Los Angeles County Grand Jury
2005-2006
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Continuity Report
HOW to Respond to Recommendations Responses The California Penal Code §933 (c) specifies both the deadline by which
From the consolidated annual report · 10 pages
📑 Continuity Report
Continuity
From the consolidated annual report · 10 pages
Individual reports (17)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Who: Your Name: _______________________________________________________________________
F2:
What: Subject of Complaint. Briefly state the nature of complaint and the action of what Los Angeles County department, section, agency, or official(s) that you believe was illegal or improper. Use additional sheets if necessary. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
F3:
When: Date(s) of incident: __________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
F4:
Where: Names and addresses of other departments, agencies or officials involved in this complaint. Include dates and types of contact, i.e. phone, letter, personal. Use additional sheets if necessary. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
F5:
Why/How: Attach pertinent documents and correspondence with dates. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Rev. 05/03/06 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 310 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 311 (Date) (Name and address of complainant) Dear (Name of complainant): Your letter to the Civil Grand Jury, dated (date), has been received. The Civil Grand Jury’s review of this matter does not mean that the Grand Jury will conduct a full investigation into your complaint. You will not receive any further communication from the Grand Jury. By law, the Grand Jury cannot communicate the results of investigations to you personally. Reports of the Grand Jury investigations are available to the general public when published.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Insufficient resources are being devoted to the Emergency Survival Program (ESP). The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is currently devoting approximately one- half of a staff-year to this internationally recognized program. An expanded program would increase the level of adoption of preparedness measures by County residents. The dividends to be reaped from a successful program can be measured in lives saved when a serious emergency occurs. It takes time and resources to design or manage such a program. More time is needed to: • Solicit corporate sponsorships for program elements • Implement programs • Measure their effect on adoption. If many residents can care for themselves for at least several days, and if at least some residents can begin to help their neighbors or workmates until professional assistance arrives, emergency responders can concentrate on the most critical situations where their interventions are literally a matter of life and death. The costs of rescuing residents that are unprepared will be high. An effective preparedness program will materially reduce those costs, both in scarce financial resources and irreplaceable human life.
F2:
OEM does not have sufficient resources to evaluate and adopt social marketing practices. Resource constraints and staffing shortages have limited the amount of OEM staff time available for ESP. Staff skilled in implementing social marketing campaigns that impact social behavior could build on the information gathered by Public Health. With it, they can design even more effective campaigns to galvanize residents into action. The Center for Disease Control sponsors grants for social marketing of health information. OEM and the Public Health could obtain funding for social marketing outreach. Outreach to universities and other institutions might also prove fruitful. The cost of such an attempt to the County would be the provision of additional OEM staff resources or the cost of contracting for such services. Both additional internal resources and contracted assistance may be needed to launch a social marketing program successfully in the area of resident emergency preparedness. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 55 The Civil Grand Jury notes the following as potentially fruitful approaches: • Arranging for emergency kits that are inexpensive and easy to acquire • Encouraging in-school and after-school programs to assemble kits so that children may bring kits home to their families • Establishing incentive programs for residents who make or buy kits • Distributing collateral material, such as small flashlights, that both remind the recipient of the need to prepare and provide an object useful in an emergency • Presenting a hierarchy of citizen-preparedness as options, such as: o No kit, no plan: be a victim o Full plan, full kit: be a survivor o CERT member, ham radio operator: be a community asset
F3:
ESP and other communication materials are not available in all languages spoken in Los Angeles County. County officials estimate that more than 100 languages are spoken in the metropolitan area. Census Bureau data show that more than 50% of Los Angeles County households use a language other than English at home. Currently, some ESP materials are translated into 12 languages. This is a gap in the emergency preparedness system. Foreign-born immigrants may know less about Los Angeles and its emergency response system than others. It may be even more important for individuals who do not speak English or Spanish to have advance information about emergency preparedness, as they may have difficulty understanding instructions in English or Spanish from emergency responders and general broadcast information from the media. The ability to translate and disseminate messages rapidly is especially important during health emergencies. One of the key factors in limiting the number of people exposed to communicable disease is the speed with which a warning message can be 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 56 communicated. Public Health does not have contracts in place which will assure a four- hour turnaround on the translation of messages.
F4:
Local governments can do more to encourage their employees to prepare for emergencies. The U.S. Census Bureau reports 607,911 government employees in Los Angeles County, including federal, state, municipal organizations, and authorities. The City and County of Los Angeles together employ approximately 150,000 staff. Emergency response requires firefighters and police officers. It also requires medical personnel, transportation workers, helicopter pilots, communication technicians, public health professionals, and utility workers. If these emergency responders have prepared their homes and families, they will be able to care for residents in an emergency without worrying about the safety of their loved ones. Recent experience with Hurricane Katrina underscores the importance of employee preparedness. Press reports and the observations of professional responders who were present in New Orleans indicate that many municipal employees had not made adequate preparations for an emergency. When Hurricane Katrina hit, many employees went home to care for their families and were unable to return. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 57 Most governmental agencies in Los Angeles County distribute emergency preparedness materials and information to their employees. The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (DPW) and Internal Services Department (ISD) have written policies that encourage staff to prepare their families to take care of themselves in emergencies. Many fire departments have programs to encourage their staff members to make preparations at home and attend to their families in the early stages of emergency response. Local governments in Los Angeles County can do more to support their employees in preparing for emergencies. In the event of an emergency, these preparations will make the difference between an effective response and chaos.
F5:
Vulnerable populations require special efforts to ensure their preparedness for emergencies. Based on 2002 census data, there are approximately 10 million people in Los Angeles County, the most populous County in the nation. The same census data show that about 6.5% of these people receive some form of public assistance. According to the Individual Tax Return Summary published by the Internal Revenue Service, almost 20% of those filing tax returns in 2002 showed adjusted annual incomes of $10,000 or less. These figures suggest that up to 2 to 3 million residents of Los Angeles County do not have the means to purchase and store emergency supplies and equipment. The most vulnerable populations are the old, the homeless, the disabled, the unemployed, children, and the poor. In an emergency, these individuals may be without transportation and emergency supplies. Local government has the responsibility to provide a safety net and, with the assistance of other concerned groups, care for those who cannot care for themselves. This population suffered the most in Hurricane Katrina. Residents with animals are also vulnerable in an emergency. Many people will not evacuate leaving their animals behind. The Topanga Emergency Plan addresses the needs of animal owners. This work should be expanded and strengthened to encompass more areas in Los Angeles County.
F6:
Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) are a vital communications link in the event of an emergency. The County of Los Angeles and other jurisdictions should support programs that train and encourage citizen volunteers to provide assistance to both their neighbors and emergency responders, building necessary relationships to draw on when emergencies happen. These programs, including ham radio networks and CERT, are necessary for community preparedness. Jurisdictions within the County were national leaders in the development of CERT 20 years ago; and LASD runs a National CERT Conference annually. This year, LASD expects more than 450 participants from around the United States. CERT is well-developed in Los Angeles County with many local fire and law enforcement departments training CERT volunteers. Jurisdictions outside of Los Angeles have sponsored programs that organize block groups into disaster response teams and set up Citizen Corps that meet quarterly to discuss issues and reinforce the importance of preparedness.
