Success or NO WAY Out! What Awaits the Youth Exiting Juvenile Camps

What percentage of youths entering the THP-Plus THP-Plus - Out of 15 youths who entered THP-Plus and THP-FC enter from homelessness? program in the County in 2017-18, 11 had missing data. Among the responding youths, 1 entered THP+FC – not available due to County’s legal position directly from homelessness. Four indicated that they which does not allow providers to enter data experienced homelessness between foster care and regarding youths. THP-Plus. For Questions 2 through 4, among 48 youths who Among the responders, the highest types of housing exited THP-Plus program in 2017-18, 22 had missing entered into THP-Plus from: (i) 10 entered from data. another supportive transitional housing program; (ii) 6 entered from living with a relative or other person in

Where Are They Coming From and Where Are They Going? A significant number of youth return home after exiting camps. In this section, some of the situations occurring after the youth’s return home are highlighted. Much of the information is based on our interviews with the Centinela Field POs and, as a result, we do not have actual data to support the number of instances described in this section. While the number of incidences for the described types of events may differ when the data are tracked, the Committee members believe that the types of events occur with sufficient regularity. A summary of our discussions is included in this section as a starting point for collecting data. Service distinction also exists based on the youth’s age so that a youth over the age of 18 accessed services differently than the younger youth. DCFS History. Members of this Committee requested two sets of data from Probation: (i) the number of youth who enter directly from DCFS placement to Probation camps and (ii) the number of youth who exit to DCFS placement from Probation camp. Probation was unable to put together the first set of data; instead, Probation provided the total number of youth who had any history with DCFS prior to entering juvenile camps during 2018. Table 4 2018 Information of Camp Youth with DCFS History Total New Camp Orders Youths with DCFS History Percentage of Total New Camp Orders Male 482 312 65% Female 55 40 73% TOTAL 537 352 66% Source: Probation. To be clear, the information provided in the above table does not indicate the number of youths with open DCFS cases at the time of entering camps. Table 4 above should be viewed only to note the level of DCFS involvement among the camp-detained youth in 2018. Home Evaluations and First Residence after Camp Exit. Prior to the youth’s return home after camp release, Field POs visit and evaluate the family home to assess its suitability, including the physical condition and safety of the home. Field POs also conduct criminal background checks on all adult occupants of the home. Despite the history of DCFS involvement with a significant number of the camp population, there is no assessment of the family’s readiness to accept the returning youth. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 20 If after the initial home evaluation, Field POs find the home unsuitable, then if the problems can be remedied, they can schedule a re-evaluation at least 45 days prior to the youth’s release date. Centinela Field POs thought that one out of ten home evaluations required some problems to be remedied prior to the youth’s release. When the residence belongs to a relative or a friend, Field POs will consider the residence as unsuitable. Sometimes, there were multiple families living in a single unit and the residence was too crowded to be determined suitable. In each of these instances, families did not have a place of their own and were homeless themselves. Centinela Field POs recalled two to three such homeless families per month. Centinela Field POs referred such families to other agencies or CBOs to assist the family with housing with the goal of reuniting the family with the youth. In some instances where a family receives Section 8 vouchers, we were informed that families could lose benefits by allowing the Probation youth to rejoin the family. As a result, to protect the residence for the remaining family members, Centinela Field POs recalled that families might state that there is no place for the youth. If the youth is over 18 years of age and the parent or the guardian does not want the youth to return home, Field POs look into providing transitional housing or other housing programs such as the Independent Living Program. Field POs work to ferret out these needs during the Initial MDT so that they can begin to coordinate with other County departments and find housing for the youth. Some youth over the age of 18 are also parents themselves. In such cases, Field POs look to find resources more appropriate for families with infants. Centinela Field POs noted that among youth over 18 years of age, one in five cases involve finding resources for a new family. Some of the available housing programs for youth over 18 are discussed in Section 3. Although efforts are made to find transitional housing for youth over 18, there is simply not enough housing available to place all camp-released youth over 18. Centinela Field POs acknowledged that some camp-released youth do end up in shelters. When needed youth are placed in temporary shelters, some of which provide supportive services, such as employment guidance and independent studies to continue toward high school completion. Some of the temporary shelters also provide mental health services through DMH. Typically, youth remain for 30 to 60 days at such temporary shelters and Centinela Field POs continue to work with the youth to find more stable housing. Fleeing from Initial Residence. After exit from camp and reunited with family, Centinela Field POs found instances where the youth fled from home. This occurred in approximately three out of ten youth under 18 who returned home. Youth over 18 had lower flight instances and the Centinela Field POs estimated approximately two out of ten ran away from home. Once the youth flees, a bench warrant is issued and the Field POs stay in contact with the parent or guardian to have the youth turn himself in with the Field PO or at court. If the youth is over the age of 18, the outstanding bench warrant could place him in County jail, starting a new cycle of criminal justice experience. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 21 Suitable Placement for Youth under 18. For those youth under the age of 18 during camp detention who do not have a family home to return to or if the youth’s home has been deemed unsuitable for return at release, these youth could be sent to “Suitable Placement,” typically at a group home or in Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP), as they are now known. Contracts with such facilities determine whether the facility accepts Probation-involved youth. As a result, Probation is limited in accessing facilities that will accept Probation-involved youth. When a Camp PO makes the recommendation for “Suitable Placement,” others review and clear the recommendation at Probation before presenting it to the Juvenile Delinquency Court for consideration. Once approved at Probation, Camp PO will seek a Suitable Placement Order from Juvenile Delinquency Court for youth under 18 years of age. If the “Suitable Placement” recommendation is accepted by the Juvenile Delinquency Court, then the Camp PO will work on locating appropriate housing for the youth and satisfy the Suitable Placement Order. Some Juvenile Delinquency Court judicial officers issue Suitable Placement Orders routinely for youth not released to home, but this is not a uniform practice. Probation representatives also confirmed this. The youth is held at a juvenile hall after exiting camp until housing is found. Camp PO reports to the judge every 15 days as to the status of the Suitable Placement Order until successful placement of youth. Once a youth receives a Suitable Placement Order, then Probation’s Camp Community Transition Program Field PO’s jurisdiction ends and the Probation’s Placement Unit Probation Officers take over the responsibilities for the youth. Accordingly, Centinela Field POs do not supervise any youth subject to Suitable Placement Order. The following table sets forth the number of youth released from each operating camp to Suitable Placement at STRTPs between 2015 through November 30, 2018. [Remainder of this page intentionally left blank] 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 22 Table 5 Number of Youths Released from Camp to Suitable Placement at STRTP Camp 2015 2016 2017 2018 Afflerbaugh 6 8 7 5 Gonzales 3 3 6 1 Mendenhall 5 5 1 -- Kilpatrick -- -- 2 6 Miller 4 4 -- -- Munz 8 -- -- -- Paige 2 1 2 1 Rockey 18 18 12 6 Scott (girls) 19 9 8 9 Scudder (girls) 9 10 -- -- Jarvis 16 20 9 3 McNair 14 14 3 8 Onizuka 6 5 11 4 Scobee -- -- 4 6 Smith -- 6 1 -- Camps Headquarter 8 10 8 8 Total STRTP 118 113 74 57 Total Number of 1282 1048 798 620 Youth Released Source: Probation. Figures for 2018 reflect number of youths released through November 30, 2018. Other Home Arrangements. In addition to STRTP or group homes where youth may be placed, some youth may also be placed with “Resource Families” which is the new name for foster families with training and other qualifications that have converted to the Resource Family status. Based on a count from October 2017, the County had 550 of the State’s 2,700 total probation foster youth.39 During that time, there were approximately 60,000 children placed in foster care State-wide.40 Probation also successfully placed youth in adoptions. According to Probation, from 2006 to 2015, there have been five adoption cases for Probation-involved youth. For that same time, there were a total of eight adoptions for such youth State-wide, meaning only three other such adoptions occurred outside the County. Adoption procedures typically take two years since the parents are provided with at least 12 months of reunification services before the services are terminated along with legal rights. Jeremy Loudenback, “California Hopes to Place More Probation Youth in Foster Homes Like this,” The Chronicle of Social Change, February 22, 2018, https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/meet-l-a-countys-only-foster-parent-for-probation-youth (accessed on February 5, 2019). Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 23 Distinction in Housing Services Based on Age During our interviews with Probation representatives, a consistent distinction was noted as to the available services based on the age of the youth. If the youth is under 18, there are more options, including seeking placement in STRTP. But for youth over 18, the housing availability appeared to be no more than in the same pool of limited housing inventory for other homeless Transitional Aged Youth (TAY) in the County. There is no priority made for acceptance into housing programs for Probation youth who are released from camps. Programs administered by LAHSA follow the federal requirements. We discuss details of some of these programs in Section 3. The Twelfth Monitoring Report, Paragraph 73-3(c) requires that a transition plan is initiated within 30 days of arrival at camp.41 The transition plan requires determining whether the youth would be released to his/her home or would go from camp to suitable placement.42 If the youth were expected to go to placement, contact with the Placement Unit was [to be] established.43 In the Twelfth Monitoring Report, there is no mention of distinguishing services provided to camp- detained youth based on whether the person is under or over the age of 18. During our interviews, several Probation representatives mentioned that Probation only recommends suitable placement for youth aged 17 or younger. The rationale was that youth over 18 years of age could enter an “AB12 Program” such as THP+FC or Supervised Independent Living Program for which probation youth may participate. Assembly Bill 12 (AB12), the California Fostering Connections to Success Act, was signed into law on September 30, 2010. The legislation recognized the importance of family and permanency for youth and extended various benefits, including youth in foster care. Probation confirms that Probation-involved youth are also covered under AB12. To access services under AB12, one Probation representative stated that the Juvenile Delinquency Court would have to terminate its jurisdiction after the youth’s 18th birthday so that general jurisdiction under the California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 450 could be pursued with a finding that the youth was a non-minor dependent who is eligible for extended benefits under AB12. In an undated document titled “Commonly Asked Questions About AB12 (Extended Foster Care)” printed on Probation’s letterhead (WIC 450 Document), Probation provides additional procedures related to providing services under AB12.44 Selected text from the WIC 450 Document is reproduced below in its entirety, with minor format changes: 41 Graham, et al., 89. Ibid. Ibid. The Committee members received a hard copy of this document during an interview. There is no date for this document but the last page contains the following footer: CAQAB12:FT/JR:031318. