San Mateo commission approves 2024 juvenile hall inspection; finds missing data, program and maintenance gaps

SAN MATEO COUNTY — The San Mateo County Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission on Feb. 25 approved its 2024 annual inspection report for the county juvenile hall, saying the document demonstrates ongoing deficiencies in programming, facility maintenance and — critically — a lack of basic data from probation needed for oversight.

The commission said probation failed to deliver routine demographic and detention statistics requested for the inspection, and commissioners voted to approve the report with the understanding missing data will be added if provided. The inspection is a statutorily mandated oversight tool used to inform recommendations to the board of supervisors and other county agencies.

Inspectors reported they were unable to obtain data on gender, age, county of residence, average length of incarceration, out-of-county youth and total bookings for the inspection period because probation did not provide the records. The report notes the department told inspectors it was consulting the county attorney and would provide the data later; the commission said that did not occur during the inspection cycle.

The report lists programmatic and operational concerns the panel observed or documented during a three-day review and interviews with staff and youth. Key findings and recommendations include:

- Pre-adjudication services: Inspectors recommended creating or expanding supports for youth and families during the period between arrest and adjudication. Suggested services range from assistance getting to school (for example, bus passes) to counseling, provided only to youth or families who opt in prior to adjudication due to legal limits on compelled participation.

- Reentry and Phoenix programming: The report criticized the Phoenix staff‑led reentry program for restrictive eligibility (staff determine participation), arguing that youth who struggle in custody can still need reentry services. Inspectors recommended a full review of Phoenix to determine whether it should be expanded, restructured, contracted out, or otherwise changed; they also recommended extending FLY reentry services from the current nine-month cap to 12 months for better continuity.

- Mental-health space: The commission called for a therapeutically designed counseling space in the facility's housing units; currently an office is configured as a standard desk chair and desk, which inspectors said is not appropriate for trauma‑informed clinical work.

- Eyeglasses and health access: Inspectors documented delays of up to six months for children to receive prescription eyeglasses because the limiting factor is access to an eye‑exam provider, not the manufacture of glasses.

- Food quality and hunger concerns: The report states youth repeatedly complained about food quality and hunger since meal preparation moved off-site during the pandemic; the commission urged review and remedial action.

- Facility maintenance and procurement delays: The report attributes long delays in repairs and basic improvements (cell shelving, damaged flooring) to county procurement timelines overseen by the Department of Public Works and urged supervisors to accelerate maintenance contracting to protect youth safety and dignity.

- Pest control and safety: Inspectors flagged pest-control bait stations and tents used around the facility that they said sometimes trap lizards and pose a hazard to youth and visitors.

Commissioners and public commenters pressed for solutions and more transparency. Several family members, advocates and past commissioners told the panel that longstanding recommendations have not been implemented. Community speaker Becca Keeler told the commission: “There is what we in the community want is we want rehabilitation, not just punitive punishment for these kids,” and quoted researcher John Gilligan: “The greatest driver of violence is shame.”

Probation and system partners provided monthly operational updates earlier in the meeting: the probation report presented counts for the prior month showing 24 youth detained in juvenile hall (23 male, 1 female), including two out‑of‑county youth (one from Santa Clara County and one from San Francisco). The commission recorded racial breakdowns the presenter provided: 18 Hispanic youth, 2 African American, 1 Pacific Islander and 3 listed as other or not specified. The report also noted 12 youth on electronic monitoring and a combined active‑supervision population figure reported as 355 youth (167 in court or diversion and 188 under supervision). The commission recorded a separate field update from probation’s intake/consult team describing 44 appointments during the most recent four weeks and seven consultations with law enforcement; those counts were presented by probation staff as operational figures.

Commissioners voted to approve the inspection report, with a recorded motion to accept the document and add any missing data if it becomes available. The commission also discussed next steps: the chair said she planned to seek a meeting with the probation chief to secure the missing information and asked county counsel to clarify legal access to records if cooperation remains incomplete. Commissioners discussed the possibility of aligning the inspection schedule with the fiscal year to ease data collection.

The commission’s written recommendations will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and to probation leadership. Inspectors suggested the commission publish a community‑oriented summary of the report to increase transparency and mobilize public support for faster corrective actions.

Ending — The commission approved the 2024 inspection report and asked probation to supply the withheld data; commissioners said they will press county leadership to resolve procurement and program gaps and to consider structural reforms to reentry and pre‑adjudication services. The commission also signaled it will request briefings from probation and other system partners to track implementation progress.