F7:
Ham radio operators augment communications in the case of major infrastructure damage. Ham radio operators provide an important channel when the rest of the communication infrastructure collapses. This situation happened in Los Angeles during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
F8:
Residents in Los Angeles County will benefit from moving towards increased communication interoperability. Currently, the best practice recommended by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a standards based shared platform because of its user-friendly ability to quickly connect among emergency responders. With the rapidly-changing opportunities provided by technical innovation, it is likely that this best practice will be replaced by different technology. As an example, New York State is investing in a state-wide emergency communication system that uses satellite equipment and Internet Protocol radio capability. Moving Los Angeles County jurisdictions to increased communication interoperability will be facilitated if the governance board can serve as the forum to resolve the issues. Communication interoperability can be increased incrementally if independent procurement decisions support that goal. Over time, this will permit migration of the equipment used by all emergency responders to a common standard, while realizing the maximum benefit from existing systems. Ultimately, changes in procurement should reflect the current mutual aid practices that share resources beyond the borders of Los Angeles County. While much of this report has focused on police and fire communications, communication needs of other responder agencies must be considered and funded. In devastating natural disasters, Emergency Medical Services, Public Health, and Coroner employees need to deal with a disease outbreak. Department of Public Works staff members will be needed to clear roadways and excavate emergency routes for emergency responders. Animal control departments need to assure the safety of animals and the public. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 70
F9:
LARTCS will continue to be needed. LARTCS is needed to provide emergency communications links to state, federal, and other jurisdictions, even if jurisdictions move to a standards-based shared platform or participate in a proprietary, shared platform such as ICIS. LARTCS will be required to provide links to jurisdictions not on the platform, e.g., Orange County agencies, Ventura County agencies, federal or state agencies, and assisting agencies from other states.
F10:
Emerging technology can significantly increase communication capabilities and make them more resistant to infrastructure damage. Emerging technologies hold great promise for strengthening emergency communication in Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles Regional Common Operational Picture Program (LARCOPP) and Emergency Business Information System (EBIS) increase the ability to respond quickly and effectively. Furthermore, the emergency response in the County will be more resistant to damage of its infrastructure. Emerging technologies are powerful and expensive, a financial burden that may surpass the resources of any one agency. It is incumbent upon elected officials in the County, to join forces in collaborative efforts to share systems, technology, and resources.
F11:
Insufficient resources are provided to train workers needed to operate and maintain emergency communication systems. New technologies that provide additional communication interoperability are often complex. They are typically purchased with grant or capital funds. Often the grants or voter-approved bond funds do not provide for training, operations, and maintenance resources needed to keep the systems in working order. These activities must be funded by local government. New and interoperable communication systems must compete for funding with a large number of other pressing needs. When communication systems are replaced, capital funds are allocated for a new system. In some cases, the purchase includes an initial order of replacement parts and components and initial staff training. Subsequent operations, training, maintenance staff resources, and parts require local funding.
F12:
The use of communication systems for extended periods can be hampered by shortages of parts and maintenance training. As the systems age, manufacturers of the systems no longer produce parts and components.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Insufficient resources are being devoted to the Emergency Survival Program (ESP).
R2:
OEM should employ social marketing approaches to design and acquire the needed resources for a strategy that will be effective in inspiring Los Angeles County residents to prepare for emergencies. The County CAO should revise current budget allocations to fund this effort. The Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to OEM for training in, design of, and grant development for social marketing to support resident compliance with emergency preparedness guidelines. In addition, the Los Angeles County Internal Services Department (ISD) should develop a master agreement with social marketing firms.
R3:
Emergency Survival Program and other communication materials are not available in all languages spoken in Los Angeles County. a. The CAO should allocate staff resources and funds to provide resources to prepare basic information materials in more languages, supplementing the efforts under way through Public Health. b. Public Health should enter into translation contracts that will permit a four- hour turnaround of message translation in the event of a public health emergency.
R3a:
The County CAO should reallocate staff resources and funds to provide resources to OEM to prepare basic information materials in more languages, supplementing the efforts under way through Public Health. OEM should explore using translation resources available in Los Angeles County such as: • Working with community colleges to acquire translators from their ESL programs • Working with LAUSD, who has an extensive emergency preparedness program and a multi-lingual capacity • Accessing the translators who work for the City and County of Los Angeles 311 and 911 systems • Seeking assistance from countries which maintain consulates in Los Angeles • Working with churches, temples, mosques, and other faith-based organizations to reach out to immigrant and foreign language-speaking communities.
R3b:
Public Health should enter into translation contracts that will permit a four-hour turnaround of message translations in the event of a public health emergency.
R4:
Both City and County Administrative Officers should establish and pursue policies and programs that encourage employees to have emergency plans and supplies in place for their families.
R5:
Vulnerable populations require special efforts to ensure their preparedness for emergencies. a. The CAO should ensure that responsible County of Los Angeles departments strengthen arrangements for the pre-emergency purchase and distribution of food, water, and clothing to vulnerable groups in the event of an emergency. b. OEM should develop and disseminate materials designed to assist animal owners in an emergency.
R5a:
The County CAO should ensure that responsible County departments strengthen arrangements for pre-emergency purchase and distribution of food, water, and clothing in the event of an emergency. Local resources include stores, department stores, pharmacies, restaurants, grocery stores, schools, places of worship, and social clubs. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 58
R5b:
OEM should develop and disseminate materials designed to assist animal owners in an emergency.
R6:
The City and County Administrative Officers should expand the resources that support citizen volunteers who provide assistance to their neighbors and emergency responders. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 59 COMMUNICATION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND DURING AN EMERGENCY
R7:
Ham radio operators augment communications in the case of major infrastructure damage.
R8:
Residents in Los Angeles county will benefit from moving towards increased communication interoperability. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Mayor of Los Angeles should ensure that the Governance Board proposed by Radio Interoperability Steering Committee (RISC) is adopted and should pursue the development of county-wide communication interoperability, using a standards-based shared platform. 9.
R9:
LASD and LAPD should ensure the completion of Phase II of LARTCS and continue to request funds for the acquisition of LARTCS equipment, maintenance, training, and operations.
R10:
The LACFD Chief, LAFD Chief, LAPD Chief, and the Sheriff should continue to pursue the adoption of promising communication technology. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 71
R11:
The City and County Administrative Officers require that proposals for new communication systems or major system improvements specify the life cycle cost of operations, maintenance, and training, and allocate funds as required.
R12:
When Los Angeles City and County purchases new communication equipment, bid documents should require suppliers to offer maintenance parts, training, and related services throughout the life of the system. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 72 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 73
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
At LAC+USC, the 13th floor is dedicated exclusively to the only jail inpatient program in Los Angeles County, commonly known as the Jail Ward. On a daily basis, a number of inmate-patients are not assigned beds in this secured Jail Ward. They are placed in beds in unsecured areas amongst the general patient population, commonly known as Open Wards, even though beds in the Jail Ward remain empty. These inmate-patients are often individuals with violent criminal records. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 28
F2:
The Jail Ward originally had beds for 50 inmate patients. Over the years the bed capacity was reduced to 35 beds to accommodate an outpatient clinic. During an average day inmate-patients number 35; however, only 15 are given beds in the Jail Ward because of an insufficient number of nurses. California State law mandates that the licensed nurse-to-patient ratio must be 1:5. There are only 3 nurses assigned to the Jail Ward during an eight-hour shift, meaning that a maximum of 15 inmate-patients can be housed there.
