Examining Policy Implementation As a Political Process: California’s Division of Juvenile Justice Realignment and the Battle over Authority to Shape Youth Incarceration Reform

Introduction:

With mounting evidence that incarceration harms youth and fails to protect public safety, many states are shuttering their youth prisons. Yet, little is known about the complex process of closing prisons, or the logistical and political challenges of decarceration and developing alternatives. This study examines the implementation of California Senate Bill 823 (SB823, 2020), which closed the state’s youth prison system and “realigned”, or transferred responsibility for youth with violent convictions to its 58 counties. It explores jurisdictional issues and struggles to control the transition from state youth prisons to a decentralized model of custody and care. Guided by strategic action field theory, it uses the case of SB823 to advance knowledge on the politics and process of prison closures, and strengthen the implementation of policies to develop more humane and effective approaches to public safety.

Methodology:

Implementation of SB823 was examined at multiple levels and over time using a case study design. Approximately 150 archival documents were collected to explore the context, official implementation decisions, and public narratives of SB823. Primary interviews were conducted with 23 juvenile justice and public safety officials, advocates, and lobbyists involved in implementation. Interviews triangulated archival findings and probed implementation tensions, decisions, and alternative perspectives. Data were analyzed using process tracing, a method for developing causal explanations of case study outcomes. Archival and interview data were compared and evaluated to reconstruct the sequence of implementation events, identify processes explaining how and why implementation unfolded, and rule out alternative explanations of implementation.

Results:

The process of implementing SB823 was characterized by battles between two coalitions: youth justice advocates and probation actors (i.e., the statewide probation lobby, county probation chiefs, and unions). Translating SB823 into practice involved conflicts and negotiations over authority to allocate funds from closed state prisons, the appropriate level of state oversight and county discretion, and which agencies (e.g., law enforcement, county social service, or community-based organizations) should be responsible for youth realigned to counties. Whereas advocates sought greater oversight and community leadership to implement the least restrictive approach, the probation coalition sought to protect the discretion of county probation departments to ensure they could create efficient and secure local alternatives, and limit their costs and liability. These implementation battles played out through litigation, subsequent legislation, budgeting, media campaigns, and regulatory processes. Political conflicts during implementation exacerbated multi-agency coordination difficulties and resource constraints, explaining how a patchwork of punitive and rehabilitative local practices and facilities developed in the wake of state youth prison closures.

Conclusions and Implications:

Results advance new knowledge on criminal justice policy implementation as a political process, and the unintended consequences of closing state youth prisons and decentralizing youth custody and care. Findings illuminate conflict over authority as a key explanation of implementation, and the challenges of negotiating and coordinating implementation across the state and local levels, and between law enforcement and social service or community organizations. Implications for future policy design and strategic organizing are discussed to support the transition towards research-backed community-based alternatives to state youth prisons.