Bill Text

Bill Information


Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | print page

AB-702 Local government financing: juvenile justice.(2023-2024)

SHARE THIS: share this bill in Facebook share this bill in Twitter
Date Published: 01/03/2024 02:00 PM
AB702:v97#DOCUMENT

Amended  IN  Assembly  January 03, 2024
Amended  IN  Assembly  March 23, 2023

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill
No. 702

Introduced by Assembly Member Jackson

February 13, 2023

An act to amend Section 30061 of the Government Code, and to repeal and add Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to local government.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 702, as amended, Jackson. Local government financing: juvenile justice.
Under existing law, there is established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to receive all amounts allocated to a county for specified purposes. In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for implementation, existing law requires the county auditor to allocate the moneys in the county’s SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund. Existing law requires the moneys to be allocated in specified amounts, including, but not limited to, 50% to a county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. Existing law requires the juvenile justice plan to be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county. Existing law requires the plan to be annually reviewed and updated by the council and submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections. Existing law requires the multiagency juvenile justice plan to include certain components, including, but not limited to, a local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency. Existing law also requires each council to annually report to their board of supervisors and the board information on the effectiveness of the programs and strategies funded under these provisions, and requires the board to annually report this information to the Governor and the Legislature and post it on its internet website.
This bill would revise and recast required components of the multiagency juvenile justice plan to, among other things, additionally require a plan to include an assessment of existing community-based youth development services, identification and prioritization of areas of the community that are vulnerable to court system involvement due to high rates of poverty and the incarceration of at-promise youth’s family members, among other things, and a description of the target population funded under these provisions. The bill would require programs and strategies funded under these provisions to, among other things, be modeled on healing-centered, restorative, trauma-informed, and positive youth development approaches and in collaboration with community-based organizations. The bill would require no less than 95% 80% of the funds allocated under these provisions to be distributed to community-based organizations and other public agencies or departments that are not law enforcement entities, as specified, and prohibits this portion of the funds from being used for law enforcement activities or personnel. The bill would require a council to include additional information in its annual report to the board of supervisors and the board relating to their programs, including data on youth participants and council members.
Existing law requires a juvenile justice coordinating council to consist of certain members, including, but not limited to, the chief probation officer, as chair, and a representative from the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, and the sheriff’s department, among others.
This bill would revise and recast those membership provisions, and instead require each juvenile justice coordinating council to, at a minimum, consist of 7 members with at least 50% community representatives with the remainder of the seats allocated to representatives from government agencies, as specified. The bill would require a council to select 2 cochairs from amongst its members, at least one of whom shall be a community representative. The bill would require a council to meet no less than 3 times per year and announce its meetings at least 10 days in advance of a meeting.
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: NO  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

