A COUNTY-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF PROSECUTORIAL DIRECT FILE IN CALIFORNIA AND ITS DISPARATE IMPACT ON YOUTH OF COLOR

THE PROSECUTION OF

YOUTH AS ADULTS

Laura Ridolfi W. Haywood Burns InstituteMaureen Washburn Center on Juvenile and Criminal JusticeFrankie Guzman National Center for Youth Law

1 | P a g e

Introduction

Background

“(T)ransfer of juveniles to adult court should be rare and

only after a very thoroughly considered process.” National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

2 | P a g e

Figure 1: Pathways to Adult Prosecution, 2014

3 | P a g e

Data Analysis and Limitations

4 | P a g e

Statewide Trends in Direct File

Figure 2: The Percentage of Youth Transferred to the Criminal System Due to Direct File or a

Judicial Transfer Hearing, 2003-2014

50%53% 52%

71%

64%

72%69%

73% 75%81%

84%80%

50%47% 48%

29%

36%

28%31%

27% 25%19%

16%20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Percentage Prosecutorial Direct File Percentage Judicial Transfer

Source: DOJ, 2014c

Takeaway

A growing share of

youth prosecuted in

the adult system

arrive as a result of

direct file rather

than a judicial

transfer hearing.

5 | P a g e

Figure 3. One-Day Snapshot5 of Youth Tried as Adults and Detained in Juvenile Halls, 2003-

2014

County-Level Variations in the Use of Direct File

125

53

138

428

299

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Transfer Hearing ADP Direct File ADPSource: BSCC, 2014

Takeaway

Since 2003, a

greater number of

youth are being

held in juvenile halls

during criminal

proceedings despite

declines in the

number of youth

held for judicial

transfer hearings.

6 | P a g e

Figure 4. Direct File Cases Compared to Judicial Transfer Hearings by County, 2014

Note: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Lake, Lassen,

Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity,

Tuolumne, and Yolo counties reported no direct file or transfer hearings in 2014.

72% (n=474)

61% (n=14)

71% (n=5)

100% (n=11)

56% (n=19)

57% (n=13)

68% (n=23)

24% (n=18)

100% (n=7)

100% (n=2)

50% (n=1)

29% (n=6)

67% (n=6)

70% (n=7)

75% (n=3)

82% (n=27)

100% (n=1)

42% (n=23)

100% (n=49)

97% (n=63)

100% (n=14)

100% (n=37)

89% (n=8)

88% (n=35)

100% (n=2)

100% (n=2)

88% (n=7)

100% (n=7)

100% (n=5)

100% (n=6)

100% (n=21)

100% (n=19)

87% (n=13)

28% (n=183)

39% (n=9)

29% (n=2)

44% (n=15)

43% (n=10)

32% (n=11)

76% (n=57)

50% (n=1)

71% (n=15)

33% (n=3)

30% (n=3)

25% (n=1)

18% (n=6)

58% (n=32)

100% (n=5)

100% (n=2)

11% (n=1)

12% (n=5)

12% (n=1)

13% (n=2)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

State of California

Alameda

Butte

Contra Costa

Fresno

Kern

Kings

Los Angeles

Madera

Marin

Mendocino

Merced

Monterey

Napa

Nevada

Orange

Placer

Riverside

Sacramento

San Benito

San Bernardino

San Diego

San Joaquin

San Luis Obispo

Santa Barbara

Santa Clara

Santa Cruz

Shasta

Solano

Sonoma

Stanislaus

Sutter

Tulare

Ventura

Yuba

Percentage Direct File Percentage Transfer Hearing

Takeaway

Counties vary in their reliance on direct file, with most reporting a greater number of direct

file cases than judicial transfer hearings.

Source: DOJ, 2014b

7 | P a g e

Figure 5. Direct File Rate by County (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014

Source: DOJ, 2014b

Note: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Lake, Lassen,

Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Sierra, Siskiyou,

Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, and Yolo counties reported no direct file cases in 2014.

