Concerns Over California’s Less Restrictive Programs for Juvenile Offenders

In California, the most violent young offenders are placed in less restrictive programs that operate in residential areas, often near schools and parks. Unfortunately, these facilities lack the necessary oversight, and there are no background checks for those managing them.

One county probation director expressed concern, noting that some facilities charge upwards of $30,000 per month for each juvenile. “It could be anything, anywhere,” he remarked, emphasizing the unpredictable nature of these programs.

Several probation directors, speaking anonymously, revealed that counties are often unaware of the locations of these programs or who manages them until they show up in court in defense of the offenders. “These programs seem to be emerging with virtually no regulations,” one director stated, explaining that courts sometimes compel probation departments to use these facilities before properly assessing the readiness of the youth.

This alarming situation implies that some juveniles convicted of grave offenses—like murder or rape—may be reintegrated into the community before completing their treatment, placed in facilities overseen by individuals with minimal training in rehabilitation.

“We might know of only one program that’s really been vetted, while others might claim the same but lack transparency,” a probation officer shared. The Less Restrictive Program (LRP) surged in California following the signing of Senate Bill 823 by Governor Gavin Newsom, which dismantles the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and hands over responsibilities to counties starting in 2023. This law facilitates the establishment of LRPs under the Welfare and Institutions Act, leading to the creation of the Office of Youth and Community Restoration (OYCR) to manage this transition.

The guidance from OYCR indicates that there are no particular licenses or requirements for operating an LRP for youth aged 18 and over. Essentially, this means that it’s quite easy for anyone to set up and run an LRP nearly anywhere.

Attempts to get a clear answer from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors regarding the registration and oversight of these programs have been largely unsuccessful. However, county probation officers stress that oversight is severely lacking.

“There’s no licensing, no vetting of staff—it’s concerning,” one chief noted, highlighting the risk posed by housing serious offenders. “A facility housing sex offenders could be located right next to a school with no one the wiser.” Vicki Waters, communications director for the Los Angeles County Probation Department, acknowledged this lack of notification requirements when an LRP is established in a community, although she emphasized that juveniles in these facilities remain under court supervision.

Interestingly, Los Angeles Room & Board operates an LRP called The Opportunity House, located close to UCLA’s sorority row. While marketed as transitional housing for college-bound students, the program does not disclose that it houses individuals with serious criminal backgrounds.

“We tackle significant barriers faced by students, including past homelessness and foster care experiences,” Sam Prater, the founder of Los Angeles Room & Board, stated. He highlighted that some residents are part of L.A. County’s LRP continuation system. Prater added that in their two-year operation, there have been no incidents affecting the nearby community.

Despite receiving significant funding—$1.2 million for housing nine adult juveniles last year, and $742,000 in 2026—many questions about transparency and safety remain. Democratic state senator Bob Archuleta has started investigating the situation, discovering a lack of structure and guidelines in handling serious juvenile offenders. It felt, to him, like “opening Pandora’s box.”

To address these issues, Archuleta proposed Senate Bill 1157, which seeks to establish regulations, including background checks and a central database for LRPs. This bill recently passed the Senate and is on its way to Congress.

County probation directors voiced their concerns, suggesting that the placement of youth in LRPs not only jeopardizes community safety but also fails to ensure adequate preparation for reintegration into society. One director remarked, “This is indicative of a string of poor decisions, and there’s no evidence that these programs actually rehabilitate anyone.”

“If they think this will help the young people, they’re deeply mistaken,” he concluded.