotional Factors
•Depression, low self-esteem,
anxiety, impulse control
60%
•Relationships
•The youth’s peer group is
negative, delinquent, and/or
abusive
43%
•Substance Use
•Substance use contributed to
the youth’s legal difficulties
39%
•Family History Problems
•Chronic parental or family
problems affect the youth’s
actions or decision making
37%
•School Inadequacy
•The lack of cognitive
ability/capacity to succeed in
school without supports
contributes to the youth’s legal
difficulties
32%
•Social Inadequacy
•Naiveté, gullibility, being
easily led
31%
•Parental Supervision
•Lack of parental supervision
that has contributed to the
youths’ legal issues
26%
•Criminal Orientation
•Criminal behavior is an
acceptable, common part of
the youth’s life
53
School Adjustment: Half of these girls had problems at school. Problems primarily due to lack of
intellectual capacity (i.e., needing special education services) accounted for 16 percent and other
achievement problems (i.e., lack of interest, dyslexia, dropouts) accounted for 41 percent. However, 79
percent of them reported not receiving additional learning support or special education for learning
deficiencies. Furthermore, 71 percent of them reported never receiving special help for emotional or
behavioral problems at school. Girls reported enrolling in two or more schools in the past two years (81
percent). Truancy (minor and extensive) was an issue for 82 percent of the girls and 42 percent stated
having major problems completing their homework. Major truancy (43 percent) and suspensions (34
percent) were the two main issues for these girls at school. Girls with neutral or mixed feelings towards
school accounted for 34 percent, followed by girls with a negative attitude towards school (22 percent).
Some positive trends included girls getting along with their teachers and principals (76 percent), being
enrolled in school (83 percent), working towards a high school or GED diploma (29 percent), and working
towards obtaining some type of post-high school training (70 percent).
Interpersonal Relationships: Girls preferred to hang out with one or two friends at a time (49 percent).
Most of these girls’ friends have had issues ranging from being associated with gangs (19 percent), legal
troubles (24 percent), and a combination of both (40 percent). Their friends’ frequent or abusive use of
alcohol and/or drugs accounted for 44 percent. This number is very similar to the number of girls who
reported their frequent or abusive use of alcohol and/or drugs at 51 percent. Most girls listed more than
one drug of choice. Marijuana was the drug of choice (86 percent) followed by alcohol (73 percent) and
other drugs (32 percent). Over a third of the girls’ parents disapproved of their friends (38 percent). Most
girls reported that deciding what to do is a combination of their friends and themselves making these
decisions (70 percent) followed by girls deciding what to do (20 percent). Again, these numbers show girls
taking accountability for their actions. Girls with a close friend reported doing things together (21 percent)
and talking or helping each other (55 percent). However, 24 percent of these girls reported having no
close friends. Most of the girls were in a romantic relationship (69 percent). Those with a partner similar
in age accounted for 47 percent and those with partners significantly older accounted for six percent,
while 31 percent stated not having a current or prior romantic partner. Girls who been sexually active
with someone else besides their significant romantic partner accounted for 27 percent.
Feelings: Most girls admitted getting depressed. Almost half of them reported seeking activities that will
distract them or seeking someone to talk to about their problems (47 percent). However, some girls dealt
with depression by isolating themselves or drinking, using drugs, or self-mutilation (43 percent).
Furthermore, 41 percent of them admitted to tattooing or cutting themselves. Suicide attempts
accounted for 20 percent and girls with definite suicide thoughts accounted for an additional 13 percent.
Most girls had anger issues such as trouble expressing anger appropriately (34 percent), being physically
aggressive toward people (31 percent), and avoiding expressing anger (ten percent). Half of the girls had
trust issues and basically mistrusted others (57 percent) while others had mixed or complex views when
it came to trusting people (24 percent). A positive trend was girls emphasizing their strengths when asked
to describe themselves (68 percent) by making statements of their positive qualities.
Family Attitudes: Mobility is a concern, as girls reported living in zero to four different houses (57 percent)
and some girls reported living in five to nine different houses (31 percent) by the time this assessment
54
was completed. Almost all girls found their current living arrangement as suitable (94 percent). Over half
of the girls have a close relationship with their mothers (56 percent) and they reported that whenever
they got in trouble their mothers would verbally handle the situation or would handle it by removing
privileges (80 percent). Hostile relationships with their mothers accounted for 11 percent compared to 24
percent with their fathers. When getting in trouble, only about half of the fathers would verbally handle
the situation or by removing privileges (54 percent). In addition, 31 percent answered this question as not
applicable and it is unclear why these girls answered this way. Parental supervision was often ineffective
and inconsistent (57 percent) or these girls had little or no parental supervision (18 percent). Girls who
reported being abused by their parents accounted for 18 percent. However, when asked if their parents
were ever reported to child welfare for abusing them or neglecting them the number increases to 62
percent. When asked if they were ever abused by anyone else, 19 percent said yes regarding sexual abuse,
six percent said yes to physical abuse, and six percent said yes to a combination of both. Traumatic events
such as witnessing violence, domestic violence, sexual abuse, death of parent/sibling/friend, divorce, and
other major disruption have significantly impacted these girls’ lives (82 percent). Prior to age ten, the girls’
parents would have described them as good kids (87 percent) and all girls agreed with this statement (88
percent). Girls reported their childhood as a happy time (77 percent) and they were basically satisfied with
their childhood (72 percent). Thirty-three percent of parents were receiving Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) benefits. Parents with a history of criminal behavior accounted for 67 percent and
parents with a history of probation, jail, or prison accounted for 68 percent as well. Ten percent of parents
had a history of suicide attempts. Parents with a history of drinking and drug problems accounted for 62
percent. Siblings who had been arrested accounted for 37 percent. Within the last three years, 45 percent
of these girls had either a parent or sibling who had been incarcerated or on probation. At the time of
these assessments, 16 percent of girls had a parent or sibling currently incarcerated. Eight girls (five
percent) have at least one child and five girls have custody of their children.
Plans and problems: Aside from trouble with the law, these girls stated having trouble with education (31
percent), personal issues such as drinking and/or drugs (28 percent), and relationship issues such as
getting along better with parents (16 percent). About 72 percent of the girls stated having long-term goals
for their future. When leaving probation supervision, 80 percent of these girls stated knowing of existing
resources that they were willing to use to stay out of trouble and nine percent identified barriers that
limited their ability to access community resources. Girls saw being supervised as a means to stay out of
trouble (44 percent) and another 17 percent valued counseling or being enrolled in programs to help them
out.
Objective History: Almost half of these girls were 15-16 years old at the time of their earliest arrest or
referral to court services (43 percent). Girls with their first arrest at age 14 accounted for 23 percent, girls
at age 13 accounted for 15 percent, and girls at age 12 and younger accounted for four percent. Girls with
one referral due to criminal offenses accounted for 36 percent and girls with two or three referrals due to
criminal offenses accounted for 42 percent. Drug offenses accounted for 12 percent of referrals to court
services. Referrals for one violent/assaultive offense (including current offense) accounted for 31 percent
and two or more referrals for violent/assaultive offenses accounted for 13 percent as self-reported by
these girls. Twelve percent of referrals were for status offenses. The number of placements in correctional
55
institutions was 18 percent and number of court-ordered out-of-home placements was 18 percent. For
81 percent of these girls, this was the first time that they were under probation supervision. Girls who had
received psychological and/or psychiatric treatment accounted for 27 percent.
Interviewer Impressions – The following issues were found significant to highly significant for these girls:
Figure 21: Top Criminogenic Needs for Girls
Comparing Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls
By comparing top criminogenic needs for boys and girls based on their first JAIS assessment, we found the
following:
81%
•Emotional Factors
•Depression, low self-esteem,
anxiety, impulse control
72%
•Relationships
•The youth’s peer group is
negative, delinquent, and/or
abusive
63%
•Family History Problems
•Chronic parental or family
problems affect the youth’s
actions or decision making
47%
•Substance Use
•Substance use contributed to
the youth’s legal difficulties
42%
•Abuse/Neglect and Trauma
•Physical abuse/neglect,
sexual abuse, and/or trauma
affected the youth's actions
or decision making
39%
•Social Inadequacy
•Naiveté, gullibility, being
easily led
38%
•Parental Supervision
•Lack of parental supervision
that has contributed to the
youths’ legal issues
34%
•School Inadequacy
•The lack of cognitive ability/
capacity to succeed in school
without supports/assistance
contributes to the youth’s legal
difficulties
56
Figure 22: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls
Supervising Youth on Probation
As discussed earlier, the Probation Department utilizes an evidence-based tool called the Juvenile
Assessment and Intervention System (JAIS) that weaves together a risk assessment and strengths and
needs assessment. As well as analyzing risks and needs, the JAIS incorporates a supervision strategy model
and determines the best approach for each youth. The JAIS assessment is effectuated as a one-on-one
interview with the youth, focusing on the underlying motivation for their behavior and includes one of
the four types of supervision strategies: Selective Intervention (SI), Environmental Structure (ES), Limit
Setting (LS), and Casework Control (CC). See Appendix E for more details.
The following table shows the breakdown of Supervision Strategies by risk level for the sample of 760
boys who received probation services in 2018 and focuses on the first completed JAIS Assessment. Almost
half of these boys (46 percent) were identified at Moderate risk, followed by 39 percent at Low risk, and
15 percent at High risk to recidivate. Selective Intervention was the most utilized supervision strategy for
these boys (n=491) followed by Environmental Structure (n=112).
Table 10: Boys Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=760)
Risk Level Casework /
Control
Environmental
Structure
Limit Setting Selective
Intervention
Total
High 34 (50%) 28 (25%) 42 (47%) 10 (2%) 114 (15%)
Moderate 33 (49%) 76 (68%) 47 (53%) 191 (59%) 347 (46%)
Low 1 (2%) 8 (7%) 0 290 (39%) 299 (39%)
Grand Total 68 (100%) 112 (100%) 89 (100%) 491 (100%) 760 (100%)
For boys and girls, Emotional Factors, Relationships, Substance Use, and Family History Problems
were identified as top criminogenic needs.
For boys, Criminal Orientation was higher (26 percent) compared to girls (19 percent).
For girls, Emotional Factors was higher (81 percent) compared to boys (63 percent).
For girls, Family History Problems was higher (63 percent) compared to boys (39 percent).
For girls, Abuse/Neglect and Trauma was higher (42 percent) compared to boys (21 percent).
57
The following table shows the breakdown of Supervision Strategies by risk level for the sample of 154 girls
who received probation services in 2018 and focuses on the first completed JAIS Assessment. Out of the
154 assessments, Moderate risk accounted for 64 percent, High risk accounted for 18 percent and Low
risk accounted for 18 percent likelihood to recidivate. Selective Intervention was the most utilized
supervision strategy for these girls (n=87) followed by Casework / Control (n=37).
Table 11: Girls Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=154)
Risk Level Casework /
Control
Environmental
Structure Limit Setting Selective
Intervention Total
High 11 (30%) 3 (21%) 7 (44%) 6 (7%) 27 (18%)
Moderate 25 (68%) 11 (79%) 9 (56%) 54 (62%) 99 (64%)
Low 1 (3%) 0 0 27 (31%) 28 (18%)
Grand Total 37 (100%) 14 (100%) 16 (100%) 87 (100%) 154 (100%)
EXAMINING DISPROPORTIONALITY AT KEY ENTRY POINTS IN THE SYSTEM
System partners have been engaged in the Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC) since its inception
by Board Resolution on July 1, 2008. The JJSC provides a channel for system partners to work together in
the best interest of youth in the juvenile justice system while preventing or reducing the unnecessary
detentions of youth. The JJSC has two standing work groups that meet monthly, the Race Equity in Justice
Systems (REJS) and Race Equity through Prevention (REP). Members of the JJSC serve as voting members
on only one of the work groups, but anyone can participate in the work group meetings and
subcommittees. Members of the JJSC meet quarterly to discuss cross-functional issues and to get updates
on efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system. Both work
groups operate on systemic issues using a racial and ethnic disparity (RED) lens that guides the focus areas
and work. The following sections demonstrate how youth of color are overrepresented through the stages
of juvenile justice system involvement.
ARREST AND CITATIONS
Comparing the youth population of the County with the population of arrests/citations14 clearly indicates
overrepresentation for Latino and Black youth. While Latino youth represent 35 percent of the overall
youth population in Santa Clara County, they represent 69 percent of youth arrested/cited. Black youth
represent three percent of the overall youth population, but ten percent of youth arrested/cited.
14 Youth’s race/ethnicity can be reported as per the Juvenile Contact Report (JCR), Clerk, or Probation Officer. Probation is
currently in the process of moving into a new case management system and efforts are focusing on improving and
standardizing the collection of these variables.
58
Figure 23: Youth Population Percentage (2017) and Youth Arrest Percentage (2018)
There is an inverse relationship for White and Asian/PI youth. White youth account for 27 percent of the
population, but only 11 percent of arrests/citations. Similarly, Asian/PI youth account for 36 percent of
the population and only five percent of arrests/citations.
Table 12: Number and Rate of Arrests and Citations (2018) and Youth Population (2017)
**Unable to calculate because numbers are too small.
27%
3%
35%36%
0%
11%10%
69%
5%4%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2017 Youth Population (10-17)Arrests
Number and Rate of
Arrests/Citations (2018) to Youth
Population (2017)
White Black Latino Asian/
PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 51,209 5,155 67,508 68,792 577 193,241
Arrests/Citations 411 373 2,549 196 139 3,668
Youth Population Percent 27% 3% 35% 36% 0% 100%
Arrest/Citation Percent 11% 10% 69% 5% 4% 100%
Rate of Arrest (per 1,000 youth) 8 72 38 3 ** 19
Disparity Gap: Times More Likely
to be Arrested/Cited 1 9 4.7 0.4 N/A N/A
59
Examining rates of arrest/citation is another way to
understand the extent of disparities. In Santa Clara County
in 2018, for every 1,000 Black youth, there were 72
arrests/citations of Black youth (as shown in Figure 24).
Compared to the rate of eight for every 1,000 White youth,
Black youth were nine times more likely than White youth
to be arrested or cited. For every 1,000 Latino youth, there
were 38 arrests/citations of Latino youth. The likelihood of
a Latino youth being arrested/cited was over four times
that of White youth. Asian/PI youth had the lowest rate of
three arrests/citations for every 1,000 Asian/PI youth in
the population, making them less likely to be arrested than
White youth.
Between 2014 and 2018, there was a 35 percent decrease in the number of arrests/citations for all youth.
The decrease in arrests/citations from 2014 to 2018 was greater for Latino youth than for Black and
Asian/PI youth. Between 2014 and 2018, White youth arrests/citations decreased by 51 percent while
arrests/citations of Black and Latino youth decreased by 28 and 32 percent, respectively. During the same
period, Asian/PI youth experienced an 18 percent decrease in arrests/citations.
Table 13: Arrest and Citation Yearly Trends
A decrease in the number of youth arrested/cited does not control for the changes in population that
have occurred over the same period. However, arrest/citation rates15 provide a more accurate view of
system involvement for each group. While arrest/citation rates between 2014 and 2018 fell considerably
15 Rates help to remove variations in population size between different groups and provide a standardized measure of the
likelihood of system involvement for each group. To calculate the rates, we divide the number of youth arrested by the
number of youth in the population and multiply by 1,000 youth.
Arrest/Citation Numbers White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2014 832 518 3,767 238 281 5,636
2015 521 385 2,687 274 123 3,990
2016 511 325 2,146 215 113 3,310
2017 564 391 2,471 223 143 3,792
2018 411 373 2,549 196 139 3,668
Percent Change 2017-2018 -27% -5% 3% -12% -3% -3%
Percent Change 2014-2018 -51% -28% -32% -18% -51% -35%
Figure 24: Rate of Arrest and Citation
per 1,000 youth 2018
8
72
38
3
White Black Latino Asian/PI
60
across all racial/ethnic groups, rates of arrest/citation remain far higher for Latino and Black youth than
for White youth.
Figure 25: Arrest Rates per 1,000 Youth 2014 – 2018
YOUTH DETENTION
Disparities across racial groups continue at the detention decision point where there is an
overrepresentation of Black and Latino youth admitted to detention in Santa Clara County compared to
their representation in the youth population. Black youth represent three percent of the population but
11 percent of admissions. Latino youth represent 35 percent of the population, but 76 percent of
admissions. In contrast, while 27 percent of youth in the population are White, only six percent of total
admissions were White youth, a decrease from 2017. Again, population data is based on calendar year
2017.
Table 14: Numbers and Rate of Admission to Secure Detention 2018
16
101
56
410
74
40
410
62
32
3
11
75
37
38
72
38
3
White Black Latino Asian/PI
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Numbers and Rate of Admission to
Secure Detention (2018) White Black Latino Asian/
PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 51,209 5,155 67,508 68,792 577 193,241
Admissions to Detention 77 133 922 57 23 1,212
Youth Population Percent 27% 3% 35% 36% 0% 100%
Admission to Detention Percent 6% 11% 76% 5% 2% 100%
Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) 2 26 14 1 N/A 6
Disparity Gap: Times More Likely to be
Detained 1.0 16.9 9.0 0.5 N/A N/A
61
In 2018, White youth had a rate of two detentions per
1,000 White youth in the population. Black and Latino
detention rates were 26 (Black) and 14 (Latino),
respectively. Asian/PI youth had the lowest rate of one
youth per every 1,000 Asian/PI youth.
A comparison of the rates of detention for White youth
reveals the likelihood of a Black youth being admitted to
detention is 16.9 times that of a White youth. Latino youth
were 9.0 times more likely to be detained than White
youth.
The table below shows that from 2014 to 2018, there was a seven percent decrease in the overall rate of
admission to detention.16 During that period White and Latino youth experienced a reduction in the
number of admissions to secure detention. The number of White youth admitted to detention decreased
by 31 percent, Latino youth decreased by nine percent. During that period Black, Asian/PI and Other17
youth experienced an increase in the number of admissions to detention. The number of Black youth
admitted to detention increased by six percent, Asian/PI youth increased by 39 percent, and Other youth
increased by 130 percent. However, it is important to note, the actual number of Asian/PI youth detained
went from 41 in 2014 to 57 in 2018. Similarly, youth identified as Other went from ten admissions in 2014
to 23 admissions in 2018. When numbers in the population sample are so small, percentage changes can
be skewed greatly.
Table 15: Admission Numbers 2014-2018
Admission Numbers
2014-2018 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2014 111 126 1,011 41 10 1,299
2015 86 105 775 36 15 1,017
2016 101 95 679 37 9 921
2017 95 125 725 51 17 1,013
2018 77 133 922 57 23 1,212
Percent Change 2017-2018 -19% 6% 27% 12% 35% 20%
Percent Change 2014-2018 -31% 6% -9% 39% 130% -7%
16 As with arrests, we look at the rate of admissions by race and ethnicity, to remove variations in population size between
different groups and provide a standardized measure of the likelihood of admission for each group. To calculate the rates, we
divide the number of youth admitted by the number of youth in the population and multiply by 1,000 youth.
17 Other youth includes: Multiracial and Native American youth.
Figure 26: Rate of Detention per 1,000 youth
2018
2
26
14
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI
62
JUVENILE HALL AVERAG E DAILY POPULATION
The average daily population of Juvenile Hall also reveals racial disparities in detention. Average daily
population figures provide a breakdown of the detention during “an average day” during the year. In 2018
(as shown in figure below), the average daily population was made up of four White youth, nine Black
youth, 87 Latino youth, three Asian/PI youth, and two Other youth. The average daily population in 2018
was 103 youth, a seventeen percent increase from 2017.
PETITIONS
There continues to be an overrepresentation of Latino and Black youth petitioned in Santa Clara County
compared to their representation in the overall county youth population. In contrast, White youth account
for 27 percent of the population, but only seven percent of petitions. Similarly, Asian/PI youth account for
35 percent of the population but only five percent of petitions. Latino youth represent 35 percent of the
youth population, but 72 percent of filed petitions. Black youth represent only three percent of the
population, but 11 percent of filed petitions. Four percent of petitions were classified as Other youth. The
Other category can include youth of mixed race or youth whose race is unknown. In 2018, for every 1,000
White youth in the population, two were petitioned. In comparison, for every 1,000 Black youth, 33 were
petitioned and for every 1,000 Latino youth, 16 were petitioned. For every 1,000 Asian/PI youth, one was
petitioned. Black youth were over 11 times more likely than White youth to be petitioned, and Latino
youth were eight times more likely than White youth.
Figure 27: Average Daily Population by Race/Ethnicity
12 11
102
2 2912
83
1 468
65
2 2611
65
3 349
87
3 2
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
63
Table 16 illustrates that White and Asian/PI youth saw a decrease in the number of petitions filed between
2017 and 2018, while all others saw an increase.
Between 2017 and 2018, “Other” youth had the greatest increase in petitions filed (38 percent), followed
by Latino youth (19 percent). Black and Latino youth continue to be more likely to have a petition filed
than White or Asian youth.
Table 16: Duplicated18 Petition Numbers 2014-2018
18 Duplicated refers to the count of petitions, not count of youth.
Petition Numbers 2014-2018 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2014 154 138 1,063 62 143 1,560
2015 149 104 939 82 140 1,414
2016 121 74 812 68 126 1,201
2017 148 165 938 89 50 1,390
2018 109 168 1,112 77 69 1,535
Percent Change 2017-2018 -26% 2% 19% -13% 38% 10%
Percent Change 2014-2018 -29% 22% 5% 24% -52% -2%
Figure 28: Santa Clara County Petitions in 2018
7%
11%
72%
5%4%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Figure 29: Rate of Petition for 2018 (per 1,000
youth in population)
2
33
16
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI
64
Table 17: Numbers and Rate of Duplicated Petitions 2018
**Unable to calculate because numbers are too small.
The table below shows the rate of petitions per 1,000 youth in the population has increased for Black
youth from 2014 to 2018, remained steady for Latino and Asian/PI youth, while it has decreased for White
youth. The overall rate of petitions filed for both Black and Latino youth has remained consistently higher
than for White and Asian/PI youth.
Table 18: Petition Rates per 1,000 Youth by Race/Ethnicity
COLLABORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS
Youth who have entered the juvenile justice system often have more than criminogenic needs and as a
result, a more comprehensive approach increases the likelihood of success as system partners
collaboratively work together to render services to youth and families in Santa Clara County. The following
section describes some of the collaborative intermediate level interventions utilized in the County.
Numbers and Rate of Petitions
2018 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 51,209 5,155 67,508 68,792 577 193,241
Petitions 109 168 1112 77 69 1,535
Youth Population Percent 27% 3% 35% 36% 0% 100%
Petition Percent 7% 11% 72% 5% 4% 100%
Rate of Petition (per 1,000 youth) 2 33 16 1 **
Petition Disparity Gap 1 33 16 1 N/A N/A
White Black Latino Asian/PI
2014 3 27 16 1
2015 3 20 14 1
2016 2 14 12 1
2017 3 32 14 1
2018 2 33 16 1
Percent Change 2017-2018 -33% 3% 14% 0%
Percent Change 2014-2018 -33% 22% 0% 0%
65
Dually Involved Youth Initiative/Unit
The Dually Involved Youth (DIY) unit is a collaborative effort between the Probation Department Juvenile
Services Division (JPD), the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) and the Behavioral Health
Services Department (BHSD). Formally launched as part of the Juvenile Justice Court’s DIY Initiative in June
2014, the DIY unit provides a coordinated and holistic approach between JPD, DFCS and BHSD. This
coordinated systems method allows for the co-location of social workers, probation officers, and youth
advocates to implement a united case management approach built around leveraging the strengths and
needs of the youth. The DIY unit currently consists of six social workers, five probation officers, three
youth advocates and one behavioral health facilitator. JPD, DFCS and BHSD supervisors provide oversight
of the program while a DIY liaison facilitates the sharing of information between DFCS and JPD staff
located within and outside of the unit. In 2018, 55 youth were served in the DIY Unit (21 females and 34
males).
WIC 241.1 Referrals and Assessments
WIC §241.1 referrals are reviewed by both the DFCS and JPD Supervisors of the DIY Unit to determine if
the DIY Unit will conduct the joint assessment and provide the report to the Juvenile Court. Once a case
has been accepted, the DIY Unit goes through a Child and Family Team Meeting (CFT) which will result in
a joint recommendation for the §241.1 report. The CFTs serve as an opportunity to partner with the youth
and family in identifying what supports are needed in order to be able to function safely, ultimately free
of system involvement. The CFT process begins with a youth advocate building a relationship with the
youth and assessing the youth’s needs and strengths. Subsequently, a group including the social worker,
probation officer, the youth, family, support persons identified by the youth and relevant treatment
providers will meet to discuss how to capitalize on the youth’s strengths and more effectively respond to
the needs. Finally, a separate meeting will take place without the youth to develop the joint agency
recommendations that will go into the §241.1 report. If the recommendation results in a Dually Involved
designation, the intent is for the case to remain under the supervision of the unit after the 241.1
assessment has been completed. Cases not accepted into the DIY Unit will be assigned to a DFCS Social
Worker (SW) and Probation Officer (PO) following established procedures. The assigned PO and the
assigned SW will complete an initial assessment prior to seven court days of the pending §241.1 hearing.
In 2018, the DIYU completed 63 reports. For those cases where the family issues do not rise to the level
of mandating a WIC 241.1 referral, but the family appears to be in crisis, sometimes the stakeholders will
agree to have the case heard on the DIY calendar in order to collaborate and attempt to keep youth and
families out of both systems, if possible.
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC)
In 2017, the Juvenile Division of the Probation Department created the commercial sexual exploitation of
children (CSEC) Unit to address the serious issue of youth who are sexually exploited or are at high risk for
sexual exploitation. Commercial sexual exploitation of a child is a form of child abuse that causes multiple
levels of trauma and many victims of commercial sexual exploitation exhibit behaviors that are
66
manifestations of the trauma they have experienced. The CSEC unit is part of a larger multiagency
collaborative which includes the Department of Family and Children Services, the Public Health
Department, the Behavioral Health Services Department, and advocates from Community Solutions and
the YWCA. This collaborative developed and implemented an interagency response protocol as well as
continued to work on demand reduction and prevention efforts. The Juvenile Division CSEC Unit aids with
increased identification of commercially sexually exploited or youth at risk for exploitation, coordination
of a range of victim-centered, strength-based trauma-informed services through the multiagency
collaborative, and training. Youth who are identified as being exploited or at risk for exploitation are
referred to the CSEC transformation team for individual support and resources that are empowering,
reduce harm, and build upon their resiliency.
During the calendar year of 2018, 1,490 youth
were screened for CSEC using the CSE-IT. Seventy-
nine percent of youth screened no concern for
CSEC (n=1,180), 17 percent of youth screened
possible concern for CSEC (n=254), and four
percent of youth screened clear concern for CSEC
(n=56) (see figure 30). Twenty-six percent of youth
screened were 17 years old at the time of
screening (n=390), followed by 20 percent who
were 15 and 16 years old at the time of the
screening (n=295 and n=298, respectively).
Seventy-five percent of youth screened by the
CSE-IT were male, followed by 25 percent of youth
screened were female.
Of the 1,490 youth screened for CSEC, 55 youth
had a CSE-IT Referral completed (four percent).
Specialty Courts
All the youth appearing on specialty court calendars are referred to services that are specialized to address
their needs. Within the County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Court there are currently four specialty
courts, each focused on addressing potential root causes of offending. The Dually Involved Youth (DIY)
Court focuses on youth who have both child welfare and juvenile justice involvement. The
Family/Domestic Violence (FV/DV) court handles cases where the charges or concerns regarding the youth
are primarily related to family or intimate partner violence. Lastly, the Court for the Individualized
Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) Court (previously Juvenile Treatment Court) focuses on youth with co-
occurring substance use and mental health disorders.
Figure 30: CSE-IT Results
4%
79%
17%
Clear Concern No Concern
Possible Concern
67
FAMILY VIOLENCE/DOME STIC VIOLENCE COURT (FV/DV)
Family Violence/Domestic Violence Court
(FV/DV) is the only court where youth are
referred based on their charges, and all youth
enrolled attend court reviews on a regular basis
to monitor their progress in specified
programs. In 2018 there were 55 youth who
utilized the FV/DV court. Latino youth continue
to make up the largest group of participants in
FV/DV (82 percent). White youth made up five
percent of participants (n=3). Males
represented 93 percent of participants. Forty-
two percent of youth who participated in the
FV/DV program were 15 years old and younger at the start of services.
COURT FOR T HE INDIVIDUALIZED TR EATMENT OF ADOLESCENTS (CITA )
The Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) is a therapeutic court intervention that
focuses on youth who have both a mental health and substance abuse diagnosis. The court is voluntary.
The youth’s voice is critical to each case success. Each case plan is tailored to the youth and family needs
by the youth as well as a team of professionals that includes the judge, the probation officer, the attorney
for the youth, the District Attorney, a Behavioral Health case manager, an educational legal expert, a legal
benefits expert, and other team members which may include mentors, mental health counselors,
Wraparound providers, and parents.
The court is held two times per month, however, most youth appear in court monthly. The goal of this
court is to get the youth and family stabilized with community providers and off probation. We recognize
that when criminal behavior is driven by mental health and/or substance abuse disorders that once
properly addressed, the public safety issues fall away. Many of our youth will have lifelong struggles with
addiction and mental health and it is our hope that these issues can be addressed by the Behavioral Health
system of care with a supportive treatment response that will carry our youth to adulthood without
further justice systems involvement.
In 2018, a total of 28 youth were screened. Of all youth screened in 2018, 75 percent were male, and the
majority (61 percent) were Latino, followed by Black (18 percent). In 2018, 28 youth participated in CITA.
OPPORTUNITY COURT
One time per month the Juvenile Court is held in the community at ConXion to Community (CTC). We call
that court setting Opportunity Court. The judge works with ConXion to set up a youth services fair
simultaneous to the court hearings that occur in the same building. Families gather, service providers
offer assistance and everyone leaves with a box of groceries. At that location there is always a raffle for
gift cards and movie tickets, job opportunities, community college advisors, mentors, vocational training
Figure 31: Number of Youth in Family Violence/
Domestic Violence Court
6 2
29
4 052
24
2 232
45
2 3
0
20
40
60
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2016 2017 2018
68
options, and much more. The atmosphere is light and supportive of the youth and families. Celebrations
include graduations from CITA Court and holiday themes during the winter months. Opportunity Court
has been in existence for four years. Twenty-eight youth were served in Opportunity Court in 2018. In
2019, the plan is to expand services to include chronic absenteeism cases.
Victim -Centered Approaches
The County of Santa Clara utilizes many victim centered approaches with juvenile justice youth including:
Victim Awareness classes, Victim Offender Mediation (VOMP), and the District Attorney’s Juvenile Victim
Advocate.
PROBATION VICTIM SER VICES
The unit works collaboratively with members of the community and survivors of crime to provide Victim
Awareness workshops throughout the County for youth referred to the Probation Department. The goals
of the program are to increase empathy through educating and sensitizing youth to the impacts of crime
and promoting a system of justice that recognizes harm caused to victims and supporting positive steps
to repairing those harms. The workshop curriculum is victim centered and enhanced by community
members who have been victims of youth crime and give a firsthand account of the impacts of crime. The
curriculum was redesigned in mid-2018 in collaboration with staff, facilitators, victim speakers, and with
youth input. In 2018, 379 individual youth were served through the Victim Awareness classes. Of these,
79 percent were male and 21 percent were female. Of the participants, 68 percent were Latino, 13 percent
were White, 11 percent were Black, five percent were Asian/PI and three percent were identified as Other.
Two percent were aged 13 & under, 21 percent were 14-15 and 77 percent were 16 or older.
Figure 32: Victim Awareness Participants
Beginning July 1, 2017, Probation Victim Services no longer provided victim support in Court. The District
Attorney’s Office provided a full-time advocate through their office as they now have a Victim Services
Division.
364
269
294
262
379
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
69
DISTRICT ATTORNEY JU VENILE VICTIM ADVOCATE
In the Summer of 2018, recognizing the growing need among victims of juvenile crime, the District
Attorney's Office Victim Services Unit collaborated with Juvenile Probation to assign one full-time,
bilingual (English and Spanish) Victim Advocate to the Juvenile Crimes Unit. This Advocate is available to
provide court support as needed to crime survivors and works with the Probation Department to ensure
victims received comprehensive victim services to help them heal and move forward after victimization.
These services include crisis intervention, emergency services, resource and referral assistance,
orientation to the juvenile justice process, court support and escort, and assistance with the California
Victim Compensation Program. In addition, the Claim Specialists in the D.A.’s Victim Services Unit work
directly with victims to pay for certain types or crime-related costs such as medical and mental health
expenses.
VICTIM OFFENDER MEDI ATION PROGRAM (VOMP)
Through the County of Santa Clara Office of Mediation and Ombudsman Services, the Victim Offender
Mediation Program provides juvenile and the victims of their offenses the option to meet in a safe and
structured setting with neutral mediators to address what happened, its impact, and how the damage can
best be repaired. Mediators help the victim have his/her questions answered and, if appropriate, create
an agreement regarding restitution (financial or otherwise). Mediators help the youth acknowledge
responsibility and have a voice in how to make things as right as possible. The program is based on the
principles of Restorative Justice and transformative mediation, taking into consideration everyone
affected by the crime, including the victim, relatives, youth, parents, siblings, schools, and the community.
Data from three local VOM programs demonstrate mediated agreements decrease recidivism and
significantly increase restitution repayment over court ordered restitution.
Benefits for victims include the opportunity to ask questions only the youth can answer (such as how and
why the crime happened and whether it might happen again), tell the youth first-hand the impact of
his/her actions, have a voice in how the damage is repaired, understand the youth by hearing his/her
story, and to move towards repair and closure by increasing the possibility of becoming whole,
emotionally and financially. Benefits for youth include the opportunity to help the victim be heard and
have his/her questions answered, see the victim as a person, hear and take responsibility for the impact
of his/her actions, have a voice in how the damage is repaired and restitution is made, and experience the
power of doing the right thing. Benefits for the community include repairing damage caused by crimes,
moving young people towards becoming responsible citizens, and improving public safety by reducing the
chances the youth will commit future crimes.
Mediation is free, voluntary, and confidential (but if all parties agree, the mediated agreement may be
shared with third parties, such as the Court, Probation, District Attorney, and defense counsel). In 2018,
499 referrals were made for 317 unduplicated juvenile youths and 382 unduplicated victims. Of the parties
VOMP was able to contact, 639 people were served with mediation consultations and another 60 were
served with mediation (13 potential mediation cases are still pending resolution). Of the youth VOMP
was able to reach, and who provided a response, approximately 42 percent wanted to participate in
70
mediation. Of the victims of that 42 percent that VOMP was able to reach and who provided a response,
approximately 23 percent wanted to participate in mediation.
Behavioral Health and Substance Use Treatment Services
In 2018, the Behavioral Health Services Department (BHSD), Family and Children's Services Division (F&C)
continued to serve children, adolescents, young adults and their families, ages 0-25 who are experiencing
social-emotional and behavioral concerns. Services are provided at five County-operated sites and by 20
contract agency programs located throughout Santa Clara County. F&C provides outpatient care and
programs specific to the unique needs of children and their families. Services that are provided are
strength-based, trauma-informed, respect cultural values and the natural support systems of youth and
families and address children and family behavioral health problems in the least restrictive, most family-
like context possible. These services are offered within a continuum of care ranging in intensity and
duration based on the needs of the individual child/youth.
The Children, Family and Community Services (CFCS) serves youth and young adults up to age 21 who are
experiencing substance use issues. Individuals with substance use issues have the right to consent to their
own treatment, and families are included in treatment based on client consent. Youth Substance Use
Treatment Services (SUTS) are offered at 23 outpatient school and clinic sites located throughout Santa
Clara County.
In addition to behavioral health services, which
includes co-occurring treatment based on individual
needs while the youth is in custody, there is also a
continuum of services available to youth involved in
the juvenile justice system who are living at home or in
the community. These services range from Outpatient
Mental Health treatment (which includes Intensive
Outpatient Services, Integrated Treatment and
Therapeutic Behavioral Services), Aftercare
(behavioral health services that are made available to
youth as they exit Juvenile Hall and the Ranch) and
Wraparound. These services range in intensity and
duration to address the individualized needs of the
youth. Out-of-custody youth may also receive
individualized substance use treatment in the least
restrictive environment with the level of intensity of
outpatient services based on a thorough assessment.
During 2018, probation officers made 755 referrals through the Universal Referral Form (URF) to the
Behavioral Health Resource Center (BHRC). The BHRC clinical team manage the coordination of mental
health and substance use referrals for juvenile justice involved youth in need of community-based
148
548
59
Mental Health Substance Use
Services
CITA
Figure 33: Behavioral Health Resource Center
Referrals 2018
71
services. BHRC clinicians triage and process all referrals to one or more appropriate community -based
organizations. Referrals are made for mental health services, substance use assessment and treatment
services, and to the Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA). Youth can also access
Behavioral Health services through the Behavioral Health Call Center and the Gateway Call Center. In
2018, 592 probation involved youth, living in the community, received a mental health service and 402
youth received Substance Use Treatment Services within the County system of care. Eighty-five percent
of the youth receiving substance use treatment were male and 15 percent were female.
The data that follows reflects only the Medi-Cal/uninsured youth who received a mental health service
through BHSD.
The largest age group served during 2018 receiving County Mental Health services was the 16 and older
age group (77 percent), followed by 14-15 years old (20 percent), 13 and under (three percent). For each
of these age groups, there are specific programs designed to address their behavioral health issues by
using age appropriate assessment and evidence-based practices. County Substance Use Treatment
Services (SUTS) served 310 youth who were 16 to 18 years old, comprising 77 percent of the total
population of youth receiving substance use treatment. This was followed by 89 youth 14 to 15 years old,
or 22 percent of the population. The remaining one percent, or three youth in treatment, were 13 years
old or younger.
Figure 34: Behavioral Health Treatment by Sex
The largest ethnic population served during 2018 for mental health concerns was the Latino population
(72 percent). Latino youth were followed by White (ten percent), Asian/PI and Black (seven percent), and
Other (five percent). A total of 402 justice-involved youth received substance use treatment in either
residential or outpatient settings. Of these youth, 16 were White, 23 were Black, 311 were Latino, 23 were
Asian/PI, and 29 designated their ethnicity as “Other.”
442
142342
60
Male Female
Mental Health SUTS
Figure 35 : Behavioral Health Treatment by Age
Range
19
115
450
3 89
310
13 & Under 14-15 16-18
Mental Health SUTS
72
Figure 36: Behavioral Health Treatment by Race/Ethnicity
Among those youth identified as meeting the criteria for a behavioral health diagnosis, the three most
prevalent diagnoses were Substance Use/Dependence Disorder (562), Adjustment Disorder (144),
Behavior Disorder (141), and Other Mood Disorder (104). It should be noted that most youth have
experienced traumatic or significant adverse childhood experiences that did not always meet the criteria
for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Figure 37: Behavioral Health Diagnosis
Ranch Re -Entry Behavioral Health Services
In calendar year 2018, youth at James Ranch received both Mental Health and Substance Use Treatment
Services. Community-based organizations (CBOs) provide comprehensive mental health screening,
assessment and treatment. Substance use treatment is provided by CBOs who provided both individual
and group treatment. Group treatment was provided by using the evidence based Seven Challenges
61
38
418
39 281623
311
23 29
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Mental Health SUTS
562
144
141
104
81
41
76
57
70
4
2
Substance Use/Dependence Disorder
Adjustment Disorder
Behavior Disorder
Other Mood Disorder
Depressive Disorders
ADHD
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Anxiety Disorders
Major Depressive Disorder
Bipolar Disorder
Pervasive Development Disorder
73
program which is designed to assist youth in taking responsibility for their use and help them set goals for
recovery. Multi-disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings held at the 60 & 30-day mark prior to release from
James Ranch, included James Ranch service providers and community- based organizations. The MDT
meetings address follow-up care for youth to ensure youth are connected to a service provider in the
community. There is also a Board-Certified Child Psychiatrist, an employee of BHSD, that provides
medication evaluations and medication management for youth at the Ranch.
COLLABORATIVE INTENSIVE INTERVENTI ONS
The Juvenile Probation Division considers and utilizes safe alternatives to removing youth from their
homes and communities, when appropriate. Post dispositional services include programs that are
intensive in nature and provide mental health services, drug and alcohol groups, behavior modification,
and other services such as family-driven Wraparound services.
EDGE/PEAK
The Encouraging Diversity Growth and Education (EDGE) and Providing Education Alternatives and
Knowledge (PEAK) programs were collaborations with the County of Santa Clara Office of Education
(SCCOE). In 2011 the EDGE/PEAK programs were initiated to provide youth with a court ordered
opportunity to remain in their home and community while attending school and participating in
individualized counseling programs as progress was made throughout their period of probation
supervision.
In 2018, five youth participated in the Encouraging Diversity, Growth, and Education/Providing Education
Alternatives and Knowledge (EDGE & PEAK) programs, Probation’s alternative school programs. On June
14, 2018, at the end of the 2017-2018 school year, the EDGE/PEAK programs closed. Less than ten
students/families were impacted by the closure and those students were supported in transitioning to
their home school district or into another SCCOE school placement for the 2018-2019 school year.
Wraparound Services
Over the past four years, the Juvenile Services Division has been utilizing the Wraparound Service Delivery
Model as the primary intervention under the Title IV-E Waiver program for three target populations: (1)
Pre-Adjudicated youth who are of high need and moderate or high risk of escalating within the Juvenile
Justice System; (2) Adjudicated youth who are of moderate or high risk to re-offend and are at imminent
risk of removal to out of home care, and; (3) youth who are within 60 days of graduating and completing
the James Ranch Program, re-entering the community and returning to their parent/guardian/caregiver.
The number of youths served far exceeded all initial projections of between 80 to 150 youth per year, as
207 unduplicated youth were served during the reporting period (257 duplicated youth). From these 207
youth, 76 percent were male and Latino youth (both male and female) accounted for 77 percent of youth
served in 2018. Based on duplicated counts, Pre-Adjudicated youth account for 40 percent of those
served, Ranch Re-Entry youth account for 26 percent and Adjudicated youth account for 34 percent.
74
The Juvenile Services Division in conjunction with the Wraparound providers continue to bridge gaps
between services resulting in the continuity of care. The youth, family, Probation Officer, therapist,
substance use treatment counselor, and Wraparound Team members facilitate Child and Family Team
(CFT) meetings to solidify a safety plan for the youth and ensure all supports are in place within their local
community. Many of the Attorneys are now electing to participate in CFT's, especially when the youth is
scheduled to appear before the Court for a Status Review Hearing. Additionally, for youth who attend
Sunol Community School and have been referred to formal substance use treatment services, the school’s
assigned treatment counselor has begun attending the student’s CFT’s, as a natural support person,
providing valuable insight and feedback to effective rehabilitation strategies. During the CFT meeting all
participants openly discuss program participation, clinical needs, and educational variables which are
incorporated into the case plan and smart goals. The team prioritizes the continuum of care efforts to
ensure seamless connection to their natural environment, increasing the likelihood of successful
community integration.
System partners teamed to establish a funding mechanism, identified as “the lockout”, to maintain
Wraparound Services for youth in custody, for a period not to exceed 30 days. Under the lockout, the
Juvenile Services Division served 487 unique youth, with 38 of those youth receiving Ranch Reentry
Wraparound Services. There have been 107 lockouts, for a total of 2141 days. The average lockout length
is currently 20 days. Thirty youth remained detained past the 30-day lockout period, and as a result,
Wraparound Services were closed. Further, the Juvenile Services Division reports no incidents of
providers changing during the lockout period. Overall, the number of youths being served under the
lockout has slightly decreased, as less youth are detained in Juvenile Hall for extended periods of time.
As the waiver project is set to sunset in October 2019; therefore, the Juvenile Services Division is preparing
to transition into the Families First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA). Under the current legislation, FFPSA
will allow counties to utilize Title IV-E dollars for services to include in-home parent skill-based programs,
for parents or relatives caring for children, who are candidates for Foster Care. This act will allow the JPD
to continue providing services to each of our three identified waiver populations, Pre and Post
Adjudication, as well as Reentry youth. Moreover, FFPSA specifies the need for a formal prevention plan,
which includes, an identified strategy to keep youth at home with a list of identified services associated
with the strategy. These provisions will empower the JPD to continue providing an array of in-home
support services, to promote family unity and uphold our primary vision to support positive change,
resulting in sustainable efforts.
The average daily population at Juvenile Hall and the number of youth receiving Wraparound Services
have increased slightly since 2017. The number of out-of-home placements has remained consistent
during the past two years. Please see figure below for more information.
75
Figure 38: Monthly Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population Compared to Wraparound Services and
Placement (2014-2019)
RESTRICTIVE SANCTION S
The County of Santa Clara Probation strives to keep youth at home and in their communities. However, in
some cases more restrictive sanctions, in which a child is removed from the community, are needed. This
section of the report highlights the various examples of restrictive sanctions utilized by the County of
Santa Clara.
O UT OF H OME P LACEMENTS
When a child or youth who has been involved with the juvenile court due to delinquent behavior is unable
to be safely returned home the court may order the child or youth to be placed in foster care. Youth must
be served in the least restrictive, most family-like environment necessary to meet their needs. Youth
ordered into placement can be placed into the following settings:
• Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) is a residential facility that provides an
integrated program of specialized and intensive care and supervision, services and supports,
treatment, and 24-hour care and supervision to a youth.
• Therapeutic Foster Care (TFC) is a model in which treatment foster parents, are given advanced
clinical and technical training and support, to best serve the youth placed in their homes.
• Placement in a “certified” family home, known as Resource Family Approval (RFA). RFA is a family-
friendly and youth-centered caregiver approval process that is streamlined to combine the
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
JanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulySepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNov2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Placement WRAP JH Custody ADPStart of Well-Being Project
76
elements of foster parent licensing, relative approval, and approvals for adoption and
guardianship processes.
• Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) is a transitional housing placement opportunity
for youth who are 16 to 18 years of age and currently in foster care, including those supervised
by probation. The goal of the program is to provide a safe living environment so that the youth
can practice the skills necessary to live on their own upon leaving the foster care support system.
A majority of Santa Clara County youth ordered into placement are placed in STRTPs because of the
specialized services they offer to treat the needs of specific probation populations, including sex
offenders, and youth with gang affiliations. As of January 2018, the Probation Department has only placed
youth in fully licensed STRTPs. In addition to being licensed as an STRTP, the programs are also required
to have a contract with their local county’s Behavioral Health Services Department for the provision of
specialty mental health services. During this time, there was only one licensed STRTP in Santa Clara
County who met these criteria. This program had a capacity for 18 youth and served both the Juvenile
Probation and Child Welfare Departments. Because of the limited number of STRTP beds in the county,
and the specialized needs of probation youth, most of the youth ordered into out of home placement,
had to be placed out of county.
Additionally, since the passing of Proposition 57, the California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and
Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative in November 2016, a larger number of high-risk offenders who
committed serious offenses, such as aggravated assault, carjacking, robbery and even attempted murder,
remained under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Court. While many of these youth can be served
by the department’s Enhanced Ranch Program or be sent to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice, many were committed to out-of-state placements, because of
negotiated plea agreements between the Judge, prosecutor and defense attorneys.
Much is done to facilitate family connections for youth placed out-of-county and out-of-state, including a
dedicated skype room at the Juvenile Probation Department and financial assistance for
parents/guardians with limited means, who must travel to out of county and out of state placements to
visit a youth.
AB12 NON -MINOR DEPEN DENT YOUTH
The California Fostering Connections to Success Act known as AB12, which took effect in 2012, and
subsequent legislation, allowed eligible youth to remain in foster care beyond age 18 up to age 21. This
was originally known as AB12 but is now known as Extended Foster Care (EFC) services. EFC services
provide youth with the time and support needed to gradually become fully independent adults. The
guiding principle of this extension is to provide each eligible youth with the opportunity to make decisions
regarding his or her housing, education, employment, and leisure activities, while receiving ongoing
support and assistance when difficulties are encountered. Foster youth who participate in EFC are
designated as Non-Minor Dependents (NMDs). There are two types of NMD’s, 602 NMDs who are still on
Probation and WIC 450 NMDs who were on probation, met their rehabilitative goals and were dismissed
effectively transitioning them to a non-Ward NMD. The other type of NMD can be a youth dismissed from
77
Probation (successfully or unsuccessfully) who re-enters by petitioning either the Juvenile Justice or
Dependency Court. Most youth who exit from Juvenile Probation and have no dependency history, re-
enter and/or are supervised by POs in the Placement Unit.
Youth who are between the ages of 18 to 21 and were in foster care on their 18th birthday, qualify for
extended foster care (EFC) services. In order to maintain eligibility to participate in EFC, youth must meet
one of five participation criteria:
• Working toward completion of high school or equivalent program; or
• Enrollment in higher education or vocational education program; or
• Employed at least 80 hours per month; or
• Participating in a program to remove barriers to employment; or (the threshold is low, even
applying for work, or meeting monthly with a case worker or PO qualify as meeting this criterion)
• The inability to participation in any of the above programs due to a verified medical condition.
There are approximately 200 NMDs in this county participating in EFC through the Department of Family
and Children’s Services and the Juvenile Probation Department. NMDs meet monthly with their assigned
social worker or Probation Officer and may attend hearings (they are not required to be present at these
hearings) through the Juvenile Dependency Court or Juvenile Justice Court where the case worker is
required to report on their progress to the Court. NMDs receive support in meeting their eligibility criteria,
life skills classes, assistance receiving public benefits and applying for student financial aid, a monthly
financial stipend, and housing assistance during their post-EFC transition (also during their time as an
EFC).
There are several housing options for NMDs including:
• Remain in existing home of a relative; licensed foster family home; certified foster family agency
home; home of a non-related legal guardian (whose guardianship was established by the juvenile
court); or STRTP (youth may remain in a group home after age 19 only if the criteria for a medical
condition and/or NMD eligibility is met and the placement is a short-term transition to an
appropriate system of care); or
• THP-Plus Foster Care (THP+FC) - this program has three models:
o Host Family where the NMD lives with a caring adult who has been selected and approved
by the transitional housing provider;
o Single Site where the NMD lives in an apartment, condominium or single family dwelling
rented or leased by the housing provider with an employee(s) living on site; or
o Remote Site where the NMD lives independently in one of the housing types listed above
with regular supervision from the provider; or
• Supervised Independent Living Placement (SILP) - this placement option allows youth to live
independently in an apartment, house, condominium, room and board arrangement or college
dorm, alone or with a roommate(s), while still receiving the supervision of a social
worker/probation officer. The youth may directly receive all or part of the foster care rate
pursuant to the mutual agreement.
78
NMD youth can reside in-county, out-of-county and/or out-of-state and continue to receive
supportive services and monthly-mandated face-to-face contact with their Probation Officer.
JUVENILE HALL
Juvenile Hall is a 390-bed facility which houses both boys
and girls if they are detained while waiting for the Court
to decide their cases. Youth can also be committed to
Juvenile Hall following their dispositional hearing.
Programs in custody include domestic violence/family
violence, mental health and substance use services, life
skills, cognitive behavioral therapy, religious services,
gardening and pro-social activities. Youth can also be
visited by family and caregivers while in the Hall. Typically,
a youth committed to Juvenile Hall as a disposition will
have their probation dismissed upon completion of services and development of a transition plan.
The average length of stay at Juvenile Hall for pre-disposition youth in 2018 was 96 days, while post-
disposition youth on average spent 12 days in custody. A courtesy hold takes place when 1) a judge finds
a youth should be transferred and remanded to adult court, and the youth; 2) when a youth is out of
county and has an out of county warrant; or 3) when there is an out of county probation hold. During
2018, two percent of the youth detained were courtesy holds for the Department of Correction. This may
be as a result of Proposition 57, which decreased the number of courtesy holds for Out of County youth.
The average length of stay for youth on courtesy holds was 464 days.
Table 19: Average Daily Population by Status 2014-2018 Trend
Average Daily Population by
Status (number of youth)
Pre-Disposition Post-Disposition Courtesy Hold for
DOC (Direct File)
Total
2014 69 25 34 128
2015 57 19 33 109
2016 50 11 22 83
2017 75 11 2 88
2018 96 12 2 110
Percentage change from
2014-2018
39% -52% -94% -14%
79
WILLIAM F. JAMES RANCH PROGRAM
The James Ranch is a rehabilitation and treatment
facility with 96 beds where youth can be ordered by the
court to stay for between six and eight months. It serves
youth up to age 19. At the Ranch, an assessment and
case plan are completed to guide the youth and
determine their needs. Probation Counselors engage
with youth as role models and coaches and provide
therapeutic support. The Probation Officer works in
tandem to provide additional services and support.
Programing aims to address the development of pro-
social skills, reasoning, and critical thinking skills, and increase youth’s ability to regulate their emotions,
refuse anti-social behavior and facilitate family reunification. The three focus areas are moral reasoning,
anger management and skill practice. Through each of these elements staff help youth through scenario-
based role playing and group discussion. The ranch program offers cognitive behavioral treatment,
education, vocational training and links to local trade unions, gang intervention, behavioral health
services, pro-social activities and access to the Probation Community Athletic League, Victim Awareness
workshops, mentoring, girl scouts, yoga and culturally competent rites of passage curriculum, and trauma
healing. Youth also attend school and participate in an array of activities and events that are coordinated
by the staff. Shortly prior to transitioning back to the community, youth are assigned to the Aftercare
program. The Aftercare Counselor and Probation Officer assist and encourage the youth to support their
successful transition and youth are enrolled in support services in the community.
DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (DJJ)
The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)19 provides education
and treatment to California’s youthful offenders up to the
age of 25 who have committed serious and/or violent
felonies and have the most intense treatment needs.
Youth committed directly to the DJJ do not receive
determinate sentences although the juvenile court must
set a maximum period of confinement pursuant to WIC
731(c). A youth's length of stay is determined by the
severity of the committing offense and their progress
toward parole readiness as outlined in Title 15 of the
California Code of Regulations. DJJ is authorized to house
youth until age 21, 23 or 25, depending on their
commitment offense. A youth’s readiness for return to the community is determined by the Juvenile
19 Formerly known as the California Youth Authority (CYA), the organization was created by statute in 1941 and began operating in 1943.
Figure 39: Santa Clara County DJJ
Placements 2015-2018
2 2
17
7
2015 2016 2017 2018
80
Parole Board. It recommends supervision conditions to county courts which administer them. In the
community, newly released youth are supervised by county probation departments.
The DJJ also provides housing for youth under the age of 18 who have been sentenced to state prison.
Youths sentenced to state prison may remain at DJJ until age 18, or if the youth can complete their
sentence prior to age 25, DJJ may house them until they are released on parole.
Commitments & Placements
The overall number of commitments and
placements decreased by six percent from 2017 to
2018. Commitments to juvenile hall decreased by
29 percent. Ranch commitments increased by five
percent.
There were 174 commitments and placements in
2018. Of those 174, 41 commitments were to
Juvenile Hall and 99 were to James Ranch. A total
of 27 foster care placements (16 percent) were
made for youth utilizing out of home placement
services. Seven youth were committed to DJJ.
The figure below shows commitments and
placements broken down by race. Latino youth
comprised the largest group with commitments in 2018 (n=136) followed by Black youth (n=14). Seventy-
eight percent of youth in out-of-home placements were Latino, eight percent Black, six percent White, six
percent were Asian/PI and two percent Other.
Figure 41: Youth in Commitments and Placements 2018
3 7
28
2 131
20
2 145
82
6 216
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Juvenile Hall Foster Care Ranch DJJ
Figure 40: Commitments and Placements 2015-
2018 Trends
84 78
58
4145
27 17 27
89
46
94 99
2 2
17 7
2015 2016 2017 2018
Juvenile Hall Foster Care Ranch DJJ
81
Figure 42 illustrates 57 percent of all commitments were to the James Ranch. Juvenile Hall accounted for
24 percent of commitments, while Foster Care placements was 16 percent. In 2018, seven youth were
committed to DJJ. This increase, compared to 2015 and 2016, is likely attributed in part to the
implementation of Proposition 57 which eliminated the ability of the District Attorney’s Office to file cases
directly in adult criminal court and thus resulted in more cases returning to juvenile court for juvenile
dispositions. 20
The table below shows male youth comprised 84
percent of out-of-home placements while 16
percent were female. No youth under 12 were
committed to placement in 2018. Half of youth
committed to the Ranch were 15-16 years old (51
percent, n=50). Eighty-six percent of the youth
committed to DJJ from Santa Clara County were 17
and older (n=6). Again, this is most likely due to the
passage of Proposition 57 and DJJ’s increase in June
of 2018 in the age of jurisdiction from 23 to 25,
serving youth up to the age of 25 who have the most
serious criminal backgrounds and most intense
treatment needs. 21
Within each commitment type, the highest
disproportionality appears to be in commitments to
James Ranch, with 83 percent being Latino youth. The largest disproportionality for Black youth was
Juvenile Hall where they comprised 17 percent of the total population. The Probation Department
continues to be concerned with disproportionality at key decision points throughout the juvenile justice
system and is dedicated to reducing the overrepresentation of Latino and Black youth in out-of-home
placements and commitments.
Table 20: Placement from Dispositions
20 Please see pg. 23 for a more detailed description and update on Proposition 57 since it was passed in 2016.
21 AB 1812 took effect 6/27/2018, and extended DJJ jurisdiction to age 25 for 707(b) offenses.
Placement from
Dispositions
Male Female 13-14 15-16 17 &
Older
Total
Juvenile Hall Commitment 30 11 6 11 24 41
Foster Care (Private
Institutional Placement) 25 2 4 11 12 27
Ranch 85 14 5 50 44 99
DJJ 7 0 0 1 6 7
Total Dispositions that led
to Placement 147 27 15 73 86 174
Figure 42: Percentage of Commitments and
Placements 2018
24%
16%57%
4%
Juvenile Hall Foster Care Ranch DJJ
82
Health and Wellness in Secure Care
The following sections describe the health and wellness services provided by Valley Medical Clinic (VMC)
and Behavioral Health Services Department (BHSD) to youth in secure care in calendar year 2018.
PHYSICAL HEALTH
Medical services provided to minors detained at Juvenile Hall and the William F. James Ranch consist of
comprehensive health assessment screenings, treatment for diagnosed episodic and/or chronic health
conditions, health prevention activities including immunizations, communicable disease screenings,
control and age appropriate health education. All health services provided are comparable or superior
to services the minors would receive or have received in their community.
A professional staff of physicians, a nurse practitioner, a physician’s assistant, registered nurses,
licensed vocational nurses, pharmacists, dentists and dental assistants, provide health services.
Pediatricians are on site at Juvenile Hall five days a week (M-F) and nursing staff is present seven days a
week, twenty-four hours each day. Nursing staff is present at James Ranch from 6:45am to 9:30pm, seven
days a week. A pediatrician is on site one day per week at James Ranch. In addition, James Ranch has a
High Definition video link to Juvenile Hall allowing for Tele-Nursing and Tele-Psychiatry, twenty-four hours
a day, seven days a week.
Juvenile Hall had a successful visit by the Institute for Medical Quality (IMQ), Corrections and Detentions
Health Care Committee. A summary of their findings showed that all essential and important standards
were in 100% compliance. The Committee also concluded that the facility provided high quality
healthcare to those minors residing at Juvenile Hall and awarded a full two-year accreditation
recommendation.
James Ranch increased the nursing staff hours in 2018 and added more STD screenings and an education
component. This means youth can sign up for a Registered Nurse (RN) sick call to receive STD information,
discuss STD concerns, and/or discuss any health concern with the nurse via this call service. This resulted
in an increase in the number of RN Sick Call Visits at James Ranch in 2018 compared to 2017.
The 2018 clinic activities summary (including data for 2016 and 2017 for comparison) is below:
83
Table 21: Juvenile Hall Medical Clinic 2018
Activity 2016 2017 2018
Physical Exams 1,070 1,085 1,305
Clinic Visits 1,876 2,036 2,564
RN Sick Call Visits 3,153 3,143 3,639
Sexually Transmitted Disease Screenings 635 530 701
HIV Oral Quick Instant Test Screening 62 77 92
Other VMC Appointment 128 114 136
Flu Vaccine Administrations 247 192 256
Dental Clinic Visits 296 196 317
Infirmary Housing 23 35 60
Vision Screening N/A 1,039 1,305
Hearing Screening N/A 1,008 1,293
Table 22: James Ranch Medical Clinic 2018
BEHAVIORAL H E ALTH
Behavioral Health staff assigned to the general clinic screen all youth admitted into Juvenile Hall within
the first 72 hours, and usually within the first 24 hours of admission. The intake screening includes an
interview with the youth, a review of past behavioral health services received, and administration of an
evidence-based screening evaluation called the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2).
Youth in Juvenile Hall in need of services are assigned a therapist who provides treatment once per week,
and up to once per day if the youth is on a safety watch. Probation and medical staff can also request
behavioral health services or a youth may self-refer for behavioral health services.
In addition to providing screenings and on-going behavioral health services for the youth residing in
Juvenile Hall, behavioral health staff also coordinate and attend multi-disciplinary team meetings aimed
at collaboratively developing treatment and discharge planning in partnership with Probation staff. There
Activity 2016 2017 2018
Clinic Visits 128 269 339
RN Sick Call Visits 790 1,262 2,387
VMC Appointment 30 46 58
84
are two clinical resource positions assigned to the Behavioral Health Resource Center (BHRC, providing
linkage to community agencies for all probation youth). All Juvenile Hall living units have clinicians
assigned to the unit to monitor youth’s emotional well-being, engage youth, and build relationships with
probation and educational staff.
Three clinicians are assigned to CITA to work with youth involved in this program. This Court works with
youth and families who are experiencing co-occurring disorders (COD) for example, a mental health
diagnosis co-occurring with a drug and/or alcohol problem). JH BHS staff are all trained in Trauma
Informed Services.
The Competency Development program consists of three clinical staff. The delivery of Court ordered
competency services are provided to the youth in the least restrictive setting that the Courts will allow.
Once the Courts and all parties agree there is substantial probability that the youth is unlikely to attain
competency or has attained competency the case will be dismissed from the program.
Figure 43: Behavioral Health Services
While in custody, 1,100 youth received a behavioral health intake screening and 560 youth received
behavioral health services. Juvenile Hall Behavioral health staff offer several evidence-based practices
such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seven Challenges,
Motivational Interviewing, and Seeking Safety.
BHRC
•Triage
Universal
Referral
Form (URF)
for Juvenile
Justice
Involved
youth
•Linkage to
community
based
services for
mental
health and
substance
use
treatment
CITA
•Support
youth with
Co-Occurring
Disorders
•Care
Coordination
•Linkage
•Outreach
Forensic
Evaluations
•Quality
Assurance
for forensic
psychological
Evaluations
•PhD Intern
Supervision
General Clinic
•Screen
Youth
•Supportive
counseling
•Treatment
•Crisis
Intervention
•SUTS
Assessments
Competency
Development
•Delivery of
Court
ordered
competency
development
services
Psychiatry
•Psychotropic
medication
evaluation
and
treatment
for youth
detained in
Juvenile Hall
and James
Ranch
85
PHARMACY SERVICES
The Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System (SCVH&HS) provides pharmacy services to the Juvenile
Hall System. Physician medication orders and the standardized procedure orders are transmitted to
pharmacy through the Healthlink system. It has built-in drug interaction, drug duplication and allergy
monitoring. The system keeps patient profile information in a format that allows quick review by
pharmacists. A computer-generated Medication Administration Rand (MAR) and scanning system are
used for medication administration. Benefits of MAR include a decrease in potential medication errors
associated with the order transcription process and produce a single, legible and reliable source for the
Patient Medication Profile.
The utilization of the PYXIS Med-Station System replaced the after-hour medication room and provides
increased medication availability through decentralized medication management. It helps decrease the
risk of drug diversion and increase medication safety. Each drug is specifically programmed and loaded in
the CUBIE and will not be available unless a nurse enters his/her user ID, the patient’s medical record
number, name, date of birth, and the name of the medication(s) that he/she needs.
DENTAL
The Juvenile Hall dental clinic is open on Wednesdays from 8:00 am – 4:30 pm. Care is focused on treating
patients with pain and other symptoms of dental problems, as well as treating asymptomatic dental
diseases before they develop into problems such as toothaches and abscesses. The clinic treats patients
who are detained at Juvenile Hall, but also cares for patients from the ranch who develop dental problems
or need to be seen for follow-up care. Additionally, the Dental Director, as well as the County’s Chief
Dentist and a pediatrician, are available on-call each day for consultations regarding any significant dental
problems which may arise during non-clinic hours, and the County hospital’s emergency department is
also available as a resource.
MEDICAL OUTREACH PROGRAM
The nursing Medical Outreach Program is intended to support youth who are juvenile justice system
involved when care is no longer available via the clinic at Juvenile Hall. Under California, Board of State
and Community Corrections Title 15 regulations, incarcerated youth are entitled to medical access and
treatment. However, youth who received medical/mental health care in juvenile hall are no longer getting
needed care once they leave the facility. This results in challenges in early diagnosis and early intervention.
The lack of communication between judicial and health care systems complicates and halts the continuous
care for youth. The purpose of this program is to provide an innovative medical outreach program in the
court system to bridge the care gap for youths, including outcome measurement. The services provided
include free health screening, sexual transmitted illnesses consultation, contraceptive education, referral
for tattoo removal, vision and hearing screening, BMI calculation, nutrition education, mental health
screening, dental screening and referral to low or no-cost community resources. The total number of
outreach provided for 2018 was 1,680: 444 parental contacts via program overview flyers, 496 male
youths, 130 female youth and 620 parent/guardian consultations.
86
Figure 44: Medical Outreach Common Issues/Commons from Youth and/or Parents
This innovative program has made an effective health care delivery change by bringing evidence-based
practices into the system. The court-based free medical service has enhanced the quality of care in
correctional health for justice involved youth.
Figure 45: Medical Clinic Outreach Program 2018
E LIGIBILITY FOR H EALTHCARE P ROJECT
One Management Analyst assigned to the JPD concentrates efforts on re-establishing MediCal Services
for youth reentering the community following a long term in custody commitment, pursuant to
SB1469. However, all youth admitted into the Juvenile Hall facility are screened for health coverage. The
Medical status of each youth is collected and reported to the Court and JPD administration on a monthly
basis. In the event youth are identified as having inactive or expired MediCal, the JPD Management
Analyst mails out documents to the parent/ guardian/ caretaker documenting the step by step process of
how to re-activate and /or establish MediCal coverage. Further, so families understand the importance
of the received paperwork, the JPD created a coversheet explaining the purpose of the documents. The
cover letter includes the English, Spanish, and Vietnamese languages, as well as, the Management
Analyst’s contact information in the event the parent/ guardian/ caregiver has further questions. To better
Physical Health
•Dermatological
complaints
•Dental hygiene
concerns
•Healthy Body mass
index
•Vision complaints
•PPD readings
Mental Health
•How to relieve
anxiety
•Side effects of
drugs
Sex and
Relationships
•Birth control
options
•STD prevention
•Planned parent
hood
•Safe sex
General Health
Information
•Medi-Cal concerns
•Where to get flu
shots
•Where to fill
prescriptions for
free
496
130
620
444
Male
Female
Parent/Guardian
Flyers
87
support our families, the Management Analyst follows up with a phone call to the parent/ guardian/
caretaker within 14 days to ensure the paperwork has been received and to answer any questions they
may have regarding securing MediCal coverage for their child. MediCal coverage is processed through the
Social Services Administration, eligibility.
Alternative Education D epartment (AED)
The Alternative Education Department (AED) for the County of Santa Clara Office of Education is
comprised of three educational programs at three school sites (Court Schools: Blue Ridge (located at
James Ranch) and Osborne (located at Juvenile Hall); Sunol Community School and Independent Study).
The AED serves students from 21 diverse school districts in the County, in grades 6-12 who are
adjudicated, identified as Chronically Absent, expelled, and or are on a placement contract. The
Department monitors student participation rates in our court schools by District of Residence. District
Representatives review this data on a biannual basis. For the 2017-18 school year, Osborne school located
at Juvenile Hall had 711 enrollments followed by Blue Ridge located at James Ranch with 125 enrollments.
A total of 836 youth were served between all court schools (based on duplicate count – meaning a youth
is counted each time he/she was enrolled at the above schools. This may include youth who were
transferred from the Ranch to Juvenile Hall on an Administrative Ranch Return). As of May 3, 2019, during
the 2017-18 school year AED has served 745 students within the court schools and 110 within our
community schools. Please note, demographic data in Figure 44 and Figure 45, is pulled from home
districts as reported by parents on the CALPADS system and this may account for the larger number of
youth identified as Native American in this section of the report.
Figure 46: Osborne (Juvenile Hall) Enrollment by Ethnicity (n=711)
50
98
416
37
81
29
White Black Latino Asian/PI Native
American
Other
88
Figure 47: Blue Ridge (James Ranch) Enrollment by Ethnicity (n=125)
Chronic Absenteeism
On January 3, 2017, the Court, District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation Department, and School
District representatives agreed to disband the Informal Juvenile Traffic Court, which previously handled
informal interventions for truancy, specific misdemeanors, and infractions. The stakeholders agreed to
stop the imposition of administrative fees, penalty assessments, fines, and driver’s license suspensions
for status offenses and low-level misdemeanors and infractions given the research showing such
measures contributed to recidivism and further involvement in the juvenile justice system. The position
of the Juvenile Informal Traffic Court Hearing Officer was thereafter eliminated, and nearly all non-traffic
citations and misdemeanors were sent to the Juvenile Probation Department’s Prevention and Early
Intervention Unit (PEI) for informal handling.
The District Attorney announced they would no longer file formal charges on youth in Santa Clara County
for truancy and moved the Court to dismiss thousands of pending cases. The Court granted the motion,
without objection from the Public Defender and Chief of Probation, which provided amnesty to over 7,000
youth with outstanding truancy fines. Effective January 3, 2017, all truancy matters were thereafter
handled informally by the District Attorney’s Office and/or the school sites. The District Attorney’s office
is currently working with the County Office of Education to move from a Truancy model to one of Chronic
Absenteeism or missed school for any reason. It is important to highlight the Public Defender’s Office and
the Probation Department were in agreement with the District Attorney’s Office to have a formal motion
to dismiss.
7
15
87
6 6 4
White Black Latino Asian/PI Native
American
Other
89
Figure 48: Youth Served Through Mediation Services
More Diversion Programs/JAID Hearings: The District Attorney then took on the effort to increasing
Truancy diversion programs in the county’s 38 School Districts, nearly doubling the number of youth
served through DA Mediations with groups of parents and youth from under 3,000 to over 4,400 in the
2017-2018 school year.
Additionally, the DA expanded one-on-one hearings or Juvenile Attendance Improvement Diversion
Hearings (JAID) in 2018 to almost 300 meeting with DDA’s and parents to give one final chance to connect
the students to a school environment where they can be successful. They have seen positive anecdotal
evidence and hope to get more information.
Direct School Connections: Six Neighborhood DA’s in the Community Prosecution Unit worked directly
at Overfelt, Fremont, Del Mar, Downtown College Prep, San Jose, and Gilroy High Schools last year. The
DA also chaired, or sat on, numerous committees with the schools and the County Office of Education to
work on Truancy, including the District Attorney’s Attendance Collaborative, the School Climate
Workgroup, the Joint Representatives Meeting and many others.
