Napa County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

Napa County Adult Probation Department

Published: August 10, 2009 23 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 20 findings

F1
The Adult Probation Department is incorporating Evidence Based Practices in dealing with persons placed on Probation in an effort to reduce recidivism.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The degree of supervision by the Supervision Unit of the Adult Probation Department is a function of the re-offending rating. 14
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Probationers are placed into groups based on the type of offense committed and their offending rating. Each group is covered by one or more Probation Officers.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
There are insufficient rehabilitation programs available to the Probation Officers for use with probationers. Of those rehabilitation programs that are available, few are Evidenced Based Programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Adult Probation Department identify and increase the number of Evidence Based Programs, either “in house” or by outside contractors, to be used by the Probation Officers to assist probationers to achieve cognitive changes so as to reduce recidivism.
F7
The number of programs available for the mentally ill probationer is inadequate.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The Adult Probation Department’s letter to the probationer informing them probation has been completed include a recital of California Penal Code Section 1203.4 concerning the possible dismissal of the probationer’s case. COMMENDATION The Board of Supervisors and the Probation Department are commended for: • Instituting Evidenced Based Practices within the Adult Probation Department with the goal of reducing recidivism • Modeling a Mental Health Court • Creating a Community Correction Service Center, staffed by trained non-county personnel, to establish and implement Evidence Based Programs for probationers to reduce recidivism The Adult Probation Department is commended for the high degree of dedication shown by the Probation Officers, as they serve in dual roles of peace officer and social worker. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The Napa County Board of Supervisors is requested to respond to Recommendations 1-5. The Napa County Probation Department is requested to respond to all recommendations. The Napa County District Attorney is requested to respond to Recommendation 6. GLOSSARY DUI Driving Under the Influence LS/CMI Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory 17
F9
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The placement of furniture in a Probationer Officer’s office or cubicle could be a safety hazard if a probationer becomes violent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The security within the Adult Probation Department, inclusive of creating a secure holding area for holding arrested probationers awaiting transport to the Jail Booking Department, be increased.
F11
The alarm system is slow to provide assistance to the Probation Officer who activates the alarm.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The security within the Adult Probation Department, inclusive of creating a secure holding area for holding arrested probationers awaiting transport to the Jail Booking Department, be increased.
F12
There is no secure holding area in the Adult Probation Department for holding probations awaiting transfer for the Adult Probation Department to the Booking Department of the County Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The security within the Adult Probation Department, inclusive of creating a secure holding area for holding arrested probationers awaiting transport to the Jail Booking Department, be increased.
F13
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The entrance to the Hall of Justice is not monitored and therefore is not secure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The security within the Adult Probation Department, inclusive of creating a secure holding area for holding arrested probationers awaiting transport to the Jail Booking Department, be increased.
F15
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 medical benefits offered to Probation Officers by neighboring counties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The lack of opportunities for upward mobility within the Probation Department be addressed to reduce turnover.
F16
Probation Officers are dedicated to their tasks as they serve a dual role of a peace officer and a social worker.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The Adult Probation Department is modeling a Mental Health Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Napa County continue to fund a Mental Health Court.
F18
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
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 report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
A protocol be established between the District Attorney’s Office and the Court Unit of the Adult Probation Department for providing District Attorney’s victim impact data to the Probation Officer for use in a pre-sentencing report while maintaining the independence of investigations done separately by the two offices.
F20
The Adult Probation Department has indicated a desire to add three new Probation Officers and one new Training Officer so as to equalize the case load on the existing probation officers. 15
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Adult Probation Staff be expanded by three Probation Officers and one Training Officer.

Commendations 3

No Responses Found 3

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

County of Napa Agency
Napa County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office
Napa County District Attorney Elected County Office