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 24 • 5. What is explained to the kids? The youth should be informed about criteria or eligibility, the housing programs and services offered and the education, skill, and employment opportunities. • 6. Which minute orders need to be done? When a case is modified to 450 Status the probation case must be terminated and a Jurisdiction Termination minute order must be generated. An EFC minute order is also necessary for a modification to 450 status and re- entry. • 8. What is the protocol/practice for notifying probation’s Transition Jurisdiction Services unit when a youth walks into court desiring 450WIC? Should a youth walk into court who desires a 450 re-entry, a 450 WIC referral should be completed by an appointed court employee. This referral should then be forwarded to the TJC unit via the universal e-mail address located at the top of the referral. This will notify the unit a potential NMD [Non-Minor Dependent] needs assistance with the re-entry process. • 11. When a youth housed in a camp facility at 17 yrs old desires 450 WIC status what is the process for making that youth eligible? The camp probation officer will submit a referral to the AB12 unit. The camp probation office will explore placement options with the youth and submit applications to THPP-NMD’s. There will be 3 hearings in 1: Probation Grant hearing/602 termination (report); JV-466 petition completed; re-entry hearing (report)[.] The #5 [6][sic] minute order terminating 602WIC jurisdiction is completed and EFC minute order with Sections 2 and 3 completed. Court officer sends copy of MO to TJS SDPO (original goes to Camp DPO)[.] • 13. What is probation doing when placements WON’T take our kids? What pressure can probation put on these placements that reject our kids? The AB12 supervisor will consult with the housing program to ascertain the reason for the denial. If it does not comply with the guidelines of the contract, the SDPO will discuss the denial with the housing program and if the issue cannot be resolved in the youth’s favor, the issue will be elevated to the director level. Item 5 of the WIC 450 Document notes that the youth should be informed about the WIC 450 program. Item 8 contains the following phrase: “When a youth walks into court desiring 450 WIC.” The idea that youths take the lead in determining and choosing the available benefits was consistent during our interviews with several Probation representatives. Essentially, the youth must present himself and demonstrate his readiness for entering many of these housing programs. From our observations of Transitional MDTs, we noted that the youths’ school test results were not at their current age appropriate grade level and, for some, their test results were well below their grade level. A Camp PO simply informing the youth as to the housing program criteria or eligibility, as currently expressed in the WIC 450 Document, is insufficient. Probation’s procedures should 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 25 include guidance from Probation representatives (not the youth) to make the assessment regarding services available under AB12. After receiving guidance from Probation representative, and if determined eligible, then access to services under AB12 should be noted and included during the Initial MDT and carried through to the Transitional MDT to camp exit. Probation needs to assist and guide all youth identified by Probation as potentially eligible for AB12 so that a smooth housing transition is made for TAY exiting camps. The WIC 450 Document assumes that the Juvenile Delinquency Court will agree as to the actions required in the Document. Essentially, if the Juvenile Delinquency Court judicial officer does not issue the noted orders, Probation would be justified in not moving forward with this request from the youth. Interested parties need to discuss these procedures so that that youth who were intended to benefit from AB12 can be served timely and appropriately. As discussed in the next section of this report, there is a limited number of housing beds/units available in the County. Given the limitation in the number of beds/housing units in the County, cumbersome procedures are not needed but, rather, all interested parties need to discuss how to coordinate efficiently to better access the limited supply of housing inventory. As noted above, Probation is limited in its access to STRPTs and only those facilities that agreed to receive Probation-involved youth are available to Probation. Further, as noted in Item 13 of the WIC 450 Document above, it appears that Probation-involved youth do not receive the same priority with placement among peers even in facilities carved out for Probation-involved youth. Probation’s data for 2018 indicates an overwhelming majority of youth entering juvenile camps with DCFS history. The Committee members did not inquire as to the breakdowns of DCFS findings and did not assume that each case resulted in the positive findings by DCFS. Even so, this Civil Grand Jury believes that these data should be kept in mind. With outcomes from studies that indicate several times the likelihood of this group seeking County’s general relief assistance and jail experience, County Board of Supervisors and other departments need to coordinate with Probation so that youth exiting camps are given assistance to secure stable housing to begin their re-entry into community. Current housing resources are limited for all of the County’s homeless population. But when the historical data indicate outcomes that are nearly certain for continued receipt of a wide range of County assistance and highly likely involvement in the criminal justice system, the County Board of Supervisors needs to determine whether an upfront investment should be made to further assist camp youth who have made clear showing of making positive changes in their lives. Without assistance from Probation and other departments now, the probability of some of those youth moving toward a goal of independence is fragile at best. Without assisting these youth at the point of camp exit, the extensive work of many County departments started at juvenile camps and continued by Field POs after camp release might be wasted and not contribute to bringing changes in the youth’s future. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 26 Findings: 2.1 Probation-compiled data indicate a high number of youth entering juvenile camps with a history of DCFS experience. 2.2 When a home evaluation is done by a Field PO, the physical facilities are assessed but there is no assessment of the family’s readiness for reuniting with the youth. 2.3 During home evaluations, the Centinela Field POs have identified families who are essentially homeless and living in other people’s homes. 2.4 Some of the youth exiting camps are sent to temporary shelters, some of which provide supportive services during stay. 2.5 After reunifying with family, there are a number of youth who flee from their initial residence after camp exit. 2.6 Some youth who exit camps and are sent to temporary shelters or those who flee from their initial residence may end up seeking services provided by LAHSA. 2.7 When discussing Suitable Placement, Probation representatives consistently stated that Probation’s jurisdiction ended when the youth turned 18. To the extent that any portion of the DOJ settlement agreement is applicable to support Probation’s current practice of distinguishing services by age, applicable provisions should be noted in this assessment. 2.8 Probation’s own internal AB12 procedures would require that the youth affirmatively request assistance from Probation for accessing services under AB12. Given the testing levels of some of the youth noted during our Transitional MDT observations, this Civil Grand Jury is not sure that such affirmative assistance requests can be effectively made by many of the camp youth. 2.9 Current requirements under Probation’s WIC 450 Document further require that the Juvenile Delinquency Court also take certain steps so that a youth may access services under AB12. 2.10 It is challenging for camp youth to reintegrate into the community. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 27

Available Housing Programs for Probation Youth Over 18 Years of Age A recent article estimates that 3,306 homeless youth and young adults experience homelessness in the County on any given night.45 Among them, 31% report current or previous involvement in the child welfare system and 62% report previous or current involvement in the juvenile or criminal justice systems.46 The Committee members contacted LAHSA for additional information and the following table provides a summary of system experienced persons accessing LAHSA’s Youth Coordinated Entry System (Youth CES) during calendar year 2018. Table 6 LAHSA’s Youth CES Participant Breakdown for 2018 Category Number Percent Total Youth CES Participants 3,945 100% Identified as Having Probation Officer 939 24 Identified as Having DCFS Social Worker 1,736 44 Source: LAHSA. Despite double the number of persons self-identifying as being homeless in the count, those accessing Youth CES with Probation involvement are significantly less than those with DCFS experience. We requested that LAHSA determine the number of youth self-identifying as having both a Probation Officer and a social worker (though not necessarily at the same time). Instead of that number, LAHSA provided the following data that provide the exit destinations among LAHSA’s Youth CES Participants in 2018 who self-identified as having experience in both systems. William Lehman, Youth Homelessness in Los Angeles County: Innovation with Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice and Coordinated Entry Systems, October 8, 2018, https://www.usich.gov/news/youth-homelessness-in-los-angeles-county-innovation-with-child-welfare-juvenile- justice-and-coordinated-entry-systems/ (accessed February 5, 2019). Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 29 Table 7 2018 Youth CES Participant Exit Destinations – Self-Identified Lifetime Experience with Probation and DCFS Social Worker Type of Service Percentage Permanent Housing 24% Temporary Housing (except Shelter) 24 Shelter 21 Unsheltered 11 Institution 7 Other 13 Source: LAHSA. For Transitional Aged Youth, generally consisting of youth aged between 18 to 26 (or younger for some services), LAHSA, in collaboration with other County agencies, implemented the Youth CES County-wide in September 2016. The intent was to coordinate permanent housing for TAY, including permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and Housing Choice Vouchers, as well as a portion of TAY transitional housing. Probation’s housing program administrators we interviewed stated that the Youth CES required six-month lead time to complete the process. When this timing was discussed with LAHSA representatives, the Committee members were informed that the process can be more flexible with timing, dependent on the priority and needs of the youth. To address the goal of preventing and ending youth homelessness, LAHSA, along with many partners, launched three pilot programs in 2017 to build new linkages between Youth CES and the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Specifically, Pilot #2 worked on integrating Youth CES into discharge planning processes within DCFS and Probation. For Probation-involved youth, collaboration required that a LAHSA representative participate in the MDT process to input the required information under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) priority assessment. We were informed that the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) used by LAHSA could not be accessed by law enforcement agencies, such as Probation, and a LAHSA representative had to be involved in the MDTs. Through this collaboration, Probation youth were able to connect to the Youth CES program. The article cites that 35 youths have been referred to Youth CES and successfully connected to safe and stable housing immediately upon exiting care.47 In addition to Youth CES, we learned of other housing programs available to TAY population. The following table provides a brief summary of some of the housing programs we became aware of during this investigation. Ibid. The Committee Members did not follow-up with LAHSA as to the breakdown between Probation and DCFS from 35 youths noted. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 30 Table 8 Summary of Available Housing Programs Program Name and Outside Special Eligibility Requirements Maximum Allowable Stay or Funding Source Benefit Period ILP (Independent Living Program) -Need to qualify between 16-18 - ILP eligible housing and other - Federal and State funded. Can years of age and benefits are available for those be used for housing outside the -“Suitable Placement Order” from between 18 and the day before 21. County. LAHSA / DCFS court needed. Certain benefits may be provided administered. to age of 24. Los Angeles Continuum of Care -18 to 25 year olds - Federal HUD funded. LAHSA -Can be ILP eligible or not. administered, but does not include certain cities. Rapid Re-housing -18 to 23 year olds (can extend to 2 years maximum stay. - Federal HUD and Measure H 24 year olds if additional Provides limited term rental funded. Community based units requirements are met.) subsidies and supportive services. administered by LAHSA. -Can be ILP eligible or not. THP-Plus (Transitional Housing -18 to 24 year olds (may extend to 2 years maximum stay. If qualified, Program Plus) 25 if qualified) and 1 additional year may apply, and - 82 beds in community based -Those youths who left foster care total of 3 years. apartments. A portion of youth’s or out-of-home placement income is contributed as rent but supervised by Probation on or after LAHSA noted 159 on waiting list in all contributions are returned to the 18th birthday. its December 1, 2017 Report Back. youth at the end. Administered by DCFS. State funded. THP+FC (Transitional Housing -Created for Non-Minor Placement-Plus Foster Care) Dependents who are in foster care, - Providers are licensed as ages 18 to 21. transitional housing placement providers. Administered by DCFS. -Must be in AB12 and comply with Federal funded. additional requirements. SILP (Supervised Independent -Must be approved under SILP MNDs may reside with parent or Living Placement) readiness assessment and youth guardian but is not being placed - Created for Non-Minor must continue to meet all eligibility with the parent. Dependents (NMD) who remain for Extended Foster Care. wards of the juvenile court. Proprietary Housing -Refers to shelter service providers 90 days. such as Dream Center, The Salvation Army or Angels Nest. Source: Based on interviews and review of existing reports. Compiled by the Committee members. During our research, the Committee members learned of the John Burton Advocates for Youth and its Annual Reports. In reviewing the 2017-18 John Burton Advocates for Youth Annual Report (JBAY Annual Report), we realized that eligible youth may be served by more than one of the housing programs listed above. For example, an ILP eligible youth may also access THP-Plus program or exit to another program. Based on the JBAY Annual Report, only 6% of youth that entered a THP-Plus program were ILP-eligible youth supervised by the juvenile probation 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 31 system.48 The same study noted that in 2012-13, there were 15% of ILP-eligible youth supervised by juvenile probation system that entered the THP-Plus program. The following table summarizes some of the facts noted in the JBAY Annual Report showing State-wide figures. Table 9 Summary of State Averages for THP-FC and THP-Plus Participants 2017-18 Annual Report by John Burton advocates for Youth Description THP+FC THP-Plus Percent entering from - 12% from emergency housing - 1 in 5 entered directly from homelessness (p.14). setting homelessness Highest living types exited to (p. - 22% - living with relative / other - 27% - living with relative / other 15). person in stable housing, rent free person in stable housing, rent-free - 18% - THP-Plus Program - 17% - Rent own / shared housing - 50% - Rent own / shared housing (paying rent) (paying rent) Educational Status at Exit (p. 18). 83% earned high school diploma, 84% earned high school diploma, GED or higher GED or higher Employment at Exit (p.20). 44% at exit 57% at exit Full Time (p. 20). 19% 33% Income (p. 20). Federal Poverty $13,296 / year $16,572 / year level for 1 person is $12,140 Source: JBAY Annual Report. Page numbers noted in the Description column refer to the JBAY Annual Report. After reviewing the State-wide data, members of this Committee contacted JBAY for County- specific information related to the THP-Plus and THP+FC programs. We wanted to compare the County-specific data to the State-wide information provided in the JBAY Annual Report. During this process, the Committee members learned that the County Counsel has a strict stance on sharing data regarding youths. As a result, providers in the THP+FC program could not provide data regarding the serviced youth. As to the THP-Plus program, some data were received but the providers in the THP-Plus program have not been consistent when inputting their data. For example, among the 15 youths who entered the THP-Plus program in 2017-18, eleven had missing data. Among the 48 youths who exited the THP-Plus program in 2017-18, no data were provided for 22 of them. As a result of incomplete data given by the County service providers, JBAY information is not accurate and is skewed. This information is provided in Table 10 below so that we can begin to understand who is accessing these services. John Burton Advocates for Youth, THP+FC & THP-Plus Annual Report 2017-18, October 2018, 13. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 32 Table 10 Answers from JBAY Regarding Los Angeles County Data for FY 2017-2018 CGJ Question JBAY Answer

Educational status at exit. Among the responders, 24 had earned high school diploma, GED or the equivalent or higher.

Employment status at exit. Among the 48 youths who exited THP-Plus program in 2017-18, 20 had missing data. Among the responders, 17 were employed at exit. Among the employed, 6 were full-time employees (35 hrs/wk or more) at exit.

