Under existing law, there is established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to receive all amounts allocated to a county for specified purposes. Existing law requires the moneys to be allocated in specified amounts, including, but not limited to, 50% to a county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. Existing law requires the juvenile justice plan to be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county. Existing law requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to consist of certain members, including, but not limited to, the chief probation officer, as chair, and a representative from the district attorneys office, the public defenders office, and the sheriffs department, among others.

This bill would revise and recast those membership provisions, and instead require each county juvenile justice coordinating council to, at a minimum, consist of at least 50% community representatives with the remainder of the seats allocated as specified. The bill would require the council to include an at-promise youth, as defined, and either a person with experience in the juvenile court system or a system-impacted family member. The bill would require, if a county board of supervisors or a countys juvenile coordinating councils bylaws established term limits, that all individuals of the council be subject to the term limits. The bill would require a council to meet no less than 3 times per year and announce its meetings at least 10 days in advance of a meeting.

Under existing law, there is established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to receive all amounts allocated to a county for specified purposes. Existing law requires the moneys to be allocated in specified amounts, including, but not limited to, 50% to a county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. Existing law requires the juvenile justice plan to be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county. Existing law requires the plan to be annually reviewed and updated by the council and submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections. Existing law requires a county or city and county to submit a report to the board of supervisors and the board to assess the effectiveness of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded under these provisions and specifies the information to be included in the report.

This bill would require a county or city and county to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council in order to obtain funding under these provisions. The bill would require the board to evaluate if a county or a city and county has complied with the requirements of these provisions and would authorize the board or any state agency overseeing the administration of these funds to determine an appropriate remedial action or to withhold funding if a county or city and county fails to create a juvenile justice coordinating council. The bill would revise required components of the multiagency juvenile justice plan to, among other things, additionally require a plan to include an assessment of existing community-based youth development services, identification and prioritization of areas of the community that are vulnerable to court system involvement due to high rates of poverty and the incarceration of at-promise youths family members, among other things, and a description of the target population funded under these provisions. The bill would require assessments to prioritize soliciting direct feedback on youth participants satisfaction with existing services and resources. The bill would require programs and strategies funded under these provisions to, among other things, be modeled on healing-centered, restorative, trauma-informed, and positive youth development approaches and in collaboration with community-based organizations. The bill would prohibit the sharing of personally identifying information across agencies without informed, voluntary, revocable, and written consent of youth participants or their parents or legal guardians. The bill would require a council to include additional information in its annual report to the board of supervisors and the board relating to their programs, including data on youth participants and council members.

The bill would require the local agency overseeing requests for proposals for funds under these provisions to engage with community stakeholders, as specified, and take into account the countys juvenile justice plan and equity funding across the county. The bill would authorize any local agency to oversee the request for proposals except for a law enforcement-related agency, with preference for behavioral health-related local agencies.

Existing law requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to consist of certain members, including, but not limited to, the chief probation officer, as chair, and a representative from the district attorneys office, the public defenders office, and the sheriffs department, among others.

This bill would revise and recast those membership provisions, and instead require each county juvenile justice coordinating council to, at a minimum, consist of at least 50% community representatives with the remainder of the seats allocated to representatives from governmental agencies, as specified. The bill would require the council to include an at-promise youth, as defined, and either a person with experience in the juvenile court system or a system-impacted family member. The bill would require a council to select 2 cochairs from amongst its members, at least one of whom shall be a community representative. The bill would require, if a county board of supervisors or a countys juvenile coordinating councils bylaws established term limits, that all individuals of the council be subject to the term limits. The bill would require a council to meet no less than 3 times per year and announce its meetings at least 10 days in advance of a meeting.

Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over minors who are between 12 and 17 years of age, inclusive, who have violated a federal, state, or local law or ordinance, as specified, and over minors under 12 years of age who have been alleged to have committed specified crimes. Existing law authorizes a juvenile court to adjudge a person under these circumstances to be a ward of the court.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.

Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1057

Author:(Menjivar) – As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill changes the requirements a county Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) must meet to be eligible for funding under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA).

Specifically, this bill eliminates the existing requirements for the composition of a JJCC’s membership and the local action plan a JJCC must produce. Instead, this bill implements the following provisions a county must meet to be eligible for JJCPA funding:

1. Requires a county to establish a JJCC that develops and implements a continuum of care to prevent and respond to young people experiencing juvenile court system involvement, as specified.
2. Requires a JJCC to be composed, at a minimum, of at least 50% community representatives. Defines “community representative” to mean an individual who is currently or formerly justice system-involved, a system-impacted family member, or a representative from a nonprofit, community-based organization that provides services to youth and that does not include law enforcement employees or staff.
3. Requires a JJCC to include the following members: the county’s chief probation officer (as a co-chair), a community representative (as a co-chair), an at-promise youth, and either a person with experience in the juvenile court system or a system-impacted family member.
4. Permits the JJCC to include representatives from specified county and city entities, including the county’s public health department, the district attorney’s office, and the public defender’s office.
   
5. Requires that a JJCC meet no less than three times per year and follow specified public meeting requirements to optimize and encourage public participation.
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

Cost pressures (General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount. As discussed below, counties currently receive hundreds of millions of dollars in JJCPA funding annually from the state. Although this funding is contingent on counties meeting the existing JJCC requirements, some counties do not meet the requirements but receive annual JJCPA funding anyway. This bill imposes new requirements a county’s JJCC must meet to be eligible for JJCPA funding. If counties are unable to meet these requirements, become ineligible for JJCPA funding, and do not receive JJCPA funding, counties will experience significant fiscal impacts to their juvenile justice systems. Proposition 30 (2012) provides that legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment (including juvenile justice realignment) applies to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. If this bill results in a loss of JJCPA funding to the counties, the state may need to provide funding from some other source to counties to maintain state-mandated juvenile justice operations.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. 

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, although California has made great strides in improving its approach to juvenile justice and youth development, the lack of community representation on JJCCs has contributed to the flawed implementation of the JJCPA. The author argues that greater, and more meaningful, community representation on JJCCs will help counties better serve youth impacted by the juvenile justice system.
2. JJCPA Funding. According to the Board of State and Community Corrections’ (BSCC) 2024 report to the Legislature on juvenile justice funding:

Each county annually receives allocations of JJCPA and [Youth Offender Block Grant (YOBG)] funds determined by prescribed formulas based on the county’s population for JJCPA and a combination of juvenile population and juvenile felony dispositions for YOBG…JJCPA and YOBG are part of the funding structure established in the 2011 Public Safety Realignment legislation, funded through the Local Revenue Fund of 2011, specifically the Law Enforcement Services Account. JJCPA’s main revenue source is the Vehicle License Fee Fund, supplemented by State Sales Tax revenue if needed… Proposition 30, approved in 2012, constitutionally guaranteed funding for JJCPA and YOBG, providing local agencies with flexibility in designing, administering, and delivering public safety services as determined by the Legislature. (Cal. Const. art. XIII, § 36, Assembly Bill 118, (Chapter 40, Stats. 2011).

Nearly $200 million in JJCPA funding was dispersed to the counties in fiscal year 2022-23. A county generally has broad discretion over how to spend its JJCPA funding to support its juvenile justice system.

1. State Auditor Report. In 2020, the State Auditor released an audit that assessed county compliance with JJCPA requirements, spending and reporting of JJCPA funds, and data collection and evaluation of JJCPA-funded programs. Among other findings, the auditor concluded that weak oversight by the state and counties has resulted in some counties not having a JJCC at all, some counties having vacancies on their council, and several counties making only limited revisions to their comprehensive juvenile justice plan over the last two decades despite significant changes in the statewide juvenile justice landscape. Despite this lack of compliance, counties have continued to regularly receive JJCPA funding.
2. This bill. Existing law requires a county to establish a JJCC to be eligible for funding under the JJCPA. A JJCC must include the county’s chief probation officer, who chairs the committee, nine members from specified city and county offices, two members from community-based organizations that provide services to youth, and one member from the community at large. This bill changes the required composition of a JJCC to achieve an even balance between county representatives and community members, and makes other changes to focus a JJCC’s efforts on positive youth development and require a JJCC to meet additional public meeting requirements. Under the bill, a county’s JJCC must meet these requirements for the county to be eligible for JJCPA funding.
3. Support and Opposition. In support of this bill, multiple criminal justice reform and youth advocacy organizations argue that counties do not comply with existing JJCC composition requirements, hold meetings regarding juvenile justice reforms behind closed doors, and have irresponsibly spent JJCPA money allocated for juvenile justice efforts. The organizations write:

SB 1057 will advance the health-first approach to youth justice envisioned in California’s Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan, ensure equitable community representation and improved transparency and decision-making, and promote positive youth development for California’s most vulnerable youth.

