Construction and Renovation of Facilities

Background  

Since FY 1997-98, in recognition of the critical need to improve the state’s public safety infrastructure, the Legislature has appropriated over $453.2 million in local assistance to be distributed by the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), formerly known as the Board of Corrections (BOC), to counties via competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) processes to build, expand, renovate, and improve county juvenile halls and camps.  

The majority of funds for juvenile facilities ($280 million) are from federal formula grants to California through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and are eligible for distribution to counties for juvenile facilities through the Legislature’s declaration of “exigent circumstances” which has been declared annually since FY 1997-98. Use of federal funds is limited. According to federal law, funds for juvenile facilities can only be used to expand capacity (build new facilities with some amount of net bed gain or expand existing facilities) and cannot be used for renovation projects. The remainder of funds for juvenile facilities ($172 million) are from the state’s general fund and may also be used for renovation projects.  

The website contains a wealth of information including resource and planning tools that can be used by counties, as well as a complete listing and summary description of 73 juvenile facility projects that have been awarded construction and renovation grants since FY 1997-98. These projects are cost-effective and represent the state’s best investment in its public safety infrastructure designed to meet county and state needs for the next 30-50 years. Each RFP process since FY 1997-98 has been oversubscribed by counties, resulting in an inability to fund many meritorious proposals.  

Major Factors Driving Juvenile Facility Need  

A variety of factors have combined in some counties to create conditions of confinement that approach inhumane and unsafe levels for minors and staff, and create public safety concerns. Three main factors driving counties needs for juvenile facility construction, replacement, expansion, and renovation are:

• county beds have not kept pace with California’s population growth and changing secure custody/treatment needs;
• many existing facilities are of outmoded design which presents safety and security problems as well as insufficient education and program space; and
• age related structural/mechanical problems are occurring in old existing facilities creating conditions of noncompliance with seismic safety codes and fire, health, and life safety standards.  

Changing Needs  

Local juvenile halls and camps are built, operated, and administered by California counties to meet local needs in accordance with state law and standards. Juvenile halls are maximum- security or medium-security county facilities used for the reception and temporary care of minors who have not completed the judicial process (pre-disposition) or for post-dispositional minors who are ordered by the court to serve a period of commitment there. Camps are usually minimum-security facilities used for commitment programs for post-dispositional minors. Judicial, operational, and detention philosophies (as well as facility siting and sizing decisions) vary among California’s 58 counties. Who goes to local juvenile hall and camp custody, and how long they stay, is largely determined by locally elected juvenile court judges consistent with their legal authority. Siting and sizing decisions are made by locally elected boards of supervisors with input from various consultant experts, citizens, the judiciary, juvenile justice commissions, grand juries, county administrative officers, chief probation officers, and others consistent with their legal authorities and responsibilities.  

Since January 1, 1997, the Legislature has provided counties with a strong fiscal incentive to treat youth locally versus incurring a costly “sliding scale fee” if they commit youth to the custody of the California Youth Authority (CYA). Counties have responded affirmatively to this fiscal incentive. CYA’s average daily population has decreased significantly by approximately 7,800 minors, from 11,400 in FY 1996/97 to less than 3,600 today. (Other statutory changes and a recent decrease in juvenile arrest rates have also been factors impacting the CYA population.) During this same time, local facilities populations have increased, in part, due to some courts using juvenile halls as commitment facilities for certain minors deemed to need secure care, as well as education, treatment and program opportunities that can best be provided locally with the participation of family members and support mechanisms designed to lead to successful community reintegration. In these cases, juvenile halls are also being used as local training schools in addition to their traditional use for pre-dispositional detention.  

Counties have also used alternatives to facility commitments as disposition of cases. The juvenile justice system operates on a continuum that spans prevention and intervention programs, alternatives to confinement, and use of custody facilities for detention and commitments. Most counties know they cannot simply increase capacity to alleviate crowded custody conditions and have developed and implemented various prevention and early intervention programs, intermediate sanctions programs, and alternatives to confinement designed to remove or divert the least serious offenders from custody. Since 1996, counties have received $488.9 million in local assistance designated by the Legislature for such programs through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act , Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grants I and II and the Juvenile Repeat Offender Prevention Program . CSA data show that counties use of alternatives such as home supervision with electronic monitoring, and alternative confinement programs, both increased since 1999.  

Outmoded Design and Age Related Structural/Mechanical Problems  

Most juvenile facilities were built 30 to 50+ years ago and were not designed for today’s high-risk felony offenders most of whom are 15-17 years old and comprise over two-thirds of local juvenile facility populations (most of these facilities were designed originally for low-risk misdemeanants or status offenders in custody decades ago). BOC data show a significant increase in the number of minors receiving psychotropic medication while in county custody, and in the number of minors in custody who need mental health services. These factors, along with the previously discussed changing use of juvenile halls, impact design decisions for the 21 st century.  

