April 26, 2022 Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council meeting

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency […] provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days.

The Coordinating Council must make two findings (and vote) today on whether to continue remote meetings:

• That the Coordinating Council has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency and
• That one of the following circumstances exist:
  • The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members to meet safely in person OR
  • State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Division of Juvenile Justice Realignment (SB 823 & SB 92)

• SB 823 shifts responsibility to the counties for the custody, care, and supervision of youth who would have otherwise been eligible for the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), California’s youth prisons.
  • SB 92 allows counties to establish local Secure Youth Treatment Facilities for youth who would have been otherwise eligible for DJJ commitment.
• Adjusts the Age of Jurisdiction: Extended to 21, 23, or 25, depending on offense
• Intake at DJJ stopped July 1, 2021
• New state Office of Youth & Community Restoration (OYCR) within Health & Human Services Agency which will receive plans from each county

DJJ Realignment & JJRBG

• Each county receives “Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant” funds (“JJRBG” funds) based on state funding formula
• To be eligible for state realignment funding: each county shall create a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council (JJCC) subcommittee to develop a plan to provide appropriate rehabilitation and supervision services to youth who were eligible for DJJ commitment prior to its closure
  • SF’s JJCC DJJ Realignment Subcommittee is made up 15 members, 9 of whom are community members or youth advocates
• San Francisco’s unanimously approved DJJ Realignment Plan was submitted to the Office of Youth & Community Restoration (OYCR) in December 2021.
• San Francisco’s current and projected funding:
  • FY 21/22: $805,571
  • FY 22/23: $2,353,800
  • FY 23‐24: $3,899,536

San Francisco DJJ Realignment Subcommittee Membership

• Katy Miller, Probation Chief (Chair)
• Kasie Lee, District Attorney’s Office
• Patricia Lee, Public Defender’s Office
• Joan Miller (Jessica Mateu‐Newsome, alternate), Department of Social Services (HSA)
• Mona Tahsini, Department of Mental Health (DPH)
• Alysse Castro, County Office of Education/School District (SFUSD)
• Judge Monica Wiley, Superior Court
• Angel Ceja Jr., Juvenile Advisory Council
• Denise Coleman, Huckleberry Youth Programs/ CARC
• Ron Stueckle, Juvenile Justice Providers Association/ Sunset Youth Services Additional Community Member/Youth Advocate Seats:
• Liz Jackson‐Simpson, Community‐based provider with TAY Workforce & Housing Expertise 12. Will Roy, Individual Directly Impacted by Secure Facility
• Tiffany Sutton, Family Member of Youth Impacted by Secure Facility
• Chaniel Williams, Victim/Survivor of Community Violence
• Lana Kreidie, SF Bar Association Indigent Defense Administrator – Juvenile Delinquency

SF DJJ Realignment Plan

• Community‐Based Services:
  • Leverage what’s already in community for young people on probation; use funding to address specific gaps
• Out‐of‐home Placement:
  • Identify additional placement options
• Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF):
  • Use Juvenile Hall as SF’s interim SYTF and to revise SYTF plan once City leadership makes decisions re: SF’s place of detention;
  • Recommend to City leadership to consider co‐locating SF’s SYTF and SF’s future place of detention;
  • Regardless, SYTF should be healing‐centered, family‐centered, community‐connected, and culturally responsive;
  • Enable youth to be placed in out‐of‐county SYTFs as appropriate.

SF JJRBG Allocation Plan

• Across All Settings (Community, Placement, & SYTF):
  • Credible messenger life coaches
  • Whole family support
  • Flexible funding, including direct funding to young people and their families
  • Collective training for system stakeholders and partners
• In SYTF: Flexible funding for personalized programming & support
  • Education
  • Workforce development
  • Behavioral health and wellness
  • Parenting
  • Substance abuse
  • Reentry/transition
• Leverage community providers for these services; and issue RFP for any new  programming.
• RFP development for credible messenger life coaches and whole family support  underway now.

Close Juvenile Hall Work Group

”Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require the City to close Juvenile Hall by December 31, 2021, expand community‐based alternatives to detention, and provide a rehabilitative, non‐institutional place or places of detention, in a‐location approved by the Court, to establish a working group for the development of a Juvenile Hall closure plan, and to establish the Youth Justice Reinvestment Fund to support community‐based alternatives to detention and also support the working group."

• Two‐year public process – formal workgroup, six subcommittees
• Consultants Burns Institute and NICJR facilitated the process
• 39 recommendations across a broad range of topics, involving multiple public agencies:
  • Diversion
  • Review of Charging Decisions
  • Reducing Reliance on Detention for Warrants
  • Limiting Time on Probation
  • Reducing Reliance on Out of Home Placement
  • Expedited/Same Day Detention Hearings
  • Expanding Detention Alternatives
  • Unaccompanied Minors
  • Non‐Institutional Place of Detention
  • Community Alternatives
  • Re‐Imagining Well‐Being Alternatives to Detention
• Report presented to Board of Supervisors in February 2022; next BOS meeting upcoming  
• Key Themes:
  • Maximizing Alternatives to Detention
  • Well‐Being Approach
  • Shared Leadership by Government and Community

Overview

• JCPA‐YOBG Block Grant Consolidation Plan
• Due May 6
• Base Allocation: TBD (per FAQs, County allocations will be determined s part of the annual state budget process, on/about July 1st and funding should be allocated in September; FY21‐22 allocation was $2.4M)

Highlights

• Guided by the Local Action Plan
• Continuing work with Juvenile Probation, Adult Probation, Sheriff’s Office, and District Attorney
• Continuing with American Institutes for Research (AIR)
• Regularly convening with Juvenile Justice Partners • Ongoing Technical Assistance and Capacity Building – National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform’s Positive Youth Development and Intensive Life Coaching Trainings
• Continuous funding of existing programs

DCYF’s Works

• Drafting Community Needs Assessment
• Will include qualitative information from last Summer, with a new additional focus on how COVID‐19 has changed the needs landscape