This bill is opposed by several county associations, county governments, and probation associations. In opposition, the California State Association of Counties writes:

Unfortunately, SB 1057 does not take into consideration the real and challenging concerns in counties across the state that are unable to establish a full council due to a lack of community volunteers, especially in rural regions. Further, while on its surface the changes to the composition of the JJCC and their meeting frequency may seem reasonable, counties remain concerned that the end goal of this measure is to minimize local governmental authority and redirect JJCPA funding away from long-standing, bedrock investments in county staffing. As we have noted in our previous advocacy on bills that have sought to make changes to this same section of law, JJCPA funding is part of the 2011 Realignment fiscal structure and therefore protected pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012).

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 2, 2024

Consultant: Samarpreet Kaur

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Kevin McCarty, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1057

Author:(Menjivar) – As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

SUMMARY: Revises and recasts the membership for a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that in order to be eligible for a grant under this article, each county shall be required to establish a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council that shall develop and implement a continuum of care to prevent and respond to young people experiencing juvenile court system involvement that is modeled on a framework of positive youth development and demonstrates a healing-centered, restorative, community-based, collaborative, and integrated approach for at-promise youth and youth involved in the juvenile court system.
   
2. Requires that a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to, at a minimum, consist of at least 50 percent community representatives.
   
3. Requires the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to be composed of the chief probation officer, as co-chair, and may include one representative each from the public health department, the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, the board of supervisors, the county department of social services, the county department of mental or behavioral health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and the county department of children, youth, and families, if one exists.
   
4. Requires the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to be co-chaired by a community representative elected from among its members, to include an at-promise youth, and either a person with experience in the juvenile court system or a system-impacted family member.
   
5. Requires that a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to meet no less than three times per year, announce meetings at least 10 days in advance, make meetings accessible to the public through remote participation, such as streaming and remote call-in options, and to choose meeting times that optimize and encourage public participation.
   
6. Defines “At-promise youth” as young people up to 25 years of age, inclusive, who are vulnerable to court system involvement due to high rates of poverty, a lack of educational and employment opportunities, racial discrimination, the incarceration of one or more of their family members, and a high prevalence of community violence and crime.
7. Defines “Community representative” as an individual who is currently or formerly justice system-involved, a system-impacted family member, or a representative from a nonprofit, community-based organization that provides services to youth and that does not include law enforcement employees or staff.
   
8. Makes legislative findings and declarations.
   

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA). (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (a).)
   
2. Requires the county auditor, in any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended, to allocate the moneys in the county’s SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund. Specifies how the moneys are allocated. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b).)
   
3. Requires fifty percent of the money allocated to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as provided. Requires the juvenile justice plan to be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county. Requires the plan to be reviewed and updated annually by the council. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(4).)
   
4. Provides that the plan or updated plan may, at the discretion of the county or city and county, be approved by the county board of supervisors. Requires the plan or updated plan to be submitted to the BSCC by May 1 of each year in a format specified by the board. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(4).)
   
5. Requires the multiagency juvenile justice plan to include all of the following:
   
6. An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and youth services resources that specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families;
7. An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substances sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile substance abuse and alcohol use;
8. A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders; and,
9. A description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(4)(A).)
   
10. Requires that the programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded satisfy all of the following requirements:
11. Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and addressing juvenile crime for any elements of response to juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation;
12. Collaborate and integrate services of all the resources to the extent appropriate; and,
    
13. Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of juvenile justice programs and strategies. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(4)(B).)
14. Requires each county or city and county to submit an annual report to the county board of supervisors and to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded in order to assess their effectiveness. Requires the report to include all of the following:
    
15. An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been funded in the immediately preceding fiscal year;
    
16. An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded;
    
17. A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been co-funded during the preceding fiscal year using JJCPA funds and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds;
    
18. Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the BSCC, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(4)(C).)
19. Requires the BSCC to compile the local reports and, by March 1 of each year following their submission, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county. Requires the annual report to the Governor and the Legislature to also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by appropriated have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. Requires the annual report to be posted for access by the public on the website of the board. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(4)(E).)
    
20. Establishes the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program that is administered by the BSCC for the purpose of reducing juvenile crime and delinquency. Requires this program to award grants on a competitive basis following request-for-proposal evaluation standards and guidelines developed by the board to counties that develop and implement a comprehensive, multiagency local action plan that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency, including collaborative ways to address local problems of juvenile crime; and demonstrate a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, graduated responses, and appropriate sanctions for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.21.)
21. Provides that in order to be eligible for this grant, each county shall be required to establish a multiagency juvenile justice coordinating council that shall develop and implement a continuum of county-based responses to juvenile crime. The coordinating councils shall, at a minimum, include the chief probation officer, as chair, and one representative each from the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, the sheriff’s department, the board of supervisors, the department of social services, the department of mental health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and an at-large community representative. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)
22. Requires a coordinating council to include representatives from nonprofit community-based organizations providing services to minors. The board of supervisors shall be informed of community-based organizations participating on a coordinating council. The coordinating councils shall develop a comprehensive, multiagency plan that identifies the resources and strategies for providing an effective continuum of responses for the prevention, intervention, supervision, treatment, and incarceration of male and female juvenile offenders, including strategies to develop and implement locally based or regionally based out-of-home placement options for youths (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)
23. Provides that counties may utilize community punishment plans developed pursuant to grants awarded from funds included in the 1995 Budget Act to the extent the plans address juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system or local action plans previously developed for this program. Requires the plan include, but not be limited to, the following components:
24. An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol and youth services resources which specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families;
25. An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substance sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile alcohol use within the council’s jurisdiction;
26. A local action plan for improving and marshaling the resources described above to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and delinquency in the targeted areas and the greater community. Requires the councils to prepare their plans to maximize the provision of collaborative and integrated services of all the resources described above, and to provide specified strategies for all elements of response, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation, to provide a continuum for addressing the identified male and female juvenile crime problem, and strategies to develop and implement locally based or regionally based out-of-home placement options for youths;
27. Develop information and intelligence-sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and to provide data for measuring the success of the grantee in achieving its goals. Requires the plan to develop goals related to the outcome measures that will be used to determine the effectiveness of the program; and,
28. Identify outcome measures which must include, but not be limited to, the following:
    
29. The rate of juvenile arrests;

ii) The rate of successful completion of probation; and,

iii) The rate of successful completion of restitution and court-ordered community service responsibilities. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "California has committed to ending the era of tough-on-crime approach to youth incarceration while ushering in a new, health-based approach to youth development. While we have made great strides, there remain opportunities for improvement. One urgent opportunity is rectifying the injustices created by the flawed implementation of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). The JJCPA was enacted over twenty years ago to service youth in their communities and keep them from entering the justice system. However, the lack of community representation on counties’ local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) has caused us to fall short of that goal.

“SB 1057 seeks to remedy this problem by creating a more equitable JJCC composition. The expertise of those who are most impacted by the system, and those working alongside them with a trauma-informed, healing-focused lens, are invaluable to implementing the JJCPA. SB 1057 would require counties to bring these experts to the table. However, it is not enough simply to have a seat at the table. System impacted young people, credible messengers, and trusted community stakeholders must feel safe; SB 1057 will add a community co-chair to JJCCs to ensure community voice does not become illusory. This bill does not defund probation, nor does it require that probation or other county agencies are left behind – SB 1057 simply supplements the current efforts by adding community voice to the decision-making process.”

1. Background: The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) was enacted in 2000 through the signage of AB 1913 (Chapter 353, Statues of 2000). Its goal is to provide a stable funding source for local county juvenile justice programs and help reduce crime among young at-risk individuals. The JJCPA requires that each county establish a juvenile justice coordinating council and that it be made up of minimum twelve mandated seats, which include, at-least ten representatives from various local government agencies, at-least one representative from a nonprofit community-based organization, and at-least one at-large community representative. The coordinating council is required to develop a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan for the county. This plan must be annually updated to generally summarize a county’s holistic efforts to reduce juvenile crime. Specifically the plan must reflect a description of juvenile programs and strategies, accounting/description of expenditures from the previous fiscal year, and countywide juvenile justice trend data available. Each county must submit its plan to the county Board of Supervisors and the BSCC annually, along with a year-end report that describes the county’s JJCPA-funded programs and how those programs may have affected the county’s juvenile justice trends. The BSCC then compiles the information it receives from the counties and submits an annual report to the Governor and Legislature.