F3:
The Jail Ward is a secured facility. Inmate-patients do not have access to visitors, contraband or telephones. Precautions are taken so that inmates do not have access to medical equipment, drugs, and ancillary objects. Despite these precautions, many rudimentary weapons have been confiscated made from non- secured objects including toothbrushes sharpened into knives.
F4:
Approximately 10 Sheriff Deputies staff the ward at all times to protect the inmate-patients and the staff. These deputies also accompany inmate-patients when they are taken to other parts of the hospital for medical procedures. Open Wards And General Population
F5:
The safety precautions taken on the Jail Ward are not followed in the Open Wards. When Sheriff Deputies are not present, inmate-patients can intimidate others into complying with their demands, such as using a cell phone or aiding in an escape.
F6:
The Grand Jury reviewed a sample of 34 days of “Jail Inmates Housed On The Open Ward” lists covering the months of May, June, July, August and September
F7:
For the past several years, there have been escape attempts by inmate-patients. Inmates at county jail facilities have feigned illness or intentionally injured themselves in order to be transferred to LAC+USC with intent to escape. The following incidents have occurred involving inmate-patients on the Open Wards: • An inmate-patient involved in a CHP shooting death was identified in letters along with detailed, hand drawn maps of LAC+USC regarding an escape plan. One of the letters told the recipient to kill the deputy escorting the inmate-patient to the hospital. • An inmate-patient with a broken leg managed to cut through the left armrest of his wheelchair and slip off his handcuff. An eight-inch shank was hidden inside the inmate’s cast. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 30 • An inmate-patient charged with murder recruited other inmates to help him escape from the Open Ward. He planned to hide in the bathroom, wait for a deputy to enter, and then “snap his neck”. • An inmate-patient escaped from LAC+USC while undergoing a CAT scan; he slipped out of his leg chains while the technician was conducting the exam in an unsecured area. • A Sheriff Deputy found an ankle chain on the floor after an inmate-patient escaped from an Open Ward. • A known gang member in an Open Ward lunged for a Deputy Sheriff’s gun, however was stopped. Twin Towers/ Men’s Central Jail Medical Facility
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Sheriff’s Department: Increase use of medical personnel at Twin Towers Correctional/Men’s Central Jail medical facility, including physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to perform routine procedures such as suturing, minor surgeries, and setting bones as are now being performed by these classifications at LAC+USC.
R2:
Sheriff’s Department: Fast track implementation of the telemedicine program so that more diagnostic and medical procedures can be done at Twin Towers Correctional/Men’s Central Jail medical facility.
R3:
Chief Administrative Office: Authorize the Department of Health Services to hire LAC+USC Jail Ward nurses at the Staff Nurse, Sheriff and Supervising Staff Nurse I, Sheriff classifications who meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Sheriff classifications. Or:
R4:
Department of Health Services: Cease and desist accepting inmate-patients for bed placement on Open Wards amongst the general public. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 33 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 34 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 35 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 36 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 37 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 38 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 39 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 40
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F2:
Approve interior demolition including hazard material removal
F3:
Authorize contract documents for actual construction design.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All monies spent relative to the Hall of Justice since January 1994;
R2:
The County of Los Angeles’ actual monies spent on cost of leasing office space for displaced employees and departments who were housed in the Hall of Justice on January 1994, along with moving and ancillary costs;
R3:
Financial and physical projections determining when the building could be ready for occupancy;
R4:
Actual market value if sold as real estate.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Jury viewed adult dormitories housing inmates at North County Correctional Facility, which have 3-tiered bunks, minimal aisle widths, and a census in excess of that allowed. North County Correctional Facility single cells were substandard.
F2:
A similar situation was observed at Men’s Central Jail in the Trusty Dormitory. This situation was explained by the fact that trusties work in shifts.
F3:
Some single occupancy cells at Men’s Central Jail were overcrowded at the time of our visit. Some inmates were sleeping on the floor.
F4:
Lakewood Sheriff’s Station
F5:
Walnut Sheriff’s Station
F6:
Los Angeles Police Department Southwest Division
F7:
Los Angeles Police Department Southeast Division 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 101 Finding Nine: There are wooden benches in the booking area at Los Angeles Police Department’s Central Division that are worn and are difficult to maintain in a sanitary condition.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Table of Organization
R2:
Emergency Procedures
R3:
Fire Suppression Plan
R4:
Policy on the use of Force
R5:
Policy of the use of Restraints
R6:
Serious Incident Reports
R7:
Serious Incident Reports
R8:
Logs on Safety Checks
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A survey of 730 of the key stakeholders of the after school programs including: parents, principals, on-site after school program administrators and their staff, BTB after school program contractors, BTB officials and LAUSD officials;
R2:
Site visits to 47 schools to observe the after school programs and
R3:
Interviews and meetings with BTB Officials, a State Evaluator and BTB after school program contractors; and
R4:
Related research. We have recommended a series of changes to:
R5:
Increase staffing levels and quality standards;
R6:
Increase the space and equipment available to after school programs; and
R7:
Encourage the development and dissemination of “best practices” throughout the system. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 128 I: PROJECT APPROACH A. BACKGROUND ● In California, 22% of K-12 youth are responsible for taking care of themselves. More than 38% of K-12 youth in self-care would be likely to participate in an after school program if one were available in their community. ● 94% of parents in California are satisfied with the after school program their child attends. ● Nearly 190,238 of California’s kids are counting on the programs supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative, the only federal program dedicated to providing after school programs. ● If the No Child Left Behind Act were fully funded, California communities could have double the number of after school programs giving nearly 431,888 children a safe place to go after school. This information is from the After School Alliance Web Site: www.afterschoolallianc.org In light of these facts, the 2005-2006 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury decided to study the operation of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s after school program. LAUSD’s BTB branch administers this program. The 2002-2003 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury undertook a similar study, but limited its fact-finding to site visits in only three LAUSD districts. The 2005-2006 Grand jury studied kindergarten through fifth-grade level (K-5) schools, covering all eight LAUSD districts. See
R8:
City of San Fernando 3, 1 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R9:
Gang Alternatives Program 2 21st CCLC
R10:
Great Beginnings 2 21st CCLC
R11:
Kids Protectors of the Environment 2 21st CCLC
R12:
Keep Youth Doing Something Inc. 1, 10 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R13:
Learning for Life 2 21st CCLC
R14:
Para Los Niños 1, 6 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R15:
South Bay Center for Counseling 1 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R16:
Star Education 8 21st CCLC
R17:
Woodcraft Rangers 3, 17 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R18:
YS CARE * YS CARE 8, 22 41 ASESP + 21st CCLC County
R19:
LA’s BEST * LA’s BEST 71, 38 38 ASESP + 21st CCLC City, Private, and Other Federal TOTAL 315 * Note: Some YS CARE and LA’s BEST sites receive funds from both sources. The BTB goal was to have comprehensive after school programs in all 437 elementary schools by 2005. On average, 86,000 students use the programs daily although the actual number of individuals who use the program throughout the year exceeds 100,000. The gender participation rates are equal but the ethnic mix is skewed vs. the general day school population displayed in Exhibit I-5: 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 137 Exhibit I-5: After School Program Participants by Ethnicity
Findings & Recommendations
53 findings
F1:
Michael D. Antonovich – Los Angeles County Supervisor, 5th District, and 2006 Mayor
F2:
Rick Auerbach – Los Angeles County Assessor
F3:
Leroy Baca – Los Angeles County Sheriff
F4:
Cynthia Banks – Interim Chief, Los Angeles County Community and Senior Services
F5:
Steve Belhumeur – Community Affairs Liaison, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation
F6:
Yvonne Braithwaite-Burke – Los Angeles County Supervisor, 2nd District
F7:
William Bratton – Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department
F8:
Philip L. Browning – Director, County of Los Angeles, Child Support Services
F9:
Laura Chick – Controller, City of Los Angeles
F10:
Steve Cooley – Los Angeles County District Attorney
F11:
Pete Delgado – Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center
F12:
David E. Demerjian – Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, Office of Public Integrity
F13:
Edmund D. Edelman – Los Angeles County Supervisor, Emeritus
F14:
Mike Frazer – Chief Lifeguard, Los Angeles County Fire Department, Lifeguard Operations Division
F15:
P. Michael Freeman – Fire Chief, Los Angeles County
F16:
William Fujioka – Los Angeles City Administrative Officer
F17:
James E. Henwood – President, CEO Fairplex
F18:
Robert D. Herman – Author, Professor Emeritus, Pomona College
F19:
Anthony T. Hernandez – Director, Los Angeles County Department of the Coroner
F20:
Joaquin J. Herran – Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
F21:
Pastor Herrera, Jr. – Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, County of Los Angeles
F22:
Paul Higa – Chief, Probation Department, County of Los Angeles
F23:
Carlos Jackson – Executive Director, Community Development Commission/Housing Authority
F24:
David E. Janssen – Chief Administrative Officer, Los Angeles County
F25:
Greg Johnson – Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
F26:
Sammy L. Jones – Chief, Custody Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
F27:
Michael Judge – Los Angeles County Public Defender
F28:
Marc L. Klugman – Chief, Correctional Services Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
F29:
Jack Kyser – Chief Economist, Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
F30:
Dee Lewis – Docent, Music Center 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 327
F31:
Donald Long – Superintendent, Challenger Memorial Youth Center
F32:
Jay Malinowsky – Water Consultant, former Director of Operations, Metropolitan Water District
F33:
Tyler McCauley – Los Angeles County Auditor/Controller
F34:
Conny B. McCormick – Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
F35:
Gloria Molina – Los Angeles County Supervisor, 1st District
F36:
Michael Nash – Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California, Juvenile Division, Los Angeles County
F37:
Valerie Orange – Chief Executive Officer, Rancho Los Amigos Hospital
F38:
Sil Orlando – Executive Director, Optimist Youth Home
F39:
Allan Parachini – Public Information Officer, Los Angeles County Superior Court
F40:
Mike Pippen – Lieutenant, Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, LCMC Unit Manager & Training and Personnel, Twin Towers Correctional Facility
F41:
Mark Pisano – Director, Southern California Association of Governments
F42:
Roy Romer – Superintendent, Los Angeles Unified School District
F43:
Mark J. Saladino – Treasurer & Tax Collector, County of Los Angeles
F44:
David Sanders – Director of Children and Family Services, County of Los Angeles
F45:
Ellis Stanley, Sr. – General Manager, City of Los Angeles, Emergency Preparedness Department
F46:
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, M.D. – Chief Medical Examiner/Coroner, Los Angeles County Department of the Coroner
F47:
Maurice Suh – Deputy Mayor, Homeland Security & Public Safety City of Los Angeles
F48:
Robert B. Taylor – Ombudsman, County of Los Angeles
F49:
Violet Varona-Lukens – Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
F50:
David S. Wesley – Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California Criminal Division, Los Angeles County
F51:
Monty Westmore – Principal, Juvenile Court and Community Schools, Challenger Camp School
F52:
Zev Yaroslavsky – Los Angeles County Supervisor, 3rd District
F53:
Bryce Yokomizo – Director, Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Making Los Angeles the safest big City in America
F2:
Ensuring neighborhoods are good places to live 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 273
F3:
Getting where I want to go safely and reliably
F4:
Creating quality jobs, developing a competitive workforce, and enhancing Los Angeles’s business climate
F5:
Improving the quality, quantity, and affordability of housing in Los Angeles
F6:
Supporting a Los Angeles City government that works better and costs less The City’s budget summary was organized around these priorities, and presented information on City services across organizational lines that supported these priorities. The budget summary also presented a series of strategies for each priority. For example, the strategies to support the priority of making Los Angeles the safest big City in America were: • Reduce crime in Los Angeles by providing proactive crime prevention programs • Provide timely and appropriate emergency response • Save lives by preparing Los Angeles for natural disaster or terrorist incident • Provide a safe and clean neighborhood environment A particular strength of this effort was the use of Neighborhood Councils to identify service priorities for City government. Representatives of the Neighborhood Councils were surveyed regarding the priority of City services. These survey results were used in developing the Mayor’s Office service priorities.
F7:
City of Los Angeles departments and agencies should identify best practices, develop clear and concise performance reports, with easy to read and understand graphics and charts, demonstrating the impact of department and agency programs and activities. These reports should be provided to constituent groups and employees, and should be used to share and celebrate successes, and to identify and communicate areas where additional focus and change is required. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 295 HOW TO RESPOND TO
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Mayor’s Office should develop a City-Wide strategic plan to provide an overall vision for the community, establish priorities for City government, and provide a framework for City department and agency strategic planning and operations. REPORTING PROGRESS ON CITY-WIDE ISSUES
R2:
The Mayor’s Office should develop an annual “State of the City” or performance report that focuses on City government’s accomplishments, key outcome information, and progress toward the City’s strategic vision, goals, or objectives. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 277 CITY DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY STRATEGIC PLANNING In addition to a City-wide strategic plan, it is important that individual City departments and agencies use strategic plans to help define and focus each organization’s priorities and operations. Ideally, these strategic plans would be consistent with the framework established by a City-wide strategic plan.
R3:
The Mayor’s Office should develop a consistent approach or model, with the assistance of the City Administrative Office, for City departments and agencies to use in developing and implementing strategic plans.
R4:
The Mayor’s Office should establish a steering committee or guiding coalition of City executive management personnel to develop and oversee the implementation of an approach or model for City departments and agencies to follow in developing and implementing strategic plans.
R5:
The Mayor’s Office should conduct an annual strategic planning conference for City departments and agencies to share and coordinate their strategic planning information and successes.
R6:
The Mayor’s Office, with the assistance of the City Administrative Office, should clearly define the categories of performance indicators to be used by City departments and agencies. City of Los Angeles departments and agencies should define a manageable set of key performance indicators that are directly related to strategic visions, goals, or objectives.