309.8

265.7

104.0

93.9

81.32

73.9

67.8

66.0

61.1

48.2

47.1

39.6

38.0

37.0

33.9

31.7

30.6

29.1

25.8

23.5

23.1

22.9

21.9

19.1

17.9

16.8

16.2

15.9

15.8

15.1

8.8

4.8

3.4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Yuba (n=13)

Kings (n=23)

Sutter (n=6)

Napa (n=7)

San Joaquin (n=42)

Madera (n=7)

Tulare (n=21)

Nevada (n=3)

Sacramento (n=49)

Butte (n=5)

San Bernardino (n=63)

Ventura (n=19)

Santa Clara (n=35)

Santa Barbara (n=8)

Merced (n=6)

Fresno (n=19)

Solano (n=7)

Sonoma (n=7)

Monterey (n=6)

Kern (n=13)

Mendocino (n=1)

State of California (n=474)

Shasta (n=2)

Alameda (n=14)

Contra Costa (n=11)

Marin (n=2)

Santa Cruz (n=2)

Orange (n=27)

Riverside (n=23)

Stanislaus (n=5)

San Diego (n=14)

Placer (n=1)

Los Angeles (n=18)

Takeaway

Statewide, there were

approximately 23 cases of direct file

for every 100,000 youth ages 14-17

in 2014. County rates of direct file

varied substantially, from 0 to 310

cases per 100,000 youth.

8 | P a g e

Figure 6. Direct File Rate by County (per 1,000 serious felony arrests for ages 10-17), 2014

Source: DOJ, 2014b; DOJ 2014a

Note: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Lake, Lassen,

Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Sierra, Siskiyou,

Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo reported no direct file cases in 2014.

541.7

252.7

200.0

157.9

157.9

122.2

119.3

111.1

108.5

102.0

90.5

75.8

67.3

65.6

55.6

52.3

50.7

48.8

48.4

47.6

44.8

43.2

42.9

40.8

40.0

37.8

35.7

29.2

25.4

24.1

17.4

16.1

6.6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Yuba (n=13)

Kings (n=23)

Napa (n=7)

Nevada (n=3)

Sutter (n=6)

Sacramento (n=49)

Tulare (n=21)

Madera (n=7)

San Joaquin (n=37)

Butte (n=5)

Ventura (n=19)

Santa Clara (n=35)

San Bernardino (n=63)

Santa Barbara (n=8)

Kern (n=13)

Fresno (n=19)

Sonoma (n=7)

Shasta (n=2)

Riverside (n=23)

Merced (n=6)

Statewide (n=474)

Solano (n=7)

Orange (n=27)

Monterey (n=6)

Mendocino (n=1)

Contra Costa (n=11)

Marin (n=2)

Alameda (n=14)

Stanislaus (n=5)

Santa Cruz (n=2)

San Diego (n=14)

Placer (n=1)

Los Angeles (n=18)

Takeaway

Statewide, there were

approximately 45 cases of direct file

for every 1,000 serious juvenile

felony arrests, but county rates of

direct file varied substantially, from

0 to 542 cases per 1,000 arrests.

9 | P a g e

Figure 7. Percentage of Direct File Cases Involving 14- or 15-year-olds, 2010-2014

4%

13%

2%

8%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

14-years-old

15-years-old

Fewer than 50 direct files per 100,000 youth population

More than 50 direct files per 100,000 youth population

Takeaway

Counties with more

than 50 cases of direct

file per 100,000 youth

directly filed a greater

share of 14- and 15-

year-olds than counties

with lower rates of

direct file.

