In a probation violation hearing, there is no absolute right to confrontation and cross-examination and evidence will be admitted if credibility of the declarant is not a significant factor in evaluating foundational testimony relating to the admission of evidence. In this case, referring to a report prepared by another probation officer, the probation officer testified that appellant failed to report to the probation officer or make ordered payments. Relying on People v. Maki (1985) 39 Cal.3d 707, the appellate court, found the testimony admissible, holding that where the evidence involves routine matters such as the making and keeping of probation appointments, restitution and other payments, and similar records of events of which the probation officer is not likely to have personal recollection and as to which the officer would rely on the record of his or her own action, the contents of the probation report are admissible. This is in contrast to evidence that is viewed as a substitute for live testimony such as statements to a probation officer by victims or witnesses. In the latter situation, in the absence of the declarant’s unavailability or other good cause, such evidence is inadmissable. (People v. Winson (1981) 29 Cal.3d 711; People v. Arreola (2004) 7 Cal.4th 144.)