SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Families who have lost loved ones to violence involving teenagers joined prosecutors, sheriffs, police chiefs and probation officials Tuesday to demand changes to California’s juvenile justice system, arguing that reforms enacted under Gov. Gavin Newsom have weakened accountability and endangered communities.
But while the families described devastating losses and frustrations with the courts, their broader claims about a statewide juvenile crime crisis are challenged by California’s own crime statistics, which show juvenile arrests declined in 2025 and remain substantially below pre-pandemic levels.
The Nov. 10 press conference, organized by Victims of Juvenile Crime, brought together grieving parents and relatives from across California, including families from Clovis, Hanford, Victorville, Tulare County and Solano County.
In a press release issued following the event, organizers asserted that policy and funding decisions made during Newsom’s administration had contributed to increases in juvenile violent crime and murders while leaving probation and public safety professionals without sufficient resources to address serious and repeat offenses.
The coalition called for changes to laws governing juvenile detention, transfers to adult criminal court, rehabilitation programs and release decisions.
Their concerns reflect a broader campaign by law enforcement organizations that have opposed several of California’s juvenile justice reforms.
However, as the Vanguard reported Oct. 2 in an examination of similar claims by the Chief Probation Officers of California, the state’s juvenile crime trends are considerably more complicated than the warnings issued by law enforcement officials suggest.
According to the California Department of Justice’s 2025 criminal justice statistics, juvenile arrests declined 7%, from 32,874 in 2024 to 30,568 in 2025.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office also reported that juvenile felony and non-felony arrest rates declined approximately 7% between 2024 and 2025, remained below pre-pandemic levels and were dramatically lower than their historical peaks.
The 2025 juvenile felony arrest rate was 77% below its 2007 peak, while the non-felony arrest rate was 90% below its peak that year, according to the LAO.
Those figures do not diminish the seriousness of individual violent crimes or establish that every category of juvenile offending is declining. They do, however, complicate the claim that California is experiencing a generalized surge in juvenile crime.
A separate analysis published Oct. 14 by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found that California’s juvenile violent felony arrest rate in 2025 was the fourth lowest since the state began collecting comparable statistics in 1957.
The report, authored by senior research fellow Mike Males, found that the 2025 rate was 49% below its 2010 level and 72% below its 1990 level.
At Tuesday’s press conference, Modoc County District Attorney Nina Salarno, a board member of Crime Victims United of California who moderated the event, cited increases in juvenile homicide arrests, violent felony arrests and adjudications for serious offenses.
“Juvenile homicide arrests rose more than 80% from 2019 to 2024,” Salarno said. “Violent felony arrests are up nearly 60% since the state of California closed its division of juvenile justice.”
The homicide figure reflects a substantial increase in a particularly serious category of offending. But the broader statistics cited by Salarno omit important context about the unusual decline in arrests during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent rebound.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office reported that juvenile felony arrests increased 60% between 2021 and 2025, but noted that 2021 represented an extraordinary low point following years of declining arrests.
The agency cautioned that changes in mobility, law enforcement practices and other pandemic-related conditions may have contributed to both the earlier decline and subsequent increase.
“There is no consensus among researchers as to why juvenile arrest rates consistently declined between 2007 and 2021,” the LAO reported.
The chronology of California’s juvenile justice reforms also complicates attempts to attribute those increases to the closure of the state Division of Juvenile Justice.
Newsom signed legislation in 2020 transferring responsibility for young people previously eligible for state juvenile facilities to county systems. The division stopped accepting most new commitments in 2021 but did not formally close until June 30, 2023.
As the Vanguard reported in October, describing increases beginning in 2021 as occurring after the closure of the state system conflates the beginning of realignment with the actual closure of the facilities.
The available statistics also do not establish that the policy changes caused increases in juvenile violence.
For families participating in Tuesday’s press conference, however, the debate is deeply personal.
Stephen Quick of Clovis described the killing of his 18-year-old son, Caleb Quick, on April 23, 2025, outside a McDonald’s restaurant.
Quick said his son was preparing to graduate from high school and pursue a career in the Air Force.
“His dream was to become a pilot,” Quick said during the press conference.
He described how the killing devastated his family and led him to connect with other families who had experienced similar losses.
Quick said the group has grown to nearly 50 families across California.
In the written press release, Quick questioned whether lawmakers had adequately considered the public safety consequences of juvenile justice reforms.
“My son was killed and my family will live with that loss for the rest of our lives,” Quick said. “When California’s juvenile justice policies were changed, did anyone stop to ask whether those changes would make it harder to prevent the next violent crime?”
Quick said the families wanted lawmakers to work with victims and public safety professionals to prevent similar tragedies.
“We cannot undo what happened to my son, but we can make sure public safety and victims’ voices matter,” he said.
Julia Sanchez of Hanford described the killing of her son, Lorenzo Sanchez, who she said was shot while walking away from an altercation.
Maria Gill, who also goes by Lola, described the death of her 14-year-old son, Jeremy Rosales, who she said was robbed and shot by a 16-year-old he believed was his friend.
Rosie Rodriguez of Tulare County described the killing of her brother, Pablo Rodriguez, a 40-year-old man with disabilities who she said was attacked by three people, including a minor.
Rodriguez said the minor had already been sentenced, while proceedings involving the adults continued.
Other family members described repeated court appearances, delayed proceedings and frustration with what they perceived as greater concern for the rehabilitation of the young people responsible than for the suffering of victims.
Susan Grote, whose family experienced a quadruple homicide, described nearly three years of court proceedings without a completed transfer hearing.
She said families repeatedly relive their trauma while waiting for cases to move forward.
The accounts raise questions not only about punishment and rehabilitation, but also about the treatment of victims’ families within California’s juvenile justice system.
Many of those concerns — including court delays, communication with families and meaningful participation in proceedings — are separate from the question of whether longer incarceration would reduce juvenile violence.
The coalition’s press release identified four areas requiring attention: accountability for serious violent offenses, detention and release decisions involving repeat offenders, sufficient time for treatment and supervision, and protections allowing victims and their families to participate meaningfully in court proceedings.
“How many more innocent people have to become victims before California acknowledges that something in our juvenile justice system is not working?” Salarno asked in the written release.
“Rehabilitation is essential, but releasing someone before they are ready can have devastating consequences,” she added.
Monterey County District Attorney Jeannine M. Pacioni, president of the California District Attorneys Association, argued that California has made it increasingly difficult to prosecute young people accused of serious crimes in adult court.
“Prosecutors support rehabilitation and second chances,” Pacioni said during the press conference. “I know firsthand the importance of rehabilitation, but rehabilitation cannot come by ignoring victim’s rights or public safety.”
She pointed to Proposition 57, approved by voters in 2016, which eliminated prosecutors’ authority to file juvenile cases directly in adult court, requiring judicial approval for transfers.
She also criticized legislation enacted in 2018 that generally prevented transferring 14- and 15-year-olds to adult court, and subsequent changes requiring prosecutors to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a transfer is appropriate.
Under California law, judges must consider statutory criteria governing transfer decisions, including the young person’s maturity, prior delinquent history, circumstances of the alleged offense and potential for rehabilitation.
The changes reflect a shift in California’s approach to juvenile justice, placing greater responsibility on judges to determine whether young people should be prosecuted as adults.
Pacioni argued that the higher burden makes transfers exceptionally difficult, although the existence of a more demanding legal standard does not itself establish that young people are being released without accountability.
The California Department of Justice reported that 95 juvenile cases were processed in adult court in 2025, demonstrating that transfers remain possible under existing law.
In the written release, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, identified as president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, called for greater authority to assess the risks posed by young people responsible for serious violence.
“There must be meaningful consequences for violent behavior, regardless of age,” Bianco said. “The justice system must have the authority, resources, and time necessary to properly assess the threat an individual poses before they are allowed to return to the community.”
Bianco did not deliver those remarks during the press conference. Sutter County Sheriff Brandon Barnes, the association’s immediate past president, spoke at the event.
Barnes emphasized the importance of hearing directly from victims and providing sufficient time for rehabilitation.
“Sometimes it’s not about how much time you spend incarcerated, it’s about what you do with that time,” Barnes said.
Tustin Police Chief Sean Thuilliez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, criticized the state’s approach, particularly the closure of state juvenile facilities and the transfer of responsibility to counties.
“We’ve closed state juvenile facilities and we’ve shifted that responsibility mostly to counties where even our most serious violent offenders are housed,” Thuilliez said.
He argued that California has created pathways into less restrictive settings without consistent statewide safety standards.
Thuilliez also criticized SB 1009, legislation signed by Newsom in September that requires courts to consider less restrictive alternatives before ordering juvenile detention.
But the legislation does not prohibit detention of young people accused of serious violent offenses.