Source: DOJ, 2014b

10 | P a g e

Direct File and Rates of Youth Arrest

Figure 8. Serious Felony Arrests and Direct File by County (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 20146

279

523

329

239

379

336

281

221

251

238

359

224

244

288

354

303

359

290

310

212

296

259

230

323

238

224

342

190

167

301

256

150

263

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Yuba

Kings

Sutter

Napa

San Joaquin

Madera

Tulare

Nevada

Sacramento

Butte

San Bernardino

Ventura

Santa Clara

Santa Barbara

Merced

Fresno

Solano

Sonoma

Monterey

Kern

Mendocino

Statewide

Shasta

Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin

Santa Cruz

Orange

Riverside

Stanislaus

San Diego

Placer

Los Angeles

Arrests (per youth 10-17)

Direct Files (per youth 14-17)

Takeaway

County reliance on

direct file is not

correlated with

relevant youth arrest

rates.

Source: DOJ, 2014a; DOJ, 2014b

11 | P a g e

Direct File and Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Figure 9: Rate of Direct File by Race and Ethnicity (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2003-2014

10 8

46

91

24 26

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

White Black Latino

Takeaway

Racial and ethnic disparities in direct file prosecutions have grown since 2003. While the rate of

direct file is decreasing for White youth, it has increased for Black and Latino youth.

Source: DOJ 2014c

12 | P a g e

Figure 10: Disparity Gap in the Rates of Direct File, 2003-2014

Source: DOJ 2014c

Takeaway

For every White youth directly filed in 2003, there were 2.4 Latino youth and 4.5 Black youth. In

2014, 3.3 Latino youth and 11.3 Black youth were directly filed for every White youth.

13 | P a g e

Figure 11. Rates of Direct File for White and Black Youth (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014

Figure 12. Disparity Gap for White and Black Youth (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014

30

41

136

44

15

33

19

13

8

8

8

5

13

5

14

200

98

81

10

3

629

617

458

433

376

372

275

244

236

229

220

182

180

157

149

118

98

91

85

61

61

38

25

6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Butte

Sutter

Kings

Madera

Tulare

Shasta

San Joaquin

Sacramento

Fresno

San Bernardino

Santa Barbara

Monterey

Placer

Sonoma

Santa Clara

Alameda

Contra Costa

State of California

Stanislaus

San Diego

Kern

Riverside

Solano

Los Angeles

Yuba

Napa

Nevada

Ventura

OrangeWhite Black

Takeaway

In nearly all California counties

that direct filed youth in 2014,

Black youth were far more likely

than White youth to be direct filed.

In these counties, Black youth

were two to 25 times more likely

to be direct filed than White youth,

with nine counties direct filing

Black youth but no White youth.

25

2120

1715

13 12 12 11

8 8 8

53

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Tim

es

Mo

re L

ike

ly t

ha

n W

hit

e

Black youth were directly filed in

these nine counties but no White

youth were, so the disparity gap

cannot be calculated. This

suggests extreme disparity in the

use of direct file.

Source: DOJ, 2014b

14 | P a g e

Figure 13. Rates of Direct File for White and Latino Youth (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014

Figure 14. Disparity Gap for White and Latino Youth (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014

200

136

98

8

33

44

10

14

41

19

13

3

8

13

5

5

8

30

81

514

323

114

92

86

85

84

71

70

65

63

62

54

50

46

38

35

34

33

30

30

26

24

22

17

9

6

5

5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Yuba

Kings

Napa

Madera

Santa Clara

San Joaquin

Marin

Tulare

Ventura

Sonoma

Solano

Mendocino

Santa Barbara

Merced

Sutter

Sacramento

Santa Cruz

San Bernardino

Orange

Monterey

Fresno

State of California

Kern

Stanislaus

Riverside

Alameda

San Diego

Contra Costa

Los Angeles

Butte

Nevada White Latino

Takeaway

In nearly all California counties

that direct filed youth in 2014,

Latino youth were more likely

than White youth to be direct

filed. In these counties, Latino

youth were up to 11 times more

likely to be direct filed than White

youth, with 12 counties direct

filing Latino youth but no White

youth.

