San Mateo commission votes to hold study session on 2026 juvenile-justice realignment block grant plan

The San Mateo County Juvenile Justice Commission and Delinquency Prevention Commission voted on Feb. 24 to hold a study session to review the 2026 juvenile justice realignment block grant annual plan and to provide input before the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council meets on May 28.

Commissioner Ginevro moved to hold a study session and the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; the chair said staff will coordinate a date and location and that if an in-person room is not available, the meeting could be held on Zoom and recorded. The commission did not set a final date at the meeting and asked members to monitor email for scheduling details.

Chair Chia Rasmussen explained the plan was released to the commission the prior Friday and that the commission holds a seat on the JJCC and also meets as the DJJ realignment subcommittee to review how Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) and Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) funds are proposed to be used. Commissioners emphasized the importance of an additional session so members and the public can understand which programs the dollars would support and to offer suggested edits ahead of the May deadline for JJCC materials.

During the discussion Commissioner Blanco asked whether the JJCC’s schedule was already set; staff replied the next full JJCC meeting is scheduled for May 28 and that Thursday’s meeting will include a presentation on the plan and an opportunity to submit questions. Chair Rasmussen also read an official response from OICR that explains why certain report data are redacted: case counts fewer than 12 are redacted to comply with California Health and Human Services de-identification guidelines and HIPAA privacy rules; OICR said it will clarify that criteria in future reports.

The motion’s practical effect is to schedule time for commissioners to review the proposed allocation of JJCPA/YOBG funds and compile feedback to inform the county’s JJCC submission. Commissioners were asked to expect a follow-up email with date options and location details. Ending: The commission adjourned before a formal public-comment period produced no substantive additions to the motion.

Note on the record: the meeting recorded a voice vote; individual roll-call vote tallies were not read on the record at the time of the motion.