R7:
City of Los Angeles departments and agencies should identify best practices, develop clear and concise performance reports, with easy to read and understand graphics and charts, demonstrating the impact of department and agency programs and activities. These reports should be provided to constituent groups and employees, and should be used to share and celebrate successes, and to identify and communicate areas where additional focus and change is required.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Levels of Water Reclamation:
R2:
Potable/non-potable - Drinkable water. Non-potable means non-drinkable,
R3:
Seawater Barrier – Seawater barriers protect coastal groundwater basins from seawater intrusion, typically by injecting fresh water into wells along the coast. The injected fresh water acts like a wall, blocking seawater that would otherwise seep into groundwater basins as a result of pumping. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 262
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Who: Your Name: _______________________________________________________________________
F2:
What: Subject of Complaint. Briefly state the nature of complaint and the action of what Los Angeles County department, section, agency, or official(s) that you believe was illegal or improper. Use additional sheets if necessary. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
F3:
When: Date(s) of incident: __________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
F4:
Where: Names and addresses of other departments, agencies or officials involved in this complaint. Include dates and types of contact, i.e. phone, letter, personal. Use additional sheets if necessary. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________
F5:
Why/How: Attach pertinent documents and correspondence with dates. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Rev. 05/03/06 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 310 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 311 (Date) (Name and address of complainant) Dear (Name of complainant): Your letter to the Civil Grand Jury, dated (date), has been received. The Civil Grand Jury’s review of this matter does not mean that the Grand Jury will conduct a full investigation into your complaint. You will not receive any further communication from the Grand Jury. By law, the Grand Jury cannot communicate the results of investigations to you personally. Reports of the Grand Jury investigations are available to the general public when published.
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Insufficient resources are being devoted to the Emergency Survival Program (ESP). The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is currently devoting approximately one- half of a staff-year to this internationally recognized program. An expanded program would increase the level of adoption of preparedness measures by County residents. The dividends to be reaped from a successful program can be measured in lives saved when a serious emergency occurs. It takes time and resources to design or manage such a program. More time is needed to: • Solicit corporate sponsorships for program elements • Implement programs • Measure their effect on adoption. If many residents can care for themselves for at least several days, and if at least some residents can begin to help their neighbors or workmates until professional assistance arrives, emergency responders can concentrate on the most critical situations where their interventions are literally a matter of life and death. The costs of rescuing residents that are unprepared will be high. An effective preparedness program will materially reduce those costs, both in scarce financial resources and irreplaceable human life.
F2:
OEM does not have sufficient resources to evaluate and adopt social marketing practices. Resource constraints and staffing shortages have limited the amount of OEM staff time available for ESP. Staff skilled in implementing social marketing campaigns that impact social behavior could build on the information gathered by Public Health. With it, they can design even more effective campaigns to galvanize residents into action. The Center for Disease Control sponsors grants for social marketing of health information. OEM and the Public Health could obtain funding for social marketing outreach. Outreach to universities and other institutions might also prove fruitful. The cost of such an attempt to the County would be the provision of additional OEM staff resources or the cost of contracting for such services. Both additional internal resources and contracted assistance may be needed to launch a social marketing program successfully in the area of resident emergency preparedness. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 55 The Civil Grand Jury notes the following as potentially fruitful approaches: • Arranging for emergency kits that are inexpensive and easy to acquire • Encouraging in-school and after-school programs to assemble kits so that children may bring kits home to their families • Establishing incentive programs for residents who make or buy kits • Distributing collateral material, such as small flashlights, that both remind the recipient of the need to prepare and provide an object useful in an emergency • Presenting a hierarchy of citizen-preparedness as options, such as: o No kit, no plan: be a victim o Full plan, full kit: be a survivor o CERT member, ham radio operator: be a community asset
F3:
ESP and other communication materials are not available in all languages spoken in Los Angeles County. County officials estimate that more than 100 languages are spoken in the metropolitan area. Census Bureau data show that more than 50% of Los Angeles County households use a language other than English at home. Currently, some ESP materials are translated into 12 languages. This is a gap in the emergency preparedness system. Foreign-born immigrants may know less about Los Angeles and its emergency response system than others. It may be even more important for individuals who do not speak English or Spanish to have advance information about emergency preparedness, as they may have difficulty understanding instructions in English or Spanish from emergency responders and general broadcast information from the media. The ability to translate and disseminate messages rapidly is especially important during health emergencies. One of the key factors in limiting the number of people exposed to communicable disease is the speed with which a warning message can be 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 56 communicated. Public Health does not have contracts in place which will assure a four- hour turnaround on the translation of messages.
F4:
Local governments can do more to encourage their employees to prepare for emergencies. The U.S. Census Bureau reports 607,911 government employees in Los Angeles County, including federal, state, municipal organizations, and authorities. The City and County of Los Angeles together employ approximately 150,000 staff. Emergency response requires firefighters and police officers. It also requires medical personnel, transportation workers, helicopter pilots, communication technicians, public health professionals, and utility workers. If these emergency responders have prepared their homes and families, they will be able to care for residents in an emergency without worrying about the safety of their loved ones. Recent experience with Hurricane Katrina underscores the importance of employee preparedness. Press reports and the observations of professional responders who were present in New Orleans indicate that many municipal employees had not made adequate preparations for an emergency. When Hurricane Katrina hit, many employees went home to care for their families and were unable to return. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 57 Most governmental agencies in Los Angeles County distribute emergency preparedness materials and information to their employees. The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (DPW) and Internal Services Department (ISD) have written policies that encourage staff to prepare their families to take care of themselves in emergencies. Many fire departments have programs to encourage their staff members to make preparations at home and attend to their families in the early stages of emergency response. Local governments in Los Angeles County can do more to support their employees in preparing for emergencies. In the event of an emergency, these preparations will make the difference between an effective response and chaos.
F5:
Vulnerable populations require special efforts to ensure their preparedness for emergencies. Based on 2002 census data, there are approximately 10 million people in Los Angeles County, the most populous County in the nation. The same census data show that about 6.5% of these people receive some form of public assistance. According to the Individual Tax Return Summary published by the Internal Revenue Service, almost 20% of those filing tax returns in 2002 showed adjusted annual incomes of $10,000 or less. These figures suggest that up to 2 to 3 million residents of Los Angeles County do not have the means to purchase and store emergency supplies and equipment. The most vulnerable populations are the old, the homeless, the disabled, the unemployed, children, and the poor. In an emergency, these individuals may be without transportation and emergency supplies. Local government has the responsibility to provide a safety net and, with the assistance of other concerned groups, care for those who cannot care for themselves. This population suffered the most in Hurricane Katrina. Residents with animals are also vulnerable in an emergency. Many people will not evacuate leaving their animals behind. The Topanga Emergency Plan addresses the needs of animal owners. This work should be expanded and strengthened to encompass more areas in Los Angeles County.
F6:
Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) are a vital communications link in the event of an emergency. The County of Los Angeles and other jurisdictions should support programs that train and encourage citizen volunteers to provide assistance to both their neighbors and emergency responders, building necessary relationships to draw on when emergencies happen. These programs, including ham radio networks and CERT, are necessary for community preparedness. Jurisdictions within the County were national leaders in the development of CERT 20 years ago; and LASD runs a National CERT Conference annually. This year, LASD expects more than 450 participants from around the United States. CERT is well-developed in Los Angeles County with many local fire and law enforcement departments training CERT volunteers. Jurisdictions outside of Los Angeles have sponsored programs that organize block groups into disaster response teams and set up Citizen Corps that meet quarterly to discuss issues and reinforce the importance of preparedness.
