2023-134 Los Angeles County

August 20, 2024
2023-134

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

As directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, my office conducted an audit of Los Angeles County (Los Angeles) and its efforts to care for and supervise youth for whom the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had previously been responsible. We determined that Los Angeles has yet to spend tens of millions of dollars in funding the State issued to assist the county in providing rehabilitative services for youth for whom responsibility was realigned (realigned youth), and we found that its efforts to restructure the care model for such youth are ongoing.

Since fiscal year 2021–22, the State has provided to Los Angeles $88 million in funding for the care and supervision of realigned youth. However, as of late June 2024, the county had spent only $9.7 million of this funding. One reason for the low spending rate is that Los Angeles has yet to begin delivering many of the services that it planned to provide to realigned youth. For example, the county assigned its Probation Department (Probation) the responsibility to provide 26 programs, services, and goods for which this funding was intended to pay. However, Probation had begun providing only six of these items as of late June 2024. Therefore, we believe that Los Angeles would better ensure the provision of services and programs to realigned youth if it took additional steps to use available funding in a timely manner.

Los Angeles has implemented 12 of 27 recommendations made to it in a December 2020 report that focused on the transition of youth from DJJ to county custody. The county’s limited progress in implementing these recommendations, along with its low level of spending of state funding for realigned youth, demonstrate that the county’s efforts to restructure its care model for youth realigned from DJJ are still in progress.

Respectfully submitted,

GRANT PARKS
California State Auditor

---

Selected Abbreviations Used in This Report

BSCC	Board of State and Community Corrections
CDCR	CDCR
DJJ	Division of Juvenile Justice
DYD	Department of Youth Development
OYCR	Office of Youth and Community Restoration
YJR	Youth Justice Reimagined

Summary of Key Findings

In September 2020, the State began the process of eliminating the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and DJJ’s dissolution was complete in 2023. Before this change, a juvenile court could order youth it found had committed certain serious offenses into DJJ’s custody. Once the State began closing DJJ, it assigned the responsibility for the youth whom DJJ had or would have supervised to county probation departments. We refer to those youth whom the State placed in the custody of county probation departments as realigned youth. Beginning in 2021, the State provided Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant (realignment block grant) funding to county probation departments to assist with the custody, care, and supervision of realigned youth. This audit focused on the Probation Department (Probation) of Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), which is the entity responsible for the supervision of realigned youth in that county.

Key Findings

• The primary source of funding for Probation’s youth justice programs and services is local funding—about 75 percent of the revenue Probation used for youth justice from July 2018 through April 2024. State and federal funding comprised the remainder of the funding Probation uses to support its youth justice programs and services.
• Despite having spent realignment block grant funding in accordance with state law, Los Angeles has spent only $9.7 million of the $88 million it has received. The county’s low spending levels are due to multiple factors, including that Probation has not yet provided most of the programs and services that the county planned for it to provide to realigned youth, such as rehabilitative services for sex offenders, family transportation, and vocational training.
• Los Angeles has taken steps to prepare for the care and supervision of realigned youth as part of its wider Youth Justice Reimagined (YJR) initiative, and it has implemented 12 of the 27 recommendations its YJR work group made related to realignment.

Agency Comments

Los Angeles generally agreed with our findings and conclusions. The county did not directly respond to all of the recommendations we made to it, but it did indicate agreement with portions of one recommendation.

Introduction

Background

Until its dissolution in June 2023, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) operated facilities to house youth whom a court had determined had committed certain serious offenses. DJJ’s youth population ranged from 14 to 25 years of age, although DJJ could house minors as young as 11. The State began the process of closing DJJ in September 2020 after it enacted legislation that generally prohibited the commitment of any new youth to DJJ beginning in July 2021. According to CDCR, in 2020 DJJ had an average daily population of approximately 760 youth. Figure 1 shows how county probation departments became gradually responsible for youth whom DJJ previously would have supervised. In this report, we refer collectively to these individuals as realigned youth.

Before the September 2020 realignment decision, in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles), the Los Angeles County Probation Department (Probation) was already responsible for the supervision of thousands of youth. As Figure 1 shows, Probation received responsibility for realigned youth in two different waves. First, beginning in July 2021, it received youth whom courts could no longer legally place in DJJ’s custody. Then, as DJJ’s elimination in July 2023 grew imminent, Probation received custody of an additional 107 youth who had remained in DJJ’s custody until that point. Figure 2 shows the supervision and housing status of these 107 realigned youth as of May 2024. About 40 of these youth were no longer under the county’s supervision, having completed the terms of their probation.

Since 2021 state law has allowed counties to operate, use, or access secure youth treatment facilities (secure treatment facilities). Secure treatment facilities only house realigned youth. State law authorizes counties to operate, utilize, or access secure treatment facilities to provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education for those who have committed certain serious offenses, according to standards established by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC). Secure treatment facilities may stand alone, or be a unit or portion of an existing county juvenile facility that meets the requirements described above. Probation maintains three secure treatment facilities and reports the number of youth housed in the facilities to the BSCC. Table 1 shows the average daily number of youth whom Probation housed in secure treatment facilities in calendar year 2023 and all available months of 2024.

The Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant Provides Funding to Counties

In September 2020, the Legislature established the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant (realignment block grant). This grant helps fund the county-based custody, care, and supervision of realigned youth. In fiscal year 2021–22, eligible counties began receiving an annual allocation of realignment block grant funding. State law specifies the formula by which the California Department of Finance determines a county’s allocation. The formula accounts for the average number of youth from each county who had previously been committed to DJJ, among other factors.

To be eligible for realignment block grant funding, state law requires counties to create a juvenile justice subcommittee (realignment subcommittee) with membership composed of representatives from certain county departments—including probation, social services, and mental health—as well as at least three community members. The realignment subcommittee must develop a plan (county realignment plan) describing the facilities, programs, placements, services, supervision, and reentry strategies the county needs to provide appropriate rehabilitation and supervision of the youth who formerly would have been assigned to DJJ. Additionally, the county realignment plan must describe how grant funds will address certain areas of need, including mental health, support programs that promote healthy adolescent development, and family engagement in programs. Each county must submit its plan to the State’s Office of Youth and Community Restoration (OYCR). Effective January 2024, the law was amended to require realignment subcommittees to update their county realignment plans annually and to require that the plan include a description of progress in the previous calendar year on plan elements. The amended law also clarified that, although OYCR determines whether it accepts the county realignment plan, no actions by OYCR can delay or withhold the allocation of realignment block grant funds to the county.

Los Angeles Is Restructuring Its Youth Justice System Through Its Youth Justice Reimagined Initiative

Over the past several years, Los Angeles has worked to change its approach to youth justice through its Youth Justice Reimagined (YJR) initiative. In August 2019, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (board of supervisors) established the Youth Justice Work Group (work group), to be composed of representatives from several county departments, community and labor group stakeholders, and youth who were at the time or who had previously been involved with the justice system. The board of supervisors tasked the work group with exploring the possibility of transitioning responsibility for the county’s youth justice system away from Probation and to another agency, with the goal of creating a rehabilitative, health-focused, and care‑first system. Subsequently, the board of supervisors also tasked the work group with planning for DJJ’s closure.

In October 2020, the work group released the Youth Justice Reimagined report, which included a recommendation to create the Department of Youth Development (DYD) as a key component of the county’s efforts to restructure its approach to youth justice. The county established DYD in 2022, and this department has a stated mission of supporting the development of young people in Los Angeles with the goal of equitably reducing youth justice system involvement. The report also included core values guiding the county’s restructured approach to youth justice, as well as a plan for phased implementation of specific goals. In November 2020, the board of supervisors approved a motion to adopt the core values from the report, which the text box lists.

The work group also published a report in December 2020 that had a greater focus on the transition of youth from DJJ to county custody and included several recommendations to center this transition within the broader framework of the YJR initiative. Some of these recommendations specified steps Probation could take both independently and in conjunction with other county departments to plan for the effects of DJJ’s elimination. These included recommendations to plan the transition of certain Probation functions to DYD and to develop a plan to repurpose immediately some county facilities to serve as secure alternatives to DJJ.

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) approved an interim audit request directing our office to evaluate various aspects of how Los Angeles has prepared for and served realigned youth. In addition to identifying all revenues and expenditures related to services and preventative and rehabilitation functions, the Audit Committee directed our office to evaluate Los Angeles’s YJR planning and implementation efforts to fund and support the influx of realigned youth and to determine whether the county spent realignment block grant funds in accordance with state law and applicable grant conditions.

Audit Results

Audit Objective

Identify all revenues and expenditures related to juvenile facilities and preventative and rehabilitation functions provided to Los Angeles County (Los Angeles) from July 2018 through December 2023 or most recent information available, including identifying the primary sources of those revenues and determining how the county has prioritized or adjusted its spending in light of juvenile justice realignment.

KEY POINTS

• About 75 percent of the funding Probation used for youth justice is local funding, coming mostly from the county general fund. The State also provided significant amounts of funding, totaling about 20 percent of the revenue that Probation uses to support its youth justice programs and services.
• Probation’s total spending on youth justice declined in fiscal years 2019–20 and 2020–21. Probation attributes this spending decline to the pandemic’s restrictions, which prohibited the delivery of certain services in person and an associated hiring freeze. As of the most recently completed fiscal year, spending had returned to pre‑pandemic levels.
• Los Angeles’s spending priorities for realigned youth are contained in its county realignment plan, which generally focuses on establishing preventive, rehabilitative, and educational programs.

