Los Angeles County Grand Jury
2005-2006
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
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.
F2:
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 293 City Department and Agency Strategic Planning Findings: • Many City of Los Angeles departments and agencies have initiated the development of strategic plans. Many of these strategic plans have provided needed direction, focused the organization on key issues, and resulted in improved service delivery. • The City of Los Angeles has not developed nor implemented an approach or model for City departments and agencies to use in developing and implementing strategic plans. • The City of Los Angeles has implemented the LA-STAT system as a mechanism for tracking and reporting the performance of City departments and agencies. Many of the performance indicators reported in the LA-STAT system are not reporting on the results or outcomes of City operations and efforts. Most report on workload, or operational characteristics. • The LA-STAT performance measurement system is not effective at communicating to constituents and clients or employees what the City departments and agencies are providing or accomplishing, or in identifying areas in need of management attention and change.
F3:
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.
F4:
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.
F5:
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.
F6:
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. Departments and agencies should define a manageable set of key performance indicators that are directly related to strategic visions, goals, or objectives.
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. 294 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 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.
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 293 City Department and Agency Strategic Planning
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. 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. 294 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury HOW TO RESPOND TO RECOMMENDATIONS 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 295 296 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The respondent agrees with the findings.
R2:
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reason therefor.
R3:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
R4:
The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
R5:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
R6:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. Responses to the Grand Jury Final Report recommendations should be sent to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court 111 North Hill Street Mosk Courthouse Room 204 Los Angeles CA 90012 298 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury STANDING COMMITTEES 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 299 300 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury AUDIT Jeffery Wallace, Chair Octavio V. Chavez, Vice Chair Adele Coy Sidney Munshin Arnie Spears Royce Steward 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 301 302 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury AUDIT COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The Audit Committee was charged with assisting the Civil Grand Jury by developing a process and procedure for the identification and selection of consulting or auditing firms to be engaged to conduct investigations under its purview.
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. 54 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 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 55 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. 56 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 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 69
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 communications systems. The City and County Administrative Officers should require that proposals for new communication systems or major system improvements specify the life cycle cost of operations, maintenance, and training and allocate fund as required.
F12:
The use of communication systems for extended periods can be hampered by shortages of parts and maintenance training. 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 46 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 47 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ARE WE READY?
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The CAO should allocate staff resources and funds to OEM to expand efforts that address resident preparedness.
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:
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: Chief Administrative Office: Approve a Manpower Shortage Bonus for nursing staff assigned to work in the LAC+USC Jail Ward, making their pay comparable to the compensation paid nurses at Twin Towers/Men’s Central Jail medical facility.
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 a. The CAO should ensure that special efforts to ensure their responsible County of Los Angeles preparedness for emergencies. 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 57
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. 58 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury COMMUNICATION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND DURING AN EMERGENCY
R7:
The City and County Administrative Officers should offer incentives and encourage programs that capitalize on the talents and interest of ham radio operators
R8:
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.
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. 70 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
R11:
Insufficient resources are The City and County Administrative Officers provided to train workers should require that proposals for new needed to operate and communication systems or major system maintain emergency improvements specify the life cycle cost of communications systems. operations, maintenance, and training and allocate fund as required.
R12:
The use of communication When Los Angeles City and County purchases systems for extended new communication equipment, bid documents periods can be hampered should require suppliers to offer maintenance by shortages of parts and parts, training, and related services throughout maintenance training. the life of the system. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 45 46 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ARE WE READY?
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Apollo -There is no community center. Correct the public information flyer.
R6:
Athens - The entire park and center need refurbishing. The maintenance area should be fenced in.
R10:
Bodger - The center needs painting.
R11:
Charter Oak - A separate activity room is needed. Right now, everyone shares a gated courtyard.
R14:
Crescenta Valley Community - Activities should be posted. The center was closed, and it looked like nothing was happening there at any time. The playground equipment is in need of repair.
R15:
Dalton – Build a larger activity room. The area now is too small, and the cabinets need replacing. The outside shelter needs painting.
R16:
DelAire - Both the community center and the gym need painting. The restroom needs to be upgraded for handicapped accessibility. No fire sprinklers were seen in the community center.
R19:
Enterprise - The kitchen needs painting, and new cupboards are needed. The playground equipment is not up to standard.
R29:
Loma Alta - Keep the present activity building, along with the new gym, as many activities take place in this building.
R30:
Los Robles – There is no community center. Correct the public information flyer.
R32:
Mary M. Bethune - The kitchen needs upgrading. Gym tiles need replacing.
R49:
Victoria - The office/meeting room needs air conditioning. The kitchen needs painting. The restrooms need upgrading for handicapped accessibility. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 7 8 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury DISABLED ACCESS TO PERFORMING ARTS AND VISUAL ARTS FACILITIES AND COUNTY PARKS IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Richard Niederberg, Chair Beverlee Bickmore Robert Howell Sally James Dick Lewis Jeffery Wallace 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 9 10 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury DISABLED ACCESS TO PERFORMING AND VISUAL ARTS VENUES AND COUNTY PARKS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY – AN UPDATE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
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
2
Not linked to specific findings.
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 71 72 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury APPENDICES 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 73
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F2:
Approve interior demolition including hazard material removal
F3:
Authorize contract documents for actual construction design. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted. Construction costs rise and the County has dragged its feet for 12 years. While projects are explored and scrapped (at great cost), the value of the $16 million FEMA Grant is greatly diminished. Projections today for refurbishing the HOJ are in the $200 million range. Each year all of the above costs are growing. THE COUNTY MUST MOVE FORWARD TO FORMULATE A PLAN AND ACT ON IT IMMEDIATELY.
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. Chief Administrative Officer:
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
19
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
R9:
Complaint Forms MANUAL COMMENTS ______________________________________________________________________ 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 115 ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT LIFE SAFETY REVIEW Exiting /Fire Suppression Y N NA a. Building evacuation procedure (demonstrated by staff) b. Area of refuge established (demonstrated by staff) c. Exit Signs posted (demonstrated by staff) e. Two means of egress (demonstrated by staff) f. Automatic sprinkler system g. Sprinkler heads concealed (no access to inmates) h. Fire extinguishers Certification current Staff access only i. Breathing Apparatus j. Smoke Management System (Air Exhaust) ACCOMMODATIONS Temporary Holding Cells a. Seating provided for 16 inmates maximum b. Water closet , wash basin, drink fountain provided within c. Staff visual supervision (during occupancy) a. Limit 8 inmates b. No seating allowed c. Water closet / wash basin/ drink fountain provided within d. Padded partition next to toilet fixture Safety Cell a. Limit one (1) inmate b. No seating allowed c. Flush toilet in floor d. Padded – walls and floor e. Variable intensity lighting f. Vertical view panels g. Food pass Single Occupancy Cell a. Water closet / wash basin / drink fountain provided within b. Bunk, desk & seat (Type I omit desk and seat) 116 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT Double Occupancy Cell Y N NA a. Same as single occupancy with two bunks Dormitories a. Max capacity 64 inmates, no less than 4 b. Access to water closets separate from wash basin and drinking fountains. Dayrooms a. Tables & seating for max bed count b. Showers Exercise Area (3 hours. / week) a. Type I & II outdoor area 15’ high Multi-purpose Space (Type I & II Required for correctional programs a. Classroom setting b. Other Medical Examination Room (Type I & II with 25 + inmates a. Located within security area b. Pharmaceuticals locked (secure from inmates) Commissary (Type II & III) a. Ability of inmate to purchase personal items Dining Facilities (Type II & III) Visitor Space Storage Rooms a. Personal property (note ventilation – exhaust) b. Institutional clothing etc. Emergency Power Confidential Rooms (Type II) Attorney Interview Space Telephone (Blue Phone) 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 117 ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT Food Service – On Site SAT NOT SAT NA a. Sanitary Conditions (floor Sinks, etc. b. Refrigeration: Cold Storage Temp.__________ Freezer Temp. ______________ c. Dry Food Storage (on Stainless Steel Shelving) Food Service – Off Site Hot / Cold separation assembly APPEARANCE a. Graffiti b. Pealing paint c. Lighting d. Lockers e. Desks f. Mattresses g. Bedding / Pillows h. Sleeping Room Door Panels i. Locks (include function) GENERAL COMMENTS ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 118 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury (APPENDIX B) JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT BY THE JAILS COMMITTEE OF THE 2005-2006 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY DATE__________ARRIVAL TIME:________am/pm DEPARTURE TIME______ FACILITY NAME:__________________________________________________ ADDRESS________________________________________________________ TELEPHONE NUMBER:_____________ CONTACT:_______________ CAPACITY_______POPULATION________ TOTAL EMPLOYEES__________ PROBATION OFFICERS ___________ CUSTODY ASSIST._________ INSPECTED BY: (1) ____________________________ (2)_____________________________ (3)_____________________________ REVIEW PREVIOUS INSPECTION REPORTS Agency when inspected report available Y N NA Correction Standards Authority (CAS – BOC) State Fire Marshal (SFM) Environmental Health Medical / Mental Health Health / Nutrition JAIL MANUALS REVIEW (Policies and Procedures)
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 * 8, 22 ASESP + 21st CCLC YS CARE 41 County
R19:
LA’s BEST * 71, 38 ASESP + 21st CCLC LA’s BEST 38 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: 136 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Exhibit I-5: After School Program Participants by Ethnicity Ethnic Description Count % of After School % in Day School American Indian/Alaska Native 175 0.2 .3 Asian 1,368 1.6 3.8 Black 10,963 12.8 11.6 Hispanic 69,932 81.4 72.8 White 2,231 2.6 9.0 Filipino 1,115 1.3 2.2 Pacific Islander 175 0.2 .3 TOTAL 85,959 100 100 Note: These participation data are based all age groups not just K – 5. The participation rate varied by grade (from 4 to 12 %) for K - 5 schools. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 137 138 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury II: FINDINGS A. SURVEY RESULTS A survey was designed and sent to the key after school program stakeholders to ascertain their perceptions of how the program was operating. The respondents were asked to rank a series of statements such as follows: Please indicate your degree of agreement with the following statement. Disagree Disagree Agree SomewhatAgree No opinion Somewhat 1 2 3 4 Not included in All students who want/need after school Response programs have appropriate access to them. Average There were considerable differences in how the various stakeholders rated these statements. The differences may be a result of different expectations, some of which may be unrealistic given the: current legal requirements, financing available, and the organizational capacity of the system. Exhibit II-2 categorizes the 730 respondents to the survey by stakeholder group: Exhibit II-2: Respondents by BTB Stakeholder Affiliation Response Response Stakeholder Category Total Percent Parent 219 30% Principal or Designate 176 24% On-Site After School Program Administrator, Teacher, or Staff 201 28% BTB Contractor 17 2% BTB Official 14 2% LAUSD Senior Official or Board Member 7 1% Other 10 1% Skipped this question 86 12% TOTAL 730 100% The following is a summary of the survey results by area of inquiry. A detailed analysis is available in
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Who: Your Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip, Code: _______________________________________________________________ Telephone: ( ) Extension: ______________
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. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 309 Rev.05/03/06 310 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury County of Los Angeles CIVIL GRAND JURY CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET • ELEVENTH FLOOR • ROOM 11-506 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE (213) 893-1047 • FAX (213) 229-2595 http://www.grandjury.co.la.ca.us/ (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. Please note that the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate Federal agencies, State agencies, or the Courts. Only local governments within Los Angeles County are subject to Grand Jury review. Sincerely, Grand Jury Staff sjp 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 311 312 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury CONTINUITY Dick Lewis, Vice Chair Michael Roberts, Secretary Patricia Baraz Beverlee Bickmore Richard Niederberg Zelda Plotkin 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 313 314 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury CONTINUITY COMMITTEE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Making Los Angeles the safest big City in America
F2:
Ensuring neighborhoods are good places to live 272 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
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. Although the Priority Based Budget approach was a step in the right direction, it does not meet the strategic planning needs of the City. Because this is a budget approach, it is by definition short-term and provides only a short-term perspective – tied to the one year budget process. Long-term strategic direction, ranging from 5 to 10 years, is needed. The budget is a powerful tool for implementing strategic direction. The strategic plan should be clearly linked to the budget process. However, the strategic planning process should precede and direct the budget process. Additionally, the Priority Based Budgeting approach does not appear to have had any substantive impact on City services. The budget summary organizes and presents existing City services in the six priorities. However, there does not appear to be any re- alignment of City functions or services to reflect these priorities. Implementation of an effective strategic plan should result in some structural and budgetary re-alignment of City functions and services to reflect the strategic vision and priorities. Finding: The Mayor’s Office “A Fresh Start” document provides some City-wide strategic direction for the City of Los Angeles. In May 2005 the incoming Mayor issued a document entitled “A Fresh Start.” This document established the top five priorities for Mayor in his management of City 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 273 departments. Each priority included several initiatives for making progress on these priorities. The following outlines these priorities and initiatives:
F13:
Alleged child care fraud is referred by the APPs to the DPSS Welfare Fraud Prevention Section. This section checks the referral to ensure that all pertinent documents are attached to the referral. DPSS investigates the allegations of fraud and may refer the case to the County of Los Angeles District Attorney for prosecution. The Civil Grand Jury is concerned that in a one year period hundreds of referrals from the APPs to the DPSS Welfare Fraud Section resulted in only ten referrals to the District Attorney’s office. Some DPSS Welfare Fraud Prevention Section personnel have inadequate training to detect evidence of fraud. .