Income level at exit. Monthly average of $1,008.50 or $12,102 annually (which includes stipends provided under the THP-Plus program). Source: Questions posed by Committee members and answers provided by JBAY. According to the JBAY Annual Report, THP-Plus programs in California were at 94 percent capacity, and there were only 88 vacancies across the 47 counties with THP-Plus programs. In the County, which has 31% of the State’s THP-Plus-eligible population, the County’s annual THP- Plus funding allocation is only six percent of the State’s realigned THP-Plus budget.49 As of June 30, 2018, the total THP-Plus bed capacity for the State was 1,411.50 From the total bed capacity 49 Ibid, 26. Ibid, 9. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 33 in the State, the County’s total bed count as of June 30, 2018 was 81 for the THP-Plus program.51 In its December 1, 2017 Report, LAHSA noted 159 on the waiting list for the THP-Plus program.52 In addition, as of October 1, 2018, the total number of non-minor dependents placed in THP+FC in the State was 1,962, of which 378 were placed in the County.53 Among the County participants in these two housing programs, there could be some Probation-involved youths. Due to time and resource constraints, we did not follow up with JBAY to pursue receiving the actual number of Probation-involved youths included in the data. Probation has housing experts available to assist Camp POs or Field POs who need expert assistance in finding housing for camp youth. Eligibility requirements for these housing programs are complex and not always straight forward. The idea that the Camp POs can inform the camp youth so that he can make an informed decision about his housing destiny within this maze of housing eligibility requirement is not realistic. Any expectation that the Camp POs or Field POs can work toward obtaining housing for eligible youth with assistance from a handful of housing experts within Probation is neither realistic nor an effective use of Probation DPOs’ time and resources. For several days, the Committee members observed Centinela Field POs working as stand-in parents, caseworkers who identify and coordinate services and disciplinarians. To suggest that these Field POs could identify the need for housing types described in this section and maneuver all steps to assist placing youth in these programs is, in this Civil Grand Jury’s view, unrealistic and does not utilize their expertise efficiently. During our interview, Probation’s housing experts were very clear that their services are also available to Probation-involved youth when the youth makes himself available on a voluntary basis seeking housing assistance. Once the Probation-involved youth avails himself demonstrating readiness for these services, then Probation’s housing experts are available to assist placing qualifying youth in qualifying housing programs. We assumed that these youths could include those previously detained at camps as well as others with lesser involvement with Probation. While a youth is given the assistance to qualify and enter these programs, our understanding is that it is up to the youth to follow up with the housing program administrators at Probation to pursue a successful outcome with these housing programs. During our interview with Probation’s housing experts, the Committee members heard that Probation youth also walk in for immediate help off the streets. Housing experts can call around and find a bed at a shelter for the night, if that, and sometimes provide their own money so that the youth can get to the shelter from the Probation office. The Committee members were informed that in the past, free annual transit passes had been given; but these annual passes were traded for goods or other items of value and were subject to misuse and abuse. Despite the past abuses with free passes, the need for providing some form of free Metro passes is greater now than ever. Members of this Committee requested County-specific information from JBAY. JBAY also noted that the actual number of youths served by the THP-Plus program as of June 30, 2018 in the County was 95, noting that a few providers were serving a few more youths than the contracted number of beds. Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Report Back, December 1, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/115116.pdf (accessed February 6, 2019), 24, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, State of Proceedings, Item 26, June 13, 2017, 42. Members of this Committee requested County specific information from JBAY, as well as the updated State-wide figure. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 34 On November 20, 2018, Supervisors Hilda L. Solis and Sheila Kuehl made a motion that instructed DCFS, the Chief Probation Officer and LAHSA “to develop a universal referral process from the DCFS and Probation to the YCES, develop a plan to train DCFS social workers and probation officers on YCES and appropriate referrals, identify resources needed to implement training, and identify representatives at DCFS regional offices and probation camps to serve as primary points of contact to maintain ongoing collaboration with YCES.”54 Citing a report by LAHSA, the Motion noted the underutilization of certain transitional housing beds and noted that 25% of ILP beds were vacant as of June 30, 2017. This Civil Grand Jury hopes that some of the information provided in this section could assist the County departments in forming the referral procedures to be implemented at Probation. Findings: 3.1 Housing programs with direct funding sources, either from federal or State programs, seem to be fully developed with knowledgeable administrators. But when high-risk youth do not satisfy all the requirements or are over 18 and not in foster care or placement, there does not appear to be many options for them. Some programs have such strict eligibility requirements that there are vacancies despite the high demand for housing among the TAY population. 3.2 Currently, when a homeless Probation-involved youth walks into a Probation office for housing assistance, the best that can happen is to find a shelter bed without any means to get to the shelter site.

Data Collection and Availability Based on our review of publicly available reports and studies related to Probation, the Committee members were made aware of computer system and data extraction difficulties within County departments. During this investigation, the Committee members requested data and information from several County departments. Typically, upon receipt and review of initial set of information, there were follow-up requests and additional questions to clarify the information we received. We had no difficulty receiving general statistical information from our sources. When the Committee members requested general information such as the historical population in Probation camps, this information was provided to us during the interview. Once our requests became more specific, we noted that the data needed to be compiled and it took some time to receive this information. In instances where the data included in this report required an explanation of how the information was compiled by our source, an explanation is provided before or after each table. There is usually a statement to indicate the limitations of the provided information to highlight how the information was derived. During background research, publicly available reports highlighted the difficulties in extracting data from County departments, including Probation. Set forth below is a sample of such statements in studies and reports: • Probation extracted data used to compute outcome measures from its databases. …Data for supplemental outcomes are sometimes more problematic because Probation’s data are only as good as the information obtained from community-based organization service providers, schools, and other county government departments (e.g., Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health). …Data for some programs were relatively complete. In other programs, only a small fraction of program participants had data available for 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 48 supplementary measures, calling into question the appropriateness of any findings based on such a small subsample.66 • Probation uses 46 different data systems to manage clients, staff, contracted providers, and a range of other information. Of these 46 systems, 25 are operated by Probation and 21 are systems operated by other County Departments or vendors, but accessed by Probation. Many of these systems are electronic document systems, not databases from which data can be extracted. Across data systems, there is a limited ability to link data and limited data sharing with other County departments, which reduces data utility and creates a number of challenges across all levels of Probation staff.67 • In some cases, interagency data sharing has been stalled due to extremely restrictive interpretations of the confidentiality provisions within federal statutes and regulations. Other California counties share data much more freely and effectively across agencies.68 • In addition to the lack of extractable data and linked data, the Probation Department’s outdated data systems and insufficient resource for IT staff, staff training, and systems upgrades impede the Department’s ability to make data-driven decisions. In particular, the Department has a limited capacity to track client outcomes. The absence of outcome data prevents the Department from comprehensively evaluating the effectiveness of its programs, making it difficult to ascertain whether or not programs are working.69 • Several stakeholders indicate that a better case management data system (or more consistent use of such systems) is needed, and would enable some automation and save time on reports. Many individuals noted that the current data situation makes it difficult for sharing of data among agencies serving the same population (mental health, child welfare, etc.). There is a general desire to see an increased use of electronic data systems, particularly to track outcomes and to automate reports.70 In addition to County departments, the Committee members also relied on data collected by a State agency, as well as a non-profit organization for some of the information included in this report. While requesting County-specific information from JBAY, we learned that JBAY also uses information compiled by the California Department of Social Services through the California Child Welfare Indicators Project. We learned that JBAY prepares its Annual Reports regarding two transition housing programs with the data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project and JBAY’s information collected through two different tracking systems. Fain, xxvii. LA Probation Governance Study – 120 Day Status Report, 17. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid, 23. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 49 The Committee members made requests to JBAY for County-specific information used in preparing its most recent Annual Report. In that process, we learned that some of the County’s service providers are not fully entering the necessary data into the JBAY’s tracking system for the THP-Plus program. Incomplete data entered into the JBAY’s THP-Plus tracking system causes the entire data to be skewed and not useful. As for the THP+FC program, we were informed by JBAY that the County service providers in the THP+FC program are prohibited from utilizing JBAY’s THP+FC tracking system. We learned that this prohibition is due to the County Counsel’s legal position that the data regarding THP+FC participating youth cannot be entered into the JBAY’s tracking system. As a result of the County Counsel’s legal position, only the incomplete data regarding THP-Plus service providers are available for the County. The County Counsel should reconsider the basis for prohibiting County service providers from sharing data related to these two transition housing programs with JBAY. As part of this report, and to support our argument to allow the provision of data, the data compiled from limited participants in a few of our tables are included in this report and noted these limitations. The County Counsel should review and reconsider if improvements and/or clarifications can be made as to how the data is gathered and provided so that the information for the County youth can be collected and included in the State-wide report. If such movement in the legal position can be done, then there is a need for a procedure to be in place to verify the accuracy of the provided data. The Committee members also received some information from LAHSA in the process of preparing this report. LAHSA uses the HMIS, a technology system required by HUD to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to individuals and families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. HMIS is a platform for managing information about persons experiencing homelessness, which serves as the basis for the Coordinated Entry System (CES).71 LAHSA-funded programs, DMH-funded programs serving persons experiencing homelessness, and DHS-funded providers delivering intensive case management services are mandated to participate in HMIS. A small group of agencies not funded by these sources voluntarily participate in HMIS.72 There is soft participation across DMH, DHS, and public housing authorities.73 Agencies that participate in HMIS enter data on new clients as they access services and update data on existing clients as information, such as their contact information or their housing status, changes over time.74 In a pilot program for improving access to Youth CES for camp youth, we understand that a LAHSA representative participated in MDTs at camps to input the necessary data in the HMIS. Information collection was done by a LAHSA representative since Probation is considered a law enforcement agency that cannot access HMIS. Once the data is collected, we 71 LAHSA, Interim Report Back – Comprehensive Analysis of the 2017 Homeless Count Results, August 25, 2017, 10, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 77A, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114790.pdf (accessed March 19, 2019). Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 50 understand that LAHSA is required to prioritize the housing need and follow HUD procedures and parameters for housing placements. The collection of data for input in the HMIS platform is not the same as one having access into the HMIS system and allowing review of information available from HMIS. This distinction could be noted and further explored as to whether the collec ion of data during MDTs could be had with Probation representatives already familiar with the youth. This discussion needs to be done with County Counsel to determine whether such data collection done by Probation staff could facilitate a more efficient process to connect the camp youth with LAHSA’s Youth CES program for housing at camp exit. If this distinction could be made and the legal distinction be allowed by County Counsel, Probation should work with the Chief Information Officer in the CEO’s Office to implement a process that works for both Probation and LAHSA, consistent with parameters provided by County Counsel. Once such electronic information is transferred to LAHSA, the information could be input into the HMIS system, without access to the HMIS system from Probation. We also learned that the Chief Executive Officer’s Research and Evaluation Services (RES) unit was able to collect data from six County agencies and LAHSA for a recent report. On February 20, 2018, the CEO reported back to the County Board of Supervisors regarding potential ways that the homeless population that is unaccounted for in the Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count could be reflected in the future allocation