Secure youth treatment facilities.
What changed between versions
The individual rehabilitation plan requirement was changed from describing how programming is 'designed to enable the ward to transition to a less restrictive program' to 'designed to enable the ward to facilitate the ward's potential transition to a less restrictive program.' This shifts the obligation from ensuring a transition occurs to merely preparing for a possible one.
The requirement for describing available less restrictive programs was changed from programs that 'may address the ward's individual needs and goals' to programs that 'may be considered in the future to address the ward's individual needs and goals,' adding a temporal qualifier that reduces the immediacy of the obligation.
The requirement for describing how the plan will be implemented to prioritize progress toward transfer was modified to add the condition 'when the criteria in subdivision (f) have been met,' meaning the prioritization duty only activates after the ward has already qualified for transfer under existing standards.
The description of supports and programs that facilitate success upon transitioning was changed from requiring them to serve both transition to a less restrictive program 'and' discharge to probation supervision, to serving one or the other ('and or'), making the two purposes alternative rather than cumulative.
A cross-reference in subdivision (e)(1)(B) was corrected from 'paragraph (2) (3) of subdivision (f)' to 'paragraph (3) of subdivision (f),' fixing a drafting error in the reference to the conditions for modifying placement in a less restrictive program.
An empty paragraph labeled '(2)' in subdivision (f) was removed, which was a drafting artifact from the introduced version. The remaining paragraphs were renumbered accordingly.