Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youth Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs DYD to lead youth programming inside county facilities; trafficking services and staffing gaps flagged
Summary
Supervisors voted to advance a plan for the Department of Youth Development (DYD) to assume lead responsibility for programming in juvenile facilities and to expand care coordination for youth, while probation and DCFS warned of referral shortfalls and underused trafficking funds that must be fixed to reach survivors.
The Board unanimously approved motions to strengthen the Department of Youth Development’s (DYD) role in delivering developmentally appropriate programming inside county juvenile facilities and to improve services for youth affected by human trafficking.
Supervisor Lindseay Horvath said, “Vision demands action, not delay,” and urged an expedited transition so youth have consistent, community‑based programming. DyD director David Carroll described three implementation pillars: (1) expand access to varied programming, (2) provide program coordination so community‑based organizations can reliably operate inside facilities, and (3) build care coordination (social‑work portfolio planning) that follows youth through custody and re‑entry. Carroll told the board the first phase is estimated at roughly $21.8 million and would be phased over fiscal years, with initial emphasis on girls and gender‑expansive units.
Probation and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) described operational gaps that need fixing. Probation said staffing constraints have limited field outreach and specialized unit capacity; probation’s chief said referrals are still being handled but preventive field outreach has been reduced. DCFS and independent advocates warned that referrals to advocacy contractors have fallen and some state funds intended for direct services went unspent; DCFS said it has expanded referral criteria to try to identify at‑risk youth earlier.
The board asked staff to return with a detailed implementation schedule, staffing plan, and a clear accounting of how trafficking‑specific dollars (SB855/SB794 and county funds) will be used to protect youth and expand placements. Supervisors emphasized measurable benchmarks, continuity for youth during transitions, and a requirement that youth voices and community partners be central in planning.
Ending note: the board emphasized a multi‑agency partnership—DYD, Probation, DCFS, Health Services and community providers—will be required to make the shift work safely and equitably.
