July
5, 2014
The
Sacramento Bee
By
Cathy Locke
The Sacramento County grand
jury has accused the county Probation Department of wasting approximately $2
million annually to maintain two shuttered juvenile facilities while failing to
provide long-term residential treatment programs for troubled youths.
In its final report issued June
28, the 2013-14 grand jury recommends that the county lease or sell the Boys
Ranch property near Rancho Murieta and consider reopening the Warren E.
Thornton Youth Center, near the county’s juvenile hall in the Rosemont area.
The youth center was closed in 2009 and the Boys Ranch in 2010 due to county
budget cuts.
Prompted by a complaint
questioning why the county was spending $1 million a year on the closed Boys
Ranch facility, the grand jury investigated and found that the county also was
spending money to maintain the closed youth center.
“No county official provided
exact amounts being spent, but documents examined by the grand jury showed that
since their closure, the combined maintenance costs of the youth center and
Boys Ranch totaled over $2 million annually,” the report states.
With the closure of these
facilities, the report says, the Sacramento County Juvenile Court lost
resources and facilities to house and treat long-term offenders.
Youths who had resided in those
facilities were returned to juvenile hall, placed on formal probation, assigned
to home detention or released, the report says.
County officials, who have 90
days to formally respond to the grand jury, declined to comment last week on
the findings, saying they had not had time to review the details of the report.
“In fairness to the process,
we’re not even a week away from getting this report,” said Mike Shores,
assistant chief probation officer. “It will take some time for us as an
organization to sit down and look at those recommendations.”
Shores said the Probation
Department argued against closure of each of the facilities.
For 50 years, the courts had
sentenced some the area’s most troubled youths to the Boys Ranch, a 150-acre
fenced compound north of Rancho Murieta. There the boys, mostly 15 to 17 years
old, took academic and vocational classes, and received therapy and substance
abuse treatment.
The youth center housed younger
offenders, typically boys ages 13 to 16, and girls up to 18 years old, who
posed less of a public safety risk than those assigned to the Boys Ranch. At
the youth center, they received treatment for mental health, anger management
and drug addiction, and also attended school.
County officials told the grand
jury that the expenses associated with the closed facilities were largely due
to debt service on improvements made at the Boys Ranch shortly before its
closure, including “a million dollar fence,” according to the report.
“The county’s own documents
proved this claim was inaccurate,” the report says. “In addition to debt
service, the documents showed substantial additional expenses for maintenance,
necessary to keep the property from deteriorating and thereby supposedly
decreasing in value. But in fact, the same documents reveal that the property
is more valuable as virgin land, without the current aging structures and
facilities.”
The county in 2011 sought lease
proposals for the Boys Ranch property. Although there were interested
applicants, the short, five-year lease term likely discouraged tenants given
the necessary startup costs and capital outlay, the report says. The grand jury
noted that the county in March of this year issued a new request for proposals
for the property, without the five-year term, but advising that because the
facility has been partially financed with tax-exempt bonds, use by a state or
local governmental entity may be given preference.
The grand jury suggests that
the county would be best served by rezoning the Boys Ranch property from
agricultural use, possibly to residential or commercial use, to “maximize the
property’s value, whether from a lease or sales standpoint.”
Michael Morse, the county’s
director of general services, was among the people the grand jury interviewed.
The county has received proposals for use of the Boys Ranch property in
response to its March solicitation, but Morse said he could not discuss them at
this time. Sale of the property is an option, he said.
In addition to the cost of
maintaining the closed facilities, the grand jury expressed concern about the
lack of services for the county’s troubled youths. Facilities and programs for
teens needing long-term treatment in Sacramento County are limited or
nonexistent, the report states. The grand jury recommends that the county Board
of Supervisors appoint a task force to assess the viability of establishing a
commitment program at the youth center to meet that need.
“Evidence suggests that a
phased commitment program would serve Sacramento County, the Juvenile Court and
the community well by allowing youths to receive services based on their needs
while ensuring community safety through sound interventions created to curb
recidivism, educate and ultimately change the lives of youths,” the report
states.
Since the youth center and Boys
Ranch closed, the county’s juvenile population has evolved, Shores said.
“We need to look at the
juvenile population and look at the system needs,” he said.
Shores noted that county’s
2014-15 budget does not include funding to reopen the youth center.
“If there’s any discussion
about programmatic creation or change,” he said, “we have to do it within the
county’s fiscal limits and do it smart ... making sure we are providing good
service to the community.”
He said the department will
undertake that analysis during the next 90 days as it prepares its response to
the grand jury.
Call the Bee’s Cathy Locke,
(916) 321-5287.
No comments:
Post a Comment