For the Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the JJCPA-YOBG Grant allocated $368 million to counties to support youth within the juvenile justice system or those at risk. The state provides JJCPA funding to counties based on population. JJCPA and YOBG are part of the funding structure established in the 2011 Public Safety Realignment legislation, funded through the Local Revenue Fund of 2011, specifically the Law Enforcement Services Account. JJCPA's main revenue source is the Vehicle License Fee Fund, supplemented by State Sales Tax revenue if needed. YOBG's primary revenue source is State Sales Tax, with potential supplementation from the Vehicle License Fee Fund in case of shortfalls. Proposition 30, approved in 2012, constitutionally guaranteed funding for JJCPA and YOBG, providing local agencies with flexibility in designing, administering, and delivering public safety services as determined by the Legislature. (Board of State and Community Corrections, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act and Youth Offender Block Grant Annual Report to the Legislature (Mar. 2024), p. 14 available at < https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-JJCPA-YOBG-Legislative-Report-FINAL-4-2024.pdf)

This bill would revise and recast the membership for a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Specifically the council will be required to be composed of the following members: the chief probation officer as the co-chair, one community representative, elected from among its members, as the other co-chair, at-least one at-promise youth, and at least fifty percent of the council be made up of community representatives. This bill would additionally state that the council may include one representative each from various county or city and county departments and shall meet no less than three times per year, announce meetings at least 10 days in advance, make meetings accessible to the public through remote participation, such as streaming and remote call-in options.

1. State Auditor Report (2020): At the request of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the State Auditor conducted an audit to assess five counties’ spending and reporting of JJCPA funds, and decision-making processes related to and evaluations of their JJCPA-funded programs. The report containing the audit findings was published in May 2020. The overall conclusion of the report was that weak oversight of the JJCPA by the state and counties had resulted in some counties not having a juvenile justice coordinating council at all, Mendocino lacked a Coordinating Council but still received JJCPA funds, some counties having vacancies on their council, and several counties making only limited revisions to their comprehensive juvenile justice plan over the last two decades despite significant changes in the statewide juvenile justice landscape. (State Auditor, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Weak Oversight Has Hindered Its Meaningful Implementation (Report 2019-116), pp. 1-4, available at <http://auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2019-116.pdf .)

The State Auditor made the following recommendations for legislative action:

1. To ensure that counties adequately identify how they serve at‑risk youth, the Legislature should require counties to define at‑risk youth in their comprehensive plans. The Legislature should also require the BSCC to review counties’ comprehensive plans to ensure that each contains an adequate definition of at‑risk youth.
   
2. The Legislature should direct the BSCC to monitor reports that counties submit to ensure that they include meaningful descriptions or analyses of how their JJCPA‑funded programs may have contributed to or influenced countywide juvenile justice trends.
   
3. To enable the BSCC to provide effective oversight of the required elements of the JJCPA, the Legislature should amend state law to describe a process for restricting the spending of JJCPA funding by counties that do not meet JJCPA requirements. As part of that process, the State should prohibit counties from spending JJCPA funds if they have not established Coordinating Councils.
   
4. To make JJCPA funding more stable and predictable, the Legislature should amend state law to increase the amount of guaranteed JJCPA funding the State provides to counties. (Id. at p. 5.)
5. Argument in Support: According to the National Center for Youth Law, “In 2000, the Schiff-Cárdenas Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act was created to support youth in their communities and limit their involvement in the justice system. The grant requires that each county establish a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council that consists of representatives from a variety of local agencies and community groups to ensure the county’s multi-agency juvenile justice plan is collaborative and comprehensive.

“However, in 2020, the California State Auditor released a report which found that most counties left mandatory stakeholder seats vacant. In fact, 20 percent of counties lacked a Council entirely during the audit review period. Of those counties that did complete plans, the State Auditor found that counties generally made limited revisions to their plans over the past 20 years although youth arrests in California have declined by 89 percent from 243,090 in 2000 to 26,000 in 2022. The state has also seen a 91 percent decline in referrals to probation since 2006, from 187,296 in 2006 to 16,252 in 2022.

“Across the state, inequitable decision-making by JJCCs has continued in the years since the Auditor’s report. The Riverside County JJCC was required to add five community member seats following a 2020 settlement centered on the county’s Youth Accountability Team (YAT) program. The lawsuit argued that the YAT program spent millions of dollars funneling children into an unconstitutional probation system that denied them their due process rights and subjected them to oppressive, invasive policies, such as surprise searches, unannounced home visitations, strict restrictions on who participants could speak to, curfews, and interrogations into intimate details of their lives. In 2021 and 2022, Fresno and Sacramento Counties were both found to be unlawfully holding meetings on juvenile justice reform behind closed doors. Dismal reporting has continued, allowing for incidents such as in Los Angeles County, where probation was found to have spent nearly $400 thousand yearly on a youth diversion program that served zero youth participants while simultaneously hoarding almost $100 million in JJCPA funding, thus preventing the delivery of much-needed resources to parks and recreation, arts, education, and behavioral health oriented youth programming.

“SB 1057 will advance the health-first approach to youth justice envisioned in California’s Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan, ensure equitable community representation and improved transparency and decision-making, and promote positive youth development for California’s most vulnerable youth.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the Chief Probation Officers’ of California (CPOC), “SB 1057 revises the composition of local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Councils in an untenable way. Our continued concerns underlying our opposition include:
   

• The bill would jeopardize county funding, tying receipt of the grant to a new council composition that has considerable challenges in seating. Community participation is voluntary and not compelled, yet community participation becomes a requirement for counties to meet with 50 percent of its council membership.

• Requires, rather than permits, a council to have at least 50 percent community representatives. This mandate becomes particularly difficult, and in some cases would likely not be able to be met, in many parts of the state. It is important to note that there are instances within the current committee composition that despite best efforts to obtain participation for all of the members, there have been challenges in doing so.

• Requires, rather than permits, a community representative co-chair. Not only does this mandate a co-chair, but further specifies that it shall be a community representative. Mandating it with the level of specificity in the bill does not reflect the local needs, nor the challenges faced in many counties to be able to meet these new requirements for community members.

• Narrowly defines community representative which exacerbates the challenges to fill these very prescriptive volunteer positions in many parts of the State.

“We wholly support and acknowledge the benefit of having multiple perspectives on this committee and proactively encourage this at the local level. The local councils currently include an at-large community member as well as representatives from nonprofit community-based organizations providing services to minors. By requiring, rather than authorizing additional members, and tying funding to these new requirements, the bill would create considerable obstacles in counties continued ability to deliver much needed and heavily relied upon supports and services. Counties having difficulty seating community members including those with lived experience, should be provided additional tools and resources to address this issue, rather than have their population served be penalized.”

1. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 702 (Jackson), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would require no less than 80% of the funds allocated under grants be distributed to community-based organizations and other public agencies or departments that are not law enforcement entities. It would revise and recast membership provisions, and instead require each juvenile justice coordinating council to, at a minimum, consist of at least 50% community representatives with the remainder of the seats allocated to representatives from government agencies. Lastly it would require a council to select 2 co-chairs from amongst its members. AB 702 was not heard in Assembly Public Safety.
   2. SB 493 (Bradford), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would require no less than 95% of the funds allocated to be distributed to community-based organizations and other public agencies or departments that are not law enforcement entities and prohibits this portion of the funds from being used for law enforcement purposes. It would revise and recast membership provisions, and instead require each Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to, at a minimum, consist of 7 members with at least 50% community representatives with the remainder of the seats allocated to government agencies. The bill would require a council to select 2 co-chairs from amongst its members, at least 1 of which must be a community representative. SB 493 was held in Senate Appropriations.
   3. AB 1007 (Jones-Sawyer), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would require no less than 95% of the funds allocated to be distributed to community-based organizations and other public agencies or departments that are not law enforcement entities. It would revise and recast membership provisions, and instead require each Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to, at a minimum, consist of 7 members with at least 50% community representatives with the remainder of the seats allocated to government agencies. The bill would require a council to select 2 co-chairs from amongst its members. AB 1007 was not set for a hearing in Senate Public Safety.
   4. AB 1913 (Cardenas), Chapter 353, Statues of 2000, allocated 50% of SLESF moneys to counties and cities and counties to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan with specified components and objectives, and required that the plan be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

ACLU California Action
All of Us or None (HQ)
Alliance for Girls
California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Public Defenders Association
California Youth Connection (CYC)
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Children Now
Children's Defense Fund - CA
Coalition for Engaged Education
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Freedom 4 Youth
Fresh Lifelines for Youth
Humboldt County Transition Age Youth Collaboration's Youth Advocacy Board
Initiate Justice
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Messaging for Success
National Center for Youth Law
Public Health Advocates
Rtime Co.
Sigma Beta Xi, INC. (sbx Youth and Family Services)
Silicon Valley De-bug
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
The Children's Partnership
The Collective for Liberatory Lawyering
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
Vera Institute of Justice
Youth Forward

Oppose

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Afl-cio
Bu 702- Seiu 721 Joint Council
California District Attorneys Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Chief Probation Officers' of California (CPOC)
Contra Costa County
County of Fresno
County of Kern
County of Madera
County of Mendocino
County of Monterey
County of Placer
County of Riverside
County of San Luis Obispo
County of Santa Barbara
County of Solano
County of Stanislaus
County of Ventura
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Probation Managers Association Afscme Local 1967
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union, Afscme Local 685
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Sacramento County Probation Association
Sacramento; County of
San Francisco Deputy Probation Officers Association
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Probation Peace Officer's Union, Afscme Local 1587
Shasta; County of
Sppoa
State Coalition of Probation Organizations
Urban Counties of California (UCC)
Ventura County Professional Peace Officers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Samarpreet Kaur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1057

Author: Menjivar (D), et al.