of funding for the Measure H Strategies.75 RES unit collected administrative records from seven data systems maintained by six County agencies, as well as the HMIS, to produce a different homeless estimate than the LAHSA count.76 The agencies and systems from which data were collected to produce the alternative count are: DCFS (IDSS), DHS (ORCHID and CHAMP), DMH (IBHIS), DPSS (LRS), LASD (AJIS), WCADS (WIOA, LACYJ, and AAA).77 The data reviewed by the CEO yielded 121,812 unique persons identified as homeless in January 2017, doubling the LAHSA’s Point-in-Time count of 57,794.78 RES geocoded the administrative data used to produce the CEO estimate based on facility zip codes in the service records and, for DPSS, the areas served by DPSS’ district offices.79 The Chief Probation Officer should work with bureau chiefs to identify whether a similar geocoding technology should be used for the various data that is being collected and should be collected going forward. The Committee members learned from the Centinela Field POs, that they were able to extract data from several systems to make a point-in-time assessment of criminal justice system involvement of previously supervised youth. A point-in-time review of several County department databases was done to determine the status of randomly selected camp exited 75 Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, 1, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 12, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114788.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). Attachment I to Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, I, attached to the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 12, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114788.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). Footnote 3 of Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, Attachment I, 2. Ibid, i. Ibid, ii. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 51 youth. Centinela Field POs randomly selected youths from 2013 to 2017 and reviewed their current criminal justice status. Each Centinela Field PO is assigned zip code(s) and oversees the youth who resides in the assigned zip code area. The sample pool of youth did not include youth supervised by DPOs working primarily in the 90044 zip code area. Table 13 Point-in-Time Review of Outcomes of Youth Supervised by Centinela Field POs Random Sample of Supervised Youth between 2013 to 2017 Prison or Jail Pending Probation No Pending Total Hearing Case* Total Persons 51 6 30 14 101 Percentage 50.5% 5.9% 29.7% 13.8% 100% Source: Probation. *Includes deceased persons. Centinela Field POs compiled this data from (i) the Probation Case Management System, (ii) the Juvenile Automated Index system of the courts, and (iii) the booking number assigned by the County Sheriff’s Department upon arrest. Centinela Field POs believe that there are a number of persons who have died since Probation jurisdiction ended; however, this information could not be determined and is included in the number of persons noted under the caption “No Pending Case.” Further, the number of persons noted under this column only indicates that there were no pending criminal proceedings at the time of this review and no other inference should be made. In assembling this study group, the youth residing in the zip code area 90044 were deliberately not included. This area is considered to be one of the most crime-ridden areas in the County. As this table demonstrates, existing systems and data input can provide helpful information for review of trends and comparisons. This data collection process could be further refined by Probation representatives for additional point-in-time assessment of status to assess any trends. But the more important review should be to determine the extent to which the camp-released youth continued schooling, as well as recommended mental health services after termination of probation and whether such participation made significant differences in the outcome. Some of the data included in this report already indicate a stark difference in high school completion rate and employment rate. There are existing platforms that collect useful data to understand the behavior and outcomes of Probation-involved youth in broader terms than the camp-exiting youth. To the extent that the collected data are useful, County departments could consider obtaining licenses for these platforms and begin implementation procedures for collecting accurate data. From our perspective, there is no reason why the County data could not be collected by a lead agency from the County. The lead agency should also implement controls to verify initially that the provided information is accurate. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 52 To this end, LAHSA Report Back to the Board of Supervisors, dated December 1, 2017, recommended several data related items, including establishing a set of universal data elements with a mandate for LAHSA, DCFS, Probation, and DMH to regularly track each data element.80 The Report Back also noted that data elements captured by different departments are on multiple systems and incompatible with each other, particularly noting that DCFS data collection system is not linked to HMIS used by LAHSA and DMH and recommends integrating with HMIS.81 On December 18, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors “directed the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Information Officer to develop a Board policy in 90 days, in consultation with County Counsel, that delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Information Officer … as the County’s ‘data steward’ to link common clients and their service records across Departments and anonymize data for the purposes of program evaluation; identify, evaluate, analyze and research County programs that serve vulnerable populations with the ability to engage external evaluators where appropriate….”82 Given the restrictions for law enforcement agencies for accessing HMIS, this Civil Grand Jury is not convinced that this system should be the central platform for data collection. As a starting point, the Chief Information Officer should revisit LAHSA’s comment and determine what hurdles exist from achieving a variable of LAHSA recommendation with the Chief Information Officer acting as “data steward,” as directed by the County Board of Supervisors. Findings: 7.1 In the process of receiving County-specific data from JBAY, this Civil Grand Jury learned that County service providers in the THP+FC program are prohibited from utilizing JBAY’s THP+FC tracking system. This Civil Grand Jury learned that this prohibition is due to the County Counsel’s legal position that the data regarding THP+FC participating youth cannot be entered in the JBAY’s tracking system. As a result of this legal position, only the data from County’s THP-Plus service providers are available on the JBAY tracking system and only to a limited extent. 7.2 This Civil Grand Jury also learned from JBAY that data submitted by County service providers for the THP-Plus program are not always complete or accurate. 7.3 This Civil Grand Jury submits that the collection of data for input into the HMIS platform is not the same as having access into the HMIS system and allowing review of information available from HMIS. LAHSA Report Back, dated December 1, 2017, 23, attached to the County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Item 26, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1025670_061317.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). Ibid, 24. County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Item 14, December 18, 2018, 18 - 19. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 53 7.4 The CGJ understands that the Chief Executive Officer’s RES unit geocoded the administrative data from multiple sources to produce the CEO estimate enhanced homeless population information based on facility zip codes.