‘Probation: Wrong Place to Cut’ Funds

I want to thank you and commend you for your editorial (June 15), “Probation: Wrong Place to Cut,” calling upon the Board of Supervisors to restore the $18 million it would take to stay even next year.

I believe, as does The Times, that cuts in probation, while saving the county money this year, will be far more costly in the long run. I should point out that the $18 million is not what it would take to stay even, but rather the amount I requested from the board as a minimum needed to maintain public safety.

Several issues regarding the upcoming budget should be mentioned. First, our narcotic testing units, scheduled for elimination, test convicted drug offenders, on a surprise basis, twice a month, not every two months as stated in the editorial. This program has been very effective, not only in deterring drug abuse, but also in identifying those who continue to use, so that they can quickly be returned to court for violating the conditions of their probation. This saves the community untold millions of dollars in prevented crime.

At a time when the county is under threat of expensive legal consequences because of its massive jail overcrowding, if effective probation services are not available to the judiciary, the commitments to jail will increase dramatically.

I proposed caseloads of 2,000, to be supervised by a team of two deputies, and aided by computerization of the files. I believe this to be an effective productivity improvement, but only for the least serious, low-risk offenders. Unfortunately, the proposed budget calls for 87% of all probationers to be on these “bankloads” and as The Times points out, this could jeopardize public safety. I have requested sufficient money to supervise no more than 50% of all adults on these computerized caseloads.

Finally, it is important to note that during recent budget hearings, the Board of Supervisors unanimously requested the governor and the Legislature to provide additional funds in order to restore critically needed services, such as probation and health. Probation receives only about 7% of its budget from the state, but the programs we operate, such as juvenile forestry camps and intensive surveillance programs for adult felons save the state millions of dollars in avoided commitments to the Youth Authority and state prison.

Perhaps, as the state completes action on its budget and the board begins its deliberations, some of the money recently earmarked for the county can be used to restore the drastic cuts in probation. As the war on crime, and in particular gangs and drugs, intensifies, it is critical that probation, which is the disposition in 80% of all cases, be allowed to be a full and effective partner in Los Angeles County’s criminal justice system.

BARRY J. NIDORF

Chief Probation Officer

Los Angeles County