Why Would Probation Want to do LACOE’s Work in JCCS?
It’s all about the money. I’m not exactly sure what LACOE pulls in on ADA for its court schools, but some preliminary number crunching suggests perhaps $50 million-a-year (when one factors in the 3 halls and 18-19 camps). How L.A. County Probation thinks they can overturn a State Charter and take over the three, L.A. County juvenile halls is beyond me – but IF probation could take over the camps (where no such State mandate for operating an educational program exists); then they would only garner approximately $25 million-a-year. And here, probation also seems oblivious to two financial facts:
1) To garner ADA, one must operate a state-accredited educational program – which none of the charter schools or family programs enlisted for probation’s cause have demonstrated that they can do for such a large, incarcerated student body (why does no one FROM OUR SIDE demand such a demonstration [or data]?); and,
2) LACOE’s yearly apportionment to operate JCCS is $28 million – the exact amount that probation went into the red for when they paid out too much overtime one year. (Does probation have another pipeline for monies that can make up for operating costs? If they do – it is drying up as I write.)
Why Does L.A. County Probation Think They Can do a Better Job than LACOE in Managing Court Schools?
L.A. County Probation surfaced with two black eyes after the Mark Stephens’ initiated Rand Study and the initial DOJ Report. (Was Larry Springer at all complicit? I don’t know.) The fact that L.A. County Probation is incapable of doing the job that they are expected to do, competently — (to wit: the aforementioned ‘black eyes’) – makes it a very dangerous proposition for L.A. Probation to take on yet another duty. If Probation can’t even rehabilitate (to wit: the staggering recidivism rate in the incarcerated juvenile population) how on earth do they have the audacity to think that they can efficiently and successfully educate the most difficult population on the planet?
I remember a time when a probation officer would earn a substitute teaching credential and supplant his/her probation salary with a-couple-of-days worth of substitute teaching. I also remember these probation officers being very effective teachers because they understood the classroom structure and knew the names of the incarcerated students. Then, for some reason unknown to me, this practice stopped. This was the first-and-only time that I perceived L.A. County Probation actually partnering with JCCS teachers.
L.A. County Probation as Partners
Today’s L.A. Times (2/18/08) has an article that is not complimentary of the CYA – but at least the article makes mention of the 6 fronts on which the CYA fails its incarcerated youth: education; safety; medical care; mental health; disabilities; and, sex offender treatment. L.A. County Probation would have us believe that JCCS Teachers teach in a vacuum – i.e., that there are no intervening variables that make the teaching of L.A. County’s incarcerated youth exceedingly difficult: like medications; street drugs; gang activity; and generally violent behavior – all-of-which are displayed HOURLY by the JCCS adolescent population.
As a “normal” public school would like to look to a student’s home to provide some structure for school – so, too, would a court school teacher like to see the surrogate parent (which is L.A. County Probation) provide some sort of structure, support and positive reinforcement for what happens in the JCCS classrooms. Instead, Probation tends to do the OPPOSITE (by attempting to undermine their partners [the School] at every opportunity)! In addition, Probation doesn’t facilitate mental health’s efforts, either – often compromising this aspect of treatment and rehabilitation. And the INTERMINABLE probation excuse for its constant shortcomings is: that it is always short-staffed. Should probation succeed in taking over JCCS – will they continue to complain that they are short-staffed?
Speaking of being “short-staffed” – the demands put on a JCCS teacher are so stressful, so out of the realm of a normative teaching experience, that JCCS teachers often need to be absent just to “re-charge” their batteries – hence the 30%-40% substitute teacher ratio at any given juvenile hall/camp on any given day.
When a substitute teacher walks onto a site where gang violence or a reaction to drugs/medications can prompt a mini-riot at-any-given-moment, and there is no support from probation — because they are short-staffed – the easiest method of “crowd control” is to pop on a video to survive the day: particularly when you don’t know the names of the students! In an ideal court-school, educational setting – where each classroom is most likely self-contained, and a probation officer is dedicated to monitoring each class: a-whole-lot of education might take place. I recently experienced such a scenario at
Camp Gonzalez and it was the zenith of my JCCS career!
The Sentiments of the Board of Supervisors
The L.A. County Board of Supervisors are quite oblivious to the conditions in L.A. County JCCS. They simply believe what people tell them. And lest we forget, probation is a very underhanded and deceitful (to the point of ‘slimy’) organization. I myself was a victim of L.A. County Probation, and, in the course of trying to find legal representation to sue L.A. County Probation for what they did to me – I couldn’t find a single lawyer who would risk his/her career or reputation, or any member of his/her family’s for that matter – trying to go after probation. Simply put, L.A. County Probation, like the Sheriff’s Office, or the L.A.P.D. — can “dig up dirt,” or fabricate it, FOR ANYONE THEY CHOOSE TO!
Thus, I wouldn’t use the board of supervisors as any indicator of L.A. County Probation’s fitness to run court schools.
This will continue in Part II …