F7:
Ham radio operators augment communications in the case of major infrastructure damage. Ham radio operators provide an important channel when the rest of the communication infrastructure collapses. This situation happened in Los Angeles during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
F8:
Residents in Los Angeles County will benefit from moving towards increased communication interoperability. Currently, the best practice recommended by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a standards based shared platform because of its user-friendly ability to quickly connect among emergency responders. With the rapidly-changing opportunities provided by technical innovation, it is likely that this best practice will be replaced by different technology. As an example, New York State is investing in a state-wide emergency communication system that uses satellite equipment and Internet Protocol radio capability. Moving Los Angeles County jurisdictions to increased communication interoperability will be facilitated if the governance board can serve as the forum to resolve the issues. Communication interoperability can be increased incrementally if independent procurement decisions support that goal. Over time, this will permit migration of the equipment used by all emergency responders to a common standard, while realizing the maximum benefit from existing systems. Ultimately, changes in procurement should reflect the current mutual aid practices that share resources beyond the borders of Los Angeles County. While much of this report has focused on police and fire communications, communication needs of other responder agencies must be considered and funded. In devastating natural disasters, Emergency Medical Services, Public Health, and Coroner employees need to deal with a disease outbreak. Department of Public Works staff members will be needed to clear roadways and excavate emergency routes for emergency responders. Animal control departments need to assure the safety of animals and the public. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 70
F9:
LARTCS will continue to be needed. LARTCS is needed to provide emergency communications links to state, federal, and other jurisdictions, even if jurisdictions move to a standards-based shared platform or participate in a proprietary, shared platform such as ICIS. LARTCS will be required to provide links to jurisdictions not on the platform, e.g., Orange County agencies, Ventura County agencies, federal or state agencies, and assisting agencies from other states.
F10:
Emerging technology can significantly increase communication capabilities and make them more resistant to infrastructure damage. Emerging technologies hold great promise for strengthening emergency communication in Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles Regional Common Operational Picture Program (LARCOPP) and Emergency Business Information System (EBIS) increase the ability to respond quickly and effectively. Furthermore, the emergency response in the County will be more resistant to damage of its infrastructure. Emerging technologies are powerful and expensive, a financial burden that may surpass the resources of any one agency. It is incumbent upon elected officials in the County, to join forces in collaborative efforts to share systems, technology, and resources.
F11:
Insufficient resources are provided to train workers needed to operate and maintain emergency communication systems. New technologies that provide additional communication interoperability are often complex. They are typically purchased with grant or capital funds. Often the grants or voter-approved bond funds do not provide for training, operations, and maintenance resources needed to keep the systems in working order. These activities must be funded by local government. New and interoperable communication systems must compete for funding with a large number of other pressing needs. When communication systems are replaced, capital funds are allocated for a new system. In some cases, the purchase includes an initial order of replacement parts and components and initial staff training. Subsequent operations, training, maintenance staff resources, and parts require local funding.
F12:
The use of communication systems for extended periods can be hampered by shortages of parts and maintenance training. As the systems age, manufacturers of the systems no longer produce parts and components.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Insufficient resources are being devoted to the Emergency Survival Program (ESP).
R2:
OEM should employ social marketing approaches to design and acquire the needed resources for a strategy that will be effective in inspiring Los Angeles County residents to prepare for emergencies. The County CAO should revise current budget allocations to fund this effort. The Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to OEM for training in, design of, and grant development for social marketing to support resident compliance with emergency preparedness guidelines. In addition, the Los Angeles County Internal Services Department (ISD) should develop a master agreement with social marketing firms.
R3:
Emergency Survival Program and other communication materials are not available in all languages spoken in Los Angeles County. a. The CAO should allocate staff resources and funds to provide resources to prepare basic information materials in more languages, supplementing the efforts under way through Public Health. b. Public Health should enter into translation contracts that will permit a four- hour turnaround of message translation in the event of a public health emergency.
R3a:
The County CAO should reallocate staff resources and funds to provide resources to OEM to prepare basic information materials in more languages, supplementing the efforts under way through Public Health. OEM should explore using translation resources available in Los Angeles County such as: • Working with community colleges to acquire translators from their ESL programs • Working with LAUSD, who has an extensive emergency preparedness program and a multi-lingual capacity • Accessing the translators who work for the City and County of Los Angeles 311 and 911 systems • Seeking assistance from countries which maintain consulates in Los Angeles • Working with churches, temples, mosques, and other faith-based organizations to reach out to immigrant and foreign language-speaking communities.
R3b:
Public Health should enter into translation contracts that will permit a four-hour turnaround of message translations in the event of a public health emergency.
R4:
Both City and County Administrative Officers should establish and pursue policies and programs that encourage employees to have emergency plans and supplies in place for their families.
R5:
Vulnerable populations require special efforts to ensure their preparedness for emergencies. a. The CAO should ensure that responsible County of Los Angeles departments strengthen arrangements for the pre-emergency purchase and distribution of food, water, and clothing to vulnerable groups in the event of an emergency. b. OEM should develop and disseminate materials designed to assist animal owners in an emergency.
R5a:
The County CAO should ensure that responsible County departments strengthen arrangements for pre-emergency purchase and distribution of food, water, and clothing in the event of an emergency. Local resources include stores, department stores, pharmacies, restaurants, grocery stores, schools, places of worship, and social clubs. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 58
R5b:
OEM should develop and disseminate materials designed to assist animal owners in an emergency.
R6:
The City and County Administrative Officers should expand the resources that support citizen volunteers who provide assistance to their neighbors and emergency responders. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 59 COMMUNICATION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND DURING AN EMERGENCY
R7:
Ham radio operators augment communications in the case of major infrastructure damage.
R8:
Residents in Los Angeles county will benefit from moving towards increased communication interoperability. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Mayor of Los Angeles should ensure that the Governance Board proposed by Radio Interoperability Steering Committee (RISC) is adopted and should pursue the development of county-wide communication interoperability, using a standards-based shared platform. 9.
R9:
LASD and LAPD should ensure the completion of Phase II of LARTCS and continue to request funds for the acquisition of LARTCS equipment, maintenance, training, and operations.
R10:
The LACFD Chief, LAFD Chief, LAPD Chief, and the Sheriff should continue to pursue the adoption of promising communication technology. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 71
R11:
The City and County Administrative Officers require that proposals for new communication systems or major system improvements specify the life cycle cost of operations, maintenance, and training, and allocate funds as required.
R12:
When Los Angeles City and County purchases new communication equipment, bid documents should require suppliers to offer maintenance parts, training, and related services throughout the life of the system. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 72 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 73
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
At LAC+USC, the 13th floor is dedicated exclusively to the only jail inpatient program in Los Angeles County, commonly known as the Jail Ward. On a daily basis, a number of inmate-patients are not assigned beds in this secured Jail Ward. They are placed in beds in unsecured areas amongst the general patient population, commonly known as Open Wards, even though beds in the Jail Ward remain empty. These inmate-patients are often individuals with violent criminal records. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 28
F2:
The Jail Ward originally had beds for 50 inmate patients. Over the years the bed capacity was reduced to 35 beds to accommodate an outpatient clinic. During an average day inmate-patients number 35; however, only 15 are given beds in the Jail Ward because of an insufficient number of nurses. California State law mandates that the licensed nurse-to-patient ratio must be 1:5. There are only 3 nurses assigned to the Jail Ward during an eight-hour shift, meaning that a maximum of 15 inmate-patients can be housed there.