For fiscal years 2018–19 through 2023–24, the State provided Los Angeles more than $1.1 billion to fund youth justice-related activities, according to payment records from the State Controller’s Office. Several funding sources comprise this total, and the text box shows the more significant of those sources. During the same period, the federal government also provided the county with funding related to youth justice. Los Angeles received $650,000 in federal funding from the Enhancing Youth Defense grant. Moreover, Los Angeles received other funding from the State and from the federal government that it could use to support youth involved in the justice system. However, these funding sources were not exclusive to youth justice. For example, the county received support for youth in the foster care system or those who were at risk of becoming a part of the foster care system, which included some youth the county supervised as part of its youth justice system. To remain within the limited budget of an interim audit request pursuant to Audit Committee Rule 18, we examined the funding Los Angeles used to fund youth justice activities by focusing our review on Probation, the county department responsible for overseeing realigned youth and other youth involved in the justice system.

During the past six fiscal years—from July 2018 through June 2024—Probation’s annual budget has included approximately $1 billion in expenses. Los Angeles assigned an average of 56 percent of these budgeted expenses to four budget units (units) within Probation that provide services to youth in Probation’s custody or under its supervision. The text box describes these units and their general functions. Unless otherwise indicated, when we describe Probation’s revenues and expenses in this report, we are referring to the revenue and expenses of these four units.

As Table 2 shows, Probation has used funding from a variety of sources to support its supervision of youth. Much of the federal funding Probation used came from the Title IV-E program—a federal program designed, in part, to support youth who are at risk of becoming part of the foster care system, a category into which certain youth under Probation’s supervision fall. The State has also provided revenue through a variety of grant programs and other funding mechanisms, which total about 20 percent of Probation’s revenue for youth justice. In addition to the realignment block grant funding, the purpose of which is specifically to provide county-based custody, care, and supervision of realigned youth, Probation receives a significant amount of state funding from the Youthful Offender Block Grant and from general support that the State provides for juvenile probation activities.

However, the majority—about 75 percent—of funding that Probation used for youth justice activities is money that Los Angeles allocated at the local level, and most of this funding came from the county general fund. Other sources, including cost recovery from contracted cities and charges for services, made up the balance of local funding.

From fiscal years 2018–19 through 2022–23, the annual amount Probation spent on youth justice fluctuated, as Table 3 shows. Total spending on youth justice declined during fiscal years 2019–20 and 2020–21, and this lower spending partially overlapped with a drop in external funding. Probation attributes the decline in spending to pandemic-related restrictions, explaining that service providers could not provide certain services in person inside facilities. Additionally, the county implemented a hiring freeze during the pandemic, and Probation attested that the decline in spending was partly due to this hiring freeze. Spending has increased since that period, and total spending in fiscal year 2022–23 was only 1 percent less than spending in fiscal year 2018–19.

Probation has made only slight changes to the distribution of its spending among its units since fiscal year 2018–19. In fiscal year 2022–23, the Juvenile Institutions Services unit accounted for nearly 75 percent of Probation’s spending on youth justice, an increase from the 69 percent of spending that this unit was responsible for in fiscal year 2018–19. Conversely, spending from the Special Services unit was down from its high of 23 percent of spending in fiscal year 2018–19 to 18 percent of spending in fiscal year 2022–23. Probation explained that the increase in proportional spending in the Juvenile Institutions Services unit resulted from various facility improvements, expanded mental health services, and salary increases across the county. For example, Probation said that it repaired facilities, including one that houses realigned youth, conducted feasibility studies to improve the security of its facilities, and performed a conceptual study for a new secure treatment facility. Additionally, Probation explained that the decline in proportional spending in the Special Services unit was the result of a change to how Los Angeles accounted for its spending of Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act funds. Specifically, in October 2019 the county established a new fund to track this revenue and stopped tracking all related spending as belonging to Probation.

Los Angeles budgeted $613 million for youth justice in fiscal year 2023–24, the highest budgeted amount among the years we examined. However, the county has underspent its budgeted amounts by percentages ranging from 5 to 11 percent during each of the five previous fiscal years. Therefore, we could not use the budgeted amount to accurately anticipate what Probation’s spending would be for the year. Through April 2024, Probation had spent more than $429 million on youth justice. At the time we conducted our review, this total was the most up-to-date information about spending in that fiscal year. With only two months remaining in the fiscal year, it is doubtful that Probation will have spent the entire fiscal year 2023–24 budgeted amount of $613 million.