Parent Cases: The DA’s Office also operated the DA Parent Truancy Diversion Court Calendar every other
Friday which included about 150 filings a year.
Training: The DA’s Office provided numerous additional trainings on Truancy, including two “Nuts and
Bolts” trainings. Additionally, they provided Digital Safety, Gang Awareness and many others to school
officials and parents.
Parent Project: The DA also conducted 23 Parent Project classes, which are a 12-week parenting support
group for parents of at-risk youth, particularly those with truancy and substance abuse issues.
Alternative Education (AE): Finally, the DA’s Office has worked collaboratively over the last 18 months
with the County Office of Education to create an independent study AE program for students with anxiety
and other issues who are chronically absent but don’t have other system issues.
Youth Served in
Mediations
4,400
JAID Hearing
(1:1 Hearings,
approximate)
275 Number of
Traditional
Mediations in
the County
(approximate)
60
90
LOOKING AHEAD TO 201 9
This section highlights upcoming changes to the Juvenile Justice System in 2019.
G OV. G AVIN N EWSOM ’S A NNOUCEMENT R EGARDING D EPARTMENT OF J UVENILE
J USTICE (DJJ )
In January of 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom announced his Administration will begin working with the
Legislature to remove the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) from the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation and shift it to the Department of Youth and Community Restoration under the
California Health and Human Services Agency. The agency would oversee more than 660 young offenders.
“Today is the beginning of the end of juvenile imprisonment as we know it,” said Governor Newsom.
“Juvenile justice should be about helping kids imagine and pursue new lives — not jumpstarting the
revolving door of the criminal justice system. The system should be helping these kids unpack trauma and
adverse experiences many have suffered. And like all youth in California, those in our juvenile justice
system should have the chance to get an education and develop skills that will allow them to succeed in
our economy.” Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, appointed in January 2019 as California’s first-ever surgeon
general, said the new model would allow health officials to focus on addressing early childhood trauma
and prevention efforts to ensure youth do not fall deeper into incarceration.
California is one of only ten states that houses its juvenile justice division under a state corrections agency.
While most states have placed juvenile detention under health and human services or child welfare
departments, some states, like Texas and Florida, have made their divisions independent entities
altogether.
MULTISYSTEMIC THERAP Y (MST )
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is a Community–based, family-driven treatment that addresses anti-social
and delinquent behavior. MST focuses on empowering caregivers (parents and guardians) to solve current
and future problems, and the “client” is the entire ecology of the youth; family, peers, school, and
neighborhood. It is a highly structured clinical supervision and it includes quality assurance processes. The
MST theory states improved family functioning will lead to positive adjustments with peers, school and
the community, which will result in reduced antisocial behavior and improve functioning within the youth.
MST consists of a single therapist working intensively with a maximum of five families at a time, for a
period of three to five months (four months on average across cases). In addition, MST includes 24 hr/7
day/week team availability, and work is done in the community, home, school, or neighborhood setting
to remove barriers to access services. The purpose of providing MST services in Santa Clara County is to
prevent further involvement in the justice system and to be used collaboratively with system partners
(Courts, District Attorney, and Public Defender). MST will service youth under the age of 14, as this group
needs intensive services to address their behaviors. Youth in custody will receive priority to minimize the
time spent in custody.
91
After securing the contact to establish MST within the County of Santa Clara Juvenile Services Division,
the MST committee was formed to create the departmental policy and procedure. Services should begin
in 2019.
PROBATION CONTINUUM OF SERVICES TO REENT RY (PRO -CSR)
Beginning January 2019, the Juvenile Services Division will redefine Reentry Services by introducing a new
service delivery model, namely the Probation Continuum of Services to Reentry (Pro-CSR). Pro-CSR will
provide a continuum of services and opportunities for reentry youth to develop pro -social competency
skills and resiliency through family, school, and community involvement by providing intensive case
management and service linkage. Youth, who will be eligible to receive individualized services through
Pro-CSR, include moderate- to high-risk youth exiting the James Ranch Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility, a
long-term Juvenile Hall commitment (60 days or longer), or those transitioning home from out -of-home
placement. The Juvenile Services Division will monitor youth participation in efforts to decrease recidivism
and provide the most favorable outcomes for youth and families. Pro-CSR referrals should start in January
2019.
UPCOMING NEW P ROBATION C ASE M ANAGEMENT S YSTEM
The Probation Department is currently undergoing the process of developing a new case management
system (CMS) which will be implemented for both Juvenile and Adult Probation. For juvenile probation,
this new CMS will be replacing Juvenile Automation System (JAS) and Juvenile Records System (JRS). The
probation department is focusing on standardizing data collection to improve the quality of departmental
data. This new CMS should improve data collection and dissemination.
92
APPENDICES
93
Appendix A : THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM MAP
94
Appendix B : COUNTY GENDER RESPON SIVE TASK FORCE (GRT F)
The Gender Responsive Task Force (GRTF) was established in 2015 to create a comprehensive case plan
and treatment model for moderate and high-risk girls on probation in Santa Clara County that decreases
their risk of recidivism and victimization while also increasing their life outcomes. Current partner agencies
involved in GRTF include:
• Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara
• The County of Santa Clara Probation Department
• The County of Santa Clara Office of Women’s Policy
• The County of Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office
• The County of Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office
• The County of Santa Clara Behavioral Health Services Department
• City of San Jose, Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department
• Community-Based Organizations in Santa Clara County
The group meets monthly and is currently focusing on improving services and supports for detained young
women and in partnership with the Vera Institute for Justice has begun an initiative to end the
incarceration of girls in the juvenile justice system. The GRTF also was able to successfully bring the San
Francisco’s Young Women’s Freedom (YWFC) to Santa Clara County. The YWFC will provide a much
needed focus on justice involved LBGT-GNC young women and girls. As part of the Gender Response Task
Force further analysis was conducted to see the breakdown of juvenile girls in the justice system. The
following charts and tables further analyze data broken down by females in areas such as demographics,
arrests, and placement.
Female Arrest and Citation Trends
This section highlights arrest/citation trends for female youth in 2015-2018 including: demographics and
offense categories.
Figure 49: Female Arrests 2015-2018
144 121
652
69 23
128 101
457
66 24
142 101
538
35 449989
562
40 35
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2015 2016 2017 2018
95
Table 23: Female Arrest Numbers 2015-2018
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 144 121 652 69 23 1,009
2016 128 101 457 66 24 776
2017 142 101 538 35 44 860
2018 99 89 562 40 35 825
Percent Change 2015-
2018
-31% -26% -14% -42% 52% -18%
Percent Change 2017-
2018
-30% -12% 4% 14% -20% -4%
Figure 50: Female Arrests by Age Category 2016-2018
3 3 2 10
30
20
32
61
49
21
48
28
3
14 11 7
24
55 48
33 35 31
3 10 17
60
116
162
122
268
251
91
144
132
1 2 2
14 7 13 14 14 5 11 17
1 2 7 1 7 5 10 9 13 16 10
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
12 and Under 13-14 15-16 17 and Older
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
96
Table 24: Female Age Categories by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2018
Age Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
12 and Under
2015 10 4 22 1 2 39
2016 3 0 3 0 1 7
2017 3 0 10 1 2 16
2018 2 3 17 2 7 31
13-14
2015 30 30 144 7 13 224
2016 10 14 60 2 1 87
2017 30 11 116 14 7 178
2018 20 7 162 7 5 201
15-16
2015 57 51 322 16 20 466
2016 32 24 122 13 10 201
2017 61 55 268 14 9 407
2018 49 48 251 14 13 375
17 and Older
2015 49 36 164 23 10 282
2016 21 33 91 5 0 150
2017 48 35 144 16 16 259
2018 28 31 132 17 10 218
Table 25: Top 5 Zip Code Arrests for Females in 2018
Zip Code White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
99999 8 19 37 6 6 76
95020 11 2 51 1 1 66
95122 0 7 53 2 0 62
95116 1 4 47 0 0 52
95127 0 2 37 2 3 44
95111 0 0 38 0 0 38
97
Table 26: Female Arrest Categories 2015-2018
Arrest Categories Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
2015 19 7 66 3 0 95
2016 19 5 48 4 3 79
2017 21 5 44 2 4 76
2018 14 3 29 3 3 52
Felony Crimes Against
People
2015 17 5 54 6 1 83
2016 6 18 35 3 1 63
2017 14 9 44 7 6 80
2018 8 12 71 3 5 99
Other Crimes
2015 15 20 81 1 3 120
2016 13 14 52 6 2 87
2017 33 19 119 6 10 187
2018 14 13 85 9 4 125
Other Crimes Against
People
2015 25 33 142 12 9 221
2016 25 27 91 8 4 155
2017 23 10 114 11 10 168
2018 15 14 100 13 9 151
Property Crimes
2015 55 48 250 43 8 404
2016 54 31 162 42 10 299
2017 42 50 167 7 12 278
2018 28 36 203 10 13 290
Return from other
status/Courtesy
Holds/Other Admits
2015 11 4 47 1 3 66
2016 8 2 50 2 3 65
2017 4 4 35 1 2 46
2018 5 2 22 1 1 31
Weapon Crimes
2015 2 4 12 1 1 20
2016 3 4 19 1 1 28
2017 5 4 15 1 0 25
2018 5 2 13 0 0 20
98
Female Admission and Intake Trends
This section breaks down demographics and offense categories for females detained in juvenile hall from
2015-2018 and top five ZIP Codes for detained females in 2018.
Table 27: Female Age Category by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2018
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 30 37 133 3 4 207
2016 22 27 109 4 2 164
2017 26 25 143 7 9 210
2018 26 21 209 5 7 268
Percent Change 2015-
2018
-13% -43% 57% 67% 75% 29%
Percent Change 2017-
2018
0% -16% 46% -29% -22% 28%
Table 28: Female Age Category by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2018
Age Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
12 and Under
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 1 0 0 1
13-14
2015 5 1 28 0 0 34
2016 0 3 20 3 0 26
2017 3 3 29 3 0 38
2018 5 1 61 3 0 70
15-16
2015 13 20 71 1 3 108
2016 14 10 51 0 2 77
2017 13 6 78 3 5 105
2018 11 10 109 2 1 133
17 and Older
2015 12 16 34 2 1 65
2016 8 14 38 1 0 61
2017 10 16 36 1 4 67
2018 10 10 38 0 6 64
99
Table 29: Top 5 Zip Code Admissions for Females in 2018
Zip Code White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
95122 0 4 34 1 0 39
95116 1 0 21 1 0 23
95020 2 0 18 0 0 20
95127 0 0 18 0 0 18
95136 1 0 16 0 0 17
Table 30: Female Admission Categories 2015-2018
Arrest Categories Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
2015 0 0 9 0 0 9
2016 2 1 8 0 0 11
2017 2 0 7 0 0 9
2018 0 1 1 0 0 2
Felony Crimes Against
People
2015 9 4 30 1 0 44
2016 5 11 16 1 0 33
2017 7 9 26 5 1 48
2018 5 7 57 1 2 72
Other Crimes
2015 1 2 5 1 0 9
2016 1 5 10 1 0 17
2017 4 2 20 0 4 30
2018 1 2 21 0 0 24
Other Crimes Against
People
2015 2 11 14 0 0 27
2016 6 3 12 0 0 21
2017 3 0 9 1 1 14
2018 2 0 5 1 2 10
Property Crimes
2015 6 9 27 1 1 44
2016 3 3 25 2 1 34
2017 6 7 52 1 3 69
2018 7 9 85 1 2 104
Return from other
status/Courtesy
Holds/Other Admits
2015 12 10 45 0 3 70
2016 5 2 37 0 1 45
2017 3 7 28 0 0 38
2018 8 2 19 2 1 32
Weapon Crimes
2015 0 1 3 0 0 4
2016 0 2 1 0 0 3
2017 1 0 1 0 0 2
2018 1 0 6 0 0 7
100
Female DEJ and Placement Trends
This section highlights DEJ and Placement trends from 2015-2018 for female youth.
Table 31: Females in DEJ 2015-2018
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 2 3 11 1 0 17
2016 1 0 10 0 1 12
2017 3 1 13 2 0 19
2018 2 3 24 0 1 30
Table 32: Female Placements 2015- 2018
Placements Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
JH
2015 1 2 6 1 0 10
2016 0 0 12 0 2 14
2017 0 1 5 1 1 8
2018 1 2 7 1 0 11
JRF
2015 1 3 6 0 0 10
2016 3 0 7 0 0 10
2017 1 1 10 0 0 12
2018 1 1 12 0 0 14
RH/FH/PIP
2015 1 3 5 0 0 9
2016 4 1 1 0 0 6
2017 0 0 2 0 0 2
2018 0 0 2 0 0 2
CYA 2015 0 0 1 0 0 1
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 2 0 0 2
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
101
Appendix C : ARRESTS/CITATIONS BY ZIP CODE 201 4 -201 8
Arrest/citations numbers by ZIP Code are slightly higher for 2018 the San Jose ZIP Codes of 95116, 95127, 95112, and 95117 compared to 2017.
The ZIP Codes of 95122, 95020, 95111, 95037, 95123, and 95128 saw a decrease in arrest/citation numbers for 2018 compared to 2017. In 2018,
the ZIP Codes with the most arrest/citations are 95116 (n=309), 95122 (n=243), and 95127 (n=234), all in San Jose. In 2017, the ZIP Codes with the
most arrest/citations were 95122 (n=246) and 95116 (n=245) both in San Jose, followed by 95020 (Gilroy) coming in third place (n=233).
Figure 51: Arrests/Citations by ZIP Code 2014-2018
349
332
357
329 328
212
138
161
207
82
235
260 257
239 228
145
93
75
128
76
182 191 196
223
180
77
114
70
111
90
245 246
166
233
194
98
141
80
122 117
309
243 234
204
189
125 119 118
108 100
95116 95122 95127 95020 95111 95112 95037 95117 95123 95128
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
102
A ppendix D : T RAINING FOR C OMMUNITY B ASED O RGANIZATIONS
On February 13, 2019, the Court, with the assistance of Deputy D.A. Carolyn Powell, Deputy P.D. Ashanti
Mitchell, ADO attorney Kevin Rudich, and Deputy P.O. Rodolfo Longoria trained approximately 95
community-based organizations’ (CBO) participants. The training focused on the law and procedures
followed in Juvenile Court. There was special emphasis on how the CBOs can assist the youth and the
court.
Sex Offender Treatment Advisory Review Panel (TARP) – Co-Chair
This committee was established in 2012 to review treatment provided to sex offender minors. While
initially very active, the protocols have not changed between 2012 and the present day. The group now
meets quarterly and reviews the providers and evaluators. As always, finding enough competent
treatment providers is a challenge. However, the Committee is particularly glad that treatment is now
provided in Spanish. Judge Ryan co-chairs the Committee with Judge Bondonno.
The Competency Overview Committee -- Chair
This is an ongoing committee that reviews competency proceedings as well as the qualifications of those
who provide competency reports. With the recent nearly total revision of Welfare and Institutions Code
§§ 709 and 712 following the Governor’s signing of AB 1214, the Committee is actively revamping
procedures to be in compliance with the new legislation. The Committee asked Professor Karen Franklin
to present a training for the evaluators on January 30, 2019. That training was well attended. Professor
Franklin teaches a competency class at Alliant International University. The Competence Committee is
working on shortening the present protocol document. At the same time, the Committee has been
reviewing competency procedures used in other counties for best practices.
Forensic Psychological Examiners
The strenuous recruiting for additional psychological examiners performed by Dr. Suh-Wen Yang, Lauren
Gavin and Judge Bondonno in 2016, as well as the doubling of the psychological professional fees, resulted
in the vast majority of psychological reports being done timely. There were very few delays in obtaining
those reports in 2017. However, starting in late 2018, the needs again outstripped the resources. At the
present time we are experiencing numerous delays in receiving basic 602 psychologist evaluations, and
SUTS (drug and alcohol) evaluations done by Behavioral Health. There is an ongoing series of meetings to
resolve this issue. In part, the delays are the result of an increased need for psychological reports resulting
from the increased number of serious charges handled by the Juvenile Court post-Proposition 57.
Domestic Violence Court
Department 82 handles the Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence calendar. With the hands-on
assistance of trained juvenile probation officers, the Court prescribes a 26-week program operated by the
Piece It Together. The program focuses on the power and control issues relating to domestic violence and
103
family violence and details specific training on how to handle various elements of conflict which arise in
day-to day situations. As always, there is a need for more Spanish-speaking and Vietnamese-speaking
professionals.
In 2018, with the help of Piece It Together, Probation and LaRon Dennis of the District Attorney’s Office,
the Court was able to do a lateral study of ten Piece It Together graduates, following them to age 23. The
Court was gratified to find that none of the successful graduates of the Piece It Together program had
been charged with any new domestic violence or family violence actions. However, the sample, which
involved only ten youth, is statistically insignificant. Nevertheless, the Court does believe that the program
is of value. The project for the Juvenile Domestic Violence Committee for 2019 is to focus on developing
data on the effectiveness of the present programs.
Probation Brown Bags
A brown bag is a casual meeting that occurs during a lunch period. This type of meeting is referred to as
a Brown Bag meeting because participants bring their own lunches to the informal gathering where topics
are discussed. The Probation Department has hosted Brown Bags in 2017 and 2018. The focus of Probation
Brown Bags is an opportunity for funded community programs and probation staff to meet quarterly and
share updates. The Research and Development (RaD) Unit staff will share current research in the justice
system while focusing on clients’ outcomes and program evaluation components. All topics will be
applicable to adults and juveniles. RaD Unit staff will present on current evidence-based practices (EBPs)
news and or programming as well as general information about EBPs.
Probation Provider Meet and Greet Resource Fair
The Juvenile Probation Division hosts an annual Meet and Greet event for community based providers,
probation staff, and system partners to gather in collaboration to better identify services and build
familiarity in resources available to justice involved youth and families. This annual event is similar to a
resource fair; however, during the Meet and Greet the focus is for all participants to learn more about
services, resources, referral processes, and service linkage to build supports and community
connectedness for all system involved clients.
104
Appendix E : JAIS SUPERVISION STRATEG Y GROUPS OVERVIEW
The Probation Department utilizes an evidence-based tool called the Juvenile Assessment and
Intervention System (JAIS) that weaves together a risk assessment and strengths and needs assessment.
As well as analyzing risks and needs, the JAIS incorporates a supervision strategy model and determines
the best approach for each youth. Please see table below for more details.
Table 33: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview
JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview
Strategy Group General Characteristics Why Youth Get in Trouble Intervention Goals
Selective
Intervention (SI)
• Pro-social values
• Positive adjustment
• Positive Achievements
• Good social skills
• External stressors
• Internal, neurotic need
• Resolve external stressor
• Resolve internal
problems
• Return to school
• Return to appropriate
peers and activities
Limit Setting (LS) • Anti-social values
• Prefers to succeed
outside the rules/law
• Role models operate
outside the rules/law
• Manipulative, exploitive
• Motivated by power,
excitement
• Straight life is dull
• Substitute pro-social
means to achieve power,
money, excitement
• Change attitudes and
values
• Use skills in pro-social
ways
• Protect the school
environment
Environmental
Structure (ES)
• Lack of social and survival
skills
• Poor impulse control
• Gullible
• Naïve
• Poor judgment
• Manipulated by more
sophisticated peers
• Difficult generalizing
from past experiences
• Improve social and
survival skills
• Increase impulse control
• Develop realistic
education program
• Limit contact with
negative peers
Casework/Control
(CC)
• Broad-range instability
• Chaotic lifestyle
• Emotional instability
• Multi-drug
abuse/addiction
• Negative attitudes toward
authority
• Positive effort blocked
by:
*Chaotic lifestyle
*Drug/alcohol use
*Emotional
instability
• Unable to commit to
long-term change
• Increase stability
• Control drug/alcohol
abuse
• Overcome attitude
problems
• Foster ability to recognize
and correct self-defeating
behavior
105
APPENDIX F: O FFENSE C ATEGORIES BY C HARGE D ESCRIPTION
The table below highlights some examples of each offense categories’ code descriptions, charge
descriptions, and offense codes that fall under each offense category.
Table 34: Offense Categories by Code Description, Charge Description, and Offense Code
Offense Categories Code Description Charge Description Offense Code
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
HS11378 Possess Controlled
Substance for Sale
Felony
PC647(F)M Under the Influence of
Drugs/
Alcohol/Controlled
Substance
Misdemeanor
BP25662 Minor Possess Alcohol Misdemeanor
HS11357(A)(1) Under Eighteen
Possess Less than 28.5
Grams of Marijuana
Infraction
HS11357(D) Possession of
Marijuana on School
Grounds
Infraction
Felony Crimes Against
People
PC211 Robbery Felony
PC664/187 Attempted Murder Felony
PC245(A)(1) Assault with a Deadly
Weapon or Great
Bodily Injury
Felony
PC215 Carjacking Felony
PC288(A) Lewd or Lascivious Act
on a Child Under
Fourteen
Felony
Other Crimes PC4532(B)(1) Escape Jail/Etc. while
Charged/Etc. with a
Felony
Felony
PC148.9 False Name to Peace
Officer
Misdemeanor
PC148 Obstruct Resist Public
Officer
Misdemeanor
VC12500(A) Driving while
Unlicensed
Misdemeanor
PC182(A)(1) Conspiracy to Commit
Crime
Misdemeanor
Other Crimes Against
People
PC242 Battery Misdemeanor
PC166(C)(1) Violation of Court
Order Domestic
Violence
Misdemeanor
106
Offense Categories Code Description Charge Description Offense Code
PC261.5 Unlawful Sexual
Intercourse with Minor
Misdemeanor
PC646.9(A) Stalking Misdemeanor
PC243(E)(1) Battery on Former
Spouse, Fiancé, or Date
Misdemeanor
Property Crimes PC487 Grand Theft Felony
PC459 Burglary: First Degree Felony
PC451 Arson Felony
VC10851 Driving/Taking Vehicle
without Owner’s
Permission
Felony
VC20002 Hit and Run/Property
Damage
Misdemeanor
PC647(H) Prowling Misdemeanor
PC488 Petty Theft Misdemeanor
PC466 Possession of Burglary
Tools
Misdemeanor
PC602 Trespassing Misdemeanor
PC594 Vandalism Misdemeanor
Return from Other
Status/Courtesy Hold/
Other Admit
PC1203.2 Re-arrest/Revoke
Probation/Etc.
Misdemeanor
WI777 Failure to Obey Order
of the Juvenile Court
Status
PC594(A)(B) For Sentencing
Purposes
Status
WI602 Juvenile Offender
(State Specific Offense)
Status
Weapon Crimes PC245 Assault with a Deadly
Weapon (Punishment)
Felony
PC21310 Possession of a Dirk or
Dagger
Felony
PC25400(A) Carry Concealed
Weapon
Felony
PC246.3 Willful Discharge of
Firearm with Gross
Negligence
Felony
PC21310 Possession of a Dirk or
Dagger
Misdemeanor
2019
ANNUAL REPORT
Juvenile Justice
Santa Clara County
f
Helping to Build
Positive Futures
“Rather than standing or speaking for children, we need to stand with children speaking for themselves.”
— Sandra Meucci
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................... i
FIGURES AND TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 5
REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODLOGY ............................................................................................... 12
Youth in Santa Clara County .................................................................................................................... 13
What is Juvenile Probation? .................................................................................................................... 14
JUVENILE JUSTICE WORK GROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES ........................................................................ 14
INNOVATIONS AND COLLABORATIONS IN 2019 ......................................................................................... 14
Justice Ed Program ................................................................................................................................... 15
Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Assisting High-Risk Youth ...................................................................... 15
Vera institute and santa clara county collaboration ............................................................................... 16
Independent Studies Program ................................................................................................................. 17
James Ranch Culinary Institute ................................................................................................................ 17
Upcoming New Probation Case Management System ............................................................................ 17
NEW LAWS IN 2019 ..................................................................................................................................... 18
SB439: Under 12 Protocol........................................................................................................................ 18
AB1214: Juvenile Competency ................................................................................................................ 19
SB1391: Update Elimination of Adult Court Prosecutions of 14 and 15-Year-Old Youth ....................... 19
FUTURE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM .......................................................... 19
SB485 - Driver’s License Restrictions ....................................................................................................... 19
SB 419 - Student Discipline: Suspensions Willful Defiance ..................................................................... 20
SB 384 - Sex Tiered Registration .............................................................................................................. 20
PREVENTIVE AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES............................................................................................... 20
Youth Advisory Council (YAC) .................................................................................................................. 20
South County Youth Task Force (SCYTF) .................................................................................................. 21
Neighborhood Safety/services Unit (NSU) .............................................................................................. 22
YOUTH AT ENTRY TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ................................................................................. 23
Youth Arrests/Citations ........................................................................................................................... 24
Demographics of Youth Arrested/Cited ............................................................................................................... 26
Where Do Youth Arrested or Cited Live? ............................................................................................................. 27
Moving from Arrest/Citation to a Petition ........................................................................................................... 29
Motions to Transfer cases ....................................................................................................................... 30
Juveniles Transferred to Adult Court Update .................................................................................................. 30
Role of Defense Counsel .......................................................................................................................... 31
Social Workers and Immigration Attorneys ......................................................................................................... 32
Community Outreach Attorney ........................................................................................................................... 32
Admission to Custody .............................................................................................................................. 33
Detention Overrides ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Offenses of Youth Detained ................................................................................................................................. 35
Demographics of Youth Detained ........................................................................................................................ 36
Age and Sex of Youth Detained ........................................................................................................................ 36
Where Youth Detained Reside ......................................................................................................................... 37
Intake and Admission Trends ............................................................................................................................... 37
Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)/Community Release Program (CRP) .......................................... 39
Arrests/Citations Filed as Petitions .......................................................................................................... 40
FACTORS THAT LEAD YOUTH TO ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR .......................................................................... 41
Child Welfare History Checks................................................................................................................... 41
Criminogenic Risk ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Risk Assessment for Boys ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Risk Assessment for Girls ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Criminogenic Needs ................................................................................................................................. 46
Criminogenic Needs for Boys ............................................................................................................................... 47
Criminogenic Needs for Girls ............................................................................................................................... 50
Comparing Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls ...................................................................................... 53
Supervising Youth on Probation ........................................................................................................................... 54
EXAMINING DISPROPORTIONALITY AT KEY ENTRY POINTS IN THE SYSTEM ............................................... 55
Arrests and Citations................................................................................................................................ 55
Youth Detention....................................................................................................................................... 58
Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population ................................................................................................... 60
Petitions ................................................................................................................................................... 60
COLLABORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS ................................................................................. 63
WIC 241.1 Referrals and Assessments ................................................................................................................. 63
Dually Involved Youth Initiative/Unit ................................................................................................................... 64
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC) ............................................................................................... 64
Specialty Courts .................................................................................................................................................... 65
Family Violence/Domestic Violence Court (FV/DV) ......................................................................................... 65
Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) ........................................................................ 66
Opportunity Court ............................................................................................................................................ 67
Victim-Centered Approaches ............................................................................................................................... 67
Probation Victim Services ................................................................................................................................ 67
District Attorney Juvenile Victim Advocate ..................................................................................................... 68
Victim Offender Mediation Program (VOMP).................................................................................................. 68
Behavioral Health and Substance Use Treatment Services ................................................................................. 69
Ranch Re-Entry Behavioral Health Services ......................................................................................................... 72
Collaborative Intensive Interventions ..................................................................................................... 72
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) .............................................................................................................................. 73
Wraparound Services ........................................................................................................................................... 73
RESTRICTIVE SANCTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 75
Out of Home Placements ................................................................................................................................. 75
Juvenile Hall ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
William F. James Ranch Program ..................................................................................................................... 78
Probation Continuum of Services of Reentry (Pro-CSR) .................................................................................. 78
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)....................................................................................................................... 79
Commitments ....................................................................................................................................................... 79
Foster Care Placements ....................................................................................................................................... 81
Health and Wellness in Secure Care .................................................................................................................... 82
Physical Health ................................................................................................................................................. 82
Behavioral Health ............................................................................................................................................. 83
Pharmacy Services............................................................................................................................................ 85
Dental ............................................................................................................................................................... 86
Medical Outreach Program .............................................................................................................................. 86
Eligibility for Healthcare Project (SB 1469) ...................................................................................................... 87
Alternative Education Department (AED) ............................................................................................................ 88
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports at Juvenile Hall ........................................................................... 89
vocational training at James ranch: Career Technical education .................................................................... 89
Chronic Absenteeism ........................................................................................................................................... 89
LOOKING AHEAD TO 2020 ........................................................................................................................... 90
Animal Assisted Therapy Program at James Ranch and Juvenile Hall ..................................................... 90
PIVOT Grant ............................................................................................................................................. 91
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 91
Appendix A: The County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice System Map .................................................... 92
Appendix B: County Gender Responsive Task Force (GRTF) ................................................................... 93
Female Arrest and Citation Trends ...................................................................................................................... 93
Female Admission and Intake Trends .................................................................................................................. 97
Female DEJ and Placement Trends .................................................................................................................... 100
Appendix C: Arrests/Citations by Zip Code 2015-2019 ......................................................................... 102
Appendix D: SOUTH COUNTY ARRESTS/CITATIONS BY ZIP CODE ......................................................... 103
Appendix E: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview...................................................................... 106
Appendix F: Offense Categories by Charge Description ........................................................................ 107
Appendix G: JJSC Workgroups and subcommittees .............................................................................. 109
Appendix H: AB12 Non-Minor Dependent Youth .................................................................................. 113
Appendix I: Behavioral Health Diagnosis ............................................................................................... 114
Appendix J: Commonly Used Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................. 115
5 | P a g e
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Core Components of NSU ............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2015-2019 ........................... 24
Figure 3: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2019 ....................................................... 25
Figure 4: Duplicate Offense Classifications.................................................................................................. 25
Figure 5: Age of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited by Offense Category .................................................... 26
Figure 7: Sex of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited 2019.............................................................................. 27
Figure 8: Santa Clara County Top Ten ZIP Codes for Duplicated Arrests/Citations 2018 ........................... 28
Figure 9: Santa Clara County Duplicated Offense Classification for Top Ten ZIP codes ............................. 28
Figure 10: All Referrals to Public Defense Counsel ...................................................................................... 31
Figure 11: All Cases by Type of Defense Counsel ........................................................................................ 31
Figure 12: Number of Youth Detained (duplicate count) by Process Step 2019 ......................................... 33
Figure 13: Duplicated Admissions by Offense Category 2019..................................................................... 36
Figure 14: Number of Duplicated Admissions to Juvenile Hall by ZIP Code 2019....................................... 37
Figure 15: Juvenile Hall Intake Decision Trend 2015-2019.......................................................................... 37
Figure 16: Duplicated Juvenile Hall Admissions by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2015-2019 ................... 38
Figure 17: Duplicated Detained Youth by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2015-2019 ................................. 38
Figure 18: Duplicated Top 10 Most Frequent Charges at Time of Petition 2019 ........................................ 40
Figure 19: Duplicated Petitions per Year ..................................................................................................... 41
Figure 20: Child Welfare History 2019 ......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 21: Race/Ethnicity and Sex for Probation Youth With At Least One Child Welfare Referral as the
Alleged Victim 2019 (Unduplicated) ............................................................................................................ 43
Figure 22: Risk Level for Boys and Girls 2019 .............................................................................................. 46
Figure 23: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys............................................................................................... 50
Figure 24: Top Criminogenic Needs for Girls ............................................................................................... 53
Figure 25: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls ............................................................................... 54
Figure 26: Youth Population Percentage (2018) and Youth Arrest Percentage (2019) .............................. 56
Figure 27: Rate of Arrest and Citation per 1,000 youth 2019 ..................................................................... 57
Figure 28: Arrest Rates per 1,000 Youth 2015 – 2019 by Race/Ethnicity ................................................... 58
Figure 29: Rate of Detention per 1,000 youth 2019 .................................................................................... 59
Figure 30: Average Daily Population by Race/Ethnicity .............................................................................. 60
Figure 31: Santa Clara County Petitions in 2019 ......................................................................................... 61
Figure 32: Rate of Petition for 2019 (per 1,000 youth in population) ......................................................... 61
Figure 33: CSE-IT Results .............................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 34: Number of Youth in Family Violence/ Domestic Violence Court ............................................... 66
Figure 35: Victim Awareness Participants ................................................................................................... 68
Figure 36: Behavioral Health Treatment by Sex .......................................................................................... 71
Figure 37 : Behavioral Health Treatment by Age Range ............................................................................. 71
6 | P a g e
Figure 38: Behavioral Health Treatment by Race/Ethnicity ........................................................................ 71
Figure 39: Behavioral Health Diagnosis ....................................................................................................... 71
Figure 40: Monthly Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population Compared to Wraparound Services and
Placement (2014-2019) ............................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 41: Santa Clara County DJJ Placements 2016-2019.......................................................................... 79
Figure 42: Commitments 2016-2019 Trends ............................................................................................... 80
Figure 43: Youth in Commitments 2019 by Race/Ethnicity ......................................................................... 80
Figure 44: Percentage of Commitments in 2019 ......................................................................................... 81
Figure 46: Foster Care Placements in 2019 by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................... 82
Figure 45: Foster Care Placements in 2019 by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................... 82
Figure 47: Behavioral Health Resource Center ............................................................................................ 85
Figure 48: Guadalupe Behavioral Health Clinic at Juvenile Hall .................................................................. 85
Figure 49: Medi-Cal Percentages on Detained Youth in Juvenile Hall 2019 ............................................... 88
Figure 50: Osborne (Juvenile Hall) and Blue Ridge (James Ranch) Enrollment by Ethnicity (n=811) ......... 88
Figure 51: Female Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019 ............................................................................ 94
Figure 52: Female Arrests by Age Category and Race/Ethnicity 2017-2019 ............................................... 94
Figure 53: Arrests/Citations by ZIP Code 2015-2019 ................................................................................. 102
Figure 54: Arrests/Citations for South County by ZIP Code 2015-2019 .................................................... 103
Figure 55: South County Duplicated Offense Classification by ZIP Codes 2019 ........................................ 103
Figure 56: Duplicated Arrests and Citations Offense Category by South County ZIP Codes 2019............ 104
Figure 57: Commonly Used Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................ 115
TABLES
Table 1: Percentage of Total Youth Population Ages 10-17 ........................................................................ 13
Table 2: Santa Clara County Change in Youth Population Ages 10-17 1993-2018 ..................................... 13
Table 3: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Percentage 2019 ........................................ 34
Table 4: Risk Assessment Instrument Mandatory Detention Reasons 2019 .............................................. 34
Table 5: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Reasons 2019 ............................................. 35
Table 6: Age and Sex of Duplicated Youth Detained 2019 .......................................................................... 36
Table 7: Duplicated Number of Youth in Alternatives to Custody 2019 ..................................................... 39
Table 8: Boys Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=831) ........................................................................ 54
Table 9: Girls Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=182) ........................................................................ 55
Table 10: Number and Rate of Arrests and Citations (2019) and Youth Population (2018) ....................... 56
Table 11: Arrest and Citation Yearly Trends ................................................................................................ 57
Table 12: Numbers and Rate of Admission to Secure Detention 2019 ....................................................... 59
Table 13: Admission Numbers 2015-2019................................................................................................... 60
Table 14: Duplicated Petition Numbers 2015-2019 .................................................................................... 61
Table 15: Numbers and Rate of Duplicated Petitions 2019 ........................................................................ 62
Table 16: Petition Rates per 1,000 Youth by Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................... 63
Table 17: Average Length of Stay (in Days) by Status 2015 -2019 Trend..................................................... 77
7 | P a g e
Table 18: Commitment from Dispositions ................................................................................................... 81
Table 19: Juvenile Hall Medical Clinic 2019 ................................................................................................. 83
Table 20: James Ranch Medical Clinic 2019 ................................................................................................ 83
Table 21: Female Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019 .............................................................................. 94
Table 22: Female Age Categories by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019 ................................................................. 95
Table 23: Female Arrests Top 5 ZIP Codes in 2019 ...................................................................................... 96
Table 24: Female Arrest Offense Categories 2015-2019 ............................................................................. 96
Table 25: Female Admissions by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019 ....................................................................... 97
Table 26: Female Admissions Age Category by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019 ................................................ 98
Table 27: Female Admissions Top 5 ZIP Codes in 2019 ............................................................................... 98
Table 28: Female Admission Offense Categories 2015-2019 ...................................................................... 99
Table 29: Females in DEJ 2015-2019 ......................................................................................................... 100
Table 30: Female Placements 2015- 2019 ................................................................................................. 100
Table 31: Top Ten Offenses by South County ZIP Codes 2019 .................................................................. 105
Table 32: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview .............................................................................. 106
Table 33: Offense Categories by Code Description, Charge Description, and Offense Code ................... 107
Table 34: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative: Race Equity in Justice Systems Workgroups .............. 109
Table 35: Other Collaborative Efforts with Justice Systems Stakeholders ................................................ 110
8 | P a g e
SUPERVISING JUDGE’S FOREWORD
9 | P a g e
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER’S FOREWORD
10 | P a g e
Youth
Detentions
Helping to Build Positive Futures
Juvenile Justice Trends Over Time (duplicated counts of youth)
Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2019
3,990
1,239 1,017
1,414
3,310
1,048 921 1,201
3,792
1,147 1,013
1,390
3,668
1,340 1,212 1,535
3,370
1,053 958 848
Arrests/Citations Refer to Juvenile Hall Admission to Juvenile Hall Petitions Filed
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
28%
18%
17%
13%
12%
8%
5%
Property Crimes
Other Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Other Crimes Against People
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other Admits
Weapon Crimes
Arrests/citations in 2019 saw a decrease compared to 2018 (eight percent decrease to 3,370). Felony offenses also decreased
from 48 percent in 2018 to 39 percent in 2019 (25 percent decrease compared to 2018). Overall, arrests/citations have been
declining since 2015.
1,053 youth (or 31%
of all arrests and
citations) referred to
Juvenile Hall
(duplicate count).
958 youth (or 91%)
detained (duplicate
count). This accounts
for a 21% decrease
from 2018.
820 detentions (or
78%) held until
detention hearing
(duplicate count).
Property Crimes (which includes felony and misdemeanor offenses) and Other Crimes (e.g., Resist, Delay Obstruct an Officer,
Driving While Unlicensed, and Reckless Driving) combined to account for approximately 46 percent of the total 3,370
arrests/citations compared to 49 percent of arrests/citations in 2018.
201 9
ANNUAL REPORT AT A GLANCE
Juvenile Justice
Santa Clara County
Helping to Build Positive Futures
11 | P a g e
In 2019, arrests/citations decreased as well as petitions filed (n=848; a 45 percent decrease compared to 2018). In 2019, the
number of duplicated petitions decreased past levels previously seen in 2016. Of the 848 petitions filed in 2019, the most likely
offenses to be petitioned were robbery (170), residential burglary (148), and auto theft (112).
Sex and Age of Youth Arrested
•75% of youth arrested were male.
•45% of youth arrested were 15 & 16 years old.
•35% were 17 years or older.
•2% were 12 years old and younger.
Home Life
•The zip codes where most youth reside
include 95020, 95116, 95122, 95037 and
95111.
•Girls had more family history problems
(63%) compared to boys (42%)
Child Abuse and Neglect
•49% of youth had at least one referral as
the alleged victim.
•Girls (43%) self-reported more
abuse/neglect and trauma compared to
boys (21%).
Education
•School inadequacy was similar for boys 41%
and girls 39%.
•Issues due to lack of intellectual capacity
(boys 23%, girls 19%) and due to achievement
problems (boys 37%, girls 42%).
Criminogenic Needs
•Criminal Orientation was similar for boys
(27%) and girls (23%).
•Over 75% of boys and girls had anti-social
peers (gangs, legal troubles, or both).
Behavioral Health
•35% of girls attempted or thought about
committing suicide versus 10% of boys.
•82% of girls and 62% of boys had
significant issues with depression, anxiety,
and other emotional factors.
About Youth in the
Juvenile Justice System
Rate of Arrest and Citation per
1,000 youth 2019
9
55
33
3
White Black Latino Asian/PI
Duplicated Petitions by Top 10 Offense Categories 2019
170
148
112
104
74
55
54
52
42
37
Robbery
Residential Burglary
Auto Theft
Resisting Arrest
Possession of a Stolen Vehicle
Vandalism
Battery
Assault by Means of Force to GBI
Assault w/ Deadly Weapon or GBI
Threaten to Commit a Crime Resulting in
Death/Bodily Injury
In 2019, Black and Latino youth
continue to be overrepresented
at every decision point in the
juvenile justice system.
Disproportionality
12 | P a g e
REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODLOGY
The County of Santa Clara government serves a diverse, multi-cultural population of 1.9 million residents
in Santa Clara County, California, making it more populous than 14 states in the United States. The County
provides essential services to its residents, including public health protection, environmental stewardship,
medical services through the County of Santa Clara Health System, child and adult protection services,
homelessness prevention and solutions, roads, park services, libraries, emergency response to disasters,
protection of minority communities and those under threat, access to a fair criminal justice system, and
many other public benefits. This report focuses on juvenile justice system in Santa Clara County.
The Santa Clara County Juvenile Justice annual report provides insight into the juvenile justice process by
reporting the number of arrests, referrals to the Probation Department, petitions filed, and dispositions
for juveniles tried in court, while highlighting various programs and services available to youth and families
throughout the juvenile justice system. Additionally, the report focuses on racial and ethnic disparities
and sex1 differences at various decisions points.
Since 2011 2 , the Probation Department in Santa Clara County, in strong collaboration with system
partners, has developed a Juvenile Justice Annual report as part of the Juvenile Justice Model Courts
program. This is not a report of only Probation Department activities, but rather a report of collaborative
efforts among the juvenile justice System partners. Throughout the years, this annual report has evolved
into a comprehensive source of information that describes the youths’ needs and sheds light on the
services and programs provided to youth who are part of the juvenile justice system. As a result, the
reporting process has enabled information sharing between system partners to evaluate performance
and better understand how to improve the outcomes for youth in the County. The information sharing
process is done through sharing of aggregate data from each Probation partner and is compiled and added
to the report.
The structure of the report is organized into key sections that outline the continuum of care that youth
and their families might be involved in through the juvenile justice
system:
1. Introduction to Santa Clara County juvenile justice system
2. Innovation and changes to the juvenile justice system in 2019
3. Preventive and community initiatives
4. Youth at entry to the juvenile justice system
5. Factors that lead youth to anti-social behavior
6. Examining disproportionality at key entry points in the system
7. Collaborative juvenile justice interventions
1 Probation is currently updating how we track Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression (SOGIE) measures.
Soon, probation will track comprehensive SOGIE measures.
2 Juvenile Justice Annual Reports: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/probation/reports/Pages/Annual-Reports.aspx
13 | P a g e
8. Looking ahead to 2020
Throughout this report, we use abbreviations and acronyms to reference programs, services and tools.
Appendix J offers a comprehensive list for your reference of all these abbreviations and acronyms. Due to
variation in methods and approaches to data collection and reporting by system partners, there may be
differing reporting formats. In most cases the annual data reflects the calendar year, unless otherwise
specified. For each section of this report, the data source and other relevant information about the data
is provided in the footnotes for reference. In addition, this report is not an evaluation of each program or
service but has historically been a presentation of the process outcomes and outputs for each area. Due
to the magnitude of services in the juvenile system and covered in the annual report, it is not fe asible to
discuss every program and service at length. For additional Probation reports, please visit the Probation
Department website: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/probation/Pages/default.aspx
YOUTH IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Over the last two decades, Santa Clara County’s youth population (ages 10-17) has changed dramatically.
Since 1993 the youth population has increased by 24 percent and there has been a significant increase in
the number of youth of color in the County as shown in the U.S. Census categories listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Percentage of Total Youth Population Ages 10-173
Percentage of total youth population White Black Latino Asian/PI Native
1993 44% 4% 29% 22% 0.5%
2018 26% 3% 35% 36% 0.3%
The table below shows the greatest change has been in the Asian/Pacific Islander (Asian/PI) population
which increased by 102 percent since 1993. During the same period, the Latino youth population has
increased by 47 percent to become the largest racial/ethnic population. Meanwhile the White youth
population decreased by 27 percent since 1993 and is no longer a majority. Decreases have also occurred
in the youth populations of Black youth (-18 percent), and Native American youth (-22 percent). Overall,
the youth population in Santa Clara County increased by 24 percent since 1993.
Table 2: Santa Clara County Change in Youth Population Ages 10-17 1993-20184
Population Change 1993-2018 White Black Latino Asian/PI Native Total
1993 68,387 6,243 45,567 34,649 753 155,599
2018 50,004 5,129 67,052 70,051 586 192,822
3 Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2019). Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2018. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/
4 2018 is the most recent year for which population estimates are available.
14 | P a g e
Percent Change 1993-2018 -27% -18% 47% 102% -22% 24%
W HAT IS JUVENILE PROBATION?
Probation is an opportunity for youth to remain at home, when possible, under supervision of the Court
and the Probation Department while receiving services to address their needs. Services vary by type and
level of intensity depending on many factors. In some cases, youth may be detained at Juvenile Hall or
ordered to the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility William F. James Ranch (Ranch) or another placement
depending upon their offense(s) and needs. A youth may be ordered to follow certain conditions set forth
by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. In Santa Clara County (County), a thorough
assessment is completed to determine a youth’s intervention level. The intervention level is determined
after an evaluation of a variety of factors such as offense, age, areas of need (such as mental health,
substance use, pro-social activities, family therapy, etc.), risk of reoffending and other factors. Appendix
A describes some of the key decision points within the juvenile justice system . At each of these points,
one or more justice system stakeholders has decision-making power over the trajectory of a youth’s case.
These stakeholders strive to stay informed of the most current best practices for working with families
and communities.
JUVENI LE JUSTICE WORK GROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES
The Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC) was established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors
on June 3, 2008, after several years of juvenile detention reform efforts, and has been extended through
June 30, 2023. The JJSC provides a channel for system partners to work together in the best interest of
the youth in the juvenile justice system, while preventing or reducing the unnecessary detention of youth.
The JJSC works with other juvenile justice bodies to maximize resource efficiency and avoid duplication of
efforts. The JJSC addresses the issue of disproportionate minority representation in the juvenile justice
system through constant examination of decision points through a race equity lens. The JJSC is committed
to upholding racial equity and combatting racism in all its forms throughout the youth justice system.
The JJSC has two workgroups and Probation mainly participates in the Race Equity in Justice Systems (REJS)
workgroup, which has several subcommittees that focus on how youth of color are impacted by the
decisions made at various points in the justice system. The Race Equity through Prevention (REP)
workgroup has focused their efforts on reducing the suspension and expulsion of youth of color in the
schools, as well as improving community engagement and school engagement practices on individual
campuses throughout Santa Clara County. The JJSC meets quarterly, while the workgroups and their
subcommittees meet monthly or as needed. For more information on the JJSC work groups and
subcommittees please visit: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/occ/jjsc/Pages/home.aspx . Appendix G also
provides information on the JJSC work groups and subcommittees.
INNOVATIONS AND COLLABORATIONS IN 201 9
15 | P a g e
Santa Clara County prides itself on collaborative efforts to provide best practices and programs to youth
in the juvenile justice system. This sec tion of the report highlights innovations and collaborations which
are improving the services offered to youth and families in Santa Clara County within a juvenile justice
scope.
JUSTICE ED PROGRAM
Since August 2018 the Justice Ed. Program, previously named the Education Liaisons Program, has been
supporting juvenile justice involved youth in identifying and supporting an Education Champion in the life
of Probation involved youth. The goal is for juvenile justice involved youth to have an advocate supporting
them as they navigate the education system, and beyond Probation system involvement. The Justice Ed.
Program remains consistently staffed by one Program Manager and three Education Liaisons from the
National Center for Youth Law. From January 2019 to December 2019, the Probation Department’s
Education Services Unit received a total 276 referrals for education services. In 2019 the Justice Ed.
Program received 86 referrals to provide service and support to juvenile justice system involved students
and families throughout Santa Clara County.
MULTI -DISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ASSISTING HIGH -RISK YOUTH
In October of 2019, the Probation Department, County of Santa Clara Behavioral Health Services
Department (BHSD) and the Department of Family and Children’s Services, (DFCS) collaborated to provide
immediate stabilization to the Receiving, Assessment, and Intake Center (RAIC). The RAIC provides
temporary respite care for children entering the dependency system following removal from their
families, or when they are in between long-term placements. Most of the youth in the dependency
system are placed with relatives or a foster family in less than 24 hours, and many never enter the
RAIC. However, it has become increasingly difficult to place certain youth due to the State of California’s
Continuum of Care Reform (CCR), limited options for older youth with challenging behavioral or special
needs, and the limited number of foster care homes in the County of Santa Clara.
DFCS, BHSD, and Probation partnered and strategized to better serve children in the County’s
care. Leaders from the respective agencies developed a comprehensive plan to address the significant
challenges at the RAIC and to pursue multiple opportunities to improve the County’s system of care for
youth in the child welfare system. The goal of the collaboration is not simply to increase overall placement
resources, but rather to ensure that the system operates around the value of planned permanency for all
youth in the child welfare system.
Through these efforts, there has been a dramatically reduced number of children who enter the RAIC. This
was due in part to establishing an alternative, temporary assessment and intake location for young
children without prior contact with the foster care system. Also, an intensified and accelerated focus on
family finding/placement for any youth taken to the RAIC helped to reduce the numbers. Through this
collaboration between county departments, appropriate placements were found by leveraging resources.
16 | P a g e
Working in this cross-systems manner has allowed for learning and strategizing on setting management.
Benefits of this approach included:
• Onsite Managers from all departments provided immediate support
• On-Call Extra Support “staffing to acuity” on each shift
• Planning for and welcoming any new youth admitted to the RAIC by all departments allowing for
clearer expectations and to ensure safety
• Improved security
• Daily huddles where all departments shared information to manage the environment at the RAIC.
• Weekly client specific care coordination meetings that included all partners to ensure consistency
in several areas such as the information received about the youth, strengths, concerns, how to
address behaviors, educational barriers, etc.
• Weekly Manager meetings to ensure consistency across all depart ments and to discuss
improvements needed and ensure follow-up items were completed.
V ERA INSTITUTE AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY COLLABORATION
The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) worked closely with the Gender Responsive Taskforce (GRTF) to
introduce their technical assistance to Santa Clara County (SCC) to end the incarceration of girls and
gender expansive youth on the girls’ side of the juvenile justice system. They worked with government
and community stakeholders to complete a comprehensive diagnostic assessment to identify the root
causes of girls’ incarceration and to map girls’ pathways from child welfare, education, and health systems
into the justice system. In conducting the assessment, Vera analyzed administrative data provided by the
Probation Department and Judiciary and, in collaboration with researchers from New York University,
completed an extensive analysis of 70 case files (only after proper confidentiality and agreements were
entered into) that pertained to justice impacted girls and transgender/gender non-conforming
(TGNC) youth. Areas examined included: race/ethnicity; age; home zip code; court proceedings, including
Deferred Entry of Judgement (DEJ), Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP), and violations of probation;
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression (SOGIE); education; mental health; physical
and sexual abuse; intergenerational system involvement; homelessness and housing instability; and gang
involvement. To supplement findings from the administrative data and case file review, Vera engaged
over 100 stakeholders, including agency leaders, agency staff, community providers, advocates, and
justice-involved young people in a series of interviews and focus groups. As part of this engagement, they
facilitated two deep dive sessions with stakeholders, including community-based organizations, court
actors, and providers, to identify local pathways for justice impacted girls and TGNC youth that lead them
to engage with the stakeholders and discuss system gaps. In addition, Ver a participated in a conference
that was hosted by the Superior Court Juvenile Division on successful interventions nationally to balance
public safety and restorative justice. Toward the end of 2019, Vera presented their findings from the
assessment and recommendations on the ways in which systems can be aligned to get to zero
incarceration.
17 | P a g e
INDEPENDENT STUDIES PROGRAM
With the elimination of the Juvenile Traffic Court in 2016, our goal has been to prioritize reengaging
chronically absent youth to return to school and complete their high school diploma. During the 2017-18
school year the District Attorney, the County Office of Education and the Department of Behavioral Health
collaborated to develop a new Independent Study Program for chronically absent yo uth that focuses on
the social emotional support, academic credit recovery, credit acceleration, expressive arts, and post -
secondary planning. During the 2018-19 school year the new Independent Study Program enrolled 68
youth, graduated four students from high school, with an average daily attendance rate of 88 percent.
This academic year (2019-20) the program has grown to enrolling over 100 youth during the year,
graduated eight youth to date, while maintaining attendance rates above 88 percent. Students are
referred to the Independent Study Program by their home school districts. There is a growing interest in
serving students in the Independent Study program due to the flexibility and quality of the personalized
educational program provided. Within the program there is academic counseling, post-secondary
educational planning, social emotional support, expressive arts, and work experience. The program will
be expanding in 2020-21 to include a South County and North County location. These satellite loca tions
will offer additional flexibility for students and strengthen our response to student needs with the county.
JAMES RANCH CULINARY INSTITUTE
The James Ranch, County Office of Education Blue Ridge School, Culinary Arts Program begun in July 2019
and allows youth to participate in learning about the chemistry of cooking, nutritional facts and guidelines,
as well as earn food and safety handling certification. The program has been implemented in several
phases to accommodate the construction of a new kitchen facility and transition the youth from the
classroom setting and into the kitchen previously used by the James Ranch Cooks and Food Service
Workers.
Beginning in phase one, the Culinary Arts Program began utilizing the James Ranch Cafeteria enclaves to
host hands on cooking instruction, which includes student safety and food preparation. As the youth grow
their skills, the program will transition into phase two, which involves preparing the kitchen area for
student use, develop routines for student safety and food handling and begin experimenting with various
ingredients promoting farm to table initiatives. Further, the County Office of Education is working to offer
apprenticeship classes, with support from our educational partners at Mission College, to allow youth an
opportunity to secure work in the food industry upon completion of the James Ranch Program. Once the
Culinary Arts Program has full occupancy of the old kitchen facilities; th e program will naturally progress
into phase three. Phase three is an ambitious program that includes student hosted events and
fundraising activities for various community philanthropies.
UPCOMING NEW PROBATION CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
18 | P a g e
The Probation Records Information System Manager (PRISM) project will replace the current Adult and
Juvenile Case Management System, SHARKS (Supervision High-Tech Automated Record Keeping System),
JAS (Juvenile Automation System), and JRS (Juvenile Record system), respectively. The new Case
Management System (CMS) will integrate service model and workflow enhancements, provide increased
data sharing capabilities between Justice Partners and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), and improve the
end-user experience for Probation staff. The PRISM project continues to make great strides in the
development and integration of PRISM and the Juvenile Institutions Management System (JIMS). This
integrated platform will enhance and automate much of the Probation services workflow. The PRISM
solution will include components and processes which will add greater functionality and management of
data throughout the agency. PRISM is on schedule to launch in late 2020.
NEW LAWS IN 201 9
The following section highlights changes in legislation which took place in 2019 and influenced juvenile
justice systems in Santa Clara County.
SB439: U NDER 12 P ROTOCOL
On September 30th, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a historic piece of legislation ending
the prosecution of children under 12 in juvenile court. Senate Bill (SB) 439, authored by Senator Holly J.
Mitchell, established, for the first time, a minimum age for the jurisdiction of juvenile courts in California.
There are only five (5) crimes for which a youth under 12 may still be petitioned in court : (1) murder; (2)
rape by force, violence, duress, menace or fear; (3) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace or fear; (4)
oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or fear; or (5) sexual penetration by force, violence,
duress, menace, or fear.
Beginning January 1, 2019, counties will no longer be permitted to process children under 12 through the
juvenile justice system. Instead, families and school staff are entrusted to respond to behaviors with age -
appropriate consequences rather than refer the children to the probation department. For the small
number of children whose behaviors indicate a higher level of need and care, each county must provide
support through existing programs and agencies, including community -based organizations and
behavioral health or child welfare systems. In 2019, counties may also leverage funding through the Youth
Reinvestment Grant program, which will provide nearly $40 million for youth dive rsion from the justice
system.
In Santa Clara County, juvenile justice stakeholders were able to develop and present a protocol that has
since been adopted by the Santa Clara County Police Chief’s Association. This protocol serves to assist
police officers in the field with respect to how to respond to encounters with children under the age of 12
considering this new law. Juvenile justice stakeholders are now focusing their efforts on developing a
more robust resource guide and potential referral service, outlining available school-, health-, and
community-based services.
19 | P a g e
AB1214: JUVENILE COMPETENCY
Effective January 1, 2019, AB1214 amended Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 709, known as the
juvenile competency statute, and established timelines and processes relating to the determination of
competency in juvenile court proceedings and the evaluation and delivery of remediation services.
Previously, there were operational ambiguities among juvenile justice practitioners for which this law
seeks to provide additional guidance. Some significant changes include that misdemeanor-only petitions
must be dismissed if the youth is not competent, and if a youth cannot be remediated within six months
from the finding of incompetence, the court must dismiss a petition. The total remediation period shall
not exceed one year from the finding of incompetency, and secure confinement for any youth found to
lack competence is limited to six months from the finding of incompetence for non-WIC 707(b) offenses
absent special findings, and 18 months for WIC 707(b) offenses. The new law also requires experts
appointed to evaluate youth to consult with the youth’s counsel, be proficient in the language preferred
by the youth if feasible or employ the services of a certified interpreter and use assessment tools that are
linguistically and culturally appropriate for the youth. Finally, for youth under the age of 14, the court
must first determine the youth’s capacity pursuant to Penal Code 26 prior to deciding the issue of
competency.
Effective on January 1, 2020, the Judicial Council also adopted new rules of court identifying the training
and experience needed for an expert to be competent in forensic evaluations of juveniles, as other rules
for the implementation of the other requirements with respect to experts.
SB1391: UPDATE ELIMINATION OF ADULT COURT PROSECUTIONS OF 14 AND 15 -YEAR -OLD
YOUTH
Senate Bill 1391, which amended Welfare & Institutions Code 707, eliminated adult court prosecutions of
14 and 15-year-old youth and was signed into law in September of 2018 by Governor Jerry Brown. The
law went into on effect January 1, 2019. Currently, the constitutionality of SB 1391 is uncertain.
Prosecutors throughout the state challenged its constitutionality, and while most courts ha ve upheld its
constitutionality, a few have not. Given the disagreement at the appellate level, the California Supreme
Court has granted review and is expected to issue a ruling sometime in 2020.
FUTURE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
This section of the report focuses on legislative changes which will greatly affect youth in the juvenile
justice system. For this report, major reforms and programmatic changes are highlighted for which a great
impact is expected within Santa Clara County.
SB485 - DRIVER’S LICENSE RESTRICTIONS
20 | P a g e
The law restricts the court’s authority to revoke, restrict or order the DMV to delay the driving privilege
of youth who suffered a sustained offense for certain crimes such as vandalism or other non -driving
offenses. The law applies to DMV or court license determinations made on or after January 1, 2020.
SB 419 - STUDENT D ISCIPLINE: S USPENSIONS W ILLFUL D EFIANCE
In September of 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 419 into law, designed to keep children in
schools by eliminating “willful defiance” suspensions in grades 4-5 and banning them in grades 6-8 for five
years. Willful defiance suspensions are a highly subjective category of suspensions which can include a
student not removing a hat or hoodie in class. Research has shown that willful defiance suspensions have
been disproportionately used to discipline students of color, LGBTQ students, a nd students with
disabilities. Current law prohibits suspension of a pupil grades K-3, or recommended expulsion for pupils
in grades 1-12, for disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the authority of school
personnel. This law extends theses protections to include students in charter schools. This law received
bipartisan support and is effective on July 1, 2020.
SB 384 - S EX TIERED REGISTRATION
California law requires youth to register as sex offenders only if they have been committed t o the state’s
juvenile facility, commonly known as DJJ (the Division of Juvenile Justice) for specified sex offenses. SB
384 will transition California’s lifetime sex offender registration scheme to a tier-based scheme --
establishing three tiers of registration for adult registrants for periods of 10 years, 20 years, and life, and
two tiers of registration for juvenile registrants for periods of five years and 10 years. This new law requires
the registrant to petition the superior court or juvenile court for termination of their sex offender
registration requirement at the expiration of their mandated minimum registration period. Based on
criteria listed in SB 384, the court will either grant or deny the petition. Beginning on January 1, 2021, the
CA DOJ will designate tiers for registrants. Beginning on July 1, 2021, registrants who meet the mandated
minimum requirements may petition for termination of their sex offender registration requirement in the
superior court or juvenile court in the county in which they reside.
PREVENTIVE AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
The Probation Department in collaboration with system partners focuses on implementing preventative
and community initiatives which emphasize reducing the likelihood of youth penetrating deeper into the
juvenile justice system.
YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL (YAC)
Members of the Probation Department’s Youth Advisory Council (YAC) serve as Justice Consultants and
work collaboratively with system partners to inform and enhance current Juvenile Justice related
21 | P a g e
processes, policies, and practices. Consultants also have opportunities to participate in monthly
community meetings and commissions, and to conduct presentations. Some examples include:
• The YAC facilitated a focus group on behalf of the Probation Department, the W. Haywood Burns
Institute and Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY), to discuss the experiences of youth who participated
in the Deferred Entry of Judgement (DEJ) Program;
• The YAC participated in a focus group with the Youth Law Center to discuss the best ways to
support Transition Aged Youth (TAY);
• The YAC also participated in a focus group with Tipping Point Community (T-Lab) to give input on
the new Young Adult-DEJ program in Juvenile Hall;
• The YAC facilitated focus groups at Mt. Pleasant High School to gather data from students
regarding the school’s discipline policies; and
• The YAC was invited to provide input on the work being done within the Juvenile Justice Systems
Collaborative (JJSC) subcommittees, Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), Mayor’s Gang Prevention
Task Force (MGPTF) - Community Engagement Subcommittee and the Juvenile Court Aligned
Action Network (JCAAN).
Furthermore, the YAC members worked diligently
to create an orientation for youth and families
who have recently entered the Juvenile Justice
System. The orientation has been named
Redemption, Education and Purpose (REP) after
contributions by three founding members who
participated while in-custody. This orientation is
designed to communicate Probation expectations,
improve understanding, and share possible
consequences to youth and their caregivers.
Overall, the goal is to support system involved
youth in making better decisions through support
from young adults who have experienced being
involved in the system themselves.
SOUTH COUNTY YOUTH TASK FORCE (SCYTF)
In January 2012, the City of Gilroy, the City of Morgan Hill, Gilroy and Morgan Hill Unified School Districts,
local community-based agencies and the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors met and created the
South County Youth Task Force (SCYTF) to address the effects o f violence and gangs on the youth in the
South County communities. Chaired by County Supervisor Mike Wasserman, the Task Force has brought
together a collaborative of local government, law enforcement, schools, and community-based agencies,
and resident voice through a thorough community engagement process to provide positive opportunities
22 | P a g e
for youth and their families. The 2017-2020 Strategic Plan stems from a second community engagement
process and can be found on the taskforce website: https://www.scytf.org/.
NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY /SERVICES UNIT (NSU)
The Neighborhood Safety/Services Unit (NSU) is a unique unit within the Probation Department. The core
components of the NSU include community engagement, leadership develo pment, and violence
prevention programming through pro-social activities/services (see figure below).
Figure 1: Core Components of NSU
Community Impact in ZIP Code 95122
• Preventing Violence in the Valley Palms Community: NSU supported the Valley Palms Unidos
with their three key priorities for preventing violence: 1) Increased economic opportunities; 2)
Access to safe spaces; and 3) Exercising decision-making power. Collaborative efforts in these
specific areas have led to creating opportunities to compensate neighborhood leaders for sharing
their time and knowledge; the resident-run VPU monthly food distribution in partnership with
Second Harvest of Silicon Valley which resulted in the distribution of 226,884 pounds of food; and
an increase in activating Family Resource Centers in the community.
• Resident Advocacy and Improvements to the Valley Palms Apartment Community – NSU
supported collaborative efforts between Valley Palms Unidos and the City of San Jose to improve
living conditions in the Valley Palms Apartment Complex including improvements to the individual
units, a new synthetic soccer field, and equitable access t o the Family Resource Center. Residents
advocated for their community and expressed their concerns related to the conditions in the
Valley Palms Apartment Community. Ultimately, all the residents’ requests were included in the
regulatory agreement required for the Valley Palms Apartment Complex owner to receive bond
funding for property improvements, valued at $15.1 million.
Community Impact in ZIP Code 95020
• San Ysidro Park Activation – NSU continued to support programs and activities at San Ysidro Park
in East Gilroy. Throughout the year, the community calendar included weekly activities such as
paint art classes, cooking classes, life skills classes, and community Cafecito meetings. NSU also
supported several community events at San Ysidro including Party in the Park in June, Outdoor
23 | P a g e
Family Movie Night in celebration of Mexican Heritage month in September, Spirits Night in
October, a Thanksgiving Potluck in November, and Holiday Posada in December.
Community Impact in ZIP Code 95020 and 95122
• Data Collection and Measuring Impact – NSU utilizes various tools on a monthly and quarterly
basis to collect performance measures, including but not limited to, clients served, consistency of
services, and financial performance. The data is compiled into dashboards which serve as valuable
tools to understand service delivery and the effectiveness of the programs and services provided.
In addition, the Community Safety Survey was conducted from June through November 2019 to
help gauge the community’s perception of safety, cohesion, and collective efficacy. Moving
forward, NSU is working with Applied Survey Research to design and implement pre - and post-
surveys to further understand the impact of NSU’s work in the community.
• School-Based Collaborative Work – NSU partnered with three elementary schools: Katherine
Smith Elementary School in East San Jose and Eliot Elementary School and Glen View Elementary
School in East Gilroy. NSU’s Probation Community Workers supported the development and
implementation of Violence Prevention Plans at each school which compliment both the Multi -
Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
framework. As a result of this collaborative effort, Eliot Elementary School was awarded the
highest standard of “Platinum PBIS Implementation” in California.
YOUTH AT ENTRY TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
This report section shares information on how youth enter the system including arrests, type of offenses,
demographics, where they live, and how arrests become petitions.
Arrests and citations mark the initial point of contact a youth has with the juvenile justice system. In Santa
Clara County, this includes both paper tickets (citations, summons to appear, etc.) and physical arrests. In
2019 there were 3,370 arrests/citations 5 of 2,355 unduplicated youth. Of those, approximately 1,052
arrests/citations (31 percent) were accepted by the Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Unit. Thus, 31
percent of all arrests/citations (1,052 cases) were lower level offenses or first-time juveniles handled
through diversionary programs which is an increase of five percent from 2018 in the number of referrals
handled by PEI.
It is important to note once a youth is arrested, they may accrue additional charges from offenses that
took place prior to their apprehension by law enforcement. These matches to previous crimes are often
made once a youth has been fingerprinted and these open cases become attributed to them once they
become known to the criminal justice system. This means that although arrests/citations are for 2019,
not all offenses for each arrest/citation may have occurred in 2019. Offense dates for arrests/citations for
5 This is a count of arrests/citations, not of individual youth. For example, a single young person may have been arrested or
cited multiple times during the year. Each of their arrests/citations is included in the total of 3,370.
24 | P a g e
2019 range from 2011-20196; therefore, multiple youth had offense dates within the same year to eight
years before their arrest/citation date. There were 198 arrests/citations that took place prior to 2018,
which account for six percent. Most of these offenses were sex offenses, it is common for victims to report
these crimes years after they occur due to trauma and fear.
In line with national trends, the number of juvenile arrests in Santa Clara County has declined in recent
years. Multiple factors may be contributing to the reduction, including progressive juvenile reform efforts
throughout the County with a specific focus on community and school based and prevention-oriented
programs and services. In 2019, juvenile arrest/citation numbers show an eight percent decrease in youth
arrests/citations in comparison to 2018 and highlights an overall declining trend in arrests/citations since
2015. The figure below breaks down youth arrests/citations by count of arrests/citations and count of
youth arrested/cited from 2015-2019.
Figure 2: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2015-2019
YOUTH ARRESTS/CITATIONS
This section highlights trends in offense categories7 and offense classification for all arrests/citations in
2019. Property Crimes involve felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions (e.g., arson, petty theft, and
vandalism). The more serious (felony) property crimes (e.g., burglary: first degree and grand theft) and
felony crimes against people (e.g., robbery and carjacking) combined to account for approximately 33
percent of the total 3,370 arrests/citations (n=1,098).
6 There was one outlier that was removed due to a data entry error.
7 Appendix F breaks down some examples of charge codes, charge descriptions, and offense classifications by offense category.
3,990
3,310
3,792 3,668
3,370
2,663
2,268 2,433 2,207 2,355
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Arrests/Citations (Duplicated)Count of Youth (Unduplicated)
25 | P a g e
Property crimes8 decreased by five percent for overall juvenile offenses in 2019, compared to 2018, and
accounted for 28 percent of total arrests/citations in 2019. Other Crimes (e.g., resisting arrest, driving
while unlicensed and conspiracy to commit a crime) increased from 16 percent in 2018 to 18 percent of
total arrests/citations in 2019. Felony Crimes Against People decreased from 18 percent in 2018 to 17
percent of total arrests/citations in 2019. Arrests/citations for drug/alcohol related offenses in 2019
accounted for 13 percent of all arrests/citations. Arrests/citations for violations of probation and courtesy
holds increased by one percent in 2019 and accounted for eight percent of all arrests/citations.
Arrests/citations for weapon crimes decreased by one percent when comparing 2018 to 2019.
Figure 3: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2019
Offense classification data also indicate the nature
of offenses committed by youth in Santa Clara
County. In 2019 infractions, status offenses and
misdemeanors combined to account for 61 percent
(n=2,048) of arrests/citations while more serious
felony offenses accounted for the remaining 39
percent (n=1,322).
2019 shows an overall decrease in the number of
arrests/citations when compared to 2018. The
number of felony offenses also decreased from 48
percent in 2018 to 39 percent in 2019.
8 In 2013, Probation moved Burglary in the First Degree from Felony Crimes against People to Property Crimes for purposes of
categorization.
28%
18%
17%
13%
12%
8%
5%
Property Crimes
Other Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Other Crimes Against People
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
Figure 4: Duplicate Offense Classifications
39%
44%
9%
8%
Felony Misdemeanor Infraction Status
26 | P a g e
Demographics of Youth Arrested/Cited
In 2019, 45 percent (n=1,511) of youth arrested/cited were youth 15 or 16 years old, and 35 percent
(n=1,173) were youth aged 17 years or older. Percentages are very consistent when comparing with 2018.
Two percent (n=63) of arrests/citations were of youth aged 12 years or younger by comparison in 2018
three percent of arrests/citations were of youth 12 or younger.9 Twenty-nine percent of youth aged 15-
16 years old were arrested/cited from property crimes (n=443). Property Crimes was also the largest
proportion of arrests/citations for youth aged 17 and older (26 percent, n=307). Property crimes includes
felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions.
Figure 5: Age of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited by Offense Category
9 The County of Santa Clara has collaboratively worked to be in compliance with SB439 which set the minimum age
of prosecution in California at twelve (12) in September 2018.
