Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

Probation Department response to Change Is In Their Hands

Assistant Chief Jose Pantoja addresses F2, describing workshop ventilation procurement, continued welding and woodworking courses offered on and off site, and plans to expand the garden while preserving fire and emergency access. The letter does not explicitly agree or disagree with F2 or separately answer F1, R1, or R2.

Response by Madera County Probation Department · 2026-05-22

0

Addressed

1

Partially addressed

0

Not addressed

0

Unclear

This response addresses findings only; implementation dispositions apply to recommendations.

How to read this audit

The letter names the Youth Correctional Center as the former Juvenile Detention Facility and reproduces F2, establishing the report mapping. Only its F2 response is audited. The report’s statements about workshop use and the department’s statements about course availability are not resolved through external evidence. No adopted Board of Supervisors response is inferred from this department letter or its distribution list.

No concrete commitments were extracted from this response.

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 1 of 1 items

finding · F2

Welding, garden utilization, and woodworking shop use

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

The department says youth continue receiving welding and woodworking courses on and off site, workshop use awaits ventilation work, and garden expansion must preserve emergency access and meet safety rules.

Audit analysis

All three material propositions receive relevant discussion. The statement about continued courses implies disagreement with part of F2, while ventilation and garden constraints qualify facility use. The letter does not clearly label which portions it accepts or disputes and provides no implementation deadline.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

2/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
1/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

PDF page 1 reproduces the compound F2 and discusses all three subjects. Continued courses imply a mixed position rather than an explicit agreement or partial disagreement; disputed scope remains incompletely identified, although reasons are concrete. Ventilation procurement and emergency vehicle access explain constraints. The named Superintendent of Schools course provider and Facilities Department work are checkable institutional bases, without proving the department’s claims independently.

Scoring confidence: high