A POLICY ANALYSIS OF THE
CALIFORNIA GANG VIOLENCE
AND JUVENILE CRIME
PREVENTION ACT OF 1998
Beatriz Jimenez
California State University, Long Beach
May 2012
Introduction & Purpose
Gang
violence and crime is a serious and widespread problem
A “trend of ‘get tough’ laws being enacted throughout the nation” in
the 1990s (Cruz, 2002, p. 29) was fueled by the notion that juvenile
crime was growing and the juvenile justice system was too lenient
In 2000, 62% of Californians voted to pass Proposition 21, also
known as the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act.,
which, among other punitive changes, allowed teenagers age 14 or
older to be directly tried in adult court for murder or serious sex
offenses (Bhimji, 2004)
The goal of decreasing juvenile crime does not appear to have been
achieved by the law, and minority youth have been the most adversely
affected
The purpose of this policy analysis was to examine the background
and history of the policy, as well as its effectiveness and short and
long-term impact
Social Work Relevance
Proposition
21 and its effects can have several
implications to the field of social work.
The analysis of this policy can help social workers in
gaining a better understanding regarding the dynamics
of the law and both its direct and indirect impact on
youth, as well as, families, and communities.
Increased understanding of the law and its impact
can help social workers be better equipped to
provide treatment, prevention, or advocacy services.
Literature Review
It
was not until 1899 that a juvenile court was first
established in Chicago, applying the notion of parens patriae or
the notion that the state has the authority and responsibility to
protect children’s well-being (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
The aim of these early entities was to use treatment in order
to rehabilitate delinquents instead of focusing on the
punishment of crimes committed (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
 However, eventually changes to the juvenile justice system
led to a shift towards more punitive means and easier access of
transfers to criminal court.
Drastic increases in serious and violent crimes during the
1970s and then mid 1980s fueled motivation behind legislation
throughout the nation that decreased restrictions on
transferring cases to juvenile court based on the age of
offenders and the severity and type of crime (Fagan,1996).
In the 1990s, policy changes throughout the nation continued
and were even more drastic (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Methods




This policy analysis of Proposition 21 was conducted using
components of David Gil's social policy analysis framework (1992).
The components of the framework that were utilized in this
analysis include a description of the social problem and the key
issues the policy addresses, the objectives, value premises,
theoretical positions and effects of the policy, and implications of
the policy for social structure and the social system.
This study used both primary and secondary sources as data to
analyze Proposition 21.
Primary sources included public and government records
addressing the policy.
Secondary sources consisted of journals, newspapers, and
databases. For example, peer-reviewed journals were utilized, such
as, the Law and Society Review, Law and Human Behavior, Crime
and Delinquency, and the California Law Review. Statistical
information was gathered from sources like California’s Criminal
Justice Statistics Center.
Policy Analysis
Nature, Scope, and Distribution of the Issues
 It was estimated that 28,100 gangs and 731,000 gang
members were found in the United States in 2009 (Egley &
Howell, 2011).
 In 2008, approximately 2.11 million juvenile arrests were
reported (Puzzanchera, 2009).
Causal Theories or Hypothesis Concerning the Issues
 Juveniles are particularly vulnerable to external influences
and factors that increase their likelihood of committing
offenses, including peer, family, and neighborhood influences
(Slobogin & Fondacaro, 2009).
Overt Objectives
 The general overt objective of California’s Proposition 21
was to reduce gang violence and crime committed by youth.
As argued by those in favor of Proposition 21, it was
expected it would “toughen the law to safeguard you and
your family” (Elvey, Trask, & Tefank, 2000, para. 2).
Policy Analysis
Underlying Theories

In the proposition it was argued that the rehabilitative or treatment theories were
initially implemented in juvenile court “at a time when most juvenile crime consisted
of petty offenses [and that the court was] not well-equipped to adequately protect
the public from violent and repeat serious juvenile offenders” (California Secretary
of State, 2000, Findings and Declarations section, para. 9).
Target Segment

The target population directly affected by Proposition 21 is youth age 14 or older
who have committed a serious or violent offense in California, as well as, adults who
have committed a gang-related offense (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2000).
Effects

The short term, intended effect of the policy is that gang members and youth
responsible of violent and serious offenses received harsher punishment, including
being sent to adult prisons (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2000). Although the number
of felony arrests had been decreasing in previous years, after 2000 they continued
to decrease slightly(Brown et al., 2007).

However, there were several unintended effects that resulted from the enactment of
Proposition 21. In fact, by being sent to prisons with adult criminals it was expected
that youth would learn to become “better criminals” (Taylor, 2002, p. 992).
Summary
Findings
Public
concern of the drastic increases in serious and violent crimes beginning in the 1970s fueled
motivation behind legislation throughout the nation that has shifted the system back to a more
punitive one and the state of California has not been the exception (Fagan,1996; Stahlkopf et al.,
2010).
Proposition
21 and other punitive policies were passed despite the likelihood that minority youth
would continue to be the most affected by them, at that time minority youth in California were
already over twice more likely to be sent to adult court than White youth and over eight times
more likely to be sentenced to adult prison (Macallair & Males, 2000).
Proposition
21 was passed despite the fact that abundant research had found that youth who are
sentenced by adult court tend to be more likely to reoffend and return to prison than those who
are kept in juvenile court and sentenced to juvenile facilities (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2000).
Limitations
Lack
of continued research and literature examining the specific effects of the policy from its
enactment to recent time
Does
not appear to be a clear consensus on how to specifically and comprehensively measure the
level of effectiveness of the proposition in decreasing gang violence and juvenile crime
Statistics
specific to gang membership and gang activity in California is not available
REFERENCES
Bhimji, F. (2004). I want you to see us as a person and not as a gang member or a thug. Journal of
Theory and Research, 4(1), 39-58.
Brown, B., Cabral, E., Steenhausen, P., & Carson, D. (2007). California’s criminal justice system: A primer.
Los Angeles, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office: California’s Non-Partisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor.
California Secretary of the State. (2000). Juvenile crime. Initiative statue. Text of Proposition 21.
Retrieved from http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/Propositions/21text.htm
Cruz, J. (2002). Juvenile waiver and the effects of Proposition 21. Law and Society Review, 1, 29-40.
Egley, A., & Howell, C. (2011). Highlights of the 2009 national youth gang survey. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention.
Elvey, M, Trask, G., & Tefank, R. (2000). Juvenile crime. Initiative statue. Argument in favor of Proposition
21. Retrieved from http://primary2000.sos.ca.gov/VoterGuide/ Propositions/21yesarg.htm
Fagan, J. (1996). The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism
among adolescent felony offenders. Law & Policy, 18(1), 77-114.
Gil, D. (1992) Unraveling social policy:Theory, analysis, and political action towards social equality (rev. 5th
ed.). Rochester,VT: Schenkman Books.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2000). Proposition 21. Juvenile crime. Initiative statue. Retrieved from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2000/21_03_2000.html
Macallair, D., & Males, M. (2000). Color of justice: An analyses of juvenile adult court transfers in California.
Washington D.C.: Building Blocks for Youth:Youth Law Center.
Puzzanchera, C. (2009). Juvenile justice bulletin: Juvenile arrests 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention.
Slobogin, C., & Fondacaro, M. R. (2009). Juvenile justice: The fourth option. Iowa Law Review, 95, 1-62.
Stahlkpof, C., Males, M., & Macallair, D. (2010). Testing incapacitation theory:Youth crime incarceration
in California. Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 253-268.