11
7
10
7
23
5
174
82
131
61
108
18
49
443
237
266
193
178
115
79
307
284
154
166
90
129
43
Property Crimes
Other Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Other Crimes Against People
Return from Other Status/Courtesy
Hold/Other Admits
Weapon Crimes
12 and Under 13-14 15-16 17 and Older
27 | P a g e
Of youth arrested/cited in 201 9, 75 percent
(n=2,540) were male and 25 percent (n=830 ) were
female. Across all crime categories, female youth
accounted for fewer arrests compared to male
youth. In 2019, females accounted for 25 percent
(n=830) of all arrests/citations an increase in
comparison to 2018 where females made up 22
percent (n=825) of all youth arrested/cited. Of the
830 females arrested/cited in 2019, 67 percent
were for misdemeanor, status and infraction
offenses (n=558).
Where Do Youth Arrested or Cited Live?
Analyzing the home address information of youth arrested or cited in Santa Clara County helps to
determine the neighborhoods in which youth live. This allows stakeholders to understand whether there
are relevant resources in the right areas and to identify opportunities to collaborate with community
partners to develop or provide support to youth and their families. In 2019, the highest number of arrests
and citations in a single Santa Clara County ZIP code were of youth who lived in Gilroy ZIP code 9502010
(eight percent), followed by San Jose ZIP code 95116 (six percent) in Mayfair North. In 2019, the 95020
ZIP code moved from fourth to first place. The San Jose ZIP Code of 95116 which was previously the
highest ZIP Code for arrests/citations in 2018 moved to second place in 2019. The East San Jose ZIP code
of 95127 moved from third place in 2018 to sixth place in 2019 showing a reduction in the number of
arrests/citations. The Valley Palms ZIP code of 95122 also showed a reduction in arrests/citations moving
from second place in 2018 to third place in 2019. These are some positive outcomes outlining some of the
collaborative work taking place in these neighborhoods. The Morgan Hill (95037) and Downtown San Jose
ZIP code of 95111 each accounted for five percent of all arrests and citations, respectively. Youth who live
outside of Santa Clara County accounted for nine percent of all arrests and citations, which is the highest
group when compared to Santa Clara County ZIP codes (n=289). Any youth who resides outside of Santa
Clara County is counted as part of the out of county total. Breaking down the top o ut of county ZIP Codes,
95023 (Hollister) had 13 arrests/citations, followed by 93635 (Los Banos) with 11 arrests/citations. All
other out of county ZIP Codes had ten or fewer arrests/citations in 2019, which shows there is no specific
ZIP code covering the majority of out of county arrests/citations.
Since 2018, the number of arrests and citations decreased in eight out of ten of the top ZIP codes. For
example, in the San Jose ZIP codes of 95116 and 95127, arrests and citations decreased by 35 percent
compared to 2018. In the San Jose 95112 ZIP code, arrests and citations decreased by 30 percent and in
10 For a more information on arrests/citations trends for Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San Martin South County ZIP Codes please see
Appendix D.
Figure 6: Sex of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited
2019
75%
25%
Male Female
28 | P a g e
the San Jose 95123 ZIP code they fell by 25 percent. In contrast, arrest and citations of youth who live in
Gilroy 95020 increased by 34 percent (273 arrests or citations). The Morgan Hill ZIP code of 95037 also
saw an increase in arrests/citations compared to 2018 of 41 percent (168 arrests/citations). The out of
county youth also had an increase in arrests and citations for 2019 of seven percent compared to 2018
(n=289 arrests/citations).
Figure 7: Santa Clara County Top Ten ZIP Codes for Duplicated Arrests/Citations 2018
The figure below shows how offense classifications vary among the top ten ZIP codes. For example, the
proportion of arrests/citations for misdemeanor offenses in Gilroy (60 percent) is higher than in the 95116
ZIP code (37 percent). In contrast, 95122 and 95111 have the highest proportions of felony arrests (54
and 51 percent, respectively). ZIP code 95116 (Mayfair North) decreased the number of felonies from 60
percent in 2018 to 47 percent in 2019 and ZIP code 95122 (Valley Palms) went from 60 percent of felonies
in 2018 to 54 percent in 2019. Morgan Hill (95037) also saw a decrease in number of felonies from 39
percent in 2018 to 19 percent in 2019. This shows a decrease in severity for the arrests/citations taking
place in these areas. Overall, most ZIP codes saw a decrease in the number of felonies reported in 2019
when comparing to 2018. This provides us with some insight into areas of focus for prevention and
intervention services and programs that could be deployed.
Figure 8: Santa Clara County Duplicated Offense Classification for Top Ten ZIP codes
273
200 193
168 158 151
87 81 78 77
95020
Gilroy
95116
San Jose
95122
San Jose
95037
Morgan
Hill
95111
San Jose
95127
San Jose
95112
San Jose
95123
San Jose
95128
San Jose
95035
Milpitas
29 | P a g e
Moving from Arrest/Citation to a Petition
A law enforcement officer, who is arresting a youth in Santa Clara County, has the discretion to bring the
youth to Juvenile Hall to be booked and admitted or to cite and release the youth to the care of the
parent/legal guardian. The arresting officer makes the determination based on a countywide juvenile
booking protocol, the police officer may decide to bring a youth to Juvenile Hall or cite and release them.
If cited, the citation is sent to the Juvenile Services Division of the Probation Department . When a law
enforcement agency cites a youth for any crime, the citation is sent to the Juvenile Services Division of
the Probation Department.
Upon receipt of the citation or in-custody notification, a probation officer determines whether the citation
must be reviewed by the District Attorney’s Office for a decision regarding whether to file a petition or
whether the case can and should be handled informally by Probation. Which offenses mandate a referral
to the District Attorney’s Office are outlined in section 653.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC).
Any youth over the age of 14 with a felony charge, a second felony for a youth under the age of 14, or any
violent felony listed under WIC Section 707(b), requires review by the District Attorney’s Of fice, otherwise
submitting the case to the district attorney for potential filing of a petition is at the discretion of the
Probation Department. For mandatory referrals to the district attorney, the probation officer must review
the citation or in-custody case with the District Attorney’s Office within 48 hours excluding weekends and
holidays. The District Attorney’s Office decides whether to file a petition immediately or allow time for
the probation officer to investigate the case if a youth is not in cu stody. By policy, petitions are brought
to the District Attorney’s Office once a youth has been accused of committing a felony or specified
misdemeanor (e.g., Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Domestic Violence). Once an out -of-custody
petition is filed, the probation officer must serve the minor and parents with a notice of the upcoming
court date. If a youth is in-custody, his or her case must be scheduled for court within 48 to 72 hours of
arrest, excluding weekends and holidays.
27%
47%54%
19%
51%44%44%43%35%25%
60%
37%28%
49%
31%41%45%43%
45%58%
8%4%6%24%8%5%3%6%12%12%
5%13%11%8%11%11%8%7%9%5%
95020
Gilroy
95116
San Jose
95122
San Jose
95037
Morgan
Hill
95111
San Jose
95127
San Jose
95112
San Jose
95123
San Jose
95128
San Jose
95035
Milpitas
Felony Misdemeanor Infraction Status
30 | P a g e
MOTIONS TO TRANSFER CASES
Since Proposition 57 passed, the County of Santa Clara continues handling these special cases and below
is an update on these efforts.
J UVENILES T R ANSFERRED TO A DULT C OURT UPDATE
Since Proposition 57 came law in 2016, the only way in which a youth can be transferred to adult court is
after a determination by a juvenile court judge at a judicial transfer hearing. When a youth aged 16 or
older is petitioned for a felony offense, the prosecution can file a motion to transfer the youth to adult
court and asks for a transfer hearing – conducted before the jurisdiction hearing -- to decide if the youth
is appropriate for rehabilitative services in Juvenile Justice Court or the youth’s case should be transferred
to adult court.
For the Transfer Hearing, the probation officer provides a report to the Court that includes a review of the
five criteria listed below, and a victim impact statement, if one is provided. At the hearing, the judge
receives the probation report and any other evidence or information pro vided by the District Attorney
and the youth’s defense attorney. If the judge decides that the youth should remain in juvenile court, the
case will proceed with the juvenile justice process. If the judge decides that the youth should not remain
in juvenile court, the Court dismisses the juvenile petition and sends the youth to adult criminal court
where the District Attorney files a complaint and the adult criminal process begins.11 The five criteria the
Court must evaluate in deciding whether to transfer the case include:
1. The degree of sophistication of the crime;
2. If the youth can be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice system;
3. The youth’s previous criminal history;
4. What happened on prior attempts to rehabilitate the youth; and
5. The circumstances and gravity of the current offense.
Each of the five criteria above include additional factors related specifically to the youth such as
intellectual ability, mental and emotional health, history of trauma, whether the youth was influenced by
family, peers, and his or her community environment, and the youth’s impulsiveness, level of maturity,
and potential for growth.
In 2019, there were a total of 28 youth who went through the transfer process. There were other cases
where transfer was sought, but those transfer hearings were not completed by the end of 2019. Of the
15 youth whose transfer hearings concluded in 2019, seven remained under the jurisdiction of the
Juvenile Justice Court and eight were transferred to criminal court. Some had full hearings with witnesses
and testimony, and some cases were resolved by allowing the court to simply decide based upon the
probation report, with no live testimony.
11 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara www.scscourt.org/self_help/juvenile/jjustice/process.shtml
31 | P a g e
ROLE OF DEFEN S E COUN S EL
Juvenile law is a complex and specialized legal field. In fact, appointed counsel who represent youth are
required by law, namely WIC §634.3, to have specialized knowledge in juvenile law. All three agencies,
the Public Defender’s Office (PDO), Alternate Defender’s Office (ADO), and Independent Defense Counsel
Office (IDO), ensure their juvenile attorneys receive the mandatory number of hours of training each year.
The juvenile units of the PDO, the ADO and the IDO are responsible for the representation of a youth in
the Juvenile Justice Court from the beginning of the case to disposition, and in some cases, in post -
dispositional hearings. The juvenile units of the PDO, ADO, and IDO are also responsible for filing petitions
for dismissals and record sealings and relief from sex registration once the filings begin in July of 2021.
In terms of eligibility and process by which cases are assigned, once a case has been petitioned in cou rt,
the youth is eligible for free defense counsel services given that youth are presumed indigent. All cases
petitioned in Juvenile Justice Court are first referred to the Public Defender’s Office (PDO). If the Public
Defender determines that there is a conflict of interest in the representation of the youth, the youth is
then referred to the Alternate Defender’s Office (ADO)
and/or the Independent Defense Counsel Office (IDO). It is
the policy of the offices that if an agency has represented a
youth on a previous petition and the youth is charged with a
new petition, that same agency will continue to represent
the youth on that new petition for purposes of continuity of
representation, even if the PDO would not have had to
declare a conflict of interest. If a case is referred to the ADO
and ADO discovers that there is a conflict of interest in the
representation of the youth, the youth is referred to the IDO
for representation. The IDO assigns juvenile justice cases to
private attorneys based on a contractual relationship. The
PDO, ADO and IDO are all governmental law offices within
the County of Santa Clara government structure.
In 2019, the PDO and ADO represented youth in 822 cases (569 with the PDO and 253 with the ADO), with
373 cases either referred to IDO or the youth secured private counsel. Of the 822 cases represented by
the PDO and ADO, 569 were felonies, 109 were misdemeanors, and 142 were violations of probation as
shown in Figure 9 and 10. In total, the PDO, ADO, and IDO/private counsel collec tively represented youth
in 1,195 cases.
Figure 10: All Cases by Type of Defense Counsel
Figure 9: All Referrals to Public Defense
Counsel
1,371
906 956 1,013
1,195
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
32 | P a g e
Social Workers and Immigration Attorneys
The Public Defender’s Office and Alternate Defender’s Offices have social workers that work closely with
appointed counsel. The social workers receive referrals from the juvenile public defender that include
housing, educational and family support, mental health linkage, substance use treatment, community-
based program referrals, competency, homelessness resourcing, safety planning, school
placement/advocacy, treatment placement coordination, Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
consultations, and general assistance support. The social workers also consult with attorneys on San
Andreas Regional Center (SARC) services and work closely with juvenile probation officers and other
juvenile justice system partners. They also attend Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings on behalf of
the youth, visit detained youth, and submit psychosocial assessments on behalf of the juvenile client to
the court for consideration. The social workers also work on judicial transfer cases and Youthful Offender
Parole hearings.
The Public Defender and Alternate Defender office’s also have access to immigration attorneys given that
both agencies are responsible for assisting youth seeking immigration relief, namely Special Immigrant
Juvenile Status (SIJS) in coordinated efforts with Leg al Advocates for Children and Youth (LACY).
Community Outreach Attorney
The Public Defender’s Office has a community outreach attorney, dedicated to empowering local
communities to advocate for better outcomes for justice involved or exposed adults and j uveniles through
education and networking. This includes working alongside community-based organizations, schools,
courts, and other partners to coordinate efforts. The Community Outreach Attorney commits to helping
underserved or vulnerable communities by engaging in outreach to respond to their needs, facilitating
access to care and services, and raising awareness of existing PDO services.
774
637 676 681
569
316 269 280
332
253294281
425
532
373
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total PDO Cases Total ADO Cases Total IDO Cases
33 | P a g e
The Community Outreach Attorney has developed a connection to local high schools with at -risk youth.
The Community Outreach Attorney receives referrals and requests from staff at local high schools to
provide one-on-one mentorship, class presentations, and strategic interventions to prevent at-risk youth
from becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. The attorney is responsible for providing and
organizing “De-escalation & Know Your Rights” trainings to empower youth by knowing the law,
encourage de-escalation in police contact, and promote youth interest in legal-related professions.
ADMISSION TO CUSTODY
At Juvenile Hall intake, a detention risk assessment instrument (RAI) is administered by a Probation
Screening Officer to determine whether a youth should be detained in secure confinement pre -
adjudication. The objectivity, uniformity, and risk-based format of a RAI helps to protect against disparate
treatment at intake and focuses on reducing the likelihood the youth will fail to appear in court or reoffend
before adjudication. Objective and standardized criteria anchor admission decisions in ascertainable and
equally evaluated facts. For example, RAI indicators include the nature and severity of the offense and the
number of prior referrals. The overall risk score in conjunction with the County booking protocols
(developed and approved by various stakeholders) and state laws are then used to guide the Screening
Officer in making the critical decision of whether to admit the youth to a secure facility, refer them to a
non-secure detention alternative, or release them.
In 2019, of the 3,370 duplicated youth arrests/citations in Santa Clara County, 1,053 duplicated youth (31
percent of all youth arrested) were referred to Juvenile Hall with 958 duplicated youth detained (620
unique youth). Of the 1,053 youth (696 unique youth) referred to Juvenile Hall in 2019, 91 percent were
detained (958 of 1,053 youth) and nine percent (95 youth) were released at detention screening. Of the
958 youth initially detained at intake, 14 percent (138 youth) were subsequently released by Probation
prior to their detention hearing, for a variety of reasons. These reasons include: a parent/guardian now
available to pick up their youth from juvenile hall or the charges or circumstances were less serious than
originally believed once supplemental information was provided. The figure below demonstrates the
number of duplicated youth detained at every step in the process.
Figure 11: Number of Youth Detained (duplicate count) by Process Step 2019
Detention Overrides
1,053 youth (or 31% of all
arrests and citations)
referred to Juvenile Hall
(duplicate count)
958 youth (or 91%)
detained (duplicate count)
820 detentions (or 78%)
held until detention
hearing (duplicate count)
34 | P a g e
In some cases, a decision to admit or release a youth differs from the recommended action of the RAI
tool. The detention override percentage is the proportion of youth who score below the detention
threshold score and are nevertheless detained. Some of the se youth are detained or released due to a
local or state policy mandating detention regardless of their RAI score, while others are detained at the
discretion of the Probation Screening Officer. A high percentage of detention overrides undermines the
integrity of the risk-screening process.
Of the total 657 youth who were eligible for release based on their RAI score alone (low and medium
scoring youth), 565 youth (86 percent) were detained. Of those 565 youth, 64 percent (359 youth) were
detained under mandatory detention policies. Mandatory detention policies require a youth to be held
due to state law and/or mandatory policy. Mandatory detention policies include, but are not limited to:
Warrant, EMP/CRP failure, and Weapon Used in the Commission of a Crime. The remaining 36 percent
(206 youth) were held under discretionary detention policies (see figure below for breakdown). The 2019
discretionary detention override rate was 36 percent.
The table below depicts the breakdown of youth held by means of a discretionary override by race and
ethnicity. There was no statistically significant difference by race/ethnicity in overrides.12
Table 3: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Percentage 2019
The table below illustrates the reasons why youth were detained due to mandatory detention policy. The
most frequent mandatory detention reasons include Pre/Post Court Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)
failures and Warrants (Failure to Appear: FTA, Arrest, and Violation of Probation: VOP). These two
categories combined, accounted for 65 percent of mandatory policy admissions.
Table 4: Risk Assessment Instrument Mandatory Detention Reasons 2019
Mandatory Detention Reasons (359)
EMP/CRP Failure 144
Warrant 89
Weapon used in Commission of Crime 53
12 No association between Race/Ethnicity and Discretionary Overrides was observed, p = 0.70.
Discretionary Override Percentage for 2019 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Total Eligible for Release (Low/Medium RAI
Score) 72 67 468 35 15 657
Eligible for Release (Low/Medium RAI
Score) but Detained 24 19 140 15 8 206
Override Percentage 33% 28% 30% 43% 53% 31%
35 | P a g e
Ranch Failure/Escape 37
Placement Failure 18
Inter-County Transfer 10
All other reasons (Aftercare Failure and More
than One SPD)
8
The table below illustrates the reasons why the risk assessment instrument was overridden by
discretionary overrides. The most frequent discretionary override reasons include:
victim/community/youth safety (e.g., victim lives in the home or in close proximity to the youth, the
youth’s actions in the offense pose a serious risk to the public) (94 youth), all other reasons (e.g., youth
refuses to return home, history of runaways) (43 youth), and parent related reasons (e.g., both parent(s)
cannot be located) (24 youth), and parent(s) refusing to pick up their children from Juvenile Hall (nine
youth).
Table 5: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Reasons 2019
Discretionary Override Reasons (206)
Self-Victim Community Safety 94
Other Reasons 43
Parent/Guardian Reasons 33
Family Violence 13
Violations of Probation – Substance Abuse Issues 7
Violations of Probation – Two or More Technical
Violations
5
Violations of Probation – Gang 4
DV with mitigating factor 4
All Other Violations of Probation 3
Offenses of Youth Detained
Of the 958 duplicated youth detained, 34 percent were admitted for felony crimes against people (e.g.
robbery and assaults; n=325). Another 26 percent of youth were admitted for property crimes (including
first- degree burglary and auto theft; n=245), 17 percent of admissions were for technical violations of
36 | P a g e
probation (VOPs13; n=162), and nine percent for weapon related offenses (n=83). Other crimes against
people accounted for four percent of admissions (n=39; e.g., misdemeanor assaults and misdemeanor
domestic violence). Admissions for drug and alcohol related offenses accounted for only three percent of
the total admissions to Juvenile Hall (n=25).14
Figure 12: Duplicated Admissions by Offense Category 2019
Demographics of Youth Detained
This section describes the demographic information of youth detained at Juvenile Hall following their RAI
screening.
AGE AND SEX OF YOUTH DETAINED
In 2019, 78 percent of youth detained in Juvenile Hall were male and 52 percent were 15 to 16 years old.
Female youth made up 22 percent of those detained. The proportion of age distribution was similar across
both sexes.
Table 6: Age and Sex of Duplicated Youth Detained 201915
Age Male Female Grand Total
12 & Under 4 1 5
13-14 97 36 133
13 VOP offenses include absconding from Probation Supervision, EMP/CRP failure, and Ranch failure.
14 Typically, youth are only admitted for drug and alcohol related offenses if the offense is sales-related or the youth’s safety is
at-risk due to being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Most youth admitted to detention for being under the influence are
released to a parent/guardian before the detention hearing phase.
15 All five youth 12 years old and younger were detained on felony offenses.
34%
26%
17%
9%
8%
4%
3%
Felony Crimes Against People
Property Crimes
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
Other Crimes
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
37 | P a g e
15-16 392 108 500
17 & Older 259 61 320
Grand Total 752 206 958
WHERE YOUTH DETAINED RESIDE
Forty-nine percent of those detained reside within the top ten ZIP Codes for arrests/citations. All ZIP Codes
were located within the City of San Jose, except for 95020 (Gilroy) and 95051 (Santa Clara).
Figure 13: Number of Duplicated Admissions to Juvenile Hall by ZIP Code 201 9
Intake and Admission Trends
The number of duplicated youth detained in Juvenile Hall decreased by six percent between 2015 and
2019. However, in 2019 there was a 21 percent decrease in the number of youth detained at intake
compared to 2018. Based on the number of youth brought to Juvenile Hall, the percentage of youth
detained in 2018 was 90 percent and 2019 was 91 percent.
Figure 14: Juvenile Hall Intake Decision Trend 2015-2019
80
74 72
62 59
37
27 27 27 27
95116 95111 95122 95020 95127 95112 95128 95051 95121 95117
38 | P a g e
Youth can be brought into Juvenile Hall admissions multiple times throughout the calendar year. The chart
below breaks down youth who came into juvenile hall admissions by duplicated and unduplicated count
of youth from 2015-2019.
Figure 15: Duplicated Juvenile Hall Admissions by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2015-2019
Looking at trends for youth detained in Juvenile Hall, the figure below breaks down youth admitted to
juvenile hall by duplicated and unduplicated count of youth from 2015-2019. In 2019, 958 duplicated
youth were detained (620 unique youth), therefore, some youth were detained in Juvenile Hall multiple
times within the same year.
Figure 16: Duplicated Detained Youth by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2015-2019
1,017 921 1,013 1,212
958
222
127 134
128
95
2015
(82% Detained)
2016
(88% Detained)
2017
(88% Detained)
2018
(90% Detained)
2019
(91% Detained)
JH Detained JH Released
1,239
1,048
1,147
1,340
1,053
777
642
709
796
696
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Admissions (Duplicated)Count of Youth (Unduplicated)
39 | P a g e
ELECTRONIC MONITORING PROGRAM (EMP)/COMMUNITY RELEASE PROGRAM (CRP)
The Probation Department continues to strive to keep youth safely in the community and in their homes
with appropriate services. In 2019, 818 duplicated youth were eligible for detention but released on home
supervision alternatives to detention.
The pre/post-Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) allows youth to be monitored while remaining in the
community by wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. In addition, these youth also receive
intensive supervision and limitation of their freedom. The population served by pre/post-EMP is primarily
Latino (76 percent) and between the ages of 14 and 17 (90 percent). In addition, 76 percent of youth on
EMP were male and 24 percent were female.
Table 7: Duplicated Number of Youth in Alternatives to Custody 201 9
The Community Release Program (CRP) provides intensive supervision in the community. Latino youth (76
percent) made up the largest portion of the 212 youth on the pre/post-Community Release Program
1,017
921
1,013
1,212
958
619
528 583
726
620
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Detained (Duplicated)Count of Youth (Unduplicated)
Number of Youth in Alternatives
2019 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Pre-Disposition EMP 37 29 281 25 13 385
Post-Disposition EMP 15 15 180 6 5 221
Pre-Disposition CRP 18 9 132 8 10 177
Post-Disposition CRP 4 1 29 1 0 35
Total 74 54 622 40 28 818
40 | P a g e
(CRP). White youth represented ten percent, five percent were Black youth, and nine percent were
Asian/PI/Other youth. Reflecting the typical sex and age composition of pre/post-CRP youth at other
points within the system, 73 percent were male, and 90 percent were between the ages of 14 and 17.
ARRESTS/CITATIONS FILED AS PETITIONS
Not all arrests/citations lead to a filed petition. In some cases, these referrals are handled informally,
especially for youth with no previous offenses. In 2019, infractions, status offenses and misdemeanors
combined accounted for 61 percent of arrests/citations while more serious felony offenses, which can
potentially lead to a filed petition, accounted for the remaining 39 percent. Of the 848 petitions filed in
2019, the most common petitioned offenses were robbery (170), residential burglary (148), auto theft
(112), resisting arrest (104) and possession of a stolen vehicle (74), which completed the top five offenses
for petitions filed in 2019. Robbery and residential burglary swapped spots (first and second respectively)
when compared to 2018. The top five most common filed petitions were the same as in 2018 and numbers
were reduced to about half for the majority of these petitions.
Of the 848 petitions filed in 2019, males accounted for 77 percent (n=654), females accounted for 20
percent (n=167) and three percent (n=27) were unknown. Youth twelve years old were the youngest
group for whom a petition was filed with eight petitions in 2019 (less than one percent). Youth 13 and 14
years old represented 16 percent of filed petitions (n=137). Half of the petitions filed were for youth 15
and 16 years old combined (24 and 25 percent respectively). Youth 17 and older accounted for 33 percent
(n=282) of petitions filed in 2019. The figure below shows the top ten most frequent charges at time of
petition for 2019 and reflects the number of individual petitions, regardless of the number of charges
included in each petition.
Figure 17: Duplicated Top 10 Most Frequent Charges at Time of Petition 2019 16
16 GBI refers to great bodily injury.
41 | P a g e
As shown in Figure 19, comparing the last two
years (2018-2019), the number of petitions
filed has considerably decreased. From 2015
through 2016, there had been a decrease in
petitions filed. In 2017 and 2018 that trend
ended. In 2017, there were 189 more
petitions filed than in 2016, and in 2018, there
were 145 more petitions filed than in 2017. In
2019, the number of duplicated petitions
decreased significantly to the lowest level in
the past five years. There were 687 less
petitions (47 percent decrease) filed in 2019
when comparing to 2018.
FACTORS THAT LEAD YOUTH TO ANTI -SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Youth involved in the juvenile justice system often are experiencing many adversities such as family issues,
difficulties at school, substance use, traumatic experiences and other factors which can lead to anti-social
behavior. The following section focuses on factors that lead to anti-social behavior in youth.
CHILD WELFARE HISTORY CHECKS
170
148
112
104
74
55
54
52
42
37
Robbery
Residential Burglary
Auto Theft
Resisting Arrest
Possession of a Stolen Vehicle
Vandalism
Battery
Assault by Means of Force to GBI
Assault w/ Deadly Weapon or GBI
Threaten to Commit a Crime Resulting in
Death/Bodily Injury
Figure 18: Duplicated Petitions per Year
1,414
1,201
1,390
1,535
848
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
42 | P a g e
Youth who have been involved in the child welfare system have a greater risk of being involved in the
juvenile justice system. It is estimated that as many as 50 percent of youth referred to the juvenile court
for a juvenile justice matter have been involved with the child welfare system, depending on how broadly
dual status is defined.17 In August 2015, the County of Santa Clara’s Probation Department implemented
a new protocol to check for child welfare history whenever a youth is referred to probation. This process
screens for child welfare history for every youth referred to probation services. Probation also developed
a database to track records regarding dual involvement in both the child welfare and juvenile justice
systems. SCC Probation is jointly working with DFCS, BHSD, the court system, and many community
partners to provide best practices and support to youth who have a dual-status and to their families. The
Dually Involved Youth (DIY) Executive Steering Committee is also working with the Robert F. Kennedy
National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice (RFK) to create innovative measures that will best support
the challenges faced by this population.
Whenever a new referral is received by Probation, Records staff check the child welfare system
(CWS/CMS) for child welfare history involvement for the referred youth and family. Youth who are
referred to PEI are also checked for child welfare history involvement. The child welfare history check is
completed to answer questions such as:
• Has the family had any involvement in the child welfare system?
• Has the referred youth (probation target youth) been identified as the alleged victim of a child
welfare referral?
Cases identified as Sensitive18 in CWS/CMS are those cases which are only accessible to supervisors at child
welfare and are not accessible to probation staff.
In 2019, a total of 2,162 unduplicated youth were screened for child welfare history through CWS/CMS
after receiving a probation referral for a total of 2,934 child welfare history checks. Youth who are referred
to PEI are now also screened for child welfare history and this resulted in an increase in th e number of
families and youth in probation with a history of child welfare involvement. We will continue to monitor
the number of youth who have a history of child welfare and are now referred to the juvenile justice
system. A total of 1,189 (55 percent) of unduplicated families were identified as having a history of child
welfare with at least one referral including Sensitive cases. There were 1,067 (49 percent) unduplicated
17 Thomas, D. (Ed.). (2015). When Systems Collaborate: How Three Jurisdictions Improved Their Handling of Dual -
Status Cases. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. www.ncifcj.org/resource-
library/publications/when-systems-collaborate-how-three-jurisdictions-improved-their.
18 A Sensitive case means there is family history in CWS/CMS, but it is unknown if the probation youth is the
alleged victim of abuse and/or neglect. Total number of referrals received in 2019 differ from total number of child
welfare checks since some referrals such as Courtesy Holds, Warrant Requests, Violation of Probations (VOPs), and
Transfer Ins referrals are not checked for child welfare referrals.
43 | P a g e
youth who had at least one child welfare referral where the target youth (probation youth) was the alleged
victim of neglect and/or abuse (excludes Sensitive cases).
Figure 19: Child Welfare History 2019
The figure below shows race/ethnicity and sex for all unduplicated youth who were screened for child
welfare in 2019 and had at least one referral listing them as the alleged victim. Results shown are consistent
with general probation figures for race/ethnicity and sex. When looking at all referrals in 2019 for boys and
girls combined, Latino youth represent 67 percent of unduplicated youth who were screened in CWS/CMS
for child welfare history, followed by White youth (13 percent) and Black youth (ten percent). These results
exclude Sensitive Cases as it is unknown if the probation youth was the alleged victim of abuse and/or
neglect.
Figure 20: Race/Ethnicity and Sex for Probation Youth With At Least One Child Welfare Referral as the
Alleged Victim 2019 (Unduplicated)
2,934
•Number of
duplicated referrals
screened for child
welfare history in
2019 (2,162
unduplicated youth
were screened for
child welfare history
in 2019).
1,189
•Number of
unduplicated
families with at least
one referral to child
welfare at any given
point including
Sensitive cases (55
percent).
1,067
•Number of
unduplicated
probation youth
with at least one
child welfare
referral where they
were identified as
the alleged victim of
abuse and/or
neglect (49 percent).
69
•Number of
unduplicated
Sensitive cases in
2019 (three
percent).
15%13%
64%
4%3%
13%9%
68%
5%5%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Female Male
44 | P a g e
CRIMINOGENIC RISK
Over the past few decades, experts have developed and refined risk/needs i nstruments to measure the
likelihood of an individual re-offending. The County of Santa Clara Probation uses the Juvenile Assessment
Intervention System (JAIS). The JAIS is a gender-responsive tool that has been validated by the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). This tool is used by the Probation Department to identify the
risk and criminogenic needs of the youth. The first component of the JAIS is a risk tool (commonly known
as the Pre-JAIS) to determine if the youth is low, moderate, or high-risk for re-offending. One key finding
over the past several years in the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) evaluations is that the JAIS
risk tool is statistically one of the best methods to determine the possibility of a youth re -offending.
Although no tool offers perfect prediction, the JAIS has been helpful in determining the appropriate level
of service for youth. Differentiating youth by risk level is important—intensive programming can work
well with higher-risk youth but can increase recidivism rates among lower-risk youth. There are two
versions for each tool, one for females and one for males. Youth are assessed based on how they self -
identify.
For the analysis in this report, we are focusing on the first JAIS risk tool administ ered for each youth who
received probation services in 2019 so that a glimpse of youth at entry is possible. The first risk tool could
have been administered prior to 2019. Numbers for the risk assessment might differ from the numbers of
unduplicated youth with a new referral in 2019 due to timing of the assessment or because some youth
may not receive a risk assessment as their involvement in probation is limited. The purpose of the JAIS
risk tool is to measure the likelihood of re-offending.
Risk Assessme nt for Boys
The initial risk assessment for boys contains ten questions and generates a risk category for the youth. A
total of 1,298 boys JAIS risk assessments were completed in 2019 resulting in 97 boys (eight percent) in
the high-risk category, 474 (37 percent) in the moderate -risk category, and 727 (56 percent) in the low-
risk category.
The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for boys based on the most
reliable source of information. This could be a combination between the youth being interviewed and
data that is available to the Probation Officer completing the risk assessment tool. Court or court services
include but are not limited to juvenile, teen, family, and municipal courts. Percentages have been rounded
up.
45 | P a g e
Less than half of the boys (40 percent) stated that they were attending school regularly and had no issues
at school. Another 38 percent stated that they had been suspended at least once and 23 percent reported
having major truancy issues or having dropped out of school. Of the 1,298 youth, 61 percent stated their
friends had been in legal trouble, were associated/gang members or a mixture of both. Half of the youth
(50 percent) indicated not having any problems with drugs or
experimenting a few times only. For 27 percent of youth, drugs
and/or alcohol interfered with their daily functioning.
Frequent/chronic usage accounted for 24 percent of youth.
About 40 percent of these boys said their parents had been
reported to child welfare for child abuse or neglecting them
whether the allegations were substantiated or not. At the time
this risk assessment was completed, 20 percent of youth
reported having at least one parent or sibling incarcerated or on
probation at some time in the previous three years. Over half of these boys received their earliest arrest
between the ages of 14-16 (60 percent). The earliest arrest for boys aged 13 or younger accounted for 24
percent. Some boys received referrals to court services: none or one referral (79 percent), two or three
referrals (18 percent), and four or more referrals (two percent). Furthermore, 32 percent of these boys
received a referral to court services as a result for a violent/assaultive offense. Probation continues to
work diligently to reduce the use of out-of-home placements and 92 percent of youth had no out-of-home
placement, six percent had one placement, and three percent had two or more placements. Parental
supervision was reported as ineffective/inconsistent for 545 of these boys (42 percent).
Risk Assessment for G irls
The initial risk assessment for girls contains eight questions and generates a risk category for the youth. A
total of 355 girls JAIS risk assessments were completed in 2019 resulting in 24 girls (seven percent) in the
high-risk category, 160 (45 percent) in the moderate-risk category, and 171 (48 percent) in the low-risk
category.
The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for girls based on the most
reliable source of information. This could be a combination between the youth being interviewed and
data that is available to the Probation Officer completing the risk assessment tool. Court or court services
include but are not limited to juvenile, teen, family, and municipal courts. Percentages have been rounded
up.
In 2019, drugs and/or alcohol
interfered with their daily
functioning for 27% of boys,
compared to 22% in 2018.
Frequent/chronic usage
increased from 18% in 2018 to
24% in 2019.
46 | P a g e
At the time of these risk assessment, 59 percent of these girls reported being enrolled in two or more
schools, not attending school, or having dropped out altogether at some point in the previous two years .
Regarding their friends, 65 percent stated that their friends
had been in legal trouble, had some level of gang-
involvement or a combination of the two. Like the boys, 51
percent of girls stated having no issues with substance use or
having experimented only. Girls who reported substance use
which interfered with their functioning accounted for 24
percent and girls who had frequent/chronic substance use
accounted for 25 percent. Most girls received their earliest
arrest or referral to court services at age 13 or older (94 percent). However, 23 girls (seven percent) were
12 years old or younger when they received their earliest arrest or referral to court services. Girls with
two or three arrests or referrals to court services accounted for 17 percent of the group, and girls with
four or more referrals accounted for four percent. The remainder of girls had one or no arrest/referral to
court services (79 percent). Arrests or referrals to court services due to drug offenses accounted for 11
percent. Forty-one percent (n=145) of girls had at least one referral for violent/assaultive offenses. Girls
with at least one out-of-home placement accounted for 14 percent from this sample.
Below is a table summarizing the risk level for both boys and girls. Percentage of youth in each risk level
are very similar among boys and girls.
Figure 21: Risk Level for Boys and Girls 2019
Risk Level Boys Girls
High 97 (8%) 24 (7%)
Moderate 474 (37%) 160 (45%)
Low 727 (56%) 171 (48%)
Total 1,298 (100%) 355 (100%)
CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS
Various factors are related to the underlying causes of a youth’s delinquent behavior. These factors are
referred to as criminogenic needs. The section below details the challenges faced by youth who received
probation services in 2019.
The Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System (JAIS) was designed to assist staff to supervise youth
effectively and efficiently, both in institutional settings and in the community. The goal of the assessment
is to aid with adjustments, to reduce recidivism, and to help youth succeed in school and in the
community. There are three versions to the JAIS assessments:
a) Initial pre-screener (commonly known as Pre-JAIS): consisting of eight (girl version) or ten (boy
version) items which, depending on the score, will determine the need for a full JAIS assessment;
In 2019, 65% of girls reported their
friends had been in legal trouble,
had some level of gang-
involvement or a combination of
the two compared to 56% in 2018.
47 | P a g e
b) The full JAIS assessment is divided into four main sections: General Information, Objective History,
Conduct-related Observations, and Interviewer Impressions/Youth Strengths and Needs; and
c) JAIS re-assessment takes place every six months after the initial full JAIS assessment.
As defined by the JAIS, court or court services include but are not limited to juvenile, teen, family, and
municipal courts. The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for boys
and girls based on the most reliable source of information. This could be a combination of the youth being
interviewed (self-disclosure) and data that is available to the probation officer completing the risk
assessment tool.
The full JAIS assessment is only provided to youth who have a sustained Petition before the Court, as the
first section (8-9 questions) of the JAIS assessment is directly related to the Petition before the Court and
delinquent behavior in the community. If a youth answered those questions without a sustained petition
before the Court, the youth opens his or herself up to questioning related to offenses that have yet to be
sustained before the Court. This mea ns most of the youth who received a full JAIS assessment are
adjudicated youth (Wards of the Court).
Criminogenic Needs for Boys
For this analysis, the first full JAIS Assessment was used for boys who were actively receiving probation
services in 2019 (n=849). However, due to changes in the way data is captured and recorded, individual
question level data was only available for 831 boys. The following is a summary of the trends found based
on the first full JAIS assessment for each youth (n=831) and percentages have been rounded up:
Criminal History: Emotional reasons (e.g., anger, sex) were identified by over half (56 percent) of male
youth as the reason for committing their most recent offense. Material (monetary) reasons accounted for
27 percent and a combination of both for 17 percent. Most of the male youth admitted to committing
their offense (66 percent) and made no excuses for their actions. Twenty-two percent admitted
committing the crime, but emphasized excuses and 12 percent denied committing their offense. For over
half of the youth (55 percent) this was their first offense. However, 33 percent stated being involved in
the justice system before mainly for criminal offenses. From the above offenses as reported by these boys,
57 percent of male youth stated never being armed or hurting someone and 36 percent admitted to
hurting someone in non-sexual offenses. Impulsivity was a determining factor as to why youth decided to
commit these offenses (63 percent) and only 16 percent admitted to planning out their crimes in advance.
Most boys were with their accomplices when they got in trouble (5 9 percent) and 30 percent were alone.
Most of these boys have never been arrested for committing crimes against their families (89 percent)
and they also reported never being assaultive toward a family member (8 0 percent).
School Adjustment: Over half of the male youth stated having issues with schoolwork (60 percent). For
23 percent of the boys, the problems were related to lack of intellectual capacity (i.e., needing special
48 | P a g e
education services) while 37 percent was due to other achievement problems (i.e., lack of interest,
dyslexia, dropouts). However, 68 percent of youth self-reported not receiving additional learning support
or special education for their learning deficiencies. This number is consistent with youth who reported
not receiving special help for emotional or behavioral problems in school (69 percent). Truancy was
another big issue for these boys and 47 percent reported extensive truancy followed by 27 percent with
minor truancy issues (74 percent combined). Only 26 percent of these boys reported not having truancy
issues at school. Almost half of the boys reported having major issues completing their homework (43
percent). About a quarter of these boys (28 percent) had issues with teachers and principals (authority
figures). Getting suspended from school was another major issue for these boys (74 percent). Forty-three
percent of boys had a positive attitude towards school, 35 percent were neutral or had mixed feelings,
and 22 percent had a generally negative attitude. Some positive trends included 87 percent of the boys
being enrolled in school at the time their assessment was completed, and most boys had educational
goals (obtaining a high school diploma/GED accounted for 37 percent and 57 percent planned post-high
school training).
Interpersonal Relationships: Regarding their friends, 38 percent of boys preferred hanging out with one
or two friends, 26 percent preferred groups, and the rest preferred a mixture of both (36 percent). Most
of these boys’ friends have had issues ranging from being associated with gangs (19 percent), legal
troubles (14 percent), and a combination of both (4 2 percent). Like their friends, most of these boys
admitted to frequent and/or chronic alcohol and drug use (34
and 46 percent respectively). Marijuana was the drug of choice
for over half of the boys (60 percent). One in three parents
disapproved of their kids’ friends (30 percent). However, 38
percent of parents had mixed or neutral feelings towards their
kids’ friends and 33 percent approved of them. When asked
who generally decided what to do, 76 percent said it was a combination between their friends and
themselves, taking accountability for their actions. About half of these boys (45 percent) reported having
a romantic partner similar in age to them and 29 percent stated not having a current or prior romantic
relationship.
Feelings: When feeling depressed, boys sought an activity to distract themselves (31 percent). However,
some boys turned to drinking, using drugs and/or self-mutilation (17 percent), some boys isolated
themselves (16 percent) and some boys denied getting depressed altogether (24 percent). Boys who had
attempted suicide or had definite thoughts of committing suicide accounted for ten percent. Anger issues
are present for these boys and 21 percent admitted to being physically aggressive toward people, 21
percent had trouble expressing anger appropriately, and 20 percent avoided expressing anger. Some of
these boys (59 percent) emphasized their strengths when describing themselves by making statements of
their positive qualities. Almost half of them had trouble trusting others (44 percent) and some had mixed
or complex views when it came to trusting people (31 percent).
Family Attitudes: Most youth considered their current living situation suitable (94 percent). Boys reported
having a close relationship with their mothers (72 percent) and whenever they got in trouble their mother
In 2019, marijuana was the drug
of choice for 60% of boys
compared to 77% in 2018.
49 | P a g e
would handle the situation verbally or by withdrawing privileges (85 percent). Numbers were lower when
it came to their relationship with their father: 43 percent reported being close to them and 57 percent of
their fathers would handle the situation verbally or by withdrawing privileges when the youth was in
trouble while another 30 percent answered not applicable to this question. A big difference is that when
it came to mothers, only five percent were found not applicable compared to 30 percent for fathers. It is
not clear why this difference exists. For some of these boys, parental supervision was often
ineffective/inconsistent (50 percent). Only 12 percent of boys admitted to ever been abused by their
parents. However, 37 percent stated that their parents had been reported to the child welfare system for
abusing or neglecting them. Furthermore, six percent of these boys admitted being physically or sexually
abused by someone else. Most youth (66 percent) have experienced a traumatic event that significantly
impacted their lives, such as witnessing violence, death of parent/sibling/friend, domestic violence,
divorce, serious accident, or another major event. Prior to age ten, most boys believed their parents would
have described them as good kids (83 percent). Most of these boys agreed with their parents (85 percent)
and they reported being happy during their childhood (90 percent). Families receiving Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) accounted for 24 percent. Boys reported having parents with a
history of criminal behavior (52 percent) and parents with a history of probation, jail, or prison accounted
for 51 percent. Parents with a history of drinking and/or drug problems accounted for 43 percent. Some
boys had at least one sibling who had ever been arrested (28 percent). About one-third of these boys (32
percent) reported having a parent and/or sibling incarcerated or on probation within the last three years.
At the time of these assessments, eight percent of these boys reported having a parent and/or sibling
incarcerated. Fourteen boys reported being fathers and of these boys six had no custody of their children.
Plans and Problems: Aside from trouble with the law, education was identified as the biggest problem
these boys were facing (33 percent), followed by personal issues such as drinking and/or drug s (22
percent) and relationship issues such as getting along better with parents (seven percent). Seventy
percent of these youth reported having long-term goals and knowing of resources to help them achieve
their goals (71 percent). Boys believed that being supervised will help to keep them out of trouble (35
percent) and an additional 11 percent stated that receiving counseling services will help them.
Objective History: Almost half of these boys had their first arrest or referral to court services at age 15-
16 (47 percent). Boys with their first arrest at age 14 accounted for 19 percent, boys at age 13 accounted
for ten percent, and boys at age 12 and younger accounted for seven percent. Youth with one referral
accounted for 39 percent and youth with two to three arrests and/or referrals for criminal offenses
accounted for 37 percent. Drug offenses or referrals to court services accounted for 12 percent. Referrals
to court services for violent/assaultive offenses (including the current offense) accounted for 45 percent
and status offenses accounted for 14 percent as self-reported by these boys. The Probation Department
continues working hard to keep youth at home. Only 12 percent of these boys had a placement in a
correctional institution and only nine percent had a court-ordered out-of-home placement. For 81 percent
of these boys, this was their first time under probation supervision. Eleven percent of these boys received
psychological/psychiatric treatment.
50 | P a g e
Interviewer Impressions – The following issues were found to be significant to highly significant for these
boys:
Figure 22: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys
Criminogenic Needs for Girls
For this analysis, the first full JAIS Assessment was used for girls who were actively receiving probation
services in 2019 (n=184). However, due to changes in the way data is captured and recorded, individual
question level data was only available for 182 girls. The following is a summary of the trends found based
on the full JAIS assessment (n=182 ) and percentages have been rounded up:
Criminal History: Girls who received a full JAIS Assessment listed emotional reasons such as anger and sex
as the primary reason for committing an offense (61 percent), followed by material (monetary) reasons
(19 percent), while a combination of both accounted for 20 percent. Most girls admitted committing their
offense and took responsibility for their actions (68 percent). Another 26 percent also admitted
committing their offenses, but they emphasized excuses for their behavior. For half of these girls, this was
their first time getting in trouble with the law (5 3 percent). However, 32 percent of the girls reported
getting in trouble before mainly because of criminal offenses and not because of status offenses. About
41 percent of these girls admitted to being armed or hurting someone while committing these offenses.
Impulsivity was a determining factor as to why these girls decided to commit these offenses (7 1 percent)
62%
•Emotional Factors
•Depression, low self-esteem,
anxiety, impulse control
60%
•Relationships
•The youth’s peer group is
negative, delinquent, and/or
abusive
45%
•Substance Use
•Substance use contributed to
the youth’s legal difficulties
42%
•Family History Problems
•Chronic parental or family
problems affect the youth’s
actions or decision making
41%
•School Inadequacy
•Lack of cognitive
ability/capacity to succeed
without supports contributes to
the youth’s legal difficulties
33%
•Parental Supervision
•Lack of parental supervision
that has contributed to the
youths’ legal issues
32%
•Social Inadequacy
•Naiveté, gullibility, being
easily led
27%
•Criminal Orientation
•Criminal behavior is an
acceptable, common part of
the youth’s life
51 | P a g e
and only 12 percent admitted to planning out their crimes in advance. Most of them were with
accomplices when they got in trouble (69 percent). Most offenses were not against their family members
(77 percent) and most girls have never been assaultive toward a family member (70 percent).
School Adjustment: Over half of these girls had problems at school. Problems primarily due to lack of
intellectual capacity (i.e., needing special education services) accounted for 19 percent and other
achievement problems (i.e., lack of interest, dyslexia, dropouts) accounted for 42 percent. However, 76
percent of them reported not receiving additional learning support or special education for learning
deficiencies. Furthermore, 66 percent of them reported never receiving special help for emotional or
behavioral problems at school. Girls reported enrolling in two
or more schools in the past two years (96 percent). Truancy
(minor and extensive) was an issue for 85 percent of the girls
and 45 percent stated having major problems completing their
homework. Major truancy (45 percent) and suspensions (34
percent) were the two main issues for these girls at school.
Girls with neutral or mixed feelings towards school accounted for 34 percent, followed by girls with a
negative attitude towards school (24 percent). Some positive trends included girls with a positive attitude
towards school (42 percent), girls getting along with their teachers and principals (74 percent), being
enrolled in school (86 percent), working towards a high school or GED diploma (29 percent), and working
towards obtaining some type of post-high school training (70 percent).
Interpersonal Relationships: Girls preferred to hang out with one or two friends at a time (50 percent).
Most of these girls’ friends have had issues ranging from being associated with gangs (1 7 percent), legal
troubles (25 percent), and a combination of both (45 percent). Their friends’ frequent or abusive use of
alcohol and/or drugs accounted for 39 percent. This number is very similar to the number of girls who
reported their frequent or abusive use of alcohol and/or drugs at 49 percent. Most girls listed more than
one drug of choice. Marijuana was the drug of choice (55 percent) followed by alcohol (21 percent) and
other drugs (17 percent). One-third of the girls’ parents disapproved of their friends (33 percent). Most
girls reported that deciding what to do is a combination of their friends and themselves making these
decisions (68 percent) followed by girls deciding what to do (21 percent). Again, these numbers show girls
taking accountability for their actions. Girls with a close friend reported doing things together (24 percent)
and talking or helping each other (54 percent). However, 23 percent of these girls reported having no
close friends. Most of the girls were in a romantic relationship (74 percent). Those with a partner similar
in age accounted for 35 percent and those with partners significantly older accounted for six percent,
while 26 percent stated not having a current or prior romantic partner. Girls who been sexually active
with someone else besides their significant romantic partner accounted for 29 percent.
Feelings: Most girls admitted getting depressed. About a third of them reported seeking activities that
will distract them or seeking someone to talk to about their problems (32 percent). However, some girls
dealt with depression by isolating themselves or drinking, using drugs, or self-mutilation (24 percent).
Furthermore, 43 percent of them admitted to tattooing or cutting themselves. Suicide attempts
accounted for 22 percent and girls with definite suicide thoughts accounted for an additional 13 percent.
In 2019, girls reported enrolling
in two or more schools in the
past two years (96%) compared
to 81% in 2018.
52 | P a g e
Most girls had anger issues such as trouble expressing anger appropriately (3 3 percent), being physically
aggressive toward people (31 percent), and avoiding expressing anger (13 percent). Over half of the girls
had trust issues and basically mistrusted others (60 percent) while others had mixed or complex views
when it came to trusting people (26 percent). A positive trend was girls emphasizing their strengths when
asked to describe themselves (66 percent) by making statements of their positive qualities.
Family Attitudes: Mobility is a concern, as girls reported living in zero to four different houses (60 percent)
and some girls reported living in five to nine different houses (29 percent) by the time this assessment
was completed. Most girls found their current living arrangement as suitable (89 percent). Over half of
the girls have a close relationship with their mothers (51 percent) and they reported that whenever they
got in trouble their mothers would verbally handle the situation or would handle it by removing privileges
(78 percent). Hostile relationships with their mothers accounted for 1 2 percent compared to 22 percent
with their fathers. When getting in trouble, only about half of the fathers would verbally handle the
situation or by removing privileges (53 percent). In addition, 32 percent answered this question as not
applicable and it is unclear why these girls answered this way. Parental supervision was often ineffective
and inconsistent (53 percent) or these girls had little or no parental supervision (19 percent). Girls who
reported being abused by their parents accounted for 1 7 percent. However, when asked if their parents
were ever reported to child welfare for abusing them or neglecting them the number increases to 55
percent. When asked if they were ever abused by anyone else, 19 percent said yes regarding sexual abuse,
four percent said yes to physical abuse, and seven percent said yes to a combination of both. Traumatic
events such as witnessing violence, domestic violence, sexual abuse, death of parent/sibling/friend,
divorce, and other major disruption have significantly impacted these girls’ lives (78 percent). Prior to age
ten, the girls’ parents would have described them as good kids (85 percent) and all girls agreed with this
statement (89 percent). Girls reported their childhood as a happy time (79 percent), and they were
basically satisfied with their childhood (73 percent). Thirty-one percent of parents were receiving
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. Parents with a history of criminal behavior
accounted for 64 percent and parents with a history of probation, jail, or prison accounted for 6 5 percent
as well. Ten percent of parents had a history of suicide attempts. Parents with a history of drinking and
drug problems accounted for 63 percent. Siblings who had been arrested accounted for 39 percent. Within
the last three years, 46 percent of these girls had either a parent or sibling who had been incarcerated or
on probation. At the time of these assessments, 13 percent of girls had a parent or sibling currently
incarcerated. Six girls (three percent) have at least one child and three girls have custody of their children.
Plans and problems: Aside from trouble with the law, these girls stated having trouble with education (31
percent), personal issues such as drinking and/or drugs (31 percent), and relationship issues such as
getting along better with parents (15 percent). About 75 percent of the girls stated having long-term goals
for their future. When leaving probation supervision, 80 percent of these girls stated knowing of existing
resources that they were willing to use to stay out of trouble and nine percent identified barriers that
limited their ability to access community resources. Girls saw being supervised as a means to stay out of
trouble (37 percent) and another 17 percent valued counseling or being enrolled in programs to help them
out.
53 | P a g e
Objective History: Almost half of these girls were 15-16 years old at the time of their earliest arrest or
referral to court services (42 percent). Girls with their first arrest at age 14 accounted for 29 percent, girls
at age 13 accounted for 16 percent, and girls at age 12 and younger accounted for three percent. Girls
with one referral due to criminal offenses accounted for 40 percent and girls with two or three referrals
due to criminal offenses accounted for 41 percent. Drug offenses accounted for 1 2 percent of referrals to
court services. Referrals for one violent/assaultive offense (including current offense) accounted for 3 5
percent and two or more referrals for violent/assaultive offenses accounted for 13 percent as self-
reported by these girls. Sixteen percent of referrals were for status offenses. The number of placements
in correctional institutions was 16 percent and number of court-ordered out-of-home placements was 18
percent. For 83 percent of these girls, this was the first time that they were under probation supervision.
Girls who had received psychological and/or psychiatric treatment accounted for 21 percent.
Interviewer Impressions – The following issues were found significant to highly significant for these girls:
Figure 23: Top Criminogenic Needs for Girls
Comparing Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls
By comparing top criminogenic needs for boys and girls based on their first JAIS assessment, we found the
following:
82%
•Emotional Factors
•Depression, low self-esteem,
anxiety, impulse control
69%
•Relationships
•The youth’s peer group is
negative, delinquent, and/or
abusive
63%
•Family History Problems
•Chronic parental or family
problems affect the youth’s
actions or decision making
43%
•Abuse/Neglect and Trauma
•Physical abuse/neglect,
sexual abuse, and/or trauma
affected the youth's actions
or decision making
42%
•Substance Use
•Substance use contributed to
the youth’s legal difficulties
40%
•Parental Supervision
•Lack of parental supervision
that has contributed to the
youths’ legal issues
39%
•School Inadequacy
•Lack of cognitive ability/ capacity
to succeed without
supports/assistance contributes
to youth’s legal difficulties
38%
•Social Inadequacy
•Naiveté, gullibility, being
easily led
54 | P a g e
Figure 24: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls
Supervising Youth on Probation
As discussed earlier, the Probation Department utilizes an evidence-based tool called the Juvenile
Assessment and Intervention System (JAIS) that weaves together a risk assessment and strengths and
needs assessment. As well as analyzing risks and needs, the JAIS incorporates a supervision strategy model
and determines the best approach for each youth. The JAIS assessment is effectuated as a one-on-one
interview with the youth, focusing on the underlying motivation for their behavior and includes one of
the four types of supervision strategies: Selective Intervention (SI), Environmental Structure (ES), Limit
Setting (LS), and Casework Control (CC). See Appendix E for more details.
The following table shows the breakdown of Supervision Strategies by risk level for the sample of 831
boys who received probation services in 2019 and focuses on the first completed JAIS Assessment. Almost
half of these boys (43 percent) were identified at Moderate risk, followed by 36 percent at Low risk, and
21 percent at High risk to recidivate. Selective Intervention was the most utilized superv ision strategy for
these boys (n=499) followed by Environmental Structure (n=135).
Table 8: Boys Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=831)
Risk Level Casework /
Control
Environmental
Structure
Limit Setting Selective
Intervention
Total
High 42 (53%) 42 (31%) 70 (59%) 18 (4%) 172 (21%)
Moderate 37 (47%) 83 (62%) 48 (41%) 192 (39%) 360 (43%)
Low 0 10 (7%) 0 289 (58%) 299 (36%)
Grand Total 79 (100%) 135 (100%) 118 (100%) 499 (100%) 831 (100%)
For boys and girls, Emotional Factors, Relationships, Substance Use, and Family History Problems
were identified as top criminogenic needs.
For boys and girls, Criminal Orientation was about the same (27 and 23 percent respectively).
For girls, Emotional Factors was higher (82 percent) compared to boys (62 percent).
For girls, Family History Problems was higher (63 percent) compared to boys (42 percent).
For girls, Abuse/Neglect and Trauma was higher (43 percent) compared to boys (21 percent).
55 | P a g e
The following table shows the breakdown of Supervision Strategies by risk level for the sample of 182 girls
who received probation services in 2019 and focuses on the first completed JAIS Assessment. Out of the
182 assessments, Moderate risk accounted for 63 percent, Low risk accounted for 19 percent and High
risk accounted for 18 percent likelihood to recidivate. Selective Intervention was the most utilized
supervision strategy for these girls (n=107) followed by Casework / Control (n=46).
Table 9: Girls Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=182)
Risk Level Casework /
Control
Environmental
Structure Limit Setting Selective
Intervention Total
High 19 (41%) 2 (13%) 5 (36%) 7 (7%) 33 (18%)
Moderate 26 (57%) 12 (80%) 9 (64%) 68 (64%) 115 (63%)
Low 1 (2%) 1 (7%) 0 32 (30%) 34 (19%)
Grand Total 46 (100%) 15 (100%) 14 (100%) 107 (100%) 182 (100%)
EXAMINING DISPROPORTIONALITY AT KEY ENTRY POINTS IN THE SYSTEM
System partners have been engaged in the Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC) since its inception
by Board Resolution on July 1, 2008. The JJSC provides a channel for system partners to work together in
the best interest of youth in the juvenile justice system while preventing or reducing the unnecessary
detentions of youth. The JJSC has two standing work groups that meet monthly, the Race Equity in Justice
Systems (REJS) and Race Equity through Prevention (REP). Members of the JJSC serve as voting members
on only one of the work groups, but anyone can participate in the work group meetings and
subcommittees. Members of the JJSC meet quarterly to discuss cross-functional issues and to get updates
on efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system. Both work
groups operate on systemic issues using a racial and ethnic disparity (RED) lens that guides the focus areas
and work. The following sections demonstrate how youth of color are overrepresented through the stages
of juvenile justice system involvement. Throughout this report, figures are presented to compare youth
of color with White youth to focus on disparity at any system point within the juvenile justice system.
ARREST S AND CITATIONS
Comparing the youth population of the county with the population of arrests/citations 19 clearly indicates
overrepresentation for Latino and Black youth. While Latino youth represent 35 percent of the overall
19 Youth’s race/ethnicity can be reported as per the Juvenile Contact Report (JCR), Clerk, or Probation Officer. Probation is
currently in the process of moving into a new case management system and efforts are focusing on improving and
standardizing the collection of these variables.
56 | P a g e
youth population in Santa Clara County, they represent 66 percent of youth arrested/cited. Black youth
represent three percent of the overall youth population, but eight percent of youth arrested/cited.
Figure 25: Youth Population Percentage (2018) and Youth Arrest Percentage (2019)
There is an inverse relationship for White and Asian/PI youth. White youth account for 26 percent of the
population, but only 14 percent of arrests/citations. Similarly, Asian/PI youth account for 36 percent of
the population and only six percent of arrests/citations.
Table 10: Number and Rate of Arrests and Citations (2019) and Youth Population (2018)
**Unable to calculate because numbers are too small.
26%
3%
35%36%
0%
14%
8%
66%
6%5%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2018 Youth Population (10-17)Arrests
Number and Rate of
Arrests/Citations (2019) to Youth
Population (2018)
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 50,004 5,129 67,052 70,051 586 192,822
Arrests/Citations 469 283 2,237 202 179 3,370
Youth Population Percent 26% 3% 35% 36% 0% 100%
Arrest/Citation Percent 14% 8% 66% 6% 5% 100%
Rate of Arrest (per 1,000 youth) 9 55 33 3 ** 17
Disparity Gap: Times More Likely
to be Arrested/Cited 1.0 5.9 3.6 0.3 N/A N/A
57 | P a g e
Examining rates of arrest/citation is another way to
understand the extent of disparities. In Santa Clara County
in 2019, for every 1,000 Black youth, there were 55
arrests/citations of Black youth (as shown in Figure 26).
Compared to the rate of nine for every 1,000 White youth,
Black youth were 46 times more likely than White youth to
be arrested or cited. For every 1,000 Latino youth, there
were 33 arrests/citations of Latino youth. The likelihood of
a Latino youth being arrested/cited was over 24 times that
of White youth. Asian/PI youth had the lowest rate of three
arrests/citations for every 1,000 Asian/PI youth in the
population, making them less likely to be arrested than
White youth.
Between 2015 and 2019, there was a 16 percent decrease in the number of arrests/citations for all youth.
The decrease in arrests/citations from 2015 to 2019 was greater for Black and Asian/PI youth than for
Latino youth. Between 2015 and 2019, Latino youth arrests/citations decreased by 17 percent while
arrests/citations of Black and Latino youth decreased by 26 percent, respectively. During the same period,
White youth experienced a ten percent decrease in arrests/citations.
Table 11: Arrest and Citation Yearly Trends
A decrease in the number of youth arrested/cited does not control for the changes in population that
have occurred over the same period. However, arrest/citation rates20 provide a more accurate view of
20 Rates help to remove variations in population size between different groups and provide a standardized measure of the
likelihood of system involvement for each group. To calculate the rates, we divide the number of youth arre sted by the
number of youth in the population and multiply by 1,000 youth.
Arrest/Citation Numbers White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 521 385 2,687 274 123 3,990
2016 511 325 2,146 215 113 3,310
2017 564 391 2,471 223 143 3,792
2018 411 373 2,549 196 139 3,668
2019 469 283 2,237 202 179 3,370
Percent Change 2018-2019 14% -24% -12% 3% 29% -8%
Percent Change 2015-2019 -10% -26% -17% -26% 49% -16%
Figure 26: Rate of Arrest and Citation
per 1,000 youth 2019
9
55
33
3
White Black Latino Asian/PI
58 | P a g e
system involvement for each group. While arrest/citation rates between 2015 and 2019 fell considerably
across all racial/ethnic groups, rates of arrest/citation remain far higher for Latino and Black youth than
for White and Asian/PI youth.
Figure 27: Arrest Rates per 1,000 Youth 2015 – 2019 by Race/Ethnicity
YOUTH DETENTION
Disparities across racial groups continue at the detention decision point where there is an
overrepresentation of Black and Latino youth admitted to detention in Santa Clara County compared to
their representation in the youth population. Black youth represent three percent of the population but
11 percent of admissions. Latino youth represent 35 percent of the population, but 73 percent of
admissions. In contrast, while 26 percent of youth in the population are White, only ten percent of total
admissions were White youth, an increase from 2018. Asian/PI youth represent 36 percent of the
population, but only five percent of admissions. Again, population data is based on calendar year 2018.
10
74
40
4
10
62
32
3
11
75
37
3
8
72
38
3
9
55
33
3
White Black Latino Asian/PI
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
59 | P a g e
Table 12: Numbers and Rate of Admission to Secure Detention 201 9
In 2019, White youth had a rate of two detentions per
1,000 White youth in the population. Black and Latino
detention rates were 20 (Black) and ten (Latino),
respectively. Asian/PI youth had the lowest rate of one
youth per every 1,000 Asian/PI youth.
A comparison of the rates of detention for White youth
reveals the likelihood of a Black youth being admitted
to detention is 18 times that of a White youth. Latino
youth were eight times more likely to be detained than
White youth.
The table below shows that from 2015 to 2019, there was a 21 percent decrease in the overall rate of
admission to detention.21 During that period Black and Latino youth experienced a reduction in the
number of admissions to secure detention. The number of Black youth admitted to detention decreased
by four percent, Latino youth decreased by ten percent. However, it is important to note, the actual
number of Black youth detained went from 105 in 2015 to 101 in 2019 (a decrease of four total youth
detained). During that period White, Asian/PI and Other22 youth experienced an increase in the number
of admissions to detention. The number of White youth admitted to detention increased by 13 percent,
Asian/PI youth increased by 22 percent, and Other youth increased by 33 percent. However, it is important
to note, the actual number of Asian/PI youth detained went from 36 in 2015 to 44 in 2019. Similarly, youth
identified as Other went from 15 admissions in 2015 to 20 admissions in 2019 and White youth went from
21 As with arrests, we look at the rate of admissions by race and ethnicity, to remove variations in population size between
different groups and provide a standardized measure of the likelihood of admission for each group. To calculate the rates, we
divide the number of youth admitted by the number of youth in the population and multiply by 1,000 youth.
22 Other youth includes: Multiracial and Native American youth .
Numbers and Rate of Admission to
Secure Detention (2019) White Black Latino Asian/
PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 50,004 5,129 67,052 70,051 586 192,822
Admissions to Detention 97 101 696 44 20 958
Youth Population Percent 26% 3% 35% 36% 0% 100%
Admission to Detention Percent 10% 11% 73% 5% 2% 100%
Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) 2 20 10 1 N/A 5
Disparity Gap: Times More Likely to be
Detained 1.0 10.2 5.4 0.3 N/A N/A
Figure 28: Rate of Detention per 1,000 youth
2019
2
20
10
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI
60 | P a g e
86 admissions in 2016 to 97 in 2019. When numbers in the population sample are so small, percentage
changes can be skewed greatly.
Table 13: Admission Numbers 2015-2019
Admission Numbers
2015-2019 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 86 105 775 36 15 1,017
2016 101 95 679 37 9 921
2017 95 125 725 51 17 1,013
2018 77 133 922 57 23 1,212
2019 97 101 696 44 20 958
Percent Change 2018-2019 26% -24% -25% -23% -13% -21%
Percent Change 2015-2019 13% -4% -10% 22% 33% -6%
JUVENILE HALL AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
The average daily population of Juvenile Hall also reveals racial disparities in detention. Average daily
population figures provide a breakdown of the detention during “an average day” during the year. In 2019
(as shown in figure below), the average daily population was made up of nine White youth, nine Black
youth, 90 Latino youth, three Asian/PI youth, and one Other youth. The average daily population in 2019
was 112 youth, a seven percent increase from 2018.
PETITIONS
Figure 29: Average Daily Population by Race/Ethnicity
9 12
83
1 468
65
2 2611
65
3 349
87
3 299
90
3 1
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
61 | P a g e
There continues to be an overrepresentation of Latino and Black youth petitioned in Santa Clara County
compared to their representation in the overall county youth population. In contrast, White youth account
for 26 percent of the population, but only eight percent of petitions. Similarly, Asian/PI youth account for
36 percent of the population but only seven percent of petitions. Latino youth represent 47 percent of
the youth population, but 65 percent of filed petitions. Black youth represent only three percent of the
population, but 11 percent of filed petitions. Nine percent of petitions were classified as Other youth. The
Other category can include youth of mixed race or youth whose race is unknown. In 2019, for every 1,000
White youth in the population, one was petitioned. In comparison, for every 1,000 Black youth, 18 were
petitioned and for every 1,000 Latino youth, eight were petitioned. For every 1,000 Asian/PI youth, one
was petitioned. Black youth were over 17 times more likely than White youth to be petitioned, and Latino
youth were seven times more likely than White youth.
Table 14 illustrates that White, Black, Latino, and Asian/PI youth saw a decrease in the number of petitions
filed between 2018 and 2019, while Other youth saw an increase.
Between 2018 and 2019, “Other” youth had an increase in petitions filed (16 percent). Black and Latino
youth continue to be more likely to have a petition filed than White or Asian youth.
Table 14: Duplicated23 Petition Numbers 2015-2019
23 Duplicated refers to the count of petitions, not count of youth.
Figure 30: Santa Clara County Petitions in 2019
8%
11%
65%
7%
9%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Figure 31: Rate of Petition for 2019 (per 1,000
youth in population)
1
18
8
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI
62 | P a g e
Table 15: Numbers and Rate of Duplicated Petitions 2019
**Unable to calculate because numbers are too small.
The table below shows the rate of petitions per 1,000 youth in the population has decreased for White,
Black, and Latino youth from 2015 to 2019, and remained steady for Asian/PI youth. The overall rate of
petitions filed for both Black and Latino youth has remained consistently higher than for White and
Asian/PI youth.
Petition Numbers 2015-2019 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 149 104 939 82 140 1,414
2016 121 74 812 68 126 1,201
2017 148 165 938 89 50 1,390
2018 109 168 1,112 77 69 1,535
2019 67 90 550 61 80 848
Percent Change 2018-2019 -39% -46% -51% -21% 16% -45%
Percent Change 2015-2019 -55% -13% -41% -26% -43% -40%
Numbers and Rate of Petitions
2019 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 50,004 5,129 67,052 70,051 586 192,822
Petitions 67 90 550 61 80 848
Youth Population Percent 26% 3% 47% 36% 0% 100%
Petition Percent 8% 11% 65% 7% 9% 100%
Rate of Petition (per 1,000 youth) 1 18 8 1 ** 4
Petition Disparity Gap 1 13.1 6.1 0.6 N/A N/A
63 | P a g e
Table 16: Petition Rates per 1,000 Youth by Race/Ethnicity
COLLABORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS
Youth who have entered the juvenile justice system often have more than criminogenic needs and as a
result, a more comprehensive approach increases the likelihood of success as system partners
collaboratively work together to render services to youth and families in Santa Clara County. The following
section describes some of the collaborative intermediate level interventions utilized in the County.
WIC 241.1 Referrals and Assessments
WIC §241.1 referrals are reviewed by both the DFCS and Juvenile Probation Division (JPD) Supervisors of
the DIY Unit to determine if the DIY Unit will conduct the joint assessment and provide the report to the
Juvenile Court. Once a case is accepted, the DIY Unit goes through a Child and Family Team Meeting (CFT),
which will result in a joint recommendation for the §241.1 report. The CFTs serve as an opportunity to
partner with the youth and family in identifying what supports are needed to function safely, and
ultimately free of system involvement. The CFT process begins with a youth advocate building a
relationship with the youth and assessing the youth’s needs and strengths. Subsequently, a group
including the social worker, probation officer, the youth, family, support persons identified by the youth,
and relevant treatment providers will meet to discuss how to capitalize on the youth’s strengths and more
effectively respond to the needs. Finally, a separate meeting will take place without the youth to develop
the joint agency recommendations that will go into the §241.1 report. Recommendations resulting in dual
involvement are advised to remain under the supervision of the unit after the 241.1 assessment has been
completed. Cases not accepted into the DIY Unit are assigned to a DFCS Social Worker (SW) and Probation
Officer (PO) following established procedures. The assigned PO and t he assigned SW will complete an
initial assessment before seven court days of the pending §241.1 hearing. For those cases where the
family issues do not rise to the level of mandating a WIC 241.1 referral, but the family appears to be in
crisis, sometimes the stakeholders will agree to have the case heard on the DIY calendar in order to
collaborate and attempt to keep youth and families out of both systems, if possible.
White Black Latino Asian/PI
2015 3 20 14 1
2016 2 14 12 1
2017 3 32 14 1
2018 2 33 16 1
2019 1 18 8 1
Percent Change 2018-2019 -50% -45% -50% 0%
Percent Change 2015-2019 -67% -10% -43% 0%
64 | P a g e
Dually Involved Youth Initiative/Unit
The Dually Involved Youth Initiative is a collaborative effort between the Probation Department Juvenile
Services Division (JPD), the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), and the Behavioral Health
Services Department (BHSD). Formally launched as part of the Juvenile Justice Court’s DIY Initiative in June
2014, the work of the Dually Involved Youth Unit (DIYU) guides the cross-systems initiative efforts. The
DIYU continues to provide coordinated case management and services between JPD, DFCS, and BHSD.
