MENDOCINO COUNTY ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT

    The duty of the Mendocino County Probation Department, as an integral part of the criminal justice system, is to promote public safety by reducing criminal behavior and its impact on the community. Supervision and court services are the primary functions of the adult Probation Department. The Probation Department provides services to the Mendocino County Superior Court through the preparation of adult pre-sentence recommendation reports, violation of probation petitions and
supplemental reports including bail and release recommendation studies. Probation officers appear in court on adult sentencing, pre-trial hearings, and arraignments. Specific court probation officers are assigned to each court in Mendocino County. On occasion the Court may determine at arraignment that a person is marginally acceptable for release and may set specific conditions for release under the tight supervision of a probation officer. The Probation Department also monitors
compliance and progress of persons in court-directed diversions to drug programs, counseling, or educational services.

    The Department's supervision unit enforces court-ordered terms and conditions of probation by providing supervision of offenders. This is accomplished by regularly scheduled contacts, urine analysis, victim contacts, monitoring treatment, and verifying the collection of restitution and fines. Often, the terms of probation include mandatory counseling. The Probation Department certifies each program and monitors these programs for compliance with guidelines and standards. Probation
also provides advocacy for victims and is involved in the community by the development and support of a system of prevention, intervention and treatment programs. The Department has offices in Ukiah (Stanley Street and Low Gap Road), Fort Bragg, and Willits. The Probation Department also has jurisdiction and important responsibilities on all juvenile matters including the administration of Juvenile Hall. However, this investigation is restricted to the Department's adult functions.

Reason for Review
The Grand Jury conducted an oversight review of the adult portion of the Mendocino County Probation Department. It was last reviewed by the Grand Jury in 1988.

Method of Investigation
The Grand Jury interviewed fourteen past and present members of the Probation Department, including all first-line supervisors. The Chief Probation Officer was interviewed at three stages of the investigation. Deputy District Attorneys, Public Defenders, a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representative and the Mendocino County Administrative Officer were also interviewed. Documents reviewed included salary and benefit surveys, retirement provisions, union
bargaining packets, the Probation Department Administrative Manual, Department policies and procedures, interoffice memoranda, case load trend data, probation annual reports, County budgets, the County Policy and Procedures Manual, and
relevant sections of the California Penal and Welfare and Institutions Codes. Courtroom hearings both in Ukiah and Willits were attended to observe Probation Court Officers. The Grand Jury also toured the Standley Street facility.

Relevant Law
The activities of probation officers are governed by numerous California Code sections. Penal Code Sections 1191 through 1209.5 specifically stipulate the main requirements for county Probation Departments.

Staffing
Findings
1. Turnover in the department has been chronically high (8% per annum) and had increased to 16% during 1999.
2. The causes of this high turnover, reported by those interviewed, included: a. low salary     b. lack of safety retirement benefit c. low morale d. dissatisfaction with management e. lack of opportunity for advancement
3. The high turnover rate has resulted in chronic under-staffing, thereby increasing case load and job stress.
4. In January 1999, the Mendocino County Courts restructured the Ukiah court system to assign cases to courtrooms alphabetically according to the last name of the defendant . The introduction of this "vertical" system has exacerbated Probation Department under-staffing. Recognizing this hardship, the Courts are now accepting written reports from Probation Court Officers in certain circumstances.
5. A 1998 survey of Probation Department salaries in 50 of California's 59 counties , conducted by Kern County, indicated that salaries are a direct function of the population of the county. For example, Mendocino County ranked 34th in population among the 50 counties. Deputy Probation Officer I salaries ranked 33rd and Deputy Probation Officer II ranked 32nd.
6. Most Deputy Probation Officers (DPO's) interviewed felt they were underpaid. However, the County-financed January 2000 Slavin Report reveals those salaries for DPO's are on a par with other sample counties. 
7. However, both the Slavin Report and the Kern County study reveal that the salary of Mendocino County's Chief Probation Officer (CPO) is substantially less than CPO's in other comparable counties.
8. The Probation Department has, for a number of years, experienced great difficulty in its ability to recruit qualified staff.
9. Despite recommendations from the CPO and proposals from the SEIU, Local 707, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) has rejected offering Probation Officers Safety retirement. Twenty-eight of the 46 counties surveyed offer this benefit. The Union volunteered to pay for half the cost of an actuarial study.
10. A number of those interviewed voiced complaints concerning the lack of opportunity for advancement. However, it is clear that promotion from within the department is commonplace.

Recommendations
1. The BOS should determine the cost of high Probation Department turnover, including recruitment, training, and loss of experience.
2. The BOS should review Probation Department salaries to determine if an increase would likely reduce turnover, increase job satisfaction and facilitate recruitment.
3. The BOS should seriously re-evaluate the cost and benefit of making Safety Retirement available to all qualified employees of the Probation Department. An actuarial study should be conducted.
4. New staff positions should be established to satisfy the burden of the vertical court system.

Organization and Facilities
Findings
11. Line staff was not adequately prepared for the reorganization of the Probation Department in December 1998. Their views were not solicited and as a result they were antagonistic to the new organization from its inception.
12. Prior to December 1998, the juvenile and adult units were separated. The new organization created court and supervision units that encompassed both the adult and juvenile functions, which seriously restricted communication. The new organization also had inherent supervision problems (e. g., one supervisor had 22 DPO's reporting to him).
13. To the credit of the CPO, recognizing the widespread dissatisfaction and inherent problems, he rescinded the new organization in October 1999. It was replaced by an organizational structure that reinstated many, but not all, of the features of the 1998 form.
14. The current organization continues to have managerial problems in that supervisorial units are extremely large and one of the most experienced supervisors is assigned a non-supervisory role.
15. The split of the organization between the Standley Street and Low Gap Road facilities burdens operations and causes communication problems. Having the Department under one roof was recommended in the 1999 Ross-Drulis Criminal Justice Facility Master Plan, funded by the BOS.

Recommendations
1. The CPO should solicit and listen to line staff views, when making decisions that directly affect them.
2. With input from all members of the Department, the current organization chart should be the subject of a thorough review.
3. The BOS should establish a time line for the implementation of the Criminal Justice Facility Master Plan which consolidates Probation Department services in one location.

Job Performance
Findings
16. Competency, job knowledge, and dedication were high at all levels in the department. Line staff demonstrated a deep commitment to their work.
17. Outside obligations and commitments have caused the current CPO and his predecessor to be out of the office over 40% of the time, seriously limiting his availability to staff and knowledge of the day-to-day running of the department. Having his already overburdened supervisors stand in for him does not ease the situation.
18. Team building efforts have been restricted to senior staff members and have not been provided to line staff, leaving them with a feeling of being left out.
19. The Court appoints the CPO and performs an annual review of the Probation Department. However, the Court does not specifically evaluate the CPO's performance; nor is his performance reviewed by the Chief Administrative Officer or the BOS.

Recommendations 
1. The CPO should consider filling the allocated position of Assistant Chief Probation Officer as a solution to the problem of CPO's outside obligations. However, the operation of the Probation Department should always be the primary focus of the CPO.
2. Priority should be given to team building that would include all department employees. Management should place department morale as an important objective.
3. The BOS, with Court approval, should include the CPO in its annual evaluation of County Department Heads.

Arming Probation Officers
Findings
20. Many DPO Supervisors have experienced dangerous encounters in the performance of their duties. All line staff interviewed felt they should be armed.
21. The Probation Department is seeing more violent behavior and armed offenders. Probation supervisors are required to travel to remote areas of the County in the performance of their duties. Often these areas are where methamphetamine labs and marijuana cultivation are prevalent. Armed defenders are usually present at these establishments.
22. The decision to arm DPO's is solely at the discretion of the CPO. He is hesitant to arm his officers for fear that arming may, in fact, increase the overall risk to their safety. Another concern mentioned by the CPO is the potential for increased liability exposure to the County.

Recommendation
An independent evaluation of the wisdom of arming DPO's should be made.

Department Manual
Finding
23. The Probation Department Administrative Manual has not been updated in over ten years. Its contents are not well known by the staff and it is rarely referred to. There are more than a dozen sections that address subjects covered by the County Administrative and Policy and Procedures Manuals (e. g., Affirmative Action, Use of County Vehicles, Sexual Harassment, Seat Belts, Political Activity, among others). The Probation Administrative Manual does not include job descriptions for the court DPO's nor supervision DPO's. 

Recommendation
The Manual should be updated and made into an active, useful handbook well known to the staff and used for the training of new employees. Sections duplicating the County manuals should be deleted. Detailed job descriptions should be added to the job standards. Each page should bear a revision date.

Comments
Throughout this complex investigation, the Grand Jury was extended every courtesy and received the full cooperation of the entire Probation Department. The Chief Probation Officer was especially helpful in facilitating the investigation.

Response Required
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

Response Requested
Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer