Board of Supervisors*

The Adult Probation Department is incorporating Evidence Based Practices in dealing with persons placed on Probation in an effort to reduce recidivism. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.

Probationers are rated by a Probation Officer in the Court Unit using an Evidence Based Assessment tool to assess the likelihood of re-offending. The probationers are placed in risk groups designated as very low, low, medium, high and very high. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.

The re-offending rating, which is not necessarily correlated to the seriousness of the offense committed, is included in the pre-sentencing report prepared for the Court by the Court Unit of the Probation Department. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.

The degree of supervision by the Supervision Unit of the Adult Probation Department is a function of the re-offending rating. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.

Probationers are placed into groups based on the types of offense committed and their offender rating. Each group is covered by one or more probation officers. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.

There are insufficient rehabilitation programs available to the probation officers for use with probationers. Of those rehabilitation programs that are available, few are Evidence Based Programs. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response . Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees partially with this finding. All of the programs offered by Probation or the Community Corrections Service Center are evidence based.

The number of programs available for the mentally ill probationer is inadequate. Response, Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. There are very few mental health services in the community available to non Medi-Cal clients. The majority of the mentally ill probationers do not qualify for Medi- Cal or other mental health services.

Upon completion of probation, the Adult Probation Department does not inform the probationer of California Penal Code Section 1203.4 concerning the possible dismissal of the probationer's case. Response, Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 7 for additional information.

Probation Officers, who are not armed except for pepper spray and handcuffs, can be exposed to potential harm when they perform unannounced search of a probationer's home and to a lesser degree to a "knock and talk" visit to a probationer's listed home address. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees partially with this finding. While there is always the potential for risk when Probation Officers see their clients, that risk is mitigated in the field by always having law enforcement present during searches. Probation Officers never go on a "knock and talk" alone. There are always two Probation Officers and two Sheriff Deputies or Police Officer present during a search and two Probation Officers present during the "knock and talks."

The placement of furniture in a Probation Officer's office or cubicle could be a safety hazard if a probationer becomes violent. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Each officer receives safety training including office set-up instructions to reduce risk if a probationer were to become violent.

The alarm system is slow to provide assistance to the Probation Officer who activates the alarm. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Efforts continue to be made to improve the alarm system. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response

There is no secure holding area in the Adult Probation Department for holding probationers awaiting transfer from the Adult Probation Department to the Booking Department of the County Jail. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. The Chief Probations Officer continues to work with the Director of Corrections to address this issue. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 3 for additional information.

The procedure for a Probation Officer to "wand" probationers outside the Adult Probation Department's office does not include a protocol when weapons are detected on the probationer. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees with this finding. The current policy and procedure on "wanding" addresses how to respond when a weapon is located.

The entrance to the Hall of Justice is not monitored and therefore is not secure. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees in part with this finding. While it is true that the Hall of Justice entrance is not monitored, it is unclear what is meant by "secure." If the Grand Jury means that the Hall of Justice is not a secure facility, like the Jail, where access is strictly controlled, visitors are searched and escorted, etc., then the Chief Probation Officer agrees with the Grand Jury. However, if the Grand Jury means that there are significant safety or security issues in the Hall of Justice, then the Chief Probation Officer does not necessarily agree. The Hall of Justice houses several County agencies and employees in addition to the Adult Probation Department, including the Sheriff Deputies that act as court security officers. These Deputies regularly pass through the Hall of Justice and are available to respond to emergency situations. The Chief Probation Officer is not aware of any major public safety or security issues that have occurred in the Hall of Justice and it is unclear how the Grand Jury concluded that the Hall of Justice was not secure. There are no safety or security issues in the Hall of Justice.

The relatively high turnover of Probation Officers is due to the lack of upward mobility within the Department and the attractiveness of "safety officers" status with the additional pension and retirement benefits offered to Probation Officers by neighboring counties. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury reported that in an eighteen-month period between 2007 and 2008, ten Probation Officers and one Management Officer have left the Probation Department for jobs in counties that offer greater retirement and employee retiree health benefits. It is unclear how the Grand Jury reached this conclusion. A review by the Chief Probation Officer and the Human Resources Department indicate that in calendar year 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response 2007, only four Probation Officers resigned from their respective positions. Of these four, only one made it clear that they took a job as a Probation Officer in their county of residence (Sonoma) because of enhanced retirement benefits. Of the remaining three, one took a job as a Probation Officer in Sacramento County to be closer to family, one moved out of state for a spouse's job and one transferred to a police agency. In calendar year 2008, two Probation Officers resigned, of which one took a job as a parole agent and one transferred to their county of residence (Sacramento). Two of the six officers that resigned in either 2007 or 2008 have since been rehired as Probation Officers by Napa County. Additionally, one Supervising Probation Officer took a non-safety promotional management position in the Department of Corrections in 2008. The Probation Officer turnover rate was approximately 8.8% in 2007 and 6.1% in 2008, compared to the countywide turnover rates of 13.8% and 9.9% respectively.

Probation Officers are dedicated to their tasks as they serve a dual role of peace officer and social worker. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.

The Adult Probation Department is modeling a Mental Health Court. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Probation continues to work with the Napa Superior Court, Health and Human Services-Mental Health Division, District Attorney and Public Defender to begin a Mental Health Court pilot project. Please see the Department's response to

The Adult Probation Department has been determined to be the appropriate authority to implement and manage the Community Corrections Service Center, staffed by trained non-county personnel to establish and implement Evidence Based Programs to reduce recidivism by probationers. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. The Center opened March 2, 2009.

There is a "disconnect" between the Probation Officers and the Deputy District Attorneys on the issue of victim impact. Pre-sentencing reports produced by Probation Officers are not valued by the Deputy District Attorneys as providing sufficient victim impact information to the Court. The Probation Officer does not acquire victim impact information from the District Attorney's Office for use in the pre-sentencing report. The District Attorney's Office has no protocol for making victim impact information available to the Probation Officer for use in the pre-sentencing reports. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding and will make an effort to resolve this issue with the District Attorney. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 6 for additional information. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response

The Adult Probation Department has indicated a desire to add three new Probation Officers and one Training Officer so as to equalize the caseload on the existing probation officers. Response, Chief Probation Officer: The Chief Probation Officer disagrees in part with this finding. Although three new officers would reduce caseloads and contribute to increased supervision of probationers, it is not feasible during these difficult fiscal times to add new positions. The Department already has a Staff Services Manager position that acts as the Training Manager for the Department and it is unclear why the Grand Jury concluded that a Training Manager position was necessary. Please see the Department's response to Recommendation 5 for additional information.