📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Plumas County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

Probation Department- HOW is it Functioning?

Published: June 12, 2017 21 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 7 findings

F1 Page 9
The Grand Jury finds that the Board of Supervisors, in assuming the oversight role of a County Administrative Officer, is ultimately responsible for the Probation Department’s success or failure.
F2 Page 9
The Grand Jury finds that Plumas County currently does not have a formal review policy for newly hired Department Heads.
F3 Page 9
The Grand Jury finds that court reports that have significant deficiencies will negatively impact the judicial system.
F4 Page 9
The Grand Jury finds that the Drug Court is a critical part of the Plumas County Judicial system.
F5 Page 9
The Grand Jury finds that having a BOS member on the PCCCP would provide help to resolve differences.
F6 Page 9
The Grand Jury finds that the current status of the Daily Reporting Center and Alternative Sentencing Program within the District Attorney’s office is working.
F7 Page 9
The Grand Jury finds that there have been five Probation Chiefs over a six-year period which has contributed to the disruption of the Judicial system.

Recommendations 6