Probation Department Reform

Takes Center Stage

 
Local 685 and Allies Weigh In

Following the recent allegations of misconduct in the Department, County Supervisors have taken up the cause of reforming the Probation system. Some changes are sure to come, but how constructive the reforms will be is yet to be determined. 

At the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, June 22, with two of the five on vacation, Supervisors Yaroslavsky and Molina pushed a package of reforms that seemed to be more about appearance than substance. Key parts of the package include a motion urging the Chief to use special powers to hire top managers from outside the County even though it’s a power that already exists and has been used by the department numerous times over many years, as recently as the tenure of the last Chief Probation Officer.

I testified for Local 685, along with Andrea Gordon, President of the Professional Managers Association, and Norm Johnson, President of SEIU 721, Supervising Deputy Probation Officers. Together we raised the need for the voices of workers from within the Department to be included in the discussion of reform. We called for a Joint Labor-Management Committee – provided for under our contract – to be created, advising the Chief on an ongoing basis.
Supervisor Ridley-Thomas declined to vote on the package at Tuesday’s meeting, meaning it won’t get taken up until at least June 29. Ridley-Thomas put further attention on the Department by authoring an article for the Huffington Post that called for the Department of Justice to step in with oversight of more Probation operations.

Rest assured Local 685 and our partner unions will continue to be active participants as reforms are discussed for the Probation Department. We have been raising many of these issues for years, so change will be a welcome thing, as long as it’s done right.

Read on for excerpts from the Los Angeles Times as well as our replies.

Fraternally,
Ralph Miller
President

 reform vote is delayed a week

The L.A. County supervisor declines to vote on the package of measures to increase accountability and oversight. Two supervisors were out of town, and Ridley-Thomas is undecided on the measures.

By Garrett Therolf, Los Angeles Times
June 23, 2010

A package of proposals to increase accountability and oversight of Los Angeles County’s troubled Probation Department failed to move forward Tuesday because Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas declined to vote on it.

In response to scathing reports on the department’s  broken internal affairs unit and  the abuse of minors, the package would have authorized the drafting of policies that would give Probation Chief Donald H. Blevins  the ability to hire many top managers from outside the department. That would relax Civil Service protections that unions have worked hard to maintain[….]

Additionally, the proposals would have ordered immediate investigation of any staffers accused of misuse of department credit cards or lapses in discipline, as well as those recently arrested on suspicion of crimes.
 
Ridley-Thomas’ support was crucial because Supervisor Mike Antonovich was traveling home from a conference and vacation in China, and Supervisor Don Knabe was vacationing. Ridley-Thomas’ abstention left the measures one vote shy of approval from the five-member board, effectively shelving the package until it can be taken up again next week[….]

In an interview, Ridley-Thomas said he was undecided on the measures, and suggested that the effort to relax Civil Service protections for county employees might be misplaced.

“It is clear to me that Civil Service has its place,” he said. “The question is whether we can cause managers and rank and file to serve the mission of probation in the county of Los Angeles. I am not of the view that the problems with probation are reducible to Civil Service.”

Ralph Miller Responds to the Times

Re “Without Ridley-Thomas’ support, probation-reform vote
is delayed a week,” June 23.

The County honored the work of all Probation Officers, not me individually, last week. Chief Blevins and I accepted a certificate on behalf of all probation staff who pursue the missions of public safety and rehabilitation.

Workers’ representatives went on record Tuesday supporting proposals before the Board, but making it clear that these actions don’t go far enough to achieve real reform.

No motion is necessary to give the Chief the power to bring in top managers from outside. That authority already exists, under Charter Section 33(i). Civil service rules ensure that other management positions are filled by those experienced in the County Probation Department – a department unlike any other.

Real solutions need to address the root causes of problems, and we have volunteered to help through an advisory committee. We urge the County Supervisors not to stop with their initial proposals, but work with us
toward real, comprehensive reform.

Ralph Miller is President of AFSCME Local 685, L.A. County Probation Officers Union

Andrea Gordon Responds to the Times

Managers and others in the probation department have been raising serious concerns for decades.  The important question is not whether the Board’s vote takes place this week or next week, but rather how to create and implement the best and most efficient reform possible for this critical component of the public safety system.
 