11

10

7

53 3

3 3 2 2 2 2 21 1 1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Ala

me

da

Fre

sno

Lo

s A

ng

ele

s

Ma

de

ra

Ma

rin

Me

nd

oci

no

Me

rce

d

Mo

nte

rey

Sa

nta

Ba

rba

ra

Sa

nta

Cru

z

So

no

ma

Sta

nis

lau

s

Sa

nta

Cla

ra

Ora

ng

e

Ve

ntu

ra

So

lan

o

Riv

ers

ide

Sta

te o

f C

alifo

rnia

Yu

ba

Sa

n Jo

aq

uin

Sa

n B

ern

ard

ino

Kin

gs

Sa

cra

me

nto

Ke

rn

Tu

lare

Na

pa

Su

tte

r

Sa

n D

ieg

o

El D

ora

doTim

es

Mo

re L

ike

ly t

ha

n W

hit

e

Latino youth were directly filed in

these 12 counties but no White youth

were, so the disparity gap cannot be

calculated. This suggests extreme

disparity in the use of direct file.

Source: DOJ, 2014b

15 | P a g e

Conclusion

.

16 | P a g e

References

17 | P a g e

18 | P a g e

Appendix 1. Trends in Judicial Transfer Hearing Outcomes, 2003- 2014

Number of Judicial Transfer Hearings Resulting in a Transfer to Criminal Court, 2003-2014

Source: DOJ, 2014c

Percentage of Judicial Transfer Hearings Resulting in a Transfer to Criminal Court, 2003-2014

Source: DOJ, 2014c

Year Hearings Transfers No Transfers % Transfer % No Transfer

2003 586 404 182 69% 31%

2004 360 252 108 70% 30%

2005 431 318 113 74% 26%

2006 374 263 111 70% 30%

2007 510 401 109 79% 21%

2008 525 332 193 63% 37%

2009 488 346 142 71% 29%

2010 321 260 61 81% 19%

2011 304 227 77 75% 25%

2012 191 146 45 76% 24%

2013 192 122 70 64% 36%

2014 183 122 61 67% 33%

Average 372 266 106 72% 28%

69%

70%

74%

70%

79%

63%

71%

81%

75%

76%

64%

67%

31%

30%

26%

30%

21%

37%

29%

19%

25%

24%

36%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2003 (n=586)

2004 (n=360)

2005 (n=431)

2006 (n=374)

2007 (n=510)

2008 (n=525)

2009 (n=488)

2010 (n=321)

2011 (n=304)

2012 (n=191)

2013 (n=192)

2014 (n=183)

Unfit FitNo Transfer Transfer

19 | P a g e

Appendix 2. The Demographics of Direct File Youth, 2010-2014

Number of Youth Percentage of Youth

Gender Male 2998 96%

Female 125 4%

Race and Ethnicity Latino 1858 58%

Black 810 27%

White 284 10%

Asian/Pacific Islander 152 4%

American Indian 2 0%

Unknown 17 1%

Age 14-Years-Old 86 3%

15-Years-Old 292 9%

16-Years-Old 855 27%

17-Years-Old 1690 54%

Over 18 200 6%

Source: DOJ, 2014b

CENTER ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE40 Boardman PlaceSan Francisco, CA 94103www.cjcj.orgmaureen@cjcj.org

NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW405 14th St, 15th FloorOakland, CA 94612www.youthlaw.orgfguzman@youthlaw.org

W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE475 14th Street, Suite 800Oakland, CA 94612www.burnsinstitute.orglridolfi@burnsinstitute.org

About the Authors Frankie Guzman is a juvenile justice attorney at the National Center for Youth Law working to reduce the practice of prosecuting and incarcerating children in California’s adult criminal justice system. Laura Ridolfi is the Director of Policy at the W. Haywood Burns Institute. Laura works with jurisdictions across the country to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. Maureen Washburn is the Policy Analyst the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice where she supports the organization’s mission of reducing society’s reliance on incarceration as a solution to social problems by conducting research and engaging in legislative advocacy.