Sending juvenile offenders to community programs meant to keep them housed, fed and otherwise integrated back into society is great in theory, said Sen. Bob Archuleta. But he wants to make sure such programs are, in practice, working and serving California\u2019s young people.<\/p>\n
Sacramento Snapshot<\/p>\n
Editor\u2019s note:\u00a0Sacramento Snapshot<\/a>\u00a0is a weekly series during the legislative session detailing what Orange County\u2019s representatives in the Assembly and Senate are working on \u2014 from committee work to bill passages and more.<\/p>\n So Archuleta, a Democrat who represents Brea and Placentia in the statehouse, is pushing a bill that would require judges to take into consideration whether \u201cless restrictive programs\u201d have certain programming expectations and safety frameworks before a young person is sent there.<\/p>\n Less restrictive programs are defined in California law<\/a> as camps, halfway houses, ranches or community residential or nonresidential programs that \u201cfacilitate the safe and successful reintegration of the ward into the community.\u201d According to the bill, minors who break either local, state or federal law can be determined to be a \u201cward of the court,\u201d and could be placed in one of these programs.<\/p>\n As Archuleta put it: Less restrictive programs \u201care designed to help young adults convicted of serious and violent crimes transition from secure detention into privately run settings in the community while still technically in custody where they can reconnect with family, education and rehabilitation.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat goal is worth supporting,\u201d Archuleta said. \u201cThe problem is that judges often must approve these placements without critical information about whether the facility is safe, properly supervised or even appropriate for the young adult being placed there. I want to make sure that it\u2019s safe for the young adult and for the community as well.\u201d<\/p>\n Senate Bill 1157<\/a> doesn\u2019t change who is qualified for these less restrictive programs, Archuleta said.<\/p>\n Rather, it would ensure the youth in these programs have adequate care, support and services. That includes background checks on staff, adequate insurance policies, certain accountability measures for those under its care and proper notice submitted to the city and county where it operates.<\/p>\n \u201cIt seems like very few people have knowledge that some of our young people, when they are released from juvenile custody, they go into what\u2019s called less restrictive programs,\u201d Archuleta said in an interview. \u201cWhat that means, it\u2019s a transition back into society, which is a great program, a great idea if they follow what the rules of transition should be.\u201d<\/p>\n Archuleta said he recently visited such programs that left him impressed. These places not only make sure the youth there are housed and fed, but they also have working heaters to keep those there cozy in winter months, basketball courts to give the kids a place to work out frustrations, kitchens to help them learn how to cook and be a part of a home setting and irons to teach juveniles how to care for their own clothes.<\/p>\n \u201cMy question was: Is every one of these individuals across the county and the state, are they getting that same treatment?\u201d Archuleta, whose district largely includes Los Angeles County, said.<\/p>\n \u201cSome of these facilities are unchecked, and maybe some of these young people are put into these home situations where maybe they\u2019re not comfortable. Maybe they are not getting the counseling,\u201d he said. \u201cSo I\u2019m bringing awareness to our judges that they should partner up with the county probation officers a little bit more to get information about a particular home that might be in the right location for that particular juvenile.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWhen some of these young people have problems or gang problems or had issues with family, or whatever, you don\u2019t want to put them back in a bad situation. You want to open their horizons.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s a transition period, Archuleta said, but if youth aren\u2019t put in a situation where they can thrive or have what may even widely be considered mundane experiences but are unique for them \u2014 a trip to the ocean or even a shopping mall, for example \u2014 then the whole point of these types of programs is lost.<\/p>\n According to the Los Angeles County Probation Department<\/a>, counties expanded the use of these less restrictive programs after California closed its Division of Juvenile Justice in 2023. These programs are \u201cintended to provide youth with rehabilitation, treatment, education, counseling, life skills development and supportive services in a smaller and more normalized setting while maintaining appropriate levels of supervision and accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n California\u2019s Office of Youth and Community Restoration says<\/a> these less restrictive programs should foster safety, security and dignity for those there, and meet basic healthcare, hygiene, sleep and social interaction needs. They should also provide mentorship and prioritize a \u201chome\u201d as the setting, with the understanding that they may look differently for young people: a college may be better suited for one person, for example, or a conservation fire camp for another.<\/p>\n Thus far, Archuleta\u2019s bill has received broad bipartisan support.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also supported by the Chief Probation Officers of California, League of California Cities and the Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officers AFSCME Local 685, to name a few.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s opposed by several organizations, including the ACLU California Action, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color and the California Youth Justice Project.<\/p>\n In its opposition note, the Youth Justice Coalition said the bill creates statewide standards without addressing just who will enforce or interpret them.<\/p>\n \u201cThis leaves only two possibilities, and neither is workable. If probation departments are expected to determine what the criteria require, the result will be 58 counties developing inconsistent standards independently, undermining the statewide uniformity the bill presumably seeks,\u201d the group said. \u201cIf the criteria are instead treated as a bare checklist, they function as paperwork rather than protection, providing no meaningful assurance that a proposed (less restrictive program) actually meets the needs of the youth being considered for transfer.\u201d<\/p>\n Archuleta\u2019s bill is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s a mad dash to the finish line for this bill and a whole host of others: Aug. 31 is the deadline for legislation to pass.<\/p>\n Archuleta is acutely aware of the timeline, but he said he hopes lawmakers will agree to set a precedent that will have a tangible impact on many California youth.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re trying to set the standards, and that\u2019s what it\u2019s all about,\u201d Archuleta said. \u201cWhat we do in California should be equal across the board with the same standards.\u201d<\/p>\n In other news<\/p>\n \u2022 Several Orange County Republican Assembly members authored a pair of resolutions last week that they said are meant to raise awareness and support research in the wake of a string of rare childhood cancer diagnoses in Ladera Ranch<\/a>.<\/p>\n Multiple children have been diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma<\/a>, which usually begins in leg bones, according to the Mayo Clinic, since 2007. With recent attention turned to the rare cancer cases, officials have called for environmental investigations in the area.<\/p>\n