This coordinated systems approach allows for the co-location of social workers, probation officers, and
youth advocates to implement a collaborative and healing-focused plan built around leveraging the
strengths and needs of the youth. In Calendar Year (CY) 2019, the DIYU was staffed with six social workers,
five probation officers, three youth advocates, and one behavioral health facilitator. A DIY Director
provides cross-systems communication, coordination, and planning. JPD, DFCS, and BHSD supervisors
provide oversight of the program. At the same time, a DIY liaison facilitates the sharing of information
between DFCS and JPD staff located within and outside of the unit. In CY 2019, 54 WIC §241.1 were
completed by the DIYU. Social workers and probation officers make a jointly recommendation by
completing a WIC §241.1 assessment. Youth not admitted to the DIYU receive services either through
child welfare or probation as these cases can be handled by one department and do not require intensive
services rendered in the DIYU. Of the 54 ordered assessments, 45 youth were accepted for dual system
involvement. Additionally, of the 45 youth served, 58 percent were male (n=26) and 42 percent female
(n=19). Latino youth represented 60 percent of youth served (n=27), Black youth represented 18 percent
(n=8), White youth represented 13 percent (n=6), and Asian/Pacific Islander youth represented nine
percent (n=4). The average age of youth served was 16.38.
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC)
In 2017, the Juvenile Division of the Probation Department created the commercial sexual exploitation of
children (CSEC) Unit to address the serious issue of youth who are sexually exploited or are at high risk for
sexual exploitation. Commercial sexual exploitation of a child is a form of child abuse that causes multiple
levels of trauma and many victims of commercial sexual exploitation exhibit behaviors that are
manifestations of the trauma they have experienced. The CSEC unit is part of a larger multiagency
collaborative which includes the Department of Family and Children Services, the Public Health
Department, the Behavioral Health Services Department, and advocates from Community Solutions and
the YWCA. This collaborative developed and implemented an interagency response protocol as well as
continued to work on demand reduction and prevention efforts. The Juvenile Division CSEC Unit aids with
increased identification of commercially sexually exploited or youth at risk for exploitation, coordination
of a range of victim-centered, strength-based trauma-informed services through the multiagency
collaborative, and training. Youth who are identified as being exploited or at risk for exploitation are
referred to the CSEC transformation team for individual support and resources that are empowering,
reduce harm, and build upon their resiliency.
65 | P a g e
During the calendar year of 2019, 2,007 duplicated
youth (1,766 unique youth) were screened for
CSEC using the CSE-IT. Screenings are completed
utilizing the West Coast Children’s Clinic
Commercial Sexual Exploitation Identification Tool
(CSE-IT). Seventy-seven percent of youth screened
no concern for CSEC (n=1,536), 20 percent of
youth screened possible concern 24 for CSEC
(n=396), and four percent of youth screened clear
concern for CSEC (n=75) (see figure 32). Twenty-
eight percent of youth screened were 17 years old
at the time of screening (n=558), followed by 24
percent who were 16 years old at the time of the
screening (n=483). Seventy-three percent of youth
screened by the CSE-IT were male, followed by 27
percent of youth screened were female.
Of the 2,007 youth screened for CSEC, 83 youth had a CSEC Referral completed (four percent).
Specialty Courts
All the youth appearing on specialty court calendars are referred to services that are specialized to address
their needs. Within the County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Court there are currently four specialty
courts, each focused on addressing potential root causes of offending. The Dually Involved Youth (DIY)
Court focuses on youth who have both child welfare and juvenile justice involvement. The
Family/Domestic Violence (FV/DV) court handles cases where the charges or concerns regarding the youth
are primarily related to family or intimate partner violence. Lastly, the Court for the Individualized
Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) Court (previously Juvenile Treatment Court) focuses on youth with co -
occurring substance use and mental health disorders.
FAMILY VIOLENCE/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT (FV/DV)
Any case that comes before the District Attorney (DA) that is a Domestic Violence/Family Violence (DV/FV)
case is “stamped” by the DA as DV/FV. Such cases are calendared in a specific department (in this count y
Dept 82). The Judge in this department is familiar with DV/FV cases as they are all in his Court, and he has
attended specific DV trainings. Additionally, the same DA and Public Defender (PD) will appear for DV
24 The CSE-IT is to be completed through the Probation Case Management System. Upon completion of the CSE -IT, a score will
be generated that will indicate the level of concern for exploitation. The level of concern for exploitation may guide the DPO to
further consider CSE risk factors and may also trigger an automatic referral to the CSEC DPO depending on the indicated level of
concern.
Figure 32: CSE-IT Results
4%
79%
17%
Clear Concern No Concern
Possible Concern
66 | P a g e
cases given they are in the same department, which allows for a certain level of consistency. The case (in
most instances) is transferred to the Special Programs/Domestic Violence Unit. Said unit has two specially
trained Probation Officers (POs) that are trained extensively in Juvenile Domestic Violence and their entire
caseload consists of DV cases. They are experts in this area given the ir training and consistent exposure.
These Probation Officers train in the department and guide their peers as to the difference between an
assault and true domestic violence through the lens of power and control over a victim.
Each case is heard a minimum of every three months, more frequently if the minor is not doing well. The
youth are, in most cases, referred to the 26-week batters intervention program where they are held
accountable for their actions, and must hold their peers accountable for similar behavior. Guidelines for
this program are strict and failure to abide by the guidelines will result in a Violation of Probation and
possible return to Juvenile Hall.
The goals of the specialized DV caseloads are to promote victim safety and offender accountability. Each
case is issued a No Contact Order, and in some cases a Peaceful Contact Order, dependent on individual
circumstances. No Contact and Peaceful Contact Orders are strictly enforced. Probation remains in close
contact with the victim for the life of the case and victims are provided opportunities for education,
advocacy, and parenting (if applicable) should they choose to utilize services. Victims are always informed
and updated related to their case and their voice is always relayed to the Court. The department has a
protocol that includes swift response to any violation that may put a victim at risk (substance use,
violations of the No Contact, failure of Court Ordered Batters Intervention Programing, etc.). The County
also is in the process of looking at data as it
relates to recidivism and utilizes Evidence
Bases Practices.
In 2019, Family Violence/Domestic Violence
Court (FV/DV) served 32 youth. Latino youth
make up the largest group of participants in
FV/DV (75 percent). White youth made up 16
percent of participants (n=5). Males
represented 78 percent of participants.
Sixty-nine percent of youth who participated
in the FV/DV program were 16-17 years old
at the start of services.
COURT FOR THE INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENT OF ADOLESCENTS (CITA)
The Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) is a therapeutic court intervention that
focuses on youth who have both a mental health and substance abuse diagnosis. The court is voluntary.
The youth’s voice is critical to each case’s success. Each case plan is tailored to the youth and family needs
by the youth as well as a team of professionals that includes the judge, the probation officer, the attorney
for the youth, the District Attorney, a Behavioral Health case manager, an educational legal expert, a legal
Figure 33: Number of Youth in Family Violence/
Domestic Violence Court
5 2
24
2 232
45
2 350
24
2 1
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2017 2018 2019
67 | P a g e
benefits expert, and other team members which may include mentors, mental health counselors,
Wraparound providers, and parents.
The court is held two times per month, however, most youth appear in court monthly. The goal of this
court is to get the youth and family stabilized with community providers and off probation. We recognize
that when criminal behavior is driven by mental health and/or substance abuse disorders that once
properly addressed, the public safety issues fall away. Many of our youth will have lifelong struggles with
addiction and mental health and it is our hope that these issues can be addressed by the Behavior al Health
system of care with a supportive treatment response that will carry our youth to adulthood without
further justice systems involvement.
In 2019, a total 46 youth were screened. Of all youth screened in 2019, 65 percent were male, and the
majority (67 percent) were Latino, followed by White (20 percent). In 2019, 36 youth completed CITA.
OPPORTUNITY COURT
One time per month the Juvenile Court is held in the community at ConXion to Community (CTC). We call
that court setting Opportunity Court. CITA Court is held on the third Thursday of the month at 1:30pm at
this site. The judge works with ConXion to set up a youth services fair simultaneous to the court hearings
that occur in the same building. Families gather, service providers offer assistance, and everyone leaves
with a box of groceries. At that location there is always a raffle for gift cards and movie tickets, job
opportunities, community college advisors, mentors, vocational training options, motivation al speakers
and much more. The atmosphere is light and supportive of the youth and families. Celebrations include
graduations from CITA Court and holiday themes during the winter months. Opportunity Court has been
in existence for five years. We are very grateful to our community partners that continue to show up each
month for our youth.
Victim -Centered Approaches
The County of Santa Clara utilizes many victim centered approaches with juvenile justice youth including:
Victim Awareness classes, Victim Offender Mediation (VOMP), and the District Attorney’s Juvenile Victim
Advocate.
PROBATION VICTIM SERVICES
The unit works collaboratively with members of the community and survivors of crime to provide Victim
Awareness workshops throughout the County for youth referred to the Probation Department. The goals
of the program are to increase empathy through educating and sensitizing youth to the impacts of crime
and promoting a system of justice that recognizes harm caused to victims and supporting positive steps
to repairing those harms. The workshop curriculum is victim centered and enhanced by community
members who have been victims of youth crime and give a firsthand account of the impacts of crime. The
curriculum was redesigned in mid-2018 in collaboration with staff, facilitators, victim speakers, and with
youth input. In 2019, 376 individual youth were served through the Victim Awareness classes. Of these,
67 percent were male and 33 percent were female. Of the participants, 68 percent were Latino, 15 percent
68 | P a g e
were White, eight percent were Black, five percent were Other and four percent were Asian/PI. Five
percent were aged 13 and under, 35 percent were 14-15 and 59 percent were 16 or older. The Probation
Department conducts semiannual evaluations of Victim Awareness classes and these reports show
statistically significant improvement when comparing pre-test with post-test scores.
Figure 34: Victim Awareness Participants
DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUVENILE VICTIM ADVOCATE
In the Summer of 2018, recognizing the growing need among victims of juvenile crime , the District
Attorney's Office Victim Services Unit collaborated with Juvenile Probation to assign one full -time,
bilingual (English and Spanish) Victim Advocate to the Juvenile Crimes Unit. This Advocate is available to
provide court support as needed to crime survivors and works with the Probation Department to ensure
victims received comprehensive victim services to help them heal and move forward after victimization.
These services include crisis intervention, emergency services, resource and referral assistance,
orientation to the juvenile justice process, court support and escort, and assistance with the California
Victim Compensation Program. In addition, the Claim Specialists in the D.A.’s Victim Services Unit work
directly with victims to pay for certain types or crime-related costs such as medical and mental health
expenses.
VICTIM OFFENDER MEDIATION PROGRAM (VOMP)
Through the County of Santa Clara Office of Mediation and Ombuds Services (OMOS), the Victim Offender
Mediation Program (VOMP) provides probation youth and the victims of their offenses the option to meet
in a safe and structured setting with neutral mediators to address what happened, its impact, and how
the physical, financial, and emotional damage from the crime can best be repaired . The process enables
victims to have their questions answered and the probation youth to acknowledge responsibility and have
a voice in how to make things as right as possible. When the parties are inclined to discuss restitution,
they have an opportunity to do so and to create their own, voluntary agreement regarding restitution
(financial or otherwise). The program is based on the principles of Restorative Justice and transformative
269
294
262
379 376
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
69 | P a g e
mediation, taking into consideration everyone affected by the crime, inc luding the victim, relatives,
probation youth, parents, siblings, schools, and the community. Data from five Northern California VOM
programs demonstrates that mediated agreements reached between victims and probation youth
decrease recidivism and significantly increase restitution repayment compared to court -ordered
restitution.
Benefits for victims include the opportunity to ask questions only the probation youth can answer (such
as how and why the crime happened and whether it might happen again), be heard by the probation
youth regarding the first-hand the impact of his/her actions, have a voice in how the damage is repaired,
gain an understanding of the probation youth by hearing his/her story, and to move towards repair and
closure by increasing the possibility of becoming whole, emotionally and financially. Benefits for probation
youth include the opportunity to help the victim be heard and have his/her questions about the incident
answered, see the victim as a person, hear and take responsibility for the impact of his/her actions, have
a voice in how the damage is repaired and restitution made, and experience the power of and growth
from doing the right thing. Benefits for the community include repairing physical damage caused by
crimes, moving youth towards becoming responsible citizens, and improving public safety by reducing the
likelihood the offender will commit future crimes.
Mediation services provided by OMOS and VOMP are free, voluntary, and confidential. If all parties agree,
the mediated agreement may be shared with third parties such as the Court, Probation, District Attorney,
defense counsel, support agencies, and family members. In 2019, 289 referrals were made for 191
unduplicated probation youth and 225 unduplicated victims. Eighteen percent of the referrals were for
female youth, and 31 percent of the referrals involved at least one monolingual Spanish speaking person
(parent of probation youth or victim). Of the parties VOMP was able to contact, 437 people25 were served
by mediation consultations and conciliation (communication between the parties through the mediator)
and another 65 were served by mediation (seven additional referrals are still pending resolution as
mediation, conciliation, or consultations cases). Of the youth VOMP could reach and who provided a
response to date, approximately 91 probation youth wanted to mediate. Of the 91 probation youth that
wanted to mediate, approximately 28 of their victims who provided a response to date also wanted to
mediate.
Behavioral Health and Substance Use Treatment Services
In 2019, the Behavioral Health Services Department (BHSD), created a new division within our Children,
Youth and Family (CYF) System of Care, named the Cross Systems Initiatives (CSI) Div ision. This division
focuses on programs serving children, adolescents, young adults and their families, ages birth – 25 years,
who experience social-emotional and behavioral concerns and are involved in the child welfare and/or
juvenile justice systems. The CSI Division and the Family and Children’s (F&C) Division provide services at
five County-operated sites and 20 contract agency programs located throughout Santa Clara County. CSI
25 For each referral we may serve more than one person. For example, if we consult, on that one referral, with the minor and the
mother, and then the victim and the victim’s spouse, then that’s four people served for the one referral.
70 | P a g e
and F&C provide outpatient care and programs specific to the unique needs of children and their families.
Services through strength-based and trauma-informed practices that respect cultural values and engage
natural support systems. Services are offered within a continuum of care ranging in intensity and duration
based on the needs of the individual child/youth.
Also, part of the CYF System of Care is the Children, Family and Community Services (CFCS) Division which
consists of programs that serve youth and young adults up to age 21 who face substance use issues, often
combined with other social-emotional and behavioral needs. Youth with substance use issues are able to
consent to their own treatment, and families are included in treatment based on youth agreement and
consent. Youth Substance Use Treatment Services (SUTS) are offered at 23 outpatient school and c linic
sites located throughout Santa Clara County.
In addition to behavioral health services, which includes co-occurring treatment based on individual needs
while the youth is in custody, BHSD has a continuum of services available to youth involved in the juvenile
justice system who are living at home or in the community. These services include prevention, early
intervention and treatment programs that include outpatient mental health treatment, in-custody
behavioral health services, intensive outpatient behavioral health programs, substance use treatment,
and crisis services which range in intensity and duration to address the individualized needs of the youth.
As part of the philosophy of care, youth received individualized treatment services in the least restrictive
environment with the level of intensity based on a thorough assessment. Services for youth dealing with
substance use issues include outpatient services up to six hours per week and intensive outpatient
services up to 19 hours per week. Youth that require a higher level of care may receive up to thirty days
of residential services and have two admissions, if needed, per year.
In 2019, 825 probation involved youth, living in the community, received mental health services and 239
youth received Substance Use Treatment Services. Eighty one percent of youth receiving substance use
treatment services were male and 19 percent were female. The data that follows reflects youth who
received services through BHSD. The largest age group served during 2019 was the 16 to 18 age group (83
percent) followed by 14-15 years old (14 percent) and 13 and under (1 youth). For each of these age
groups, there are specific programs designed to address their behavioral health issues by using age
appropriate assessment and evidence-based practices.
County Substance Use Treatment Services (SUTS) served 171 youth who were 16 to 18 years old,
comprising 72 percent of the total population of youth receiving substance use treatment. This was
followed by 62 youth 14 to 15 years old, or 26 percent of the population. One youth in treatment or 0.4
percent of the total population was 13 years old or younger. The remaining 1.6 percent or five youth in
treatment did not self-report their age.
71 | P a g e
Figure 35: Behavioral Health Treatment by Sex
The largest ethnic population served during 2019 for mental health services was the Latino population
(70.18 percent). Latino youth were followed by White (10.3 percent), Asian/PI (6.3 percent), Other (6.06
percent) and Black youth (5.93 percent). A total of 239 justice-involved youth received substance use
treatment in either residential or outpatient settings. Of these youth, 12 were White (five percent), eight
were Black (three percent), 202 were Latino (85 percent), nine were A sian/PI (four percent), and eight
designated their ethnicity as “Other” (three percent ).
Figure 37: Behavioral Health Treatment by Race/Ethnicity
Among those youth identified as meeting the criteria for a behavioral health diagnosis 26, the three most
prevalent diagnoses were Adjustment Disorder (n=219), Substance Use/Dependence Disorder (n=184),
Behavior Disorder (n=162), and Other Mood Disorder (n=138). It should be noted that most youth ha ve
experienced traumatic or significant adverse childhood experiences that did not always meet the criteria
for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Figure 38: Behavioral Health Diagnosis
26 For a short definition of these diagnosis, please refer to Appendix I as provided by BHSD.
621
204194
45
Male Female
Mental Health SUTS
85 49
579
52 50 10128
202
9 8
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Unknown
Mental Health SUTS
Figure 36 : Behavioral Health Treatment by Age
Range
1 112
682
30162171
5
13 &
Under
14-15 16-18 19 &
Over
Unknown
Mental Health SUTS
72 | P a g e
Ranch Re -Entry Behavioral Health Services
In calendar year 2019, all youth at James Ranch received both Mental Health and Substance Use
Treatment Services. In July 2019, these services were integrated and provided under the umbrella of one
program, the Youth Therapeutic Integrated Program (YTIP). YTIP provides comprehensive mental health
screening, assessment, and treatment, that includes individual, group, and family therapy. Group
treatment utilizes the evidence-based Seeking Safety and the Adolescent Community Reinforcement
Approach (A-CRA). Seeking Safety is an evidence-based model that addresses co-occurring trauma and
substance use needs and A-CRA is a behavioral treatment for alcohol and other substance use disorders
that helps youth improve access to interpersonal and environmental reinforcers to reduce or stop
substance use. In addition, the Seven Challenges program is utilized as an individual model to assist youth
in taking responsibility for their use and help them set goals for recovery. The Ranch has a Board-Certified
Child Psychiatrist, an employee of BHSD, that provides medication evaluations and medication
management for youth at the Ranch. Multi-disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings are held at the 60 & 30-day
mark prior to release from James Ranch, and include James Ranch service providers and community-
based organization that are assigned to support the youth after completion of the Ranch program. The
MDT meetings address follow-up care (re-entry services) for youth to ensure connection to a service
provider in the community.
COLLABORATIVE INTENSIVE INTERVENTION S
The Juvenile Probation Division considers and utilizes safe alternatives to removing youth from their
homes and communities, when appropriate. Post dispositional services include programs that are
intensive in nature and provide mental health services, drug and alcohol groups, behavior modification,
and other services such as family-driven Wraparound services.
219
184
162
138
110
94
93
86
50
3
1
Adjustment Disorder
Substance Abuse/Dependence Disorder
Behavior Disorder
Other Mood Disorder
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
Anxiety Disorder
Major Depressive Disorder
Depressive Disorder
ADHD
Bipolar Disorder
Pervasive Developmental Disorder
73 | P a g e
M ultisystemic Therapy (MST)
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is a community–based, family-driven treatment that addresses anti-social
and delinquent behavior. MST focuses on empowering caregivers (parents and guardians) to solve current
and future problems, and the “client” is the entire ecology of the youth, family, peers, school, and
neighborhood. It is a highly structured clinical supervision and it inc ludes quality assurance processes. The
MST theory states improved family functioning will lead to positive adjustments with peers, school, and
the community, which will result in reduced antisocial behavior and improve functioning within the youth.
MST consists of a single therapist working intensively with a maximum of five families at a time, for a
period of three to five months (four months on average across cases). In addition, MST includes 24 hour/7
day/week team availability, and work is done in the community, home, school, or neighborhood setting
to remove barriers to access services. The purpose of providing MST services in Santa Clara County is to
prevent further involvement in the justice system and to be used collaboratively with system partners
(Courts, District Attorney, and Public Defender). MST now serves youth 14 and under, as this group needs
intensive services to address their behaviors. Youth in custody will receive priority to minimize the time
spent in custody.
Since the inception of the program, 28 unique youth and families have participated in MST. There have
been 15 successful completions/ graduations, six administrative removals (voluntary withdrawal, unable
to locate), and two failures due to new arrests. Currently, there are six active cases with two clinicians
holding three cases each. Some of the primary challenges of the program included lack of referrals, a lack
of clinicians, and lack of Spanish speaking clinicians. To address the issue of a lack of referrals, a pilot
program was instituted in collaboration with the Prevention Early Intervention (PEI) Unit. All youth
fourteen and under were screened for MST. The MST Probation Officers still believe MST could benefit
all first-time offenders regardless of age, who did not c ommit a 707(b) offense and fit the inclusionary
criteria. Due to the low numbers of families who were able to be served, the clinician caseload caps,
paired with the lack of clinicians, the program has not reached its full potential. However, the families
who participated in the program experienced great success and strengthened their familial bonds.
Wraparound Services
Over the past five years, the Juvenile Services Division has been utilizing the Wraparound Service Delivery
Model as the primary intervention under the Title IV-E Waiver program for three target populations: (1)
Pre-Adjudicated youth who are of high need and moderate or high risk of escalating within the Juvenile
Justice System; (2) Adjudicated youth who are of moderate or high risk to re -offend and are at imminent
risk of removal to out of home care; and (3) Youth who are within 60 days of graduating and completing
the James Ranch Program, re-entering the community and returning to their parent/guardian/caregiver.
The number of youths served far exceeded all initial projections of between 80 to 150 youth per year, as
200 unduplicated youth were served during the reporting period (231 duplicated youth). From these 200
youth, Latino youth accounted for 79 percent of youth served in 2019. Based on duplicated counts, Pre-
Adjudicated youth account for 41 percent of those served, Ranch Re-Entry youth account for 29 percent
74 | P a g e
and Adjudicated youth account for 30 percent. Out of 93 closures in 2019, there were 45 successful
completions (48 percent).
The Juvenile Services Division in conjunction with the Wraparound providers continue to bridge gaps
between services resulting in the continuity of care. The youth, family, Probation Officer, therapist,
substance use treatment counselor, and Wraparound Team members facilitate Child and Family Team
(CFT) meetings to solidify a safety plan for the youth and ensure all supports are in place within their local
community. Many of the Attorneys are now electing to participate in CFT's, especially when the youth is
scheduled to appear before the Court for a Status Review Hearing. Additionally, for youth who attend
Sunol Community School and have been referred to formal substance use treatment services, the school’s
assigned treatment counselor has begun attending the student’s CFT’s, as a natural support person,
providing valuable insight and feedback to effective rehabilitation strategies. During the CFT meeting all
participants openly discuss program participation, clinical needs, and educational variables which are
incorporated into the case plan and smart goals. The team prioritizes the continuum of care efforts to
ensure seamless connection to their natural environment, increasing the likelihood of successful
community integration.
In 2018, System partners teamed to establish a funding mechanism, identified as “the lockout”, to
maintain Wraparound Services for youth in custody, for a period not to exceed 30 days. The lockout
allows youth to continue receiving Wraparound services while they are in custody for a violation of their
probation terms. In 2019, under the lockout, the Juvenile Services Division served 77 unique youth, with
13 of those youth receiving Ranch Reentry Wraparound Services. There have been 90 lockouts, for a total
of 1800 days. The average lockout length is currently 20 days. Twenty-nine youth remained detained
past the 30-day lockout period, and as a result, Wraparound Services were closed. Further, the Juvenile
Services Division reports no incidents of providers changing during the lockout period. Overall, the number
of youths being served under the lockout has slightly decreased over the last two years, as less youth are
detained in Juvenile Hall for extended periods of time. Wraparound providers continue to offer positive
feedback regarding the lockout process, as it allows for smoother transition in and out of custody. This
continuity of services allows for wraparound delivery with stronger fidelity.
In October of 2019, the Waiver project sunset. Title IV-E Waiver funds that normally gave the Probation
Department flexibility to provide resources to youth who normally would not receive said resources are
obsolete. Specifically impacted are pre-adjudicated cases that rely on resources in effort to prevent
further penetration into the juvenile Justice system. The Probation Department was able to continue
these preventative services even in the absence of Title IVE Waiver funds, by utilizing probation provider
funding to fill the void. In December of 2019, Santa Clara County Probation Department in collaboration
with DFCS and BHSD released their latest Request for Proposal (RFP) process and awarded four agenc ies
to continue to provide these valuable services.
The average daily population at Juvenile Hall and the number of youth receiving Wraparound Services
have increased slightly since 2017. The number of out -of-home placements has remained consistent
during the past two years. Please see figure below for more information.
75 | P a g e
Figure 39: Monthly Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population Compared to Wraparound Services and
Placement (2014-2019)
RESTRICTIVE SANCTIONS
The County of Santa Clara Probation strives to keep youth at home and in their communities. However, in
some cases more restrictive sanctions, in which a child is removed from the community, are needed. This
section of the report highlights the various examples of restrictive sanctions utilized by the County of
Santa Clara.
O UT OF H OME P LACEMENTS
The Placement Unit serves juvenile probationers who have been ordered by the court to be removed from
home and placed in a suitable relative-home/foster home/private institutional placement under the
supervision of a Placement Probation Officer. Youth generally receive this type of dispositional order after
less restrictive court sanctions such as WRAP services and other community interventions, have not
resolved the identified issues which brought them to the attention of the Probation Department. These
issues often include family and/or emotional problems; however, a youth is ordered into placement for
issues related to their own conduct, not that of a parent or caregiver. A youth who requires foster care
due to allegations of abuse or maltreatment on the part of their parents or caregivers, is referred to the
department’s Dually Involved Youth Unit. In some cases, placement is ordered because of a negotiated
plea agreement between the District Attorney and a defense attorney.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
JulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulySepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNovJanMarMayJulSepNov2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Placement Wraparound Ranch JH Custody ADP
Start of Well-Being Project
76 | P a g e
Youth are placed in environments best suited to meet their needs, which may include a short term
residential therapeutic program (STRTP), resource family home, and/or transitional housing program.
Most probation youth are placed in STRTPs.
The Placement Screening Coordinator (PSC) plays a key role in screening potential placement cases,
participating in a pre-placement CFT Meetings, presenting a youth’s case to the Interagency Placement
Committee, supporting the Probation Officer making a placement recommendation, identifying the
appropriate setting for a youth ordered into Placement, coordinating program interviews, completing
intake paperwork, and arranging transportation.
When a youth is ordered into Placement, the case is assigned to a Placement Probation Officer who is
responsible for their safety and well-being. The focus is always on an individual youth’s needs as identified
by the Child and Family Team and/or the court and determining which setting/program can best meet
those needs. Placement in an STRTP is not a long-term solution, and the duration of programs are
determined by the progress made in treatment. As such, a permanency goal is determined for every
youth entering placement. For most youth, the first goal is reunification with parents/caregivers.
The services which are to be provided to a youth in a placement are documented in the Case Plan, which
is updated every six months. The Placement Probation Officer monitors a youth’s well -being and progress
by maintaining monthly face-to-face contact, and regularly communicating with the youth,
parents/caregivers, service providers, teachers, and others who meet the child. The Placement Probation
Officer also provides case management services, maintains casework contacts, arra nges visitation with
family, conducts and/or convenes mandated CFT meetings, arranges services, identifies relatives and
other appropriate adults who can serve as life-long connections, prepares Permanency Planning Hearing
Reports, documents case developments and monitors treatment progress.
The Placement Probation Officer also works closely with the CFT to prepare the youth and family for
discharge from a program. Discharge from an STRTP involves individualized planning and preparation of
both the youth and the parent/caregiver to whom the youth will be returning. Depending on the youth’s
needs, appropriate discharge planning may include transition services, ongoing therapeutic services to
the family, school enrollment assistance and other supportive services.
Placement Probation Officers provide support to Non-Minor Dependent youth (NMD)s to assist them in
meeting the eligibility criteria, participate in life skills classes, obtain assistance with applying for and
receiving public benefits and applying for student financial aid, securing a monthly financial stipend, and
receiving housing assistance during their post-EFC (Extended Foster Care) transition (also during their time
as an EFC). Placement Probation Officers also prepare and Non-Minor Dependent Review Hearing Review
Reports for the court. NMD27 youth can reside in-county, out-of-county and/or out-of-state and continue
to receive supportive services and monthly-mandated face-to-face contact with their Probation Officer.
27 For more information on Non-Minor Dependent Youth please see Appendix H.
77 | P a g e
The department has included in its strategic plan, a robust proposal to Implement Family Finding and
Engagement at all levels of Juvenile Probation work. Probation will be working closely with DFCS to
research, implement and evaluate best practices around policies and procedures relative to Family Finding
and Engagement. These strategies will have a direct impact on the work of the Placement Unit because
family finding and engagement improves permanency for youth, likely increases the timeliness of
reunification and connects parents and youth with extended family support. Family finding, and
engagement also creates timely permanency for youth unable to return home to their parents by
providing an alternative permanent family connection. Prior to placement in an STRTP, these connections
can serve as respites, placement alternatives, and/or be used as a “step down” option for youth who have
completed their treatment program but are not yet ready to transition home.
JUVENILE HALL
Juvenile Hall is a 390-bed facility which houses both boys
and girls if they are detained while waiting for the Court
to decide their cases. Youth can also be committed to
Juvenile Hall following their dispositional hearing.
Programs in custody include domestic violence/family
violence, mental health and substance use services, life
skills, cognitive behavioral therapy, religious services,
gardening, and pro-social activities. Youth can also be
visited by family and caregivers while in the Hall. Typically,
a youth committed to Juvenile Hall as a disposition will
have their probation dismissed upon completion of services and development of a transition plan.
The average length of stay at Juvenile Hall for pre -disposition youth in 2019 was 87 days, while post-
disposition youth on average spent 113 days in custody. A courtesy hold takes place when 1) a judge finds
a youth should be transferred and remanded to adult court, and the youth; 2) when a youth is out of
county and has an out of county warrant; or 3) when there is an out of county probation hold. During
2019, on average three percent of the youth detained were courtesy holds for the Department of
Correction. This may be because of Proposition 57, which decreased the number of courtesy holds for Out
of County youth. The average length of stay for youth on courtesy holds was 143 days.
Table 17: Average Length of Stay (in Days) by Status 2015-2019 Trend
Average Length of Stay (in
days) by Status (number of
youth)
Pre-Disposition Post-Disposition Courtesy Hold for
DOC (Direct File)
Total
2015 57 19 33 109
2016 50 11 22 83
2017 75 11 2 88
2018 96 12 2 110
78 | P a g e
2019 94 20 3 117
Percentage change from
2015-2019 65% 5% -91% 7%
WILLIAM F. JAMES RANCH PROGRAM
The James Ranch is a rehabilitation and treatment
facility with 96 beds where youth can be ordered by the
court to stay for between six and eight months. It serves
youth up to age 19. At the Ranch, an assessment and
case plan are completed to guide the yo uth and
determine their needs. Probation Counselors engage
with youth as role models and coaches and provide
therapeutic support. The Probation Officer works in
tandem to provide additional services and support.
Programing aims to address the development of pro-
social skills, reasoning, and critical thinking skills, and increase youth’s ability to regulate their emotions,
refuse anti-social behavior and facilitate family reunification. The three focus areas are moral reasoning,
anger management and skill practice. Through each of these elements staff help youth through scenario-
based role playing and group discussion. The ranch program offers cognitive behavioral treatment,
education, vocational training and links to local trade unions, gang intervention, behavioral health
services, pro-social activities and access to the Probation Community Athletic League, Victim Awareness
workshops, mentoring, girl scouts, yoga and culturally competent rites of passage curriculum, and trauma
healing. Youth also attend school and participate in an array of activities and events that are coordinated
by the staff. Shortly prior to transitioning back to the community, youth are assigned to the Aftercare
program. The Aftercare Counselor and Probation Officer assist and encourage the youth to support their
successful transition and youth are enrolled in support services in the community.
Probation Continuum o f Services o f Reentry (Pro -CSR )
In January 2019, the Juvenile Services Division redefined Reentry Services by introducing a new innovative
service model for our assigned youth and families called Probation Continuum of Services to Reentry (Pro -
CSR). The Juvenile Services Division contracted with Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) to provide an array of
continuum services and opportunities for reentry youth to learn and develop needed social behaviors and
life skills. Pro-CSR has kept a pertinent focus on youth self-esteem, competency, family engagement,
positive school progressions, pro-social activities, and community involvement. Pro-CSR facilitators and
mental health staff from Seneca provide service linkage coupled with evidence-based case management.
Eligible youth receive individualized service dosages tailored to moderate and high-risk factors that affect
the youth’s delinquency, anti-social behaviors, and mental health status. Pro-CSR’s focal population has
been on youth exiting the James Ranch Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility. Both Probation and Pro-CSR have
maintained a collaborative approach with each individual case planning and management. The Juvenile
79 | P a g e
Services Division administrators as well as the Re-entry services unit monitors youth and family
participation in a unified effort to help decrease recidivism and provide valued outcomes to those served.
Pro-CSR referrals have been on-going since January of 2019 and referral numbers continue to increase in
2020. Since the program’s existence there have been a significant amount of youth cases which have
been dismissed from Probation and most of those youth have expressed positive experiences with
individual Pro-CSR and Seneca facilitators. These noted experiences have been valued by Probation as it
allows Probation Officers to share the information not only to the service providers but to the C ourts as
well. In 2019, 29 youth participated in Pro-CSR.
DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (DJJ)
The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)28 provides education
and treatment to California’s youthful offenders up to the
age of 25 who have committed serious and/or violent
felonies and have the most intense treatment needs.
Youth committed directly to the DJJ do not receive
determinate sentences although the juvenile court must
set a maximum period of confinement pursuant to WIC
731(c). A youth's length of stay is determined by the
severity of the committing offense and their progress
toward parole readiness as outlined in Title 15 of the
California Code of Regulations. DJJ is authorized to house
youth until age 21, 23 or 25, depending on their
commitment offense. A youth’s readiness for return to the community is determined by the Juvenile
Parole Board. It recommends supervision conditions to county courts which administer t hem. In the
community, newly released youth are supervised by county probation departments.
The DJJ also provides housing for youth under the age of 18 who have been sentenced to state prison.
Youths sentenced to state prison may remain at DJJ until age 18, or if the youth can complete their
sentence prior to age 25, DJJ may house them until they are released on parole.
California’s youth prison facilities (DJJ) will no longer be operated by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) under a reorganization plan launched by Governor Gavin Newsom.
Effective July 1, 2020, the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) becomes the Department of Youth and
Community Restoration (DYCR), as part of the Health and Human Services Agency (HHS).
Commitments
28 Formerly known as the California Youth Authority (CYA), the organization was created by statute in 1941 and began operating in 1943.
Figure 40: Santa Clara County DJJ
Placements 2016-2019
2 2
17
7
24
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
80 | P a g e
The overall number of commitments and
placements increased by 12 percent from 2018 to
2019. Commitments to the Ranch decreased by six
percent from 2018 to 2019. Juvenile Hall
commitments increased by 15 percent from 2018 to
2019.
There were 164 commitments in 2019. Of those
164, 47 commitments were to Juvenile Hall and 93
were to James Ranch. Twenty-four youth were
committed to DJJ.
The figure below shows commitments broken down by race. Latino youth comprised the largest group
with commitments in 2019 (n=1 28, 78 percent) followed by Black youth (n=17, ten percent).
Figure 42: Youth in Commitments 2019 by Race/Ethnicity
Within each commitment type, the highest disproportionality appears to be in commitments to James
Ranch, with 76 percent being Latino youth. The largest disproportionality for Black youth was at James
Ranch and Juvenile Hall where they comprised 11 percent of the total population. The Probation
Department continues to be concerned with disproportionality at key decision points throughout the
juvenile justice system and is dedicated to reducing the overrepresentation of Latino and Black youth in
out-of-home placements and commitments.
3 5
38
1
7 10
71
4 122
19
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Juvenile Hall James Ranch DJJ
Figure 41: Commitments 2016-2019 Trends
84 78
58
41 47
89
46
94 99 93
2 2
17 7
24
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Juvenile Hall Ranch DJJ
81 | P a g e
Figure 43 illustrates 57 percent of all
commitments were to the James Ranch.
Juvenile Hall accounted for 29 percent of
commitments. In 2019, 15 percent of youth
were committed to DJJ (n=24). This increase,
compared to 2017 and 2018, is likely
attributed in part to the implementation of
Proposition 57 which eliminated the ability of
the District Attorney’s Office to file cases
directly in adult criminal court and thus
resulted in more cases returning to juvenile
court for juvenile dispositions. 29
The table below shows male youth comprised 83 percent of commitments while 17 percent were female.
No youth under 12 were committed to placement in 2019. Sixty-one percent of youth committed to the
Ranch were 15-16 years old (n=57). Seventy-five percent of the youth committed to DJJ from Santa Clara
County were 17 and older (n=18). This is most likely due to the passage of Proposition 57 and DJJ’s increase
as of June of 2018 in the age of jurisdiction from 23 to 25, serving youth up to the age of 25 who have the
most serious criminal backgrounds and most intense treatment needs. 30
Table 18: Commitment from Dispositions
Foster Care Placements
The Court can order a minor into foster care out of home placement. We can utilize foster homes, but
most of the time, we are talking about STRTP (Short Term Residential Therapeutic Program) placements,
but recently we’ve been looking at family placements. Youth are ordered into foster care placement
because of abuse or neglect, those cases are usually handled by the DIY Unit, but not always. In 2019, a
total of 19 foster care placements were made for youth utilizing out of home placement services (a 30
percent decrease when compared to 2018).
29 Please see pg. 23 for a more detailed description and update on Proposition 57 since it was passed in 2016.
30 AB 1812 took effect 6/27/2018, and extended DJJ jurisdiction to age 25 for 707(b) offenses.
Commitment from
Dispositions
Male Female 13-14 15-16 17 &
Older
Total
Juvenile Hall Commitment 36 11 3 23 21 47
Ranch 79 14 5 57 31 93
DJJ 21 3 0 6 18 24
Total Dispositions that led
to Commitment 136 28 8 86 70 164
Figure 43: Percentage of Commitments in 2019
29%
57%
15%
Juvenile Hall James Ranch DJJ
82 | P a g e
The figures below show foster care placements broken down by race and age. Of the 19 youth ordered
foster care placements, 11 were Latino, six were White, and two were Black. No foster care placements
were utilized by youth identified as Asian or Other. Nine youth in foster care placement were 15-16 at the
time of their placement, followed by eight youth who were 17-18 years old. No foster care placements
were utilized for youth 12 years old and younger. Sixteen youth utilizing foster care out of home
placements were male, followed by three female youth.
Figure 45: Foster Care Placements in 2019 by
Race/Ethnicity
Health and Wellness in Secure Care
The following sections describe the health and wellness services provided by Valley Medical Clinic (VMC)
and Behavioral Health Services Department (BHSD) to youth in secure care in calendar year 201 9.
PHYSICAL HEALTH
Medical services provided to minors detained at Juvenile Hall and the William F. James Ranch consist of
comprehensive health assessment screenings, treatment for diagnosed episodic and/or chronic health
conditions, health prevention activities including immunizations, communicable disease screenings,
control and age appropriate health education. All health services provided are comparable or superior
to services the minors would receive or have received in their community.
A professional staff of physicians, a nurse practitioner, a physician’s assistant, registered nurses,
licensed vocational nurses, pharmacists, dentists, and dental assistants, provide health services.
Pediatricians are on site at Juvenile Hall five days a week (M-F) and nursing staff is present seven days a
week, twenty-four hours each day. Nursing staff is present at James Ranch from 0645 to 2130, seven days
a week. A pediatrician is on site one day per week at James Ranch. In addition, James Ranch has a High
Definition video link to Juvenile Hall allowing for Tele-Nursing and Tele-Psychiatry, twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week.
Juvenile Hall had a successful visit by the Title 15 inspector from Public Health Department. A summary
of their findings showed that all applicable medical standards were in 100 percent compliance.
2
9
8
13-14 15-16 17 & Older
Figure 44: Foster Care Placements in 2019 by
Race/Ethnicity
6
2
11
White Black Latino
83 | P a g e
The 2019 clinic activities summary (including data for 2016-2018 for comparison) is below. Figures are
based on duplicated count as a youth may receive more than one service while in custody. For example,
a youth will receive a physical exam upon admittance and after being in custody for 11 months . RN
(register nurse) sick call visits represent duplicated count as a youth may request to be seen multi ple
times.
Table 19: Juvenile Hall Medical Clinic 2019
Activity 2016 2017 2018 2019
Physical Exams 1070 1085 1305 1000
Clinic Visits 1876 2036 2564 2571
RN Sick Call Visits 3153 3143 3639 3044
Sexually Transmitted Disease
Screenings
635 530 701 611
HIV Oral Quick Instant Test Screening 62 77 92 86
Other VMC Appointment 128 114 136 124
Flu Vaccine Administrations 247 192 256 201
Dental Clinic Visits 296 196 317 340
Infirmary Housing 23 35 60 42
Vision Screening N/A 1039 1305 1002
Hearing Screening N/A 1008 1293 1012
Table 20: James Ranch Medical Clinic 2019
Activity 2016 2017 2018 2019
Clinic Visits 128 269 339 502
RN Sick Call Visits 790 1262 2387 2575
VMC Appointment 30 46 58 25
BEHAVIORAL H E ALTH
Guadalupe Behavioral Health Clinic at Juvenile Hall operates with a team of ten behavioral health clinicians
who provide direct care and treatment to the youth in Juvenile Hall custody. Upon admit into custody,
youth are met by a behavioral health clinician for an in-person structured interview. The clinician will
screen the youth for mental health concerns, substance use, risk factors, and safety planning. The
interview is conducted in conjunction with a self-report computerized screening tool called the
84 | P a g e
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2). Youth are receiving behavioral health treatment
while in-custody for mental health and/or substance use needs. Treatment includes weekly services of
individual sessions, and the frequency may range from daily to once per week, depending on youth’s
behavioral health needs. Services are provided with youth consent. The clinical team is responsible for
responding to crisis’, supporting youth with stabilization, psychotropic medication management, and care
coordination with system partners regarding youth’s transition plan to the community and/or a residential
setting. In 2019, behavioral health clinical team provided direct support and treatment to 542 youth while
in-custody at juvenile hall.
The behavioral health team also provides clinical check-ins with youth in all living units. The check-in
supports the opportunity for the behavioral health team to build a presence within each living unit. A
clinical staff is assigned to each living unit as an effort to engage youth, monitor the well-being of youth,
and provide support as requested by youth and/or probation group counselors. Probation and medical
staff may also request behavioral health services, or a youth may also self-refer.
In partnership with the Juvenile Probation Department, Health & Hospital Medical clinic, and Office of
Education, the behavioral health team also coordinates and facilitates multi-disciplinary team (MDT)
meetings, in support of in-custody youth. The MDT meetings are designed to build a collaboration and
support system for the youth by addressing behavioral concerns, psychotropic medication management,
treatment, and transition planning. The MDT’s are inclusive of youth’s parent/caregiver and identified
support system.
The behavioral health team provides several evidence-based practices such as Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy, Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seven Challenges, Motivational Interviewing, and
Seeking Safety.
The Behavioral Health Resource Center is composed of two clinicians, who oversee the coordination of
mental health and substance use referrals for juvenile justice involved youth in need of community-based
behavioral health services. BHRC behavioral health clinicians process referrals received by the Juvenile
Probation Department, and ensure linkage is made to appropriate community-based organizations.
Referrals are made for mental health services, substance use assessment and treatment services, and to
the Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA). In 2019, BHRC received 800 referrals
from the Juvenile Probation Department and coordinated the linkage for mental health and substance
use treatment services to community-based providers. BHRC processed 433 referrals requesting
substance use services (includes assessment and/or treatment) for juvenile justice involved youth. Fifty-
four percent of referrals received identified substance use as a level of treatment for youth. One hundred
and fifty-six in-custody youth received a Court ordered assessment to determine the level of ca re for
substance use treatment. Figure 44 provides an overview of the referrals received and coordination
provided by the BHRC team.
85 | P a g e
Figure 46: Behavioral Health Resource Center
The Court for Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA), includes two clinical care coordinators, who
are assigned to work with youth involved in this program. This Court works with youth and families who
are experiencing mental health and substance use disorders. The Competency Development program
consists of three clinical staff. The delivery of Court ordered competency services are provided to the
youth in the least restrictive setting that the Court allows.
Figure 47: Guadalupe Behavioral Health Clinic at Juvenile Hall
PHARMACY SERVICES
800
277 212 156 104 51
Total Behavioral
Health Resource
Center Referrals
2019
Substance Use
Services
Co-Occurring
Services
In-Custody Subs.
Use Assess.
Mental Health CITA
BHRC
•Triage
Universal
Referral
Form (URF)
for Juvenile
Justice
Involved
youth
•Linkage to
community
based
services for
mental
health and
substance
use
treatment
CITA
•Support
youth with
Co-Occurring
Disorders
•Care
Coordination
•Linkage
•Outreach
Forensic
Evaluations
•Quality
Assurance
for forensic
psychological
evaluations
•PhD Intern
Supervision
Clinic
•Intake
Screenings
for Risk &
Safety needs
•Supportive
counseling
•Treatment
•Crisis
Intervention
•Mental
Health &
Substance
Use
Assessments
•Treatment
Groups
Competency
Development
•Delivery of
Court
ordered
competency
development
services
Psychiatry
•Psychotropic
medication
evaluation
and
treatment
for youth
detained in
Juvenile Hall
and James
Ranch
86 | P a g e
The Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System (SCVH and HS) provides pharmacy services to the
Juvenile Hall System. Physician medication orders and the standardized procedure orders are transmitted
to pharmacy through the Healthlink system. It has built-in drug interaction, drug duplication and allergy
monitoring. The system keeps patient profile information in a format that allows quick review by
pharmacists. A computer-generated Medication Administration Rand (MAR) and scanning system are
used for medication administration. Benefits of MAR include a decrease in potential medication errors
associated with the order transcription process and produce a single, legible, and reliable source for the
Patient Medication Profile.
The utilization of the PYXIS Med-Station System replaced the after-hour medication room and provides
increased medication availability through centralized medication management. It helps decrease the risk
of drug diversion and increase medication safety. Each drug is specifically programmed and loaded in the
CUBIE and will not be available unless a nurse enters his/her user ID, the patient’s medical record number,
name, date of birth, and the name of the medication(s) that he/she needs.
DENTAL
The Juvenile Hall dental clinic is open on Wednesdays from 8:00 am – 4:30 pm. Care is focused on treating
patients with pain and other symptoms of dental problems, as well as treating asymptomatic dental
diseases before they develop into problems such as toothaches and abscesses. The clinic treats patients
who are detained at Juvenile Hall, but also cares for patients from the Ranch who develop dental problems
or need to be seen for follow-up care. Additionally, the Dental Director, as well as the County’s Chief
Dentist and a pediatrician, are available on-call each day for consultations regarding any significant dental
problems which may arise during non-clinic hours, and the County hospital’s emergency department is
also available as a resource.
MEDICAL OUTREACH PROGRAM
The nursing Medical Outreach Program is intended to support youth who are juvenile justice system
involved when care is no longer available via the clinic at Juvenile Hall. Under California, Board of State
and Community Corrections Title 15 regulations, incarcerated youth are entitled to medi cal access and
treatment. However, youth who received medical/mental health care in juvenile hall are no longer getting
needed care once they leave the facility. This results in challenges in early diagnosis and early intervention.
The lack of communication between judicial and health care systems complicates and halts the continuous
care for youth. The purpose of this program is to provide an innovative medical outreach program in the
court system to bridge the care gap for youths, including outcome measurement. The services provided
include free health screening, sexual transmitted illnesses consultation, contraceptive education, referral
for tattoo removal, vision and hearing screening, BMI calculation, nutrition education, mental health
screening, dental screening and referral to low or no-cost community resources. The total number of
encounters for 2019 was 1,137: 651 parental contacts via program overview flyers, 337 male youths, and
149 female youth.
87 | P a g e
Common issues/concerns from youth or/and parents:
• Dermatological
complaints
• Dental hygiene
concerns
• Where to fill
prescriptions for free
• PPD readings • Birth control options • STD prevention
• Planned parenthood • Safe sex • Healthy Body mass index
• Side effects of drugs • Medi-Cal concerns • Vision complaints
• How to relieve anxiety • Where to get flu shots • Mental health concerns
• General health information
This innovative program has made an effective health care delivery change by bringing evidence -based
practices into the system. The court based free medical service has enhanced the quality of care in
correctional health for justice involved youth.
E LIGIBILITY FOR HEALTHCARE P ROJECT (SB 1469)
The Detained Youth Program is a combined effort between Probation and the Social Services Agency to
help identify and view all youth entering the Juvenile Hall facility as a possible candidate for the State of
California’s Medi-Cal Health Insurance program. Due to time sensitivity, it is the Social Services Agency’s
goal to respond to the Juvenile Probation Department within 24 working hours.
The youth are screened for health coverage and the status of the youth are reported to management,
juvenile hall medical staff and the judiciary monthly. If a youth is identified as having inactive or expired
Medi-Cal, or no insurance at all, information is provided to the parent/guardian/family on how to obtain
and activate Medi-Cal services. Also, information on available programs within our County, i.e., food
stamps, cash aid, etc. and how one may connect to those programs is provided to the families.
During the past year 1,246 requests for Medi-Cal status on detained youth were processed and the result
of the combined efforts of Probation and the Social Services Agency show that 24% of the youth that are
detained in Juvenile Hall are in need of assistance. Nineteen percent of the youth that were detained were
found to have expired Medi-Cal coverage and another five percent were found to have inactive or no
stated medical insurance coverage at all. Two hundred and thirty-nine families were identified as “in
need” of services and were connected to the Medi-Cal program. The families were referred to Social
Services Agency’s Eligibility Department for processing and determination of their eligibility for receivin g
CA State’s Medi-Cal services was initiated.
Traditionally, under the SB1469 program, efforts were concentrated on re-establishing Medi-Cal services
for youth re-entering the community following a long-term commitment. Now, because of the addition
of the Detained Youth Program, the detainees entering Juvenile Hall, the youth exiting the Ranch, and
their families are made aware of services available to them sooner in the process rather than later. In
conclusion, this joint effort between our departments helps show that Probation and the SSA are indeed
reaching out to the families most in need of help. The figure below shows the breakdown for 2019.
88 | P a g e
Figure 48: Medi-Cal Percentages on Detained Youth in Juvenile Hall 2019
Alternative Education Department (AED)
The Alternative Education Department (AED) for the County of Santa Clara Office of Education is
comprised of three educational programs at three school sites (Court Schools: Blue Ridge (located at
James Ranch) and Osborne (located at Juvenile Hall); Sunol Community School and Independent Study).
The AED serves students from 21 diverse school districts in the County, in grades 6-12 who are
adjudicated, identified as Chronically Absent, expelled, and or are on a placement contract. The
Department monitors student participation rates in our court schools by District of Residence. District
Representatives review this data on a biannual basis. For Osborne and Blue Ridge data reflects the 2018-
2019 school year which differs from the rest of the report where data is reported for the 2019 calendar
year. During the 2018-19 school year, Osborne had 811 enrollments followed by Blue Ridge with 137
enrollments.
A total of 811 youth were served between all court schools (based on duplicate count – meaning a youth
is counted each time he/she was enrolled at the above schools. This may include youth who were
transferred from the Ranch to Juvenile Hall on an Administrative Ranch Return). As of May 1, 2020, during
the 2019-20 school year AED has served 651 students within the court schools. Please note, demographic
data in Figure 48 and Figure 49, is pulled from home districts as reported by parents on the CALPADS
system and this may account for the larger number of youth identified as Other, which includes youth
identified as Native American in this section of the report.
Figure 49: Osborne (Juvenile Hall) and Blue Ridge (James Ranch) Enrollment by Ethnicity (n=811)
69%
19%
5%4%3%
Active Medi-Cal Expired Medi-Cal Inactive Medi-Cal Out of County Private Insurance
89 | P a g e
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS & SUPPORTS AT JUVENILE HALL
Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (PBIS), is a broad range of systemic and individualized
strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes in school communities while preventing
problem behavior. The key attributes of PBIS include preventive activities, data-based decision making,
and a problem-solving orientation. In 2018-19 the Juvenile Justice Department and the Santa Clara County
Office of Education collaborated to infuse PBIS in Juvenile Hall and Osborne School. This collaboration
increases effective strategies and systematically provides positiv e interventions for the students and
encourages positive behaviors. All probation staff within Juvenile Hall and Osborne School have been
trained in PBIS. Students are taught lessons regularly to strengthen the program and to acclimate new
students into the program.
VOCATIONAL TRAINING AT JAMES RANCH: CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Vocational Training at the James Ranch and Blue Ridge School has transition to Career Technical Education
and provides career skills, industry certifications, applied learning, wi th a core academic foundation.
Students are enrolled in Build Trades and Culinary Arts courses. Within these courses students have
access to industry certifications to include but not limited to wielding, OSHA, first aid, CPR, safe cert-food
handling, and Hazzard Materials. These courses are sequenced and culminate in a capstone course. In
addition, students can transition into further training after leaving the facility and either enter the
community college or apprenticeship programs.
Chronic Absente eism
When County of Santa Clara juvenile justice system partners agreed to decommission the Informal
Juvenile Traffic Court, interventions and supports related to chronic absenteeism have been primarily
administered by school districts countywide. The Probation Department places tremendous value upon
the education of the youth in our care, and Probation staff at all levels are expected to support student
52 80
610
31 38
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
90 | P a g e
success by engaging and collaborating with students, families, teachers, school districts, advocates, an d
system partners. Although it is no longer the policy of the County of Santa Clara to pursue youth for
penalties, fines, or fees as it relates to chronic absenteeism, there remain district and County supports
such as, School Accountability Resource Board (SARB) meetings, DA Mediation meetings, and DA one-on-
one meetings available to support students and families challenged by chronic absenteeism.
With the elimination of the Juvenile Traffic Court in 2016, our goal has been to prioritize reengaging
chronically absent youth to return to school and complete their high school diploma. During the 2017-18
school year the District Attorney, the County Office of Education and the Department of Behavioral Health
collaborated to develop a new Independent Study Prog ram for chronically absent youth that focuses on
the social emotional support, academic credit recovery, credit acceleration, expressive arts, and post -
secondary planning. During the 2018-19 school year the new Independent Study Program enrolled 68
youth, graduated four students from high school, with an average daily attendance rate of 88
percent. This academic year (2019-20) the program has grown to enrolling over 100 youth during the
year, graduated eight youth to date, while maintaining attendance rates above 88%. Students are
referred to the Independent Study Program by their home school districts. There is a growing interest in
serving student in this Independent Study program due to the flexibility and quality of the personalized
educational program provided. Within the program there is academic counseling, post-secondary
educational planning, social emotional support, expressive arts, and work experience. The program will
be expanding in 2020-21 to include a South County and North County location. These satellite locations
will offer additional flexibility for students and strength our response to student needs with the county.
LOOKING AHEAD TO 20 20
This section highlights upcoming changes to the Juvenile Justice System in 2020.
ANIMAL ASSISTED THERAPY PROGRAM AT JAMES RANCH AND JUVENILE HALL
A non-profit agency is contracted to bring their Canines Teaching Compassion program to Juvenile Hall
and will be expanding their scope of service to now include the James Ranch population as well. The basis
of this program is to take in-custody youth and pair them with homeless dogs, rescued from area shelters
in need of training and adoption. The youth learn about basic animal behavior, care and socialization while
giving support and guidance to the animals. The programs goal is to help the dogs get adopted at the end
of each eight-week training cycle. Youth learn empathy, they learn to see the world through the eyes of
their dog, to compare the plight of the animal to their own situation and to provide hope for
something/someone else. They learn a skill, to train and support this animal in hopes of it getting a new
future and a second chance at life. Positive reinforcement and unconditional support build a greater sense
of patience and understanding in each of our youth.
To date this has been a very successful program at the hall. The youth have trained approximately 20 dogs
and to date only one animal has not been adopted. Our youth can participate in a graduation ceremony
91 | P a g e
where they display their newfound skills with the canines and “hand off the leash” off to prospective new
owners. This allows for closure with their four-legged partners and gives the youth a sense of purpose and
pride in that they are deemed the experts, they have given something a chance and people are
acknowledging their worth. Moving forward, we hope to add a component which incorporates Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy with the dogs and the potential inclusion of dogs living at the facilities to further the
growth and socialization process of both the youth and their canine companions.
P IVOT GRANT
As part of the Providing Induvial Valuable Opportunities Together (PIVOT) Grant, the Probation
Department is completing a Ranch Assessment with the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute
(UCCI). The assessment provides objectives in four areas, to include program design and development,
training, implementation and coaching, and quality improvement. UCCI will provide support to the James
Ranch Program, including Aftercare and Reentry Services. As part of the process, UCCI will oversee the
development and modifications to the current program model by establishing a summary and review of
the current services, build a comprehensive intake process and orientation for youth, develop a robust
institutional services plan supporting customizable services for all residents, and redefine the behavior
modification system using the Positive Based Intervention System (PBIS). UCCI will engage Administrative
staff, stakeholders, and probation staff who will be invited to participate in a multidisciplinary
implementation team (MIT) to make decisions and steer the redesign efforts.
APPENDICES
92 | P a g e
APPENDIX A : THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM MAP
93 | P a g e
APPENDIX B : COUNTY GENDER RESPONSIVE TASK FORCE (GRTF)
The Gender Responsive Task Force (GRTF) was established in 2015 to create a comprehensive case plan
and treatment model for moderate and high-risk girls on probation in Santa Clara County that decreases
their risk of recidivism and victimization while also increasing their life outcomes. Current partner agencies
involved in GRTF include:
• Superior Court of Santa Clara County
• Santa Clara County Probation Department
• Santa Clara County Office of Women’s Policy
• Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office
• Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office
• Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services Department
• City of San Jose, Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department
• Community-Based Organizations in Santa Clara County
The group meets monthly and is currently focusing on improving services and supports for detained young
women and in partnership with the Vera Institute for Justice has begun an initiative to end the
incarceration of girls in the juvenile justice system. The GRTF also was able to successfully bring the San
Francisco’s Young Women’s Freedom (YWFC) to Santa Clara County. The YWFC will provide a much-
needed focus on justice involved LBGT-GNC young women and girls. As part of the Gender Response Task
Force further analysis was conducted to see the breakdown of juvenile girls in t he justice system. The
following charts and tables further analyze data broken down by females in areas such as demographics,
arrests, and admissions.
Female Arrest and Citation Trends
This section highlights arrest/citation trends for female youth in 2015-2019 including: demographics and
offense categories.
94 | P a g e
Figure 50: Female Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019
Table 21: Female Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 144 121 652 69 23 1,009
2016 128 101 457 66 24 776
2017 142 101 538 35 44 860
2018 99 89 562 40 35 825
2019 146 76 519 49 40 830
Percent Change 2015-
2019 -31% -26% -14% -42% 52% -18%
Percent Change 2018-
2019 -30% -12% 4% 14% -10% -4%
Figure 51: Female Arrests by Age Category and Race/Ethnicity 2017-2019
144 121
652
69
23
128 101
457
66
24
142
101
538
35 44
99 89
562
40 35
146
76
519
49 40
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
95 | P a g e
Table 22: Female Age Categories by Race/Ethnicity 2015 -2019
Age Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
12 and Under
2015 10 4 22 1 2 39
2016 3 0 3 0 1 7
2017 3 0 10 1 2 16
2018 2 3 17 2 7 31
2019 2 0 14 3 0 19
13-14
2015 30 30 144 7 13 224
2016 10 14 60 2 1 87
2017 30 11 116 14 7 178
2018 20 7 162 7 5 201
2019 19 15 113 5 8 160
15-16
2015 57 51 322 16 20 466
2016 32 24 122 13 10 201
2017 61 55 268 14 9 407
3 5 1
13 11 10 10 10 10
3 1 4 6 10 12 16
10
411
29
61
31
78
109
78
36 38 43
3 3 3 2 7
15114 6 4
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
12 & Under 13-14 15-16 17 & Older
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
96 | P a g e
2018 49 48 251 14 13 375
2019 68 36 247 24 11 386
17 and Older
2015 49 36 164 23 10 282
2016 21 33 91 5 0 150
2017 48 35 144 16 16 259
2018 28 31 132 17 10 218
2019 57 25 145 17 21 265
Table 23: Female Arrests Top 5 ZIP Codes in 2019
ZIP Code White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
95122 0 3 49 8 2 62
95020 6 2 52 2 0 62
95116 3 2 40 0 0 45
95127 3 2 35 1 0 41
95037 12 3 24 0 0 39
Table 24: Female Arrest Offense Categories 2015-2019
Arrest Categories Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
2015 19 7 66 3 0 95
2016 19 5 48 4 3 79
2017 21 5 44 2 4 76
2018 14 3 29 3 3 52
2019 34 3 53 3 8 101
Felony Crimes Against
People
2015 17 5 54 6 1 83
2016 6 18 35 3 1 63
2017 14 9 44 7 6 80
2018 8 12 71 3 5 99
2019 18 8 74 3 5 108
Other Crimes 2015 15 20 81 1 3 120
97 | P a g e
2016 13 14 52 6 2 87
2017 33 19 119 6 10 187
2018 14 13 85 9 4 125
2019 27 10 98 11 11 157
Other Crimes Against
People
2015 25 33 142 12 9 221
2016 25 27 91 8 4 155
2017 23 10 114 11 10 168
2018 15 14 100 13 9 151
2019 15 10 102 9 7 143
Property Crimes
2015 55 48 250 43 8 404
2016 54 31 162 42 10 299
2017 42 50 167 7 12 278
2018 28 36 203 10 13 290
2019 44 38 125 21 8 236
Return from Other
Status/Courtesy
Holds/Other Admits
2015 11 4 47 1 3 66
2016 8 2 50 2 3 65
2017 4 4 35 1 2 46
2018 5 2 22 1 1 31
2019 3 4 48 2 0 57
Weapon Crimes
2015 2 4 12 1 1 20
2016 3 4 19 1 1 28
2017 5 4 15 1 0 25
2018 5 2 13 0 0 20
2019 5 3 19 0 1 28
Female Admission and Intake Trends
This section breaks down demographics and offense categories for females detained in juvenile hall from
2015-2019 and top five ZIP Codes for detained females in 2019.
Table 25: Female Admissions by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019
98 | P a g e
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 30 37 133 3 4 207
2016 22 27 109 4 2 164
2017 26 25 143 7 9 210
2018 26 21 209 5 7 268
2019 21 20 153 7 5 206
Percent Change 2015-
2019
-30% -46% 15% 133% 25% 0%
Percent Change 2018-
2019
-19% -5% -27% 40% -29% -23%
Table 26: Female Admissions Age Category by Race/Ethnicity 2015-2019
Age Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
12 and Under
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 1 0 0 1
2019 0 0 1 0 0 1
13-14
2015 5 1 28 0 0 34
2016 0 3 20 3 0 26
2017 3 3 29 3 0 38
2018 5 1 61 3 0 70
2019 1 4 31 0 0 36
15-16
2015 13 20 71 1 3 108
2016 14 10 51 0 2 77
2017 13 6 78 3 5 105
2018 11 10 109 2 1 133
2019 10 12 78 7 1 108
17 and Older
2015 12 16 34 2 1 65
2016 8 14 38 1 0 61
2017 10 16 36 1 4 67
2018 10 10 38 0 6 64
2019 10 4 43 0 4 61
Table 27: Female Admissions Top 5 ZIP Codes in 2019
99 | P a g e
ZIP Code White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
95116 0 1 19 0 0 20
95122 0 0 19 0 0 19
95111 0 0 17 0 1 18
95127 0 0 13 3 0 16
95020 3 0 10 1 0 14
Table 28: Female Admission Offense Categories 2015-2019
Admissions Offense
Categories
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
2015 0 0 9 0 0 9
2016 2 1 8 0 0 11
2017 2 0 7 0 0 9
2018 0 1 2 0 0 3
2019 0 1 3 1 1 6
Felony Crimes Against
People
2015 9 4 30 1 0 44
2016 5 11 16 1 0 33
2017 7 9 26 5 1 48
2018 5 7 62 1 2 77
2019 10 2 51 2 2 67
Other Crimes
2015 1 2 5 1 0 9
2016 1 5 10 1 0 17
2017 4 2 20 0 4 30
2018 2 2 21 0 0 25
2019 0 2 18 0 1 21
Other Crimes Against
People
2015 2 11 14 0 0 27
2016 6 3 12 0 0 21
2017 3 0 9 1 1 14
2018 2 0 5 1 2 10
2019 2 2 7 0 0 11
Property Crimes
2015 6 9 27 1 1 44
2016 3 3 25 2 1 34
2017 6 7 52 1 3 69
2018 8 9 92 1 2 112
2019 3 7 43 3 1 57
2015 12 10 45 0 3 70
100 | P a g e
Return from Other
status/Courtesy
Holds/Other Admits
2016 5 2 37 0 1 45
2017 3 7 28 0 0 38
2018 8 2 19 2 1 32
2019 4 3 26 1 0 34
Weapon Crimes
2015 0 1 3 0 0 4
2016 0 2 1 0 0 3
2017 1 0 1 0 0 2
2018 1 0 7 0 0 8
2019 2 3 5 0 0 10
Female DEJ and Placement Trends
This section highlights DEJ and Placement trends from 2015-2019 for female youth.
Table 29: Females in DEJ 2015-2019
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2015 2 3 11 1 0 17
2016 1 0 10 0 1 12
2017 3 1 13 2 0 19
2018 2 3 24 0 1 30
2019 0 3 6 0 0 9
Table 30: Female Placements 2015- 2019
Placements Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Juvenile Hall
2015 1 2 6 1 0 10
2016 0 0 12 0 2 14
2017 0 1 5 1 1 8
2018 1 2 7 1 0 11
2019 1 2 8 0 0 11
James Ranch
2015 1 3 6 0 0 10
2016 3 0 7 0 0 10
2017 1 1 10 0 0 12
2018 1 1 12 0 0 14
2019 1 1 12 0 0 14
Foster Care 2015 1 3 5 0 0 9
2016 4 1 1 0 0 6
101 | P a g e
2017 0 0 2 0 0 2
2018 0 0 2 0 0 2
2019 1 0 2 0 0 3
DJJ 2015 0 0 1 0 0 1
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 2 0 0 2
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 1 0 2 0 0 3
102 | P a g e
APPENDIX C : ARRESTS/CITATIONS BY ZIP CODE 201 5 -2019
Arrest/citations numbers by ZIP Code are slightly higher for 2019 the Gilroy and Morgan Hill ZIP Codes of 95020 and 95037 compared to 2018. The
ZIP Codes of 95116, 95122, 95111, 95127, 95112, 95123, 95128 and 95035 saw a decrease in arrest/citation numbers for 2019 compared to 2018.
In 2019, the ZIP Codes with the most arrest/citations are 95020 Gilroy (n=273), 95116 Gilroy (n=200), and Gilroy 9512 2 (n=193). In 2018, the ZIP
Codes with the most arrest/citations are 95116 (n=309), 95122 (n=243), and 95127 (n=234), all in San Jose.
Figure 52: Arrests/Citations by ZIP Code 2015-2019
239 235
260
93
228
257
145
128
76
101
223
182 191
114
180
196
77
111
90
69
233
245 246
141
194
166
98
122 117
85
204
309
243
119
189
234
125
108 100
78
273
200 193
168 158 151
87 81 78 77
95020 95116 95122 95037 95111 95127 95112 95123 95128 95035
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
103 | P a g e
APPENDIX D: SOUTH COUNTY ARRESTS/CITATIONS BY ZIP CODE
The figure below shows trends in arrests/citations from 2015-2019 for the South County ZIP Codes of
95020 (Gilroy), 95037 (Morgan Hill), and 95046 (San Martin). In 2019, there were 498 arrests/citations in
all South County ZIP Codes a 46 percent increase from 2018 at 340 arrests/citations in all South County
ZIP Codes. The South County ZIP Codes made up 15 percent of all arrests/citations in 2019 (n=498/3,370).
Of the 468 arrests/citations in South County 37 percent were accepted by the Prevention and Early
Intervention (PEI) Unit (n=184).
Figure 53: Arrests/Citations for South County by ZIP Code 2015-2019
For all South County ZIP Codes misdemeanors made up the largest category of offense classifications. Sixty
percent of Gilroy’s (95020) arrests/citations were misdemeanors (n=164). Forty -nine percent of Morgan
Hill’s (95037) arrests/citations were misdemeanors (n=82). Fifty-six percent of San Martin’s (95046)
arrests/citations were misdemeanors (n=32).
Figure 54: South County Duplicated Offense Classification by ZIP Codes 2019
239 223 233
204
273
93
114
141
119
168
19 13 19 17
57
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
95020
Gilroy
95037
Morgan Hill
95046
San Martin
104 | P a g e
Property Crimes accounted for 26 percent of arrests/citations in Gilroy (95020 ; n=71). Drugs, Alcohol
Related Offenses accounted for 27 percent of arrests/citations in Morgan Hill (95037; n=46). Property
Crimes accounted for 32 percent of arrests/citations in San Martin (95046; n=18).
Figure 55: Duplicated Arrests and Citations Offense Category by South County ZIP Codes 2019
For all South County ZIP Codes 17 percent of youth were arrested/cited for Misdemeanor Assault : Fighting
(n=80), followed by Possession and Sale of Drugs at 12 percent (n=56) and Obstruction, Resisting Arrest,
Disturbing the Peace at 12 percent (n=54).
27%19%21%
60%
49%56%
8%
24%
19%
5%8%4%
95020 95037 95046
Felony Misdemeanor Infraction Status
71
42
46
52
35
14
13
24
46
38
21
14
14
11
18
14
5
12
2
2
4
Property Crimes
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Other Crimes Against People
Other Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
95020 95037 95046
105 | P a g e
Table 31: Top Ten Offenses by South County ZIP Codes 2019
Top Ten Offenses 95020 95037 95046 Total
Misd. Assault: Fighting 39 36 5 80
Possess/Sale of Drugs 19 27 10 56
Obstruction, Resisting Arrest, Disturbing Peace 30 14 10 54
Other Drug/Alcohol Charges 15 16 2 33
VOP – Failure to Obey Order of the Court 14 14 2 30
Theft, Petty; Burglary Tools 16 8 2 26
Felony Assault: ADW 11 7 2 20
Vandalism, Malicious Mischief 12 5 2 19
Theft, Auto 11 4 1 16
Felony Weapons 8 6 2 16
Burglary - 1st Degree 8 2 6 16
Total 183 139 44 366
106 | P a g e
APPENDIX E : JAIS SUPERVISION STRATEGY GROUPS OVERVIEW
The Probation Department utilizes an evidence-based tool called the Juvenile Assessment and
Intervention System (JAIS) that weaves together a risk assessment and strengths and needs assessment.
