Relates to optional disability coverage for county probation officers

Showing the cosponsors who are on Agora, A to Z. The official record may list more.

• Democratic35
• Republican16

This bill has cosponsors from more than one party.

Shown in neutral colors by design; Agora is non-partisan.

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Michelle Hinchey says this is needed

Probation officers' duties involve them in virtually all phases of the criminal justice process, including investigations, presentencing, crim- inal supervision, treatment and other preventative corrective services. Often, probation is relied upon more frequently as a viable alternative to incarceration or detention. Today's probation officers find them- selves performing many of the functions performed by their counterparts in the police and corrections services. Like other police and peace officers throughout the State, probation officers are exposed on a daily basis to the risks and dangers involved in managing an increasingly violent criminal population. In addition, they are regularly exposed to significant amounts of stress and aggra- vation, not to mention the possibility of bodily injury that may result from the performance of their duties. Probation officers, however, are not eligible under current law to receive comparable disability coverage for injuries they sustain in the line of performance of those duties. This legislation would allow for probation offices to receive equal treatment by permitting county employers and employee representatives to negotiate for this benefit thrOugh the collective bargaining process at their option. All costs would be incurred by the employer and/or employ- ee, as determined through collective bargaining.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.