When we asked staff at Probation how spending priorities have changed to support realigned youth, they explained that the county realignment plan reflects Los Angeles’s spending priorities for these youth. Specifically, the department noted that the plan includes services for an older youth—or emerging adult—population, which Probation stated that it had not historically supervised. We reviewed the county realignment plan and its spending plan that allocates amounts of realignment block grant funding to specific programs, and we found that both plans generally commit the county to funding preventive, rehabilitative, and educational programs. The text box shows a selection of the programs for which the realignment subcommittee has approved funding. However, as we discuss in the next section, only a small percentage of total planned spending from the realignment block grant has occurred since fiscal year 2020–21.

---

Audit Objective

Determine whether Los Angeles spent state Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant funds (Welfare and Institutions Code sections 1990–1995) in accordance with state law and applicable grant conditions.

KEY POINTS

• The small portion of funding that Los Angeles has spent from the realignment block grant has been used in accordance with state law.
• Of $88 million in realignment block grant funds that Los Angeles has received, it has only planned for the spending of $64 million and has only actually spent $9.7 million. The county’s low level of spending is partly because Probation has yet to begin delivering many approved programs and services.

Although Its Spending Has Been Allowable, Los Angeles Has Spent Only a Small Portion of the Realignment Block Grant Funding It Has Received

The State established the realignment block grant with the purpose of providing county-based custody, care, and supervision of realigned youth. As the Introduction describes, counties are not eligible to receive this realignment block grant funding unless they have submitted a county realignment plan to the State for approval. In addition to that county realignment plan, Los Angeles’s realignment subcommittee developed a spending plan that details the way it intends to spend realignment block grant funds by listing specific services it will offer and the amount of funding allotted for each service by fiscal year. Realignment block grant funds are not subject to any grant agreement terms. Instead, state law requires the State Controller’s Office to allocate funding to counties annually based on a schedule provided by the California Department of Finance. The law states that this funding is to be used to provide appropriate rehabilitative housing and supervision services.

We compared the expenses Los Angeles charged to the realignment block grant to the county plan and the spending plan by reviewing all charges for services that county departments and vendors submitted to Probation as of late June 2024. All of the expenses we reviewed were consistent with programs or services that the county realignment plan indicates that Los Angeles would provide and aligned with programs, services, and goods that the realignment committee had approved. Specifically, Los Angeles used grant funding to provide care to realigned youth, including mental health and substance abuse services, as well as life skills training and step-down programming, among other services. Because the county’s spending of realignment block grant funding has aligned with the stated purposes of this funding in state law, we conclude that Los Angeles’s spending is in accordance with state law.

Nevertheless, Los Angeles has spent only a small percentage of the realignment block grant funding the State has provided. Los Angeles has received $88 million in realignment block grant funding since fiscal year 2021–22 when it received its first allocation. However, its spending through June 28, 2024, totaled only $9.7 million, as Figure 3 shows, or only 11 percent of the funding Los Angeles has received. The state laws that create the realignment block grant funding neither set an expiration for the funding if it is unspent nor do they specify that the funds revert to the State if counties do not use them within a prescribed period. Therefore, unused funding from one year rolls over and is available to the county in subsequent fiscal years.

We identified three key reasons for Los Angeles’s low level of spending. The first reason is the more than two-year period it took the county to determine the programs on which it wanted to spend this funding. In September 2020, when the State enacted legislation shifting responsibility for youth at DJJ to the counties, Los Angeles needed to determine where to house the realigned youth who required placement in a secure treatment facility. For multiple reasons—including opposition from residents near proposed sites—the county was unable to quickly identify suitable facilities. According to statements from realignment subcommittee members, the county’s difficulty in locating a facility for realigned youth delayed the subcommittee’s plans to determine which programs and services the county would deliver.

The subcommittee approved its first spending plan in December 2022, authorizing the county to spend realignment block grant funds more than two years after the State’s realignment decision. However, this first spending plan was limited and allocated only about $9 million when, at that point in time, Los Angeles had received more than $38.5 million in realignment block grant funds. Seven months later, in July 2023, the subcommittee adopted a greatly expanded spending plan, which it subsequently revised in February 2024. This spending plan was the most current plan when we performed our audit and it allocates $64 million across 39 programs, services, and goods for fiscal years 2022–23 and 2023–24. As we describe later, the $64 million in planned spending is much less than the $88 million in realignment block grant funding the county has received.

