To: Board of Supervisors
From: Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer
Report Title: Probation Directors Add/Cancel
☒Recommendation of the County Administrator ☐ Recommendation of Board Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 26553 to add two (2) Probation Director (7BFA) (unrepresented) positions at salary plan and grade B25 1972 ($12,418 - $15,849) effective December 17, 2025, and cancel two (2) Probation Director (7BFA) (unrepresented) positions (18839 & 13491) at salary plan and grade B25 1972 ($12,418 - $15,849) effective April 1, 2026, in the Probation Department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The one-time fiscal impact of the requested positions overlap may result in a total salary and benefit cost increase impact of up to $240,760. Though the request covers a 4-month position overlap, it will take at least a couple of months for the position to be filled. The action includes the cancelation of two positions currently filled by two Probation Directors with upcoming retirements in early 2026. The cost impact will be offset by salary and benefit cost savings from the Department’s existing vacancies, which are funded by the Department’s budgeted General Fund allocation.
BACKGROUND:
The mission of the Probation Department is an unwavering commitment to justice, even in the face of adversity, an ethical application of the law, and a proven approach to rehabilitation. The Probation Department employees are a talented team of professionals who work collaboratively to create opportunities for those served. Through compassionate trauma informed supervision, the application of evidenced based practices, and robust community partnerships, clients experience positive outcomes that strengthen the individual, improve communities, and increase public safety within the county and beyond. To maintain mandated functions, keep up with the increasing number of legislative changes, and comply with funding obligations, the Probation Department must maintain necessary staffing levels and institutional knowledge.
Currently the Department has five sworn Probation Directors, at least two of which will be retiring in early 2026. These positions, including the two known retirements, are key executives within the Department and currently filled by incumbents with decades of institutional knowledge.
The first Probation Director position indicated in this Resolution has oversight of staff development/training, the Department’s continuous quality improvement and evidence-based practices efforts, and departmental media communications units. General activities and tasks supported by these units and by the director include legislative analysis and response; Board of State and Community Corrections training, funding, and grant compliance; evidence based practices/Core Correctional Practices oversight and compliance; county mandated training compliance; employee wellness programs and initiatives; and public records act requests/responses; all of which collectively impact every aspect of Department operational efficiency. Due to the overarching nature of this position, strategic planning is required to ensure a smooth transition of duties and to sustain compliance with mandated functions.
The second Probation Director position indicated in this Resolution oversees the Department’s Specialty Field Services which encompasses juvenile prevention, placement, intake and investigations, as well as adult felony investigations and pretrial services. The Specialty Field Services Director is responsible for the supervision, planning, and organization of two Probation Managers and five specific units. They are expected to direct the organization and planning of specialty field services, aid in the development of policies, procedures, and regulations, and provide direction, supervision, and training to staff, as well as perform other related work as required. Solid decision-making regarding day-to-day operations, budgetary impacts, and implementation of operational procedures is both ongoing and essential.
The director plays a crucial role in the executive functioning and strategic implementation of the Department’s initiatives, especially at the entry points of the probation process. They serve as the Department’s executive point of contact for all high-stakes matters related to foster care, court and investigations for both juveniles and adults, and pretrial services administered in collaboration with the Court and partners. By evaluating, overseeing, and reimagining critical processes, this director ensures that the Department sets the tone for its vision of collaboration, positive outcomes, and a safer community from the onset of probation services, and meets its goals efficiently.
In coordination with the director overseeing staff development, this director also has a pivotal role in the personal and professional development of onboarding staff, which is essential for sustained leadership and organizational success. Without the Specialty Field Services Probation Director, the department would face significant challenges in overseeing juvenile and adult probation services, including prevention, placement, intake, and investigations. The absence of this role would disrupt the supervision, planning, and organization of multiple probation units, leading to potential inefficiencies and lack of direction in day-to-day operations. Critical processes around foster care, court investigations, and pretrial services would lack executive oversight, compromising the department’s ability to handle high-stakes situations effectively.
The need to fill these positions prior to the incumbents’ departures is therefore critical to mitigate the impact on Department operations. The recruitment strategy for the Probation Director positions will involve a comprehensive process which will include both internal and external candidates to ensure the broadest and most qualified applicant pool. Internal candidates will bring valuable institutional knowledge and continuity, while external candidates may offer fresh perspectives and innovative approaches. The selection process will emphasize demonstrated leadership, operational expertise, and a commitment to advancing the Department’s mission. This balanced approach ensures the Department will select leaders who will best serve both the Department’s staff and community. Acknowledging that the recruitment and onboarding of a peace officer is a comprehensive and time-consuming process, it is imperative that the Probation Department begin this prior to the two retirements as the newly hired directors will play a critical role in operational continuity and ensure the newly hired directors obtain the outgoing and requisite knowledge from the prior incumbents.
The Department is requesting for two Probation Director positions to be added in December of 2026, and for two Probation Director positions to be cancelled, effective April 1, 2026, following retirements. Although the adds and cancels will occur on different dates, the overall net FTE change for FY25-26 will be neutral. Should there be any changes to the cancellation date, the Department will immediately notify Human Resources and the County Administrator’s Office to ensure there is no fiscal year cross over between the four positions.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If unapproved, the Department’s ability to maintain operational continuity, meet state and county mandates, and comply with training and funding requirements will be significantly disrupted. The loss of institutional knowledge without adequate succession planning and transfer of said knowledge will jeopardize the Department’s evidenced-based practices initiatives, legislative responsiveness, and mandated compliance efforts overseen by this position. Further, delays in recruitment and onboarding will create leadership gaps that would impede critical programs such as staff development, employee wellness, and continuous quality improvement, ultimately compromising the Department’s capacity to fulfill its mission of advancing justice, rehabilitation, and community safety. Additionally, the development and implementation of policies, procedures, and training would be hindered, impacting staff performance and the achievement of departmental goals. Ultimately, this could result in diminished collaboration, poor outcomes, and a less safe community.