Juvenile commission warns Camp Camp risks decay, urges feasibility study for reuse

The San Mateo County Juvenile Justice Commission reported on January 27 that Camp Camp — a county residential program for girls now sitting largely vacant — has unresolved safety and maintenance problems and is costing the county roughly $1.8 million a year while unused.

The commission's inspection, presented at its annual meeting, said the building previously served girls committed by the juvenile court to a three‑phase residential program but has had a steadily declining population. "If we don't have girls to enter into the program, then we are doing something right," Commissioner Joanna Rasmussen said, summarizing the change in population. She urged the county to preserve the facility rather than let it degrade.

Why it matters: commissioners said Camp Camp is a built resource that could fill current service gaps — including secure‑track housing, step‑down programming, inpatient substance‑use treatment, or transitional housing for older justice‑involved youth — but only if the county invests to stop deterioration and evaluates feasible alternative uses.

The inspection documented physical problems that have persisted for years: a broken gate and damaged fencing; an unsecured hole in an exterior area; significant pigeon nesting and feces in gutters and interior roof areas; peeling paint; soiled carpets; and unsecured stored contents. Commissioners said they received partial operating‑cost figures that did not include food, clothing, utilities, education or medical care; the figure provided for operation when active was reported in the inspection as about $3.2 million per year, while the county now pays about $1.8 million annually to maintain the vacant site.

The commission recommended the Board of Supervisors authorize a feasibility study of alternative uses for Camp Camp to meet county needs. Options raised at the meeting included converting the facility into: (1) a SecureTrack youth facility or separate secure‑track step‑down center; (2) an inpatient substance‑use treatment program; or (3) transitional housing for transitional‑age youth. Commissioners emphasized that Camp Glenwood — a former county youth facility now in disrepair — should not be a model for Camp Camp's future.

Commissioners and several public commenters urged faster action. Commissioner Marco Bocanegra and community members highlighted youth homelessness among formerly supervised youth and called for the county to prioritize repurposing to reduce costs and better serve returning youth. A member of the public asked whether the county's long‑term debt service on the building (cited in public questions as about $128 million) was correct; the presenter said the $128 million figure was identified as debt service owed on the building by county staff.

The commission voted to approve the Camp Camp inspection report, with the proviso that the report be updated with exact closure dates once probation provides them. The motion passed unanimously. The commission also agreed to form a small subcommittee to coordinate a multi‑stakeholder briefing to the Board of Supervisors about the facility and its options.

No formal county commitment to a specific reuse was made at the meeting; commissioners said they will ask the Board of Supervisors to fund or authorize a formal feasibility study.

The inspection and discussion included comments from system partners, public commenters and county staff present at the meeting. Commissioners said they would follow up with probation leadership to obtain missing data and timeline clarifications.

Commission sources: the Camp Camp inspection presentation and commissioner discussion at the commission's January 27, 2025 meeting.

Next steps: the commission will seek an item before the Board of Supervisors to request a feasibility study and asked probation to provide missing dates and data for the final report.