The second key reason for low spending levels is that Probation has yet to begin delivering a significant number of programs, services, and goods that the realignment subcommittee assigned it to administer. The spending plan assigns a county department as the administrator of each item to which it allocates funding. For example, the county’s Department of Mental Health (Mental Health) administers individual and group therapy services. Probation is responsible for administering 26 programs, services, and goods from the spending plan to which the subcommittee allocated $29.1 million. As of June 2024, Probation was able to provide approved or pending invoices supporting that it had spent funding on only six of these items. The text box lists both the items on which Probation has spent funding and examples of those it has not yet provided. In addition, Probation’s spending on these items is much less than the amount the realignment subcommittee allocated. Probation has spent only $2.3 million of $14.8 million in approved funding for these six items.¹

To explain the low levels of spending on programs it is responsible for administering, Probation cited difficulties in contracting with providers. Probation’s staff explained that they could not contract to provide services using block grant funds until the subcommittee approved a spending plan, which as described earlier did not substantively occur until July 2023. Additionally, the realignment subcommittee has not approved the use of realignment block grant funding on staff Probation could use to help administer programs. Notwithstanding these barriers, we found that Probation could take additional steps to plan for the timely implementation of approved programs. Probation staff explained that in April 2024, the department established a working group responsible for determining which programs exist or are needed for realigned youth and tracking each program’s development. However, the working group has not yet developed tracking tools to provide structure and transparency about the development of programs for realigned youth, although Probation stated that it anticipates establishing this tracking in July 2025.

Although Probation has not yet provided a significant number of services from the county spending plan, department staff highlighted that it is providing required services to youth in its secure treatment facilities. State regulations require Probation to provide a specific level of services to youth in its custody, including programming—such as activities designed to reduce recidivism—as well as recreation and exercise. An April 2024 inspection of Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall (Nidorf facility) by the BSCC concluded that the facility was in compliance with applicable regulations regarding programs, recreation, and exercise.² Nonetheless, as Probation indicated to us during our audit, the realignment subcommittee approved the programs, services, and goods in the realignment block grant spending plan so that realigned youth—both in and outside of secure treatment facilities—could receive specific services, such as music production and dog training. Therefore, the provision of services required by state regulations is not a substitute for the implementation of the services approved by the realignment subcommittee.

The third key reason we identified for low spending levels is that other county departments are likely not charging against the funding in a timely manner. The realignment subcommittee approved $34.9 million in spending for programs that other county departments are responsible for administering, of which Probation’s records showed that only $7.4 million had been spent. Probation’s administrative deputy and chief financial officer explained that some departments may not send invoices to Probation for their services until the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, the chief financial officer expected that the amount charged to the realignment block grant would increase when the county closes out fiscal year 2023–24.

The invoice records for one service type—Individual and Group Therapy—support Probation’s assertions about delayed billing. Mental Health is responsible for providing this service and charged Probation for services it rendered from September 2022 through May 2023 in a single invoice in June 2023. The invoice was for a total of more than $2 million out of the $2.6 million that it was allocated in that fiscal year. Further, in April 2024, Mental Health submitted claims for reimbursement for services it provided in November and December 2023, as well as for services it provided in January and February 2024. Although the total amount of realignment block grant funds the county has spent may rise when it closes its fiscal year, it is unlikely that it will fully account for the significant gap between actual spending—$9.7 million—and approved spending—$64 million.

Los Angeles Is at Risk of Accumulating a Sizeable Amount of Realignment Block Grant Funds

Even if Los Angeles had spent all funding that the realignment subcommittee had approved for programs in fiscal years 2022–22 and 2023–24, it would still have tens of millions of dollars in unspent funding that the State intended for the benefit of realigned youth. As described above, the realignment subcommittee has approved spending for 39 programs, services, and goods for realigned youth with about $64 million in associated expenses. Accordingly, even if Los Angeles were to have spent all of the funds that the realignment subcommittee has approved for services by the end of fiscal year 2023–24, it would still have approximately $24 million in funds that it had not spent—an amount equal to 27 percent of the funding it has received. Probation stated that it expects to designate a purpose for all of the funding it receives—whether holding some funding in reserve or establishing plans to spend the funding. However, as of June 2024, Probation had not prepared a plan for reserving or spending these funds.

Moreover, the amount of spending for several programs in fiscal year 2023–24 is significantly short of the amount the realignment subcommittee approved for these programs. For example, the realignment subcommittee approved approximately $10 million in realignment block grant funding for a credible messengers program in fiscal year 2023–24. The credible messengers program uses individuals who have experience in the youth justice system as mentors to youth presently involved in the system. As of June 2024, Probation had received invoices for the first three quarters of the fiscal year totaling roughly $413,000. At that spending pace, the total amount spent on the program in fiscal year 2023–24 will not reach even 10 percent of the allocated funding. Such discrepancies between the amount of approved funding for programs and the amount actually spent increases the risk of continuing to accumulate realignment block grant funding.

Additionally, the amount of funding Los Angeles will receive annually will likely stay the same or increase. State law prescribes an increasing amount of funding that must go to counties in the first four years of the realignment block grant’s existence—from fiscal years 2021–22 through 2024–25. For every year following that period, as long as they remain eligible for funding, state law requires that the amount provided to counties will either stay the same as the previous year’s amount or increase. Because of this condition, without a plan to increase its spending on services, Los Angeles is almost certain to have a continually growing balance of unspent funds that are intended to be spent on the county’s realigned youth.