 (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) The grant administration under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA), which was created under the Schiff-Cárdenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000, has fallen short of the original vision to support positive youth development in community settings and reduce youth involvement in the court system. Funding for JJCPA dates back to the year 2000. JJCPA was intended to support community-run prevention and intervention programs that would include meaningful planning and program assessments. Use of JJCPA funds on law enforcement agencies and personnel, including net-widening with excessive probation supervision, is contradictory to the act’s original intent of investment in collaborative, community-based services.
(2) Congressman Tony Cárdenas, the original author of JJCPA, states, “I developed this grant program in response to California’s harmful history of tough-on-crime measures and its over-incarceration of young people. Such measures have expanded the reach of the justice system, resulting in high social and fiscal costs. These costs are felt most acutely by Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities. It is of concern that the bulk of JJCPA funds are being spent on staffing within county probation departments, or other law enforcement agencies, while youth arrests and probation referrals have dropped by over 80 percent since 2000.”
(3) The allocation of JJCPA funds is not reflective of the drastically changing landscape of California’s youth justice system. The JJCPA requires that each county establish a juvenile justice coordinating council that consists of representatives from a variety of local agencies and community groups to ensure the county’s approach is collaborative. The coordinating council is required to develop a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan for the county. Despite this, a recent audit by the California State Auditor found 20 percent of counties lacked a juvenile justice coordinating council entirely.
(4) In 2020, the California State Auditor authored a report titled “Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act: Weak Oversight Has Hindered Its Meaningful Implementation,” that recommended that “the Legislature should amend state law to describe a process for restricting the spending of JJCPA funding by counties that do not meet the requirements of the JJCPA. As part of that process, the State should prohibit counties that have not established a juvenile justice coordinating council from spending JJCPA funds.”
(5) To be aligned with the purpose of the JJCPA, programs and activities funded under the JJCPA should be primarily focused on preventing young people from entering the criminal legal system. Developing a nonpunitive, community-based, healing-centered, trauma-informed approach that is supported by key stakeholders is key to reducing collateral consequences for justice-involved youth and saving taxpayer dollars. Funding can strengthen family, school, peer, and mentoring supports, educational activities, and community-based programs that have demonstrated positive effects in reaching young people and deterring them from crime.
(6) The 2021 article entitled “Adverse Childhood Experiences Among Justice-Involved Youth: Data-Driven Recommendations for Action Using the Sequential Intercept Model” found chronic or multiple traumas during childhood bathe a child’s brain in toxic stress “as excessive cortisol disrupts developing brain circuits” and promote an overdeveloped threat response at the expense of the development and activation of the frontal lobe where decisionmaking, control over impulses, and consequential and right and wrong thinking happens. An analysis of multiple studies of system-involved youth shows significantly higher adverse childhood experience (ACE) scores, overrepresentation of minority youth, and documented associations between these ACE’s ACEs and increased behavioral, legal, mental health, substance abuse, pregnancy, victimization, and educational problems. Arrest, court hearings, detention, and incarceration are inherently stressful, and stressful experiences that are not traumatic per se can exacerbate trauma symptoms. Programs funded under the JJCPA should, therefore, strive to create nurturing environments conducive to healthy youth development.
(7) The Coalition for Juvenile Justice’s “Probation Reform: A Tool Kit for State Advisory Groups” (December 2022), citing the National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges, “Transforming Juvenile Probation” (2021), shows “no evidence that probation practices that rely on lengthy court conditions and compliance-oriented practices are successful in improving youth behavior. In fact, research shows that traditional, surveillance-oriented probation is particularly ineffective at preventing or deterring delinquent behavior.”
(8) “State Strategies to Address the Needs of Justice-Involved Youth Impacted by Collateral Consequences” (February 2023) by the National Association of Governors found that justice-involved youth face a diverse range of collateral consequences that can have both immediate and long-term negative and adverse impacts on their well-being and the well-being of their families.
(9) The Justice Policy Institute’s “Sticker Shock 2020: The Cost of Youth Incarceration” (July 2020) provides that extensive research reveals that secure youth incarceration increases the likelihood of recidivism and harms educational attainment, lifetime wages, and future health outcomes for youth. In 2020, California spent an average of $833 per day per youth in confinement, which is equivalent to spending $308,259 per year per youth. Prevention and intervention services for youth development are more cost effective to be administered through community-based services rather than through law enforcement agencies and incarceration.
(b) Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that JJCPA funds are primarily focused on providing healing-centered, restorative, community-based programs and services that reduce and avoid young people’s engagement with law enforcement agencies and employees by requiring juvenile justice coordinating councils to include strong community representation, including youth and families impacted by the juvenile court system and community-based service providers.

SEC. 2.

 Section 30061 of the Government Code is amended to read:

