LA County Board

6. Care First, Jails Last: Holding the Probation Department Accountable and\nAdvancing Youth Justice Reimagined\nRecommendation as submitted by Supervisors Horvath and Mitchell: Reaffirm\nthe Board’s intent to transition away from a carceral juvenile system and advise\nthe Chief Executive Officer to prepare a proposed budget for the Probation\nDepartment in Budget Year 2023-24 that reflects the Board’s intent by avoiding,\nto the extent feasible, new investments in juvenile probation which are not\ndirectly for the benefit of young people in the care of the Probation Department;\ninstruct the Director of Youth Development to take the lead role in establishing\nprograms and services for justice system-impacted youth in the halls and\ncamps, within the confines of existing legal restrictions , and in partnership with\nthe Interim Chief Probation Officer , and, in consultation with the Chief Executive\nOfficer, County Counsel, and other relevant County Departments , report back to\nthe Board in writing in 90 days with:\nAn analysis of opportunities for the Department of Youth Development to\nleverage existing contracts, programs, or relationships with\ncommunity-based organizations to fulfill this directive;\nRecommendations on how the contracting process can be improved to\nallow for smaller community-based organizations to contract with the\nProbation Department; and\nRecommendations to improve the current process to allow clearance for\ncommunity-based organizations to provide programming in the halls and\ncamps;\nDirect the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Interim Chief\nProbation Officer and County Counsel, to report back to the Board in writing, in\n90 days with the following:\nA completed Probation Department staffing analysis;\nA list of Probation Department vacancies and the associated job duties or\nfunctions for each vacancy , the specific funding streams, if any, tied to\nthose vacancies, the budget unit in which the vacant positions are\nbudgeted, and the budgeted value of the vacancies;\nA list of all funding streams that are currently allocated to the Juvenile\noperations budget, including Juvenile Institutions Services, Special\nServices, Care of Juvenile Court Wards, Community-based Contracts,\nand the portions of Field Services and Support Services associated with\njuvenile operations, and for each funding stream, identify the source,\ncurrent allocation, unspent balance, if any, method by which future or\nongoing allocations are determined, and any restrictions that are tied to\nthe funding stream;\nA separate list of all funding streams that are currently allocated to any\nProbation Department operation that can legally be used to fund\nprogramming and services in the halls and camps, and for each funding\nstream, indicate if it is currently being used to fund programming and\nservices in the halls and camps, and if not, indicate its current use;\nA list of all contracts that are currently in place to provide services and\nprogramming in the halls and camps;\nIdentification of any unused or underutilized funding allocated to the\nProbation Department that can be obligated now for future allocation to\nthe Department of Youth Development; and further, identification of any\nfunding streams allocated to the Probation Department that are not legally\nprohibited, by the requirements of the originating funding source ,\nincluding Net County Cost, from being transferred to the Department of\nYouth Development; and\nIdentification of any existing funding streams in the Probation\nDepartment budget that can be administered by the Department of Youth\nDevelopment without violating any laws or regulations , so long as they are\nnot removed from the Probation Department’s budget;\nInstruct the Inspector General, in consultation with the Executive Director of the\nProbation Oversight Commission, to report back to the Board in writing in 30\ndays with recommendations for a communications/reporting process from the\nProbation Department to the Board, the Inspector General, and the Probation\nOversight Commission that, at a minimum, includes:\nDetailed lists of the types of incidents that the Probation Department\nshould be required to report to the Board, the Inspector General, and the\nProbation Oversight Commission , that is reflective of what is legally\npermissible for each entity;\nA multi-phase communication/reporting process with specific timelines to\nensure the Board, Inspector General, and the Probation Oversight\nCommission receive initial notifications immediately after a reportable\nincident takes place, and subsequent reports on a set timeline until the\nreportable incident reaches a final resolution; and\nA process to ensure that the Board and Inspector General receive a\nconfidential detailed report of any disciplinary decision that is made by\nthe Interim Chief Probation Officer or a Chief Deputy, including whether\nthe final determination made by those individuals differs from\nrecommendations made by other staff and/or Counsel;\nInstruct the Interim Chief Probation Officer to report back to the Board in writing\nin 45 days with a plan to ensure all young people in custody maintain regular\nand consistent visitation with their families, including siblings and their own\nchildren;\nInstruct the Director of Youth Development, in consultation with the Youth\nJustice Advisory Group and County Counsel, to report back to the Board in\nwriting in 45 days with a proposed concept for Safe and Secure Healing\nCenters that serve pre-adjudication and post-disposition youth who would\notherwise be detained in juvenile hall and camp, and a first phase of\nimplementation that is feasible and permissible under existing law;\nInstruct the Director of Youth Development, in collaboration with the Interim\nChief Probation Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Public Defender, Alternate\nPublic Defender, and the District Attorney, to develop a longer-term,\ncomprehensive plan to shrink the footprint of probation, especially its facilities\nand detention populations, and a phased implementation plan to building the\ncapacity to serve all justice-involved youth;\nInstruct the Interim Chief Probation Officer, in consultation with the Chief\nExecutive Officer, the Director of Personnel, and County Counsel, to report\nback to the Board in writing in 90 days with a strategic staffing plan, to be\ninformed by the Probation staffing study, that focuses on placing the most\nexperienced and qualified staff where they are most needed and fully relies on\nexisting staff before seeking Board approval to hire additional staff, and further\ndirect County Counsel and Chief Executive Officer to immediately inform the\nBoard if memorandum of understanding provisions, Board of State and\nCommunity Corrections (BSCC) regulations, County processes, or other\nfactors become a barrier to implementing a truly strategic staffing plan;\nInstruct County Counsel, in consultation with the Interim Chief Probation\nOfficer, the Chief Executive Officer, and the Director of Youth Development , to\nthe extent allowed by law, to prepare an analysis for the Board, to be delivered\nin a confidential attorney-client protected format, of the County labor contract\nprovisions that are not conducive to implementing the principles of Youth\nJustice Reimagined, effective management of the Probation Department, or the\nneed to quickly adapt to the needs of the growing Secure Youth Treatment\nFacility population, with the analysis to include comparisons to labor contracts\nin other jurisdictions and any past attempts to negotiate these provisions with\nthe County’s labor partners , with the analysis to include recommendations for\nareas where support from the Board would facilitate the Probation Department\nleadership’s ability to implement the Board’s youth justice priorities and\nestablish a more seamless partnership with the Department of Youth\nDevelopment that includes sharing resources and responsibility for providing\nprogramming to youth in the justice system; and\nInstruct County Counsel to report back to the Board in writing in 90 days with\nan analysis of the areas of overlap and/or conflict between the Department of\nJustice Consent Decree, BSCC rules and regulations, and the Board’s desire\nto shrink the Probation Department’s footprint and authority for the purpose of\nadvancing Youth Justice Reimagined, and work with the Director of Youth\nDevelopment to advise the monitors of the Department of Justice Consent\nDecree, and any other relevant parties, of the details and status of Youth\nJustice Reimagined, plans to expand the Department of Youth Development’s\nrole in youth justice, and any other aspects of the Department of Youth\nDevelopment that may be relevant to the Department of Justice Consent\nDecree, County Counsel is to include an update on this effort in the report\nback. (23-1165)\nAttachments: Motion by Supervisors Horvath and Mitchell\nPublic Comment/Correspondence