The conditions we found at Los Angeles highlight the absence of related accountability measures in the realignment block grant requirements. The state law that establishes the realignment block grant requires, as of January 1, 2024, county subcommittees to provide OYCR with an annual plan for using realignment block grant funds to continue receiving these funds and also requires OYCR to make annual county plans available on its website. However, it does not require the county to provide financial information about its use of the block grant funds, such as the amount of funding that the county has actually spent. As mentioned earlier in this section, the state laws that create the realignment block grant do not specify that these funds are returned to the State if they are not used. Accordingly, Los Angeles—or any other county—could accumulate a sizeable amount of realignment block grant funding without any requirement to disclose that it was doing so. Since fiscal year 2020–21, the State has disbursed about $362 million in realignment block grant funds to counties. However, because of a lack of reporting requirements, the State does not have any readily accessible information about the pace of spending to provide critical services to realigned youth.

---

Audit Objective

Evaluate the Los Angeles ‘Youth Justice Reimagined’ planning and implementation efforts to fund and support the influx of additional youth resulting from juvenile justice realignment.

KEY POINT

• Although Los Angeles has taken steps to prepare for realigned youth as part of its wider YJR initiative, it is still working on implementing most YJR recommendations related to realigned youth.

Los Angeles has implemented close to half of the realignment-related recommendations its YJR work group made in December 2020. The YJR initiative focuses on its entire youth justice system, but some aspects pertain specifically to realigned youth. The work group responsible for leading the YJR initiative published a December 2020 report focused on the transition of realigned youth from DJJ to Los Angeles. In total, the December 2020 report contains 27 recommendations, which collectively require action by several county entities including Probation and the Department of Youth Development (DYD). We obtained and reviewed evidence of the county’s progress thus far in addressing each of these recommendations and found that the county had implemented 12 of the 27 recommendations. The table in Appendix A displays each of the recommendations and our assessment of the implementation status.

Several of the report’s recommendations asked the county to develop plans or budgets for certain services related to housing, care, and programming for realigned youth. In some cases, Los Angeles is still working to achieve full implementation of the specified service. However, we considered these recommendations implemented if the county successfully created the recommended plans or budgets. For example, the report recommended that Probation and DYD collaborate to develop a plan and budget for the initial recruitment and training for the credible messengers program. We found evidence that Probation and DYD had done so, and we therefore concluded that this recommendation was implemented. Nonetheless, as we note previously, the level of spending on the credible messengers program has lagged significantly behind the allocated budget.

In contrast, we concluded that recommendations were not complete if the county had not addressed all aspects of a recommendation. For example, the work group recommended that Probation conduct a safety and security assessment of all facilities that were potential secure treatment facilities, and it recommended that this assessment also address other aspects of the facilities. We obtained a copy of the assessment that Probation conducted of potential secure treatment facility sites. The assessment documents the positive and negative elements of the assessed sites, including observations about community and staff safety. However, the assessment does not evaluate all of the specific elements that the work group recommended, such as an assessment of each site’s potential to inspire and engage youth in opportunities for growth and learning.

Although Los Angeles has implemented some recommendations from the December 2020 YJR report, the county’s progress has not always directly translated to an increased delivery of youth justice services. For example, some of the recommendations are related to the formation of the realignment subcommittee—a step that was necessary to receive state funding for realigned youth but that does not tie to providing specific services. As we noted in the previous section, Los Angeles has spent only $9.7 million of the $88 million in realignment block grant funding it has received, and Probation has not yet spent funding on most of the services it is responsible for administering. Given Los Angeles’s ongoing efforts to implement these recommendations, along with the low level of spending we report in the previous section, we conclude that the county’s efforts to finalize a restructured care model for realigned youth under its YJR initiative are still in progress.

Recommendations

Legislature

To ensure that the State has access to information about realignment block grant spending that could provide accountability and inform future decisions about funding levels, the Legislature should amend state law to require counties to include in their annual realignment block grant plans the amount of realignment block grant funds they have spent by fiscal year, as well as their total amount of unused block grant funding. The law should also require OYCR to report this information to the relevant budget subcommittees of the Legislature.

Los Angeles

To ensure that it is spending realignment block grant funding, Probation should do the following by September 2024:

• Project the estimated dates by which it expects to finalize agreements with service providers.
• Begin regularly reporting its progress in securing these agreements to the realignment subcommittee.