F3:
The Jail Ward is a secured facility. Inmate-patients do not have access to visitors, contraband or telephones. Precautions are taken so that inmates do not have access to medical equipment, drugs, and ancillary objects. Despite these precautions, many rudimentary weapons have been confiscated made from non- secured objects including toothbrushes sharpened into knives.
F4:
Approximately 10 Sheriff Deputies staff the ward at all times to protect the inmate-patients and the staff. These deputies also accompany inmate-patients when they are taken to other parts of the hospital for medical procedures. Open Wards And General Population
F5:
The safety precautions taken on the Jail Ward are not followed in the Open Wards. When Sheriff Deputies are not present, inmate-patients can intimidate others into complying with their demands, such as using a cell phone or aiding in an escape.
F6:
The Grand Jury reviewed a sample of 34 days of “Jail Inmates Housed On The Open Ward” lists covering the months of May, June, July, August and September
F7:
For the past several years, there have been escape attempts by inmate-patients. Inmates at county jail facilities have feigned illness or intentionally injured themselves in order to be transferred to LAC+USC with intent to escape. The following incidents have occurred involving inmate-patients on the Open Wards: • An inmate-patient involved in a CHP shooting death was identified in letters along with detailed, hand drawn maps of LAC+USC regarding an escape plan. One of the letters told the recipient to kill the deputy escorting the inmate-patient to the hospital. • An inmate-patient with a broken leg managed to cut through the left armrest of his wheelchair and slip off his handcuff. An eight-inch shank was hidden inside the inmate’s cast. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 30 • An inmate-patient charged with murder recruited other inmates to help him escape from the Open Ward. He planned to hide in the bathroom, wait for a deputy to enter, and then “snap his neck”. • An inmate-patient escaped from LAC+USC while undergoing a CAT scan; he slipped out of his leg chains while the technician was conducting the exam in an unsecured area. • A Sheriff Deputy found an ankle chain on the floor after an inmate-patient escaped from an Open Ward. • A known gang member in an Open Ward lunged for a Deputy Sheriff’s gun, however was stopped. Twin Towers/ Men’s Central Jail Medical Facility
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Sheriff’s Department: Increase use of medical personnel at Twin Towers Correctional/Men’s Central Jail medical facility, including physician assistants and nurse practitioners, to perform routine procedures such as suturing, minor surgeries, and setting bones as are now being performed by these classifications at LAC+USC.
R2:
Sheriff’s Department: Fast track implementation of the telemedicine program so that more diagnostic and medical procedures can be done at Twin Towers Correctional/Men’s Central Jail medical facility.
R3:
Chief Administrative Office: Authorize the Department of Health Services to hire LAC+USC Jail Ward nurses at the Staff Nurse, Sheriff and Supervising Staff Nurse I, Sheriff classifications who meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Sheriff classifications. Or:
R4:
Department of Health Services: Cease and desist accepting inmate-patients for bed placement on Open Wards amongst the general public. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 33 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 34 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 35 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 36 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 37 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 38 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 39 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 40
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Jury viewed adult dormitories housing inmates at North County Correctional Facility, which have 3-tiered bunks, minimal aisle widths, and a census in excess of that allowed. North County Correctional Facility single cells were substandard.
F2:
A similar situation was observed at Men’s Central Jail in the Trusty Dormitory. This situation was explained by the fact that trusties work in shifts.
F3:
Some single occupancy cells at Men’s Central Jail were overcrowded at the time of our visit. Some inmates were sleeping on the floor.
F4:
Lakewood Sheriff’s Station
F5:
Walnut Sheriff’s Station
F6:
Los Angeles Police Department Southwest Division
F7:
Los Angeles Police Department Southeast Division 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 101 Finding Nine: There are wooden benches in the booking area at Los Angeles Police Department’s Central Division that are worn and are difficult to maintain in a sanitary condition.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Table of Organization
R2:
Emergency Procedures
R3:
Fire Suppression Plan
R4:
Policy on the use of Force
R5:
Policy of the use of Restraints
R6:
Serious Incident Reports
R7:
Serious Incident Reports
R8:
Logs on Safety Checks
Additional Recommendations
19
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A survey of 730 of the key stakeholders of the after school programs including: parents, principals, on-site after school program administrators and their staff, BTB after school program contractors, BTB officials and LAUSD officials;
R2:
Site visits to 47 schools to observe the after school programs and
R3:
Interviews and meetings with BTB Officials, a State Evaluator and BTB after school program contractors; and
R4:
Related research. We have recommended a series of changes to:
R5:
Increase staffing levels and quality standards;
R6:
Increase the space and equipment available to after school programs; and
R7:
Encourage the development and dissemination of “best practices” throughout the system. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 128 I: PROJECT APPROACH A. BACKGROUND ● In California, 22% of K-12 youth are responsible for taking care of themselves. More than 38% of K-12 youth in self-care would be likely to participate in an after school program if one were available in their community. ● 94% of parents in California are satisfied with the after school program their child attends. ● Nearly 190,238 of California’s kids are counting on the programs supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative, the only federal program dedicated to providing after school programs. ● If the No Child Left Behind Act were fully funded, California communities could have double the number of after school programs giving nearly 431,888 children a safe place to go after school. This information is from the After School Alliance Web Site: www.afterschoolallianc.org In light of these facts, the 2005-2006 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury decided to study the operation of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s after school program. LAUSD’s BTB branch administers this program. The 2002-2003 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury undertook a similar study, but limited its fact-finding to site visits in only three LAUSD districts. The 2005-2006 Grand jury studied kindergarten through fifth-grade level (K-5) schools, covering all eight LAUSD districts. See
R8:
City of San Fernando 3, 1 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R9:
Gang Alternatives Program 2 21st CCLC
R10:
Great Beginnings 2 21st CCLC
R11:
Kids Protectors of the Environment 2 21st CCLC
R12:
Keep Youth Doing Something Inc. 1, 10 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R13:
Learning for Life 2 21st CCLC
R14:
Para Los Niños 1, 6 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R15:
South Bay Center for Counseling 1 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R16:
Star Education 8 21st CCLC
R17:
Woodcraft Rangers 3, 17 ASESP + 21st CCLC
R18:
YS CARE * YS CARE 8, 22 41 ASESP + 21st CCLC County
R19:
LA’s BEST * LA’s BEST 71, 38 38 ASESP + 21st CCLC City, Private, and Other Federal TOTAL 315 * Note: Some YS CARE and LA’s BEST sites receive funds from both sources. The BTB goal was to have comprehensive after school programs in all 437 elementary schools by 2005. On average, 86,000 students use the programs daily although the actual number of individuals who use the program throughout the year exceeds 100,000. The gender participation rates are equal but the ethnic mix is skewed vs. the general day school population displayed in Exhibit I-5: 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 137 Exhibit I-5: After School Program Participants by Ethnicity
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Levels of Water Reclamation:
R2:
Potable/non-potable - Drinkable water. Non-potable means non-drinkable,
R3:
Seawater Barrier – Seawater barriers protect coastal groundwater basins from seawater intrusion, typically by injecting fresh water into wells along the coast. The injected fresh water acts like a wall, blocking seawater that would otherwise seep into groundwater basins as a result of pumping. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 262
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
53 findings
F1:
Michael D. Antonovich – Los Angeles County Supervisor, 5th District, and 2006 Mayor
F2:
Rick Auerbach – Los Angeles County Assessor
F3:
Leroy Baca – Los Angeles County Sheriff
F4:
Cynthia Banks – Interim Chief, Los Angeles County Community and Senior Services
F5:
Steve Belhumeur – Community Affairs Liaison, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation
F6:
Yvonne Braithwaite-Burke – Los Angeles County Supervisor, 2nd District
F7:
William Bratton – Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department
F8:
Philip L. Browning – Director, County of Los Angeles, Child Support Services
F9:
Laura Chick – Controller, City of Los Angeles
F10:
Steve Cooley – Los Angeles County District Attorney
F11:
Pete Delgado – Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center
F12:
David E. Demerjian – Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, Office of Public Integrity
F13:
Edmund D. Edelman – Los Angeles County Supervisor, Emeritus
F14:
Mike Frazer – Chief Lifeguard, Los Angeles County Fire Department, Lifeguard Operations Division
F15:
P. Michael Freeman – Fire Chief, Los Angeles County
F16:
William Fujioka – Los Angeles City Administrative Officer
F17:
James E. Henwood – President, CEO Fairplex
F18:
Robert D. Herman – Author, Professor Emeritus, Pomona College
F19:
Anthony T. Hernandez – Director, Los Angeles County Department of the Coroner
F20:
Joaquin J. Herran – Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
F21:
Pastor Herrera, Jr. – Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, County of Los Angeles
F22:
Paul Higa – Chief, Probation Department, County of Los Angeles
F23:
Carlos Jackson – Executive Director, Community Development Commission/Housing Authority
F24:
David E. Janssen – Chief Administrative Officer, Los Angeles County
F25:
Greg Johnson – Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
F26:
Sammy L. Jones – Chief, Custody Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
F27:
Michael Judge – Los Angeles County Public Defender
F28:
Marc L. Klugman – Chief, Correctional Services Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
F29:
Jack Kyser – Chief Economist, Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
F30:
Dee Lewis – Docent, Music Center 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 327
F31:
Donald Long – Superintendent, Challenger Memorial Youth Center
F32:
Jay Malinowsky – Water Consultant, former Director of Operations, Metropolitan Water District
F33:
Tyler McCauley – Los Angeles County Auditor/Controller
F34:
Conny B. McCormick – Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
F35:
Gloria Molina – Los Angeles County Supervisor, 1st District
F36:
Michael Nash – Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California, Juvenile Division, Los Angeles County
F37:
Valerie Orange – Chief Executive Officer, Rancho Los Amigos Hospital
F38:
Sil Orlando – Executive Director, Optimist Youth Home
F39:
Allan Parachini – Public Information Officer, Los Angeles County Superior Court
F40:
Mike Pippen – Lieutenant, Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, LCMC Unit Manager & Training and Personnel, Twin Towers Correctional Facility
F41:
Mark Pisano – Director, Southern California Association of Governments
F42:
Roy Romer – Superintendent, Los Angeles Unified School District
F43:
Mark J. Saladino – Treasurer & Tax Collector, County of Los Angeles
F44:
David Sanders – Director of Children and Family Services, County of Los Angeles
F45:
Ellis Stanley, Sr. – General Manager, City of Los Angeles, Emergency Preparedness Department
F46:
Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, M.D. – Chief Medical Examiner/Coroner, Los Angeles County Department of the Coroner
F47:
Maurice Suh – Deputy Mayor, Homeland Security & Public Safety City of Los Angeles
F48:
Robert B. Taylor – Ombudsman, County of Los Angeles
F49:
Violet Varona-Lukens – Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
F50:
David S. Wesley – Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California Criminal Division, Los Angeles County
F51:
Monty Westmore – Principal, Juvenile Court and Community Schools, Challenger Camp School
F52:
Zev Yaroslavsky – Los Angeles County Supervisor, 3rd District
F53:
Bryce Yokomizo – Director, Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Making Los Angeles the safest big City in America
F2:
Ensuring neighborhoods are good places to live 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 273
F3:
Getting where I want to go safely and reliably
F4:
Creating quality jobs, developing a competitive workforce, and enhancing Los Angeles’s business climate
F5:
Improving the quality, quantity, and affordability of housing in Los Angeles
F6:
Supporting a Los Angeles City government that works better and costs less The City’s budget summary was organized around these priorities, and presented information on City services across organizational lines that supported these priorities. The budget summary also presented a series of strategies for each priority. For example, the strategies to support the priority of making Los Angeles the safest big City in America were: • Reduce crime in Los Angeles by providing proactive crime prevention programs • Provide timely and appropriate emergency response • Save lives by preparing Los Angeles for natural disaster or terrorist incident • Provide a safe and clean neighborhood environment A particular strength of this effort was the use of Neighborhood Councils to identify service priorities for City government. Representatives of the Neighborhood Councils were surveyed regarding the priority of City services. These survey results were used in developing the Mayor’s Office service priorities.
F7:
City of Los Angeles departments and agencies should identify best practices, develop clear and concise performance reports, with easy to read and understand graphics and charts, demonstrating the impact of department and agency programs and activities. These reports should be provided to constituent groups and employees, and should be used to share and celebrate successes, and to identify and communicate areas where additional focus and change is required. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 295 HOW TO RESPOND TO
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Mayor’s Office should develop a City-Wide strategic plan to provide an overall vision for the community, establish priorities for City government, and provide a framework for City department and agency strategic planning and operations. REPORTING PROGRESS ON CITY-WIDE ISSUES
R2:
The Mayor’s Office should develop an annual “State of the City” or performance report that focuses on City government’s accomplishments, key outcome information, and progress toward the City’s strategic vision, goals, or objectives. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 277 CITY DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY STRATEGIC PLANNING In addition to a City-wide strategic plan, it is important that individual City departments and agencies use strategic plans to help define and focus each organization’s priorities and operations. Ideally, these strategic plans would be consistent with the framework established by a City-wide strategic plan.
R3:
The Mayor’s Office should develop a consistent approach or model, with the assistance of the City Administrative Office, for City departments and agencies to use in developing and implementing strategic plans.
R4:
The Mayor’s Office should establish a steering committee or guiding coalition of City executive management personnel to develop and oversee the implementation of an approach or model for City departments and agencies to follow in developing and implementing strategic plans.
R5:
The Mayor’s Office should conduct an annual strategic planning conference for City departments and agencies to share and coordinate their strategic planning information and successes.
R6:
The Mayor’s Office, with the assistance of the City Administrative Office, should clearly define the categories of performance indicators to be used by City departments and agencies. City of Los Angeles departments and agencies should define a manageable set of key performance indicators that are directly related to strategic visions, goals, or objectives.
R7:
City of Los Angeles departments and agencies should identify best practices, develop clear and concise performance reports, with easy to read and understand graphics and charts, demonstrating the impact of department and agency programs and activities. These reports should be provided to constituent groups and employees, and should be used to share and celebrate successes, and to identify and communicate areas where additional focus and change is required.