Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Juvenile probation seeks pay increases and overtime funding amid high turnover
Summary
Juvenile probation requested $73,424 for JSO line and supervisor pay adjustments and $40,000 for overtime, citing multi‑year turnover rates as high as 85% in post‑adjudication and staffing shortfalls that impair required 1‑on‑1 supervision.
The juvenile probation department presented a budget request during the July 9 commissioners workshop seeking targeted increases to recruitment and retention pay for Juvenile Supervision Officers (JSOs) and overtime funding for two detention facilities.
The presenter said the department operates on multiple funds and expects state fund (Fund 28) receipt of about $2.4 million for the biennium. For county general‑fund support the department requested $73,424 to fund pay lines (3490 and 3492) covering line staff and supervisors and asked for $20,000 per facility in overtime (total $40,000).
Department materials showed elevated turnover: pre‑adjudication turnover reported as 43%, 74% and 43% over three fiscal years; post‑adjudication turnover reported as 85%, 65% and 50% over the same period. The presenter compared regional pay: JSO supervisors average $19.56/hour in peer counties versus Nueces County $16.08; the department proposed raising the county supervisor rate toward $17.65 and line staff toward $15.34 to improve recruitment.
Commissioners questioned the peer county comparison and asked for additional staffing details. The juvenile representative explained current staffing: 23 budgeted JSO positions with about six vacancies at the time of the briefing (two in detention, four in post adjudication), and said average short‑term detention stays run roughly 10–12 days while post‑adjudication placements are longer. Commissioners and staff agreed to supply follow‑up materials requested by the court.
The judge and others noted the juvenile board’s statutory role in setting probation department policy and in hiring the juvenile probation chief, and clarified that salary recommendations ultimately come to the commissioners court for approval when county personnel are affected.