To ensure that it addresses the significant amount of unspent realignment block grant funds, the realignment subcommittee should include as part of its next annual spending plan a detailed approach to the timely and effective use of those unspent funds that it has already received and for the additional funding it expects to receive each year from the State. The plan should include provisions for avoiding an excessive reserve, and it should consider the extent to which the county should use this funding to address not-yet-fully implemented recommendations from the December 2020 YJR report.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Government Code section 8543 et seq. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Respectfully submitted,

GRANT PARKS
California State Auditor

August 20, 2024

Staff:
Bob Harris, Audit Principal
Grayson Hough, Senior Auditor
Brian D. Boone, CIA, CFE, Senior Auditor
William Goltra
Kaleb Knoblauch

Legal Counsel:
Katie Mola

Appendices

Appendix A—Youth Justice Reimagined Recommendations

Appendix B—Scope and Methodology

Appendix A

Youth Justice Reimagined Recommendations

To evaluate Los Angeles’s YJR planning and implementation efforts to fund and support realigned youth, we reviewed the county’s implementation of recommendations from a December 2020 YJR report that directed the county to take specific actions to prepare for youth realigned from DJJ. As we indicate earlier, we considered a recommendation implemented if Los Angeles successfully addressed all aspects of the recommendation, even if the county is still working on fully implementing a specified service. Conversely, we concluded that the recommendations were not complete if the county had not met all aspects of a recommendation. Table A shows the implementation status of each of the report’s 27 recommendations, of which the county has implemented 12.

---

Appendix B

Scope and Methodology

The Audit Committee approved an interim audit request directing our office to evaluate various aspects of how Los Angeles has prepared for and served realigned youth. Table B shows the audit objectives the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address those objectives. Unless otherwise stated in the table or elsewhere in the report, statements and conclusions about items selected for review should not be projected to the population.

Assessment of Data Reliability

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily obligated to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of the computer‑processed information that we use to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations.

In performing this audit, we relied on reports from the county’s eCAPS accounting system to determine the amount of revenue used and expenses made by Probation on youth justice from July 2018 through April 2024. To assess the reliability of these data, we verified that the reports contained logical entries, interviewed knowledgeable staff about the reports, and traced expenses of the realignment block grant to total spending in the reports. We found these reports to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of our audit.

Response to Audit

County of Los Angeles

July 17, 2024

Grant Parks
California State Auditor
621 Capital Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Parks:

RESPONSE TO STATE AUDITOR’S REVIEW OF JUVENILE REALIGNMENT FUNDING

Attached is the County of Los Angeles’ (County) response regarding the California State Auditor’s (Auditor’s) review of the County’s juvenile realignment funding. The review is the result of a directive from the State’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee.

The County’s response is intended to address the Auditor’s findings and overarching themes from the report. The report’s primary theme is the pace of spending of juvenile realignment funding allocated to the County and the potential for funding surpluses. The foundational elements of this theme include budgeting for services, tracking and implementing those services, and reporting to the State regarding funding, spending, and unspent funds. The attached provides context with respect to each of these themes.

The County appreciates the Auditor’s recommendations and the professionalism and collaboration of the Auditor’s team. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Robert Smythe, Administrative Deputy, Probation Department, at (562)940-2517 or robert.smythe@probation.lacounty.gov.

Sincerely,

Guillermo Viera Rosa
Chief Probation Officer

Attachment

c: Fesia Davenport, Chief Executive Office
Dawn R. Harrison, County Counsel
Edward Yen, Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RESPONSE TO STATE AUDITOR’S REVIEW JUVENILE REALIGNMENT FUNDING

The following provides context and corrective actions pertaining to findings and recommendations from the California State Auditor’s (Auditor’s) recently completed review of the County of Los Angeles’ (County) utilization of juvenile realignment block grant funding.

The County established a Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant (JJRBG) committee to oversee the Secure Youth Track Facility (SYTF) program. The JJRBG committee established a subcommittee to focus on creation and monitoring of annual budgets for SYTF funding.

• FINDING: “Out of $88 million in realignment block grant funds that Los Angeles has received, it has only planned for spending $64 million and has only actually spent $9.7 million.”

Probation Spending for SYTF Youth:
Despite the pace of spending not being consistent with desired results, the Probation Department is providing services for SYTF youth that align with the needs of a generally emerging adult population. The legislation that enacted juvenile realignment programs includes reference to County care and custody services for youth formerly housed in State facilities. Probation provides care and custody services such as housing, security, recreation, and educational enrichment. These services qualify for, but are not billed against, SYTF funding. The County made a conscious decision consistent with the themes of Youth Justice

The legislation that enacted juvenile realignment programs includes reference to County care and custody services for youth formerly housed in State facilities. Probation provides care and custody services such as housing, security, recreation, and educational enrichment. These services qualify for, but are not billed against, SYTF funding. The County made a conscious decision consistent with the themes of Youth Justice

Reimagined (YJR) to not charge Probation care and custody services against SYTF funding to ensure a larger pool of SYTF dollars to support services through community-based providers, and services such as mental health, substance use disorder care, and credible messengers in conjunction with specialized County partners.

