Department will not assess arming officers
SANTA CRUZ — Officials are broadly disputing a civil grand jury investigation that found the Santa Cruz County Probation Department inadequately equips and supports probation officers, leaving them with low morale and at risk of injury in the field.
In official responses to the investigation, released Oct. 17, the Probation Department, county Chief Administrative Officer Carlos Palacios, and the county Board of Supervisors disputed all of the grand jury’s findings.
The Probation Department also rejected a grand jury recommendation that it assess whether to arm at least some of its officers with firearms.
“The Department is not aware of any research that supports arming probation officers increases safety,” the Probation Department said in its response.
Santa Cruz County’s probation officers are issued body armor, handcuffs, pepper spray, radios and other equipment. But unlike in many — if not all — other California counties, no probation officers carry guns.
The Santa Cruz Civil grand jury released the findings of its investigation in June.
Based on testimony and a review of documentation and policies, the investigation found that probation officers were hesitant to make high-risk field visits due to safety concerns caused by inadequate equipment and training, as well as unreliable support from area law enforcement.
“Many department staff who spoke to the grand jury shared their feelings of hopelessness, low morale and frustration with not fulfilling all their duties,” the grand jury stated in its investigation report. “They also expressed fear of retaliation from management when asking for support.”
Chief Probation Officer Fernando Giraldo pushed back against the investigation in a June interview, calling it “one-sided” and deriding the grand jury for not interviewing any managers at his department, besides himself.
“We’ve never had a staff person injured or seriously harmed in the history of the department,” Giraldo said.
Official responses to the investigation were not released until Oct. 17.
Evident in the responses is a wide gulf between the assessment of local officials and that of the grand jury.
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, for instance, took issue with a grand jury finding that law enforcement “is not always available” to accompany probation officers on high-risk contacts.
“Law enforcement officers are always available to assist probation officers with high-risk work, but there may be significant wait times based on other public safety priorities,” the Sheriff’s Office said in its response.
Despite the disagreements, a number of changes are underway to improve equipment and support for probation officers at the grand jury’s recommendation.
As of September, the Sheriff’s Office has assigned a full-time deputy to accompany probation officers on higher-risk assignments, such as searches, arrests and transportation.
Probation officers are expected to be issued tasers by the end of 2019, “provided all materials are available from the manufacturer,” according to the department.
The department is also working to purchase individually fitted protective vests — another grand jury recommendation — for its officers “over time and as fiscally allowable.”
And it has made Narcan, an emergency treatment for opioid overdoses, available to probation officers for checkout since July. Probation officers had asked that Narcan be added to their field kits due to concern they could be exposed to fentanyl in the field, according to the grand jury report.
Consisting of 19 private citizens solicited through voter roles and community outreach, the Santa Cruz County Civil grand jury is tasked with investigating city and county governments and special districts on behalf of the public.
October 21, 2019
Santa Cruz Sentinel
By Nicholas Ibarra
No comments:
Post a Comment