As the Vanguard explained in its Oct. 2 reporting, courts retain authority to order detention when statutory conditions are met, including circumstances involving an immediate and urgent danger to the young person or others.
The legislation requires courts to determine whether less restrictive alternatives are unsuitable, rather than automatically imposing detention based on the seriousness of an allegation.
Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, the bill’s author, argued that detention should be reserved for circumstances in which it is necessary for public safety.
“California has long recognized that detention should be the exception, not the rule,” Becker said when the measure advanced through the Senate Public Safety Committee.
The competing positions reflect a central disagreement over juvenile justice policy: whether public safety is better served by broader detention authority or by requiring individualized findings before removing young people from their communities.
Stanislaus County Chief Probation Officer Mark Ferriera focused on the amount of time available for rehabilitation.
“You cannot rush rehabilitation and release should be based on readiness, not simply a timeline established in law,” Ferriera said during the press conference.
He criticized legislation limiting the length of juvenile probation, arguing that probation officers need more time to supervise and rehabilitate young people with complex needs.
“Successful rehabilitation takes more than good intentions,” Ferriera said in the written release. “It requires evidence-based treatment, consistent supervision, accountability, and sufficient time to make meaningful progress.”
But as the Vanguard previously reported, California’s probation legislation does not impose an absolute one-year limit in every case.
The law establishes a 12-month baseline for covered cases while allowing courts to extend supervision when statutory requirements are satisfied.
That difference is significant because the law preserves judicial authority to extend probation when the circumstances warrant it.
The debate also raises a question not resolved by the press conference: whether longer periods of supervision or confinement necessarily produce better rehabilitative outcomes.
Speakers repeatedly asserted that young people were being released before rehabilitation was complete, but the presentation did not provide comparative recidivism data demonstrating that longer confinement would reduce subsequent violent offending.
Nor did the speakers present an analysis comparing outcomes among young people receiving treatment in county facilities with those previously committed to the state Division of Juvenile Justice.
Those questions are especially relevant because the state shifted responsibility for its most serious juvenile cases to counties, requiring local governments to develop secure treatment facilities and rehabilitative programs.
The Office of Youth and Community Restoration has documented increases in adjudications for serious offenses following the pandemic, but the statewide figures also reveal considerable geographic variation.
As the Vanguard reported Oct. 2, adjudications involving offenses listed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b) increased from 1,459 in fiscal year 2021-22 to 3,216 in 2023-24.
That represented an increase of approximately 120%, a figure cited by the press conference organizers.
But Los Angeles County accounted for a disproportionate share of the increase, with adjudications rising from 224 to 1,290.
Across the remaining 57 counties, adjudications increased approximately 56%, a substantial rise but considerably smaller than the statewide percentage.
The figures confirm that some categories of serious juvenile offending have increased, even as overall juvenile arrests remain historically low.
They also illustrate the difficulty of drawing statewide conclusions from statistics heavily influenced by conditions in a single county.
The broader historical trend is unmistakable.
California juvenile arrest rates fell dramatically over the past two decades, reaching historically low levels even before the pandemic.
That decline occurred during a period in which California increasingly moved away from incarceration and toward community-based approaches to juvenile justice. The overlapping trends do not, by themselves, establish that those reforms caused the reduction in arrests.
The victims and law enforcement officials participating in Tuesday’s press conference nevertheless argued that California must reconsider its approach.
Quick called for more clearly defined rehabilitative milestones and questioned whether young people should be released before their treatment needs have been adequately addressed.
His comments also reflected frustration with the pace of court proceedings and the difficulties families face in obtaining information about cases involving minors.
The families’ accounts raise issues that extend beyond the debate over detention and sentencing, including the need for timely court proceedings, meaningful victim participation and reliable communication with relatives of people killed in violent crimes.
Those concerns do not depend on proving that juvenile crime is increasing statewide.
At the same time, the statistical record presents a challenge to the central argument advanced by the law enforcement organizations.
California has experienced increases in certain categories of serious juvenile offending, including homicide arrests and adjudications for violent offenses. But overall juvenile arrests declined in 2025, remain below pre-pandemic levels and are dramatically lower than two decades ago.
Neither the press conference nor the available statewide statistics establish that the closure of the Division of Juvenile Justice, restrictions on adult-court transfers or limitations on detention caused the increases cited by the speakers.
The families are seeking changes to a system they believe failed their loved ones. Whether the proposed changes would prevent similar tragedies remains a question requiring evidence beyond the individual cases presented Tuesday.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