If Probation’s contributions to the operation of its SYTF facilities were claimed against SYTF funding, the spending levels would have been significantly more robust. The intentional emphasis away from spending by Probation and toward community-based providers is aligned with YJR goals and the greater care needs for youth and families.

• ② FINDING: “County departments are likely not charging against the funding in a timely manner.”

• FINDING: “…Probation has yet to begin delivering a significant number of programs, services, and goods…”

• FINDING: “[implement]…tracking tools to provide structure and transparency about development of programs…”

• FINDING: “Los Angeles is at risk of accumulating a sizeable amount ofrealignment block grant funds.”

Revisiting and Informing the JJRBG Approved Budget:
The current impact of SYTF program delivery and expenditure oversight is informing future decisions about SYTF budget allocations. Probation will be partnering with the JJRBG and its subcommittee to provide recommendations about funding allocations that benefit from expenditure trend analysis. These recommendations will include attributes such as shifting funding from over-allocated programs to those that demonstrate greater need. In addition, Probation and the JJRBG will collaborate to develop processes for future budget adjustments that are more agile in their enactment yet provide the transparency that is so vital to accountable allocations.

Auditor’s Recommendations

④ The Auditor provides two recommendations for the County.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Project the estimated dates by which it expects to finalize agreements with service providers.
• Begin regularly reporting its progress in securing these agreements to there alignment subcommittee.

The Auditors describe that legislation creating the juvenile realignment program is “…absent of…accountability measures…” Probation offers that these measures include Statewide establishment of annual comparisons of budget allocations to spending. Probation has already implemented these measures within the County by creating reports that compare annual budget line items to spending to better inform the JJRBG committee members. Probation anticipates report-backs to the JJRBG each August or September contingent upon committee convening timeframes.

As noted in our cover letter, the County appreciates the Auditor’s recommendations and the professionalism and collaboration of the Auditor’s team.

Comments

California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the County of Los Angeles

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the county’s response to our report. The numbers below correspond with the numbers we have placed in the margin of its response.

① Los Angeles inaccurately states the three reasons we identified for its low rate of realignment block grant spending. In our report, we describe the following reasons:

• The two years the county took to determine the programs on which it wanted to spend realignment block grant funding.
• The significant number of programs, services, and goods that Probation has yet to deliver using realignment block grant funding.
• Delayed billing by other county departments that administer programs using realignment block grant funding.

② Our report provides an accurate amount of how much realignment block grant funding Los Angeles spent as of the time of our review. The $9.7 million we report inclusive of all expenses of realignment block grant funding that Probation had approved as of June 28, 2024, the last business day of the fiscal year. We acknowledge in our report that the total amount spent may rise when the county closes out fiscal year 2023–24. However, we also state that it is unlikely any increase will fully account for the significant gap between actual spending of realignment block grant funds—$9.7 million—and the amount of approved spending—$64 million.

③ In its response, Los Angeles indicates its belief that it will soon substantially increase program development and spending of realignment block grant funding to support realigned youth. We look forward to reviewing the progress that the county makes as it addresses our recommendations. However, we are uncertain that one of the factors Los Angeles cites will actually assist it in moving at an accelerated pace. Although Los Angeles explains that the delegated authority for procurement and contracting that the board of supervisors granted to Probation in May 2023 will allow it to increase the pace of service delivery, this authority predates the July 2023 authorization to spend realignment block grant funding. In other words, Probation’s delegated authority has been in place for more than a year, and thus is not a new factor that would allow it to move faster than it has in the recent past. As such, we make recommendations to Los Angeles that will allow it to better plan for and report on its progress in delivering services to realigned youth, and to better plan for how it budgets and uses realignment block grant funds.

④ Los Angeles’s response does not fully address all recommendations we made to the county. First, although Los Angeles responded to our recommendation that the county plan for and report on its progress in securing agreements to deliver programs, services, and goods for realigned youth to the realignment subcommittee, its response does not mention our recommendation deadline of September 2024. We believe that Los Angeles’s adherence to this timing is crucial for better ensuring that the county delivers critical services to realigned youth in a timely manner. Second, we recommend that the realignment subcommittee—which is responsible for budgeting realignment block grant funds—plan for the timely and effective use of unspent realignment block grant funds, including provisions for avoiding an excessive reserve, in its next annual spending plan. This action will help ensure that Los Angeles addresses the significant amount of unspent funds that it has received. We look forward to reviewing the county’s progress in implementing these recommendations as it reports to us during our regular post-audit follow-up process.

Footnotes

1. For the Pinegrove Fire Training Camp, Probation provided pending invoices from CDCR totaling $20,460. These invoices were dated from late June 2024, and Probation had not approved them by the time we completed our review. As such, this amount is not included in Probation’s total spent funding presented here. ↩︎
2. The Nidorf facility houses the majority of the realigned youth who require placement in a secure treatment facility. ↩︎