Case: DOJ Monitoring of Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Camps

On November 6, 2006, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated an investigation into whether youth were adequately protected from harm at the Los Angeles County Probation Department Camps, pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

The DOJ's investigation revealed that youth residing in Los Angeles County's Camps were not adequately protected from harm and that the County had failed to provide adequate suicide prevention and mental health care. On October 31, 2008, the DOJ submitted a Findings Letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors outlining areas requiring remedial attention. The same day, the DOJ and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a settlement agreement entitled, "Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States and the County of Los Angeles Regarding the Los Angeles Probation Camps" ("MOA"). The MOA allowed the County to address the areas of concern over a four-year period under the supervision of a monitoring team.

The MOA stipulated the appointment of Michael Graham as the Lead Monitor of a team of four members. During the first eighteen months of their responsibilities, each of the monitors was required to conduct initial visits to review each of the camps and report on the County's progress toward complying with provisions. A report from the monitors is required twice annually, or as directed by the parties.

On March 29, 2010, the parties executed the First Amendment to the MOA, which included very minor adjustments to the monitoring team. However, on October 12, 2012, the parties executed the Second Amendment to the MOA which was much more expansive. The Second Amendment recognized that although the County had made significant reforms, they were unlikely to achieve the required level of compliance by the original termination date. The Second Amendment eliminated the four-year termination requirement and allowed for a termination date of December 31, 2014.

The Eleventh Monitoring Report covered January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014. Monitors were still concerned with a lack of adequate staffing to supervise youth and a lack of increased access to community alternatives.

On February 24, 2015, the twelfth and final report, covering July 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, showed full compliance. The team of monitors concluded that as full compliance was achieved, the County would no longer be subject to monitoring.

The case is now closed.