Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council members discussed the Independent Living Program (ILP) July 23 and said they hope to expand life-skills programming for at-risk youth, but staff shortages and a vacant Social Services director post complicate near-term implementation.

Wendy James and other JJCC members described planning conversations with Olivia and probation prevention staff about using ILP to provide life skills at multiple high schools. A JJCC member summarized ILP history in the county: “It’s bounced around in Plumas. It’s had several, you know, different agencies kinda carry that contract,” and noted the state ILP contract historically has been managed by Social Services (DSS).

Barriers and authority: Participants said the ILP state contract exists with Social Services but that current staffing is minimal. One participant noted the county lacks a permanent Social Services director after a recent resignation posted on the Board of Supervisors agenda; committee members said they will consult with the interim or future director—Jennifer Brumby was mentioned as handling administration—before advancing a contract or proposal.

Scope and partners: Staff said they aim to offer ILP-related life-skills programming in county high schools (speakers referenced four high schools) and to target at-risk youth broadly, not solely foster or probation-involved youth. Suggested partners include county agencies, literacy programs and youth-service groups, and committee members proposed blending state contract services with locally provided supplemental offerings.

Funding and next steps: Committee members said there is some funding available from a settlement fund (referred to in the meeting as "open rates settlement funding"). Staff said they will loop in foster-youth advocates and social-services administration when drafting proposals and possible contract leads. No formal JJCC vote or contract award took place at the meeting.

Ending: Members agreed to convene conversations among probation, social services (interim administration), foster-youth advocates and other partners to clarify who could administer the ILP contract locally and what services might be offered in each high school.