Amended: 5/16/24

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/23/24

AYES: Wahab, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

NOES: Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/16/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

SUBJECT: Juvenile justice coordinating council

SOURCE: Alliance for Boys and Men of Color

California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice

Center on Criminal and Juvenile Justice; Children’s Defense Fund-California

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Fresh Lifelines for Youth Bay Area

National Center for Youth Law

Sigma Beta Xi Youth and Family Services

DIGEST:

This bill changes the membership requirements of a county’s juvenile justice coordinating council to require each county juvenile justice coordinating council to consist of at least 50% community representatives; makes representatives from specified governmental agencies who are currently required to be on the council optional; and requires a county’s juvenile justice coordinating council to select two co-chairs from its members, one being a community representative and one being the probation chief.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program that is administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for the purpose of reducing juvenile crime and delinquency. Requires this program to award grants on a competitive basis following request-for-proposal evaluation standards and guidelines developed by the board to counties that develop and implement a comprehensive, multiagency local action plan that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency, including collaborative ways to address local problems of juvenile crime; and demonstrate a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, graduated responses, and appropriate sanctions for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.21.)
2. Provides that to be eligible for the grant, each county is required to establish a multiagency juvenile justice coordinating council that develops and implements a continuum of county-based responses to juvenile crime. Requires the coordinating councils include, at a minimum, the chief probation officer, as chair, and one representative each from the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, the sheriff’s department, the board of supervisors, the department of social services, the department of mental health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and an at-large community representative. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)
3. Requires a coordinating council to include representatives from nonprofit community-based organizations providing services to minors. Requires the board of supervisors to be informed of community-based organizations participating on a coordinating council. Requires the coordinating councils to develop a comprehensive, multiagency plan that identifies the resources and strategies for providing an effective continuum of responses for the prevention, intervention, supervision, treatment, and incarceration of male and female juvenile offenders, including strategies to develop and implement locally based or regionally based out-of-home placement options for youths. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)
4. Provides that counties may utilize community punishment plans developed pursuant to grants awarded from funds included in the 1995 Budget Act to the extent the plans address juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system or local action plans previously developed for this program. Requires the plan include, but not be limited to, the following components:
5. An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol and youth services resources which specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
6. An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substance sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile alcohol use within the council’s jurisdiction.
7. A local action plan for improving and marshaling the resources described above to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and delinquency in the targeted areas and the greater community. Requires the councils to prepare their plans to maximize the provision of collaborative and integrated services of all the resources described above, and to provide specified strategies for all elements of response, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation, to provide a continuum for addressing the identified male and female juvenile crime problem, and strategies to develop and implement locally based or regionally based out-of-home placement options for youths.
8. Develop information and intelligence-sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and to provide data for measuring the success of the grantee in achieving its goals. Requires the plan to develop goals related to the outcome measures that will be used to determine the effectiveness of the program.
9. Identify outcome measures which must include, but not be limited to, the following: the rate of juvenile arrests, the rate of successful completion of probation, and the rate of successful completion of restitution and court-ordered community service responsibilities. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)

This bill:

1. Defines “at-promise youth” to mean young people up to 25 years of age, inclusive, who are vulnerable to court system involvement due to high rates of poverty, a lack of educational and employment opportunities, racial discrimination, the incarceration of one or more of their family members, and a high prevalence of community violence and crime.
2. Defines “community representative” to mean an individual who is currently or formerly justice system-involved, a system-impacted family member, or a representative from a nonprofit, community-based organization that provides services to youth and that does not include law enforcement employees or staff.
3. Provides that in order to be eligible for a grant, each county is required to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council that must develop and implement a continuum of care to prevent and respond to young people experiencing juvenile court system involvement that is modeled on a framework of positive youth development and demonstrates a healing-centered, restorative, community-based, collaborative, and integrated approach for at-promise youth and youth involved in the juvenile court system.
4. Requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to, at a minimum, consist of at least 50 percent community representatives.
5. Requires the juvenile justice coordinating council to be composed of the chief probation officer, as co-chair, and may include one representative each from the public health department, the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, the board of supervisors, the county department of social services, the county department of mental or behavioral health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and the county department of children, youth, and families, if one exists.
6. Requires the juvenile justice coordinating council to be co-chaired by a community representative elected from among its members, and requires the council to include an at-promise youth, and either a person with experience in the juvenile court system or a system-impacted family member.
7. Requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to elect two co-chairs from among its members, at least one of whom must be a community representative.
8. Requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to meet no less than three times per year and announce meetings at least 10 days in advance. Requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to make meetings accessible to the public through remote participation, such as streaming and remote call-in options. Requires the council to choose meeting times that optimize and encourage public participation.

Background

The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) was enacted in 2000 to provide a stable funding source to counties with the goal of helping them reduce crime among young people. According to the author statement included in the Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis of AB 1913:

AB 1913 is a necessary counterpart to Proposition 21, recently passed by the voters. AB 1913 would provide needed support and reform of the juvenile justice system. It would reduce the public safety problems associated with juvenile delinquency in California by implementing programs proven to reduce recidivism among juveniles. (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill 1913 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 23, 2000, p. 5.)

The JJCPA involves collaboration between the state, local county agencies, and community-based organizations in order to accomplish the goal of reducing delinquency. The target demographic includes youth on probation and in juvenile halls and camps, as well as at-risk youth. The JJCPA requires that each county establish a juvenile justice coordinating council made up of representatives from various local government agencies, CBOs, and the community. The coordinating council is required to develop a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan for the county. State law specifies the four components that must be included in every county’s juvenile justice plan which taken together, generally summarize a county’s holistic efforts to reduce juvenile crime. The JJCPA requires counties to base their programs on approaches that are effective in reducing juvenile crime and delinquency and requires JJCPA-funded programs and strategies to be designed to provide data for measuring their success. Each county must submit its plan to the BSCC annually, along with a year-end report that describes the county’s JJCPA-funded programs and how those programs may have affected the county’s juvenile justice trends. The BSCC then compiles the information it receives from the counties and submits an annual report to the Governor and Legislature.

The state provides JJCPA funding to counties based on population. Funding is provided through an annual guaranteed funding amount, referred to as base funding, and if funds are available, an additional variable amount, referred to as growth funding. Because growth funding varies from year to year, counties do not know how much growth funding they will receive in any given year which has resulted in counties not spending their entire JJCPA allocations. During the 2021-2022 fiscal year, the statewide base allocation of JJCPA funds was $107.1 million with an additional $69.9 million allocated from growth funding. (Board of State and Community Corrections, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act and Youth Offender Block Grant Annual Report to the Legislature (Mar. 2023), p. 12 available at <http://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023-JJCPA-YOBG-Legislative-Report-FINAL.pdf .)

Counties enjoy broad discretion in how JJCPA funds are used to support and enhance their juvenile justice systems. According to a report published by the Children’s Defense Fund- California in 2018, “[JJCPA funds] ha[ve] been allocated for a range of programs, including policing and probation supervision in schools, public housing and park services, mental health screening and treatment, and community-based arts and after-school programs.” (Soung et al., Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act in Los Angeles: A Case Study on Advocacy & Collaborative Reform (Dec. 2018), p. 3 available at <https://www.cdfca.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/01/juvenile-justice-crime-prevention-act-in-los-angeles.pdf?_ga=2.215258129.705757938.1618379732-177568109.1618379732 .) The report noted that there were 150 JJCPA programs administered by the counties in 2014-2015 which served 84,450 at-risk and probation youth. (Id.)

At the request of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the State Auditor conducted an audit to assess five counties’ spending and reporting of JJCPA funds, and decision-making processes related to and evaluations of their JJCPA-funded programs. The report containing the audit findings was published in May 2020. The overall conclusion of the report was that weak oversight of the JJCPA by the state and counties had resulted in some counties not having a juvenile justice coordinating council at all, some counties having vacancies on their council, and several counties making only limited revisions to their comprehensive juvenile justice plan over the last two decades despite significant changes in the statewide juvenile justice landscape. (State Auditor, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Weak Oversight Has Hindered Its Meaningful Implementation (Report 2019-116), pp. 1-4, available at <http://auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2019-116.pdf .)

