File #: 21-0839    Version: 1
Type: Agenda Item Status: Approved
File created: 5/10/2021 In control: Board of Supervisors
On agenda: 5/18/2021 Final action: 5/18/2021
Title: Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Probation Officer recommending the Board receive an update relative to the implementation of Senate Bill 823 - Juvenile Justice Realignment: Office of Youth and Community Restoration. FUNDING: Department of Juvenile Justice Realignment Funds.
Attachments: 1. A - DJJ REALIGNMENT PRESO.pdf, 2. Public Comment Rcvd 5-18-2021 BOS 5-18-2021, 3. Public Comment BOS Rcvd 5-17-21
Related files: 21-1028

Title

Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Probation Officer recommending the Board receive an update relative to the implementation of Senate Bill 823 - Juvenile Justice Realignment: Office of Youth and Community Restoration.

 

FUNDING:  Department of Juvenile Justice Realignment Funds.

Body

DISCUSSION / BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2020, the Governor signed Senate Bill 823 which directs the closure of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation effective July 1, 2023 and the closure of intake for new cases as of July 1, 2021. As a result, this legislation shifts the responsibility of detention, programming and treatment to county governments and providing annual funding to fulfill this new responsibility.  The intent of this legislation is to create an opportunity for county probation departments to create a local response for youth who would otherwise be ordered by the Court to DJJ, including those requiring secure rehabilitation programming that meets the specific and individualized needs of youth.

 

To operationalize the delivery of secure track services the Governor has recently signed SB 92, Juvenile Justice.  SB 92 provides structure to courts and counties as to the manner in which secure track services may be offered.  In spite of these legislative advances there continues to be uncertainty regarding funding for programming and services, as well as program implementation.  In addition, there is insufficient time to implement a full scope of services to replace those being lost with the closure of DJJ. 

 

Relative to funding, what is known is that each County is currently eligible for at least two, and possibly three, funding streams with which to provide services locally.  The first is a direct allocation of formula-based realignment funding.  For El Dorado County the first year (FY 21-22) allocation is $250,000, which represents the base minimum.  In year two, the amount grows to $404,000 and in year three tops out $669,000.  The second allocation of funding will come in the form of a non-competitive grant awarded through the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC).  The BSCC will allocate a pro-rata share of $5.6 million to each County who submits an application for funding.  El Dorado County will receive approximately $45,000. 

 

Finally, the State, through the BSCC will award up to four grants in the amount of $1 million to counties planning to operate a regional facility.  Funds are to be used to allow for infrastructure upgrades so that appropriate programming and treatment space is available for long term detention and treatment.  If El Dorado County chooses not to apply for a grant, for all practical purposes this would limit the County’s ability to provide for treatment services to local youth through the delivery of a regional program.  The current Juvenile Treatment Center infrastructure is not well suited for programming and long-term treatment services.  If the County, through the Probation Department, applies for the grant, it will preserve the County’s ability to consider providing regional services in the Juvenile Treatment Center.  As a reminder, in accordance with Board Policy A-6, the Chief Probation Officer is authorized to apply for the grant.  Approval of the grant request would then trigger an opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to consider accepting the grant award and proceed with improvements at the Juvenile Treatment Center, or decline the grant award and make the determination that El Dorado County is not interested in serving as a regional facility for this purpose.

 

The following are additional thoughts for consideration by the Board:

 

1)                     If the County opens a regional facility in the existing Juvenile Treatment Center in South Lake Tahoe, the facility will continue to be operated as a detention facility and will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Federal funding that was used to build the facility. As a result, the County will no longer be required to ‘buy-out’ the facility from the Department of Justice, potentially saving approximately $4.2 million.

2)                     The State has committed to providing sufficient funding to cover the costs of regional services to counties who choose to implement such a program. However, due to State revenue fluctuations, funding for programs that have been realigned from the State to counties is not always sufficient and service levels must be adjusted.

3)                     In recent history, El Dorado County has had approximately three youth committed to a DJJ facility at one time.  Considering this low number, is the Board interested in operating a regional facility where the County would be providing services to youth from the Northern California region?

4)                     Between 60-70% of youth committed to DJJ have been so committed as a result of a sexually-based offense.

5)                     Recruiting and retaining well-qualified staff in South Lake Tahoe is an ongoing challenge, especially for female staff positions.

 

ALTERNATIVES

There are not alternatives available as this is an informational presentation only. 

 

PRIOR BOARD ACTION

N/A

 

OTHER DEPARTMENT / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

N/A

 

CAO RECOMMENDATION / COMMENTS

The Board should receive the update, ask questions of staff and direct staff to return to the Board for further discussion at the appropriate time when additional information is available. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The totality of fiscal impacts are currently unknown.  Largely, the County will be impacted based on the number of youth ordered by the Court to a secure track of treatment, which must be either provided by or secured through the Probation Department. 

 

CLERK OF THE BOARD FOLLOW UP ACTIONS

N/A

 

STRATEGIC PLAN COMPONENT

Healthy Communities and Good Governance

 

CONTACT

Brian Richart, Chief Probation Officer

Don Ashton, Chief Administrative Officer