Once again, Marin County’s juvenile hall has fallen under the microscope of the county’s grand jury and has garnered mixed reviews.
While the nightly average of 12 young inmates in a facility built to hold 40 is a reflection of the county’s success in using effective alternatives to incarceration and recidivism, the daily public cost per inmate — $759 — is too steep for the grand jury’s taste.
It was only two years ago that another Marin grand jury reached the same conclusion.
The 2015 grand jury had recommended the county close its Lucas Valley facility and contract with a neighboring county for youth detention.
According to the recent grand jury, the low population of Marin’s juvenile hall is a reflection of the county’s success focusing more on rehabilitation than incarceration when it comes to juvenile crime. In fact, its report found that most youth offenders spend only a day or two in the hall.
An example of the success of this transition is that juvenile hall had 1,674 inmates in 1995. In 2014, there were only 253.
Yet, it is costing taxpayers about $4 million to pay for 21 full-time employees and part-timers — almost the same as when the 2014-15 Marin County Civil Grand Jury released its report, “Marin County Juvenile Hall: A Time for a Change.”
Obviously, neither the county Probation Department nor the Board of Supervisors has agreed with that advice. At least juvenile hall’s fiscal statistics don’t say so.
Most often, review of the probation department and its spending come during the supervisors’ annual budget hearings, which receive little public attention.
In fact, in response to the 2015 report, supervisors concluded, “We agree that contracting out may be less expensive, but we disagree that doing so would be in the best interest of Marin’s youth.” Having the facility in Marin benefits the youth by helping “maintain positive relationships with their family and support systems.”
Marin officials determined that neighboring counties were not interesting in contracting with Marin, mainly because their juvenile hall populations are more gang-related than Marin’s.
That’s a valid point — and certainly one worthy of public investment toward steering young people away from criminal behavior.
Given that the future for Marin’s inmates is better by keeping them in Marin, it is still well worth the supervisors’ time to take a good, hard look at the costs of juvenile hall.
There are substantial costs associated with 24/7 staffing. But having more than 21 staff members and nearly as many part-timers assigned to an average of 12 inmates a day has prompted questions by two grand juries — whose members, we should point out, are local taxpayers.
Supervisor Damon Connolly says juvenile hall is on the county board’s agenda, including the possibility of building a new, smaller facility that might require less staffing.
That’s good to hear, that supervisors are not waiting for another grand jury follow-up.
Given the conclusions of two grand juries, supervisors need to examine the costs, review staffing demands and workloads and see if there are more cost-efficient ways to operate a local juvenile hall.
June 28, 2018
Marin Independent Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment