Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State official says new juvenile justice block‑grant formula shifts funding toward less‑restrictive youth programs
Summary
Catherine Lucero, director of the Office of Youth and Community Restoration, told the Assembly subcommittee that the JJRBG formula was revised to fund counties for youth counts and less‑restrictive placements rather than a 2018 incarceration baseline.
Catherine Lucero, director of the Office of Youth and Community Restoration, told the California State Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 that a recent revision of the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant (JJRBG) formula moves funding away from a measure tied to the 2018 Division of Juvenile Justice population and toward factors that support less‑restrictive programs for youth.
The revised formula, Lucero said, funds counties based on the number of youth ages 10–17, the number of adjudicated 707(b) violent‑offense cases, the number of youth committed to secure youth treatment facilities (SYTFs), and the number of youth who spend part of their commitment in less‑restrictive placements or step‑down programs. "The new third factor in the formula does move the infrastructure towards alternatives to long term incarceration when it is safe for the community and in the best interest of the youth," Lucero said.
Nut graf: The shift is intended to help counties build community‑based, less‑restrictive programs when appropriate rather than relying on long‑term secure confinement; OYCR said the change implements policy goals in Senate Bill 823 and is coupled with state grant investments.
Lucero cited state data and program details during the subcommittee hearing: she said recent DOJ figures show sustained petitions have declined from 25,886 in 2019 to 15,919 in 2023, a 38.5% drop. OYCR reported it has invested $15 million in grants to 11 counties to help design and implement less‑restrictive programs that can serve youth who otherwise might be placed in SYTFs. Lucero also said OYCR collects SYTF placement data under AB 102 and AB 169 reporting and that 386 youth were placed in SYTFs in 2024, with roughly 1% of those identified as Native American.
Lucero described the statewide SYTF landscape: she said there are 37 SYTFs operating in California, replacing the old DJJ facilities, and that about 500 youth were in those facilities at the time of her statement. She argued the formula change recognizes a continuum of care that includes safe, secure community placements and step‑down options authorized by statute.
Speakers at the hearing asked about subgroup data. Lucero and subcommittee members discussed Native American representation in the data; Lucero cautioned that statewide reporting often does not break out probation or disposition counts by Native status, and she urged continued analysis at a regional level so resources reach higher‑need areas.
Ending: Lucero said OYCR will continue to support counties as they implement less‑restrictive programs and offered to respond to committee follow‑up. The panel moved on to the next agenda item after a short question period.