As well as analyzing risks and needs, the JAIS incorporates a supervision strategy model and determines
the best approach for each youth. Please see table below for more details.
Table 32: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview
JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview
Strategy Group General Characteristics Why Youth Get in Trouble Intervention Goals
Selective
Intervention (SI)
• Pro-social values
• Positive adjustment
• Positive Achievements
• Good social skills
• External stressors
• Internal, neurotic need
• Resolve external stressor
• Resolve internal
problems
• Return to school
• Return to appropriate
peers and activities
Limit Setting (LS) • Anti-social values
• Prefers to succeed
outside the rules/law
• Role models operate
outside the rules/law
• Manipulative, exploitive
• Motivated by power,
excitement
• Straight life is dull
• Substitute pro-social
means to achieve power,
money, excitement
• Change attitudes and
values
• Use skills in pro-social
ways
• Protect the school
environment
Environmental
Structure (ES)
• Lack of social and survival
skills
• Poor impulse control
• Gullible
• Naïve
• Poor judgment
• Manipulated by more
sophisticated peers
• Difficult generalizing
from past experiences
• Improve social and
survival skills
• Increase impulse control
• Develop realistic
education program
• Limit contact with
negative peers
Casework/Control
(CC)
• Broad-range instability
• Chaotic lifestyle
• Emotional instability
• Multi-drug
abuse/addiction
• Positive effort blocked
by:
*Chaotic lifestyle
*Drug/alcohol use
*Emotional
instability
• Increase stability
• Control drug/alcohol
abuse
• Overcome attitude
problems
107 | P a g e
APPENDIX F : O FFENSE C ATEGORIES BY C HARGE D ESCRIPTION
The table below highlights some examples of each offense categories’ code descriptions, charge
descriptions, and offense codes that fall under each offense category.
Table 33: Offense Categories by Code Description, Charge Description, and Offense Code
Offense Categories Code Description Charge Description Offense Code
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
HS11378 Possess Controlled
Substance for Sale
Felony
PC647(F)M Under the Influence of
Drugs/
Alcohol/Controlled
Substance
Misdemeanor
BP25662 Minor Possess Alcohol Misdemeanor
HS11357(A)(1) Under Eighteen Possess
Less than 28.5 Grams of
Marijuana
Infraction
HS11357(D) Possession of Marijuana
on School Grounds
Infraction
Felony Crimes Against
People
PC211 Robbery Felony
PC664/187 Attempted Murder Felony
PC245(A)(1) Assault with a Deadly
Weapon or Great Bodily
Injury
Felony
PC215 Carjacking Felony
PC288(A) Lewd or Lascivious Act
on a Child Under
Fourteen
Felony
Other Crimes PC4532(B)(1) Escape Jail/Etc. while
Charged/Etc. with a
Felony
Felony
PC148.9 False Name to Peace
Officer
Misdemeanor
PC148 Obstruct Resist Public
Officer
Misdemeanor
VC12500(A) Driving while Unlicensed Misdemeanor
• Negative attitudes toward
authority
• Unable to commit to
long-term change
• Foster ability to recognize
and correct self-defeating
behavior
108 | P a g e
Offense Categories Code Description Charge Description Offense Code
PC182(A)(1) Conspiracy to Commit
Crime
Misdemeanor
Other Crimes Against
People
PC242 Battery Misdemeanor
PC166(C)(1) Violation of Court Order
Domestic Violence
Misdemeanor
PC261.5 Unlawful Sexual
Intercourse with Minor
Misdemeanor
PC646.9(A) Stalking Misdemeanor
PC243(E)(1) Battery on Former
Spouse, Fiancé, or Date
Misdemeanor
Property Crimes PC487 Grand Theft Felony
PC459 Burglary: First Degree Felony
PC451 Arson Felony
VC10851 Driving/Taking Vehicle
without Owner’s
Permission
Felony
VC20002 Hit and Run/Property
Damage
Misdemeanor
PC647(H) Prowling Misdemeanor
PC488 Petty Theft Misdemeanor
PC466 Possession of Burglary
Tools
Misdemeanor
PC602 Trespassing Misdemeanor
PC594 Vandalism Misdemeanor
Return from Other
Status/Courtesy Hold/
Other Admit
PC1203.2 Re-arrest/Revoke
Probation/Etc.
Misdemeanor
WI777 Failure to Obey Order of
the Juvenile Court
Status
PC594(A)(B) For Sentencing Purposes Status
WI602 Juvenile Offender (State
Specific Offense)
Status
Weapon Crimes PC245 Assault with a Deadly
Weapon (Punishment)
Felony
PC21310 Possession of a Dirk or
Dagger
Felony
PC25400(A) Carry Concealed
Weapon
Felony
PC246.3 Willful Discharge of
Firearm with Gross
Negligence
Felony
109 | P a g e
Offense Categories Code Description Charge Description Offense Code
PC21310 Possession of a Dirk or
Dagger
Misdemeanor
APPENDIX G : JJSC WORKGROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES
Table 34: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative: Race Equity in Justice Systems Workgroups
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Electronic
Monitoring
Program
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup.
Public Defender
Jean Pennypacker, Chair,
Juvenile Justice Commission
The Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)
committee goals are to promote best
practices and ensure equity in the use of
EMP; to ensure the use of EMP properly
aligns with its purpose; to identify
eligibility criteria for EMP to ensure
equity; determine EMP success for youth
of color; and develop policy
recommendations to ensure youth of
color are successful. The committee is
working to identify additional alternatives
to detention. The Research and
Development (RaD) team provided phase
III of the research questions and received
the additional youth surveys. The
committee is working on the eligibility
criteria, community-based alternatives,
and the impact of restrictive EMP.
Monthly
High Risk
Youth
Ann Huntley Sup. District
Attorney
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup.
Public Defender
The High-Risk Youth committee focuses
on ensuring race equity, promoting child
wellbeing, and reducing racial and ethnic
disparities related to youth currently
involved in the justice system while
continually improving justice system
processes. This committee is focused on
youth who have committed three or more
serious offenses. The committee will
investigate potential interventions for
this target population and develop policy
recommendations to ensure youth of
color receive appropriate dispositions.
Monthly
110 | P a g e
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
The committee is working with County
Counsel on a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) and a standing
order to share information.
Gender
Responsive
Task Force
Judge Katherine Lucero,
Presiding and Supervising
Judge of the Juvenile
Division
Nick Birchard, Deputy Chief
Probation Officer
Protima Pandey, Director
Office of Women’s Policy
The Gender Responsive Task Force
(GRTF) was established in 2015 to create
a comprehensive case plan and
treatment model for moderate and high-
risk girls on probation in Santa Clara
County that decreases their risk of
recidivism and victimization while also
increasing their life outcomes. For more
information on GRTF please see
Appendix B.
Monthly
Table 35: Other Collaborative Efforts with Justice Systems Stakeholders
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Juvenile Court
Aligned Action
Network
(JCAAN)
Judge Katherine Lucero,
Presiding and Supervising
Judge of the Juvenile
Division
Joy Hernandez, National
Center for Youth Law
Alex Villa, Probation
Division Manager
Supported by: Dana
Bunnett, Kids in Common
The goal of JCAAN is for youth in the
juvenile justice system to achieve parity
in graduation rates with the general
population. Work includes identifying
baseline data for education outcomes
for youth in the justice system; on-going
literature review to find effective and
promising practices; deep landscape
analysis to identify services and gaps;
and utilizing data to improve education
results for these youth.
Monthly
111 | P a g e
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Juvenile Justice
Data Crosswalk
Dana Bunnett, Kids in
Common
The Juvenile Justice Data Crosswalk
Project was created to align data
collection and data sharing efforts for
many groups currently working with
juvenile justice involved youth such as
NYCL, VERA, DIY, JCAAN, Burns
Institute/Racial Equity Through
Prevention, Kids in Common, Juvenile
Court Aligned Action Network, Juvenile
Justice Commission, SCCOE and
Probation.
Monthly
CSEC Steering
Committee
Francesca LeRue, Director
of Family and Children’s
Services
The CSEC Steering Committee consists
of DFCS, JPD, PH, BHSD, Community
Solutions, YWCA, LACY, Public Defender,
and other partners as identified. The
CSEC Steering Committee shall: Provide
ongoing oversight and leadership to
ensure the county agencies and partners
effectively collaborate to better identify
and serve youth who are at risk of or
have been commercially sexually
exploited.
Quarterly
CSEC
Implementation
The Implementation Team
members consist of the
following system partners:
DFCS, JPD, PH, BHSD,
Community Solutions,
YWCA, LACY, Public
Defender, and other
partners as identified.
The CSEC Implementation Team
(hereafter referred to as “The
Implementation Team”) is responsible
for trauma informed program
development and training using data to
ensure the implementation of the
Commercially Sexually Exploited
Children (CSEC) protocol. The team will
utilize continuous quality improvement
(CQI) as well as a feedback process to
identify and address gaps, challenges
Monthly
112 | P a g e
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
and maximize opportunities for program
enhancement.
DIY Steering
Committee
Laura Garnette, Chief
Probation Officer
Judge Julie Alloggiamento,
Judge for DIY calendar
The goals of the Dually Involved Youth
(DIY) Steering Committee are (1)
Prevent youth ¡n the child welfare
system from formally penetrating the
juvenile justice system. (2) Use
evidence-based research and promising
practices to inform changes in both
systems so that we can better serve
youth and families. (3) Eliminate
disproportionate minority contact in the
child welfare and juvenile justice
systems. (4) Strengthen the ability of
families to rise above the challenges
they confront.
Monthly
DIY Under 14
Subcommittee
Christian Bijoux, Dually
Involved Youth Director
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup.
Public Defender
The purpose of the group is to engage
system partners to provide support to
the dually involved youth who are under
14 years old as this population might
need specific supports to address their
needs. The workgroup is currently
developing a protocol for SB439 for
youth who are under 12 years old and
cannot be detained as outlined by new
legislation.
Monthly
Title IVE Well-
Being Waiver
Steering
Committee
Laura Garnette, Chief
Probation Officer
Robert Menicocci, Director
Department of Social
Services
The Title IVE Well-Being Waiver Steering
Committee was developed when Santa
Clara County joined the Title IVE Well-
Being Waiver Project. The Steering
Committee meets monthly to discuss
the Waiver Project and other issues as it
relates to providing best practices for
the community. The committee is
Monthly
113 | P a g e
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
composed of key staff from Probation,
Department of Family and Children’s
Services (DFCS), Behavioral Health and
Fiscal.
APPENDIX H : AB12 NON -MINOR DEPENDENT YOUTH
The California Fostering Connections to Success Act known as AB12, which took effect in 2012, and
subsequent legislation, allowed eligible youth to remain in foster care beyond age 18 up to age 21. This
was originally known as AB12 but is now known as Extended Foster Care (EFC) services. EFC services
provide youth with the time and support needed to gradually become fully independent adults. The
guiding principle of this extension is to provide each eligible youth with the opportunity to make decisions
regarding his or her housing, education, employment, and leisure activities, while receiving ongoing
support and assistance when difficulties are encountered. Foster youth who participate in EFC are
designated as Non-Minor Dependents (NMDs). There are two types of NMD’s, 602 NMDs who are still on
Probation and WIC 450 NMDs who were on probation, met their rehabilitative goals and were dismissed
effectively transitioning them to a non-Ward NMD. The other type of NMD can be a youth dismissed from
Probation (successfully or unsuccessfully) who re-enters by petitioning either the Juvenile Justice or
Dependency Court. Most youth who exit from Juvenile Probation and have no dependency history, re -
enter and/or are supervised by POs in the Placement Unit.
Youth who are between the ages of 18 to 21 and were in foster care on their 18th birthday, qualify for
extended foster care (EFC) services. In order to maintain eligibility to participate in EFC, youth must meet
one of five participation criteria:
• Working toward completion of high school or equivalent program; or
• Enrollment in higher education or vocational education program; or
• Employed at least 80 hours per month; or
• Participating in a program to remove barriers to employment; or (the threshold is low, even
applying for work, or meeting monthly with a case worker or PO qualify as meeting this criterion)
• The inability to participation in any of the above programs due to a verified medical condition.
There are approximately 200 NMDs in this county participating in EFC through the Department of Family
and Children’s Services and the Juvenile Probation Department. NMDs meet monthly with their assigned
social worker or Probation Officer and may attend hearings (they are not required to be present at these
hearings) through the Juvenile Dependency Court or Juvenile Justice Court where the case worker is
required to report on their progress to the Court. NMDs receive support in meeting their eligibility criteria,
life skills classes, assistance receiving public benefits and applying for student financial aid, a monthly
114 | P a g e
financial stipend, and housing assistance during their post -EFC transition (also during their time as an
EFC).
There are several housing options for NMDs including:
• Remain in existing home of a relative; licensed foster family home; certified foster family agency
home; home of a non-related legal guardian (whose guardianship was established by the juvenile
court); or STRTP (youth may remain in a group home after age 19 only if the criteria for a medical
condition and/or NMD eligibility is met and the placement is a short-term transition to an
appropriate system of care); or
• THP-Plus Foster Care (THP+FC) - this program has three models:
o Host Family where the NMD lives with a caring adult who has been selected and approved
by the transitional housing provider;
o Single Site where the NMD lives in an apartment, condominium or single family dwelling
rented or leased by the housing provider with an employee(s) living on site; or
o Remote Site where the NMD lives independently in one of the housing types listed above
with regular supervision from the provider; or
• Supervised Independent Living Placement (SILP) - this placement option allows youth to live
independently in an apartment, house, condominium, room and board arrangement or college
dorm, alone or with a roommate(s), while still receiving the supervision of a social
worker/probation officer. The youth may directly receive all or part of the foster care rate
pursuant to the mutual agreement.
NMD youth can reside in-county, out-of-county and/or out-of-state and continue to receive
supportive services and monthly-mandated face-to-face contact with their Probation Officer.
APPENDIX I : B EHAVI ORAL H EALTH D IAGNOSIS
The Behavioral Health Services Department referenced the DSM 5 for a brief definition of the following
behavioral health diagnosis.
• Adjustment Disorder with Depressed mood/Anxiety: A common short-term disorder most
people experience during and a new or unfamiliar situation. A person may experience mild
depressive mood or anxiety. It usually dissipates after a few weeks but could become worse if
more depressive symptoms or anxiety symptoms surface.
• Substance Use/Dependence: Any substance that is consumed is considered use whether it is
alcohol or drugs. Dependence is when the body physically needs the substance in order to feel in
a "normal" state. It can be physical or psychological.
• Behavior Disorder: There are different types of behavior disorders. The most common in our
population is Oppositional Defiant Disorder which could also have an underlying aspect of gang
115 | P a g e
culture and mistrust of authority figures. Reactive Attachment Disorder is seen more in younger
children that have a difficult time with close relationships with parental figures.
• Mood Disorders: There are several types of mood disorders that fall under the categories of
different Depressive diagnoses, Anxiety diagnoses as well as Bipolar diagnoses which also have a
manic element. Manic meaning having a lot of energy to possibly do extra-ordinary activities such
as all night projects with some delusional thinking.
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: Exhibiting distressful symptoms after experiencing a traumatic
event where the person witnessed or experienced something harmful, possibly a near death
experience or abuse. These symptoms may include nightmares, flashbacks, avoidance of things
that are reminded of the event, and depressive symptoms.
• Anxiety Disorder: There are several anxiety disorders. There may be brief once that are Acute,
having anxiety for a specific life element and it could be experienced to more situations where
the person is not able to identify what is the origin of anxiety. This would be Generalized Anxiety
Disorder.
• Major Depressive Disorder : Characterized by low mood throughout the day, feelings of
worthlessness and hopelessness, loss of sleep, appetite and sometimes feelings of death and
suicidality.
• ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder): Characterized by having difficulty concentrating
for a certain period of time, being easily distracted, not being able to focus as well as not being
able to sit still.
• Bipolar Disorder: There are two different types of bipolar disorder one has a time frame of a
manic state in which one experiences a need to do a lot of activities or a big unrealistic project for
a week and then go into a deep depressive state for another week. Another Bipolar Disorder has
some delusional thinking along with the manic state.
• Pervasive Develop Mental Disorder: Organic disorder where there is low cognitive functioning
and having difficulty understanding ideas, social cues and sometimes language. This may be
identified by the person not being at the age level of understanding that is equivalent to their
chronological age.
APPENDIX J : C OMMONLY U SED A BBREVIATIONS AND A CRONYMS
The following is a comprehensive list of all commonly used abbreviations and acronyms used throughout
this report in alphabetical order.
Figure 56: Commonly Used Abbreviations and Acronyms
Abbreviation/Acronym Definition / Meaning
A-CRA Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach
116 | P a g e
ADO Alternate Defender's Office
AED Alternative Education Department
Asian/PI Asian/Pacific Islander
BHSD Behavioral Health Services Department
CCR Continuum of Care Reform
CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
CFCS Children, Family and Community Services
CFT Child and Family Team
CITA Individualized Treatment of Adolescents
CMS Case Management System
County Santa Clara County
CRP Community Release Program
CSEC Commercially Sexually Exploited Children
CSE-IT Commercial Sexual Exploitation Identification Tool
CSI Cross Systems Initiatives
CWS/CMS Child Welfare Services / Case Management System
CY Calendar Year
CYF Children, Youth and Family
DEJ Deferred Entry of Judgement
DFCS Department of Family and Children's Services
DIY Dually Involved Youth
DIYU Dually Involved Youth Unit
DJJ Division of Juvenile Justice
DYCR Department of Youth and Community Restoration
EFC Extended Foster Care
EMP Electronic Monitoring Program
FLY Fresh Lifelines for Youth
FTA Failure to Appear
FV/DV Family/Domestic Violence
GRTF Juvenile Justice Gender Responsive Taskforce
HHS Health and Human Services
HS Hospital System
IDO Independent Defense Counsel
JAIS Juvenile Assessment Intervention System
JAS Juvenile Automation System
JCAAN Juvenile Court Aligned Action Network
JJCPA Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act
JJSC Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative
JPD Juvenile Probation Division
JRS Juvenile Records System
117 | P a g e
LACY Legal Advocates for Children and Youth
MAR Medication Administration Rand
MAYSI-2 Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument
MDT Multi-Disciplinary Team
MGPTF Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force
MST Multisystemic Therapy
NCCD National Council on Crime and Delinquency
NMD Non-Minor Dependent
NSU Neighborhood Safety/Services Unit
OMOS Office of Mediation and Ombuds Services
PBIS Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
PD Public Defender
PDO Public Defender's Office
PEI Prevention Early Intervention
PIVOT Providing Individual Valuable Opportunities Together
PO Probation Officer
PRISM Probation Records Information System Manager
PRO-CSR Probation Continuum of Services of Reentry
PSC Placement Screening Coordinator
RAI Risk Assessment Instrument
RAIC Receiving, Assessment, and Intake Center
Ranch Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility William F James Ranch
REJS Race Equity in Justice Systems
REP Race Equity through Prevention
REP Redemption, Education and Purpose
RFK Robert F Kennedy National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice
SARB School Accountability Resource Board
SARC San Andreas Regional Center
SB Senate Bill
SCC Santa Clara County
SCYTF South County Youth Task Force
SHARKS Supervision High-Tech Automated Record Keeping System
SIJS Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
SOGIE Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression
SSI Supplemental Security Income
STRTP Short Term Residential Therapeutic Program
SUTS Substance Use Treatment Services
SW Social Worker
TAY Transition Aged Youth
TGNC Transgender/gender non conforming
118 | P a g e
VMC Valley Medical Clinic
VOMP Victim Offender Mediation Program
VOP Violation of Probation
WIC Welfare and Institutions Code
YAC Youth Advisory Council
YTIP Youth Therapeutic Integrated Program
2020 Juvenile Justice
Annual Report
Santa Clara County
Helping to Build
Positive Futures
“Children are likely to live up to what you believe of them.”
— Lady Bird Johnson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ i
FIGURES AND TABLES .............................................................................................................................. 6
REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODLOGY .......................................................................................... 15
Impact of COVID-19 ........................................................................................................................... 16
COVID-19 Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 16
Organizational Changes and Program Staffing ............................................................................................... 17
Provider Feedback on Virtual Services ........................................................................................................... 18
Feedback from Youth That Received Virtual Services Out-of-Custody ............................................................ 19
Feedback from Youth That Received Virtual Services In-Custody ................................................................... 20
Youth in Santa Clara County............................................................................................................... 22
What is Juvenile Probation? ............................................................................................................... 22
JUVENILE JUSTICE WORK GROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES ..................................................................... 23
Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC)...................................................................................... 23
Race Equity in Justice Systems (REJS) Workgroup .......................................................................................... 23
The Race Equity through Prevention (REP) Workgroup .................................................................................. 23
JJCC ................................................................................................................................................... 23
INNOVATIONS AND COLLABORATIONS IN 2020 ..................................................................................... 24
COVID-19 and Service Delivery to Clients ........................................................................................... 24
EMP/CRP Guidelines .......................................................................................................................... 24
Justice Ed Program ............................................................................................................................ 25
Behavioral Health Integrated Assessment Summary .......................................................................... 26
Peer Support Workers and Behavioral Health Clinician Court Support ............................................... 27
PIVOT Pilot ........................................................................................................................................ 27
University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute (UCCI) Technical Assistance .......................................... 27
Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) ............................................................................... 29
NEW LAWS IN 2020 ............................................................................................................................... 30
Senate Bill 203 & 395 (Juvenile Miranda) ........................................................................................... 30
Assembly Bill 2425 (Sealing Juvenile Arrest and Police Records) ......................................................... 31
Impending Closure of DJJ – Historic Event in History Of Juvenile Justice Reform ................................ 31
Welfare and institutions Code 208.5 .................................................................................................. 32
Racial Justice Act (“RJA”).................................................................................................................... 32
FUTURE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ....................................................... 33
California Tiered Sex Offender Registration (JULY 2021)..................................................................... 33
PREVENTIVE AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES .......................................................................................... 33
Youth Advisory Council (YAC) ............................................................................................................. 33
South County Youth Task Force (SCYTF) ............................................................................................. 35
Neighborhood Safety/Services Unit (NSU) ......................................................................................... 36
YOUTH AT ENTRY TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM ............................................................................. 38
Youth Arrests/Citations ..................................................................................................................... 39
Demographics of Youth Arrested/Cited ......................................................................................................... 40
Where Do Youth Arrested or Cited Live? ....................................................................................................... 42
Moving from Arrest/Citation to a Petition ..................................................................................................... 44
Motions to Transfer youth to Adult Court .......................................................................................... 44
Juveniles Transferred to Adult Court Update ............................................................................................. 44
Role of Defense Counsel .................................................................................................................... 45
Social Workers and Immigration Attorneys ................................................................................................... 47
Community Outreach Attorney ..................................................................................................................... 47
Admission to Custody ........................................................................................................................ 47
Detention Overrides ..................................................................................................................................... 48
Offenses of Youth Detained .......................................................................................................................... 50
Demographics of Youth Detained .................................................................................................................. 51
Age and Sex of Youth Detained ................................................................................................................. 51
where youth detained reside .................................................................................................................... 52
Intake and Admission Trends ........................................................................................................................ 52
Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)/Community Release Program (CRP) ........................................ 54
Arrests/Citations Filed as Petitions .................................................................................................... 55
FACTORS THAT LEAD YOUTH TO ANTI -SOCIAL BEHAVIOR ...................................................................... 56
Child Welfare History Checks ............................................................................................................. 56
Criminogenic Risk .............................................................................................................................. 58
Risk Assessment for Boys .............................................................................................................................. 59
Risk Assessment for Girls .............................................................................................................................. 59
Criminogenic Needs ........................................................................................................................... 60
Criminogenic Needs for Boys......................................................................................................................... 61
Criminogenic Needs for Girls ......................................................................................................................... 64
Comparing Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls .................................................................................. 68
Supervising Youth on Probation .................................................................................................................... 69
EXAMINING DISPROPORTIONALITY AT KEY ENTRY POINTS IN THE SYSTEM ............................................ 70
Arrests and Citations ......................................................................................................................... 70
Youth Detention ................................................................................................................................ 73
Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population............................................................................................... 74
Petitions ............................................................................................................................................ 75
COLLABORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS ............................................................................. 77
WIC 241.1 Referrals and Assessments ........................................................................................................... 77
Dually Involved Youth Initiative/Unit ............................................................................................................. 78
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC)........................................................................................... 78
Specialty Courts ............................................................................................................................................ 79
Family Violence/Domestic Violence Court (FV/DV) .................................................................................... 80
Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) .................................................................... 81
Opportunity Court..................................................................................................................................... 81
Victim-Centered Approaches ........................................................................................................................ 81
Probation Victim Services .......................................................................................................................... 82
District Attorney Juvenile Victim Advocate ................................................................................................ 83
Victim Offender Mediation Program (VOMP)............................................................................................. 83
Behavioral Health and Substance Use Treatment Services ............................................................................. 84
Ranch Reentry Behavioral Health Services ..................................................................................................... 87
Collaborative Intensive Interventions ................................................................................................ 88
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) ........................................................................................................................ 88
Wraparound Services .................................................................................................................................... 88
Restrictive Interventions .................................................................................................................... 91
Out of Home Placements .......................................................................................................................... 91
Juvenile Hall .............................................................................................................................................. 92
William F. James Ranch Program ............................................................................................................... 93
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) ................................................................................................................ 94
Commitments ............................................................................................................................................... 95
Foster Care Placements................................................................................................................................. 96
Health and Wellness in Secure Care .............................................................................................................. 97
Physical Health.......................................................................................................................................... 97
Behavioral Health...................................................................................................................................... 99
Medical Services and covid-19 ................................................................................................................. 101
Systems Coordination ............................................................................................................................. 102
Vaccination Initiative ............................................................................................................................... 102
Pharmacy Services .................................................................................................................................. 102
Dental ..................................................................................................................................................... 102
Optometry Clinic ..................................................................................................................................... 103
Dermatology Clinic .................................................................................................................................. 103
Health education Program ...................................................................................................................... 103
Eligibility for Healthcare Project (SB 1469) ............................................................................................... 104
Alternative Education Department (AED) .................................................................................................... 105
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports at Juvenile Hall ..................................................................... 106
Career Technical Education at James Ranch ............................................................................................. 106
Chronic Absenteeism .................................................................................................................................. 107
LOOKING AHEAD TO 2021 ................................................................................................................... 108
SB823 Juvenile justice realignment: Office of Youth & Community Restoration ............................... 108
Establishing the JJCC Juvenile Realignment Subcommittee .......................................................................... 111
RAI Validation .................................................................................................................................. 112
Family Finding ................................................................................................................................. 112
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 113
Appendix A: The County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice System Map ............................................... 114
Appendix B: County Gender Responsive Task Force (GRTF) .............................................................. 115
Female Arrest and Citation Trends .............................................................................................................. 116
Female Admission and Intake Trends .......................................................................................................... 120
Female DEJ and Placement Trends .............................................................................................................. 122
Appendix C: Arrests/Citations by Zip Code 2016-2020 ...................................................................... 124
Appendix D: South County Arrests/Citations by Zip Code ................................................................. 125
Appendix E: Supplemental Scoring Guide: JAIS Interview Impressions ............................................. 127
Appendix F: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview .................................................................. 129
Appendix G: Offense Categories by Charge Description ................................................................... 130
Appendix H: JJSC Workgroups and subcommittees .......................................................................... 132
Appendix I: Assembly Bill (AB) 12 Non-Minor Dependent Youth....................................................... 136
Appendix J: Behavioral Health Diagnosis .......................................................................................... 138
Appendix K: Commonly Used Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................. 140
6 | P a g e
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Effectiveness of Virtual Services Compared to In Person According to Providers (n=27) .......................... 18
Figure 2: Youth's Perceptions of Beneficial Changes to Services Since Pandemic (n=26)......................................... 19
Figure 3: Youths' Overall Perception of Virtual Services (n=26) .............................................................................. 20
Figure 4: PIVOT's Four Phases ............................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 5: Core Components of NSU ....................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 6: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2016-2020 ......................................... 39
Figure 7: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2020 .................................................................... 40
Figure 8: Duplicate Offense Classifications ............................................................................................................ 40
Figure 9: Age of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited by Offense Category ................................................................. 41
Figure 10: Sex of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited 2020 ....................................................................................... 41
Figure 11: Santa Clara County Top 10 Residence ZIP Codes for Duplicated Arrests/Citations 2020 ......................... 43
Figure 12: Santa Clara County Duplicated Offense Classification for Top 10 Residence ZIP Codes ........................... 43
Figure 13: All Referrals to Public Defense Counsel ................................................................................................. 46
Figure 14: All Cases by Type of Defense Counsel ................................................................................................... 46
Figure 15: Number of Youth Detained (duplicate count) by Process Step 2020 ...................................................... 48
Figure 16: Duplicated Admissions by Offense Category 2020 ................................................................................. 51
Figure 17: Number of Duplicated Admissions to Juvenile Hall by Top 10 ZIP Codes 2020 ....................................... 52
Figure 18: Juvenile Hall Intake Decision Trend 2016-2020 ..................................................................................... 53
Figure 19: Duplicated Juvenile Hall Admissions by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2016-2020 .................................. 53
Figure 20: Duplicated Detained Youth by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2016-2020 ............................................... 54
Figure 21: Duplicated Top 10 Most Frequent Charges at Time of Petition 2019 ..................................................... 55
Figure 22: Child Welfare History 2019 ................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 23: Race/Ethnicity and Sex for Probation Youth With At Least One Child Welfare Referral as the Alleged
Victim 2020 (Unduplicated) .................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 24: Risk Level for Boys and Girls 2020 ......................................................................................................... 60
Figure 25: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys ......................................................................................................... 64
Figure 26: Top Criminogenic Needs for Girls.......................................................................................................... 68
Figure 27: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls 2020 .................................................................................. 68
Figure 28: Youth Population Percentage (2019) and Youth Arrest Percentage (2020) ............................................ 70
Figure 29: Rate of Arrest and Citation per 1,000 youth 2020 ................................................................................. 71
Figure 30: Arrest Rates per 1,000 Youth 2016 – 2020 by Race/Ethnicity ................................................................ 72
Figure 31: Rate of Detention per 1,000 youth 2020 ............................................................................................... 73
Figure 32: Average Daily Population by Race/Ethnicity .......................................................................................... 75
Figure 34: Rate of Petition for 2020 (per 1,000 youth in population) ..................................................................... 75
Figure 33: Santa Clara County Petitions in 2020 .................................................................................................... 75
Figure 35: CSE-IT Results ....................................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 36: Number of Youth in Family Violence/ Domestic Violence Court............................................................. 80
Figure 37: Victim Awareness Participants .............................................................................................................. 82
Figure 38: Behavioral Health Treatment by Sex ..................................................................................................... 86
Figure 39 : Behavioral Health Treatment by Age Range ......................................................................................... 86
Figure 40: Behavioral Health Treatment by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................................... 86
7 | P a g e
Figure 41: Behavioral Health Diagnosis ................................................................................................................. 87
Figure 42: Monthly Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population Compared to Wraparound Services and Placement
(2018-2020) ......................................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 43: Santa Clara County DJJ Placements 2016-2020 ..................................................................................... 94
Figure 44: Commitments 2016-2020 Trends.......................................................................................................... 95
Figure 45: Youth in Commitments 2020 by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................................... 95
Figure 46: Percentage of Commitments in 2020 .................................................................................................... 96
Figure 47: Foster Care Placements in 2020 by Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................ 97
Figure 48: Foster Care Placements in 2020 by Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................ 97
Figure 49: Behavioral Health Resource Center .................................................................................................... 100
Figure 50: Guadalupe Behavioral Health Clinic at Juvenile Hall ............................................................................ 101
Figure 51: Medi-Cal Percentages on Detained Youth in Juvenile Hall 2020 ........................................................... 105
Figure 52: Osborne (Juvenile Hall) and Blue Ridge (James Ranch) Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity (n=746) .............. 106
Figure 53: Female Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020 ...................................................................................... 116
Figure 54: Female Arrests by Age Category and Race/Ethnicity 2018-2020 .......................................................... 117
Figure 55: Arrests/Citations by ZIP Code 2016-2020 ............................................................................................ 124
Figure 56: Arrests/Citations for South County by ZIP Code 2016-2020 ................................................................. 125
Figure 57: South County Duplicated Offense Classification by ZIP Codes 2020 ..................................................... 125
Figure 58: Duplicated Arrests and Citations Offense Category by South County ZIP Codes 2020 .......................... 126
Figure 59: Commonly Used Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................... 140
TABLES
Table 1: Percentage of Total Youth Population Ages 10-17 .................................................................................... 22
Table 2: Santa Clara County Change in Youth Population Ages 10-17 1993-2019 ................................................... 22
Table 3: Number of Youth Detained and Released Prior to Detention Hearing ....................................................... 48
Table 4: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Percentage 2020 ...................................................... 49
Table 5: Risk Assessment Instrument Mandatory Detention Reasons 2020............................................................ 49
Table 6: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Reasons 2020 .......................................................... 50
Table 7: Age and Sex of Duplicated Youth Detained 2020 ...................................................................................... 51
Table 8: Duplicated Number of Youth in Alternatives to Custody 2020 .................................................................. 54
Table 9: Boys Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=713) .................................................................................... 69
Table 10: Girls Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=182) .................................................................................. 69
Table 11: Number and Rate of Arrests and Citations (2020) and Youth Population (2019) ..................................... 71
Table 12: Arrest and Citation Yearly Trends........................................................................................................... 72
Table 13: Numbers and Rate of Admission to Secure Detention 2020.................................................................... 73
Table 14: Admission Numbers 2016-2020 ............................................................................................................. 74
Table 15: Duplicated Petition Numbers 2016-2020 ............................................................................................... 76
Table 16: Numbers and Rate of Duplicated Petitions 2020 .................................................................................... 76
Table 17: Petition Rates per 1,000 Youth by Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................... 77
Table 18: CSEC 2020 by Sex .................................................................................................................................. 79
Table 19: Number of Youth by Status 2016-2020 Trend ........................................................................................ 93
Table 20: Commitment from Dispositions ............................................................................................................. 96
Table 21: Juvenile Hall Medical Clinic 2020 ........................................................................................................... 98
Table 22: James Ranch Medical Clinic 2020 ........................................................................................................... 99
8 | P a g e
Table 23: Female Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020 ....................................................................................... 116
Table 24: Female Age Categories by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020 ........................................................................... 117
Table 25: Female Arrests Top 5 ZIP Codes in 2020 ............................................................................................... 118
Table 26: Female Arrest Offense Categories 2016-2020 ...................................................................................... 119
Table 27: Female Detentions by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020 ................................................................................. 120
Table 28: Female Detentions Age Category by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020 ............................................................ 121
Table 29: Female Detentions Top 5 ZIP Codes in 2020 ......................................................................................... 121
Table 30: Female Detentions Offense Categories 2016-2020 ............................................................................... 121
Table 31: Females in DEJ 2016-2020 ................................................................................................................... 123
Table 32: Female Placements 2016- 2020 ........................................................................................................... 123
Table 33: Top 10 Offenses by South County ZIP Codes 2020 ................................................................................ 126
Table 34: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview ......................................................................................... 129
Table 35: Offense Categories by Code Description, Charge Description, and Offense Code .................................. 130
Table 36: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative: Race Equity in Justice Systems Workgroups ............................. 132
Table 37: Other Collaborative Efforts with Justice Systems Stakeholders ............................................................. 133
9 | P a g e
SUPERVISING JUDGE’S FOREWORD
Greetings!
2020 has been a complicated and at times horrifying year.
Making sure that we were able to provide critical support to
both our out-of-custody and in-custody youth has been our
number one priority while navigating a pandemic, wildfires, air
quality emergencies, race equity issues highlighted by the
health crisis, and the murder of George Floyd as well as other
deaths at the hands of law enforcement. These realities have
caused all of us to pause and to recalibrate our response in how
we serve the youth, families and communities who find
themselves in our Juvenile Justice Systems.
All of this on top of a year of major legal changes with the closing of the DJJ and the county realignment
planning that has culminated in our youth being kept in Santa Clara County as of July 1, 2021, rather than
sending them to a statewide youth correctional facility far away from family and other vital connections.
2020 has been a tremendous challenge and a tremendous victory at once.
Our in-custody population continues to be at an all-time low and we have been able to make sure that
the low number of youth in custody are safe, healthy, and released to the community when possible. This
report reflects the culturally responsive, gender informed, and healing centere d programming which is
provided with both a behavioral health and a public safety lens. We acknowledge that most youth who
commit law violations have complicated social histories that put them at the highest need for evidence
based, and compassionate interventions. Making sure that victims who are often from the same
neighborhoods and who also have similarly complicated social histories are heard, compensated, and
supported is also a paramount feature of the Juvenile Justice Reform work. When our youth an d our
communities feel safe and whole, we all benefit
We are excited to embark on this new era of keeping our youth local and bringing in the community to
take ownership of all our youth, even those who may have to experience a much more significant period
of rehabilitative treatment for more serious law violations. In that regard, we all play a part in keeping
youth in school, making sure that they have a place to call home, and that they are supported to dream
about how they are going to someday serve the universe while following their own path to success.
Thank you to the leadership of the Department of Probation, the District Attorney, the Public Defender,
the Alternate Defender’s Office, the Independent Defender’s Office, the Behavioral Health Departm ent,
the County Office of Education, the Department of Health, and many, many Community Based
Organizations in 2020. We could only have come through this together and with the dedicated public
service leadership that I see each day.
10 | P a g e
It continues to be my honor to work in this role and to be among such creative, brilliant, and
compassionate professionals.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Katherine Lucero County of Santa Clara Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Division
11 | P a g e
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER’S FOREWORD
Greetings from Santa Clara County!
Welcome to the County of Santa Clara’s Juvenile Justice Annual
Report. This report reflects the state of the local juvenile justice
system during calendar year 2020, a year with unpreceded
challenges and changes in our nation, our state and locally. In
Silicon Valley, the wealth gap continues to widen, and the global
COVID-19 pandemic has amplified deep inequities already so
prevalent in our justice system and community.
This report illuminates significant changes that occurred in
juvenile justice in California the past few years. Likely the most
pressing is that, as of July 1, 2021, the Division of Juvenil e
Justice (DJJ), the state system responsible for housing and rehabilitating youth with the most serious a nd
violent offenses, stopped accepting new admissions. They will close completely by 2023. The
responsibility for the care of these youth now falls to each of 58 counties. This drastic state change poses
both tremendous opportunity and incredible challenges. We are excited to be part of this movement. All
of us deserve a juvenile justice system that has a laser focus on rehabilitation and restoration.
Before acknowledging the breath, depth, and sophisticated analysis in this report, I want to express
heartfelt gratitude to the tireless efforts probation staff and staff for other system partners, for serving
our clients during such a time of unsettlement. For example, staff in Juvenile Hall and the James Ranch,
went from a multitude of community providers of many types coming and going all day every day,
teachers holding school five days a week, loved ones visiting with their children, group meals, group
activities, and significant transparency and porousness in our facilities; to a Juvenile Hall and James Ranch
that is operated almost exclusively by our staff. Their dedication and commitment to care for our youth
in the most difficult circumstances is thoroughly appreciated.
Similarly, staff working in community-based positions had to alter their service delivery to one of
assistance and stabilization. Early in the pandemic, the Neighborhood Services Division provided formula,
diapers, food, and menstrual products to some of the most negatively impacted areas. Many Probation
Officers joined that effort. The grace and fluidity they exhibited in their changed roles was astounding.
Many times, professionals in our fields are left not knowing their impact. The pandemic has shone a light
on just how essential probation services are. Our staff are highly trained and decidedly exhibited a
sophisticated skill set that focuses on immediate need and stabilization. Sometime that’s a treatment
program or even incarceration. Sometimes, it is supplying essential supplies and supports to weather
difficult times. Every single cl assification of staff in our department contributed essential services during
one of the most difficult 18+ months most have experienced in their professional careers.
In the introduction written last year acknowledging the role of COVID-19 on our system, I wrote, “we are
faced with another crisis, the growing number and volume of voices demanding accountability and
compassion from law enforcement and the justice system to address centuries of racism embedded in
our
12 | P a g e
communities. Without question, our systems have promulgated systemic racism, whether intentional or
not. The call to change that is in our hands. This is the time to use this rich data to course correct and I am
fully committed to doing so. We are fortunate to operate in a rich cultural environment, with longstanding
professional partnerships with colleagues and communities committed to true justice for all. This timely
report will serve as a guide in how to move our reform efforts deeper. “
And indeed, we have used the past 12 months to think differently, critically, and creatively, about better
ways to serve populations with deep distrust of law enforcement. One way we show our commitment to
these efforts is to continue this essential work by collecting and analyzing critical data required to mak e
sound decisions. This year our research team took this report beyond expectations. Because of the global
pandemic, the normal metrics were not enough. Instead, they focused on how youth and families fared
during this time, what new legislation is driving our system and how our staff worked outside their normal
roles to support our most vulnerable communities.
While this report is data intensive, please remember that these numbers represent real young people,
real families, and real victims. The juvenile Justice is a complex system focused on long term rehabilitation
and serves teens ranging from youth who commit minor offenses that are attributable to normal
adolescent transgressions, to youth who engage in serious criminal conduct and are threats to community
safety. The data in the report takes the reader through each decision point in the system in an effort to
de-mystify such a complicated process.
This report is just one example of the outstanding work conducted by Probation Department’s Research
and Development (RaD) team led by Dr. Holly Child. They have invested hundreds of hours scrubbing,
interpreting, analyzing, and presenting the data found i n this report. It takes courage to looks at issues
critically and without defense. My hope is that our County continues this high-level, honest analysis and
partnership so that we can all understand how the system’s response either helps or harms our youth and
community. This information will not be helpful if we do not harness it to make more effective decisi ons
about the care and oversight of youth.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this document and who work tirelessly every day to help our
youth succeed and to keep our community safe. And thanks to all who take the time to read this report.
Sincerely,
Laura Garnette
Chief Probation Officer County of Santa Clara
13 | P a g e
Youth
Detentions
Helping to Build Positive Futures
Juvenile Justice Trends Over Time (duplicated counts of youth)
Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2020
3,310
1,048 921 1,201
3,792
1,147 1,013
1,390
3,668
1,340 1,212
1,535
3,370
1,053 958 848
2,246
606 560 776
Arrests/Citations Refer to Juvenile Hall Admission to Juvenile Hall Petitions Filed
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
26%
20%
20%
11%
10%
7%
6%
Property Crimes
Other Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other Admits
Weapon Crimes
Arrests/citations in 2020 saw a decrease compared to 2019 (33 percent decrease to 2,246). Felony offenses did see a slight
increase from 39 percent in 2019 to 42 percent in 2020 (moving from 1,322 felonies in 2019 to 943, so even though the proportion
of felonies increased the overall number of felonies decreased). Overall, arrests/citations have been declining since 2016.
606 youth (or 27% of
all arrests and
citations) referred to
Juvenile Hall
(duplicate count).
560 youth (or 92%)
detained (duplicate
count). This accounts
for a 42% decrease
from 2019.
456 detentions (or
81%) held until
detention hearing
(duplicate count).
Property Crimes (which includes felony and misdemeanor offenses) and Other Crimes (e.g., Resist, Delay Obstruct an Officer,
Driving While Unlicensed, and Reckless Driving ) combined to account for approximately 46 percent of the total 2,246
arrests/citations. This was the same proportion of arrests/citations in 2019 for the top two offense categories.
2020
ANNUAL REPORT AT A GLANCE
Juvenile Justice
Santa Clara County
Helping to Build Positive Futures
14 | P a g e
In 2020, arrests/citations decreased as well as petitions filed (n=776; an eight percent decrease compared to 2019). In 2020,
the number of duplicated petitions decreased past levels previously seen in 2016. Of the 776 petitions filed in 2020, the most
likely offenses to be petitioned were robbery (152), auto theft (96) and residential burglary (39).
Sex and Age of Youth Arrested
•78% of youth arrested were male.
•42% of youth arrested were 15 & 16 years old.
•38% were 17 years or older.
•2% were 12 years old and younger.
Home Life
•The zip codes where most youth reside
include 95020, 95116, 95127, 95111 and
95112.
•Girls had more family history problems
(64%) compared to boys (43%)
Child Abuse and Neglect
•53% of youth had at least one referral as
the alleged victim.
•Girls (43%) self-reported more
abuse/neglect and trauma compared to
boys (21%).
Education
•School inadequacy was similar for boys 42%
and girls 37%.
•Issues due to lack of intellectual capacity
(boys 24%, girls 18%) and due to achievement
problems (boys 38%, girls 47%).
Criminogenic Needs
•Criminal Orientation was similar for boys
(29%) and girls (24%).
•Over 76% of boys and girls had anti-social
peers (gangs, legal troubles, or both).
Behavioral Health
•34% of girls attempted or thought about
committing suicide versus 10% of boys.
•88% of girls and 65% of boys had significant
issues with depression, anxiety, and other
emotional factors.
About Youth in the
Juvenile Justice System
Rate of Arrest and Citation per
1,000 youth 2020
7
32
23
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI
Duplicated Petitions by Top 10 Offense Categories 2020
19
20
20
21
28
33
37
39
96
152
Criminal Threats
Vandalism
Reckless Evading a Police Officer
Second degree Burglary
Assault w Deadly Weapon
Carjacking
Assault w Force to GBI
Residential Burglary
Auto Theft
Robbery
In 2020, Black and Latino youth
continue to be overrepresented
at every decision point in the
juvenile justice system.
Disproportionality
15 | P a g e
REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODLOGY
The County of Santa Clara government serves a diverse, multi-cultural population of 1.9 million residents
in Santa Clara County, California, making it more populous than 14 states in the U nited States. The County
provides essential services to its residents, including public health protection, environmental stewardship,
medical services through the County of Santa Clara Health System, child and adult protection services,
homelessness prevention and solutions, roads, park services, libraries, emergency response to disasters,
protection of minority communities and those under threat, access to a fair criminal justice system, and
many other public benefits. This report focuses on juvenile justice system in Santa Clara County.
The Santa Clara County Juvenile Justice annual report provides insight into the juvenile justice process by
reporting the number of arrests, referrals to the Probation Department, petitions filed, and dispositions
for juveniles tried in court, while highlighting various programs and services available to youth and families
throughout the juvenile justice system. Additionally, the report focuses on racial and ethnic disparities
and sex1 differences at various decisions points.
Since 2011 2 , the Probation Department in Santa Clara County, in strong collaboration with system
partners, has developed a Juvenile Justice Annual report as part of the Juvenile Justice Model Courts
program. This is not a report of only Probation Department activities, but rather a report of collaborative
efforts among the juvenile justice system partners. Throughout the years, this annual report has evolved
into a comprehensive source of information that describes the youths’ needs and sheds light on the
services and programs provided to youth who are part of the juvenile justice system. As a result, the
reporting process has enabled information sharing between system partners to evaluate performance
and better understand how to improve the outcomes for youth in the County. The information sharing
process is done through the sharing of aggregate data from each Probation partner and is compiled and
added to the report.
The structure of the report is organized into key sections that outline the continuum of care that youth
and their families might be involved in through the juvenile justice
system:
1. Introduction to Santa Clara County juvenile justice system
2. Innovations and collaborations to the juvenile justice system
in 2020
3. Preventive and community initiatives
4. Youth at entry to the juvenile justice system
5. Factors that lead youth to anti-social behavior
6. Examining disproportionality at key entry points in the system
1 Probation is currently updating how we track Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression (SOGIE) measures.
Soon, probation will track comprehensive SOGIE measures.
2 Juvenile Justice Annual Reports: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/probation/reports/Pages/Annual-Reports.aspx
16 | P a g e
7. Collaborative juvenile justice interventions
8. Restrictive interventions
9. Looking ahead to 2021
Throughout this report, we use abbreviations and acronyms to reference programs, services, and tools.
Appendix J offers a comprehensive list for your reference of all these abbreviations and acronyms. Also,
due to variation in methods and approaches to data collection and reporting by system partners, there
may be differing reporting formats. In most cases the annual data reflects the calendar year, unless
otherwise specified. For each section of this report, the data source and other relevant information about
the data is provided in the footnotes for reference. In addition, this report is not an evaluation of each
program or service but has historically been a presentation of the process outcomes and outputs for each
area. Due to the magnitude of services in the juvenile system and covered in the annual report, it is not
feasible to discuss every program and service at length. For additional Probation reports, please visit the
Probation Department website: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/probation/Pages/default.aspx
IMPACT OF COVI D -19
On March 16, 2020, Santa Clara County issued a Shelter-In-Place (SIP) Order3 due to novel coronavirus
(COVID-19) along with five other counties in the Bay Area to slow the spread of the virus and to preserve
health care capacity. This order directed all individuals living in the county to shelter at their place of
residence except to leave to provide or receive certain essential services. This order had significant impact
on human services. As described in more detail in Innovations and Collaborations in 2020 section, COVID-
19 brought about an organic revisioning in how the system and community responds to youth who have
committed offenses. It is imperative to be conscientious of the different county protocols and changes to
services that were implemented due to the pandemic and throughout this report, sections may address
directly the changes implemented in their respective programs and service delivery methods. While we
have included all trend figures as in previous years, however, 2020 is unique to previous years and caution
should be used when comparing 2020 statistics to previous years.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Probation met with contracted community partners to negotiate
any needed changes to scope of work and related contract amendments, focusing on changes how
services would be provided. In response to the changes to programs and services we implemented, a
survey was administered to system partners and youth to gauge what changes are working well and where
support was needed. The results of these surveys are described in more detail below.
COVID -19 SURVEY RESULTS
The following section highlights feedback from both Probation contracted providers as well as youth who
received services after the start of the pandemic in March 2020. The data for this section is derived from
3 All Santa Clara County Public Health orders can be found here: https://covid19.sccgov.org/public-health-orders
17 | P a g e
four separate assessments that were administered in April and May of 2021. The first was an online survey
sent to Probation contracted juvenile service providers and covered topics such as program staffing and
organizational priorities, experiences transitioning from in-person to virtual services, as well as any overall
successes and challenges experienced during the past year. Although 22 providers completed the survey,
several organizations completed the survey more than once for separate Probation funded programs,
resulting in a total of 27 survey responses, representing 24 separate programs. Of the 27 programs
surveyed, six offered exclusively in-custody services, three offered both in-custody and out-of-custody
services, while the remaining 18 offered exclusively out of custody services.
An additional online survey was sent to youth who received Probation referred out-of-custody services
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The youth were all out of custody at the time they completed the survey
and were identified with the help of their Probation officers. In terms of services youth received during
the past year, the largest percent of youth (38 percent or 10 out of 26) indicated they were engaged in
community services, which most often likely refers to the Community Service-Learning Program, followed
by therapy or counseling (27 percent or seven out of 26), and victim awareness classes (15 percent or four
out of 26). The survey covered youths’ attitudes toward virtual services and asked them to highlight any
benefits and challenges they experienced receiving services throughout the past year. Of the 26 surveyed
youth, 62 percent (16 out of 26) indicated that they worked with a Probation Officer before the start of
the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning most of the youth had experience with Probation services prior to the
pandemic. Finally, the data for this section also includes responses from 50 youth in Juvenile Hall and 21
youth at James Ranch. For youth at both institutions, several questi ons related to the COVID-19
pandemic’s impact on services and family visits were added to the Client Experience Surveys that youth
periodically complete for evaluation purposes.
Overall, youth felt supported by provider staff and appreciated the ease with which they were able to
access services. Nonetheless, feedback from providers suggests that providing services virtually in most
cases is not ideal, especially regarding client engagement. It is not exactly known how providers will adapt
to the easing of restrictions in a post-pandemic setting, the findings from these surveys suggest that
providers may—at least partially—adapt some of their services online.
Organizational Changes and Program Staffing
Although provider staff changed the hours they worked during the pandemic, most neither significantly
increased nor decreased their total number of working hours. Most staff switched to working virtually
with 59 percent (16 out of 27) of respondents noting that over half of their staff worked completely
virtually. Although 74 percent (20 out of 27) of providers indicated that staff changed their working hours
to accommodate clients’ schedules, 67 percent (18 out of 27) noted that the total amount of staff time
stayed about the same. Most providers (56 percent or 15 out of 27) noted that referrals had decreased
since the start of the pandemic. However, it is likely that the pandemic exacerbated a pre -existing trend
since overall referrals for services have been declining for the past several years due to declining rates of
18 | P a g e
arrests and detentions. Although providers reported that the number of referrals declined in 2020, most
noted that funding stayed about the same.
Provider Feedback on Virtual Services
All programs except for one provided virtual services during the past year. Most programs (67 percent or
18 out of 27) provided both virtual and in-person services at some point during the year, alternating
according to the different tiered phases of social distancing issued by the county. Only four programs (15
percent) noted having any experience providing virtual services prior to the start of the pandemic.
Most providers viewed their transition from in-person to virtual service as a successful effort. Several
noted the pandemic provided them with new opportunities to engage clients creatively, and a plurality
(44 percent) indicated that they plan on incorporating virtual services in some capacity after the pandemic
ends. Notably, many providers appreciated that virtual services eliminated transportation barriers and
streamlined some services that can be done more efficiently online. Providers mentioned being able to
adapt their program to a virtual environment, finding creative ways to engage clients, increasing
collaboration, and providing COVID testing and safety services to clients and staff as all major successes
their organization experienced this past year.
However, despite offering certain benefits, about two-thirds of providers (67 percent) indicated that
virtual services are less effective than in person. Figure 1 shows that providers believed virtual services
were less effective across all measured domains including client retention, building relationships,
assessing client needs, and facilitating curricula. Providers noted that it is more challenging to engage
youth, to assess their level of interest, and to get them to take the services as seriously as they would in
person. For these reasons, providers’ responses suggest that they would prefer to deliver many of their
services in person once conditions for allow it.
Figure 1: Effectiveness of Virtual Services Compared to In Person According to Providers (n=27)
0%7%4%0%0%
30%33%30%37%30%
67%
52%
63%59%59%
4%4%4%4%7%0%4%0%0%4%0 0 0 0 0
Overall effectiveness
virtual compared to
in-person
Client Retention Building/maintaining
client relationships
Assessing client
needs
Facilitating curricula
More effective than in-person About as effective as in-person
Less effective than in-person Not Applicable
Not at all effective Missing
19 | P a g e
Feedback from Youth That Received Virtual Services Out -of-Custody
In general youth that received services out-of-custody noted they had reliable access to virtual services
and that program staff helped them with issues as they came up. All youth (n = 26) noted having access
to a computer while 92 percent (24 out of 26) indicated having reliable internet access. A large majority
of youth (77 percent or 20 out of 26) also indicated that they had enough privacy to engage in services.
Most youth appreciated that virtual services were easier to access than in-person services and that they
cut down on travel time. A little over half (54 percent or 14 out of 26) of youth indicated enjoying receiving
services on a virtual platform and would like to continue to receive virtual services after the pandemic.
Figure 2 lists the changes in programming since the start of the pandemic and whether youth found them
beneficial. Most youth (69 percent or 18 out of 26) noted that the ease of access and the saving of time
due to not having travel (58 percent or 15 out of 26) were “beneficial changes” caused by the pandemic.
Half of youth (13 out of 26) also cited not having to find transportation as a benefit as well.
Figure 2: Youth's Perceptions of Beneficial Changes to Services Since Pandemic (n=26)
Youths’ attitudes toward virtual services tended to be more favorable than providers. However, several
providers mentioned that some youth are more engaged virtually than in person since they are more
willing to open up in a virtual setting. However, most youth also noted that virtual services compounded
the issue of virtual fatigue and excessive screen time that they were already experiencing.
69%
58%
50%
35%
35%
19%
4%
Easy to access
Saves you time not having to get to a location
Not having to find transportation to the program
Able to have more communication with your service
provider
Able to have more communication with your
probation officer
More participation from your
parent(s)/guardian(s)/family
Other
20 | P a g e
Figure 3: Youths' Overall Perception of Virtual Services (n=26)
Feedback from Youth That Received Virtual Services In -Custody
Providers at both Juvenile Hall and the Ranch converted most of their services from in person to virtual
within weeks of the County Shelter-in-Place order. At Juvenile Hall, tablets were distributed to the units
to enable youth to interact individually with their service providers, and, as Figure 4 shows, most of the
youth (54 percent) were able to receive virtual one-on-one counseling during their time at Juvenile Hall.
Family visits at both Juvenile Hall and the Ranch were also converted to virtual early in the pandemic, and
a similar percentage of youth at Juvenile Hall and the Ranch (62 percent and 67 percent, respectively)
were able to utilize these visits.
Figure 4: Youth In-Custody that Received Virtual Counseling and Family Visits
65%62%54%
31%38%46%
4%0%0%
Do you enjoy receiving services
on a virtual platform?
Do you feel you have been able
to interact with your peers in
the program on a virtual
platform?
Would you like to continue
receiving services virtually after
the pandemic ends?
Yes No Missing
54%62%67%
46%38%33%
Juvenile Hall Juvenile Hall Ranch
Have you received 1:1 virtual
counseling?
(N= 50)
Have you utlizied virtual family
visits?
(N=50)
Have you utilized virtual family
visits
(N = 21)
Yes No
21 | P a g e
At Juvenile Hall, 93 percent (26 out of 28) of youth that indicated receiving virtual services noted that the
experience went well. Based on open-ended feedback youth at Juvenile Hall also indicated
appreciating/enjoying their virtual family visits, however, several youth noted that they wish ed the visit
lasted longer. Fourteen youth noted that they did not receive virtual family visits either because of their
unit was in quarantine, family issues, or for other specific reasons. At the Ranch, 67 percent of surveyed
youth (14 out of 21) noted receiving virtual family visits at some time during their commitment. However,
it is difficult to draw any general impressions youth had about family visits due to the very small number
of youth (n = 9) that responded to the appropriate question. It should also be noted that the Ranch
resumed in-person family visits in late 2020, and 67 percent (14 out of 21) of youth noted having at least
one in-person family visit.
As Figure 5 below illustrates, most youth that responded to the question believed it would be beneficial
to have virtual services after the pandemic is over. Several youth noted that this would work well when
youths’ families were unable to attend in person. In general, however, it appears that while virtual services
make sense in some circumstances, most of the youth strongly prefer to see their families in person.
Figure 5: Beneficial for Youth to Have Future Virtual Visits Post-COVID?
Youth at Juvenile Hall and the Ranch mentioned multiple challenges related to the impact COVID-19
pandemic had on their stay. These challenges included difficulties with distance learning, social isolation
related to quarantining and social distancing, challenges with not being able to see family in person, and
overall boredom resulting from greater restrictions on their movement. Although regrettable, many of
these challenges either resulted from or were exacerbated by the county’s efforts to maximize youth
safety and prevent the spread of COVID-19 within Santa Clara County institutions. Despite these severe
challenges, it appears that the integration of virtual services and family visits enabled youth to receive
vital services and remain connected with their loved ones. Moving forward, Probation may want to
consider ways to supplement in-person programming and family visits with current virtual practices in
effort to encourage greater connection and ensure a more successful reentry into the community.
58%48%
26%33%
16%19%
Juvenile Hall
(N = 50)
Ranch
(N = 21)Yes No Blank
22 | P a g e
YOUTH IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Over the last two decades, Santa Clara County’s youth population (ages 10-17) has changed dramatically.
Since 1993 the youth population has increased by 22 percent and there has been a significant increase in
the number of youth of color in the County as shown in the U.S. Census4 categories listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Percentage of Total Youth Population Ages 10-175
Percentage of total youth population White Black Latino Asian/PI Native
1993 44% 4% 29% 22% 0.5%
2019 25% 3% 35% 37% 0.3%
The table below shows the greatest change has been in the Asian/Pacific Islander (Asian/PI) population
which increased by 102 percent since 1993 to become the largest racial/ethnic population. During the
same period, the Latino youth population has increased by 45 percent. Meanwhile the White youth
population decreased by 29 percent since 1993 and is no longer a majority. Decreases have also occurred
in the youth populations of Black youth (-18 percent), and Native American youth (-23 percent). Overall,
the youth population in Santa Clara County increased by 22 percent since 1993.
Table 2: Santa Clara County Change in Youth Population Ages 10-17 1993-20196
Population Change 1993-2019 White Black Latino Asian/PI Native Total
1993 68,387 6,243 45,567 34,649 753 155,599
2019 48,429 5,105 66,083 70,160 581 190,358
Percent Change 1993-2019 -29% -18% 45% 102% -23% 22%
W HAT IS JUVENILE PROBATION?
Probation is an opportunity for youth to remain at home, when possible, under supervision of the Court
and the Probation Department while receiving services to address their needs. Services vary by type and
level of intensity depending on many factors. In some cases, youth may be detained at Juvenile Hall or
ordered to the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility William F. James Ranch (Ranch) or another placement
depending upon their offense(s) and needs. A youth may be ordered to follow certain conditions set forth
by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. In the County of Santa Clara (County), a
thorough assessment is completed to determine a youth’s intervention level. The intervention level is
4 The census is one calendar year behind the County reporting cycle.
5 Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2020). Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2019. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/
6 2018 is the most recent year for which population estimates are available.
23 | P a g e
determined after an evaluation of a variety of factors such as offense, age, areas of need (such as mental
health, substance use, pro-social activities, family therapy, etc.), risk of reoffending and other factors.
Appendix A describes some of the key decision points within the juvenile justice system. At each of these
points, one or more justice system stakeholders has decision-making power over the trajectory of a
youth’s case. These stakeholders strive to stay informed of the most current best practices for working
with families and communities.
JUVENILE JUSTICE WORK GROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS COLLABORATIVE (JJSC)
The Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC) was established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors
on June 3, 2008, after several years of juvenile detention reform efforts, and has been extended through
June 30, 2023. The JJSC provides a channel for system partners to work together in the best interest of
the youth in the juvenile justice system, while preventing or reducing the unnecessary detention of youth.
The JJSC works with other juvenile justice bodies to maximize resource efficiency and avoid duplication of
efforts. The JJSC addresses the issue of disproportionate minority representation in the juvenile justice
system through constant examination of decision points through a race equity lens. The JJSC is committed
to upholding racial equity and combatting racism in all its forms throughout the youth justice system. The
JJSC has two workgroups detailed below. The JJSC meets quarterly, while the workgroups and their
subcommittees meet monthly, or as needed. The workgroup meetings were suspended during the COVID-
19 pandemic and did not meet between March and December 2020. For more information on the JJSC
work groups and subcommittees please visit: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/occ/jjsc/Pages/home.aspx.
Appendix H also provides information on the JJSC work groups and subcommittees.
Race Equity in Justice Systems (REJS) W orkgroup
REJS has several subcommittees that focus on how youth of color are impacted by the decisions made at
various points in the justice system.
The Race Equity through Prevent ion (REP) W orkgroup
REP has focused their efforts on reducing the suspension and expulsion of youth of color in the schools,
as well as improving community engagement and school engagement practices on individual campuses
throughout Santa Clara County.
J JCC
Senate Bill 1760 (Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, Statutes of 1996) established the
Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program. This program provides state
grants to counties and cities who demonstrate a collaborative and integrated approach for the
24 | P a g e
apprehension, treatment, rehabilitation, punishment, and incarceration of juvenile offenders. Juvenile
Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) requires that the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council consist of the
membership required in section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (Chapter 325, Statue of
1998). The Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution creating the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council
(JJCC) on November 19, 1996. There are eleven members who serve on the JJCC. The appointments to the
JJCC are permanent.
The tasks of the JJCC include assessing current resources, identifying service areas where resources may
be inadequate, and developing proposals to prevent and respond effectively to juvenile crime. The JJCC
oversees this process, which results in a final Local Action Plan to be submitted to the Board of State and
Community Corrections. The JJCC meets bi -annually to review and approve program evaluations and the
annual expenditure plan for JJCPA and YOBG.
INNOV ATIONS AND COLLABORATIONS IN 20 20
Santa Clara County prides itself on collaborative efforts to provide best practices and programs to youth
in the juvenile justice system. This section of the report highlights innovations and collaborations which
are improving the services offered to youth and families in Santa Clara County within a juvenile justice
scope.
COVID -19 AND SERVICE DELIVE RY TO CLIENTS
The Juvenile Justice Court and all its stakeholder partners were able to continue their deep collaborative
work during the pandemic conditions. In March they met weekly with juvenile justice stakeholders to
discuss early releases, electronic monitoring stepdown options for youth, case dismissals, case
conferencing, hearing types that would be allowed to continue in person or virtually, etc. The justice
partners met separately and agreed on new protocols, remote hearings, and reports being delivered by
email versus hard copies in mailboxes at the courthouse. All partners were available to one another
around the clock and on the weekends to ensure, first and foremost, that due process was intact, and that
the youth were safe while in custody and continued to be connected to their families. As the pandemic
roared on through 2020, they met less frequently but still met regularly and developed written protocols
that are effective through August of 2021.
EMP/CRP GUIDELINES
Due to COVID-19 emergency orders and shelter in place directives, youth who were released on the
Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)/Community Release Program (CRP) after a detention hearing
before the Court had their cases set out approximately eight weeks (two months) because they were out-
of-custody. The Juvenile Court prioritized detention hearings and other matters involving in-custody
youth. However, Welfare and Institutions Code Section 628.1 states that youth who are on home
supervision are entitled to the same legal protections as youth in secure confinement. As such, the Office
25 | P a g e
of the District Attorney, Public Defender/Defense Counsel and Probation Department agreed to the
process outlined below to ensure that youth on home supervision through EMP or CRP have a process by
which they can be removed from EMP/CRP without having to appear in Court during the public health
crisis.
These guidelines pertain to “pre-court” or “pre-jurisdiction” home supervision. The purpose of pre-court
EMP/CRP is to: 1) ensure the youth attends any scheduled court appearances and 2) does not commit any
new law violations while they are pending court. All youth released on EMP/CRP are supervised by an
EMP/CRP Counselor for a period of 45 calendar days during shelter in place.
• For non-707(b) offenses, at the 45-day supervision period, EMP/CRP supervision will end, and a
Probation Officer will assume supervision as appropriate without consulting with the D.A. or
Juvenile Court. The probation assessment scores incorporate a review of the minor’s overall
behavior while on EMP and include an evaluation of whether the minor has substantially complied
with EMP orders and has not been arrested or cited for a new crime. For cases involving Domestic
Violence, probation also considers such factors as unauthorized victim contact, failure to comply
with restraining orders, and injury/threats to victim.
• For 707(b) offenses (the most serious and violent crimes), at the 45-day supervision period,
Probation will meet and confer with the DA Juvenile Supervisor and assigned defense attorney
and/or defense counsel supervisor, regarding whether the youth should be removed from
EMP/CRP. Factors that the parties consider include age of the youth, specific facts of the case, use
of weapons or infliction of Great Bodily Injury (GBI), prior criminal history, progress and behavior
on EMP/CRP, and any other relevant factors. If t he parties agree the youth should continue
EMP/CRP, the parties will revisit the issue no sooner than 14 days (two weeks) later.
While not a perfect system, everyone agreed to this temporary mechanism to allow youth to be removed
from house arrest. This process allowed youth and families to continue to shelter in place and allowed the
court to focus on hearings for youth in custody. .
JUSTICE ED PROGRAM
JusticeEd, an initiative of the National Center for Youth Law, works to create a future where every young
person under the jurisdiction of probation graduates from high school with the widest array of possibilities
for their future. JusticeEd works in collaboration with the Probation Department and local partners to
improve the education outcomes of probation-involved students through systems change and direct one
to one support.
Through a partnership with the Probation Department, JusticeEd provides youth newly placed on
probation or Deferred Entry of Judgement with education advocacy and case management services for a
broad variety of educational needs including enrollment support, chronic absenteeism, credit deficiency,
post-secondary transition support, special education navigation and low academic performance. Students
supported by the JusticeEd Initiative are connected to an Education Liaison who:
26 | P a g e
● Works with students to identify education goals, creates a student-centered education plan, and
monitors their progress on their education objectives.
● Partners with caregivers to provide coaching and guidance to build their internal capacity to
support their student’s education goals.
● Coordinates education support by partnering with probation officers, community-based
organization programs, and school site staff to ensure adults are working collaboratively to
support the student’s success.
Since 2018, JusticeEd has:
● Provided intensive one to one support to 123 students and families throughout Santa Clara
County.
● Engaged students, families, and support staff in over 2,100 meetings and conferences aimed at
supporting students in achieving their academic goals.
● Supported youth in achieving 125 academic, social, and emotional, and post-secondary transition
goals.
● Provided 11 Education Advocacy Trainings reaching over 200 court systems staff, probation
officers, community-based organizations, young leaders, and caregivers.
This partnership and support have been especially critical during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic,
as students found themselves struggling to manage the transition to distance learning. Students reported
challenges including increased stress and anxiety, pressure to financially contri bute, depression, and
decreased motivation. To provide as much safeguard as possible, JusticeEd and partner agencies
responded by supporting students with ensuring access to wi-fi and computers, providing guidance in
navigating distance learning platforms and managing an independent study structure, connecting families
to critical financial resources, impromptu tutoring, and mentoring whenever students just needed to talk.
Although official academic data has yet to be released, anecdotal evidence suggests that we will see
decreases in educational achievement across the board and that dedicated district, school, and adult
academic support for probation involved students will be more critical than ever in the coming school
year.
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INTEGRATED AS SESSMENT SUMMARY
In January of 2020, the Behavioral Health Guadalupe Clinic team within Juvenile Hall enhanced their
screening and assessment protocols. In addition to initial admission screenings, clinicians started to
provide a written brief initial assessment focused on mental health, substance use, risk factors, and service
needs by the 14th day of a youth’s custody. This assessment is called the Integrated Assessment Summary
(IAS), it provides treatment recommendations to support the level of care in mental health and substance
use domains, and the recommendations for care coordination are provided as a sealed document to the
youth’s counsel. During the COVID-19 pandemic assessments have continued in person with appropriate
safety protocols in place. In 2020, the Guadalupe clinical team completed the IAS for 190 youth, which
27 | P a g e
included any person at Juvenile Hall for 14 days or more. For youth previously assessed within six months,
the assessment was not repeated unless there was a clinical reason to do so. Common recommendations
include treatment for: substance use and mental health needs, psychiatry, education support, family
therapy, mentoring, vocation support, gang intervention, parent support and a need for forensic
psychiatric evaluation.
PEER SUPPORT WORKERS AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CLINICIAN COURT SUPPORT
During the COVID-19 pandemic, families had limited access to the Court due to safety measures and social
distancing requirements. In May 2020, as a measure to support youth who were attending Court without
their family present, the Behavioral Health Services Department coordinated with the Juvenile Services
Division and the Superior Court, to have Mental Health Peer Support Workers (MHPSW) from the Dually
Involved Youth Unit, provide daily support for youth as they waited for their Court hearing and throughout
their Court proceedings. On several occasions, the MHPSW would coordinate with the Behavioral Health
Clinical team stationed at Juvenile Hall, to follow-up and connect with the youth as they returned to the
living unit for additional support. The MHPSW’s provided this level of in-person support throughout the
2020 pandemic and ended in early-December 2020 when the Court transitioned to virtual court hearings,
at this point, Behavioral Health Clinicians from the Guadalupe Clinic began attending sessions. This
allowed the court to have quick access to resources and questions related to Behavioral Health Services.
PIVOT PILOT
In 2018, the Probation Department received the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
in the amount of $3.3 million from Board of State and Community Corrections to implement the Providing
Individual Valuable Opportunities Together (PIVOT) strategy designed for youth who have committed
serious violent offenses with weapons.
