County Supervisors Proclaim Emergency Over Troubled Juvenile Hall

Despite hours of public opposition testimony calling the action racist and a failure to demand accountability, the county Board of Supervisors proclaimed a local emergency Tuesday over the troubled Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, instructing its attorneys and staff to pursue all remedies to keep the facility open in defiance of a state closure order.

The proclamation introduced by Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Hilda Solis also calls for a series of actions aimed at bolstering staffing at the facility, contending that personnel shortages are at the root of the hall’s deficiencies.

The emergency declaration originally called for county attorneys to take all actions necessary to prevent detained youth from being released from the facility due to the state’s closure order. But it was amended to instruct the Probation Department to examine alternative detention options for youth detainees accused of lesser, non-violent offenses — including release to community-based step-down facilities or to their homes with appropriate monitoring.

Barger conceded the emergency declaration was a “drastic measure” in response to a drastic situation, with the county being ordered to close a detention hall when it has no alternative location to transfer the roughly 240 youth being held there.

Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall has been plagued with operational issues since it was hastily reopened last year to house detainees relocated from Central Juvenile Hall in Boyle Heights and Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall in Sylmar, which were both ordered closed by the state.

Since it reopened, Los Padrinos has suffered from short staffing, allegations of violence among detainees — sometimes while probation officers allegedly stood by without intervening — and escape attempts.

In October, the Board of State and Community Corrections, which oversees detention facilities, deemed Los Padrinos unsuitable to house youth, and gave the county a Dec. 12 deadline to correct staffing deficiencies or close the facility. A recent follow-up inspection by the BSCC found that the problems were persisting, and the closure deadline remained in place.

However, the county — with no other viable facility to house the youth detainees — has continued to operate the facility.

The proclamation introduced by Barger and Solis acknowledged longstanding problems at the facility, but took issue with the BSCC’s latest closure order and determination that the hall is not meeting staffing requirements. It also questioned the BSCC’s decision-making process and the 90- day time period provided for closure, “no matter how complex or long-standing the problem.”

“The BSCC’s model unfortunately fails to recognize that many problems simply cannot be 100% solved in that 90-day time period — particularly when many of the underlying problems are personnel-related and must, by law, be resolved in compliance with civil service and collective bargaining rules that usually operate under timelines that vastly exceed 90 days,” according to the motion.

“… It bears repeating that the county respects the BSCC and its staff, and shares its goal of ensuring youth in Probation custody receive appropriate care. But regardless of the county’s disagreement with the merits of the BSCC’s findings and how it is structured, the fact remains that the BSCC appears to be demanding the closure of LPJH and appears poised to support legal action to shut it down. The county must act urgently to address the resulting grave safety and security perils to the youth and the public. The county has no other place to house these youth — particularly given that, among other things, BSCC itself has not approved any other county facilities to do so.”

The motion noted that some defense attorneys have already begun filing papers seeking the release of youth being held at the facility, under the contention it is being operated illegally. It also argued that “a very high percentage of the youth in LPJH have a history of serious, violent offenses — such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery and carjacking,” and some are currently facing similar charges, while others have “serious mental health issues.”

“If LPJH is closed, there is nowhere for them to go, except back into the community,” according to the motion.

During an hours-long public comment period, dozens of advocates, activists and even former detainees blasted the emergency declaration as racist, calling it replete with “superpredator” language that demonized youth while failing to place any responsibility on the county or the Probation Department for years-long lapses in the juvenile detention system.

Several speakers insisted that if a majority of detainees at the hall were not “Black or Brown,” the county would be quicker to take corrective measures — including cracking down on probation officers assigned to the facility who fail to show up for work.

Probation officers “don’t show up to work and keep their jobs? What kind of leadership is that?” one speaker asked. Others slammed the tenor of the motion for painting youth detainees as “murders, robbers and rapists,” and failing to “hold probation accountable and explore real alternatives.” Many speakers called on the county to shut the facility down and release the youth to their families.

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath was the long opposing vote to the motion, saying it “doesn’t unlock authority” the probation department doesn’t already have. She said the proclamation instead reinforces a situation in which youth are “subjected to unsafe conditions” while not demanding accountability from the Probation Department for historic failures in managing the facility.

Among the proclamation’s directives is a call for the Department of Human Resources and other relevant agencies to expedite recruitment and hiring to fill vacancies at the facility, to offer bonuses or incentives up to $24,000 for lateral transfers, and to consider hiring any qualified peace officer in the state, including reserve officers and 120-day retirees, to ensure full staffing.

“While we have many solutions that are working, the scale and speed at which these solutions are being implemented need to be expanded and expedited, respectively,” the motion states. “Proclaiming a local emergency to address this critical crisis will provide the county with additional tools to accelerate and expand its response in collaboration with our state partners and others.”

County Probation Department Chief Guillermo Viera-Rosa issued a statement Tuesday morning backing the emergency declaration, saying “drastic and decisive measures are needed to root deep-seated issues plaguing our only secured youth facility.”

“We also strongly support the Board of Supervisors’ directive to pursue legal strategies to prevent the premature release of youth and to ensure public safety is upheld,” he said. “At the same time, we remain committed to providing care and services to youth, recognizing that they deserve a secure, supportive, and rehabilitative environment.”

The county Probation Department is still appealing the BSCC’s closure order. The BSCC is scheduled to meet on Wednesday, and a discussion of Los Padrinos was initially included on the agenda, but it was removed given the facility’s failure of the most recent inspection.

The L.A. County Deputy Probation Officers’ Union, AFSCME Local 685, has laid blame on the county for staffing issues at the facility. In a statement issued after the BSCC’s unsuitability ruling for Los Padrinos in October, the union blamed “chronic understaffing and untenable working conditions” that have “put an immense burden” on probation officers assigned to the facility.

In a statement following the board’s vote, the union issued a statement saying it will work with its members to foster improved attendance and consistent adequate staffing at the facility.

“Our members are dedicated professionals who have built careers in juvenile rehabilitation and public safety field supervision, and we understand the stakes,” the union’s executive board said in a statement. “This is about ensuring the safety of youth and officers in Probation facilities, providing critical field supervision to protect our communities, and delivering on our mission to support rehabilitation while safeguarding the workforce that makes it possible. We must work together to keep Los Padrinos open.”

Several supervisors blamed chronic understaffing as the key issue facing Los Padrinos — saying it has been exacerbated by the number of probation officers who fail to report to work.

Viera-Rosa told the board the staffing situation has improved, but it remains a challenge. He noted that the Probation Department has been rotating non-detention staff into the facility to fill shifts. But the issue of probation officers who “call out” and fail to report for work is still an issue, with some shifts having as many as 18% of staff not reporting for duty. He said there is an average of about 14% of staff who fail to report for work.

“The reasons for them not showing up are vast, and legitimate in some cases, such as not feeling safe,” Viera-Rosa said.

But he added that the only way to operate a safe facility for you is to have probation officers show up.

The county suspended dozens of probation officers earlier this year, including some who were accused of standing by and watching during cases of “youth-on-youth violence” at Los Padrinos.

Also during Tuesday’s meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved a proposed $30 million settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit filed in 2022 that alleged a failure by the county to ensure safe and habitable conditions for more than 7,000 youth who were housed at county juvenile detention facilities dating back to 2014. County attorneys recommended the settlement, noting “the risks and uncertainties of litigation.”

The lawsuit included allegations that juvenile detainees lacked access to warm bedding and clothing, restrooms, toiletries, private showers and sanitary food, and also were not provided required access to exercise, recreation or religious services. It also alleged excessive use of shackles and pepper spray by probation officers in the facilities.