File #: 22-342    Name: Response to Board Referral No. 2017.24
Type: General Agenda Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 4/14/2022 In control: Board of Supervisors
On agenda: 4/26/2022 Final action:
Title: a. Receive a status update on Board Referral No. 2017.24 for consultant options to consolidate the Youth Center with the new Juvenile Hall and repurpose 970 Circle Drive; and b. Provide direction to staff.
Attachments: 1. Board Report, 2. Board Referral No. 2017.24, 3. Probation Response Memos, 4. Completed Board Order Item No. 26

Title

a. Receive a status update on Board Referral No. 2017.24 for consultant options to consolidate the Youth Center with the new Juvenile Hall and repurpose 970 Circle Drive; and

b. Provide direction to staff.

Report

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:

a. Receive a status update on Board Referral No. 2017.24 for consultant options to consolidate the Youth Center with the new Juvenile Hall and repurpose 970 Circle Drive; and

b. Provide direction to staff.

 

SUMMARY/DISCUSSION:

Referral No. 2017.24 was submitted by Supervisor Alejo on October 18, 2017, and assigned to the Probation Department, which provided a referral status update in January 2019, a preliminary recommendation in August 2020 and a more in-depth analysis on May 6, 2021. The referral was then modified to ask the County Administrative Office to bring back options for retaining an independent consultant.

 

Juvenile Hall houses an average of 29 youth for various offenses that are both pre- and post-disposition, with an average 26-day duration. The Youth Center camp houses an average of 24 post-disposition males on mostly felonies for stays of approximately eight months. The majority of youth are between 15 and17 years old. There has also been an average of five adolescents over 18 years old in the Juvenile Hall and eight in the Youth Center. The new Juvenile Hall has a capacity of 80 and the Youth Center’s capacity is 60 male residents.

 

An initial assessment to determine the feasibility of combining functions and identify any statutory and programming challenges of co-locating multiple juvenile populations would require up to six months and an estimated $70,000. Once complete, the consultant would indicate whether it is possible to accommodate different classifications at the new Juvenile Hall and offer potential recommendations for modification. Additional modifications may include both infrastructure and program additions and changes, which may require additional investment.

 

ANALYSIS:

Board Referral Background:

On August 22, 2017, a senior project manager at Kitchell CEM concluded that co-locating the facilities would necessitate a new construction project, including master planning and redesign of the new Juvenile Hall and Salinas Valley Education Center, estimated to require up to two years and millions of County dollars. Specific challenges identified were a limited site area, separate client populations and a programming space. Ultimately, due to concerns around liability and loss of SB 81 grant funding, the consultant recommended exploring alternative uses for empty beds as the detention population continues to decrease.

 

On August 20, 2018, the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) indicated a site visit determined regulatory issues such as Title 15 or Title 24 do not preclude co-locating the detained and committed youth in one facility, provided adequate staffing and separate reporting is maintained. It noted that an increase in staffing would be necessary for the Youth Center from a ratio of 1:15 to 1:10 and encouraged further careful consideration to operational impacts, but stated consolidation would not jeopardize camp funding.

 

On January 16, 2019, the Probation Department provided a referral status update that summarized its concerns around the potentially compromised rehabilitative function of the Youth Center if both detained and committed populations are housed in the same facility, as well as logistical challenges of staggering appropriate programming and meals for low and high-risk offenders. It also noted concerns about future trends and capacity constraints and adequate space for visitation, medical and behavioral health services and programs. As construction was still in progress, the department offered to return with a recommendation.

 

On August 28, 2020, another update was provided due to the descoping of the construction project, which eliminated a high security unit, classroom, kitchen, laundry, dining area, maintenance shop, storage and a total of 40 beds. The modified construction significantly reduced capacity and presents a challenge in separating high and low risk populations and serving longer duration stays. This status update raised additional potential concerns regarding accommodating different populations as a result of SB823, namely the stay duration, seriousness and categories of offenses, and wide range of individuals’ ages. SB823 realigned the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) population from the State of California to Counties on July 1, 2021. The bill also established the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court up to the age of 25 for certain offenses and transferred the responsibility of care, custody, and supervision of youth to the county of commitment and set June 30, 2023, as a hard closure date of all DJJ facilities.

 

On May 6, 2021, the Probation Department concluded that maintaining programmatic integrity under SB823 would not be viable due to the descoping of the construction project. The current space limitations of the new Juvenile Hall facility would not be able to accommodate four disparate populations and related Youth Center programming. Consolidation would result in utility and vehicle savings, but these would be offset by mandated staffing levels and external contracts for meal and laundry services.

 

Consultant:

Relevant projects were reviewed for a dozen consultants, many with more than 70 years of experience and juvenile justice projects in various counties, including Riverside, Yolo, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Los Angeles, Alameda, San Diego, Shasta, San Luis Obispo, Orange, and Tuolumne. A few estimates were obtained and the most pertinent and reasonable averaged about $70,000 for firms with familiarity of codes and regulations that have completed similar projects and, in some cases, previously worked with Monterey County. This cost would include high level analysis and planning, beginning with a review of the current layout and configuration of housing and support spaces, operations, and youth population data to provide a plan for accommodation of the various risk groups. Recommendations could include either that the new Juvenile Hall capacity is sufficient with modified operations and programming, or that the structure must be modified or a new facility is necessary to best meet current rehabilitation standards and the needs of the youth, public and staff.

 

The option for moving forward is to secure funding up to $70,000 and begin an RFP process to contract with an appropriate consultant.

 

OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:

This report was discussed with Probation and Facilities.

 

FINANCING:

Acceptance of this report has no fiscal impact. Funding a consultant study would require returning to the Board to increase appropriations by an estimated $70,000.

 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STRATEGIC INITIATIVES:

The recommendation supports the following Board of Supervisors’ Strategic Initiatives:

 

                          Economic Development

 X                      Administration

                          Health & Human Services

                          Infrastructure

                          Public Safety

 

Prepared by: Bella Lesik, Administrative Analyst, ext. 6767

 

Approved by: Ezequiel Vega, County Budget Director, ext. 3078

 

Approved by: Dewayne Woods, Assistant County Administrative Officer, ext. 5309

 

Attachments: Board Referral No. 2017.24; Probation Response Memos