Sutter County staff have proposed removing a full-time truancy-prevention position from an upcoming agreement with the Yuba City Unified School District for the 2026-27 fiscal year. This change, according to a Sutter County staff report, is a direct result of staffing shortages within the county.
Despite the proposed removal of the dedicated truancy-prevention officer, the agreement calls for the continuation of three full-time school-based probation officer assignments. One full-time officer would serve each of River Valley High School, Yuba City High School, and Gray Avenue Middle School. The staff report indicates that these campus assignments could be adjusted during the school year through mutual agreement between the Sutter County chief probation officer and the YCUSD superintendent.
The proposal, identified as agenda item MT7997, was detailed in the October 5 agenda packet for the Agriculture, Public Protection and General Government Committee. Under the terms outlined, the Yuba City Unified School District is proposed to contribute up to $296,100 toward continued truancy, prevention, and intervention services. This amount, as stated in the staff report, is equal to half the total salaries and benefits for the three Deputy Probation Officers.
The overall cost for these combined truancy-prevention and school-based officer services is listed at $592,200. The Yuba City Unified School District would be responsible for paying $296,100 of this total. The remaining $296,100 would be covered by the Probation Department, utilizing federal and state funds that are already reflected in the county’s adopted budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year, the report says.
This proposed arrangement continues a long-standing collaboration between the county and the school district. The materials reviewed indicate that Sutter County and YCUSD have maintained an agreement for truancy services since 1987, with subsequent agreements adding school-campus probation services.
The agenda packet recommends that the Agriculture, Public Protection and General Government Committee endorse the proposal. If recommended by the committee, the Board would then be asked to approve or ratify the amendment and authorize Chief Probation Officer Nicole Ritner to sign it.
However, the public record accompanying the proposal does not yet include a vote from the committee, any subsequent action by the Board, or an executed amendment to the agreement. Furthermore, the materials reviewed do not specify the classification of the removed truancy-prevention position, whether it is currently vacant, or if an incumbent holds the role. The details regarding how the truancy-prevention duties previously handled by this position would be managed in the future also remain unresolved in the public record.