30061.
 (a) There shall be established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to a county for purposes of implementing this chapter.
(b) In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in the county’s SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund. The moneys shall be allocated as follows:
(1) Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county sheriff for county jail construction and operation. In the case of the Counties of Madera, Napa, and Santa Clara this allocation shall be made to the county director or chief of corrections.
(2) Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district attorney for criminal prosecution.
(3) Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and the cities within the county, and, in the case of the Counties of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, and Contra Costa, also to the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, in accordance with the relative population of the cities within the county and the unincorporated area of the county, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District in the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District and the Stallion Springs Community Services District in the County of Kern, the Lake Shastina Community Services District in Siskiyou County, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District in the County of Contra Costa, as specified in the most recent January estimate by the Demographic Research Unit of the Department of Finance, and as adjusted to provide, except as provided in subdivision (i), a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. For a newly incorporated city whose population estimate is not published by the Department of Finance, but that was incorporated prior to July 1 of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made, the city manager, or an appointee of the legislative body, if a city manager is not available, and the county administrative or executive officer shall prepare a joint notification to the Department of Finance and the county auditor with a population estimate reduction of the unincorporated area of the county equal to the population of the newly incorporated city by July 15, or within 15 days after the Budget Act is enacted, of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made. A person residing within the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District shall not also be counted as residing within the unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, or Contra Costa, or within any city located within those counties. Except as provided in subdivision (i), the county auditor shall allocate a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. Moneys allocated to the county pursuant to this subdivision shall be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in a SLESA established in the city treasury.
(4) Fifty percent to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as provided in this paragraph. The juvenile justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council, which each county and city and county shall establish with the membership described in Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, in order to be eligible for funding under this paragraph. If Pursuant to Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if a county fails to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council, the Board of State and Community Corrections shall have the authority to determine appropriate remedial action or withhold the funding provided under this paragraph. The plan shall be reviewed and updated annually by the council. The plan or updated plan shall be approved by the county board of supervisors. The plan or updated plan shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections by May 1 of each year in a format specified by the board that consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan to be developed under this paragraph with the form for submission of the annual Youthful Offender Block Grant plan that is required to be developed and submitted pursuant to Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(A) The comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following components:
(i) An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and community-based youth development services and resources that specifically center at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system, and their families.
(ii) An assessment of the community’s experiences with law enforcement and probation focused on neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that are vulnerable to court system involvement due to high rates of poverty, a lack of educational and employment opportunities, the incarceration of at-promise youth’s family members, and a high prevalence of community violence and crime.
(iii) An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that are vulnerable to court system involvement due to high rates of poverty, a lack of educational and employment opportunities, the incarceration of at-promise youth’s family members, and a high prevalence of community violence and crime.
(iv) A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of care to prevent and respond to young people experiencing juvenile court system involvement that is modeled on a framework of positive youth development and demonstrates a healing-centered, community-based, collaborative and integrated approach for at-promise youth and youth involved in the juvenile court system.
(v) A description of the programs and strategies that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph, including documentation of their effectiveness, specific objectives, and outcome measures and input from at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system, and their families.
(vi) A description of the target population for the program strategies that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph, including a description of the target population’s race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, and ZIP Code of residence.
(B) Programs and strategies proposed to be funded under this paragraph shall satisfy all of the following requirements:
(i) Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in creating positive youth development outcomes, helping young people avoid engagement with law enforcement agencies, and reducing community violence and crime. These programs and approaches shall be modeled on healing-centered, restorative, trauma-informed, and positive youth development approaches.
(ii) Collaborate and integrate services of all the resources set forth in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), to the extent appropriate, and prioritize collaboration with community-based organizations.
(iii) Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of programs and strategies funded by this paragraph, while still protecting participant confidentiality in prearrest and prebooking diversion programs. Personally identifying information shall not be shared across agencies without the informed, written consent of youth participants, or their parents or legal guardians.
(C) (i) No less than 95 80 percent of the funds allocated under this paragraph shall be distributed through an accessible and transparent solicitation process to the following types of entities:
(I) Community-based organizations that do not include law enforcement employees or staffing.
(II) Public agencies or departments that are not law enforcement agencies or departments.
(ii) Funds distributed to entities described in clause (i) shall not be used for law enforcement activities or personnel.
(D) (i) The local agency overseeing the request for proposals process for funds provided under this paragraph shall engage community stakeholders, including, but not limited to, at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system, and their families, and the juvenile justice coordinating council in the process of selecting which entities described in subparagraph (C) to distribute funds to. The final selection of proposals to be funded shall take into account the county’s juvenile justice plan and equity of funding across the county.
(ii) The local agency overseeing the request for proposals process for funds provided under this paragraph shall not be may be any county agency that is not a law enforcement-related agency. agency, but preference shall be provided for behavioral health-related local agencies.
(E) To assess the effectiveness of programs and strategies funded pursuant to this paragraph, the juvenile justice coordinating council of each county or city and county shall submit by October 1 of each year a report to the county board of supervisors and to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the programs and strategies funded pursuant to this paragraph. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report to be submitted pursuant to this paragraph with the annual report to be submitted to the board for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The report shall include all of the following:
(i) An updated description of the programs and strategies that have been funded pursuant to this paragraph in the immediately preceding fiscal year. Descriptions shall include evidence supporting the program and program staff qualifications and positions.
(ii) An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program or strategy funded pursuant to this paragraph.
(iii) A description and expenditure report for programs and strategies that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this paragraph and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds provided under Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1950) of Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(iv) An updated list of juvenile justice coordinating council members, including their assigned seat and profession, if applicable, and dates for all council meetings in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(v) Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the Board of State and Community Corrections, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender identity, age, and ZIP Code of residence, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs and strategies funded pursuant to this paragraph have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(vi) Commencing January 1, 2025, data on the total number of youth referred to and receiving services funded under this paragraph, disaggregated by program, race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, ZIP Code of residence, and program outcomes relevant to the this paragraph’s purpose.
(F) The board shall, within 45 days of having received the county’s report, post on its internet website the report and a description or summary of the programs and strategies that have been supported by funds made available to the county under this paragraph.
(G) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall compile the local reports and, by March 1 of each year following their submission, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs and strategies and related expenditures made by each county and city and county from the appropriation made for the purposes of this paragraph. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs and strategies supported by funds appropriated under this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Legislature required under this paragraph with the annual report required by subdivision (d) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. The annual report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 9795, and shall be posted for access by the public on the internet website of the board.
(c) Subject to subdivision (d), for each fiscal year in which the county, each city, the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District receive moneys pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the county, each city, and each district specified in this subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) In the case of the county, the county board of supervisors shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement services, other than those services specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b), in the unincorporated areas of the county, in response to written requests submitted to the board by the county sheriff and the district attorney. Any request submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall specify the frontline law enforcement needs of the requesting entity, and those personnel, equipment, and programs that are necessary to meet those needs.
(2) In the case of a city, the city council shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief of police of that city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city.
(3) In the case of the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within the County of Kern, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within the County of Siskiyou, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within the County of Contra Costa, the legislative body of that special district shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that special district.
(d) For each fiscal year in which the county, a city, or the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within the County of Kern, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within the County of Siskiyou, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within the County of Contra Costa receives any moneys pursuant to this chapter, in no event shall the governing body of any of those recipient agencies subsequently alter any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated to the county or city pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
(e) For the 2011–12 fiscal year, the Controller shall allocate 23.54 percent of the amount deposited in the Local Law Enforcement Services Account in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (b), and shall allocate 23.54 percent for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(f) Commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(g) Commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b). The Controller shall allocate funds in monthly installments to local jurisdictions for public safety in accordance with this section as annually calculated by the Director of Finance.
(h) Funds received pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be expended or encumbered in accordance with this chapter no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year. A local agency that has not met the requirement of this subdivision shall remit unspent SLESA moneys received after April 1, 2009, to the Controller for deposit in the Local Safety and Protection Account, after April 1, 2012, to the Local Law Enforcement Services Account, and after July 1, 2012, to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. This subdivision shall become inoperative on July 1, 2015.
(i) In the 2010–11 fiscal year, if the fourth quarter revenue derived from fees imposed by subdivision (a) of Section 10752.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code that are deposited in the General Fund and transferred to the Local Safety and Protection Account, and continuously appropriated to the Controller for allocation pursuant to this section, are insufficient to provide a minimum grant of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction, the county auditor shall allocate the revenue proportionately, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). The county auditor shall proportionately allocate, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), all revenues received after the distribution of the fourth quarter allocation attributable to these fees for which payment was due prior to July 1, 2011, until all minimum allocations are fulfilled, at which point all remaining revenue shall be distributed proportionately among the other jurisdictions.
(j) The county auditor shall redirect unspent funds that were remitted after July 1, 2012, by a local agency to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount pursuant to subdivision (h), to the local agency that remitted the unspent funds in an amount equal to the amount remitted.

