Managing L.A. County’s Probation Department

The Board of Supervisors just can’t seem to decide how to run its overburdened county. Several years ago the members reluctantly, but wisely, put a chief executive in charge so that county department directors could answer to a single person instead of being pulled in five different directions. Then, two months ago, they reasserted direct jurisdiction over the two departments most in need of unfettered, decisive and accountable leadership — the Probation Department and the Department of Children and Family Services.

And now, the ever-inventive supervisors have come up with a new twist in the art of undermining themselves, their appointees and the effective management of the county. Little more than a year after hiring Donald Blevins to finally get the Probation Department on track, they want the department’s No. 2 man to bypass Blevins and report to them directly on efforts to fix problems at 19 juvenile camps under the scrutiny of the U.S. Department of Justice. Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich authored a motion to that effect, which is to be taken up by the full board on Tuesday.

It’s not that the department doesn’t need extra help. Quite the opposite. The Justice Department issued a stern warning last week about violence at the camps, including a particularly troubling incident on May 23 involving 18 youths and at least one serious injury. The county has insufficient staff to supervise the youth and to help them move toward what is supposed to be the whole point — rehabilitation. Compliance with federal standards by the Oct. 31 deadline is looking increasingly unlikely.

But pulling the rug out from under Blevins is hardly the way to get the job done. If county supervisors have soured on Blevins and now believe that he is not the right person to lead the department, they should admit their mistake and replace him. Or, better yet, they should re-vest their chief executive, William T Fujioka, with the management power they yanked from him in May.

The supervisors are charged with policymaking and oversight. They are not managers, as they have proved time and again after inserting themselves directly into problems in the departments of Health Services, Children and Family Services, and, now, Probation. Of course, they’re not always so great at oversight either. The result is a county government unable to consistently and competently fulfill its mission, which includes caring for people like the youth in the Probation Department.

Los Angeles County would not be easy to govern under the best of circumstances, given the large population of people in need of county services and the lack of sufficient resources to meet their needs. But the supervisors continue to make a bad situation worse by operating as a committee and refusing to allow their managers to manage.