The purpose of the PIVOT strategy is to launch a countywide evidence-based/informed model to increase
protective factors and reduce recidivism among youth who have committed a serious violent crime and/or
crime that involved a weapon. Individualized, intensive, and gender- and culturally- responsive services
will be provided while youth are in Probation facilities or the community. These services will be strengths-
based and trauma- and healing-informed. The PIVOT strategy recognizes the compounding systemic
inequities and challenges facing youth engaged in the juvenile justice system. The PIVOT strategy is
designed to assist young people with the development of protective factors and improved coping skills
needed to succeed.
University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute (UCCI) Technical Assistance
The University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute (UCCI) was contracted to implement a four -phase
process to assist in the design and implementation of an evidence-based model of programming for the
James Ranch. This work is being completed in collaboration with Probation’s Research and Development
(RaD) Team and incorporated input from Ranch staff, youth, and key s takeholders. The four phases (see
28 | P a g e
Figure below) include a comprehensive assessment with action-orientated recommendations, training,
implementation and coaching support, and developing a continuous quality improvement system. The
Ranch is currently in Phase 2.
Figure 4: PIVOT's Four Phases
The first phase was to complete an assessment of the County Probation placement programs using the
Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist (CPC). The objective of the CPC assessment is to conduct
a detailed review of the facility’s practices and to compare them to best practices within the
juvenile/criminal justice and correctional treatment literature. Facility strengths, areas for improvement,
and specific recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the services delivered by the facilities will
be offered.
Phase 2 is focused on trainings in Core Correctional Practices and Cognitive -Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
based on the recommendation from the CPC report. Programs will incorporate a Structured Social
Learning (CBT) model approach and focus on targeting criminogenic risk factors through cognitive
restructuring, emotion regulation, and structured skill building. These identified components can better
assist youth in conforming to program guidelines and expectations and developing motivation and skills
needed for continued progress and success throughout the program, including reentry. The model will
utilize guidelines for effective use of reinforcement on and responses to behavior, with a strong emphasis
and frequent use of reinforcements to promote positive choices, decision making, and goal attainment.
During the training and coaching phases, pod(s) will be selected, in collaboration with the Multidisciplinary
Implementation Team (MIT), and staff will be trained in Core Correctional Practices, cognitive-behavioral
interventions, and other program enhancements. During this third phase, UCCI and Probation will
facilitate onsite training and coaching. Newly designed program components will be rolled out in
segments after formal training has taken place. Formal pilot periods will be identified, and Probation staff
will be coached on implementation of the program components. Coaching will involve hands on modeling
of service delivery, as well as feedback on the implementation of newly adopted material.
29 | P a g e
In the fourth phase, UCCI will facilitate a Continuous Quality Improvement Training and model internal
coaching strategies. UCCI will work with Probation to develop/refine performance measures that gauge
(1) the engagement of youth, (2) professional development of Probation staff, and (3) program
management in meeting program goals. Performance measures will include development (where needed)
and training on the use of group observation forms, client experience surveys, staff evaluations, and pre-
and post-testing.
Service Delivery Model
The PIVOT strategy will focus on ensuring that youth have customized services tailored to their unique
needs, strengths, and interests aligned with the following eight core evidence-based and innovative
components:
1. Credible Messenger Mentors | Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY)
2. Pro-Social Activities | New Hope for Youth
3. Transitional Housing | Bill Wilson Center – Must be 18 or older
4. Education and Career Access | Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) - Must be 18 or older
and Trades Program
5. Survivor Impact | Victim Services Unit of the District Attorney’s Office
6. Behavioral and Physical Health | Behavioral Health Service Department and Valley Medical Center
7. Family Engagement | Multi-Disciplinary Team
8. PIVOT Evaluation | Actionable Insights
G OVERNMENT A LLIANCE ON R ACE AND E QUITY (GARE)
In May 2020, George Floyd’s murder and other crimes against African Americans ignited a national
movement against the brutal treatment of people of color and highlighted the systemic racism and
inequality present in justice systems. In acknowledgement of the harmful and disparaging outcomes for
people of color, the Probation Department in collaboration with the County of Santa Clara Public Health
Department implemented the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) initiative. GARE is a
national network of government working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all people.
The Department committed to utilizing the GARE framework to normalize conversations about race,
organize systems, and operationalize new policies and practices with the purpose of eliminating racial
inequalities, promoting racial diversity and inclusion, and changing practices and policies that promo te
inequitable responses and outcomes within Probation and the community.
Through partnership with Public Health and the GARE Steering Committee and Directors, the
Department’s GARE leadership and champions participated in the County of Santa Clara Race, Equity, and
30 | P a g e
Leadership (REAL) training and development program to implement the GARE framework. The
department has established four (4) subcommittees to move this work:
1. The Data Subcommittee is focused on providing relevant data on population impact to guide and
inform the work and measurement principles to assess ongoing impact.
2. The Policies and Practice Subcommittee is charged with examining the department’s policies,
processes and practices through a race and equity lens, and recommend corrective action(s).
3. The Training Subcommittee is centered on developing and coordinating formal and informal
training to inform, educate, and provide skills to overcome individual bias and systemic barriers.
4. The Communication Subcommittee is balanced to normalizing the conversation around race and
equity ideas and ideals by using multiple communication mediums to inform staff of ongoing
efforts, generate conversations (historic and current), motivate, and connect to staff.
The initiative has prioritized normalization as a preliminary phase to include:
1. Departmentwide communication through newsletters, articles, informational and inclusive
signage.
2. Informal training through small group activities and discussions and formal training designed to
build a base of collective knowledge and shared understanding.
It is anticipated that the Department’s GARE efforts will work in concert with ongoing juvenile justice
equity initiatives and will expand through support and collaboration with the community and County
partners through the larger county-wide GARE initiative.
NEW LAWS IN 20 20
The following section highlights changes in legislation which took place in 2020 and significantly
influenced the juvenile justice system in the state of California and Santa Clara County.
S ENATE B ILL 203 & 395 (JUVENILE MIRANDA )
In 2017, SB 395 added Section 626.5 to the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), requiring that prior to
any custodial interrogation by police and before they waive their Miranda rights, a youth aged 15 or
younger must consult with legal counsel either in person, by telephone or by video conference. This right
to consult with counsel cannot be waived by the youth. SB 395 provided a public safety exception,
meaning no consultation is required if the interrogation is to protect life or property from an imminent
threat and the interrogation is reasonably limited to solicit this information. SB 203 extends the SB 395
right to counsel prior to interrogation to youth aged 17 or younger. SB 395 further provided that in ruling
on the admissibility of any statement taken from the youth, the court must consider the effect of any
failure to comply with the right to counsel, unless the officer questioning the youth reasonably believed
the information was necessary to protect person or property from an imminent threat. SB 203 additionally
provides that, in considering whether statements made by a youth during or after a custodial
interrogation are admissible, the court must consider an officer’s failure to connect the youth with counsel
31 | P a g e
prior to the interrogation. In determining the credibility of the officer under Evidence Code section 780,
the court must consider whether that failure was willful. SB 203 also eliminated the requirement in SB
395 that the Governor convene a panel of experts to conduct a review and report to the Legislature on
the implementation of SB 395.
A SSEMBLY B ILL 2425 (SEALING JUVENILE A RREST AND POLICE RECORDS)
AB 2425 amends Section 786.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to require a law enforcement agency
to seal an arrest record related to the juvenile’s participation in a diversion or supervision program to
which the juvenile was referred in lieu of the filing of a petition in juvenile court. Previously, WIC section
786.5 required only probation departments and diversion agencies to seal the juvenile record upon the
juvenile’s satisfactory completion of the diversion program. Under AB 2425, a law enforcement agency
must also seal the arrest record within 60 days of being notified by the probation department that the
juvenile has satisfactorily completed the diversion program and must notify the probation department
once the records have been sealed. The diversion program must seal its records within 60 days of receiving
notice from the probation department and is required to notify the probation department after it has
sealed its records. As with other juvenile sealing statutes, upon sealing, the arrest and offense are deemed
not to have occurred and the subject of the records may answer accordingly in employment and other
situations. In addition, AB 2425 added a new Section WIC 827.95 prohibiting each law enforcement agency
in the state from releasing a juvenile police record involving a juvenile who has been counseled and
released (without further processing), who has satisfactorily completed a diversion program or who does
not fall under juvenile court jurisdiction. For juveniles fitting those descriptions, the bill further requires
the law enforcement agency to seal the juvenile police record after being notified by a diversion service
provider that the youth has satisfactorily completed the diversion program. Definitions of “juvenile police
record”, “diversion” and “satisfactory completion” are included in the bill. “Brady” provisions allowing
prosecutors to access sealed juvenile police records to meet constitutional obligations to provide
exculpatory evidence to the defense were also included in this law.
IMPENDING CLOSURE OF DJJ – HISTORIC EVENT IN HISTORY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM
Under legislation signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in September of 2020, the California state
youth prison system will close all its remaining facilities. The new law—Senate Bill 823—stopped intake
at the state Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in July of 2021. Senate Bill 92, signed by Governor Gavin
Newsom in mid-2021, will permanently close DJJ by June 30, 2023. Going forward, counties will acquire
full responsibility for the care and supervision of youth who were previously eligible to be committed to
the custody of the state. As of July 1, 2021, courts will no longer be able to commit youth to DJJ unless the
youth is facing a petition to transfer them to adult court. In addition to raising the age of youth who can
continue to be confined in a juvenile facility (to age 25), the legislation includes intent language to adopt
a new, local program for youth with the highest needs and offense levels that will help youth rehabilitate
closer to their families and communities and decrease the number of youth transferred to the adult
criminal justice system. The law creates a Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant, which will pay the
32 | P a g e
counties to treat the realigned caseload and ensure counties are able to fund local facilities, supervision,
and services for youth no longer committed to DJJ. The legislation also creates an Office of Youth and
Community Restoration (OYCR) under the Health and Human Services Agency. This would include an
ombudsman branch that would be authorized to investigate and resolve allegations of abuse or violations
occurring in county level juvenile facilities. Beginning January 1, 2025, the OYCR will oversee all state
juvenile justice grants that are currently administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections
(BSCC). The Department of Justice, by January 1, 2023, will produce a data plan to replace and modernize
the state’s previous juvenile justice databank.
W ELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS C ODE 208.5
On September 30, 2020, California Senate Bill 823 (“SB 823”) repealed Welfare and Institutions Code 208.5
and added a new version. Under the new law, any person whose case originated in juvenile court “shall
remain, if the person is held in secure detention, in a county juvenile facility until the person attains 25
years of age,” unless the juvenile court determines that the person will be moved to an adult facility. This
includes youth whom the juvenile court has transferred to the adult criminal system after a judicial
transfer hearing, since their case “originated” in juvenile court. Probation may petition the juvenile court
to have a person 19 to 24 years old moved to an adult facility. The court must hold a hearing on the
petition, during which there is a rebuttable presumption that the youth will remain in juvenile hall. After
consideration of five (5) factors outlined in the law, including the impact of transfer to an adult facility on
the health and well-being of the person and the benefits of continued programming available at juvenile
hall, the court must make written findings in its ultimate decision.
RACIAL JUSTICE ACT (“RJA”)
AB 2542, better known as the California Racial Justice Act (“CRJA”), prohibits prosecutors from seeking,
obtaining, or imposing a conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin by
expanding opportunities for defendants and youth to challenge racial bias in their case. AB 2542 (adding
Penal Code 745) has been described as a countermeasure to address a widely condemned 1987 legal
precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of McCleskey v. Kemp. The McCleskey
decision has the functional effect of requiring that criminal defendants prove intentional discrimination
when challenging racial bias in their legal process. This has been considered a high standard by many and
therefore almost impossible to meet without direct proof that the racially discriminatory behavior was
conscious, deliberate, and targeted.
Specifically, the CRJA would make it possible for a person charged with or adjudicated or convicted of a
crime to challenge their conviction/adjudication or sentence/disposition by demonstrating that one of the
following examples of discrimination played a role in their prosecution:
1. An attorney, judge, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror involved in the case
exhibited bias or animus toward the defendant or minor because of their race, ethnicity, or
national origin.
33 | P a g e
2. During the trial, whether purposeful or directed at a defendant or minor, there was use of
racially discriminatory language.
3. There is statistical evidence that people of one race are disproportionately charged or
convicted or adjudicated of a specific crime or enhancement.
4. There is statistical evidence that people of one race receive longer or more severe sentences,
including the death penalty or life without parole.
FUTURE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
This section of the report focuses on legislative changes which will greatly affect youth in the juvenile
justice system. For this report, major reforms and programmatic changes are highlighted for which a great
impact is expected within Santa Clara County.
CALIFORNIA TIERED SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION (JULY 2021)
California law requires youth to register as sex offenders only if they have been committed to the state’s
juvenile facility, commonly known as DJJ (the Division of Juvenile Justice) for specified sex offenses. SB
384 will transition California’s lifetime sex offender registration scheme to a tier -based scheme --
establishing three tiers of registration for adult registrants for periods of 10 years, 20 years, and life, and
two tiers of registration for juvenile registrants for periods of (5) five years and 10 years. Beginning on July
1, 2021, this new law allows the registrant to petition the superior court or juvenile court in their county
of residence for termination of their sex offender registration requirement when their mandated
minimum registration period ends. Based on criteria listed in SB 384, the court will either grant or deny
the petition.
PREVENTIVE AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
The Probation Department in collaboration with system partners focuses on implementing preventative
and community initiatives which emphasize reducing the likelihood of youth penetrating deeper into the
juvenile justice system.
YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL (YAC)
Members of the Probation Department’s Youth Advisory Council (YAC) serve as Justice Consultants and
work collaboratively with system partners to inform and enhance current Juvenile Justice related
processes, policies, and practices. Consultants also have opportunities to participate in monthly
community meetings and commissions, and to conduct presentations. Some examples include:
● The Transition from In Person to Virtual Services
34 | P a g e
Due to the County’s Shelter in Place Order, all YAC
meetings and functions moved to a virtual platform.
The youth were able to re-engage and responded
positively. Services have shifted to weekly two-hour
meetings instead of the bi-monthly four-hour meeting
model previously used. Youth expressed a desire to be
connected to YAC on a weekly basis as it is a positive
factor in their lives during this stressful time in our
community and given the national climate regarding
racial justice. This responsive, trauma informed
approach allowed the YAC youth to have a healing
space where they were able to process their individual
struggles, stay effective in their work and maintain a
vital support system.
● LGBTQ Summit with the County of Santa Clara, Office of LGBTQ Affairs
Two amazing YAC youth co-facilitated a panel for LGBTQ+ youth of color about their lived
experiences with family, friends, school, health, justice, and child welfare systems, and more.
Developed in collaboration with the Youth Advisory Council at Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) and
the youth speakers, this session prioritized the questions youth have for one another and
themselves as it relates to their experiences to inform how we can all work together to support
all LGBTQ+ youth of color to thrive in their homes, schools, and communities.
● Coalition for Juvenile Justice National Conference
The YAC facilitated a workshop at the national
conference of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice. The
workshop titled “Power in Partnership” emphasized
the work our YAC is doing to infuse youth voice into
our local system’s policies and practices. It also
emphasized the value in cultivating meaningful
relationships with youth and their communities
through positive youth development. The workshop
had hundreds of attendees. It was an incredible
success for the YAC.
● JCO Core Workshop
As a result of the effective work the YAC is doing by facilitating Deputy Probation Officer Core
workshops, the YAC has now expanded its work into Juvenile Correction Officers (JCO) Core. The
YAC will now present at both training academies moving forward. The theme of our youth
workshop is relationship/empathy building from the youth's perspective. The workshop has been
a great success, as it has prompted incredible feedback and gratitude from all core students.
35 | P a g e
● Letter Writing Campaign for Incarcerated Youth
During the holiday season of 2020, YAC
members participated in FLY’s letter
writing campaign to incarcerated youth in
Santa Clara County. The youth knew that
during the height of the global pandemic
that youth in both facilities had limited
contact with family. Knowing and
understanding how crucially important
connectedness is for incarcerated youth
many YAC members wrote sincere and
heartfelt letters.
● Food Distribution with the City of San Jose
For several months during the pandemic, the YAC partnered with the City of San Jose to distribute
food to families in need on a weekly basis.
SOUTH COUNTY YOUTH TASK FORCE (SCYTF)
The South County Youth Task Force (SCYTF) is a volunteer-based, non-political body in south Santa Clara
County that encourages information and resource sharing, advances evidence-based prevention and
intervention strategies, and unites South County involved entities toward empowering the community’s
youth. SCYTF serves as an advisory body for grants that serve South County youth and seeks to increas e
the community’s access to services, support, and activities that promote the educational, social, and
physical well-being of all South County youth and their families. Acknowledging the role of historical and
present-day inequities, the SCYTF also works to reduce and eliminate disproportionalities in our
community and its institutions that negatively affect youth of color.
In January 2012, the City of Gilroy, the City of Morgan Hill, Gilroy and Morgan Hill Unified School Districts,
local community-based agencies and the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors met and created the
SCYTF to address the effects of violence and gangs on the youth in the South County communities. Chaired
by County Supervisor Mike Wasserman, the Task Force has brought together a collaborative of local
government, law enforcement, school districts, community-based agencies, and resident voice through a
community engagement process to provide positive opportunities for youth and their families.
SCTYF advances its work through a three- to five-year strategic plan. The 2017-2020 Strategic Plan stems
from a second community engagement process and can be found on the taskforce website:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/593/South-County-Youth-Task-Force. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Strategic Plan was extended into 2021. SCYTF will enter a third community engagement process in the
summer of 2021 to gather community feedback related to the needs and gaps in supports for youth and
families, which will be the foundational piece in updating the Strategic Plan for 2021-2024.
36 | P a g e
SCYTF has regular Policy Team and Technical Team meetings, which discuss the climate and trends that
are affecting youth and the community. SCYTF conducts most of its work through committees, such as
the Community Outreach, Engagement and Parks Committee, the Food Insecurity Response Support
Team, and the School Attendance Workgroup.
SCYTF sponsored services include school and after-school supports, El Joven Noble and Xinachtli character
development rites of passage groups, pro-social activities especially in neighborhoods with historically
high levels of crime, resident leadership development, parental workshops, trainings for school personnel
and community, community-building events, and opportunities for civic engagement.
Currently, SCYTF is collaboratively implementing a diversion program for youth in South County. The South
County Diversion Program Workgroup is designing a diversion program that is grounded in a Restorative
Justice Community Model for youth with first time, low -level offenses. SCYTF hopes this program will
make an impact in reducing lower-level juvenile citations. Instead of completing a juvenile citation, South
County law enforcement officers will refer eligible youth to this diversion program where a community-
based agency will complete an intake and assessment. Then, the youth and community affected will hold
a restorative justice circle in the community where harm was done to make amends and determine what
is needed for everyone to be whole and complete. The program’s anticipated launch date is the summer
of 2021.
NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY /S ERVICES UNIT (NSU)
The Neighborhood Safety/Services Unit (NSU) is a unique unit within the Probation Department. The core
components of the NSU include community engagement, leadership development, and violence
prevention programming through pro-social activities/services (see figure below).
Figure 5: Core Components of NSU
The Shelter in Place (SIP) order issued on March 16, 2020 by the County Public Health Department to
contain the spread of COVID-19 widely impacted NSU programs and services in ZIP Codes 95122 and
95020. All schools were temporarily closed, which subsequently affected all after-school pro-social
programming. In addition, community meetings, trainings and workshops transitioned to virtual
experiences where possible. NSU quickly shifted efforts to respond to the impacts of COVID-19 in the
community.
37 | P a g e
Community Impact in ZIP Code 95122
• COVID-19 Response Efforts in the Valley Palms Community:
NSU supported the Valley Palms Unidos (VPU) resident group with COVID-19 response efforts
throughout 2020. COVID-19 response efforts included daily and monthly food distributions in
partnership with East Side Union High School District’s (ESUHSD) Student Nutrition Services Team
and Second Harvest Food Bank; neighborhood-level COVID-19 testing in partnership with the
Public Health Department; emergency essential household supply distributions in partnership
with local nonprofit Empower and Excel and Bay Area Community Health; COVID-19 relief
stipends through the East San Jose Prevention Efforts Advance Community Equity (PEACE)
Partnership; and diaper and formula distributions in partnership with FIRST5 Santa Clara and
Catholic Charities. Over 1,800 individuals received support through various response efforts in the
Valley Palms Community.
• Resident Advocacy and Improvements to the Valley Palms Apartment Community:
NSU supported collaborative efforts between VPU, KDF Communities, and Valley Property
Management (VPM) company to improve living conditions in the Valley Palms Apartment
Complex including improvements to the individual units, a new synthetic soccer field, increased
security, and equitable access to the Family Resource Center (FRC). Residents advocated for their
community and expressed their concerns related to the conditions in the Valley Palms Apartment
Community. Ultimately, all the residents’ requests were granted, and a new Family Resource
Center and soccer field will open in Summer of 2021.
Community Impact in ZIP Code 95020
• COVID-19 Response Efforts in the San Ysidro Park Neighborhood:
NSU continued to support programs and activities at San Ysidro Park in East Gilroy. To address the
impact of COVID-19, NSU expanded and created new partnerships with Gilroy Unified School
District, the District Attorney’s Office, Community Solutions, the South County Youth Task Force,
Gilroy Rotary, Rebekah’s Children Services, Valley Health Community, National Center for Youth
Law, the Public Health Department, Empower and Excel, Revolution Food, and Gilroy Little
League. Throughout the year, NSU worked closely with the City of Gilroy to support the San Ysidro
Nueva Vida resident leadership group to implement daily food distributions; community -level
COVID-19 testing; community outreach to increase COVID-19 awareness and testing
opportunities; diaper and formula distributions; and parent support with distanced learning. Over
1,500 individuals received support through various COVID-19 response efforts in the East Gilroy
community.
Community Impact in ZIP Code 95020 and 95122
• Data Collection and Measuring Impact:
NSU utilizes various tools on a monthly and quarterly basis to collect performance measures,
including but not limited to, clients served, consistency of services, and financial performance.
38 | P a g e
The data is compiled into dashboards which serve as valuable tools to understand service delivery
and the effectiveness of the programs and services provided. In addition, the Community Safety
Survey (CSS) was conducted from August through November 2020 to help gauge the community’s
perception of safety, cohesion, and collective efficacy. The CSS collection was greatly impacted by
COVID-19 during 2020. NSU is working with Applied Survey Research to implement pre- and post-
surveys in Spring 2021 to further understand the impact of NSU’s work in the community.
• School-Based Collaborative Work:
NSU partnered with three elementary schools: Katherine Smith Elementary School in East San
Jose and Eliot Elementary School and Glen View Elementary School in East Gilroy. NSU’s Probation
Community Workers supported the development and implementation of Violence Prevention
Plans at each school which compliment both the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) and
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework. During 2020, efforts shifted to
support students and parents with distanced learning and school engagement resulting from
COVID-19.
YOUTH AT ENTRY TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
This report section shares information on how youth enter the system including arrests, type of offenses,
demographics, where they live, and how arrests become petitions.
Arrests and citations mark the initial point of contact a youth has with the juvenile justice system. In Santa
Clara County, this includes both paper tickets (citations, summons to appear, etc.) and physical arrests. In
2020 there were 2,246 arrests/citations 7 of 1,662 unduplicated youth. Of those, approximately 587
arrests/citations (26 percent) were accepted by the Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) Unit. Thus, 26
percent of all arrests/citations (587 cases) were lower-level offenses or first-time juveniles handled
through diversionary programs which is a decrease of five percent from 2019 in the number of referrals
handled by PEI.
It is important to note once a youth is arrested, they may accrue additional charges from offenses that
took place prior to their apprehension by law enforcement. These matches to previous crimes are often
made once a youth has been fingerprinted and these open cases become attributed to them once they
become known to the criminal justice system. This means that although arrests/citations are for 2020,
not all offenses for each arrest/citation may have occurred in 2020. Offense dates for arrests/citations for
2020 range from 2011-2020; therefore, multiple youth had offense dates within the same year to nine
years before their arrest/citation date. There were 57 arrests/citations that took place prior to 2019,
which account for three percent of all arrest/citations. Over half of these offenses were sex offenses, it is
common for victims to report these crimes years after they occur due to trauma and fear.
7 This is a count of arrests/citations, not of individual youth. For example, a single young person may have been arrested or cited
multiple times during the year. Each of their arrests/citations is included in the total of 2,246.
39 | P a g e
In line with national trends, the number of juvenile arrests in Santa Clara County has declined in recent
years. Multiple factors may be contributing to the reduction, including progressive juvenile reform efforts
throughout the County with a specific focus on community and school based and prevention-oriented
programs and services. In 2020, juvenile arrest/citation numbers show a 33 percent decrease in youth
arrests/citations in comparison to 2019 and highlights an overall declining trend in arrests/citations since
2016. It is important to note that the decrease in 2020 arrest/citation numbers were most likely impacted
by the COVID-19 pandemic. The figure below breaks down youth arrests/citations by count of
arrests/citations and count of youth arrested/cited from 2016-2020.
Figure 6: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2016-2020
YOUTH ARRESTS/CITATIONS
This section highlights trends in offense categories8 and offense classification for all arrests/citations in
2020. Property Crimes involve felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions (e.g., arson, petty theft, and
vandalism). The more serious (felony) property crimes (e.g., burglary: first degree and grand theft) and
felony crimes against people (e.g., robbery and carjacking) combined to account for approximately 46
percent of the total 2,246 arrests/citations (n=1032) compared to 33 percent in 2019.
Property crimes9 decreased by two percent for overall juvenile offenses in 2020, compared to 2019, and
accounted for 26 percent of total arrests/citations in 2020. Other Crimes (e.g., resisting arrest, driving
while unlicensed and conspiracy to commit a crime) increased from 18 percent in 2019 to 20 percent of
total arrests/citations in 2020. Felony Crimes Against People increased from 17 percent in 2019 to 20
8 Appendix F breaks down some examples of charge codes, charge descriptions, and offense classifications by offense category.
9 In 2013, Probation moved Burglary in the First Degree from Felony Crimes against People to Property Crimes for purposes of
categorization.
3,310
3,792 3,668
3,370
2,246
2,268 2,433 2,207 2,355
1,662
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Arrests/Citations (Duplicated)Count of Youth (Unduplicated)
40 | P a g e
percent of total arrests/citations in 2020. Arrests/citations for drug/alcohol related offenses in 2020
accounted for 10 percent of all arrests/citations. Arrests/citations for violations of probation and courtesy
holds decreased by one percent in 2020 and accounted for seven percent of all arrests/citations.
Arrests/citations for weapon crimes increased by one percent when comparing 2019 to 2020.
Figure 7: Duplicated Arrests and Citations by Offense Category 2020
Offense classification data also indicate the nature
of offenses committed by youth in Santa Clara
County. In 2020 infractions, status offenses and
misdemeanors combined to account for 58 percent
(n=1,307) of arrests/citations while more serious
felony offenses accounted for the remaining 42
percent (n=939).
2020 shows an overall decrease in the number of
arrests/citations when compared to 2019. The
number of felony offenses decreased from 48
percent in 2018 to 39 percent in 2019, then we saw
a slight increase in 2020 to 42 percent. The juvenile
justice system continues to divert youth with less serious offenses, and this may explain why there is a
slight increase in youth with more serious offenses in 2020.
Demographics of Youth Arrested/Cited
In 2020, 42 percent (n=938) of youth arrested/cited were youth 15 or 16 years old, and 38 percent (n=849)
were youth aged 17 years or older. Percentages are very consistent when compared to 2019. Two percent
26%
20%
20%
11%
10%
7%
6%
Property Crimes
Other Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
Figure 8: Duplicate Offense Classifications
42%
44%
8%
7%
Felony Misdemeanor Infraction Status
41 | P a g e
(n=53) of arrests/citations were of youth aged 12 years or younger which was the same in 2019.10 Twenty-
eight percent of youth aged 15-16 years old were arrested/cited from property crimes (n=264). Property
crimes includes felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. Other Crimes (e.g., driving while unlicensed,
reckless driving, and resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer) was the largest proportion of
arrests/citations for youth aged 17 and older (28 percent, n=235). Other crimes also include felonies,
misdemeanors, and infractions.
Figure 9: Age of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited by Offense Category
Of youth arrested/cited in 2020, 78 percent
(n=1,758) were male, and 22 percent (n=488) were
female. Across all crime categories, female youth
accounted for fewer arrests compared to male
youth. In 2020, females accounted for 22 percent
(n=488) of all arrests/citations a decrease in
comparison to 2019 where females made up 25
percent (n=830) of all youth arrested/cited. Of the
488 females arrested/cited in 2020, 67 percent
were for misdemeanor, status, and infraction
offenses (n=325). This proportion of females
arrested/cited for misdemeanor, status, and
10 The County of Santa Clara has collaboratively worked to be in compliance with SB439 which set the minimum age
of prosecution in California at twelve (12) in September 2018.
19
2
10
15
4
3
132
41
98
81
23
6
25
264
173
174
101
114
64
48
173
235
162
59
89
78
53
Property Crimes
Other Crimes
Felony Crimes Against People
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
12 and Under 13-14 15-16 17+
Figure 10: Sex of Duplicated Youth Arrested/Cited
2020
78%
22%
Male Female
42 | P a g e
infraction offenses was the same in 2019 (67 percent; n=558).
Where Do Youth Arre sted or Cited Live?
Analyzing the home address information of youth arrested or cited in Santa Clara County helps to
determine the neighborhoods in which youth live. This allows stakeholders to understand whether there
are relevant resources in the right areas and to identify opportunities to collaborate with community
partners to develop or provide support to youth and their families. In 2020, the highest number of arrests
and citations in a single Santa Clara County ZIP code were of youth who lived in Gilroy ZIP code 9502011
(eight percent), followed by San Jose ZIP code 95116 (six percent) in Mayfair North. In 2020, the 95020
ZIP code remained in first place when compared to 2019. The San Jose ZIP Code of 95116 which was
previously the highest ZIP Code for arrests/citations in 2018 moved to second place in 2019 and remained
in second place in 2020. The East San Jose ZIP code of 95127 moved from sixth place in 2019 back to third
place in 2020 showing an increase in the number of arrests/citations. The Valley Palms ZIP code of 95122
showed a reduction in arrests/citations moving third place in 2019 to sixth place in 2020. The Morgan Hill
(95037) ZIP Code accounted for four percent of all arrests and citations, moving from fourth place in 2019
to seventh place in 2020. Youth who live outside of Santa Clara County accounted for 10 percent of all
arrests and citations, which is the highest group when compared to Santa Clara County ZIP codes (n=229).
Any youth who resides outside of Santa Clara County is counted as part of the out of county total. Breaking
down the top out of county ZIP Codes, 95076 (Watsonville) had 13 arrests/citations, followed by 95023
(Hollister) and 93635 (Los Banos) each with 10 arrests/citations. All other out of county ZIP Codes had
nine or fewer arrests/citations in 2019, which shows there is no specific ZIP code covering the majority of
out of county arrests/citations.
Since 2019, the number of arrests and citations decreased in nine out of 10 of the top ZIP codes. For
example, in the San Jose ZIP code of 95122, arrests and citations decreased by 47 percent compared to
2019. In the Morgan Hill 95037 ZIP code, arrests and citations decreased by 40 percent and in the San Jose
95116 ZIP code they fell by 36 percent. In contrast, arrest and citations of youth who live in San Jose 95112
increased by 24 percent (108 arrests or citations). The out of county youth had a decrease in arrests and
citations for 2020 (n=229 arrests/citations) of 21 percent compared to 2019 (n=289 arrests/citations).
11 For a more information on arrests/citations trends for Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San Martin South County ZIP Codes please see
Appendix D.
43 | P a g e
Figure 11: Santa Clara County Top 10 Residence ZIP Codes for Duplicated Arrests/Citations 2020
The figure below shows how offense classifications vary among the top 10 ZIP codes. For example, the
proportion of arrests/citations for misdemeanor offenses in Gilroy (53 percent) is higher than in the 95116
ZIP code (43 percent). In contrast, 95127 and 95111 have the highest proportions of felony arrests (48
and 47 percent, respectively). ZIP code 95116 (Mayfair North) decreased the number of felonies from 47
percent in 2019 to 34 percent in 2020 and ZIP code 95122 (Valley Palms) went from 54 percent felonies
in 2019 to 43 percent in 2020. This shows a decrease in severity for the arrests/citations taking place in
these areas. Morgan Hill (95037) saw a slight increase in number of felonies from 19 percent in 2019 to
33 percent in 2020. This provides us with some insight into areas of focus for prevention and intervention
services and programs that could be deployed. South County (Gilroy and Morgan Hill) account for the
largest percentages of misdemeanors in 2020.
Figure 12: Santa Clara County Duplicated Offense Classification for Top 10 Residence ZIP Codes
182
129
111 110 108 102 101
64 63 56
95020
Gilroy
95116
San Jose
95127
San Jose
95111
San Jose
95112
San Jose
95122
San Jose
95037
Morgan
Hill
95123
San Jose
95035
Milpitas
95128
San Jose
38%34%48%47%45%43%33%33%43%43%
53%43%
36%40%42%39%51%48%41%39%
4%
9%7%6%7%12%11%2%13%13%5%13%9%6%6%6%5%17%3%5%
95020
Gilroy
95116
San Jose
95127
San Jose
95111
San Jose
95112
San Jose
95122
San Jose
95037
Morgan
Hill
95123
San Jose
95035
Milpitas
95128
San Jose
Felony Misdemeanor Infraction Status
44 | P a g e
Moving from Arrest/Citation to a Petition
A law enforcement officer, who is arresting a youth in Santa Clara County, has the discretion to bring the
youth to Juvenile Hall to be booked and admitted or to cite and release the youth to the care of the
parent/legal guardian based on the countywide booking protocol. When a law enforcement agency cites
a youth for any crime, the citation is sent to the Juvenile Services Division of the Probation Department.
Upon receipt of the citation or in-custody notification, a probation officer determines whether the citation
must be reviewed by the District Attorney’s Office for a decision regarding whether to file a petition or
whether the case can and should be handled informally by Probation. Offenses requiring a referral to the
District Attorney’s Office are outlined in section 653.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC). Any
youth over the age of 14 with a felony charge, a second felony for a youth under the age of 14, or any
violent felony listed under WIC Section 707(b), requires review by the District Attorney’s Office, otherwise
submitting the case to the district attorney for potential filing of a petition is at the discretion of the
Probation Department. For mandatory referrals to the district attorney, the probation officer must review
the citation or in-custody case with the District Attorney’s Office within 48 hours excluding weekends and
holidays. The District Attorney’s Office decides whether to file a petition immediately or allow time for
the probation officer to investigate the case if a youth is not in custody. By policy, petitions are brought
to the District Attorney’s Office once a youth has been accused of committing a felony or specified
misdemeanor (e.g., Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Domestic Violence). Once an out-of-custody
petition is filed, the probation officer must serve the minor and parents with a notice of the upcoming
court date. If a youth is in-custody, his or her case must be scheduled for court within 48 to 72 hours of
arrest, excluding weekends and holidays.
MOTIONS TO TR ANSFER YOUTH TO ADULT COURT
Since Proposition 57 passed, the County of Santa Clara continues handling these special cases and below
is an update on these efforts.
J UVENILES T R ANSFERRED TO A DULT C OURT U PDATE
After the passage of Proposition 57 in 2016, the only way in which a youth can be transferred to adult
court is after a determination by a juvenile court judge after a judicial transfer hearing. When a youth
aged 16 or older12 is petitioned for a felony offense, the prosecution can file a motion to transfer the youth
to adult court and ask for a transfer hearing – to be conducted before the jurisdiction hearing – to decide
if the youth is appropriate for rehabilitative services in Juvenile Justice Court or if the youth’s case should
be transferred to adult court.
12 SB1391 - signed into law but currently pending before the California Supreme Court – repealed the authority of a district
attorney to make a motion to transfer 14 and 15-year-old minors to adult court. If the law is overturned, a district attorney would
be able to seek transfer on 14 and 15-year-old youth for WIC 707(b) offenses.
45 | P a g e
For the Transfer Hearing, the probation officer provides a report to the Court that includes a review of the
five criteria listed below, and a victim impact statement, if one is p rovided. At the hearing, the judge
receives the probation report and any other evidence or information provided by the District Attorney
and the youth’s defense attorney. If the judge decides that the youth should remain in juvenile court, the
case will proceed with the juvenile justice process. If the judge decides that the youth should not remain
in juvenile court, the Court dismisses the juvenile petition and sends the youth to adult criminal court
where the District Attorney files a complaint, and the adult criminal process begins.13 The five criteria the
Court must evaluate in deciding whether to transfer the case include:
1. The degree of sophistication of the crime.
2. If the youth can be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice system.
3. The youth’s previous criminal history.
4. What happened on prior attempts to rehabilitate the youth; and
5. The circumstances and gravity of the current offense.
Each of the five criteria above include additional factors related specifically to the youth such as
intellectual ability, mental and emotional health, hi story of trauma, whether the youth was influenced by
family, peers, and his or her community environment, and the youth’s impulsiveness, level of maturity,
and potential for growth.
In 2020, there were a total of seven youth who went through the transfer process. There were other cases
where a motion to transfer was filed, but the transfer hearing was not concluded by the end of 2020. Of
the seven youth whose transfer hearings concluded in 2020, two remained under the jurisdiction of the
Juvenile Justice Court and five were transferred to criminal court. While some cases have hearings with
witnesses and testimony, others were submitted to the Court for decision based on the probation report
and briefings filed by counsel.
ROLE OF DEFEN S E COUN S EL
Juvenile law is a complex and specialized legal field. Appointed counsel representing youth in juvenile
court are legally required to have specialized knowledge in juvenile law (WIC§634.3). All three agencies,
the Public Defender’s Office (PDO), Alternate Defender’s Office (ADO), and Independent Defense Counsel
Office (IDO), ensure their juvenile attorneys receive the mandatory number of hours of training each year.
The juvenile units of the PDO, the ADO and the IDO are responsible for the representation of a youth in
the Juvenile Justice Court from the beginning of the case to disposition as well as post-disposition
13 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara www.scscourt.org/self_help/juvenile/jjustice/process.shtml
46 | P a g e
advocacy. The juvenile units of the PDO, ADO, and IDO are also responsible for filing petitions for
dismissals (WIC§782), record sealings, legal advice with respect to potential immigration relief, and relief
from sex offender registration once the filings begin in July of 2021.
In terms of eligibility and process by which cases are assigned, once a case has been petitioned in court,
the youth is eligible for no-cost defense counsel services, under the assumption that all youth are
presumed indigent. All cases petitioned in Juvenile Justice Court are first referred to the Public Defender’s
Office (PDO). If the Public Defender determines that there is a conflict of interest in the representation of
the youth, the youth is then referred to the Alternate Defender’s Office (ADO) and/or the Independent
Defense Counsel Office (IDO). It is the policy of the offices that if an agency has represented a youth on a
previous petition and the youth is charged with a new petition, that same agency will continue to
represent the youth on that new petition for purposes of continuity of representation, even if the PDO
would not have had to declare a conflict of interest. If a case is referred to the ADO and AD O discovers
that there is a conflict of interest in the representation of the
youth, the youth is referred to the IDO for representation.
The IDO assigns juvenile justice cases to private attorneys
based on a contractual relationship. The PDO, ADO and IDO
are all governmental law offices within the County of Santa
Clara government structure.
In 2020, the PDO and ADO represented youth in 557 cases
(381 with the PDO and 176 with the ADO), with 209 cases
either referred to IDO or the youth secured private
counsel. Of the 557 cases represented by the PDO and ADO,
372 were felonies, 80 were misdemeanors, and 100 were for
violations of probation (70 with PDO and 30 with ADO) as
shown in Figure 13 and 14. In total, the PDO, ADO, and IDO/private counsel collectively represented youth
in 766 cases.
Figure 14: All Cases by Type of Defense Counsel
637 676 681
569
381
269 280 332
253
176
281
425
532
373
209
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total PDO Cases Total ADO Cases Total IDO Cases
Figure 13: All Referrals to Public Defense
Counsel
906 956 1,013 1,095
766
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
47 | P a g e
Social Workers and Immigration Attorneys
The Public Defender’s Office and Alternate Defender’s Offices have social workers that work closely with
appointed counsel. The social workers receive referrals from juvenile defenders that include housing,
educational and family support, mental health linkage, substance use treatment, community-based
program referrals, competency, homelessness resourcing, safety planning, school placement/advocacy,
treatment placement coordination, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) consultations, and general
assistance support. The social workers also consult with attorneys on San Andreas Regional Center (SARC)
services and work closely with juvenile probation officers and other juvenile justice system partners. They
also attend Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings on behalf of the youth, visit detained youth, and
submit psychosocial assessments on behalf of the juvenile client to the court for consideration. The social
workers also work on judicial transfer cases and Youthful Offender Parole hearings.
The Public Defender and Alternate Defender offices have in-house immigration legal services (PDO)
and/or access to immigration attorneys given that both agencies are responsible for assisting youth
seeking immigration relief, namely Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS ) in coordinated efforts with
Legal Advocates for Children and Youth (LACY). IDO attorneys are also able to secure immigration
consultations prior to any case resolutions.
Community Outreach Attorney
The Public Defender’s Office has a community outreach attorney, dedicated to empowering local
communities to advocate for better outcomes for justice involved or exposed adults and juveniles through
education and networking. This includes working alongside community -based organizations, schools,
courts, and other partners to coordinate efforts. The Community Outreach Attorney commits to helping
underserved or vulnerable communities by engaging in outreach to respond to their needs, facilitating
access to care and services, and raising awareness of existing PDO services.
The Community Outreach Attorney has developed a connection to local high schools with at-risk youth.
The Community Outreach Attorney receives referrals and requests from staff at local high schools to
provide one-on-one mentorship, class presentations, and strategic interventions to prevent at-risk youth
from becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. The attorney is responsible for providing and
organizing “De-escalation & Know Your Rights” trainings to empower youth by knowing the law,
encourage de-escalation in police contact, and promote youth interest in legal-related professions.
ADMIS SION TO CUSTODY
At Juvenile Hall intake, a detention risk assessment instrument (RAI) is administered by a Probation
Screening Officer to determine whether a youth should be detained in secure confinement pre-
adjudication. The objectivity, uniformity, and risk-based format of a RAI helps to protect against disparate
treatment at intake and focuses on reducing the likelihood the youth will fail to appear in court or reoffend
before adjudication. Objective and standardized criteria anchor admission decisions in ascertainable and
48 | P a g e
equally evaluated facts. For example, RAI indicators include the nature and severity of the offense and the
number of prior referrals. The overall risk score in conjunction with the County booking protocols
(developed and approved by various stakeholders) and state laws are then used to guide the Screening
Officer in making the critical decision of whether to admit the youth to a s ecure facility, refer them to a
non-secure detention alternative, or release them.
In 2020, of the 2,246 duplicated youth arrests/citations in Santa Clara County, 606 duplicated youth (27
percent of all youth arrested) were referred to Juvenile Hall with 560 duplicated youth detained (395
unique youth). Of the 606 youth (430 unique youth) referred to Juvenile Hall in 2020, 92 percent were
detained (560 of 606 youth) and eight percent (46 youth) were released at detention screening. Of the
560 youth initially detained at intake, 17 percent (94 youth) were subsequently released by Probation
prior to their detention hearing, for a variety of reasons. These reasons include: a parent/guardian now
available to pick up their youth from juvenile hall or the charges or circumstances were less serious than
originally believed once supplemental information was provided. The figure below demonstrates the
number of duplicated youth detained at every step in the process.
Table 3: Number of Youth Detained and Released Prior to Detention Hearing
Figure 15: Number of Youth Detained (duplicate count) by Process Step 2020
Detention Overrides
In some cases, a decision to admit or release a youth differs from the recommended action of the RAI
tool. The detention override percentage is the proportion of youth who score below the detention
threshold score and are nevertheless detained. Some of these youth are detained or released due to a
local or state policy mandating detention regardless of their RAI score, while others are detained at the
606 youth (or 27% of all
arrests and citations)
referred to Juvenile Hall
(duplicate count)
560 youth (or 92%)
detained (duplicate count)
466 detentions (or 83%)
held until detention
hearing (duplicate count)
Duplicated Youth Unduplicated Youth
Referred to Juvenile Hall 606 430
Detained in Juvenile Hall 560 395
Released Prior to Detention Hearing 94 90
49 | P a g e
discretion of the Probation Screening Officer. A high percentage of detention overrides undermines the
integrity of the risk-screening process.
Of the total 290 youth who were eligible for release based on their RAI score alone (low and medium
scoring youth), 245 youth (84 percent) were detained. Of those 245 youth, 63 percent (154 youth) were
detained under mandatory detention policies. Mandatory detention policies require a youth to be held
due to state law and/or mandatory policy. Mandatory detention policies include, but are not limited to:
Warrant, EMP/CRP failure, and Weapon Used in the Commission of a Crime. The remaining 37 percent
(91 youth) were held under discretionary detention policies (see figure below for breakdown).
The table below depicts the breakdown of youth held by means of a discretionary override by race and
ethnicity. There was no statistically significant difference by race/ethnicity in overrides.14
Table 4: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Percentage 2020
The table below illustrates the reasons why youth were detained due to mandatory detention policy. The
most frequent mandatory detention reasons include Pre/Post Court Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)
failures and Warrants (Failure to Appear: FTA, Arrest, and Violation of Probation: VOP). These two
categories combined, accounted for 61 percent of mandatory policy admissions.
Table 5: Risk Assessment Instrument Mandatory Detention Reasons 2020
Mandatory Detention Reasons (154)
EMP/CRP Failure 49
Warrant 45
Weapon used in Commission of Crime 25
Ranch Failure/Escape 12
More than One SPD 9
Aftercare Failure 5
Inter-County Transfer 5
Placement Failure 4
14 No association between Race/Ethnicity and Discretionary Overrides was observed, p = 0.99
Discretionary Override Percentage for 2020 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Total Eligible for Release (Low/Medium RAI
Score) 21 23 231 12 3 290
Eligible for Release (Low/Medium RAI
Score) but Detained 18 22 193 9 3 245
50 | P a g e
The table below illustrates the reasons why the risk assessment instrument was overridden by
discretionary overrides. The most frequent discretionary override reasons include:
victim/community/youth safety (e.g., victim lives in the home or in close proximity to the youth, the
youth’s actions in the offense pose a serious risk to the public) (35 youth), all other reasons (e.g., youth
refuses to return home, history of runaways) (21 youth), and parent related reasons (e.g., both parent(s)
cannot be located) (16 youth), and parent(s) refusing to pick up their children from Juvenile Hall (three
youth).
Table 6: Risk Assessment Instrument Discretionary Override Reasons 2020
Discretionary Override Reasons (91)
Self-Victim Community Safety 35
Other Reasons 21
Parent/Guardian Reasons 19
Family Violence 6
Violations of Probation – Two or More Technical
Violations 4
DV with mitigating factor 4
Violations of Probation – Substance Use Issues 1
Violations of Probation – Non-Technical Violation
with New Arrest
1
Offenses of Youth Detained
Of the 560 duplicated youth detained, 42 percent were admitted for felony crimes against people (e.g.,
robbery and assaults; n=236). Another 22 percent of youth were admitted for property crimes (including
first degree burglary and auto theft; n=125), 13 percent of admissions were for technical violations of
probation (VOPs15; n=74), and nine percent for weapon related offenses (n=50). Other crimes accounted
for five percent of admissions (n=30; e.g., obstructing or resisting a public officer and evading a peace
officer/reckless driving). Other crimes against people accounted for five percent of admissions (n=28; e.g.,
misdemeanor assaults and misdemeanor domestic violence). Admissions for drug and alcohol related
offenses accounted for only three percent of the total admissions to Juvenile Hall (n=17).16
15 VOP offenses include absconding from Probation Supervision, EMP/CRP failure, and Ranch failure.
16 Typically, youth are only admitted for drug and alcohol related offenses if the offense is sales-related or the youth’s safety is
at-risk due to being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Most youth admitted to detention for being under the influence are
released to a parent/guardian before the detention hearing phase.
51 | P a g e
Figure 16: Duplicated Admissions by Offense Category 2020
Demographics of Youth Detained
This section describes the demographic information of youth detained at Juvenile Hall following their RAI
screening.
AGE AND SEX OF YOUTH DETAINED
In 2020, 80 percent of youth detained in Juvenile Hall were male and 49 percent were 15 to 16 years old.
Female youth made up 20 percent of those detained. The proportion of age distribution was similar across
both sexes.
Table 7: Age and Sex of Duplicated Youth Detained 202017
Age Male Female Grand Total
12 & Under 4 (1%) 0 4 (1%)
13-14 69 (15%) 19 (17%) 88 (16%)
15-16 224 (50%) 53 (47%) 277 (49%)
17 & Older 150 (34%) 41 (36%) 191 (34%)
Grand Total 447 (100%) 113 (100%) 560 (100%)
17 All four youth 12 years old and younger were detained on felony offenses.
42%
22%
13%
9%
5%
5%
3%
Felony Crimes Against People
Property Crimes
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
Other Crimes
Other Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
52 | P a g e
WHERE YOUTH DETAINED RESIDE
Forty percent of those detained reside within the top 10 residence ZIP Codes for arrests/citations (n=225).
All ZIP Codes were located within the City of San Jose, except for 95020 (Gilroy).
Figure 17: Number of Duplicated Admissions to Juvenile Hall by Top 10 ZIP Codes 2020
Intake and Admission Trends
The number of duplicated youth detained in Juvenile Hall decreased by 39 percent between 2016 and
2020. In 2020 there was a 42 percent decrease in the number of youth detained at intake compared to
2019. These decreases in 2020 detentions compared to previous years are most likely due to COVID-19.
Based on the number of youth brought to Juvenile Hall, the percentage of youth detained in 2019 was 91
percent and in 2020 was 92 percent.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 within our congregate care
facility, Juvenile Hall with the assistance of our Juvenile Hall Clinic as well as Public Health initiated the
creation of New Admit/Medical Observation units to house all new admits into Juvenile Hall. These youth
would be placed in these units for 14 days during which they would be given a COVID-19 test followed up
with a second test around the 10th day. If both tests were negative, then they would be transferred to an
appropriate Living Unit.
53
42 40
31 31
28
18 17 17 16
95020 95127 95116 95111 95122 95112 95128 95136 95121 95110
53 | P a g e
Figure 18: Juvenile Hall Intake Decision Trend 2016-2020
Youth can be brought into Juvenile Hall admissions multiple times throughout the calendar year. The chart
below breaks down youth who came into juvenile hall admissions by duplicated and unduplicated count
of youth from 2016-2020.
Figure 19: Duplicated Juvenile Hall Admissions by Unduplicated Count of Youth 201 6-2020
Looking at trends for youth detained in Juvenile Hall, the figure below breaks down youth admitted to
juvenile hall by duplicated and unduplicated count of youth from 2016-2020. In 2020, 560 duplicated
youth were detained (395 unique youth), therefore, some youth were detained in Juvenile Hall multiple
times within the same year.
921 1,013 1,212
958
560
127 134
128
95
46
2016
(88% Detained)
2017
(88% Detained)
2018
(90% Detained)
2019
(91% Detained)
2020
(92% Detained)
JH Detained JH Released
1,048
1,147
1,340
1,053
606642709796
696
430
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Admissions (Duplicated)Count of Youth (Unduplicated)
54 | P a g e
Figure 20: Duplicated Detained Youth by Unduplicated Count of Youth 2016-2020
ELECTRONIC MONITORING PROGRAM (EMP)/COMMUNITY RELEASE PROGRAM (CRP)
The Probation Department continues to strive to keep youth safely in the community and in their homes
with appropriate services. In 2020, 491 duplicated youth were eligible for detention but released on home
supervision alternatives to detention.
The pre/post-Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP) allows youth to be monitored while remaining in the
community by wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. In addition, these youth also receive
intensive supervision and limitation of their freedom. The population served by pre/post-EMP is primarily
Latino (73 percent) and between the ages of 14 and 17 (92 percent). In addition, 85 percent of youth on
EMP were male and 15 percent were female.
Table 8: Duplicated Number of Youth in Alternatives to Custody 2020
The Community Release Program (CRP) provides intensive supervision in the community. Latino youth (79
percent) made up the largest portion of the 141 youth on the pre/post-Community Release Program
921
1,013
1,212
958
560
528 583
726
620
395
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Detained (Duplicated)Count of Youth (Unduplicated)
Number of Youth in Alternatives
2020 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Pre-Disposition EMP 27 20 171 15 7 240
Post-Disposition EMP 9 7 84 7 3 110
Pre-Disposition CRP 9 8 86 8 0 111
Post-Disposition CRP 2 1 25 1 1 30
Total 47 36 366 31 11 491
55 | P a g e
(CRP). White youth represented eight percent, six percent were Black youth, and seven percent were
Asian/PI/Other youth. Reflecting the typical sex and age composition of pre/post-CRP youth at other
points within the system, 74 percent were male, and 58 percent were between the ages of 16 and 17.
ARRESTS/CITATIONS FILED AS PETITIONS
Not all arrests/citations lead to a filed petition. In some cases, these referr als are handled informally,
especially for youth with no previous offenses. In 2020, infractions, status offenses (violations of
probation) and misdemeanors combined accounted for 42 percent of arrests/citations while more serious
felony offenses, which can potentially lead to a filed petition, accounted for the remaining 58 percent. Of
the 776 petitions filed in 2020, the most common petitioned offenses top ten most frequently filed
charges were as follows: robbery (152), auto theft (96), residential burglary (39), assault with force likely
to produce great bodily injury (37), carjacking (33), assault with a deadly weapon (28), second degree
burglary (21), vandalism (20), reckless evading of a police officer (20), and criminal threats (19). Robbery
and car theft became the top offenses (first and second respectively) when compared to 2019. The top
five most common filed petitions were different from those filed in 2019. While total numbers of petitions
were reduced, robberies, assaults and carjacking crimes were the prominent offenses filed in 2020.
Of the 776 petitions filed in 2020, males accounted for 81 percent (n=629), females accounted for 15
percent (n=118) and four percent (n=29) were unknown. Twelve-year-old youth were the youngest group
for whom a petition was filed with three petitions in 2020 (less than one percent). Youth 13 and 14 years
old represented five percent of filed petitions (n=42). Thirty-one percent of the petitions filed were for
youth 14 to 15. Youth 16 to 18 years old combined accounted for 64 percent of filed petitions. The figure
below shows the top 10 most frequent charges at time of petition for 2020 and reflects the number of
individual petitions, regardless of the number of charges included in each petition.
Figure 21: Duplicated Top 10 Most Frequent Charges at Time of Petition 201918
18 GBI refers to great bodily injury.
19
20
20
21
28
33
37
39
96
152
Criminal Threats
Vandalism
Reckless Evading a Police Officer
Second degree Burglary
Assault w Deadly Weapon
Carjacking
Assault w Force to GBI
Residential Burglary
Auto Theft
Robbery
56 | P a g e
As shown in Figure 20, the number of
petitions filed has considerably decreased in
the last two years compared to previous
years. From 2016 to 2018, the number of
petitions increased every year. However, in
2019, the number of duplicated petitions
decreased significantly to the lowest level in
the past four years. There were 687 fewer
petitions (47 percent decrease) filed in 2019
when comparing to 2018. There were 72
fewer petitions filed in 2020 than in 2019
(eight percent decrease).
FACTORS THAT LEAD YOUTH TO ANTI -SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Youth involved in the juvenile justice system are often experiencing many adversities such as family issues,
difficulties at school, substance use, traumatic experiences and other factors which can lead to anti-social
behavior. The following section focuses on factors that lead to anti-social behavior in youth.
CHILD WELFARE HISTORY CHECKS
Youth who have been involved in the child welfare system have a greater risk of being involved in the
juvenile justice system. It is estimated that as many as 50 percent of youth referred to the juvenile court
for a juvenile justice matter have been involved with the child welfare system, depending on how broadly
dual status is defined.19 In August 2015, the County of Santa Clara’s Probation Department implemented
a new protocol to check for child welfare history whenever a youth is referred to probation. This process
screens for child welfare history for every youth referred to probation services. Probation also developed
a database to track records regarding dual involvement in both the child welfare and juvenile justice
systems. Probation is jointly working with DFCS, BHSD, the court system, and many c ommunity partners
to provide best practices and support to youth who have a dual -status and to their families. The Dually
Involved Youth (DIY) Executive Steering Committee is also working with the Robert F. Kennedy National
Resource Center for Juvenile Justice (RFK) to create innovative measures that will best support the
challenges faced by this population.
Whenever a new referral is received by Probation, Records staff check the child welfare system
(CWS/CMS) for child welfare history involvement for the referred youth and family. Youth who are
19 Thomas, D. (Ed.). (2015). When Systems Collaborate: How Three Jurisdictions Improved Their Handling of Dual -
Status Cases. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. www.ncifcj.org/resource-library/publications/when-
systems-collaborate-how-three-jurisdictions-improved-their.
Figure 20: Duplicated Petitions per Year
1,201
1,390
1,535
848 776
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
57 | P a g e
referred to PEI are also checked for child welfare history involvement. The child welfare history check is
completed to answer questions such as:
• Has the family had any involvement in the child welfare system?
• Has the referred youth (probation target youth) been identified as the alleged victim of a child
welfare referral?
Cases identified as Sensitive20 in CWS/CMS are those cases which are only accessible to supervisors at child
welfare and are not accessible to Probation staff.
In 2020, a total of 1,541 unduplicated youth were screened for child welfare history through CWS/CMS
after receiving a probation referral for a total of 1,975 child welfare history checks, this includes youth who
are referred to PEI. A total of 889 (58 percent) unduplicated families were identified as having history of
child welfare with at least one referral including Sensitive cases. This number increased by three percent
from 2019. There were 812 (53 percent) unduplicated youth who had at least one child welfare referral
where the target youth (probation youth) was the alleged victim of neglect and/or abuse (excludes
Sensitive cases). This number increased by four percent from 2019.
Figure 22: Child Welfare History 2019
The figure below shows the race/ethnicity and sex for all unduplicated youth who were screened for child
welfare cases in 2020 and had at least one referral listing them as the alleged victim. Percentages are
provided by gender and race/ethnicity. Of the 812 youth who were identified as the alleged victim of child
abuse and /or neglect, 604 were males (74 percent) and 208 were females (26 percent). Results shown are
consistent with general probation figures for race/ethnicity and sex. When looking at all referrals in 2020
for boys and girls combined, where the probation youth was the alleged victim of child abuse and/or
20 A Sensitive case means there is family history in CWS/CMS, but it is unknown if the probation youth is the alleged
victim of abuse and/or neglect. Total number of referrals received in 2020 differ from total number of child welfare
checks since some referrals such as Courtesy Holds, Warrant Requests, Violation of Probations (VOPs), and Transfer
Ins referrals are not checked for child welfare referrals.
1,975
•Number of
duplicated referrals
screened for child
welfare history in
2020 (1,541
unduplicated youth
were screened for
child welfare history
in 2020).
889
•Number of
unduplicated
families with at least
one referral to child
welfare at any given
point (58 percent)
including Sensitive
cases.
812
•Number of
unduplicated
probation youth
with at least one
child welfare
referral where they
were identified as
the alleged victim of
abuse and/or
neglect (53 percent).
30
•Number of
unduplicated
Sensitive cases in
2020 (two percent).
58 | P a g e
neglect, Latino youth represent 70 percent of unduplicated youth, followed by White youth (13 percent)
and Black youth (nine percent). These results exclude Sensitive cases as it is unknown if the probation youth
was the alleged victim of abuse and/or neglect.
Figure 23: Race/Ethnicity and Sex for Probation Youth With At Least One Child Welfare Referral as the
Alleged Victim 2020 (Unduplicated)
CRIMINOGENIC RISK
Over the past few decades, experts have developed and refined risk/needs instruments to measure the
likelihood of an individual re-offending. The Probation uses the Juvenile Assessment Intervention System
(JAIS). The JAIS is a gender-responsive tool that has been validated by Evident Change formerly known as
the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). This tool is used by the Probation Department to
identify the risk and criminogenic needs of the youth. The first component of the JAIS is a risk tool
(commonly known as the Pre-JAIS) to determine if the youth is low-, moderate-, or high-risk for re-
offending. One key finding over the past several years in the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA)
evaluations is that the JAIS risk tool is statistically one of the best methods to determine the possibility of
a youth re-offending. Although no tool offers perfect prediction, the JAIS has been helpful in determining
the appropriate level of service for youth. Differentiating youth by risk level is important; intensive
programming can work well with higher-risk youth but can increase recidivism rates among lower-risk
youth. There are two versions for each tool, one for females and one for males. Youth are assessed based
on how they self-identify.
For the analysis in this report, we are focusing on the first JAIS risk tool administered for each youth who
received probation services in 2020 so that a glimpse of youth at entry is possible. The first risk tool could
have been administered prior to 2020. Numbers for the risk assessment might differ from the numbers of
unduplicated youth with a new referral in 2020 due to timing of the assessment or because some youth
may not receive a risk assessment as their involvement in probation is limited. The purpose of the JAIS
risk tool is to measure the likelihood of re-offending.
14%11%
69%
3%2%
12%8%
71%
3%6%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Female Male
59 | P a g e
Risk Assessment for Boys
The initial risk assessment for boys contains 10 questions and generates a risk category for the youth. A
total of 1,079 boys JAIS risk assessments were completed in 2020 resulting in 90 boys (eight percent) in
the high-risk category, 396 (37 percent) in the moderate-risk category, and 593 (55 percent) in the low-
risk category.
The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for boys based on the most
reliable source of information. This information could be a combination between the youth being
interviewed and data that is available to the Probation Officer completing the risk assessment tool. Court
or court services include, but are not limited to, juvenile, teen, family, and municipal courts. Percentages
have been rounded up.
Less than half of the boys (40 percent) stated that they were
attending school regularly and had no issues at school. Another 36
percent stated that they had been suspended at least once and 25
percent reported having major truancy issues or having dropped
out of school. Of the 1,079 youth, 63 percent stated their friends
had been in legal trouble, were associated/gang members or a
mixture of both. About half of the youth (48 percent) indicated not
having any problems with drugs or experimenting a few times only.
For 27 percent of youth, drugs and/or alcohol interfered with their daily functioning. Frequent/chronic
usage accounted for 25 percent of youth. About 39 percent of these boys said their parents had been
reported to child welfare for child abuse or neglecting them whether the allegations were substantiated
or not. At the time this risk assessment was completed , 21 percent of youth reported having at least one
parent or sibling incarcerated or on probation at some time in the previous three years. Over half of these
boys obtained their earliest arrest between the ages of 14 and 16 years old (61 percent). Twenty-three
percent of boys had their earliest arrest at age 13 or younger. Some boys received referrals to court
services: none or one referral (80 percent), two or three referrals (18 percent), and four or more referrals
(three percent). Furthermore, 35 percent of these boys received a referral to court services as a result for
a violent/assaultive offense. Probation continues to work diligently to reduce the use of out-of-home
placements and 92 percent of youth had no out-of-home placement, six percent had one placement, and
three percent had two or more placements. Parental supervision was reported as ineffective/inconsistent
for 471 of these boys (44 percent).
Risk Assessment for G irls
The initial risk assessment for girls contains eight questions and generates a risk category for the youth. A
total of 268 girls JAIS risk assessments were completed in 2020 resulting in 15 girls (six percent) in the
high-risk category, 137 (51 percent) in the moderate-risk category, and 116 (43 percent) in the low-risk
category.
In 2020, drugs and/or alcohol
interfered with their daily
functioning for 27% of boys
and frequent/chronic usage
accounted for 25%.
60 | P a g e
The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for girls based on the most
reliable source of information. This information could be a combination between the youth being
interviewed and data that is available to the Probation Officer completing the risk assessment tool. Court
or court services include, but are not limited to, juvenile, teen, family, and municipal courts. Percentages
have been rounded up.
At the time of the risk assessment, 56 percent of these girls reported being enrolled in two or more
schools, not attending school, or having dropped out altogether at some point in the previous two years.
Regarding their friends, 74 percent stated that their friends
had been in legal trouble, had some level of gang -
involvement or a combination of the two. Like the boys, 42
percent of girls stated having no issues with substance use or
having experimented only. Girls who reported substance use
which interfered with their functioning accounted for 30
percent and girls who had frequent/chronic substance use
accounted for 28 percent. Most girls had their earliest arrest
or referral to court services at age 1 3 or older (93 percent). However, 18 girls (seven percent) were 12
years old or younger when they received their earliest arrest or referral to court services. G irls with two
or three arrests or referrals to court services accounted for 16 percent of the group, and girls with four or
more referrals accounted for three percent. The remainder of girls had one or no arrest/referral to court
services (81 percent). Arrests or referrals to court services due to drug offenses accounted for nine
percent. Forty-four percent (n=117) of girls had at least one referral for violent/assaultive offenses. Girls
with at least one out-of-home placement accounted for 10 percent from this sample.
Below is a table summarizing the risk level for both boys and girls. Percentage of youth in the High risk
level are very similar among boys and girls. However, girls had a higher percentage in the Moderate risk
and a lower percentage in the Low risk compared to boys.
Figure 24: Risk Level for Boys and Girls 2020
Risk Level Boys Girls
High 90 (8%) 15 (6%)
Moderate 396 (37%) 137 (51%)
Low 593 (55%) 116 (43%)
Total 1,079 (100%) 268 (100%)
CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS
Various factors are related to the underlying causes of a youth’s delinquent behavior. These factors are
referred to as criminogenic needs. The section below details the challenges faced by youth who received
probation services in 2020.
In 2020, 74% of girls reported their
friends had been in legal trouble,
had some level of gang-
involvement or a combination of
the two compared to 65% in 2019.
61 | P a g e
The Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System (JAIS) was designed to assist staff to supervise youth
effectively and efficiently, both in institutional settings and in the community. The goal of the assessment
is to aid with adjustments, to reduce recidivism, and to help youth succeed in school and in the
community. There are three versions to the JAIS assessments:
a) Initial pre-screener (commonly known as Pre-JAIS): consisting of eight (girl version) or 10 (boy
version) items which, depending on the score, will determine the need for a full JAIS assessment;
b) The full JAIS assessment is divided into four main sections: General Information, Objective History,
Conduct-related Observations, and Interviewer Impressions/Youth Strengths and Needs; and
c) JAIS re-assessment takes place every six months after the initial full JAIS assessment.
As defined by the JAIS, court or court services include, but are not limited to, juvenile, teen, family, and
municipal courts. The following summary highlights trends found in the initial risk assessment for boys
and girls based on the most reliable source of information. This information could be a combination of
the youth being interviewed (self-disclosure) and data that is available to the probation officer completing
the risk assessment tool.
The full JAIS assessment is only provided to youth who have a sustained Petition before the Court, as the
first section (8-9 questions) of the JAIS assessment is directly related to the Petition before the Court and
delinquent behavior in the community. If a youth answered those questions without a sustained petition
before the Court, the youth opens his or herself up to questioning related to offenses that have yet to be
sustained before the Court. This means most of the youth who received a full JAIS assessment are
adjudicated youth (Wards of the Court).
Criminogenic Needs for Boys
For this analysis, the first full JAIS Assessment was used for boys who were actively receiving probation
services in 2020 (n=719). However, due to changes in the way data is captured and recorded, individual
question level data was only available for 713 boys. The following is a summary of the trends found based
on the first full JAIS assessment for each youth (n=713) and percentages have been rounded up:
Criminal History: Emotional reasons (e.g., anger, sex) were identified by over half (54 percent) of male
youth as the reason for committing their most recent offense. Material (monetary) reasons accounted for
28 percent and a combination of both for 18 percent. Offenses committed due to Emotional Reasons may
include vandalism, possession, or usage of drugs, and/or assault not for robbery. Material reasons may
include prostitution, drug sales, theft, and/or theft to support drug habit. A combination of both
emotional and monetary reasons may include stealing primarily for peer acceptance, stealing for revenge,
vandalism in conjunction with stealing and/or joyriding. Most of the male youth admitted to committing
their offense (69 percent) and made no excuses for their actions. Twenty percent admitted committing
the crime, but emphasized excuses and 12 percent denied committing their offense. For over half of the
youth (59 percent) this was their first offense. However, 30 percent stated being involved in the justice
system before mainly for criminal offenses. From the above offenses as reported by these boys, 53
62 | P a g e
percent of male youth stated never being armed or hurting someone and 41 percent admitted to hurting
someone in non-sexual offenses. Impulsivity was a determining factor as to why youth decided to commit
these offenses (61 percent) and only 18 percent admitted to planning out their crimes in advance. Most
boys were with their accomplices when they got in trouble (60 percent) and 32 percent were alone. Most
of these boys have never been arrested for committing crimes against their families (89 percent) and they
also reported never being assaultive toward a family member (82 percent).
School Adjustment: Over half of the male youth stated having issues with schoolwork (62 percent). For
24 percent of the boys, the problems were related to lack of intellectual capacity (i.e., needing special
education services), while 38 percent was due to other achievement problems (i.e., lack of interest,
dyslexia, dropouts). However, 67 percent of youth self-reported not receiving additional learning support
or special education for their learning deficiencies. This number is consistent with youth who reported
not receiving special help for emotional or behavioral problems in school (68 percent). Truancy was
another big issue for these boys and 48 percent reported extensive truancy followed by 27 percent with
minor truancy issues (75 percent combined). Only 25 percent of these boys reported not having truancy
issues at school. Almost half of the boys reported having major issues completing their homework (44
percent). About a quarter of these boys (27 percent) had issues with teachers and principals (authority
figures). Getting suspended from school was another major issue for these boys (77 percent). Thirty-nine
percent of boys had a positive attitude toward school, 38 percent were neutral or had mixed feelings, and
23 percent had a generally negative attitude. Some positive trends included 87 percent of the boys being
enrolled in school at the time their assessment was completed, and most boys had educational goals
(obtaining a high school diploma/GED accounted for 42 percent and 54 percent planned post-high school
training).
Interpersonal Relationships: Regarding their friends, 40 percent of boys preferred hanging out with one
or two friends, 24 percent preferred groups, and the rest preferred a mixture of both (36 percent). Most
of their friends have had issues ranging from being associated with gangs (21 percent), legal troubles (13
percent), and a combination of both (42 percent). Like their friends, most of these boys admitted to
frequent and/or chronic alcohol and drug use (30 and 44
percent respectively). Marijuana was the drug of choice for
almost half of the boys (48 percent). One in three parents
disapproved of their kids’ friends (30 percent). However, 39
percent of parents had mixed or neutral feelings toward their
kids’ friends and 31 percent approved of them. When asked
who generally decided what to do, 7 6 percent said it was a combination between their friends and
themselves, taking accountability for their actions. About 40 percent of these boys reported having a
romantic partner similar in age to them and 27 percent stated not having a current or prior romantic
relationship.
Feelings: When feeling depressed, boys sought an activity to distract themselves (35 percent). However,
some boys turned to drinking, using drugs and/or self-mutilation (17 percent), some boys isolated
themselves (14 percent) and some boys denied getting depressed altogether (22 percent). Boys who had
In 2020, marijuana continues to
be the drug of choice for 48% of
boys, but this number decreased
from 60% in 2019.
63 | P a g e
attempted suicide or had definite thoughts of committing suicide accounted for 10 percent. Anger issues
are present for these boys and 21 percent admitted to being physically aggressive toward people, 24
percent had trouble expressing anger appropriately, and 19 percent avoided expressing anger. Some of
these boys (60 percent) emphasized their strengths when describing themselves by making statements of
their positive qualities. Almost half of them had trouble trusting others (47 percent) and some had mixed
or complex views when it came to trusting people (30 percent).
Family Attitudes: Most youth considered their current living situation suitable (92 percent). Boys reported
having a close relationship with their mothers (70 percent) and whenever they got in trouble their mother
would handle the situation verbally or by withdrawing privileges (85 percent). Numbers were lower when
it came to their relationship with their father, 43 percent reported being close to them and 56 percent of
their fathers would handle the situation verbally or by withdrawing privileges when the youth was in
trouble, while another 30 percent answered not applicable to this question. A big difference is that when
it came to mothers, only six percent were found not applicable compared to 30 percent for fathers. It is
not clear why this difference exists. For some of these boys, parental supervision was often
ineffective/inconsistent (50 percent). Only 14 percent of boys admitted to ever been abused by their
parents. However, 39 percent stated that their parents had been reported to the child welfare system for
abusing or neglecting them. Furthermore, six percent of these boys admitted being physically or sexually
abused by someone else. Most youth (67 percent) have experienced a traumatic event that significantly
impacted their lives, such as witnessing violence, death of parent/sibling/friend, domestic v iolence,
divorce, serious accident, or another major event. Prior to age 10, most boys believed their parents would
have described them as good kids (84 percent). Most of these boys agreed with their parents (84 percent)
and they reported being happy during their childhood (90 percent). Families receiving Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) accounted for 20 percent. Boys reported having parents with a
history of criminal behavior (51 percent) and parents with a history of probation, jail, or prison accounted
for 49 percent. Parents with a history of drinking and/or drug problems accounted for 4 2 percent. Some
boys had at least one sibling who had ever been arrested (28 percent). One-third of these boys (33
percent) reported having a parent and/or sibling incarcerated or on probation within the last three years.
At the time of these assessments, 10 percent of these boys reported having a parent and/or sibling
incarcerated. Nine boys reported being fathers and of these boys, four had no custody of their children.
Plans and Problems: Aside from trouble with the law, education was identified as the biggest problem
these boys were facing (31 percent), followed by personal issues such as drinking and/or drugs (20
percent) and vocational/financial issues (eight percent). Sixty-seven percent of these youth reported
having long-term goals and knowing of resources to help them achieve their goals (69 percent). Boys
believed that being supervised will help to keep them out of trouble (36 percent) and an additional 12
percent stated that receiving counseling services will help them.
Objective History: Almost half of these boys had their first arrest or referral to court services at age 15-
16 (46 percent). Most boys committed their first offense at age 15-16 years old (46 percent). Boys with
their first arrest at age 14 accounted for 18 percent and boys 17 and older accounted for another 18
64 | P a g e
percent. Boys at age 13 accounted for 11 percent, and boys at age 12 and younger accounted for seven
percent. Youth with one referral accounted for 44 percent and youth with two to three arrests and/or
referrals for criminal offenses accounted for 33 percent. Drug offenses or referrals to court services
accounted for 13 percent. Referrals to court services for violent/assaultive offenses (including the current
offense) accounted for 50 percent and status offenses accounted for 16 percent as self-reported by these
boys. The Probation Department continues working hard to keep youth at home. Only 15 percent of these
boys had a placement in a correctional institution and only 11 percent had a court-ordered out-of-home
placement. For 83 percent of these boys, this was their first time under probation supervision. Thirteen
percent of these boys received psychological/psychiatric treatment.
Interviewer Impressions – The following issues were found to be significant to highly significant for these
boys. For more information on determining what constitutes a criminogenic need, please see Appendix E.
Figure 25: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys
Criminogenic Needs for Girls
For this analysis, the first full JAIS Assessment was used for girls who were actively receiving probation
services in 2020 (n=159) and all assessments included question level data. The following is a summary of
the trends found based on the full JAIS assessment (n=159) and percentages have been rounded up.
65%
•Emotional Factors
•Depression, low self-esteem,
anxiety, impulse control
60%
•Relationships
•The youth’s peer group is
negative, delinquent, and/or
abusive
45%
•Substance Use
•Substance use contributed to
the youth’s legal difficulties
43%
•Family History Problems
•Chronic parental or family
problems affect the youth’s
actions or decision making
42%
•School Inadequacy
•Lack of cognitive
ability/capacity to succeed
without supports contributes to
the youth’s legal difficulties
39%
•Parental Supervision
•Lack of parental supervision
that has contributed to the
youths’ legal issues
29%
•Social Inadequacy
•Naiveté, gullibility, being
easily led
29%
•Criminal Orientation
•Criminal behavior is an
acceptable, common part of
the youth’s life
65 | P a g e
Criminal History: Girls who received a full JAIS Assessment listed emotional reasons such as anger and sex
as the primary reason for committing an offense (72 percent), followed by material (monetary) reasons
(13 percent), while a combination of both accounted for 15 percent. Offenses committed due to
Emotional Reasons may include vandalism, possession, or usage of drugs, and/or assault not for robbery.
Offenses committed due to Material reasons may include prostitution, drug sales, theft, and/or theft to
support drug habit. A combination of both emotional and monetary reasons may include stealing primarily
for peer acceptance, stealing for revenge, vandalism in conjunction with stealing and/or joyriding. Most
girls admitted committing their offense and took responsibility for their actions (72 percent). Another 23
percent also admitted committing their offenses, but they emphasized excuses for their behavior. For half
of these girls, this was their first time getting in trouble with the law (5 7 percent). However, 37 percent of
the girls reported getting in trouble before mainly because of criminal offenses and not because of status
offenses. About 43 percent of these girls admitted to being armed or hurting someone while committing
these offenses. Impulsivity was a determining factor as to why these girls decided to commit these
offenses (71 percent) and only 10 percent admitted to planning out their crimes in advance. Most of them
were with accomplices when they got in trouble (61 percent). Most offenses were not against their family
members (77 percent) and most girls have never been assaultive toward a family member (66 percent).
School Adjustment: Over two-thirds of these girls had problems at school. Problems primarily due to lack
of intellectual capacity (i.e., needing special education services) accounted for 18 percent and other
achievement problems (i.e., lack of interest, dyslexia, dropouts) accounted for 47 percent. However, 74
percent of them reported not receiving additional learning support or special education for learning
deficiencies. Furthermore, 57 percent of them reported never receiving special help for emotional or
behavioral problems at school. Girls reported enrolling in two
or more schools in the past two years (72 percent). Truancy
(minor and extensive) was an issue for 84 percent of the girls
and 48 percent stated having major problems completing their
homework. Major truancy (47 percent) and suspensions (33
percent) were the two main issues for these girls at school.
Girls with neutral or mixed feelings toward school accounted for 31 percent, followed by girls with a
negative attitude toward school (29 percent). Some positive trends included girls with a positive attitude
toward school (40 percent), girls getting along with their teachers and principals (72 percent), being
enrolled in school (86 percent), working toward a high school or GED diploma (30 percent), and working
toward obtaining some type of post-high school training (70 percent).
Interpersonal Relationships: Girls preferred to hang out with one or two friends at a time (49 percent).
Most of these girls’ friends have had issues ranging from being associated with gangs (14 percent), legal
troubles (24 percent), and a combination of both (47 percent). Forty percent had friends with frequent or
abusive use of alcohol and/or drugs. This number is even higher among these girls who reported their
frequent or abusive use of alcohol and/or drugs at 52 percent. Most girls listed more than one drug of
choice. Marijuana was the drug of choice (37 percent) followed by alcohol (30 percent) and other drugs
(19 percent). About one-third of the girls’ parents disapproved of their friends (28 percent). Most girls
In 2020, girls reported enrolling
in two or more schools in the
past two years (72%) compared
to 96% in 2019.
66 | P a g e
reported that deciding what to do is a combination of their friends and themselves making these decisions
(62 percent), followed by the girls deciding what to do (27 percent). Again, these numbers show girls
taking accountability for their actions. Girls with a close friend reported doing things together (25 percent)
and talking or helping each other (50 percent). However, 25 percent of these girls reported having no
close friends. Most of the girls were in a romantic relationship (77 percent). Those with a partner similar
in age accounted for 29 percent and those with partners significantly older accounted for six percent,
while 23 percent stated not having a current or prior romantic partner. Girls who been sexually active
with someone else besides their significant romantic partner accounted for 29 percent.
Feelings: Most girls admitted getting depressed. About a third of them reported seeking activities that
will distract them (31 percent) or seeking someone to talk to about their problems (15 percent). However,
some girls dealt with depression by isolating themselves (21 percent), or drinking, using drugs, or self-
mutilation (16 percent). Furthermore, 44 percent of them admitted to tattooing or cutting themselves. 19
percent of girls reported suicide attempts and girls with definite suicide thoughts accounted for an
additional 15 percent. Most girls had anger issues such as trouble expressing anger appropriately (34
percent), being physically aggressive toward people (37 percent), and avoiding expressing anger (nine
percent). Over half of the girls had trust issues and basically mistrusted others (62 percent), while others
had mixed or complex views when it came to trusting people (21 percent). A positive trend was girls
emphasizing their strengths when asked to describe themselves (67 percent) by making statements of
their positive qualities.
Family Attitudes: Mobility is a concern, as girls reported living in zero to four different houses (59 percent)
and some girls reported living in five to nine different houses (31 percent) at the time this assessment was
completed. Most girls found their current living arrangement as suitable (87 percent). Almost half of the
girls have a close relationship with their mothers (40 percent) and they reported that whenever they got
in trouble their mothers would verbally handle the situation or would handle it by removing privileges (74
percent). Difficult/Strained relationships with their mothers accounted for 15 percent compared to 23
percent with their fathers. When getting in trouble, only half of the fathers would verbally handle the
situation or by removing privileges (50 percent). In addition, 35 percent answered this question as not
applicable and it is unclear why these girls answered this way. Parental supervision was often ineffective
and inconsistent (59 percent), or these girls had little or no parental supervision (18 percent). Girls who
reported being abused by their parents accounted for 17 percent. However, when asked if their parents
were ever reported to child welfare for abusing them or neglecting them the number increases to 58
percent. When asked if they were ever abused by anyone else, 18 percent said yes regarding sexual abuse,
six percent said yes to physical abuse, and eight percent said yes to a combination of both. Traumatic
events such as witnessing violence, domestic violence, sexual abuse, death of parent/sibling/friend,
divorce, and other major disruption have significantly impacted these girls’ lives (79 percent). Prior to age
10, the girls’ parents would have described them as good kids (84 percent) and most girls agreed with this
statement (89 percent). Girls reported their childhood as a happy time (76 percent), and they were
basically satisfied with their childhood (69 percent). Twenty-seven percent of parents were receiving
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits. Parents with a history of criminal behavior
67 | P a g e
accounted for 65 percent and parents with a history of probation, jail, or prison accounted for 62 percent
as well. Twelve percent of parents had a history of suicide attempts. Parents with a history of drinking and
drug problems accounted for 61 percent. Siblings who had been arrested accounted for 34 percent. Within
the last three years, 45 percent of these girls had either a parent or sibling who had been incarcerated or
on probation. At the time of these assessments, 11 percent of girls had a parent or sibling currently
incarcerated. Seven girls (four percent) have at least one child and four of these girls have custody of their
children.
Plans and problems: Aside from trouble with the law, these girls stated having personal issues such as
drinking and/or drugs (35 percent), trouble with education (25 percent), and relationship issues such as
getting along better with parents (13 percent). About 79 percent of the girls stated having long-term goals
for their future. When leaving probation supervision, 72 percent of these girls stated knowing of existing
resources that they were willing to use to stay out of trouble and 11 percent identified barriers that limited
their ability to access community resources. Girls saw being supervised as a means to stay out of trouble
(35 percent) and another 16 percent valued counseling or being enrolled in programs to help them out.
Objective History: Almost half of these girls were 15-16 years old at the time of their earliest arrest or
referral to court services (41 percent). Girls with their first arrest at age 14 accounted for 28 percent, girls
at age 13 accounted for 16 percent, and girls at age 12 and younger accounted for three percent. Girls
with one referral due to criminal offenses accounted for 43 percent and girls with two or three referrals
due to criminal offenses accounted for 42 percent. Drug offenses accounted for 12 percent of referrals to
court services. Referrals for one violent/assaultive offense (including the current offense) accounted for
36 percent and two or more referrals for violent/assaultive offenses accounted for 13 percent, as self-
reported by these girls. Sixteen percent of referrals were for status offenses. Girls with placements in
correctional institutions accounted for 15 percent and court-ordered out-of-home placements accounted
for 16 percent. For 83 percent of these girls, this was the first time that they were under probation
supervision. Twenty-three percent of girls had received psychological and/or psychiatric treatment.
Interviewer Impressions – The following issues were found significant to highly significant for these girls.
For more information on determining what constitutes a criminogenic need, please see Appendix E.
68 | P a g e
Figure 26: Top Criminogenic Needs for Girls
Compar ing Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls
By comparing top criminogenic needs for boys and girls based on their first JAIS assessment, we found the
following:
Figure 27: Top Criminogenic Needs for Boys and Girls 2020
88%
•Emotional Factors
•Depression, low self-esteem,
anxiety, impulse control
69%
•Relationships
•The youth’s peer group is
negative, delinquent, and/or
abusive
64%
•Family History Problems
•Chronic parental or family
problems affect the youth’s
actions or decision making
44%
•Parental Supervision
•Lack of parental supervision
that has contributed to the
youths’ legal issues
43%
•Abuse/Neglect and Trauma
•Physical abuse/neglect,
sexual abuse, and/or trauma
affected the youth's actions
or decision making
40%
•Substance Use
•Substance use contributed to
the youth’s legal difficulties
37%
•School Inadequacy
•Lack of cognitive ability/ capacity
to succeed without
supports/assistance contributes
to youth’s legal difficulties
35%
•Social Inadequacy
•Naiveté, gullibility, being
easily led
For boys and girls, Emotional Factors, Relationships, and Family History Problems were identified as
top criminogenic needs.
For boys and girls, Substance Use was about the same (45 and 40 percent, respectively).
For girls, Emotional Factors were higher (88 percent), compared to boys (65 percent).
For girls, Family History Problems were higher (64 percent), compared to boys (43 percent).
For girls, Abuse/Neglect and Trauma were higher (43 percent), compared to boys (21 percent).
69 | P a g e
Supervis ing Youth on Probation
As discussed earlier, the Probation Department utilizes an evidence-based tool called the Juvenile
Assessment and Intervention System (JAIS) that weaves together a risk assessment and strengths and
needs assessment. As well as analyzing risks and needs, the JAIS incorporates a supervision strategy model
and determines the best approach to supervision for each youth. The JAIS assessment is effectuated as a
one-on-one interview with the youth, focusing on the underlying motivation for their behavior and
includes one of the four types of supervision strategies: Selective Intervention (SI), Environmental
Structure (ES), Limit Setting (LS), and Casework Control (CC). See Appendix F for more details.
The following table shows the breakdown of Supervision Strategies by risk level for the sample of 713
boys who received probation services in 2020 and focuses on the first completed JAIS Assessment. Almost
half of these boys (45 percent) were identified at Moderate risk, followed by 35 percent at Low risk, and
20 percent at High risk to recidivate. Selective Intervention was the most utilized supervision strategy for
these boys (n=426) followed by Environmental Structure (n=114) and Limit Setting (n=111).
Table 9: Boys Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=713)
Risk Level Casework /
Control
Environmental
Structure
Limit Setting Selective
Intervention
Total
High 32 (52%) 37 (33%) 62 (56%) 14 (3%) 145 (20%)
Moderate 30 (48%) 71 (62%) 49 (44%) 171 (40%) 321 (45%)
Low 0 6 (5%) 0 241 (57%) 247 (35%)
Grand Total 62 (100%) 114 (100%) 111 (100%) 426 (100%) 713 (100%)
The following table shows the breakdown of Supervision Strategies by risk level for the sample of 159 girls
who received probation services in 2020 and focuses on the first completed JAIS Assessment. Out of the
159 assessments, Moderate risk accounted for 67 percent, followed by Low risk and High risk which both
accounted for 16 percent, respectively, in the likelihood to recidivate. Selective Intervention was the most
utilized supervision strategy for these girls (n=93) followed by Casework / Control (n=40).
Table 10: Girls Supervision Strategies by Risk Level (n=182)
Risk Level Casework /
Control
Environmental
Structure Limit Setting Selective
Intervention Total
High 14 (35%) 4 (29%) 4 (33%) 4 (4%) 26 (16%)
Moderate 26 (65%) 9 (64%) 8 (67%) 64 (69%) 107 (67%)
Low 0 1 (7%) 0 25 (27%) 26 (16%)
Grand Total 40 (100%) 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 93 (100%) 159 (100%)
70 | P a g e
EXAMINING DISPROPORTIONALITY A T KEY ENTRY POINTS IN THE SYSTEM
System partners have been engaged in the Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative (JJSC) since its inception
by Board Resolution on July 1, 2008. The JJSC provides a channel for system partners to work together in
the best interest of youth in the juvenile justice system while preventing or reducing the unnecessary
detention of youth. The JJSC has two standing work groups that meet monthly, the Race Equity in Justice
Systems (REJS) and Race Equity through Prevention (REP), however these workgroups did not meet in
2020 due to COVID-19. Members of the JJSC serve as voting members on only one of the work groups,
but anyone can participate in the work group meetings and subcommittees. Members of the JJSC meet
quarterly to discuss cross-functional issues and to get updates on efforts to reduce the overrepresentation
of youth of color in the juvenile justice system. Both work groups operate on systemic issues using a racial
and ethnic disparity (RED) lens that guides the focus areas and work. The following sections demonstrate
how youth of color are overrepresented through the stages of juvenile justice system involvement.
Throughout this report, figures are presented to compare youth of color with White youth to focus on
disparity at any system point within the juvenile justice system.
ARREST S AND CITATIONS
Comparing the youth population of the county with the population of arrests/citations21 clearly indicates
overrepresentation for Latino and Black youth within the juvenile justice system. While Latino youth
represent 35 percent of the overall youth population in Santa Clara County, they represent 68 percent of
youth arrested/cited. Black youth represent three percent of the overall youth population, but seven
percent of youth arrested/cited.
Figure 28: Youth Population Percentage (2019) and Youth Arrest Percentage (2020)
21 Youth’s race/ethnicity can be reported as per the Juvenile Contact Report (JCR), Clerk, or Probation Officer. Probation is
currently in the process of moving into a new case management system and efforts are focusing on improving and standardizing
the collection of these variables.
25%
3%
35%37%
0%
14%7%
68%
4%6%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2019 Youth Population (10-17) %Arrests %
71 | P a g e
There is an inverse relationship for White and Asian/PI youth. White youth account for 25 percent of the
population, but only 14 percent of arrests/citations. Similarly, Asian/PI youth account for 37 percent of
the population and only four percent of arrests/citations.
Table 11: Number and Rate of Arrests and Citations (2020) and Youth Population (2019)
**Unable to calculate because numbers are too small.
Examining rates of arrest/citation is another way to
understand the extent of disparities. In Santa Clara County
in 2020, there were 32 arrests/citations for every 1,000
Black youth (as shown in the Figure to the right), compared
to the arrest rate of seven for every 1,000 White youth.
Therefore, Black youth were five times more likely than
White youth to be arrested or cited. For every 1,000 Latino
youth, there were 23 arrests/citations of Latino youth and
they were over four times more likely to be arrested
compared to White youth. Asian/PI youth had the lowest
rate of one arrest/citation for every 1,000 Asian/PI youth
in the population, making them less likely to be arrested
than White youth.
Between 2016 and 2020, there was a 32 percent decrease in the number of arrests/citations for all youth,
this is most likely due to the impact of the Shelter in Place order due to COVID-19. The decrease in
arrests/citations from 2016 to 2020 was greater for Black and Asian/PI youth than for Latino youth.
Between 2016 and 2020, Latino youth arrests/citations decreased by 28 percent while arrests/citations
of Black and Asian/PI youth decreased by 50 percent and 54 percent, respectively. During the same period,
White youth experienced a 38 percent decrease in arrests/citations.
Number and Rate of
Arrests/Citations (2020) to Youth
Population (2019)
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 48,429 5,105 66,083 70,160 581 190,358
Arrests/Citations 316 163 1,535 99 135 2,246
Youth Population Percent 25% 3% 35% 37% 0% 100%
Arrest/Citation Percent 14% 7% 68% 4% 6% 100%
Rate of Arrest (per 1,000 youth) 7 32 23 1 ** 12
Disparity Gap: Times More Likely
to be Arrested/Cited 1.0 4.9 3.6 0.2 N/A N/A
Figure 29: Rate of Arrest and Citation
per 1,000 youth 2020
7
32
23
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI
72 | P a g e
Table 12: Arrest and Citation Yearly Trends
A decrease in the number of youth arrested/cited does not control for the changes in population that
have occurred over the same period. However, arrest/citation rates22 provide a more accurate view of
system involvement for each group. While arrest/citation rates between 2016 and 2020 fell considerably
across all racial/ethnic groups, rates of arrest/citation remain far higher for Latino and Black youth than
for White and Asian/PI youth.
Figure 30: Arrest Rates per 1,000 Youth 2016 – 2020 by Race/Ethnicity
22 Rates help to remove variations in population size between different groups and provide a standardized measure of the
likelihood of system involvement for each group. To calculate the rates, we divide the number of youth arrested by the
number of youth in the population and multiply by 1,000 youth.
10
62
32
3
11
75
37
3
8
72
38
3
9
55
33
37
32
23
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Arrest/Citation Numbers White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2016 511 325 2,146 215 113 3,310
2017 564 391 2,471 223 143 3,792
2018 411 373 2,549 196 139 3,668
2019 469 283 2,237 202 179 3,370
2020 316 163 1,535 99 133 2,246
Percent Change 2019-2020 -33% -42% -31% -51% -26% -33%
Percent Change 2016-2020 -38% -50% -28% -54% 22% -32%
73 | P a g e
YOUTH DETENTION
Disparities across racial groups continue at the detention decision point where there is an
overrepresentation of Black and Latino youth admitted to detention in Santa Clara County compared to
their representation in the youth population. Black youth represent three percent of the population but
11 percent of admissions. Latino youth represent 35 percent of the population, but 77 percent of
admissions. In contrast, while 25 percent of youth in the population are White, only seven percent of total
admissions were of White youth; this is an increase from 2019. Asian/PI youth represent 37 percent of
the population, but only three percent of admissions. Again, population data is based on calendar year
2019.
Table 13: Numbers and Rate of Admission to Secure Detention 2020
In 2020, White youth had a rate of one detention per
1,000 White youth in the population. Black and Latino
detention rates were 12 (Black) and seven (Latino),
respectively. Asian/PI youth had the lowest rate of 0.3
youth per every 1,000 Asian/PI youth.
A comparison of the rates of detention for White youth
reveals the likelihood of a Black youth being admitted
to detention is 14 times that of a White youth. Latino
youth were eight times more likely to be detained than
White youth.
Numbers and Rate of Admission to
Secure Detention (2020) White Black Latino Asian/
PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 48,429 5,105 66,083 70,160 581 190,358
Admissions to Detention 41 59 432 18 10 560
Youth Population Percent 25% 3% 35% 37% 0% 100%
Admission to Detention Percent 7% 11% 77% 3% 2% 100%
Rate of Detention (per 1,000 youth) 1 12 7 0.3 N/A 3
Disparity Gap: Times More Likely to be
Detained 1.0 13.7 7.7 0.3 N/A N/A
Figure 31: Rate of Detention per 1,000 youth
2020
1
12
7
0.3
White Black Latino Asian/PI
74 | P a g e
The table below shows that from 2016 to 2020, there was a 39 percent decrease in the overall rate of
admission to detention.23 During that period Black and Latino youth experienced a reduction in the
number of admissions to secure detention. The number of Black youth admitted to detention decreased
by 38 percent, Latino youth decreased by 36 percent. During that period, Other24 youth experienced an
increase in the number of admissions to detention by 11 percent. However, it is important to note, the
actual number of Other youth went from nine admissions in 2016 to 10 admissions in 2020. When
numbers in the population sample are so small, percentage changes can be skewed greatly.
Table 14: Admission Numbers 2016-2020
Admission Numbers
2016-2020 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2016 101 95 679 37 9 921
2017 95 125 725 51 17 1,013
2018 77 133 922 57 23 1,212
2019 97 101 696 44 20 958
2020 41 59 432 18 10 560
Percent Change 2019-2020 -58% -42% -38% -59% -50% -42%
Percent Change 2016-2020 -59% -38% -36% -51% 11% -39%
JUVENILE HALL AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
The average daily population of Juvenile Hall also reveals racial disparities in detention. Average daily
population figures provide a breakdown of the detention during “an average day” during the year. In 2020
(as shown in figure below), the average daily population was made up of four White youth, five Black
youth, 49 Latino youth, one Asian/PI youth, and one Other youth. The average daily population in 2020
was 60 youth, a 46 percent decrease from 2019, again attributable to measures taken to reduce custody
populations during COVID-19.
23 As with arrests, we look at the rate of admissions by race and ethnicity, to remove variations in population size between
different groups and provide a standardized measure of the likelihood of admission for each group. To calculate the rates, we
divide the number of youth admitted by the number of youth in the population and multiply by 1,000 youth.
24 Other youth includes: Multiracial and Native American youth.
75 | P a g e
PETITIONS
There continues to be an overrepresentation of Latino and Black youth petitioned in Santa Clara County
compared to their representation in the overall county youth population. In contrast, White youth account
for 25 percent of the population, but only nine percent of petitions. Similarly, Asian/PI youth account for
37 percent of the population but only four percent of petitions. Latino youth represent 35 percent of the
youth population, but 69 percent of filed petitions. Black youth represent only three percent of the
population, but 10 percent of filed petitions. Eight percent of petitions were classified as Other youth. The
Other category can include youth of mixed race, Native American or youth whose race is unknown. In
2020, for every 1,000 White youth in the population, one was petitioned. In comparison, for every 1,000
Black youth, 15 were petitioned and for every 1,000 Latino youth, eight were petitioned. For every 1,000
Asian/PI youth, less than one youth was petitioned.
Figure 32: Average Daily Population by Race/Ethnicity
6 8
65
2 2611
65
3 349
87
3 299
90
3 145
49
1 1
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 34: Santa Clara County Petitions in 2020
9%
10%
69%
4%8%
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Figure 33: Rate of Petition for 2020 (per 1,000
youth in population)
1
15
8
0
White Black Latino Asian/PI
76 | P a g e
Table 14 illustrates that Black, Latino, Asian/PI, and Other youth saw a decrease in the number of petitions
filed between 2019 and 2020, while White youth saw an increase.
Between 2019 and 2020 White youth had an increase in petitions filed (seven percent). Black and Latino
youth continue to be more likely to have a petition filed than White or Asian youth.
Table 15: Duplicated25 Petition Numbers 2016-2020
Table 16: Numbers and Rate of Duplicated Petitions 2020
**Unable to calculate because numbers are too small.
The table below shows the rate of petitions per 1,000 youth in the population has decreased and/or
remained the same for White, Black, and Latino youth from 2016 to 2020. Numbers for Asian/PI youth
have remained steady since 2016 and were even lower in 2020. The overall rate of petitions filed for both
Black and Latino youth has remained consistently higher than for White and Asian/PI youth.
25 Duplicated refers to the count of petitions, not count of youth.
Petition Numbers 2016-2020 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2016 121 74 812 68 126 1,201
2017 148 165 938 89 50 1,390
2018 109 168 1,112 77 69 1,535
2019 67 90 550 61 80 848
2020 72 76 532 31 65 776
Percent Change 2019-2020 7% -16% -3% -49% -19% -8%
Percent Change 2016-2020 -40% 3% -34% -54% -48% -35%
Numbers and Rate of Petitions
2020 White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Youth Population (10-17) 48,429 5,105 66,083 70,160 581 190,358
Petitions 72 76 532 31 65 776
Youth Population Percent 25% 3% 35% 37% 0% 100%
Petition Percent 9% 10% 69% 4% 8% 100%
Rate of Petition (per 1,000 youth) 1 15 8 0 ** 4
Disparity Gap: Times More Likely
to be Petitioned 1 10.0 5.4 0.3 N/A N/A
77 | P a g e
Table 17: Petition Rates per 1,000 Youth by Race/Ethnicity
COLLABORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE INTERVENTIONS
Youth who have entered the juvenile justice system often have more criminogenic needs and as a result,
a more comprehensive approach increases the likelihood of success as system partners work
collaboratively to provide services to youth and families in Santa Clara County. The following section
describes some of the collaborative intermediate level interventions utilized in the County.
WIC 241.1 Referrals and Assessments
WIC Section 241.1 referrals are reviewed by both the Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS)
and Juvenile Services Division (JPD) Supervisors of the Dually Involved Youth (DIY) Unit to determine if the
DIY Unit will conduct the joint assessment and provide the report to the Juvenile Court. Once a case is
accepted, the DIY Unit goes through a Child and Family Team Meeting (CFT), which will result in a joint
recommendation for the 241.1 report. The CFTs serve as an opportunity to partner with the youth and
family in identifying what supports are needed to function safely, and ultimately free of system
involvement. The CFT process begins with a youth advocate building a relationship with the youth and a
clinician assessing the youth’s needs and strengths. Subsequently, a group including the social worker,
probation officer, the youth, family, support persons identified by the youth, and relevant treatment
providers will meet to discuss how to capitalize on the youth’s strengths and more effectively respond to
their needs. Finally, a separate meeting will take place without the youth to develop the joint agency
recommendations that will go into the 241.1 report. Recommendations resulting in dual involvement are
advised to remain under the supervision of the unit after the 241.1 assessment has been completed and
these youth are served through the DIY Unit. Cases not accepted into the DIY Unit are assigned to a DFCS
Social Worker (SW) and Probation Officer (PO) following established procedures and referrals are made
to the Behavioral Health Services Department as appropriate. The assigned PO and the assigned SW will
complete an initial assessment seven court days before the pending 241.1 hearing. For those cases where
the family issues do not rise to the level of mandating a WIC 241.1 referral, but the family appears to be
White Black Latino Asian/PI
2016 2 14 12 1
2017 3 32 14 1
2018 2 33 16 1
2019 1 18 8 1
2020 1 15 8 0
Percent Change 2019-2020 0% -17% 0% -100%
Percent Change 2016-2020 -50% 7% -33% -100%
78 | P a g e
in crisis, sometimes the stakeholders will agree to have the case heard on the DIY calendar to collaborate
and attempt to keep youth and families out of both systems, if possible.
Dually Involved Youth Initiative/Unit
The Dually Involved Youth Initiative is a collaborative effort between the Probation Department Juvenile
Services Division (JPD), the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), and the Behavioral Health
Services Department (BHSD). Formally launched as part of the Juvenile Justice Court’s DIY Initiative in June
2014, the work of the Dually Involved Youth Unit (DIYU) guides the cross-systems initiative efforts. The
DIYU continues to provide coordinated case management and services between JPD, DFCS, and BHSD.
This coordinated systems approach allows for the co-location of social workers, probation officers, youth
advocates, and a behavioral health clinician to implement a collaborative and healing-focused plan built
around leveraging the strengths and needs of the youth. In calendar year (CY) 2020, the DIYU was staffed
with six social workers, five probation officers, three youth advocates, and one behavioral health
clinician/facilitator. A DIY Director provides cross-systems communication, coordination, and planning.
JPD, DFCS, and BHSD supervisors provide oversight of the program. At the same time, a DIY liaison
facilitates the sharing of information between DFCS and JPD staff located within and outside of the unit.
In CY 2020, 48 WIC 241.1 reports were completed by the DIYU. Social workers and probation officers make
a joint recommendation by completing a WIC 241.1 assessment. Youth not admitted to the DIYU receive
services either through child welfare or probation as these cases can be handled by one department and
do not require intensive services rendered in the DIYU. Fifty percent of youth served were between 15
and 16 years old. Latino youth represented 71 percent of youth served, Black youth represented 10
percent, White youth represented four percent, and Asian/Pacific Islander youth represented nine
percent. The average age of youth served was 15 years old.
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC)
In 2017, the Juvenile Services Division of the Probation Department created the commercial sexual
exploitation of children (CSEC) Unit to address the serious issue of youth who are sexually exploited or are
at high risk for sexual exploitation. Commercial sexual exploitation of a child is a form of child abuse that
causes multiple levels of trauma and many victims of commercial sexual exploitation exhibit behaviors
that are manifestations of the trauma they have experienced. The CSEC Unit is part of a larger multiagency
collaborative which includes the Department of Family and Children Services, the Public Health
Department, the Behavioral Health Services Department, and advocates from Community Solutions and
the YWCA. This collaborative developed and implemented an interagency response protocol as well as
continued to work on demand reduction and prevention efforts in 2020. The Juvenile Services Division
CSEC Unit aids with increased identification of commercially sexually exploited youth, or those at risk for
exploitation, coordination of a range of victim-centered, strength-based, trauma-informed services
through the multiagency collaborative, and training. Youth who are identified as being exploited or at risk
79 | P a g e
for exploitation are referred to the CSEC Transformation Team for individual support and resources that
are empowering, reduce harm, and build upon their resiliency.
During calendar year 2020, 1,743 duplicated youth
(1,462 unique youth) were screened for CSEC
using the West Coast Children’s Clinic Commercial
Sexual Exploitation Identification Tool (CSE-IT).
Seventy-three percent of youth screened as no
concern for CSEC (n=1,264), 23 percent of youth
screened possible concern26 for CSEC (n=409), and
four percent of youth screened clear concern for
CSEC (n=70) (see figure on the right). Twenty-
seven percent of youth screened were 17 years old
at the time of screening (n=474), followed by 24
percent who were 16 years old at the time of the
screening (n=424). Seventy-eight percent of youth
screened by the CSE-IT were male, followed by 22
percent of youth screened were female.
Of the 1,743 youth screened for CSEC, 69 youth
had a CSEC Referral completed (four percent). Females accounted for 13 percent of clear concern while
males accounted for two percent. The table below shows the breakdown by sex.
Table 18: CSEC 2020 by Sex
CSEC Screener Score Female Male Total
Clear Concern 49 (13%) 21 (2%) 70 (4%)
Possible Concern 105 (28%) 304 (22%) 409 (23%)
No Concern 224 (59%) 1,040 (76%) 1,264 (73%)
Total 378 (100%) 1,365 (100%) 1,743 (100%)
Specialty Courts
All the youth appearing on specialty court calendars are referred to services that are specialized to address
their needs. Within the County of Santa Clara Juvenile Justice Court there are currently four specialty
26 The CSE-IT is completed through the Probation Case Management System. Upon completion of the CSE-IT, a score will be
generated that will indicate the level of concern for exploitation. The level of concern for exploitation may guide the DPO t o
further consider CSE risk factors and may also trigger an automatic referral to the CSEC DPO depending on the indicated level of
concern.
Figure 35: CSE-IT Results
4%
23%
73%
Clear Concern Possible Concern
No Concern
80 | P a g e
courts, each focused on addressing potential root causes of offending. The Dually Involved Youth (DIY)
Court focuses on youth who have both child welfare and juvenile justice involvement. The
Family/Domestic Violence (FV/DV) court handles cases where the charges or concerns regarding the youth
are primarily related to family or intimate partner violence. Opportunity Court is held once a month in the
community in collaboration with ConXion to Community (CTC). Lastly, the Court for the Individualized
Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) Court (previously Juvenile Treatment Court) focuses on youth with co -
occurring substance use and mental health disorders.
FAMILY VIOLENCE/DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT (FV/DV)
Any case that comes before the District Attorney (DA) that is a Domestic Violence/Family violence (DV/FV)
case is “stamped” by the DA as DV/FV. Such cases are calendared in a specific department. The Judge in
this department also runs the DV oversight committee. Additionally, the same DA and Public Defender
(PD) will appear for DV cases given they are in the same department, which allows for a certain level of
consistency. Additionally, the case (in most instances) is transferred to the Special Programs Uni t,
Domestic Violence Unit. Said unit has two and a half positions that are Probation Officers (POs) who are
trained extensively in Juvenile Domestic Violence and their entire caseload consists of DV cases. They are
experts in this area given the training and consistent exposure. These Probation Officers provide training
in the department and guide their peers who have cases of power and control over a victim.
The youth are, in most cases, referred to the 26-week Batters Intervention Program where they are held
accountable for their actions, and must hold their peers accountable for similar behavior. Guidelines for
this program are strict and failure to abide by the guidelines will result in a violation of probation and
possible return to Juvenile Hall. When the case is not appropriate for this type of treatment, the POs
make alternative arrangements for treatment while still advocating for appropriate intervention services
that meet the needs of the youth.
The goals of the specialized DV caseloads are to promote victim safety and offender accountability. Each
case is issued a No Contact Order, and in some
cases a Peaceful Contact Order, dependent on
individual circumstances. No Contact and
Peaceful Contact Orders are strictly
enforced. Probation remains in close contact
with the victim for the duration of the case and
victims are provided opportunities for
education, advocacy, and parenting (if
applicable), should they choose to utilize
services. Victims are informed and updated
related to their case and their voice is relayed
to the Court. The department has a protocol
that includes swift response to any violation
Figure 36: Number of Youth in Family Violence/
Domestic Violence Court
3 2
45
2 350
24
2 130
24
1 1
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2018 2019 2020
81 | P a g e
that may put a victim at risk (substance use, violations of the No Contact Order, failure of Court Ordered
Batters Intervention Programing, etc.). The County is also in the process of reviewing data as it relates to
recidivism and utilizes Evidence Based Practices (EBP).
In 2020, Family Violence/Domestic Violence Court (FV/DV) served 29 unduplicated youth. Latino youth
make up the largest group of participants in FV/DV (83 percent, n=24). White youth made up 10 percent
of participants (n=3). Males represented 76 percent of participants (n=22). Seventy-two percent of youth
who participated in the FV/DV program were 16 to 17 years old at the start of services.
COURT FOR THE INDIVIDUALIZED TREAT MENT OF ADOLESCENTS (CITA )
The Court for the Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) is a therapeutic court intervention that
focuses on youth who have both a mental health and substance abuse diagnosis. The Court is voluntary.
The youth’s voice is critical to the success of each case. A case plan is tailored to the needs of the youth
and family. The youth, as well as a team of professionals that includes the judge, the probation officer,
the attorney for the youth, the District Attorney, a Behavioral Health case manager, an educational legal
expert, a legal benefits expert, and other team members which may include mentors, mental health
counselors, Wraparound providers, and parents/caregivers participate in creation of the case plan.
The court is held twice a month, however, most youth appear in court only once per month. The goal of
this court is to get the youth and family stabilized with community providers and off probation. The
juvenile justice system recognizes that the public safety issues fall away when criminal behavior driven by
mental health and/or substance abuse disorders are properly addressed. Many youth will have lifelong
struggles with addiction and mental health, and we hope that these issues can be addressed by the
Behavioral Health system of care with a supportive treatment response that will carry youth to adulthood
without further justice system involvement.
During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, CITA court adapted. Probation Officers and the Behavioral Health
team pivoted to virtual meetings and virtual court reviews. In 2020, a total 17 youth were screened. Of all
youth screened in 2020, 76 percent were male, and the majority (53 percent) were Latino, followed by
White (18 percent). In 2020, CITA served a total of 49 youth.
OPPOR TUNITY COU RT
Due to COVID-19, Opportunity Court was not held after March 2020.
Victim -Centered Approaches
The County of Santa Clara utilizes many victim centered approaches with juvenile justice youth including:
Victim Awareness classes, Victim Offender Mediation (VOMP), and the District Attorney’s Juvenile Victim
Advocate.
82 | P a g e
PROBATION VICTIM SERVICES
The unit works collaboratively with members of the community and survivors of crime to provide Victim
Awareness workshops throughout the County for youth referred to the Probation Department. The goals
of the program are to increase empathy through educating and sensitizing youth to the impacts of crime
and promoting a system of justice that recognizes harm caused to victims and supporting positive steps
to repairing those harms. The workshop curriculum is victim centered and enhanced by community
members who have been victims of youth crime and give a firsthand account of the impacts of crime. The
curriculum was redesigned in mid-2018 in collaboration with staff, facilitators, victim speakers, and with
youth input.
In 2020, 132 individual youth were served through the Victim Awareness classes. Of these, 78 percent
were male, 18 percent were female, and 5 percent either declined to state or information regarding their
gender identification was missing. Of the participants, 73 percent were Latino, seven percent were White,
eight percent were Black, three percent were Other race/ethnicities, eight percent were Asian/PI, five
percent were unidentified. Two percent were 13 years old; 23 percent were 14-15, 74 percent were 16 or
older, and one youth’s age was unidentified. The Probation Department conducts semiannual evaluations
of Victim Awareness classes and these reports show statistically significant improvement when comparing
pre-test with post-test scores.
Figure 37: Victim Awareness Participants
294
262
379 376
132
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
83 | P a g e
DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUVENILE VICTIM ADVOCATE
In the Summer of 2018, recognizing the growing need among victims of juvenile crime, the District
Attorney's Office Victim Services Unit collaborated with the Juvenile Services Division to assign one full-
time, bilingual (English and Spanish) Victim Advocate to the Juvenile Crimes Unit. This Advocate is
available to provide court support as needed to crime survivors and works with the Probation Department
to ensure victims received comprehensive victim services to help them heal and move forward after
victimization. These services include crisis intervention, emergency services, resource and referral
assistance, orientation to the juvenile justice process, court support and escort, and assistance with the
California Victim Compensation Program. In addition, the Claim Specialists in the D.A.’s Victim Services
Unit work directly with victims to pay for certain types or crime-related costs such as medical and mental
health expenses.
VICTIM OFFENDER MEDIATION PROGRAM (VOMP)
Through the County of Santa Clara Office of Mediation and Ombuds Services (OMOS), the Victim Offender
Mediation Program (VOMP) provides probation youth and the victims of their offenses the option to meet
in a safe, confidential, and structured setting with neutral mediators to address what happened, its
impact, and how the physical, financial, and emotional damage from the crime can bes t be repaired. The
process enables victims to have their questions answered and the youth to acknowledge responsibility
and have a voice in how to make things as right as possible. When the parties are inclined to discuss
restitution, they have an opportunity to do so and to create their own, voluntary agreement regarding
restitution (financial or otherwise). The program is based on the principles of Restorative Justice and
transformative mediation, taking into consideration everyone affected by the crime, including the victim,
relatives, probation youth, parents, siblings, schools, and the community. Data from five Northern
California VOM programs demonstrates that mediated agreements reached between victims and
probation youth decrease recidivism and significantly increase restitution repayment compared to court-
ordered restitution.
Benefits for victims include the opportunity to ask questions only the youth can answer (such as how and
why the crime happened and whether it might happen again), be heard by youth regarding the first-hand
impact of their actions, have a voice in how the damage is repaired, gain an understanding of the y outh
by hearing their stories, and to move toward repair and closure by increasing the possibility of becoming
whole, both emotionally and financially. Benefits for youth include the opportunity to help victims be
heard and have their questions about the incident answered, see a victim as a person, hear and take
responsibility for the impact of their actions, have a voice in how the damage is repaired and restitution
made, and experience the power of and growth from holding oneself accountable and doing the right
thing. Benefits for the community include repairing physical damage caused by crimes, moving youth
toward becoming responsible citizens, and improving public safety by reducing the likelihood the offender
will commit future crimes.
84 | P a g e
VOMP also conducts Parent-Youth mediations, which provide the time and a safe, neutral space for youth
and guardians to express and hear what they need from one another and what they each are willing to
do themselves to better respect one another and communicate more effectively. They are encouraged to
discuss whatever issues they need to move forward from entrenched habits that interfere with their
ability to live together peacefully. This has been an effective tool for keeping youth in the home, thus
minimizing incarceration.
The major shift brought about by the COVID pandemic has been the move from in-person interviews and
mediations to phone interviews and mediations by videoconference. Access to interviews with youth who
are in custody has been made easier. And while we look forward to having parties once again be able to
address one another from across a table to heighten these emotional interactions, we have been
pleasantly surprised that the conversations over Zoom have felt as intimate as they have. Though the
signing of agreements and other documents remotely can be time consuming to pursue with Parties, it is
more than counterbalanced by the convenience that phone interviews and video mediations afford by
reducing the time parties spend in transit to our office and taking time off work.
Mediation services provided by OMOS and VOMP are free, voluntary, and confidential. If all parties agree,
the mediated agreement may be shared with third parties such as the Court, Probation, District Attorney,
defense counsel, support agencies, and family members. In 2020, 357 referrals were made for 184
unduplicated youth and 299 unduplicated victims. Twenty-two percent of the unduplicated youth were
female, and 31 percent of the referrals involved at least one monolingual Spanish speaking person (parent
of probation youth or victim). Youth offenders agreed to mediate in 90 (32 percent) of the 283 of the 357
total referrals in which there was no objection by guardians or counsel for VOMP to speak to the youth,
the youth were available for contact, and VOMP was able to contact the youth. (Note: when a youth did
not provide a final answer after initial contact, that was counted as a decline of mediation.) Victims agreed
to mediate in 27 (45 percent) of these 90 referrals that the youth agreed to mediate, where the victim
was available to be and was reached by VOMP, and another eight (13 percent) agreed to conciliate
(conciliation is communication between the parties through the mediator). Note: when the victim did not
provide a final answer after initial contact, that was counted as a decline of mediation. Of the parties
VOMP was able to contact, 527 people were served by mediation consultations27, 29 people were served
by conciliation, and 81 people were served by mediation.
Beh avioral Health and Substance Use Treatment Services
The Children, Youth and Family (CYF) System of Care’s Cross Systems Initiatives (CSI) Division within the
Behavioral Health Services Department (BHSD) focuses on programs serving children, adolescents, young
adults, and their families, who experience social-emotional and behavioral concerns and are involved in
the child welfare, juvenile justice systems, or need substance use treatment services. The CYF System of
27 For each referral we may serve more than one person. For example, if we consult on one referral with the minor, the minor’s
mother, the victim, and victim’s spouse, then four people were served on the one referral. This figure does not account for
multiple consultations with the same individual on any given referral.
85 | P a g e
Care includes services at six County-operated sites and 20 contract agency programs located throughout
Santa Clara County. The six County clinics and contracted programs provide outpatient care and programs
specific to the unique needs of children and their families. Services are provided through a strength-based
and trauma-informed lens that respects cultural values and engages natural support systems. Services are
offered within a continuum of care ranging in intensity and duration based on the needs of the individual
child/youth.
With the goal of increasing opportunities for streamlined care, the CSI Division added BHSD’s contracted
youth substance use treatment service and programs focusing on programs that serve youth and young
adults up to age 21 who face substance use issues, often combined with other social -emotional and
behavioral needs. Youth with substance use issues generally can consent to their own treatment, and
families are included in treatment based on youth agreement and consent. Youth Substance Use
Treatment Services (SUTS) are offered at outpatient clinic sites and schools located throughout Santa
Clara County.
In addition to behavioral health services, which includes co-occurring treatment based on individual needs
while the youth is in custody, BHSD has a continuum of services available to youth involved in the juvenile
justice system who are living at home or in the community. These services incl ude prevention, early
intervention and treatment programs that include outpatient mental health treatment, in-custody
behavioral health services, intensive outpatient behavioral health programs, substance use treatment,
and crisis services which range in intensity and duration to address the individualized needs of the youth.
As part of the philosophy of care, youth received individualized treatment services in the least restrictive
environment with the level of intensity based on a thorough assessment.
Within the CYF System of Care, behavioral health providers are trained to provide co-occurring treatment
services to address mild to moderate level of substance use needs. Clients with more significant substance
use needs and specialized treatment are referred to substance use treatment providers. In 2020, mental
health and probation referred 413 youth for Behavioral Health services, and of those youth living in the
community, 269 received both mental health & substance use treatment services, and 48 youth received
only Substance Use Treatment Services. There were 96 youth with duplicate referrals to behavioral health
services. Eighty nine percent of youth receiving only substance use treatment services were male and ten
percent were female. The data that follows reflects youth who received mental health and substance use
treatment services through BHSD. The largest age group served during 2020 was the 16 to 18 age group
(74 percent), followed by 14-15 years old (23 percent), and 13 and under (3 percent). For each of these
age groups, there are specific programs designed to address their behavioral health issues by using an
age-appropriate assessment and evidence-based practices.
86 | P a g e
Figure 38: Behavioral Health Treatment by Sex
Of participants in mental health services during 2020, most were Latino (61 percent). Latino youth were
followed by White youth (eight percent), Asian/PI youth (five percent), Black youth (four percent), and
Other (three percent). A total of 48 justice-involved youth received substance use treatment in either
residential or outpatient settings. Of these youth, five were White (25 percent), one was Black, 40 were
Latino (83 percent), and two youth designated their race/ethnicity as “Other”.
Figure 40: Behavioral Health Treatment by Race/Ethnicity
Among those youth identified as meeting the criteria for a behavioral health diagnosis28, the three most
prevalent diagnoses were Adjustment Disorder (n=90), Other Mood Disorder (n=56), and Major
Depressive Disorder (n=54). It should be noted that most youth have experienced traumatic or significant
adverse childhood experiences that did not always meet the criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
28 For a short definition of these diagnosis, please refer to Appendix I as provided by BHSD.
210
4359
5
Mental Health/SUTS SUTS Only
Male Female
26 13
192
16 12 1051
40
2
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Unknown
Mental Health/SUTS SUTS Only
Figure 39 : Behavioral Health Treatment by Age
Range
8
66
195
1 7 40
13 and Under 14-15 16-18
Mental Health/SUTS SUTS Only
87 | P a g e
Figure 41: Behavioral Health Diagnosis
Ranch Re e ntry Behavioral Health Services
In calendar year 2020, all youth at William F. James Ranch facility (James Ranch) received both Mental
Health and Substance Use Treatment Services through the Starlight Youth Therapeutic Integrated
Program (YTIP). YTIP provides comprehensive mental health screening, assessment, and treatment, that
includes individual, group, and family therapy. Group treatment utilizes the evidence -based Seeking
Safety and the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA). Seeking Safety is a model that
addresses co-occurring trauma and substance use needs and A-CRA is a behavioral treatment model for
alcohol and other substance use disorders that helps youth improve access to interpersonal and
environmental reinforcers to reduce or stop substance use. In addition, the Seven Challenges program is
utilized as an individual model to assist youth in taking responsibility for their substance use and helps
them set goals for recovery. The James Ranch has a Board-Certified Child Psychiatrist, an employee of
BHSD, that provides medication evaluations and medication management for youth. Multi-disciplinary
Team (MDT) meetings are held at the 60 and 30-day marks prior to release from James Ranch, and include
James Ranch service providers and community- based organization that are assigned to support the youth
after completion of the Ranch program. The MDT meetings address follow-up care (reentry services) for
youth to ensure connection to a service provider in the community.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Starlight YTIP continued in-person services at the James Ranch utilizing
all proper safety precautions. To support care coordination and reentry, YTIP utilized electronic tablets to
facilitate joint sessions with youth, family, and community providers. Group sessions were held through
virtual means, with youth being in person and a YTIP provider facilitating virtually. The YTIP program also
worked closely with the Guadalupe Behavioral Health Clinic to ensure continuity of care for youth that
90
56
54
36
34
21
16
7
3
Adjustment Disorder
Other Mood Disorder
Major Depressive Disorder
Substance Use/Dependence Disorder
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Depressive Disorders
Anxiety Disorders
ADHD
Behavior Disorder
88 | P a g e
were transferred from James Ranch to Juvenile Hall due to C OVID-19 exposures and placed in a 14-day
quarantine. The Guadalupe team provided check-ins with youth, addressed immediate needs, and
supported coordination for youth to receive phone access to speak with their YTIP provider. The
Guadalupe team mobilized a plan to keep the youth engaged and stimulated while in quarantine, by
providing each youth with bags that included puzzles, word searches, magazines, crayons & coloring
pages, playing cards, origami sheets, and inspirational letters written by behavioral health staff to
individual youth.
COLLABORATIVE INTENSIVE INTERVENTION S
The Juvenile Services Division (JPD) of the Probation Department considers and utilizes safe alternatives
to removing youth from their homes and communities, when appropriate. Post dispositional services
include programs that are intensive in nature and provide mental health services, drug and alcohol groups,
behavior modification, and other services such as family-driven Wraparound services.
M ultisystemic Therapy (MST)
The Probation Department implemented MST in March 2019, to meet the needs of youth ages 14 and
under. Although the MST model provides exceptional i ntensive support and equips the parents with skills
to address their child’s needs; due to the lack of referrals in this age group the program was not renewed
and sunset on June 30, 2020. Fortunately, most of these youth, are being provided guidance through our
least restrictive unit, Prevention and Early Intervention. Should the youth and family need additional
support, they are being referred to services via Support Enhancement Services (SES). During the MST
operation period several families successfully completed the program and the youth avoided further
involvement in the Juvenile Justice System.
Wraparound Services
In December of 2019, the Probation Department in collaboration with DFCS and BHSD released a Request
for Proposal (RFP) and awarded four agencies contracts to continue providing Wraparound services. The
population of youth enrolled in Wraparound continued to grow from an average monthly total of 78 in
January of 2020 to a peak of 89 in August. From that high, there was a steady decline to 66 youth at the
end of the year. Probation referrals for Wraparound services showed a steady decline throughout 2020,
mirroring a slowdown in criminal referrals in the community affected by COVID-19 among other things. In
2020, 181 unduplicated youth (209 duplicated youth) received Wraparound services. Of the 181
unduplicated youth, 134 were males (74 percent) and 140 youth were Latino (77 percent). White youth
represented nine percent of the population followed by Black youth (eight percent). Based on duplicated
counts, Pre-Adjudicated youth accounted for 42 percent (n=88), followed by Wards (30 percent, n=63)
and Reentry youth (28 percent, n=58).
89 | P a g e
The number of out-of-home placements has remained consistent during the past three years. Please see
figure below for more information.
Figure 42: Monthly Juvenile Hall Average Daily Population Compared to Wraparound Services and
Placement (2018-2020)
*SIP – Shelter in Place Start Date
COVID-19 Wraparound Update
Despite the limitations the shelter in place order imposed across the state, Wraparound teams were able
to adapt and continue to deliver exceptional service in Santa Clara County. CFT's were transitioned to
virtual where appropriate, however, many CFT's remained in person based on the needs of the
family. Telehealth was also used to deliver therapy. Wraparound teams, and Probation Officers
continued to meet with youth in the community while adhering to social distancing, and PPE protocols.
The Interagency Placement Committee (IPC) team reviews critical incidents that occur with our
Wraparound youth, such as 5150 hospitalizations, drug overdoses, and other noteworthy crisis related
events. Several months into the pandemic, the team noticed a trend of overdose related hospitalizations,
and incidents of family violence with our Wraparound youth. IPC reviews found that responses to these
critical incidents were handled appropriately by Wraparound staff. Youth and families were always able
to rely upon the crisis and on-call numbers when needed, and Wraparound staff were able to meet the
youth in person to help with de-escalation and processing trauma. Wraparound teams also identified lack
of pro-social activities available during the pandemic as a major roadblock. Teams attempted many things
to find creative solutions that adhered to the social distancing measures, such as outdoor activities like
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
2018 2019 2020
Placement Wraparound Ranch JH Custody ADP
SIP*
90 | P a g e
hiking or cycling. School attendance proved difficult as well due to technology issues, lack of motivation
and poor learning environments.
Child and Family Team (CFT)
The Juvenile Services Division in conjunction with the Wraparound providers continue to bridge gaps
between services resulting in the continuity of care. The youth, family, Probation Officer, therapist,
substance use treatment counselor, and Wraparound Team members facilitate Child and Family Team
(CFT) meetings to solidify a safety plan for the youth and ensure all supports are in place within their local
community. Many of the defense attorneys are now electing to participate in CFT's, especially when the
youth is scheduled to appear before the Court for a Status Review Hearing. Additionally, for youth who
attend Sunol Community School and have been referred to formal substance use treatment services, the
school’s assigned treatment counselor has begun attending the student’s CFT’s, as a natural support
person, providing valuable insight and feedback to effective rehabilitation strategies. During the CFT
meeting all participants openly discuss program participation, cli nical needs, and educational variables
which are incorporated into the case plan and smart goals. The team prioritizes the continuum of care
efforts to ensure seamless connection to their natural environment, increasing the likelihood of successful
community integration.
Lock Out
In 2018, system partners teamed to establish a funding mechanism, identified as “the lockout,” to
maintain Wraparound Services for youth in custody, for a period not to exceed 30 days. The lockout
allows youth to continue receiving Wraparound services while they are in custody for a violation of their
probation terms. Interruptions dropped by about 50% in 2020 when compared to 2019. This sharp
decline began in March, in line with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are likely many factors
influencing this decline in lockout activity. First, efforts were made to lim it the number of youth admitted
to Juvenile Hall due to risks surrounding transmission of COVID-19. Second, since youth were likely
spending more time at home, rather than in school or out in the community, there was less contact
between them, law enforcement, and other negative peers. Youth in violation of probation, or with new
citations were more likely to be handled out of custody, as evidenced by the comp lete lack of Ranch
Reentry youth temporarily returned to the James Ranch, as was often practice prior to the pandemic.
Wraparound providers continue to offer positive feedback regarding the lockout process, as it allows for
smoother transition in and out of custody. This continuity of services allows for Wraparound delivery with
stronger fidelity.
Wraparound Steering Committee
This committee is a branch of the Wraparound Advisory Committee and has a threefold purpose. First, to
measure and analyze the Wraparound effectiveness outcomes statewide. Second, to diversify and
increase funding opportunities. And third, to increase program and workforce development alignment.
With the sunset of the Waiver project, focus has turned to the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018
(FFPSA). With the passing of FFPSA comes new requirements such as six months of aftercare services for
91 | P a g e
youth exiting Short Term Residential Therapeutic Programs and Qualified Residential Treatment Programs
(STRTP/QRTP's). County Probation and Child Welfare Departments will be required to leverage existing
Wraparound programs to provide at least six months of family-based aftercare services. Further, the state
Department of Social Services and the state Department of Health Care Services shall establish statewide
minimum standards for family-based aftercare services. These standards are to be informed by the
Wraparound Steering Committee. Specifically, the Steering Committee will work on the following
requirements of FFPSA Part 4: The use of a high-fidelity Wraparound model; the development of a process
to certify providers; guidance to ensure every child receives said services; workforce development and
training requirements; funding planning; and data collections and outcome measures. Counties are
expected to meet these requirements by October 1, 2021.
RESTRICTIVE INTERVENTIONS
The Probation Department strives to keep youth at home and in their communities whenever possible.
However, in some cases more restrictive interventions, in which a child is removed from the community,
are needed. This section of the report highlights the various examples of restrictive interventions utilized
by the County of Santa Clara.
O UT OF H OME P LACEMENTS
The Placement Unit serves juvenile probationers who have been ordered by the court to be removed from
home and placed in a suitable relative home/foster home/private institutional placement under the
supervision of a Placement Probation Officer. Youth generally receive this type of dispositional order after
less restrictive court sanctions such as Wraparound services and other community interventions, have not
resolved the identified issues which brought them to the attention of the Probation Department. These
issues often include family and/or emotional problems; however, a youth is ordered into placement for
issues related to their own conduct, not that of a parent or caregiver. A youth who requires foster care
due to allegations of abuse or maltreatment on the part of their parents or caregivers, is referred to the
department’s Dually Involved Youth Unit. In some cases, placement is ordered because of a negotiated
plea agreement between the District Attorney and a defense attorney.
Youth are placed in environments best suited to meet their needs, which may include a short term
residential therapeutic program (STRTP), resource family home, and/or transitional housing program.
Most probation youth are placed in STRTPs.
The Placement Screening Coordinator (PSC) plays a key role in screening potential placement cases,
participating in a pre-placement Child and Family Team (CFT) meeting, presenting a youth’s case to the
Interagency Placement Committee, supporting the Probation Officer making a placement
recommendation, identifying the appropriate setting for a youth ordered into Placement, coordinating
program interviews, completing intake paperwork, and arranging transportation.
92 | P a g e
When a youth is ordered into Placement, the case is assigned to a Placement Probation Officer who is
responsible for their safety and well-being. The focus is always on an individual youth’s needs as identified
by the CFT and/or the court and determining which setting/program can best meet those needs.
Placement in an STRTP is not a long-term solution, and the duration of programs are determined by the
progress made in treatment. As such, a permanency goal is determined for every youth entering
placement. For most youth, the first goal is reunification with parents/caregivers.
The services which are to be provided to a youth in a placement are documented in the case plan, which
is updated every six months. The Placement Probation Officer monitors a youth’s well-being and progress
by maintaining monthly face-to-face contact, and regularly communicating with the youth,
parents/caregivers, service providers, teachers, and others who meet the youth. The Placement
Probation Officer also provides case management services, maintains casework contacts, arranges
visitation with family, conducts and/or convenes mandated CFT meetings, arr anges services, identifies
relatives and other appropriate adults who can serve as life-long connections, prepares Permanency
Planning Hearing Reports, documents case developments and monitors treatment progress.
The Placement Probation Officer also works closely with the CFT to prepare the youth and family for
discharge from a placement. Discharge from an STRTP involves individualized planning and preparation
of both the youth and the parent/caregiver to whom the youth will be returning. Depending on the
youth’s needs, appropriate discharge planning may include transition services, ongoing therapeutic
services to the family, school enrollment assistance and other supportive services.
Placement Probation Officers provide support to Non-Minor Dependent (NMD) youth to assist them in
meeting the eligibility criteria, participating in life skills classes, obtaining assistance with applying for and
receiving public benefits and applying for student financial aid, securing a monthly financial stipend, and
receiving housing assistance during their time in and post, Extended Foster Care (EFC). Placement
Probation Officers also prepare Non-Minor Dependent Review Hearing Reports for the court. NMD 29
youth can reside in-county, out-of-county, or out-of-state and continue to receive supportive services and
monthly mandated face-to-face contact with their Probation Officer.
JUVENILE HALL
Juvenile Hall is a 390-bed facility which houses both boys and girls if they are detained while waiting for
the Court to decide their cases. Youth can also be committed to Juvenile Hall following their dispositional
hearing. Programs in custody include domestic violence/family violence, mental health and substance
use services, life skills, cognitive behavioral therapy, religious services, gardening, and pro-social activities.
Youth can also be visited by family and caregivers while in the Hall. Typically, a youth committed to
Juvenile Hall as a disposition will have their probation dismissed upon completion of services and
development of a transition plan.
29 For more information on Non-Minor Dependent Youth please see Appendix H.
93 | P a g e
The average length of stay at Juvenile Hall for pre-disposition youth in 2020 was 109 days, while post-
disposition youth on average spent 171 days in custody. A courtesy hold takes place when 1) a judge finds
a youth should be transferred and remanded to adult
court; 2) when a youth is from out of county and has an
out of county warrant; or 3) when there is an out of
county probation hold. During 2020, on average two
percent of the youth detained were courtesy holds for the
County of Santa Clara Department of Correction. This may
be because of Proposition 57, which decreased the
number of courtesy holds for out of county youth. The
average length of stay for youth on courtesy holds was
126 days. The table below shows the number of youth by
status.
Table 19: Number of Youth by Status 2016-2020 Trend
Number of youth Pre-Disposition Post-Disposition Courtesy Hold for
DOC (Direct File)
Total
2016 50 11 22 83
2017 75 11 2 88
2018 96 12 2 110
2019 94 20 3 117
2020 51 11 1 63
Percentage change
from 2016-2020 2% 0% -95% -24%
WILLIAM F. JAMES RANCH PROGRAM
The James Ranch is a rehabilitation and treatment
facility with 96 beds where youth can be ordered by
the court to stay for between six and eight months. It
serves youth up to age 19. At the Ranch, an
assessment and case plan are completed to guide the
youth and determine their needs. Probation
Counselors engage with youth as role models and
coaches and provide therapeutic support. The
Probation Officer works in tandem to provide
additional services and support.
Programing aims to address the development of pro-
social skills, reasoning, and critical thinking skills, and
increase youth’s ability to regulate their emotions, refuse anti -social behavior and facilitate family
94 | P a g e
reunification. The three focus areas are moral reasoning, anger management and skill practice. Through
each of these elements staff help youth through scenario-based role playing and group discussion. The
ranch program offers cognitive behavioral treatment, education, vocational training and links to local
trade unions, gang intervention, behavioral health services, pro-social activities and access to the
Probation Community Activities League, Victim Awareness workshops, mentoring, girl scouts, yoga and
culturally competent rites of passage curriculum, and trauma healing. Youth also attend school and
participate in an array of activities and events that are coordinated by the staff. Shortly prior to
transitioning back to the community, youth are assigned to the Aftercare program. The Aftercare
Counselor and Probation Officer assist and encourage the youth to support their successful transition and
youth are enrolled in support services in the community.
DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (DJJ)
The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)30 provides education
and treatment to California’s youthful offenders up to the
age of 25 who have committed serious and/or violent
felonies and have the most intense treatment needs.
Youth committed directly to the DJJ do not receive
determinate sentences although the juvenile court must
set a maximum period of confinement pursuant to WIC
731(c). A youth's length of stay is determined by the
severity of the committing offense and their progress
toward parole readiness as outlined in Title 15 of the
California Code of Regulations. DJJ is authorized to house
youth until age 21, 23 or 25, depending on their
commitment offense. A youth’s readiness for return to the community is determined by the Juvenile
Parole Board. It recommends supervision conditions to county courts which administer them. In the
community, newly released youth are supervised by county probation departments.
The DJJ also provides housing for youth under the age of 18 who have been sentenced to state prison.
Youth sentenced to state prison may remain at DJJ until age 18, or if the youth can complete their sentence
prior to age 25, DJJ may house them until they are released on parole.
Under a reorganization plan launched by Governor Gavin Newsom, California’s youth prison facilities (DJJ)
will no longer be operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Effective July 1, 2021, the state’s Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) will be overseen by the Office of Youth
and Community Restoration (OYCR), as part of the Health and Human Services Agency (HHS).
30 Formerly known as the California Youth Authority (CYA), the organization was created by statute in 1941 and began operating in 1943.
Figure 43: Santa Clara County DJJ
Placements 2016-2020
2
17
10
23
9
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
95 | P a g e
Commitments
The overall number of commitments and placements
decreased by 47 percent from 2019 to 2020.
Commitments to the Juvenile Hall decreased by 68
percent from 2019 to 2020. DJJ commitments
decreased by 61 percent from 2019 to 2020.
There were 86 commitments in 2020. Of those 86, 15
commitments were to Juvenile Hall and 62 were to
James Ranch. Nine youth were committed to DJJ.
The figure below shows commitments broken down
by race. Latino youth comprised the largest group
with commitments in 2020 (n=69, 80 percent) followed by White youth (n=8, nine percent).
Figure 45: Youth in Commitments 2020 by Race/Ethnicity
Within each commitment type, the highest disproportionality appears to be in commitments to the James
Ranch, with 84 percent being Latino youth (n=52). The largest disproportionality for Black youth was at
the James Ranch where they comprised eight percent of the total population (n=5). The Probation
Department continues to be concerned with disproportionality at key decision points throughout the
juvenile justice system and is dedicated to reducing the overrepresentation of Latino and Black youth in
out-of-home placements and commitments.
9
4 1
8
1 145
52
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
DJJ Juvenile Hall James Ranch
Figure 44: Commitments 2016-2020 Trends
78
58
41 47
15
46
94 99 93
62
2
17 10
23
9
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Juvenile Hall Ranch DJJ
96 | P a g e
Figure 46 illustrates 72 percent of all
commitments were to the James Ranch. Juvenile
Hall accounted for 17 percent of commitments. In
2020, 10 percent of youth were committed to DJJ
(n=9). This decrease, compared to 2019, is likely
attributed in part to COVID-19 and the future
closure of DJJ31.
The table below shows male youth comprised 93
percent of commitments while seven percent
were female. No youth under 12 were committed
to placement in 2020. Forty-eight percent of youth
committed to the Ranch were 17 and older (n=30). Seventy-eight percent of the youth committed to DJJ
from Santa Clara County were 17 and older (n=7). This is most likely due to the passage of Proposition 57
and as of June of 2018, DJJ’s increase in the age of jurisdiction from 23 to 25. DJJ can serve youth up to
the age of 25 who have the most serious criminal backgrounds and most intense treatment needs.32 It is
not uncommon for the prosecution to consider withdrawing their motion to transfer a youth to adult
court if there is a stipulation by the youth and their defense counsel to a DJJ commitment. Such a
stipulation guarantees a youth remain under the Juvenile Court’s jurisdiction, rather than face years of
incarceration in the adult prison system.
Table 20: Commitment from Dispositions
Foster Care Plac ements
The Court can order a minor into foster care (out of home placement). Probation can utilize foster homes,
but most of the time, the placement is to Short Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP)
placements. Recently Probation has been exploring how to increase the use of family placements. Youth
are ordered into foster care placement because of abuse or neglect, those cases are often handled by the
31 Under legislation signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in September of 2020, the California state youth prison system
will close all its remaining facilities. The new law—Senate Bill 823—stops intake at the state Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) by
July of 2021.
32 AB 1812 took effect 6/27/2018, and extended DJJ jurisdiction to age 25 for 707(b) offenses.
Commitment from
Dispositions Male Female 13-14 15-16 17 & Older Total
Juvenile Hall Commitment 13 2 2 4 9 15
Ranch 58 4 3 29 30 62
DJJ 9 0 0 2 7 9
Total Dispositions that led
to Commitment 80 6 5 35 46 86
Figure 46: Percentage of Commitments in 2020
72%
17%
10%
James Ranch Juvenile Hall DJJ
97 | P a g e
DIY Unit. In 2020, a total of 16 foster care placements were made for youth utilizing out of home
placement services, a four percent decrease when compared to 2019.
The figures below show foster care placements broken down by race and age. Of the 16 youth ordered
into foster care placement, nine were Latino (56 percent), three were White (19 percent), three were
Black (19 percent), and one youth was Asian/PI (six percent). No foster care placements were utilized by
youth identified as Other. Eight youth (50 percent) in foster care placement were 15-16 years old at the
time of their placement, followed by six youth (38 percent) who were 17 and older. No foster care
placements were utilized for youth 12 years old and younger. Ten youth (63 percent) utilizing foster care
out of home placements were male, followed by six female youth (38 percent).
Figure 48: Foster Care Placements in 2020 by
Race/Ethnicity
Health and Wellness in Secure Care
The following sections describe the health and wellness services provided by Santa Clara Valley Medical
Center (SCVMC) and Behavioral Health Services Department (BHSD) to youth in secure care in calendar
year 2020.
