FRESNO – Over objections from the president of the Fresno County Deputy Probation Officers Association, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors approved a revenue agreement with Tulare County to bill the neighboring region $380 a day to house some of the county’s youth offenders at the Juvenile Justice Campus (JJC).
The agreement – approved at the Board meeting on July 9 and is retroactive to July 1, 2024 – runs through June 30, 2029. The Board approved a similar revenue agreement with Merced County last month. Fresno County stands to receive over $138,000 per year for every youth who is brought in from outside the county.
This item was carried over from the previous Board meeting on June 18. The Board elected to take no action on the item until the Fresno County Probation Department agreed to meet and confer with the Association to discuss the ramifications of the agreement and to ensure both departments were on the same page. As it turns out, they are not.
“This is just a brand new DJJ,” Association President Torivio Mondragon said at the June 18 meeting. “This one is on the county’s dime,” he added.
Mondragon was referring to the now shuttered California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), which ceased operations on June 30, 2023. The closure, mandated by the passage of Senate Bill 823 in 2020, meant that counties, not the state, were responsible for their youth offenders.
At the June Board meeting, Mondragon said his department – Unit 11, Deputy Probation Officers (DPO) – was not consulted regarding either revenue agreement. Following the Board’s recommendation that they meet and confer, the Probation Department and the Association did just that, meeting on June 28.
Chief Probation Officer Kirk Haynes informed the Board at the July 9, 2024 meeting that the two sides had achieved détente, or middle ground. Haynes said concerns still exist, but Fresno County – which received over $1 million in state funding to create a regional hub to deal with troubled youth – now has the resources and the staff to accept youths from outside the county to be housed at the Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF) at the JJC.
But for Mondragon and the Association, the issue boils down to the potential violence that may ensue when Tulare youth mix with Fresno youth and lack of staffing.
“Tulare County is a whole different county,” Mondragon said at the July 9 meeting. “Gang issues we don’t have in Fresno County – allowing youth from Tulare to be housed at the JJC will create a safety issue.”
He said the problem is these factions – gang members from the Bulldogs, Norteños, Sureños – will be housed in the general population at the JJC.
“Predominantly, (in Fresno County) we have a big Bulldog population. Very small Norteño and Sureño populations,” he said. “Tulare County, however, has a bigger Norteño and Sureño populations. So, if they start sending kids from Tulare County over here that are heavily involved in the gangs, that’s going to disrupt the whole safety in the pods.”
Mondragon added that due to staffing shortages, DPOs from Unit 11 will be reassigned to JJC to handle the influx of new arrivals.
“Parole officers will be pulled from caseloads and off the streets and protecting the public,” he said.
SECURE TRACK YOUTH
The Probation Department and the Association do agree that JJC is the proper facility to house and treat offenders who fall under the classification of Secure Youth. According to the revenue agreement, a Secure Track Youth is defined as an individual 14 years or older who was convicted of a 707(b) sexual offense. Under the California Welfare and Institutions Code, there are 29 qualifying 707(b) offenses, including a handful of sexual crimes.
Responding to Supervisor Brian Pacheco, Haynes said SYTF can house up to 18 individuals. Of those, a maximum of six can be from outside Fresno County. At present, there are four individuals in the facility.
Following Haynes at the public podium at the July 9 Board meeting, Mondragon said the Association had no objection for Secure Track youth to be housed at the JJC.
“We are a sex offender hub for the central region,” he said. “But we still oppose non-Secure Track youth to be brought in from Tulare County. These are general commitment kids.”
Mondragon described non-Secure Track as “your normal, run-of-the mill kid. Maybe stole a car, (or committed) battery, assault.”
But there is nothing in the agreement that mentions a cap on the number of non-Secure Track youth that can be housed at JJC. The agenda item from the July 9 meeting notes, “The recommended retroactive agreement will also allow the Department to house non-Secure Track youth from Tulare County in the general population area of the JJC.”