The Professional Managers Association represents the Probation Directors.  We have worked hand in hand with Interim Chief Remington to identify the serious problems facing the department. The Board brought in experts in Chief Blevins and Deputy Chief Remington to turn around the department.  It is imperative that their expertise be combined with our inside knowledge and experience to continue the process already started to reform the department. It is for these reasons that our managers have joined with supervising deputy probation officers and deputy probation officers in calling for a joint labor-management committee to formalize the existing partnership and initiate reform.
  
Andrea Gordon is President of the Professional Managers Association, representing managers in the Los Angeles County Probation Department

Op-Ed submitted to the Los Angeles Times online edition

Problems in the Probation Department

Require Real Solutions

By Ralph Miller

There’s plenty of blame to be accepted for what one county supervisor calls the “colossal mess” plaguing the Los Angeles County Probation Department, from elected leaders down through the probation department’s executive management team. The only effective remedy is acknowledging the problems – and fixing them.

A recent Times story spotlighted 170 Probation Department employees accused of wrongdoing, half of them involving youths. Some behaved improperly; many did nothing wrong, victims of false complaints. That’s why there are supposed to be transparent and timely investigations – to determine which complaints are real and to take immediate action. This has not been happening.

February Times coverage spotlighted 11 juvenile probation officers convicted or disciplined for abuse. All but one of them were turned in by fellow probation officers, members of the same union. Take the case of a female officer later sentenced to jail for ordering the beating by other inmates of a juvenile she believed had taken her cell phone, according to a Times story. Fellow probation officers first ensured the youngster received medical care. Then they reported the incident to their supervisor, who started an investigation.
 
Probation officers deal every day with the same criminals confronting police officers: Murderers, rapists, armed robbers, car jackers, home invaders, and child molesters. It’s just that juveniles, more immature and with less judgment, can be even more volatile and feel more invulnerable. One juvenile hall resident is awaiting transfer to state prison to serve a 200-year sentence for murder and other crimes. Many are gang members who don’t respect authority, reject structure and resent being locked up.
 
Unlike with adults, juvenile probationers are not held in cells; they are in group settings that require strong supervision. These are dangerous facilities, and probation officers on these assignments suffer more injuries than deputy sheriffs who operate county jails. They not only need to keep themselves safe, they must try to keep the youthful violators in their care safe and under control. One of the biggest problems is serious ambiguity about how probation officers are allowed to do it. Some very simple and seemingly harmless techniques to try to contain their young wards often subject innocent officers to untrue accusations of child abuse. The Probation Department’s system to investigate these complaints is broken.
 

How can that system be fixed?
 
The union has long advocated for unequivocal guidelines on how probation officers who work with juveniles can control them, and adequate training for both line officers and management.

A properly functioning system to speedily handle complaints against officers is overdue. The probation officers’ union completely agrees with the county Office of Independent Review’s report exposing year-long plus delays and a wholesale collapse in the review of disciplinary cases. It was the union that sponsored the often-ignored state law requiring investigations be completed within a year.
 
Immediate changes are needed so that those who are most knowledgeable about probation, public safety, and rehabilitation are making management decisions and advising the county’s new chief probation officer.
 
The department has a troubled history and the union has been pushing for reforms for decades. In 1974, a federal judge placed the department under a consent decree to improve poor conditions at juvenile halls. But in the wake of Proposition 13, many probation employees were laid off, demoted or transferred. The Board of Supervisors cut most mental health services and other vital programs, critically needed when kids are first taken off the streets.

The union strongly objected to those cuts. After decades of inaction and neglect, the county agreed, in settlement of a 1999 union-filed lawsuit, to restore many of these vital programs. That lasted two years before county supervisors cut them again. Finally, in 2006, the U.S. Justice Department imposed a settlement agreement on the county requiring reinstatement of key staffing and services in juvenile halls; a similar agreement this year covers juvenile camps.

The Probation Department’s shortcomings are out in the open once again. Probation officers want the county to fix them for the sake of the young people who need help, the taxpayers who pay for it and the probation officers who dedicate, and risk, their lives to turning others lives around.
_________________________

Ralph Miller is president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 685, representing L.A. County probation officers.