PHYSICAL HEALTH
Medical services provided to youth detained at Juvenile Hall and the William F. James Ranch consist of
comprehensive health assessment screenings, treatment for diagnosed episodic and/or chronic health
conditions, health prevention activities including immunizations, communicable disease screenings and
control, and age-appropriate health education. All health services provided are comparable or superior to
services the youth would receive or have received in their community. A professional staff of physicians,
a nurse practitioner, a physician’s assistant, registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, pharmacists,
dentists, dental assistants, and optometrist provide comprehensive health services to youth in the care of
the Probation Department’s custodial settings. Adolescent and young adult health sub-specialty
2
8
6
13-14 15-16 17+
Figure 47: Foster Care Placements in 2020 by
Race/Ethnicity
3 3
9
1
White Black Latino Asian/PI
98 | P a g e
physicians are on site at Juvenile Hall five days a week (M-F), with on-call physicians available as needed,
and nursing staff is present seven days a week, twenty-four hours each day. Nursing staff is present at
James Ranch from 0645 to 2130, seven days a week. An adolescent and young adult health sub-specialty
physician is on site one day per week at the James Ranch. In addition, the James Ranch has a High-
Definition video link to Juvenile Hall allowing for Tele-Health, including Tele-Medicine, Tele-Psychiatry,
and primarily Tele-Nursing twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Juvenile Hall had a successful visit by the Title 15 inspector from the Public Health Department. A summary
of their findings showed that all applicable medical standards were in 100 percent compliance. The 2020
clinic activities summary (including data for 2017-2018 for comparison) is below. Figures are based on a
duplicated count as a youth may receive more than one service while in custody. For example, a youth
will receive a physical exam upon admittance and after being in custody for 11 months. Registered Nurse
(RN) sick call visits represent duplicated count as a youth may request to be seen multiple times.
Table 21: Juvenile Hall Medical Clinic 2020
Activity 2017 2018 2019 2020
Physical Exams* 1,085 1,305 1,000 549
Clinic Visits 2,036 2,564 2,571 1,413
RN Sick Call Visits 3,143 3,639 3,044 1,524
Sexually Transmitted Disease
Screenings
530 701 611 289
HIV Oral Quick Instant Test Screening 77 92 86 4
Other VMC Appointment 114 136 124 88
Flu Vaccine Administrations 192 256 201 64
Dental Clinic Visits 196 317 340 168
Infirmary Housing 35 60 42 60
Vision Screening 1,039 1,305 1,002 *
Hearing Screening 1,008 1,293 1,012 *
Optometry Clinic Visits*** 34
COVID Testing** 955
*Comprehensive exams include annual hearing, vision, and TB screening
**Includes new admit screening, surveillance testing at Juvenile Hall and James Ranch, and other
***New onsite Optometry Clinic for all youth started October 2020 (31 pairs of glasses ordered)
99 | P a g e
Table 22: James Ranch Medical Clinic 2020
Activity 2017 2018 2019 2020
Clinic Visits 269 339 502 522
RN Sick Call Visits 1,262 2,387 2,575 1,295
VMC Appointment 46 58 25 45
BEHAVIORAL H E ALTH
In 2020, the Guadalupe Behavioral Health Clinic at Juvenile Hall included a team of 10 behavioral health
clinicians and two psychiatrists who provide direct care and treatment to the youth in Juvenile Hall
custody. Upon admission into custody, youth meet with a behavioral health clinician for an in-person
structured interview. The clinician screens for mental health concerns, substance use, risk factors, and
safety planning. The interview is conducted in conjunction with a self-report computerized screening tool
called the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2). For youth that stay at Juvenile Hall,
treatment services are provided. These services include a focus on mental health and substance use needs
through individual daily or once per week sessions, depending on the person’s individualized needs. The
clinical team is responsible for responding to crisis’, supporting youth with stabilization, psychotropic
medication management, and care coordination with system partners regarding youth’s transition plan
to the community and/or a residential setting. In 2020, 590 young people received a behavioral health
screening, and ongoing treatment was provided to 382 youth while in-custody at juvenile hall.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, the delivery of behavioral health treatment services for youth in juvenile
hall and juvenile justice programs continued with in-person delivery while following the safety measures
per the Public Health and Custody Health Policies and Procedures. Youth in custody received in -person
services while practicing social distance and with required PPE. Clinicians would meet in person and
provide daily check-ins to youth in living units. The use of iPads for longer (15 minutes or more) telehealth
sessions was implemented by setting up the youth with an iPad in a confidential space and the clinician in
a separate room. The use of iPads gave the youth an opportunity to talk with their therapist without a
face mask, and for many this was the first time they were able to see their therapist’s face. Telehealth
provided the youth an opportunity to talk more freely in sessions and this contributed to building a
supportive therapeutic relationship. Youth involved in CITA and Competency Remediation programs
received services per a hybrid model approach, where both telehealth and in-person services were offered
while practicing COVID-19 safety measures.
A key function of the behavioral health team is to interact and check in with all youth regularly to address
any behavioral health needs in between treatment sessions. The check-ins help the behavioral health
team build a presence within each living unit, support engagement, monitor the well-being of youth, and
provide any immediate support needed while also consulting with probation group counselors. Probation
and medical staff may also request behavioral health services, or youth may self-refer.
100 | P a g e
In partnership with the Probation Department, Valley Medical Center Hospital & Clinics, and the Office of
Education, Behavioral Health coordinates and facilitates multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings to build
collaboration among providers and to involve the youth’s natural support system. MDT’s include
addressing strengths, addressing concerns, discussing psychotropic medication management, treatment,
and transition planning.
The Behavioral Health team provides several evidence-based practices such as Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy, Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Seven Challenges, Motivational Interviewing, and
Seeking Safety.
The Behavioral Health Resource Center (BHRC) is composed of two clinicians who oversee the
coordination of mental health and substance use referrals for juvenile justice-involved youth in need of
community-based behavioral health services. BHRC clinicians process referrals received by the Probation
Department, and ensure linkage is made to the most appropriate mental health and substance use
providers within the CYF system of care.
Referrals are made for mental health and substance use treatment services, and to the Court for the
Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA). In 2020, BHRC received 389 referrals from the Probation
Department and coordinated the linkage for services to community-based providers. The figure below
provides an overview of the referrals received and coordination provided by the BHRC team.
Figure 49: Behavioral Health Resource Center
The Court for Individualized Treatment of Adolescents (CITA) includes two clinical care coordinators who
are assigned to work with youth involved in this program. This Court works with youth and families who
are experiencing mental health and substance use disorders. The Competency Remediation program
consists of three clinical staff. The delivery of Court ordered competency remediation services are
provided to the youth in the least restrictive setting that the Court allows. Court ordered Juvenile Forensic
Psychological Evaluations for youth in custody or living in Santa Clara County, are conducted by either a
BHSD Licensed Psychologist, or a panel of contracted Licensed Psychologists.
389
178 154
38 19
Total Behavioral
Health Resource
Center Referrals
2020
Mental Health/SUTS Substance Use
Services Only
Mental Health Only CITA
101 | P a g e
Figure 50: Guadalupe Behavioral Health Clinic at Juvenile Hall
MEDICAL SERVICES AND COVID -19
To protect youth and staff, Juvenile Custody Health Services (CHS) has been continuously committed to
designing, implementing, and optimizing aggressive measures to prevent and mitigate the risks posed by
the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). All processes and protocols related to risk mitigation and health
promotion were constructed through multidisciplinary collaboration with systems partners and guidance
from the Public Health Department. These protocols have been in alignment with guidance from the
California Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control, and in some cases go beyond
their recommendations. These measures have been updated in real-time as knowledge about SARs-CoV2,
the virus known to cause COVID-19, has evolved and more current information has become available from
national, state, and local scientific bodies. Strategies to combat the threats posed by COVID-19 have been
developed through an iterative process and scaled in coordination with systems partners. Unique
protocols have been created and rapidly updated for 1) youth and staff screening, 2) youth and staff
testing for presumptive infection, for medical clearance, for routine surveillance, 3) youth and staff
masking and other PPE related interventions, 4) social distancing, 5) medical clearance prior to
medical/dental/other procedures, facilities transfers, housing clearances, and 6) environmental hygiene.
Multiple educational initiatives have been created and vetted through the public health department prior
to implementation for youth and staff. In collaboration with Valley Medical Center, in fall 2020, multiple
pop-up COVID testing sites were hosted outside Juvenile Hall to facilitate free COVID testing for youths’
families and the community. All measures have been introduced to improve knowledge about virus
transmission, risk reduction, importance of testing, social distancing, and vaccination.
BHRC
•Triage
Universal
Referral
Form (URF)
for Juvenile
Justice
Involved
youth
•Linkage to
community
based
services for
mental
health and
substance
use
treatment
CITA
•Support
youth with
Co-Occurring
Disorders
•Care
Coordination
•Linkage
•Outreach
Forensic
Evaluations
•Quality
Assurance
for forensic
psychological
evaluations
•PhD Intern
Supervision
Clinic
•Intake
Screenings
for Risk &
Safety needs
•Supportive
counseling
•Treatment
•Crisis
Intervention
•Mental
Health &
Substance
Use
Assessments
•Treatment
Groups
Competency
Remediation
•Delivery of
Court
ordered
competency
remediation
services
Psychiatry
•Psychotropic
medication
evaluation
and
treatment
for youth
detained in
Juvenile Hall
and James
Ranch
102 | P a g e
SYSTEMS COORDINATION
A Custody Health Services Command Center Committee was established on March 9, 2020 and consists
of medical and non-medical partners. Initially conducted seven days per week, committee meetings are
now at least two times per week. Multi-disciplinary partners meet to manage existing needs as well as to
create new measures to address anticipated medical and non-medical interventions. In addition, a
subcommittee, specifically for the Juvenile facilities, was also established in early 2020, and meets at least
once weekly. Both leadership committees closely monitor confirmed, suspected, and exposed youth in
the Juvenile facilities as well as design processes and workflow to ensure employee and youth safety.
VACCINATION INITIATIVE
All essential medical staff have been offered one of the emergency use authorized COVID vaccines per the
Vaccination Prioritization Strategy created by the CDC and implemented by Santa Clara County. The youth
vaccination initiative was started on March 4, 2021, well ahead of community guidelines. Youth who a re
eligible for one of the COVID vaccines have been offered vaccination. For any youth who are minors, both
youth and guardian have provided consent prior to administration. Mass vaccination clinics have been
coordinated at both Juvenile Facilities and rolling vaccination clinics are held on a weekly basis, allowing
ongoing services to all eligible and consented youth.
PHARMACY SERVICES
The Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System (SCVH and HS) provides pharmacy services to Juvenile
Facilities. Physician medication orders and the standardized procedure orders are transmitted to
pharmacy through the Healthlink, electronic health record (EHR), system. Multiple safeguards such as
built-in drug interaction flags, drug duplication alerts, and contraindicati ons due to allergies allow for
enhanced safety. The system keeps patient profile information in a format that allows quick review by
pharmacists. A computer-generated Medication Administration Rand (MAR) and scanning system are
used for medication administration. Benefits of the MAR include a decrease in potential medication errors
associated with the order transcription process and produce a single, legible, and reliable source for the
Patient Medication Profile. The utilization of the PYXIS Med-Station System replaced the after-hour
medication room and provides increased medication availability through centralized medication
management. This helps decrease the potential risk of drug diversion and increases medication safety.
Each drug is specifically programmed and loaded in the CUBIE and will not be available unless a nurse
enters his/her user ID, the patient’s medical record number, name, date of birth, and the name of the
medication(s) that he/she needs.
DENTAL
The Juvenile Hall dental clinic is open on alternate Wednesdays from 8:00 am – 4:30 pm. Care is focused
on treating patients with pain and other symptoms of dental problems, as well as treating asymptomatic
dental diseases before they develop into problems such as toothaches and abscesses. The cli nic treats
103 | P a g e
patients who are detained at Juvenile Hall, but also cares for patients from the Ranch who develop dental
problems or need to be seen for follow-up care. Additionally, the Dental Director, as well as the County’s
Chief Dentist and a pediatrician, are available on-call each day for consultations regarding any significant
dental problems which may arise during non-clinic hours. Additionally, the County hospital’s emergency
department is also available as a resource.
OPTOMETRY CLINIC
Optometry clinic was established for both Juvenile Facilities in 2020. An optometrist equipped with a full
optometry suite, provides on-site primary care optometric services once weekly, on Tuesdays. Youth are
transported from the James Ranch for optometry services. The service begins with evaluating visual
problems such as nearsightedness, farsightedness and focusing problems. If glasses are the solution to
the visual problems, then glasses are fitted and made for patients. Optometry services does not fit nor
provide contact lenses. If patients come in with their own glasses, the optometrist can evaluate for any
prescription updates and re-adjust the frame to fit better. Education has been a key component to
services roll out as many youth may not be aware that simple vi sion services can support improved
function. Knowing when and why one may wear glasses is just as important as receiving them. Managing
ocular health with slit lamp evaluation and eye drops are provided if needed. Occasionally, patients will
be referred to Valley Medical Center ophthalmology department if the ocular problem is beyond the
optometrist’s scope of practice.
DERMATOLOGY CLINIC
Dermatology clinic is onsite once monthly. Acne and other skin conditions are of particular concern to
adolescents. The dermatologist sees patients in the Guadalupe Medical Clinic, and youth from the James
Ranch are transported to the Juvenile Hall for the dermatology clinic.
HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAM
A variety of preventative health education programs have been established for both Juvenile Facilities.
Each nurse has selected an area of interest for their educational subject. Currently, educational topics
include dental care, pregnancy, nutrition, acne, diabetes, inhaler use, sexually transmitted infections,
reproductive health including pregnancy prevention, health and nutrition, immunizations, wound care,
sleep issues, substance abuse/prevention, self-esteem, COVID related health needs. The teaching
requirement is for each coded nurse to conduct at least four teaching se ssions per month and Extra-
Help/Per Diem nurse once per month. A tracking sheet has been posted on the unit schedule.
The nursing Medical Outreach Program is intended to support youth who are juvenile justice system
involved when care is no longer available via the clinic at Juvenile Facilities. Under California, Board of
State and Community Corrections Title 15 regulations, incarcerated youth are entitled to medical access
and treatment. However, youth who received medical/mental health care in juvenile h all may no longer
be getting needed care once they leave the facility. The purpose of this program is to provide an innovative
104 | P a g e
medical outreach program in the court system to bridge the care gap for youth. The services provided
include free health screening, sexual transmitted illnesses consultation, contraceptive education, referral
for tattoo removal, vision and hearing screening, BMI calculation, nutrition education, mental health
screening, dental screening, and referral to low- or no-cost community resources. In 2020, a number of
services were limited due to COVID-19.
Common issues/concerns from youth or/and parents:
• Dermatological
complaints
• Dental hygiene
concerns
• Where to fill
prescriptions for free
• PPD readings • Birth control options • STD prevention
• Planned parenthood • Safe sex • Healthy Body mass index
• Side effects of drugs • Medi-Cal concerns • Vision complaints
• How to relieve anxiety • Where to get flu shots • Mental health concerns
• General health information
This innovative program has made an effective health care delivery change by bringing evidence-based
practices into the system. The court based free medical service has enhanced the quality of care in
correctional health for justice involved youth.
E LIGIBILITY FOR H EALTHCARE P ROJECT (SB 1469)
The Detained Youth Program is a combined effort between the Probation Department and the Socia l
Services Agency to help identify and view all youth entering the Juvenile Hall Facility as a possible
candidate for the State of California’s Medi-Cal Health Insurance Program.
The youth are screened for health coverage and if a youth is identified as having inactive or expired Medi-
Cal, or no private insurance coverage, the Probation Department reaches out and provides Medi-Cal
information to the parent and family on how to obtain and activate the state’s Medi-Cal services. Medi-
Cal referrals are also made to the Social Services Agency on the youth’s behalf to expedite the process.
Fourteen percent of the youth that came to the juvenile facility and were detained were found to have
expired Medi-Cal coverage and another four percent were found to have inactive Medi-Cal with no private
medical insurance coverage. With the COVID-19 pandemic active in Santa Clara County, having no
insurance coverage or expired coverage was not an acceptable option for the youth of our county or their
families.
During the past year, 655 requests for Medi-Cal status on detained youth were processed and the results
showed that 18 percent (n=119) of the youth that were detained in Juvenile Hall needed Medi-Cal
assistance. The Probation Department and the Social Services Agency concentrated their combined focus
on establishing and enacting “immediate need of services protocols and procedures” for the detained
youth. Additional efforts were put forth to reach out to parents of the youth to help them understand
that COVID-19 was not just an “old person’s disease.” Protocols are also in place upon Probation’s referral
for Medi-Cal services that language preferences are now noted along with the transmittal request. By
105 | P a g e
enacting this procedure, we found that families can be better served and understand the level of Medi-
Cal services available to them and are more willing to engage and seek Medi -Cal assistance. The figure
below shows the breakdown for 2020.
Figure 51: Medi-Cal Percentages on Detained Youth in Juvenile Hall 2020
Alternative Education Department (AED)
The Alternative Education Department (AED) for the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) is
comprised of the Court and Community Schools. AED programs are located at four school sites: Court
Schools at Blue Ridge, located at James Ranch in Morgan Hill and Osborne, located at Juvenile Hall in San
Jose; Sunol Community School located in San Jose and South County Community School located in Gilroy.
AED also operates an Independent Study Program. The Alternative Education Department serves students
from all 31 school districts in the county, in grades 6-12 who are adjudicated, identified as Chronically
Absent, expelled, and/or are on a placement contract. SCCOE monitors student participation rates in court
schools by District of Residence. District Representatives review this data on a biannual basis. During the
2019-2020 school year, Osborne had 615 enrollments followed by Blue Ridge with 131 enrollments. A
total of 746 youth were served between both court schools. This is based on duplicate counts – meaning
a youth is counted each time he/she was enrolled at the above schools. This may include youth who were
transferred from the Blue Ridge to Osborne on an Administrative Return or vice versa. As of April 1, 2020,
during the 2020-21 school year the Alternative Education Department has served 328 students within the
court schools.
Between March 2020 and March 2021 educational services were impacted because of COVID-19
restrictions. Teachers offered instruction through individualized content area packets, Character-Based
Literature modules, asynchronous live instruction via Zoom, course delivery using an online curriculum
platform, and a hybrid learning model placing staff in person for a portion of the week. All staff returned
to a five-day in-person instructional schedule on April 5, 2021. To minimize learning loss and encourage
sustained engagement, staff developed a system of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports which
rewarded positive behaviors in the form certificates and other rewards. The Assistant Principal delivered
these to students weekly through an in-person visit. Special Education staff monitored student progress
70%
14%
6%6%4%
Active Medi-Cal Expired Medi-Cal Private Insurance Out of County Inactive Medi-Cal
106 | P a g e
and held IEP meetings virtually. Regularly scheduled Renaissance Star math and reading assessments were
challenging to administer. Several students were able to complete consecutive assessments which wi ll be
used to analyze student learning loss. An area to highlight included Blue Ridge students at James Ranch
completing a 12-week pre-apprentice construction program culminating in a 130-foot concrete walkway
being poured and industry-recognized certifications being awarded. Staff will use the coming year to
analyze available data and debrief the year to inform practices moving forward.
Figure 52: Osborne (Juvenile Hall) and Blue Ridge (James Ranch) Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity (n=746)
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVE NTIONS & SUPPORTS AT JUVENILE HALL
Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (PBIS), is a broad range of systemic and individualized
strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes in school communities while preventing
problem behavior. The key attributes of PBIS include preventive activities, data-based decision making,
and a problem-solving orientation. In 2019-2020 the Probation Department and the Santa Clara County
Office of Education collaborated to infuse PBIS in Juvenile Hall and Osborne School during the fall semester
and early into the spring semester. Our schools implemented distance learning mid -March due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The collaboration in fall and early spring increased the use of effective strategies and
systematically provided positive interventions for the students and encourages positive behaviors. All
probation staff within Juvenile Hall and Osborne School have been trained in PBIS. During the fall of 2019
and early spring 2020, students were taught lessons regularly to strengthen the program and to acclimate
new students to the range of individualized PBIS strategies used throughout the day. Training was halted
between March and June 2020 and is scheduled to resume during the 2020-21 academic year.
CAREER TECHN ICAL EDUCATION AT J AMES R ANCH
109
60
379
44 23512
106
7 1
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
Osborne Blue Ridge
107 | P a g e
Career Technical Education at the James Ranch and Blue Ridge School provides career skills, industry
certifications, applied learning, with a core academic foundation. Students are enrolled in Build Trades
and Culinary Arts courses. Within these courses students have access to industry certifications to include,
but are not limited to, welding, Cal-OSHA 10-hour Safety and Health, first aid, CPR, safe cert-food handling,
and Hazardous Materials. These courses are sequenced and result in several industry-recognized
certifications. In addition, students can transition into further training after leaving the facility and either
enter community college or an apprenticeship program.
Chronic Absenteeism
In 2017, the District Attorney’s Office (DAO) declared it would no longer prosecute and file petitions on
youth for truancy offenses. The DAO worked with partners to transition from Truancy Court to community
and school-based models of helping kids to return to school. Services, as addressed below, focused on
preventative and collaborative programs to address the needs of families and children. Specifically, the
DAO serves about 250 families at any given time in the Court for Achieving Reengagement with Education
(CARE) with adult parents, but that number has decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic because the
DAO did not file any new cases. The last full year before COVID-19 (the 2018-2019 school year), the DA’s
office completed over 4,000 discrete contacts with youth through DA Mediations, Student Attendance
Review Board (SARB) Hearings and Juvenile Attendance Improvement Diversion (JAID) hearings. Chronic
absenteeism includes all absences, unexcused and excused. California has defined “Habitually Truant” as
having five or more unexcused absences or tardiness of more than 30 minutes. If a student in K-8 is
habitually truant, their parents/guardians may be prosecuted by the Office of the District Attorney.
In Santa Clara County, the truancy intervention process includes:
• First notification: When a student has accrued three unexcused absences or three unexcused
tardy periods of more than 30 minutes, the student is considered truant. The school will notify
the parent through a letter/email.
• Second notification: When the student accrues an additional truancy. The school will send
another notice and organize a school-site meeting.
• Third notification: When the student accrues another truancy. The school will invite the family
and student to a Student Attendance Review Board (SARB).
o SARB: A district level meeting with the student and his/her family, as well as school and
district representatives in which a plan is put in place to address the truancy and its
underlying causes.
• Post-SARB truancies: when a student is considered habitually truant, the parent may be
prosecuted by the District Attorney.
108 | P a g e
o For school districts that request mediation, a presentation from a Deputy DA to the
parents and student on the laws surrounding truancy, the consequences, and the purpose
for those laws will be offered.
• Involvement of Courts and District Attorney’s Office
o If truancies continue, the DAO will directly intervene:
▪ K-8: CARE (Court for Achieving Reengagement with Education)
• A court case may be filed with the goal of improving the child’s
attendance and solving any underlying problems.
• The student’s progress is monitored with the support of student
community services, DAO, BHSD, Public Health Department, and student
services within the school district.
▪ High School: Juvenile Attendance Improvement Diversion Hearings
• Santa Clara County stopped prosecuting juveniles for truancy in 2017,
instead, an out of court meeting with a Deputy DA will be held. The one-
on-one hearings involve the student, parents, school representative,
district representative, and the Deputy DA.
LOOKING AHEAD TO 20 2 1
This section highlights upcoming changes to the Juvenile Justice System in 2021.
SB823 JUVENILE JUSTICE REALIGNMENT: OFFICE OF YOUTH & COMMUNITY RESTORATION
In late 2020, the state passed Senate Bill (SB) 823 that presents an opportunity for local probation
departments to create a long-term youth residential program, as well as other interventions, that meet
the specific and individualized needs of youth and young adults who would have previously been housed
at regional centers operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
It is the intent of the Legislature to close DJJ facilities by shifting the responsibility for housing youth who
would have been eligible for DJJ commitment to counties. SB 823 seeks to accomplish this goal by limiting
new commitments to DJJ. Beginning July 1, 2021, youth who would have previously been eligible for DJJ
commitments must generally remain under the care and custody of the local probation de partment,
109 | P a g e
except for a limited population of youth who meet specified requirements. Youth committed to DJJ before
July 1, 2021 may remain there until discharged, released, or otherwise moved pursuant to law.
At the state level, SB 823 presents an opportunity for local probation departments to create a local secure
rehabilitation program, as well as other interventions, that allow youth to remain closer to their families
and communities, and participate in a program operated by the Probation Department in collaboration
with the Behavioral Health Services Department.
Significantly, SB 823 extends the age of local juvenile court jurisdiction to 23 or 25, as specified. It also
repealed certain provisions that allowed youth to be detained in adult facilities. Instead, SB 823 requires
any person whose case originated in juvenile court to remain, if detained, in a county juvenile facility until
they turn 25 years of age, except as specified. However, probation departments may petition the juvenile
court to transfer a person 19 years or older to an adult facility. SB 823 increases protections to prevent
youth transfers to the adult criminal system.
SB 823 also creates a new statewide oversight body in the Office of Youth and Community Restoration
(OYCR) within the California Health and Human Services Agency. The mission of the OYCR will be “to
promote trauma responsive, culturally informed services for youth involved in the juvenile justice
system.…” OYCR, which will oversee the transition of youth from state to local custody, will have oversight
of the block grant funding for SB 823, statewide data collection, research, best practices and technical
assistance, the creation of an ombudsman position with investigatory powers, and will have responsibility
for all juvenile justice grant funding by January 1, 2025.
The legislature has provided an initial three-year plan for annual funding to counties for housing and
services to youth who previously would have been committed to DJJ. SB 823 provides funding to probation
departments via an annual realignment block grant with statewide allocations increasing each fiscal year
(FY): in FY 2021-2022, $40 million; in FY 2022-23, $188 million; and, in FY 2023-24, $192 million. The by-
county distribution will be based on the following:
• 50% of the by-county distribution of juveniles adjudicated for certain violent and serious felony
crime categories per 2018 Juvenile Court and Probation Statistical System data (which will be
updated annually based on the most recently available data).
• 30% of the per-county percentage of the average number of wards committed to DJJ, as of
December 31, 2018, June 30, 2019, and December 31, 2019; and
• 20% of the by-county distribution of all individuals between 10 and 17 years of age, inclusive, from
the preceding calendar year.
To be eligible for funding, each county must form a subcommittee of its juvenile justice coordinating
council that must develop and submit a plan to the OYCR by January 1, 2022. In addition to requiring
inclusion of specified justice system partners on the subcommittee, the legislation provides that no fewer
than three community members must participate in the subcommittee. Community members are defined
as individuals who have experience providing community-based youth services, youth justice advocates
110 | P a g e
with expertise and knowledge of the juvenile justice system, or individuals who have been directly
involved in the juvenile justice system.
Pursuant to SB 823, the County must address the following areas in its plan related to the c reation of
residential program for realigned DJJ youth:
• Facilities;
• Programs;
• Placements;
• Services; and
• Supervision and Reentry Strategies.
To support planning and implementation in each of these areas, Probation established four teams to
support the development of a work plan and implementation of SB 823, including the identification of
both short- and long-term phases and goals. Each team will not only identify gaps in existing services for
these youth, developing new program modalities, but also update policies, procedures, and forms.
Recommendation/Court Commitment to Program
• Eligible Charges (707(b) Offense, etc.)
• Probation Recommendation
• Court Order
Transition to Commitment
• Review of assessments and probation reports
• Development of MDT meetings
• Development of individual rehabilitation plan
In-custody Programs and Services
• Physical Juvenile Hall redesign opportunities including paint, furniture, and structural softening.
• Behavioral Health Trauma Focus
• Education and Vocation opportunities
• Program Development
• Family and Community Connections
Reentry Services and Programs
• Building rapport early and often
• Collaborative case management with institutions staff, behavioral health, and community
providers
• Ensuring youth and family voice
• Community connections and partnerships
111 | P a g e
As the JJCC subcommittee comes online, members, including justice systems stakeholders, will be
integrated into the workgroups as their interests dictate. The initial work of the teams has been focused
on background and infrastructure learning to ensure the successful implementation of SB 823, such as
orientation to the goals and requirements of the legislation as well as use of organizational tools such as
Microsoft Teams and the Solution Hub.
Establishing the JJCC Juvenile Rea lignment Subcomm ittee
Per Board direction, the Probation Department collaborated with the Office of the County Counsel and
County Executive’s Office to develop bylaws for the JJCC and an application process for the JJCC
subcommittee that will provide oversight to DJJ realignment.
The JJCC has not previously operated under bylaws, so the creation of the subcommittee presented an
opportunity to codify the purpose, structure, tasks, and oversight of the JJCC as well creating a standing
subcommittee to review and approve the annual DJJ realignment plan. SB 823 requires the following
membership for the JJCC subcommittee:
• Chief Probation Officer, as chair, and one representative from each of the following:
• District Attorney’s Office
• Public Defender’s Office
• Department of Social Services
• Department of Mental Health
• County Office of Education or a School District
• Representative from the Court
• No fewer than three members of the community, who are defined as individuals who have
experience providing community-based youth services, youth justice advocates with expertise
and knowledge of the juvenile justice system, or individuals who have been directly involved in
the juvenile justice system.
Consistent with Board direction, six community members were appointed to the JJCC Realignment
Subcommittee. Interested members of the community were asked to submit a brief application to the
Chief Probation Officer and the County Executive’s Office (CEO). The County Executive appoint ed
members the JJCC subcommittee. The JJCC's appli cation process was consistent with the application
process for the Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative.
The County Executive sought to ensure a balance between lived experience and professional knowledge
and education in juvenile corrections when appointing Subcommittee members. The Probation
Department integrated community and JJCC members into workgroups and met as a subcommittee at
least monthly during the first year of DJJ realignment. After the first year, the subcommittee is only
required to meet every three years to update the plan (as necessary) and approve it, but subcommittee
members will meet as needed to complete the work.
112 | P a g e
RAI VALIDATION
The Probation Research and Development is finalizing a study of the RAI. This study aims to validate the
RAI tool currently used by the Probation Department by addressing the following research questions:
1. Which youth are most at risk of failing to appear for court hearings following arrest?
2. Which youth are most at risk of committing a new law violation within 30 days of release?
3. For youth who commit a new law violation following their RAI screening, what types of offenses
are committed?
4. Which elements of the RAI are most predictive of failure to appear for court hearings and new
law violations?
5. Which risks or protective factors identified in other assessments (such as the JAIS) are associated
with successful outcomes?
The study population was created from data extracted from the Probation Department’s case
management system the Juvenile Automation System (JAS) and the County’s Juvenile Records System
(JRS). Information was extracted based on the first RAI screening at Juvenile Hall for each youth between
January 1, 2015 and December 30, 2017, a total of 1,643 youth. After some early analysis, some additional
data points and analysis were identified that are currently being reviewed.
FAMILY FINDING
The Probation Department has included in its strategic plan, a robust proposal to implement Family
Finding and Engagement at all levels of juvenile probation work. Probation will be working closely with
DFCS to research, implement and evaluate best practices around policies and procedures relative to
Family Finding and Engagement. These strategies will have a direct impact on the work of the Placement
Unit because family finding and engagement improves permanency for youth, likely increases the
timeliness of reunification and connects parents and youth with extended family support. Family finding
and engagement also creates timely permanency for youth unable to return home to their p arents by
providing an alternative permanent family connection. Prior to placement in an STRTP, these connections
can serve as respites, placement alternatives, and/or be used as a “step down” option for youth who have
completed their treatment program but are not yet ready to transition home.
113 | P a g e
APPENDICES
114 | P a g e
APPENDIX A : THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM MAP
115 | P a g e
APPENDIX B : COUNTY GENDER RESPONSIVE TASK FORCE (GRTF)
The Gender Responsive Task Force (GRTF) was established in 2015 to create a comprehensive case plan
and treatment model for moderate and high-risk girls on probation in Santa Clara County that decreases
their risk of recidivism and victimization while also increasing their life outcomes. Current partner agencies
involved in GRTF include:
• Superior Court of Santa Clara County
• Probation Department
• Office of Women’s Policy
• District Attorney’s Office
• Public Defender’s Office
• Behavioral Health Services Department
• City of San Jose, Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department
• Community-Based Organizations in Santa Clara County
The group meets monthly and is currently focusing on improving services and supports for detained young
women, and in partnership with the Vera Institute for Justice (Vera) has begun an initiative to end the
incarceration of girls in the juvenile justice system. The GRTF was able to successfully bring the San
Francisco’s Young Women’s Freedom (YWFC) to Santa Clara County. The YWFC will provide a much -
needed focus on justice involved LBGT-GNC young women and girls. As part of the Gender Response Task
Force further analysis was conducted to see the breakdown of juvenile girls in the justice system. The
following charts and tables further analyze data broken down by females in areas such as demographics,
arrests, and admissions.
To recap our significant progress, in 2018, the JJGRTF announced its participation in the Vera Institute of
Justice’s Initiative to End Girls’ Incarceration and set the goal of getting to zero youth incarcerated on the
girls’ side of the county’s juvenile justice system. In 2019, the JJGRTF partnered with Vera to complete a
comprehensive diagnostic assessment, analyzing administrative data and casefile data to identify key
pathways driving confinement decisions for girls and gender-expansive youth in the county. Assessment
findings highlighted the ways in which housing instability, including previous referrals to child welfare,
was driving incarceration. Vera’s casefile review of a representative sample of detained girls in 2017 found
that 80 percent of girls had experienced housing instability prior to their justice involvement. Vera’s
casefile review also found extensive histories of abuse for girls in detention. 80 percent of the sample had
a documented child welfare history. On average, girls with child welfare histories had 10 referrals to child
welfare filed on their behalf prior to their justice involvement.
Following the assessment, the JJGRTF has moved into solutions development and implementation. In
2020, the county touched zero for the first time—there were 15 days with zero girls in Juvenile Hall and
48 days with zero girls at the Ranch. In October 2020, there were five consecutive days with zero girls in
the Hall, and in March 2021, there were fourteen consecutive days. As numbers have declined, the JJGRTF
has been able to focus on the few girls remaining in the system. Overwhelmingly, the girls continuing to
116 | P a g e
enter Juvenile Hall are there despite receiving “low” or “medium” scores on the risk assessment
instrument. Confinement decisions are driven not by concerns for public safety, but by concerns for the
girls’ safety and a lack of temporary residential options. Most girls are staying in the Hall for brief periods
of time before a longer-term residential option is agreed upon. Government stakeholders, community-
based organizations, and directly impacted young people have come together to discuss current system
gaps and identify a set of prioritized solutions to fill these gaps, including additional policy and practice
change, expanding residential options, and investing in gender-responsive, community-based
programming.
Female Arrest and Citation Trends
This section highlights arrest/citation trends for female youth in 2016-2020 including: demographics and
offense categories. Throughout this appendix, all counts refer to duplicated youth.
Figure 53: Female Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020
Table 23: Female Arrests by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2016 128 101 457 66 24 776
2017 142 101 538 35 44 860
2018 99 89 562 40 35 825
128 101
457
66
24
142
101
538
35 44
99 89
562
40 35
146
76
519
49 40
76
32
334
23 23
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
117 | P a g e
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2019 146 76 519 49 40 830
2020 76 32 334 23 23 488
Percent Change 2016-
2020 -41% -68% -27% -65% -4% -37%
Percent Change 2019-
2020 -48% -58% -36% -53% -43% -41%
Figure 54: Female Arrests by Age Category and Race/Ethnicity 2018-2020
Table 24: Female Age Categories by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020
Age Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
12 and Under
2016 3 0 3 0 1 7
2017 3 0 10 1 2 16
2018 2 3 17 2 7 31
2019 2 0 14 3 0 19
2 2 3 20 19 8
49
68
29 28
57
36
3 0 0 7
15
6
48
36
13
31
25 13171415
162
113
62
251 247
148
132 145
109
2 3 3 7 5 4 14 24
4 17 17 127015821311910
21 11
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
12 & Under 13-14 15-16 17 & Older
White Black Latino Asian/PI Other
118 | P a g e
Age Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2020 8 6 62 4 2 82
13-14
2016 32 24 122 13 10 201
2017 30 11 116 14 7 178
2018 20 7 162 7 5 201
2019 19 15 113 5 8 160
2020 8 6 62 4 2 82
15-16
2016 32 24 122 13 10 201
2017 61 55 268 14 9 407
2018 49 48 251 14 13 375
2019 68 36 247 24 11 386
2020 29 13 148 4 9 203
17 and Older
2016 21 33 91 5 0 150
2017 48 35 144 16 16 259
2018 28 31 132 17 10 218
2019 57 25 145 17 21 265
2020 36 13 109 12 11 181
Table 25: Female Arrests Top 5 ZIP Codes in 2020
ZIP Code White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
95020 5 1 37 1 3 47
95122 3 1 25 1 0 30
95127 0 2 21 1 0 24
95111 1 0 22 0 0 23
95112 3 3 14 1 1 22
119 | P a g e
Table 26: Female Arrest Offense Categories 2016-2020
Arrest Categories Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
2016 19 5 48 4 3 79
2017 21 5 44 2 4 76
2018 14 3 29 3 3 52
2019 34 3 53 3 8 101
2020 15
0
34
2
3
108
Felony Crimes Against
People
2016 6 18 35 3 1 63
2017 14 9 44 7 6 80
2018 8 12 71 3 5 99
2019 18 8 74 3 5 108
2020 10
13
46
4
3
76
Other Crimes
2016 13 14 52 6 2 87
2017 33 19 119 6 10 187
2018 14 13 85 9 4 125
2019 27 10 98 11 11 157
2020 17
5
68
2
7
99
Other Crimes Against
People
2016 25 27 91 8 4 155
2017 23 10 114 11 10 168
2018 15 14 100 13 9 151
2019 15 10 102 9 7 143
2020 16
3
72
6
4
101
Property Crimes
2016 54 31 162 42 10 299
2017 42 50 167 7 12 278
2018 28 36 203 10 13 290
2019 44 38 125 21 8 236
2020 15
8
88
8
6
125
6
2016 8 2 50 2 3 65
2017 4 4 35 1 2 46
120 | P a g e
Arrest Categories Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Return from Other
Status/Courtesy
Holds/Other Admits
2018 5 2 22 1 1 31
2019 3 4 48 2 0 57
2020 2
3
18
1
0
24
Weapon Crimes
2016 3 4 19 1 1 28
2017 5 4 15 1 0 25
2018 5 2 13 0 0 20
2019 5 3 19 0 1 28
2020 1 0 8 0 0 9
Female Admission and Intake Trends
This section breaks down demographics and offense categories for females detained in juvenile hall from
2016-2020 and top five ZIP Codes for detained females in 2020.
Table 27: Female Detentions by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2016 22 27 109 4 2 164
2017 26 25 143 7 9 210
2018 26 21 209 5 7 268
2019 21 20 153 7 5 206
2020 8 16 85 1 8 113
Percent Change 2016-
2020 -64% -41% -22% -75% 300% -31%
Percent Change 2019-
2020 -62% -20% -44% -86% 60% -45%
121 | P a g e
Table 28: Female Detentions Age Category by Race/Ethnicity 2016-2020
Age Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
12 and Under
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 1 0 0 1
2019 0 0 1 0 0 1
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0
13-14
2016 0 3 20 3 0 26
2017 3 3 29 3 0 38
2018 5 1 61 3 0 70
2019 1 4 31 0 0 36
2020 0 2 17 0 0 19
15-16
2016 14 10 51 0 2 77
2017 13 6 78 3 5 105
2018 11 10 109 2 1 133
2019 10 12 78 7 1 108
2020 5 6 39 2 1 53
17 and Older
2016 8 14 38 1 0 61
2017 10 16 36 1 4 67
2018 10 10 38 0 6 64
2019 10 4 43 0 4 61
2020 3 8 29 1 0 41
Table 29: Female Detentions Top 5 ZIP Codes in 2020
ZIP Code White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
95020 1 2 15 2 0 18
95127 0 1 10 0 0 11
95116 0 3 7 0 0 10
95111 0 0 8 0 0 8
95122 0 2 6 0 0 8
Table 30: Female Detentions Offense Categories 2016-2020
Admissions Offense
Categories Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
2016 2 1 8 0 0 11
2017 2 0 7 0 0 9
2018 0 1 2 0 0 3
122 | P a g e
Admissions Offense
Categories Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2019 0 1 3 1 1 6
2020 0 0 4 1 0 5
Felony Crimes Against
People
2016 5 11 16 1 0 33
2017 7 9 26 5 1 48
2018 5 7 62 1 2 77
2019 10 2 51 2 2 67
2020 3 7 25 1 0 36
Other Crimes
2016 1 5 10 1 0 17
2017 4 2 20 0 4 30
2018 2 2 21 0 0 25
2019 0 2 18 0 1 21
2020 1 1 1 0 0 3
Other Crimes Against
People
2016 6 3 12 0 0 21
2017 3 0 9 1 1 14
2018 2 0 5 1 2 10
2019 2 2 7 0 0 11
2020 3 1 12 0 0 16
Property Crimes
2016 3 3 25 2 1 34
2017 6 7 52 1 3 69
2018 8 9 92 1 2 112
2019 3 7 43 3 1 57
2020 0 4 26 0 1 31
Return from Other
status/Courtesy
Holds/Other Admits
2016 5 2 37 0 1 45
2017 3 7 28 0 0 38
2018 8 2 19 2 1 32
2019 4 3 26 1 0 34
2020 1 3 14 1 0 19
Weapon Crimes
2016 0 2 1 0 0 3
2017 1 0 1 0 0 2
2018 1 0 7 0 0 8
2019 2 3 5 0 0 10
2020 0 0 3 0 0 3
Female DEJ and Placement Trends
This section highlights DEJ and Placement trends from 2015-2019 for female youth.
123 | P a g e
Table 31: Females in DEJ 2016-2020
Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
2016 1 0 10 0 1 12
2017 3 1 13 2 0 19
2018 2 3 24 0 1 30
2019 0 3 6 0 0 9
2020 0 0 3 0 1 4
Table 32: Female Placements 2016- 2020
Placements Year White Black Latino Asian/PI Other Total
Juvenile Hall
2016 0 0 12 0 2 14
2017 0 1 5 1 1 8
2018 1 2 7 1 0 11
2019 1 2 8 0 0 11
2020 1 1 0 0 0 2
James Ranch
2016 3 0 7 0 0 10
2017 1 1 10 0 0 12
2018 1 1 12 0 0 14
2019 1 1 12 0 0 14
2020 0 2 2 0 0 4
Foster Care
2016 4 1 1 0 0 6
2017 0 0 2 0 0 2
2018 0 0 2 0 0 2
2019 1 0 2 0 0 3
2020 0 1 4 1 0 6
DJJ 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 2 0 0 2
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 1 0 2 0 0 3
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 | P a g e
APPENDIX C : ARRESTS/CITATIONS BY ZIP CODE 201 6 -2020
Arrest/citations numbers by ZIP Code are slightly higher for 2020 in the 95112 ZIP Code when compared to 2019. All other top 10 ZIP Codes saw a decrease in
arrests/citations in 2020 when compared to 2019, this is most likely attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the ZIP Codes with the most arrest/citations
are 95020 Gilroy (n=182), 95116 San Jose (n=129), and 95127 San Jose (n=111). In 2019, the ZIP Codes with the most arrest/citations were 95020 (n=273), 95116
(n=200), and 95122 (n=193).
Figure 55: Arrests/Citations by ZIP Code 2016-2020
223
182 191
114
180
196
77
111
90
69
233
245 246
141
194
166
98
122 117
85
204
309
243
119
189
234
125
108 100
78
273
200 193
168 158 151
87 81 78 77
182
129
102 101 110 111 108
64 56 63
95020 95116 95122 95037 95111 95127 95112 95123 95128 95035
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
125 | P a g e
APPENDIX D: SOUTH COUNTY ARRESTS/CITATIONS B Y ZIP CODE
The figure below shows trends in arrests/citations from 2016-2020 for the South County ZIP Codes of 95020
(Gilroy), 95037 (Morgan Hill), and 95046 (San Martin). In 2020, there were 309 arrests/citations in all South
County ZIP Codes, a 38 percent decrease from 2019 at 498 arrests/citations in all South County ZIP Codes.
The South County ZIP Codes made up 14 percent of all arrests/citations in 2019 (n=309 of 2,250). Of the 309
arrests/citations in South County 35 percent were accepted by the Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI)
Unit (n=108).
Figure 56: Arrests/Citations for South County by ZIP Code 2016-2020
For all South County ZIP Codes misdemeanors made up the largest category of offense classifications. Fifty -
three percent of Gilroy’s (95020) arrests/citations were misdemeanors (n=96). Fifty-one percent of Morgan
Hill’s (95037) arrests/citations were misdemeanors (n=52). Sixty-nine percent of San Martin’s (95046)
arrests/citations were misdemeanors (n=18).
Figure 57: South County Duplicated Offense Classification by ZIP Codes 2020
223 233
204
273
182
114
141
119
168
101
13 19 17
57
26
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
95020
Gilroy
95037
Morgan Hill
95046
San Martin
38%33%23%
53%51%69%
4%11%4%5%5%4%
95020 95037 95046
Felony Misdemeanor Infraction Status
126 | P a g e
Property Crimes accounted for 23 percent of arrests/citations in Gilroy (95020; n=42). Property Crimes
accounted for 28 percent of arrests/citations in Morgan Hill (95037; n=28). Other Crimes accounted for 31
percent of arrests/citations in San Martin (95046; n=8).
Figure 58: Duplicated Arrests and Citations Offense Category by South County ZIP Codes 2020
For all South County ZIP Codes 15 percent of youth were arrested/cited for Misdemeanor Assault: Fighting
(n=46), followed by Robbery and Obstruction, Resisting Arrest, Disturbing the Peace at six percent each,
respectively (n=20).
Table 33: Top 10 Offenses by South County ZIP Codes 2020
Top 10 Offenses 95020 95037 95046 Total
Misd. Assault: Fighting 31 12 3 46
Robbery 16 4 0 20
Obstruction, Resisting Arrest, Disturbing Peace 7 8 5 20
Traffic Violations 10 4 2 16
Other Drug/Alcohol Charges 5 8 3 16
VOP – Failure to Obey Order of the Court 9 5 1 15
Vandalism, Malicious Mischief 7 7 1 15
Burglary - 1st Degree 12 3 0 15
Theft, Auto 8 6 0 14
Possess/Sale of Drugs 3 9 0 12
Total 108 66 15 189
42
30
37
34
19
9
11
28
21
13
16
17
5
1
5
8
3
1
6
1
2
Property Crimes
Other Crimes
Other Crimes Against People
Felony Crimes Against People
Drugs, Alcohol Related Offenses
Return from Other Status/Courtesy Hold/Other
Admits
Weapon Crimes
95020 95037 95046
127 | P a g e
APPENDIX E: SUPPLEMENTAL SCORING GUIDE: JAIS INTERVIEW IMPRESSIONS
Supplemental Scoring Guide: JAISTM Interviewer Impressions
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
(a) means a
highly
significant factor
contributing to
the youth’s illegal
behavior
Were it not for
this factor, the
youth would not
be in legal
trouble.
(b) means a
significant factor
contributing to
the youth’s illegal
behavior but not
the most
significant factor
(c) means a
somewhat
significant factor
contributing to
the youth’s illegal
behavior but
definitely not the
most significant
factor
(d) means a factor
having minor
significance in
contributing to
the youth’s illegal
behavior
(e) means a factor
that does NOT
contribute
significantly to
the youth’s illegal
behavior
ITEM
Social Inadequacy: Social inadequacy refers to youth who get into trouble because of factors such as
naiveté, gullibility, etc. These factors cause them to be easily led by more sophisticated companions
and/or to commit offenses either out of ignorance as to what is expected of them or because they are
unable to figure out solutions to their problems. Such youth are unsophisticated and have little insight
into their own behavior or the behavior or motives of others.
Vocational Inadequacy: Youth who score an (a) on vocational inadequacy are those who are unable to
obtain reasonably paying and relatively permanent employment and who get into legal trouble as a
result of this. They not only lack job skills, but lack the normal capacity to learn job skills and to find jobs.
(A youth who has the capacity to obtain and maintain reasonably paying employment, but who chooses
not to, should not be rated as vocationally inadequate.)
Criminal Orientation: Criminal orientation refers to the youth’s values and attitudes, not merely to the
frequency of convictions. Youth who score an (a) in this area prefer to be criminals, think it is “cool” to be
a criminal, and look upon those who abide by the law as fools. These youth are as comfortable supporting
themselves by illegal means as they are working (i.e., it does not hurt their conscience). This does not
mean that they never work—simply that they are as comfortable “ripping off” as they are working.
Emotional Factors: Youth who score an (a) here are those who get into trouble with the law because of
their emotional problems: depression, self-destructiveness, low self-esteem, anxiety, etc. An (a) on
Emotional Factors indicates that the youth is an emotional mess—that his/her trouble with the law is just
a further manifestation of this, e.g., the alcoholic who can’t stop drinking and gets another DWI.
128 | P a g e
The fact that a youth abuses alcohol/drugs does not necessarily mean that s/he should get an (a) on
Emotional Factors. In order to get an (a), the chemical abuse must be a highly significant factor
contributing to the law-breaking. To assist in determining this, ask: “Would the youth have done these
offenses had s/he NOT been drinking (or on drugs)?” For example, “Would ‘Michael’ be selling drugs
even if he were not using them?” If the answer is “Yes, he would be selling even if he were not using
them”—i.e., his use of drugs is only incidental—then the Emotional Factors item should not be scored
(a). If, on the other hand, your assessment is that Michael sells drugs only as a result of drug use, then
you should score Emotional Factors as (a). In other words, reserve your (a) scores for the primary cause.
Do not consider antisocial attitudes and/or personality as emotional factors. These factors are considered
“criminal orientation” rather than emotional factors.
While the “heat of passion” type of anger should be considered as a factor on the Emotional Factors item
(e.g., someone who angrily responds to an immediate situation without thinking), do not consider a
chosen life pattern of aggression as a factor on Emotional Factors. For example, the youth who packs
weapons for the purpose of intimidating and dominating others, or who enjoys bullying and pushing
others around, should be considered “criminally oriented” (the Criminal Orientation item).
Family History Problems: Youth who score an (a) in this section are those who get into trouble
because they can’t seem to put the problems of their home life in childhood and adolescence behind
them, and they continue to live out the destructive patterns begun in childhood, i.e., they seem to be
carrying around all of the family garbage. It is not so much the severity of the childhood chaos that is
being measured here, but the impact that the negative events of childhood seem to be having on the
youth and his/her trouble with the law.
Isolated Situation/Temporary Circumstance: Those who score an (a) on this item have gotten into
trouble because of an isolated or temporary event or situation and it is unlikely they will re-offend. In
other words, if you rate the youth as an (a) on this item, you would bet your last dollar that the youth has
not been in this kind of trouble before nor will s/he be again. On the other hand, if you would bet your
last buck that this isn’t the first time s/he has been in this kind of trouble and will be again, score an (e).
Interpersonal Manipulation: Youth who get an (a) on this one are the “classic con” types. They enjoy
“getting over” on others. They view interpersonal relationships in terms of power (e.g., who is in control,
who is “one up,” etc.) rather than in terms of mutuality, caring, sharing, or love. On the contrary, they tend
to use others in a callous sort of way. They like to feel powerful by lording it over others or pushing them
around. These attitudes need to be a significant factor contributing to the youth’s legal difficulty in order
for him/her to score an (a) on the Interpersonal Manipulation item.
129 | P a g e
APPENDIX F : JAIS SUPERVISION STRATEGY GROUPS OVERVIEW
The Probation Department utilizes an evidence-based tool called the Juvenile Assessment and Intervention
System (JAIS) that weaves together a risk assessment and strengths and needs assessment. As well as
analyzing risks and needs, the JAIS incorporates a supervision strategy model and determines the best
approach for each youth. Please see table below for more details.
Table 34: JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview
JAIS Supervision Strategy Groups Overview
Strategy Group General Characteristics Why Youth Get in Trouble Intervention Goals
Selective
Intervention (SI)
• Pro-social values
• Positive adjustment
• Positive Achievements
• Good social skills
• External stressors
• Internal, neurotic need
• Resolve external stressor
• Resolve internal
problems
• Return to school
• Return to appropriate
peers and activities
Limit Setting (LS) • Anti-social values
• Prefers to succeed
outside the rules/law
• Role models operate
outside the rules/law
• Manipulative, exploitive
• Motivated by power,
excitement
• Straight life is dull
• Substitute pro-social
means to achieve power,
money, excitement
• Change attitudes and
values
• Use skills in pro-social
ways
• Protect the school
environment
Environmental
Structure (ES)
• Lack of social and survival
skills
• Poor impulse control
• Gullible
• Naïve
• Poor judgment
• Manipulated by more
sophisticated peers
• Difficult generalizing
from past experiences
• Improve social and
survival skills
• Increase impulse control
• Develop realistic
education program
• Limit contact with
negative peers
Casework/Control
(CC)
• Broad-range instability
• Chaotic lifestyle
• Emotional instability
• Multi-drug
abuse/addiction
• Negative attitudes toward
authority
• Positive effort blocked
by:
*Chaotic lifestyle
*Drug/alcohol use
*Emotional
instability
• Unable to commit to
long-term change
• Increase stability
• Control drug/alcohol
abuse
• Overcome attitude
problems
• Foster ability to recognize
and correct self-defeating
behavior
130 | P a g e
APPENDIX G : OFFENSE CATEGORIES BY CHARGE DESCRIPTION
The table below highlights some examples of each offense categories’ code descriptions, charge
descriptions, and offense codes that fall under each offense category.
Table 35: Offense Categories by Code Description, Charge Description, and Offense Code
Offense Categories Code Description Charge Description Offense Code
Drugs, Alcohol Related
Offenses
HS11378 Possess Controlled
Substance for Sale
Felony
PC647(F)M Under the Influence of
Drugs/
Alcohol/Controlled
Substance
Misdemeanor
BP25662 Minor Possess Alcohol Misdemeanor
HS11357(A)(1) Under Eighteen Possess
Less than 28.5 Grams of
Marijuana
Infraction
HS11357(D) Possession of Marijuana
on School Grounds
Infraction
Felony Crimes Against
People
PC211 Robbery Felony
PC664/187 Attempted Murder Felony
PC245(A)(1) Assault with a Deadly
Weapon or Great Bodily
Injury
Felony
PC215 Carjacking Felony
PC288(A) Lewd or Lascivious Act
on a Child Under
Fourteen
Felony
Other Crimes PC4532(B)(1) Escape Jail/Etc. while
Charged/Etc. with a
Felony
Felony
PC148.9 False Name to Peace
Officer
Misdemeanor
PC148 Obstruct Resist Public
Officer
Misdemeanor
VC12500(A) Driving while Unlicensed Misdemeanor
PC182(A)(1) Conspiracy to Commit
Crime
Misdemeanor
Other Crimes Against
People
PC242 Battery Misdemeanor
PC166(C)(1) Violation of Court Order
Domestic Violence
Misdemeanor
PC261.5 Unlawful Sexual
Intercourse with Minor
Misdemeanor
131 | P a g e
Offense Categories Code Description Charge Description Offense Code
PC646.9(A) Stalking Misdemeanor
PC243(E)(1) Battery on Former
Spouse, Fiancé, or Date
Misdemeanor
Property Crimes PC487 Grand Theft Felony
PC459 Burglary: First Degree Felony
PC451 Arson Felony
VC10851 Driving/Taking Vehicle
without Owner’s
Permission
Felony
VC20002 Hit and Run/Property
Damage
Misdemeanor
PC647(H) Prowling Misdemeanor
PC488 Petty Theft Misdemeanor
PC466 Possession of Burglary
Tools
Misdemeanor
PC602 Trespassing Misdemeanor
PC594 Vandalism Misdemeanor
Return from Other
Status/Courtesy Hold/
Other Admit
PC1203.2 Re-arrest/Revoke
Probation/Etc.
Misdemeanor
WI777 Failure to Obey Order of
the Juvenile Court
Status
PC594(A)(B) For Sentencing Purposes Status
WI602 Juvenile Offender (State
Specific Offense)
Status
Weapon Crimes PC245 Assault with a Deadly
Weapon (Punishment)
Felony
PC21310 Possession of a Dirk or
Dagger
Felony
PC25400(A) Carry Concealed
Weapon
Felony
PC246.3 Willful Discharge of
Firearm with Gross
Negligence
Felony
PC21310 Possession of a Dirk or
Dagger
Misdemeanor
132 | P a g e
APPENDIX H : JJSC WORKGROUPS AND SUBCOMMITTEES
Most of the JJSC Workgroups and Subcommittees have been paused due to COVID-19 and they will begin
meeting again when it is safe to do so.
Table 36: Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative: Race Equity in Justice Systems Workgroups
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Electronic
Monitoring
Program
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup.
Public Defender
Jean Pennypacker, Chair,
Juvenile Justice Commission
The Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP)
committee goals are to promote best
practices and ensure equity in the use of
EMP; to ensure the use of EMP properly
aligns with its purpose; to identify
eligibility criteria for EMP to ensure
equity; determine EMP success for youth
of color; and develop policy
recommendations to ensure youth of
color are successful. The committee is
working to identify additional alternatives
to detention. The Research and
Development (RaD) team provided phase
III of the research questions and received
the additional youth surveys. The
committee is working on the eligibility
criteria, community-based alternatives,
and the impact of restrictive EMP.
Monthly
High Risk
Youth
Ann Huntley Sup. District
Attorney
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup.
Public Defender
The High-Risk Youth committee focuses
on ensuring race equity, promoting child
wellbeing, and reducing racial and ethnic
disparities related to youth currently
involved in the justice system while
continually improving justice system
processes. This committee is focused on
youth who have committed three or more
serious offenses. The committee will
investigate potential interventions for this
target population and develop policy
recommendations to ensure youth of
color receive appropriate dispositions.
The committee is working with County
Counsel on a memorandum of
Monthly
133 | P a g e
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
understanding (MOU) and a standing
order to share information.
Gender
Responsive
Task Force
Judge Katherine Lucero,
Presiding and Supervising
Judge of the Juvenile
Division
Nick Birchard, Deputy Chief
Probation Officer
Protima Pandey, Director
Office of Women’s Policy
The Gender Responsive Task Force (GRTF)
was established in 2015 to create a
comprehensive case plan and treatment
model for moderate and high-risk girls on
probation in Santa Clara County that
decreases their risk of recidivism and
victimization while also increasing their
life outcomes. For more information on
GRTF please see Appendix B.
Monthly
Table 37: Other Collaborative Efforts with Justice Systems Stakeholders
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Juvenile Court
Aligned Action
Network
(JCAAN)
Judge Katherine Lucero,
Presiding and Supervising
Judge of the Juvenile
Division
Joy Hernandez, National
Center for Youth Law
Alex Villa, Probation
Division Manager
Supported by: Dana
Bunnett, Kids in Common
The goal of JCAAN is for youth in the
juvenile justice system to achieve parity
in graduation rates with the general
population. Work includes identifying
baseline data for education outcomes for
youth in the justice system; on-going
literature review to find effective and
promising practices; deep landscape
analysis to identify services and gaps;
and utilizing data to improve education
results for these youth.
Monthly
Juvenile Justice
Data Crosswalk
Dana Bunnett, Kids in
Common
The Juvenile Justice Data Crosswalk
Project was created to align data
collection and data sharing efforts for
many groups currently working with
juvenile justice involved youth such as
NYCL, VERA, DIY, JCAAN, Burns
Institute/Racial Equity Through
Monthly
134 | P a g e
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
Prevention, Kids in Common, Juvenile
Court Aligned Action Network, Juvenile
Justice Commission, SCCOE and
Probation.
CSEC Steering
Committee
Daniel Little, Director of
Family and Children’s
Services
The CSEC Steering Committee consists of
DFCS, JPD, PH, BHSD, Community
Solutions, YWCA, LACY, Public Defender,
and other partners as identified. The
CSEC Steering Committee shall: Provide
ongoing oversight and leadership to
ensure the county agencies and partners
effectively collaborate to better identify
and serve youth who are at risk of or
have been commercially sexually
exploited.
Quarterly
CSEC
Implementation
The Implementation Team
members consist of the
following system partners:
DFCS, JPD, PH, BHSD,
Community Solutions,
YWCA, LACY, Public
Defender, and other
partners as identified.
The CSEC Implementation Team
(hereafter referred to as “The
Implementation Team”) is responsible
for trauma informed program
development and training using data to
ensure the implementation of the
Commercially Sexually Exploited
Children (CSEC) protocol. The team will
utilize continuous quality improvement
(CQI) as well as a feedback process to
identify and address gaps, challenges and
maximize opportunities for program
enhancement.
Monthly
DIY Steering
Committee
Laura Garnette, Chief
Probation Officer
Judge Julie Alloggiamento,
Judge for DIY calendar
The goals of the Dually Involved Youth
(DIY) Steering Committee are (1) Prevent
youth ¡n the child welfare system from
formally penetrating the juvenile justice
system. (2) Use evidence-based research
and promising practices to inform
changes in both systems so that we can
Monthly
135 | P a g e
Work Group Lead Purpose Meeting
Schedule
better serve youth and families. (3)
Eliminate disproportionate minority
contact in the child welfare and juvenile
justice systems. (4) Strengthen the ability
of families to rise above the challenges
they confront.
DIY Under 14
Subcommittee
Christian Bijoux, Dually
Involved Youth Director
Nisreen B. Younis, Sup.
Public Defender
The purpose of the group is to engage
system partners to provide support to
the dually involved youth who are under
14 years old as this population might
need specific supports to address their
needs. The workgroup is currently
developing a protocol for SB439 for
youth who are under 12 years old and
cannot be detained as outlined by new
legislation.
Monthly
Title IVE Well-
Being Waiver
Steering
Committee
Laura Garnette, Chief
Probation Officer
Robert Menicocci, Director
Department of Social
Services
The Title IVE Well-Being Waiver Steering
Committee was developed when Santa
Clara County joined the Title IVE Well-
Being Waiver Project. The Steering
Committee meets monthly to discuss the
Waiver Project and other issues as it
relates to providing best practices for the
community. The committee is composed
of key staff from Probation, Department
of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS),
Behavioral Health and Fiscal.
Monthly
136 | P a g e
APPENDIX I : A SSEMBLY B ILL (AB) 12 NON -MINOR DEPENDENT YOUTH
The California Fostering Connections to Success Act known as AB12, which took effect in 2012, and
subsequent legislation, allowed eligible youth to remain in foster care beyond age 18, up to age 21. This was
originally known as AB12 but is now known as Extended Foster Care (EFC) services. EFC services provide
youth with the time and support needed to gradually become fully independent adults. The guiding principle
of this extension is to provide each eligible youth with the opportunity to make decisions regarding his or
her housing, education, employment, and leisure activities, while receiving ongoing support and assistance
when difficulties are encountered. Foster youth who participate in EFC are designated as Non-Minor
Dependents (NMDs). There are two types of NMD’s, 602 NMDs who are still on Probation and WIC 450 NMDs
who were on probation, met their rehabilitative goals and were dismissed effectively transitioning them to
a non-Ward NMD. The other type of NMD can be a youth dismissed from Probation (successfully or
unsuccessfully) who reenters by petitioning either the Juvenile Justice or Dependency Court. Most youth
who exit from juvenile probation and have no dependency history, reenter and/or are supervised by POs in
the Placement Unit.
Youth who are between the ages of 18 and 21 and were in foster care on their 18th birthday, qualify for
extended foster care (EFC) services. To maintain eligibility to participate in EFC, youth must meet one of five
participation criteria:
• Working toward completion of high school or equivalent program; or
• Enrollment in higher education or vocational education program; or
• Employed at least 80 hours per month; or
• Participating in a program to remove barriers to employment; or
• The inability to participation in any of the above programs due to a verified medical condition.
There are approximately 200 NMDs in this county participating in EFC through the Department of Family and
Children’s Services and the Probation Department. NMDs meet monthly with their assigned social worker or
Probation Officer and may attend hearings (they are not required to be present at these hearings) through
the Juvenile Dependency Court or Juvenile Justice Court where the case worker is required to report on their
progress to the Court. NMDs receive support in meeting their eligibility criteria, life skills classes, assistance
receiving public benefits and applying for student financial aid, a monthly financial stipend, and housing
assistance during their time in EFC and in their post-EFC transition.
There are several housing options for NMDs including:
• Remain in the existing home of a relative; licensed foster family home; certified foster family agency
home; home of a non-related legal guardian (whose guardianship was established by the juvenile
court); or STRTP (youth may remain in a group home after age 19 only if the criteria for a medical
condition and/or NMD eligibility is met and the placement is a short-term transition to an
appropriate system of care); or
• THP-Plus Foster Care (THP+FC) - this program has three models:
137 | P a g e
o Host Family where the NMD lives with a caring adult who has been selected and approved
by the transitional housing provider.
o Single Site where the NMD lives in an apartment, condominium or single-family dwelling
rented or leased by the housing provider with an employee(s) living on site; or
o Remote Site where the NMD lives independently in one of the housing types listed above
with regular supervision from the provider; or
• Supervised Independent Living Placement (SILP) - this placement option allows youth to live
independently in an apartment, house, condominium, room and board arrangement or college
dorm, alone or with a roommate(s), while still receiving the supervision of a social worker/probation
officer. The youth may directly receive all or part of the foster care rate pursuant to the mutual
agreement.
NMD youth can reside in-county, out-of-county and/or out-of-state and continue to receive supportive
services and monthly-mandated face-to-face contact with their Probation Officer.
138 | P a g e
APPENDIX J : B EHAVIORAL H EALTH D IAGNOSIS
The Behavioral Health Services Department referenced the DSM 5 for a brief definition of the following
behavioral health diagnosis.
• Adjustment Disorder: A common short-term disorder people experience during a new or unfamiliar
situation that causes stress. A person may experience sadness, worry, difficulty concentrating,
feeling overwhelmed and may avoid daily activities. Symptoms usually dissipate after a few weeks
but could become worse if supportive strategies are not utilized.
• Substance Use/Dependence: Any substance that is consumed is considered use whether it is alcohol
or drugs. Dependence is when the body physically needs the substance in order to feel in a "normal"
state and can be physical or psychological.
• Behavior Disorder: There are different types of behavior disorders and symptoms typically include
inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity, oppositional behavior, drug use and/or law-breaking
behavior.
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): Exhibiting distressful symptoms after facing a stressful or
traumatic event where the person witnessed or experienced severe injury or something life-
threatening is not uncommon. Symptoms that last over 30-days and include worry, loss of interest
in activities, extreme emotional reactions, frequent memories of the event, sleep issues, angry
outburst, and problems concentrating are a few behaviors that may occur.
• Anxiety Disorder: There are several types of anxiety disorders which can be brief or acute, and can
impact functioning and interfere with daily activities, such as school, work, and social relationships.
Types of anxiety disorders include generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and specific phobia
(fears) disorders. Young people often present as being on edge, having difficulty paying attention,
being irritable, and have difficulty managing worries.
• Major Depressive Disorder: Characterized persistent feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness, loss
of sleep, or appetite and sometimes recurrent thoughts of death or suicide. Adolescents may show
heightened irritability, poor school performance, extreme sensitivity, self-harm, and avoidance of
social interaction.
• ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder): Characterized by having inattentive and/or
hyperactive behaviors. Inattention may include difficulty concentrating, listening, organizing,
distraction, and/or forgetfulness. Hyper activeness may include fidgeting, talking too much, always
on the go, impulsivity, difficulty waiting, and interrupting others.
• Bipolar Disorder: This is typically a life-long condition characterized by mania and/or depression.
Mania is when a person shows high levels of energy with a sense of euphoria. A person may
experience mood swings from mania to depression. Treatment with medication and psychotherapy
is often very effective.
• Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD): Individuals with ASD have difficulties with social interactions,
communication, and may have restricted interests and behaviors. Adolescents with ASD often have
139 | P a g e
trouble maintaining peer relationships, can be naïve, and may present with irritability and difficulties
managing emotions. There may be sensitivity to sounds, being touched, food textures, smells, and
certain types of clothing fabrics. Sometimes individuals with ASD also have cognitive deficits, which
impact their academic performance, their ability to see things from another person’s perspective or
to show empathy for others.
140 | P a g e
APPENDIX K : COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
The following is a comprehensive list of all commonly used abbreviations and acronyms used throughout
this report in alphabetical order.
Figure 59: Commonly Used Abbreviations and Acronyms
Abbreviation/Acronym Definition / Meaning
A-CRA Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach
ADO Alternate Defender's Office
AED Alternative Education Department
Asian/PI Asian/Pacific Islander
BHSD Behavioral Health Services Department
CARE Court for Achieving Reengagement with Education
CCR Continuum of Care Reform
CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
CFCS Children, Family and Community Services
CFT Child and Family Team
CITA Individualized Treatment of Adolescents
CMS Case Management System
County Santa Clara County
CRP Community Release Program
CSEC Commercially Sexually Exploited Children
CSE-IT Commercial Sexual Exploitation Identification Tool
CSI Cross Systems Initiatives
CWS/CMS Child Welfare Services / Case Management System
CY Calendar Year
CYF Children, Youth and Family
DEJ Deferred Entry of Judgement
DFCS Department of Family and Children's Services
DIY Dually Involved Youth
DIYU Dually Involved Youth Unit
DJJ Division of Juvenile Justice
DYCR Department of Youth and Community Restoration
EFC Extended Foster Care
EMP Electronic Monitoring Program
FLY Fresh Lifelines for Youth
FTA Failure to Appear
FV/DV Family/Domestic Violence
GRTF Juvenile Justice Gender Responsive Taskforce
HHS Health and Human Services
HS Hospital System
141 | P a g e
Abbreviation/Acronym Definition / Meaning
ICP Interagency Placement Committee
IDO Independent Defense Counsel
JAID Juvenile Attendance Improvement Diversion
JAIS Juvenile Assessment Intervention System
James Ranch Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility William F James Ranch
JAS Juvenile Automation System
JCAAN Juvenile Court Aligned Action Network
JJCPA Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act
JJSC Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative
JPD Juvenile Services Division, Probation Department
JRS Juvenile Records System
LACY Legal Advocates for Children and Youth
MAR Medication Administration Rand
MAYSI-2 Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument
MDT Multi-Disciplinary Team
MGPTF Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force
MIT Multidisciplinary Implementation Team
MST Multisystemic Therapy
NCCD National Council on Crime and Delinquency
NMD Non-Minor Dependent
NSU Neighborhood Safety/Services Unit
OMOS Office of Mediation and Ombuds Services
PBIS Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports
PD Public Defender
PDO Public Defender's Office
PEI Prevention Early Intervention
PIVOT Providing Individual Valuable Opportunities Together
PO Probation Officer
PRISM Probation Records Information System Manager
PRO-CSR Probation Continuum of Services of Reentry
PSC Placement Screening Coordinator
QRTP Qualified Residential Treatment Program
RAI Risk Assessment Instrument
RAIC Receiving, Assessment, and Intake Center
Ranch Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility William F James Ranch
REJS Race Equity in Justice Systems
REP Race Equity through Prevention
REP Redemption, Education and Purpose
RFK Robert F Kennedy National Resource Center for Juvenile Justice
SARB Student Attendance Review Board
SARC San Andreas Regional Center
142 | P a g e
Abbreviation/Acronym Definition / Meaning
SB Senate Bill
SCC Santa Clara County
SCYTF South County Youth Task Force
SHARKS Supervision High-Tech Automated Record Keeping System
SIJS Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
SOGIE Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression
SSI Supplemental Security Income
STRTP Short Term Residential Therapeutic Program
SUTS Substance Use Treatment Services
SW Social Worker
TAY Transition Aged Youth
TGNC Transgender/gender non-conforming
VMC Valley Medical Clinic
VOMP Victim Offender Mediation Program
VOP Violation of Probation
WIC Welfare and Institutions Code
YAC Youth Advisory Council
YTIP Youth Therapeutic Integrated Program