The State Auditor made the following recommendations for legislative action:

• To ensure that counties adequately identify how they serve at‑risk youth, the Legislature should require counties to define at‑risk youth in their comprehensive plans. The Legislature should also require the BSCC to review counties’ comprehensive plans to ensure that each contains an adequate definition of at‑risk youth.
• The Legislature should direct the BSCC to monitor reports that counties submit to ensure that they include meaningful descriptions or analyses of how their JJCPA‑funded programs may have contributed to or influenced countywide juvenile justice trends.
• To enable the BSCC to provide effective oversight of the required elements of the JJCPA, the Legislature should amend state law to describe a process for restricting the spending of JJCPA funding by counties that do not meet JJCPA requirements. As part of that process, the State should prohibit counties from spending JJCPA funds if they have not established Coordinating Councils.
• To make JJCPA funding more stable and predictable, the Legislature should amend state law to increase the amount of guaranteed JJCPA funding the State provides to counties. (Id. at p. 5.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Unknown, potential cost pressures to counties (local funds).

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/16/24)

Alliance for Boys & Men of Color (co-source)

California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice (co- source)

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (co- source)

Children’s Defense Fund-California (co- source)

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (co- source)

Fresh Lifelines for Youth Bay Area (co- source)

National Center for Youth Law (co- source)

Sigma Beta Xi Youth and Family Services (co- source)

Access Reproductive Justice

Arts for Healing and Justice Network

California Public Defenders Association

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Children Now

Collective for Liberatory Lawyering

Courage California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Freedom 4 Youth

Haywood Burns Institute

Immigrant Legal Resource Center

Initiate Justice

Los Angeles Youth Uprising Coalition

Meztli Projects

MILPA Collective

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Silicon Valley De-Bug

Students Deserve

UnCommon Law

Underground GRIT

Urban Peace Institute

Urban Peace Movement

Women’s Foundation California

Young Women’s Freedom Center

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/16/24)

Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs

Association of Probation Supervisors

BU 702- SEIU 721 Joint Council

California District Attorneys Association

California State Association of Counties

Chief Probation Officers’ of California

County of Fresno

County of Kern

County of Mendocino

County of Orange

County of San Luis Obispo

County of Santa Barbara

County of Shasta

County of Solano

Inyo County Probation Department

Los Angeles County Probation Managers Association, AFSCME Local 1967

Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685

Monterey County Probation Association

Rural County Representatives of California

Sacramento County Probation Association

San Diego County Probation Officers Association

San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association

San Luis Obispo County Probation Peace Officers Association

State Coalition of Probation Organizations

Urban Counties of California

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT: The bill’s co-sponsors write:

…SB 1057…would help California fully realize the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act’s (JJCPA) vision of providing health-centered, culturally competent, and community-based approaches for at-promise youth and youth involved in the juvenile court system by ensuring equitable community representation and improved decision-making within county Juvenile Justice Coordinating Councils (JJCCs).

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION: According to the Chief Probation Officers of California:

SB 1057… seeks to revise the composition of local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Councils and make changes to multiagency juvenile justice plans. In doing so, this bill seeks to do away with collaborative and multi-agency approaches currently relied upon which have been essential tools in supporting an entire continuum that prevents juveniles from becoming more formally system involved through effectuating successful and expeditious re-entry post system involvement….

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

5/17/24 16:07:53

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 1057 (Menjivar) - Juvenile justice coordinating council

Bill Summary:

SB 1057 requires counties to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council and meet other specified requirements in order to obtain Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) funding.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 16, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potential cost pressures to counties (local funds).

Committee Amendments:

Delete provisions allowing the state to withhold JJCPA funding.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

SB 1057 (Menjivar) - Juvenile justice coordinating council

Bill Summary: SB 1057 requires counties to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council and meet other specified requirements in order to obtain Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) funding.

Fiscal Impact: Potentially significant costs (General Fund, local funds) in the hundreds of millions annually to counties. The amount of state funds allocated to county Supplemental Law Enforcement Services accounts appears to be in the low-to-mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually. If, under Proposition 30, the state is required to provide annual funding to local agencies to offset cost increases resulting from the withholding of funds or of funds allocated in those accounts being distributed to community based organizations (CBOs) and non-law enforcement public agencies or departments, this measure could lead to major General Fund costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. In addition, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the Urban Counties of California (UCC), and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) indicate significant ongoing cost pressures in the tens of millions annually due to increases in workload including process changes, enhancements to case management systems to accommodate new data collection requirements, and additional staffing time to meet a variety of the new duties and responsibilities across the board that would be required by this bill. (See Staff Comments.)

Background:

Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000^[1]: The Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 authorized funding for county juvenile justice programs and designated the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)^[2] to the administrator of funding. This effort was designed to provide a stable funding source for juvenile programs that have been proven effective in curbing crime among at-risk and young offenders. The Act requires counties to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county, with specified components and objectives. The Act requires the multiagency juvenile justice plan to be submitted to the BSCC for review and approval in order to be funded.

Realignment: As a part of the 2011 realignment, the state modified how it funds certain existing programs for local agencies and shifted the funding source for the JJCPA to a realignment account. Under 2011 realignment, JJCPA funds are allocated to local justice system subaccounts with the funding renewed each year based on levels calculated by the state Controller’s office.

Proposition 30 (2012): Proposition 30 added Article XIII, Section 36(c)(4)(A) to the California Constitution, which provides that if the state enacts legislation after September 30, 2012 that increases local costs associated with programs or services realigned in 2011, then the state must provide funding to cover those costs; if no state funding is provided, counties have no obligation to deliver the higher levels of service. Proposition 30 also requires certain specified revenues to be deposited into the Local Revenue Fund of 2011 and to be continuously appropriated exclusively to fund the provision of Public Safety Services by local agencies.

Proposition 30 exempts the state from mandate reimbursements to local jurisdictions for realigned responsibilities for “Public Safety Services” including the managing of local jails and the provision of services for and supervision of minor and adult individuals who have committed crimes. The constitutional amendment, however, provides that legislation enacted after September 30, 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing the costs to a local agency for Public Safety Services transferred by the 2011 Realignment Legislation, including JJCP funding, applies to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the costs increase. Thus, generally, local agencies are not obligated to provide programs or levels of services for minors who have committed crimes required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided by the state. Accordingly, for over 20 years, the state has allocated funding to counties under the JJCPA.

State Auditor Report:^[3] At the request of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the State Auditor conducted an audit to assess five counties’ spending and reporting of JJCPA funds, and decision-making processes related to and evaluations of their JJCPA-funded programs. The report containing the audit findings was published in May 2020. The overall conclusion of the report was that weak oversight of the JJCPA by the state and counties had resulted in some counties not having a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council at all, some counties having vacancies on their council, and several counties making only limited revisions to their comprehensive juvenile justice plan over the last two decades despite significant changes in the statewide juvenile justice landscape.

Proposed Law: This bill makes several changes to the JJCPA and the county juvenile justice coordinating councils. Namely, this bill explicitly requires counties to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council in order to obtain JJCPA funding; requires BSCC to evaluate if a county has complied with the requirements of the JJCPA and authorizes the BSCC or any state agency overseeing the administration of the JJCPA funds to determine an appropriate remedial action or to withhold funding if a county fails to create a juvenile justice coordinating council; and, changes the membership requirements of a juvenile justice coordinating council to require each county juvenile justice coordinating council to consist of at least 50% community representatives.

Related Legislation:

• AB 702 (Jackson, 2023) was substantially similar to this bill. AB 702 was not heard in Assembly Public Safety Committee.
• SB 493 (Bradford, 2021) would have revised components of the JJCPA, including by requiring funded programs to be modeled on trauma-informed and youth development approaches in collaboration with CBOs, requiring no less than 95 percent of specified funds appropriated to counties be allocated to CBOs and non-law enforcement government entities, and changing the composition of county juvenile justice coordinating councils. SB 493 was held under submission by this Committee.
• AB 1007 (Jones-Sawyer, 2020) was substantially similar to SB 493. AB 1007 was not heard in Senate Public Safety Committee due to COVID-19.

Staff Comments:

The state provides JJCPA funding to counties based on population. Funding is provided through an annual guaranteed funding amount, referred to as base funding, and if funds are available, an additional variable amount, referred to as growth funding. Because growth funding varies from year to year, counties do not know how much growth funding they will receive in any given year which has resulted in counties not spending their entire JJCPA allocations. During the 2022-2023 fiscal year, the statewide base allocation of JJCPA funds was $107.1 million with an additional $92.3 million allocated from growth funding. Counties enjoy broad discretion in how JJCPA funds are used to support and enhance their juvenile justice systems.