SEC. 3.

 Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is repealed.

SEC. 4.

 Section 749.22 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:

749.22.
 (a) To be eligible for a grant under this article, each county shall be required to establish a juvenile justice coordinating council that shall develop and implement a continuum of care to prevent and respond to young people experiencing juvenile court system involvement that is modeled on a framework of positive youth development and demonstrates a healing-centered, restorative, community-based, collaborative collaborative, and integrated approach for at-promise youth and youth involved in the juvenile court system.
(b) (1) A juvenile justice coordinating council shall, at a minimum, include seven members with consist of at least 50 percent community representatives and the remainder of seats allocated to representatives from government agencies. As used in this section, “community representative” means an individual who has not formerly served as a law enforcement agent and who is not currently a government employee.
(2) The juvenile justice coordinating council shall prioritize inclusion of an at-promise youth and persons with experience in the juvenile court system, or a family member of that youth, on the council. The council may include one representative each from the public health department, the district attorney’s office, the county probation department, the public defender’s office, the board of supervisors, the department of social services, the department of mental or behavioral health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and the county department of children, youth, and families, if one exists. In order to carry out its duties pursuant to this section, a council shall also include community representatives who are currently or formerly justice system-involved and representatives from nonprofit, community-based organizations that provide services to youth and that do not have an existing contract with a include law enforcement department or agency. employees or staff.
(3) A juvenile justice coordinating council shall elect two cochairs from among its members, at least one of whom shall be a community representative.
(4) The board of supervisors shall be informed of any community-based organizations participating on a juvenile justice coordinating council.
(c) A juvenile justice coordinating council shall meet no less than three times per year and announce meetings at least 10 days in advance. A council shall make meetings accessible to the public through remote participation, such as streaming and remote call-in options, and shall choose meeting times that optimize and encourage public participation.
(d) A juvenile justice coordinating council shall develop a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan pursuant to Section 30061 of the Government Code that identifies the resources and strategies for providing an effective continuum of care for at-promise youth, youth involved in the juvenile court system, and their families.