The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is expected to proclaim a local emergency Tuesday over the troubled Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, which has been ordered closed by state regulators but is continuing to operate due to a lack of any alternate facility to hold the youth detained there.

The 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. According to various reports, a recent follow-up inspection by the BSCC found that the problems were persisting, and the closure deadline remained in place.

The county, however, with no other viable facility to house the roughly 250 youth who are detained at Los Padrinos, has continued to operate the facility.

During Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting, board Chair Kathryn Barger and Supervisor Hilda Solis will ask their colleagues to support a motion proclaiming a local emergency over Los Padrinos. The motion acknowledges long- standing problems at the facility, but takes issue with the BSCC's latest closure order and determination that the hall is not meeting staffing requirements. It also questions 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 notes 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 argues 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.

The motion calls for a local emergency proclamation and directs county attorneys to "pursue all legal strategies to prevent the youth housed in LPJH from being released into the public." It also directs the Department of Human Resources and other relevant departments to expedite recruitment and hiring to fill vacancies at the facility, and to offer bonuses or incentives up to $24,000 to 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."

The county Probation Department is still appealing the BSCC's closure order, although the state board is not scheduled to meet until Wednesday.

"While we fully agree with safety and security standards, we disagree with their (the BSCC's) application of regulations and overall findings, particularly around staffing ratios," Vicky Waters, the department's communications director, said in a statement last week. "The department fully intends to keep Los Padrinos open and operational.

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.

Supervisor Janice Hahn took issue with that contention last week, saying in a statement, "Contrary to what the (probation officers') union is claiming, we have adequate numbers of staff on payroll and we have been actively recruiting and hiring which we will continue to do. But the reality is that many probation officers are not showing up to work and that puts an unfair burden on those who do and undermines the rehabilitation of the youth."

Also during Tuesday's meeting, the Board of Supervisors is set to consider a proposed $30 million settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit filed in 2022, which 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 are recommending the settlement, noting "the risks and uncertainties of litigation."

The lawsuit included allegations that juvenile detainees lacked access to warm bedding and closing, 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.