LA County Board

2. Ensuring the Use of Least Restrictive Placements for Young People in the\nProbation Department’s Care and Custody\nRecommendation as submitted by Supervisors Mitchell and Horvath: Instruct the\nInterim Chief Probation Officer, in collaboration with the Public Defender,\nAlternate Public Defender, and the Independent Defender Program, in close\nconsultation, as legally permissible, with the Director of Youth Development,\nExecutive Director of the Probation Oversight Commission, Inspector General,\nCounty Counsel, and other relevant stakeholders, potentially including any\nretained or contract lawyers as needed, and request the participation of the\nDistrict Attorney and the courts, to collaborate on a weekly basis with relevant\nstakeholders to identify young people who are appropriate candidates for safe\nand early release from the Probation Department’s camps and halls, take steps\nthat are necessary to secure their appropriate release and, if the identified\nyouth is not released, confidentially notify the Board and the Inspector General\nin writing of the reason within 10 days of the decision to deny release; instruct\nthe Interim Chief Probation Officer to meet with the above-named stakeholders\nwithin 10 days of the Board's approval of this motion, and report back to the\nBoard in writing in 30 days, and every 15 days thereafter, on such efforts to\nimplement this directive, including, but not be limited to, youth who are:\nIncarcerated on the basis of a technical violation, misdemeanor, or\nnon-707(b) felony;\nYouth awaiting a suitable placement, especially any young person who\nhas waited more than 30 days;\nIncarcerated because they do not have a safe family or home to return\nto;\nWithin 60 days of their release date for those who have received their\ndisposition;\nAble to be safely released into one of the least restrictive options,\nincluding, but not limited to, Pine Grove, Dorothy Kirby Center, the\nCommunity Detention Program, or supportive housing;\nYouth who are performing well in programming; or\nOther groups of young people who may be appropriate for release as\nthey await adjudication or early release after receiving their disposition;\nInstruct the Interim Chief Probation Officer to share timely and complete data\non detained youth with the Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender, and, as\nlegally permissible, with the Director of Youth Development, Executive Director\nof the Probation Oversight Commission, County Counsel, and other relevant\nstakeholders as described in subsequent directives, with the data to be shared\non a weekly basis at minimum , and should include individualized data on\ndemographic characteristics, underlying offense (with data broken down by\ncharge and/or violation), basis of detention, length of stay, release date if\napplicable, participation and performance in programs, and any other\ninformation deemed necessary by the partners developing release or reentry\nplans;\nIn addition to the steps described above, instruct the Public Defender and the\nAlternate Public Defender to provide a release plan for each young person and\ncollaborate with the District Attorney to submit requests for release to the\njuvenile court in all possible cases;\nInstruct the Interim Chief Probation Officer, in collaboration with the Public\nDefender, Alternate Public Defender, County Counsel, and, as legally\npermissible, Director of Youth Development, Executive Director of the Probation\nOversight Commission, Inspector General, and other relevant stakeholders, and\nrequest the participation of the District Attorney and the courts, to report back\nto the Board in writing in 15 days with, and implement, a plan for collaboratively\nand proactively developing reentry plans, including alternative housing and\nsupportive services as needed, for young people who are candidates for early\nrelease from the Probation Department’s camps and halls, to be conducted on\nan ongoing basis at least until the Probation Department achieves full\ncompliance with Titles 15 and 24, when appropriate, these plans should also\nconsider facilitating access to programs that generally support young people in\nreentry, such as vocational skills training, higher education, and life skills\ntraining, and, in addition, the above-named stakeholders should collaboratively\ndevelop these plans regardless of whether the Interim Chief Probation Officer\ncan, or intends to, release a young person in order to proactively prepare for\nan opportunity to secure a young person’s release by order of the court,\nincluding, but not be limited to:\nA structured process and a review committee comprised of, at minimum,\nthe Interim Chief Probation Officer, Public Defender, Alternate Public\nDefender, and the District Attorney;\nCriteria that the committee will use to identify and recommend young\npeople for release;\nAn explanation of how, when relevant, the Probation Department will\ndevelop and make recommendations to the court about what it considers\nto be the most appropriate release option, including why each option is\nconsidered “least restrictive;”\nA plan for the Interim Chief Probation Officer to potentially use her\nauthority under California Government Code Section 8658 to release\nyoung people identified and recommended for release by the relevant\nstakeholders on this committee, including, at minimum, the District\nAttorney and either Public Defender or Alternate Public Defender;\nPolicies and practices that will ensure an individualized release plan for\neach young person is created before their release is recommended and\nordered, with such policies and practices to not be a source of, or used\nas a reason to justify, any delays; and\nPolicies and practices that will ensure all individualized release plans\nmeaningfully address a young person’s needs and strengths , including\nthe menu of services, the process by which a young person will be\nmatched to specific services, and the level, sources, and administrators\nof funding that will be committed to support meaningful release plans;\nInstruct County Counsel, in collaboration with the Interim Chief Probation\nOfficer, Inspector General, and the Executive Director of the Probation\nOversight Commission, to report back to the Board in writing in 20 days with a\nlegal analysis of the Interim Chief Probation Officer’s ability to release young\npeople early, including a description of any relevant authorities she has, and\noptions that require or don’t require a court order, including an assessment of\nhow long it could take to secure a young person’s release under each option,\nwith consideration of the Board’s goal of ensuring a young person is not\nincarcerated for any longer than is absolutely necessary; and\nInstruct the Executive Director of the Probation Oversight Commission, in close\ncollaboration with the Inspector General, and in consultation with the Public\nDefender, Alternate Public Defender, and other relevant stakeholders, to report\nback to the Board in writing in 30 days with any relevant feedback on the\nInterim Chief Probation Officer’s response to the above directives, including\nany comments on the quality of collaboration with the relevant stakeholders, the\nstatus of necessary data sharing to inform collaborative decision-making for\nrelease and reentry planning, the strength of the Interim Chief Probation\nOfficer’s recommendations, an assessment of the steps the Interim Chief\nProbation Officer is taking to achieve the goal of safely depopulating the camps\nand halls as quickly as possible, and any recommendations about priority next\nsteps needed to ensure the County is equitably moving towards the goal of\nsafely depopulating the camps and halls. (23-1066)\nAttachments: Motion by Supervisors Mitchell and Horvath\nPublic Comment/Correspondence