Outmoded design problems that can be remedied by renovation or new construction include lack of vehicle sallyports; unsafe intake/receiving areas; inadequate central control areas, insufficient classroom and program space; substandard medical examination space, linear-style housing unit configurations with blind spots and poor sight lines that impede proper supervision; lack of security systems/envelopes for facilities housing maximum security minors, including use of tempered glass in secure areas instead of security glazing. Outmoded design contributes to poor programming and supervision practices, including juveniles placed in sleeping rooms for extended periods of time, lack of recreation, inadequate or non-existent programs for rehabilitation opportunities, and is often a factor in minor-on-minor assaults, minor-on-staff assaults, contraband, and escapes.  

Age related structural/mechanical problems in older facilities are common and include factors that may not be readily apparent to casual observers or even local policy makers. Examples that can be remedied by renovation or new construction include structural and mechanical system inadequacies involving walls, doors, windows, heating/cooling, water/sewage, electrical, and other systems. In addition, many older facilities need to be upgraded or replaced to meet current seismic safety codes and fire, health, and life safety standards as contained in Titles 15, 19, and 24, California Code of Regulations.

Twelve existing juvenile facilities in 11 counties (see chart) are being renovated under this funding program to partially remedy outmoded design and age-related structural and mechanical defects. Most renovations are of a relatively minor to moderate nature. In addition, 23 new juvenile facilities (in 23 counties – see chart) will be built, most of which will replace outmoded, unsafe, and crowded old existing facilities. Counties choosing to build new facilities to replace existing old facilities found that it was more cost-effective to build new rather than attempt to remedy major outmoded design and age related structural and mechanical defects through extensive renovation.

11 COUNTIES RENOVATING JUVENILE FACILITIES

• Del Norte
• Humboldt
• Kings
• Lake
• Marin
• Mendocino
• Monterey
• San Diego
• Shasta
• Solano
• Stanislaus

23 COUNTIES BUILDING NEW OR REPLACEMENT FACILITES

• Alameda
• Butte
• Del Norte
• El Dorado
• Fresno
• Kern
• Madera
• Merced
• Napa
• Nevada
• Riverside
• San Bernardino
• San Diego
• San Francisco
• San Mateo
• Siskiyou
• Solano
• Sonoma
• Tehama
• Trinity
• Ventura
• Yolo
• Yuba

Population Growth

• California ’s statewide general population growth has been remarkably consistent, increasing at an average of between 12 percent and 13 percent per decade for the past 60 years, and is projected to increase at the same rate during the next 20 years.
• California ’s population has more than tripled since 1940, has more than doubled since 1960, is currently 50 percent greater than 1980, and is projected to double from 1980 levels by 2020.
• California’s at risk youth population ages 12-17 is projected to increase by nearly one-third from 2000 to 2010. Program and treatment opportunities, as well as facility beds in some counties, may not keep pace with the projected growth of California’s population.

Population Expansion Chart

Capacity Expansion

There has been no significant increase in local juvenile facility bed space in over 40 years. Bed space has remained stable, between 10,000 and 11,000 beds, while the state's overall population more than doubled during this time. Many counties are expanding juvenile facility capacity now to meet projected county needs for the next 30-50 years. To date under this funding program, juvenile facility projects in 40 counties are scheduled to add 5,389 beds, eliminate and replace 2,221 outmoded or dilapidated beds, for a net gain of 3,168 beds. Total available juvenile hall and camp beds are estimated to increase from 11,802 in FY 2000 (when the first beds under this funding program were completed) to 14,970 by 2007 (an increase of 27 percent). It is important to note that some counties are planning to add additional beds independent of this funding program using local general funds, special revenues, local bonds, certificates of participation, etc. and, conversely, various counties may eliminate greater than anticipated numbers of outmoded or dilapidated beds or close older units due to operational funding constraints – these factors create difficulty in forecasting local juvenile hall and camp capacities which actually may be more or less than anticipated at the conclusion of this funding program. 

The chart below lists current counties/projects scheduled to add beds under this funding program, and breaks out numbers of juvenile hall and camp beds anticipated to be added and eliminated. Total maximum-security and medium-security juvenile hall capacity to serve both pre-dispositional and post-dispositional minors is estimated to increase from 6,769 in FY 2000 to 9,462 by 2007 (an increase of 40 percent). Total camp capacity (generally minimum-security) to serve post-dispositional minors is estimated to increase from 5,033 in FY 2000 to 5,508 by 2007 (an increase of 9.5 percent).

Capacity Expansion Chart

1/ Del Norte #056-97: CSA paid for only 34 beds.

2/ Placer #063-97: CSA paid for only 15 beds.

3/ Fresno #028-01: CSA paid for only 240 beds. Fresno County will add an additional 240 beds at County expense.

4/ Alameda #047-00: CSA paid for only 330 beds. Alameda County will add an additional 28 beds at County expense.

 

 

 

Note: Counties may add additional beds to local capacities independent of the listed CSA -funded projects/beds. Conversely, counties may eliminate greater then the listed numbers of outmoded or dilapidated beds in future years.