If a county is unable to meet the new requirements under this bill, the state would be authorized to take “appropriate remedial action” or withhold all JJCPA funds. It is unclear how withheld funding would be used and how counties would be able to deliver services to youths in their jurisdiction without such funding. If the local costs resulting from this bill are determined to be included within the realigned responsibilities specified in Proposition 30, counties would not be obligated to provide a level of service above the level for which funding is provided by the state. Consequently, the provisions of this measure may lead to the additional appropriation of General Fund monies to obtain local compliance. Costs could be even more significant given that counties now bear full responsibility for the entire juvenile justice system pursuant to Juvenile Justice Realignment (2020).

Additionally, this bill would require counties to collect, analyze, and report additional and more detailed information to the BSCC, in a format to be specified by the BSCC, on its funded programs. The additional one-time and ongoing local agency administrative costs for these activities are unknown, but could be significant. Under existing law, administrative overhead costs are capped at 0.5 percent of a local entity’s annual allocation. To the extent the mandated activities result in a county expending administrative costs above the cap could potentially be subject to mandate reimbursement by the state or require a subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30, should the amount of available funding for these activities be insufficient to cover these costs. Counties report the following cost pressures associated with implementing the requirements of bill:

-- END --

1. In 2001, the Legislature extended the funding and changed the program’s name to the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). ↑

2. Formerly the Board of Corrections and later the Corrections Standards Authority. ↑

3. State Auditor, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Weak Oversight Has Hindered Its Meaningful Implementation (Report 2019-116), pp. 1-4, available at <http://auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2019-116.pdf>. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 1057 Hearing Date: April 23, 2024

Subject: Juvenile justice coordinating council

HISTORY

Source: Alliance for Boys & Men of Color

California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Children’s Defense Fund-California

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Fresh Lifelines for Youth Bay Area

National Center for Youth Law

Sigma Beta Xi Youth and Family Services

Prior Legislation: AB 702 (Jackson), not heard in Assembly Public Safety in 2023

AB 505 (Ting), Ch. 528, Stats. 2023

SB 493 (Bradford), held in Senate Appropriations in 2021

AB 1007 (Jones-Sawyer), not heard in 2020 due to COVID-19

AB 1998 (Campos), Ch. 880, Stats. 2016

Proposition 30, as approved by the voters on November 6, 2012

AB 109 (Com. on Budget), Ch. 15, Stats. 2011

SB 81 (Com. on Budget & Fiscal Rev.), Ch. 175, Stats. 2007

AB 1913 (Cardenas), Ch. 353, Stats. 2000

Proposition 21, as approved by the voters on March 7, 2000

AB 2261 (Aguiar), Ch. 325, Stats. 1998

SB 1760 (Com. on Budget & Fiscal Rev.), Ch. 133, Stats. 1996

Support: Access Reproductive Justice; Arts for Healing and Justice Network; California Public Defenders Association; Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Children Now; Collective for Liberatory Lawyering; Courage California; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Freedom 4 Youth; Haywood Burns Institute; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Initiate Justice; Los Angeles Youth Uprising Coalition; Meztli Projects; MILPA Collective; Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; Silicon Valley De-Bug; Students Deserve; UnCommon Law; Underground GRIT; Urban Peace Institute; Women’s Foundation California; Young Women’s Freedom Center

Opposition: Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs; Association of Probation Supervisors; BU 702- SEIU 721 Joint Council; California District Attorneys Association; California State Association of Counties; Chief Probation Officers’ of California; Coalition of Probation Unions; County of Fresno; County of Kern; County of Mendocino; County of Orange; County of San Luis Obispo; California Santa Barbara; Inyo County Probation Department; Los Angeles County Probation Managers Association, AFSCME Local 1967; Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685; Mendocino County Board of Supervisors; Monterey County Probation Association; Rural County Representatives of California; Sacramento County Probation Association; San Diego County Probation Officers Association; San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association; San Luis Obispo County Probation Peace Officers Association; State Coalition of Probation Organizations; Urban Counties of California

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to: 1) explicitly require a county or city and county to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council in order to obtain Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) funding; 2) require the Board of Community and State Corrections (BSCC) to evaluate if a county or a city and county has complied with the requirements of these provisions and authorize the BSCC or any state agency overseeing the administration of the JJCPA funds to determine an appropriate remedial action or to withhold funding if a county or city and county fails to create a juvenile justice coordinating council; 3) change the membership requirements of a juvenile justice coordinating council to require each county juvenile justice coordinating council to consist of at least 50% community representatives and specifies the governmental agencies that may hold the remaining seats on the council; and 4) require a council to select 2 co-chairs from its members, and requires one of the co-chairs to be a community representative.

Existing law establishes in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA). (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires the county auditor, in any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended, to allocate the moneys in the county’s SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund. Specifies how the moneys are allocated. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b).)

Existing law requires fifty percent of the money allocated to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as provided. Requires the juvenile justice plan to be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county. Requires the plan to be reviewed and updated annually by the council. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(4).)

Existing law provides that the plan or updated plan may, at the discretion of the county or city and county, be approved by the county board of supervisors. Requires the plan or updated plan to be submitted to the BSCC by May 1 of each year in a format specified by the board. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(4).)

Existing law requires the multiagency juvenile justice plan to include, but not be limited to, all of the following components:

• An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and youth services resources that specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
• An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substances sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile substance abuse and alcohol use.
• A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.
• A description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that are proposed to be funded. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(4)(A).)

Existing law requires that programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded satisfy all of the following requirements:

• Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and addressing juvenile crime for any elements of response to juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation.
• Collaborate and integrate services of all resources to the extent appropriate.
• Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of juvenile justice programs and strategies. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(4)(B).)

Existing law requires each county or city and county to submit an annual report to the county board of supervisors and to the BSCC on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded in order to assess their effectiveness. Requires the report to be in a format specified by the board and to include all of the following:

• An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been funded in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
• An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded.
• A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been co-funded during the preceding fiscal year using JJCPA funds and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds.
• Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the BSCC, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(4)(C).)

Existing law requires the BSCC to compile the local reports and, by March 1 of each year following their submission, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county. Requires the annual report to the Governor and the Legislature to also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by appropriated have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. Requires the annual report to be posted for access by the public on the website of the board. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(4)(E).)

Existing law establishes the Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program that is administered by the BSCC for the purpose of reducing juvenile crime and delinquency. Requires this program to award grants on a competitive basis following request-for-proposal evaluation standards and guidelines developed by the board to counties that develop and implement a comprehensive, multiagency local action plan that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency, including collaborative ways to address local problems of juvenile crime; and demonstrate a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, graduated responses, and appropriate sanctions for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.21.)

Existing law provides that to be eligible for the grant, each county is required to establish a multiagency juvenile justice coordinating council that develops and implements a continuum of county-based responses to juvenile crime. Requires the coordinating councils include, at a minimum, the chief probation officer, as chair, and one representative each from the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, the sheriff’s department, the board of supervisors, the department of social services, the department of mental health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and an at-large community representative. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)

Existing law requires a coordinating council to include representatives from nonprofit community-based organizations providing services to minors. Requires the board of supervisors to be informed of community-based organizations participating on a coordinating council. Requires the coordinating councils to develop a comprehensive, multiagency plan that identifies the resources and strategies for providing an effective continuum of responses for the prevention, intervention, supervision, treatment, and incarceration of male and female juvenile offenders, including strategies to develop and implement locally based or regionally based out-of-home placement options for youths. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)

Existing law provides that counties may utilize community punishment plans developed pursuant to grants awarded from funds included in the 1995 Budget Act to the extent the plans address juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system or local action plans previously developed for this program. Requires the plan include, but not be limited to, the following components:

• An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol and youth services resources which specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
• An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substance sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile alcohol use within the council’s jurisdiction.
• A local action plan for improving and marshaling the resources described above to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and delinquency in the targeted areas and the greater community. Requires the councils to prepare their plans to maximize the provision of collaborative and integrated services of all the resources described above, and to provide specified strategies for all elements of response, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation, to provide a continuum for addressing the identified male and female juvenile crime problem, and strategies to develop and implement locally based or regionally based out-of-home placement options for youths.
• Develop information and intelligence-sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and to provide data for measuring the success of the grantee in achieving its goals. Requires the plan to develop goals related to the outcome measures that will be used to determine the effectiveness of the program.
• Identify outcome measures which must include, but not be limited to, the following: the rate of juvenile arrests, the rate of successful completion of probation, and the rate of successful completion of restitution and court-ordered community service responsibilities. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 749.22.)

This bill explicitly provides that in order for a county or city and county to be eligible for funding, it must establish a juvenile justice coordinating council.  

This bill authorizes the BSCC or any state agency overseeing the administration of these funds to determine appropriate remedial action or withhold funding if a county or city and county fails to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council.

This bill revises the components of the multiagency juvenile justice plan. Specifically, requires the plan include:

• An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and community-based youth development services and resources that specifically center at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system, and their families. Assessments shall prioritize soliciting direct feedback on youth participants’ satisfaction with existing services and resources.
• An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that are vulnerable to court system involvement due to high rates of poverty, a lack of educational and employment opportunities, racial discrimination, the incarceration of an at-promise youth’s family members, and a high prevalence of community violence and crime.
• A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of care to prevent and respond to young people experiencing juvenile court system involvement that is modeled on a framework of positive youth development and demonstrates a healing-centered, culturally competent, restorative, community-based, collaborative, and integrated approach for at-promise youth and youth involved in the juvenile court system.
• A description of the target population for the program strategies that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this paragraph, including a description of the target population’s race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, and ZIP Code of residence.
• Input from at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system and their families, and a description of the programs and strategies that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph, including documentation of their effectiveness, specific objectives, and outcome measures.

This bill revises the requirements for JJCPA-funded programs and strategies. Specifically, requires a program or strategy to:

• Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in creating positive youth development outcomes, helping young people avoid engagement

with law enforcement agencies, and reducing community violence and crime. Requires these programs and approaches to be modeled on healing-centered, culturally competent, restorative, trauma-informed, and positive youth development approaches.

• Collaborate and integrate services of law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and community-based youth development services and resources that specifically center at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system, and their families, to the extent appropriate, and prioritize collaboration with community-based organizations.
• Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of programs and strategies funded by this paragraph, while still protecting participant confidentiality in pre-arrest and pre-booking diversion programs. Prohibits personally identifying information from being shared across agencies without the informed, voluntary, revocable, and written consent of youth participants, or their parents or legal guardians on behalf of minors.

This bill requires the local agency overseeing the request for proposals process for funds provided to engage community stakeholders, including, but not limited to, at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system and their families, and the juvenile justice coordinating council in the process of selecting which entities to which to distribute funds. Requires the local agency to take into account the county’s juvenile justice plan and equity of funding across the county in the final selection of proposals to be funded. Provides that the local agency overseeing the request for proposals process for funds may be any county agency that is not a law enforcement-related agency, with preference for behavioral health-related local agencies.

This bill requires the report regarding funded programs and strategies that each juvenile justice coordinating council must submit annually to the county board of supervisors and the BSCC to include, in addition to the existing requirements, the following information:

• Descriptions of the programs and strategies that include evidence supporting the programs and strategies, including feedback from youth participants. 
• An updated list of juvenile justice coordinating council members, including their assigned seat and profession, if applicable, and dates for all council meetings in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
• Countywide juvenile justice trend data that is required under current law to be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender identity, age, and ZIP Code of residence.

This bill defines “at-promise youth” to mean young people up to 25 years of age, inclusive, who are vulnerable to court system involvement due to high rates of poverty, a lack of educational and employment opportunities, racial discrimination, the incarceration of one or more of their family members, and a high prevalence of community violence and crime.

This bill defines “community representative” to mean an individual who is currently or formerly justice system-involved, a system-impacted family member, or a representative from a nonprofit, community-based organization that provides services to youth and that does not include law enforcement employees or staff.

This bill provides that in order to be eligible for a grant, each county is required to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council that must develop and implement a continuum of care to prevent and respond to young people experiencing juvenile court system involvement that is modeled on a framework of positive youth development and demonstrates a healing-centered, restorative, community-based, collaborative, and integrated approach for at-promise youth and youth involved in the juvenile court system.

This bill requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to, at a minimum, consist of at least 50 percent community representatives and requires the remainder of seats to be allocated to representatives from governmental agencies.

This bill requires the juvenile justice coordinating council to include an at-promise youth, and either a person with experience in the juvenile court system or a system-impacted family member. Provides that the juvenile justice coordinating council may include one representative each from the public health department, the district attorney’s office, the county probation department, the public defender’s office, the board of supervisors, the county department of social services, the county department of mental or behavioral health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and the county department of children, youth, and families, if one exists.

This bill provides that if a county board of supervisors or a county’s juvenile justice coordinating council’s bylaws establish term limits, all individuals of the council, including co-chairs, are subject to these term limits.

This bill requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to elect two co-chairs from among its members, at least one of whom must be a community representative.

This bill requires the board of supervisors to be informed of any community-based organizations participating on a juvenile justice coordinating council.

This bill requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to meet no less than three times per year and announce meetings at least 10 days in advance. Requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to make meetings accessible to the public through remote participation, such as streaming and remote call-in options. Requires the council to choose meeting times that optimize and encourage public participation.

This bill requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to develop a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified, that identifies the resources and strategies for providing an effective continuum of care for at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system, and their families.

This bill includes uncodified findings and declarations.

This bill makes other technical and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bill

According to the author:

California has committed to ending the era of tough-on-crime approach to youth incarceration while ushering in a new, health-based approach to youth development. While we have made great strides, there remain opportunities for improvement. One urgent opportunity is rectifying the injustices created by the flawed implementation of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). The JJCPA was enacted over twenty years ago to service youth in their communities and keep them from entering the justice system. However, the lack of community representation on counties’ local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) has caused us to fall short of that goal.

SB 1057 seeks to remedy this problem by creating a more equitable JJCC composition. The expertise of those who are most impacted by the system, and those working alongside them with a trauma-informed, healing-focused lens, are invaluable to implementing the JJCPA. SB 1057 would require counties to bring these experts to the table. However, it is not enough simply to have a seat at the table. System impacted young people, credible messengers, and trusted community stakeholders must feel safe; SB 1057 will add a community co-chair to JJCCs to ensure community voice does not become illusory. This bill does not defund probation, nor does it require that probation or other county agencies are left behind – SB 1057 simply supplements the current efforts by adding community voice to the decision-making process.

1. Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act

The JJCPA was enacted in 2000 to provide a stable funding source to counties with the goal of helping them reduce crime among young people. According to the author statement included in the Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis of AB 1913:

AB 1913 is a necessary counterpart to Proposition 21, recently passed by the voters. AB 1913 would provide needed support and reform of the juvenile justice system. It would reduce the public safety problems associated with juvenile delinquency in California by implementing programs proven to reduce recidivism among juveniles. (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill 1913 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 23, 2000, p. 5.)

The JJCPA involves collaboration between the state, local county agencies, and community-based organizations in order to accomplish the goal of reducing delinquency. The target demographic includes youth on probation and in juvenile halls and camps, as well as at-risk youth. The JJCPA requires that each county establish a juvenile justice coordinating council made up of representatives from various local government agencies, CBOs, and the community. The coordinating council is required to develop a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan for the county. State law specifies the four components that must be included in every county’s juvenile justice plan which taken together, generally summarize a county’s holistic efforts to reduce juvenile crime. The JJCPA requires counties to base their programs on approaches that are effective in reducing juvenile crime and delinquency and requires JJCPA-funded programs and strategies to be designed to provide data for measuring their success. Each county must submit its plan to the BSCC annually, along with a year-end report that describes the county’s JJCPA-funded programs and how those programs may have affected the county’s juvenile justice trends. The BSCC then compiles the information it receives from the counties and submits an annual report to the Governor and Legislature.

The state provides JJCPA funding to counties based on population. Funding is provided through an annual guaranteed funding amount, referred to as base funding, and if funds are available, an additional variable amount, referred to as growth funding. Because growth funding varies from year to year, counties do not know how much growth funding they will receive in any given year which has resulted in counties not spending their entire JJCPA allocations. During the 2021-2022 fiscal year, the statewide base allocation of JJCPA funds was $107.1 million with an additional $69.9 million allocated from growth funding. (Board of State and Community Corrections, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act and Youth Offender Block Grant Annual Report to the Legislature (Mar. 2023), p. 12 available at <http://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023-JJCPA-YOBG-Legislative-Report-FINAL.pdf>.)

Counties enjoy broad discretion in how JJCPA funds are used to support and enhance their juvenile justice systems. According to a report published by the Children’s Defense Fund- California in 2018, “[JJCPA funds] ha[ve] been allocated for a range of programs, including policing and probation supervision in schools, public housing and park services, mental health screening and treatment, and community-based arts and after-school programs.” (Soung et al., Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act in Los Angeles: A Case Study on Advocacy & Collaborative Reform (Dec. 2018), p. 3 available at <https://www.cdfca.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/01/juvenile-justice-crime-prevention-act-in-los-angeles.pdf?_ga=2.215258129.705757938.1618379732-177568109.1618379732>.) The report noted that there were 150 JJCPA programs administered by the counties in 2014-2015 which served 84,450 at-risk and probation youth. (Id.)

1. State Auditor’s Report

At the request of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the State Auditor conducted an audit to assess five counties’ spending and reporting of JJCPA funds, and decision-making processes related to and evaluations of their JJCPA-funded programs. The report containing the audit findings was published in May 2020. The overall conclusion of the report was that weak oversight of the JJCPA by the state and counties had resulted in some counties not having a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council at all, some counties having vacancies on their council, and several counties making only limited revisions to their comprehensive juvenile justice plan over the last two decades despite significant changes in the statewide juvenile justice landscape. (State Auditor, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Weak Oversight Has Hindered Its Meaningful Implementation (Report 2019-116), pp. 1-4, available at <http://auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2019-116.pdf>.)

The State Auditor made the following recommendations for legislative action:

• To ensure that counties adequately identify how they serve at‑risk youth, the Legislature should require counties to define at‑risk youth in their comprehensive plans. The Legislature should also require the BSCC to review counties’ comprehensive plans to ensure that each contains an adequate definition of at‑risk youth.
• The Legislature should direct the BSCC to monitor reports that counties submit to ensure that they include meaningful descriptions or analyses of how their JJCPA‑funded programs may have contributed to or influenced countywide juvenile justice trends.
• To enable the BSCC to provide effective oversight of the required elements of the JJCPA, the Legislature should amend state law to describe a process for restricting the spending of JJCPA funding by counties that do not meet JJCPA requirements. As part of that process, the State should prohibit counties from spending JJCPA funds if they have not established Coordinating Councils.
• To make JJCPA funding more stable and predictable, the Legislature should amend state law to increase the amount of guaranteed JJCPA funding the State provides to counties.

(Id. at p. 5.)

1. Major Provisions of the Bill

This bill makes several changes to the JJCPA and the county juvenile justice coordinating councils.

Juvenile Justice Coordinating Councils

This bill explicitly provides that in order for a county or city and county to be eligible for funding, it must establish a juvenile justice coordinating council, and authorizes the BSCC or any state agency overseeing the administration of these funds to determine appropriate remedial action or withhold funding if a county or city and county fails to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council. This bill also requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to meet no less than three times per year.

This bill additionally requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to consist of at least 50 percent community representatives, and specifically requires the juvenile justice coordinating council include an at-promise youth and either a person with experience in the juvenile court system or a system-impacted family member. With regard to the rest of the rest of the juvenile justice coordinating council’s membership, the bill provides that the juvenile justice coordinating council may include one representative each from the public health department, the district attorney’s office, the county probation department, the public defender’s office, the board of supervisors, the county department of social services, the county department of mental or behavioral health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and the county department of children, youth, and families, if one exists. Finally, this bill requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to elect two co-chairs from among its members, at least one of whom must be a community representative.

Multiagency Juvenile Justice Plan

This bill revises the components of the multiagency juvenile justice plan as well as the requirements for JJCPA-funded programs and strategies.

This bill requires the local agency overseeing the request for proposals process for funds provided to engage community stakeholders, including, but not limited to, at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system and their families, and the juvenile justice coordinating council in the process of selecting which entities to which to distribute funds. This bill also requires the local agency to take into account the county’s juvenile justice plan and equity of funding across the county in the final selection of proposals to be funded, and provides that the local agency overseeing the request for proposals process for funds may be any county agency that is not a law enforcement-related agency, with preference for behavioral health-related local agencies.

RFP Process

This bill requires the local agency overseeing the request for proposals process for funds to engage community stakeholders, as specified, and the juvenile justice coordinating council in the process of selecting which entities to which to distribute funds. Notably, this bill requires the local agency overseeing the request for proposals process for funds may be any county agency that is not a law enforcement-related agency, with preference for behavioral health-related local agencies.

Annual Report

This bill requires the report regarding funded programs and strategies that each juvenile justice coordinating council must submit annually to the county board of supervisors and the BSCC to include the following information in addition to the requirements under existing law:

• Descriptions of the programs and strategies that include evidence supporting the programs and strategies, including feedback from youth participants. 
• An updated list of juvenile justice coordinating council members, including their assigned seat and profession, if applicable, and dates for all council meetings in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
• Countywide juvenile justice trend data that is required under current law to be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender identity, age, and ZIP Code of residence.

1. Argument in Support

The bill’s co-sponsors write:

…SB 1057…would help California fully realize the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act’s (JJCPA) vision of providing health-centered, culturally competent, and community-based approaches for at-promise youth and youth involved in the juvenile court system by ensuring equitable community representation and improved decision-making within county Juvenile Justice Coordinating Councils (JJCCs).

…

In 2000, the Schiff-Cardenas Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act was created to support youth in their communities and limit their involvement in the justice system. The grant requires that each county establish a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council that consists of representatives from a variety of local agencies and community groups to ensure the county’s multi-agency juvenile justice plan is collaborative and comprehensive.

However, in 2020, the California State Auditor released a report which found that most counties left mandatory stakeholder seats vacant. In fact, 20 percent of counties lacked a Council entirely during the audit review period. Of those counties that did complete plans, the State Auditor found that counties generally made limited revisions to their plans over the past 20 years although youth arrest have declined by 89 percent from 243,090 in 2000 to 26,000 in 2022, and California has also seen a decline in referrals to probation…from 187,296 in 2006 to 16, 252 in 2022. Additionally, counties’ reporting failed to evaluate whether their JJCPA-Funded programs have been effective.

Across the state, inequitable decision-making by JJCCs has continued in the years since the Auditor’s report. The Riverside County JJCC was required to add five community member seats following a 2020 settlement centered on the county’s Youth Accountability Team (YAT) program. the lawsuit argued that the YAT program spent millions of dollars funneling children into an unconstitutional probation system that denied them their due process rights and subjected them to oppressive, invasive policies, such as surprise searches, unannounced home visitations, strict restrictions on who participants could speak to, curfews, and interrogations into intimate details of their lives. In 2021 and 2022, Fresno and Sacramento Counties were both found to be unlawfully holding meetings on juvenile justice reform behind closed doors. Dismal data reporting has continued, allowing for incidents such as in Los Angeles County, where probation was found to have spent nearly $400,000 yearly on a youth diversion program that served zero youth participants while simultaneously hoarding almost $100 million in JJCPA funding, thus preventing the delivery of much-needed resources to parks and recreation, arts, education, and behavioral health oriented programming.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to the Chief Probation Officers of California:

SB 1057…would repurpose and reprioritize new processes thereby redirecting the expenditure of critical juvenile justice investments which are expended in accordance with research-based standards and producing highly effective results. This funding has been foundational to supporting positive youth outcomes resulting in a 60 percent decline in youth detention rates and a 73 percent decline in juvenile arrest rates over the last decade. Additionally, the bill seeks to revise the composition of local Juvenile Justice Coordinating Councils and make changes to multiagency juvenile justice plans. In doing so, this bill seeks to do away with collaborative and multi-agency approaches currently relied upon which have been essential tools in supporting an entire continuum that prevents juveniles from becoming more formally system involved through effectuating successful and expeditious re-entry post system involvement….

First, it is important to understand that the current system supports both transparency and multi-disciplinary voices as fundamental pieces to advise the direction of these plans in each of the 58 counties. … JJCPA supports our ability to provide cognitively designed, evidence-based and trauma-informed care. These efforts manifest in either partnerships with other system stakeholders, contracts with non-governmental entities where appropriate, or specific skill building within the probation department to deliver direct prevention services and programming. SB 1057 would create further instability at a time when we are absorbing the responsibility and liability of moving the entire continuum to probation and counties to continue to advance the historical progress made to divert youth away from detention.

Second, SB 1057 would impact county funding in several ways.

New language in the bill would allow the State via the Board of State and Community Corrections to withhold the funding if a county fails to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council. This mechanism is subjective, unclear, and sets a precedent for funding to counties to be withheld for service delivery that is provided by counties.

…

Redirection of important investments in local systems in local systems would create instability and diminution for the provision of necessary supports and services for youth in our communities. We would reiterate the constitutional concerns associated with the requirement to redirect JJCPA resources, given that this funding resides within the 2011 fiscal structure that is constitutionally protected under the provisions of Proposition 30 (2012). \

…

Third, … we are concerned that the changes proposed in this bill will have the adverse impact to its stated goals. … Counties and probation are statutorily responsible for the safety and rehabilitation of all youth across the juvenile continuum, yet this bill removes probation from the role of coordinating the planning process with these statutory duties. Therefore, probation and counties take on the responsibility and accountability for outcomes of juvenile services without the ability to coordinate and guide the plans to meet the goals, outcomes and requirements.

…[I]t is unclear how the approach in this bill … would support the advancement of integrated and coordinated delivery of juvenile prevention and diversion services. … It is also unclear why this change is being proposed in light of the evolution and decline of youth in detention and with counties’ significant focus on preventing youth from coming into contact with the juvenile justice system through efforts such as JJCPA over the last decade.

-- END --