F14:
Misrepresentation of employment is a major source of welfare fraud: • Some parents in the welfare to work program earn very little income - a few hundred dollars per month - but are reimbursed thousands of dollars per month for miles driven and child care expenses. • The same person (child care provider) who is paid by the County to provide child care services may also be receiving In Home Support Services (IHSS) from the County. The IHSS worker is provided to individuals to assist them in activities of daily living. A CalWORKS participant/parent could be employed to provide IHSS services to the same person (child care provider) providing their child care. There is no cross check. • Fictitious names of employers and places of employment have been “verified” by phone calls made to co-conspirators. • Some parents work as aides with the IHSS Program and receive thousands of dollars in mileage. • Some parents claim to work for relatives. • Some parents conspire with friends or relatives to fraudulently claim child care benefits and split the money. • Some parents claim to provide tutoring during the hours the child is in school. • Some child care providers claim hours for care during the hours the child is in school. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 247
F15:
DPSS has stated that: “There is no limit, currently, to the number of hours allowed to the parent for paid child care per day”.
F16:
Trustline Registry Form: this form “….was created by the California Legislature to offer parents, employment agencies, Child Care Resource and Referral Programs (APPs and DPSS), and child care providers access to a background check conducted by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) which includes checks of the California Criminal History System and Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) at the DOC and FBI records.” This form is processed for DPSS by the appropriate State licensing department and the State advises that it may take six weeks or more to complete.
F17:
The County of Los Angeles Administrative Memorandum Number 00- 10, dated 5-22-00, defines a license-exempt provider’s own children in the following way: “The definition of a license-exempt child care provider’s own children include all grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and first cousins for whom child care services are being provided. These children are considered immediate family members and there is no limitation on the number that may be cared for. In addition, the license-exempt provider may also provide child care services for the children of one other family. Child care payments may be authorized during the same time period for all of the children whose parents are participating in CalWORKS welfare-to-work activities or working.” This broad, unlimited definition of license-exempt provider’s own children encourages fraud and abuse of the system.
F18:
DPSS contracts with outside agencies to provide services for the GAIN case management in two new GAIN regional offices to perform vital steps in the CalWORKS process. These contract worker positions include case workers, supervisors, and clerk typists.
Additional Recommendations
10
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 For any City government to be successful it must have the confidence and support of those it serves. Maintaining this confidence and support is often difficult because it is often difficult to clearly demonstrate what has been accomplished and what progress is being made. Is the City safer? Are neighborhoods improving? Is it easier to travel throughout the City? Are jobs and the economy improving?
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. 276 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 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. Developing strategic plans to direct government or agency operations has become a best practice in public sector management. Many states have passed legislation requiring each state agency to develop a strategic plan. The Federal government passed the Government Performance and Results Act requiring all federal agencies to develop strategic plans and performance indicators focused on outcomes or results. Many local governments require departments to develop long-term strategic plans, with some requiring they be updated yearly through development of an annual business 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. The executive management team of the City of Los Angeles has a substantial amount of knowledge and experience in strategic planning, using several different models and approaches. This knowledge and experience can be used to develop a consistent approach or model for strategic planning. A guiding coalition, taking advantage of the City’s strategic planning expertise could be formed to develop and oversee the implementation of an approach or model for City departments to use in developing and implementing strategic plans. In addition to strategic planning expertise, the guiding coalition must include key City leaders with the position power and credibility necessary to drive the implementation of the model and ensure progress is made.
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. A best practice among local governments is to hold an annual strategic planning conference for departments and agencies to share and coordinate their strategic planning efforts. The benefits of such a conference could include: • Reinforces the need for and importance of department and agency strategic planning • Provides an opportunity to share and discuss City-wide strategic information such as key trends, issues, and priorities 278 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
R13:
DPSS should develop and implement an enhanced welfare fraud detection and investigation training program for employees in the Welfare Fraud Prevention Section in conjunction with the Los Angeles County District Attorney and receive periodic State and local training. Personnel trained and employed by this program should be compensated commensurate with their increased responsibilities.
R14:
If the parent is working for cash or for relatives, the payer should sign, under penalty of perjury, certifying the hours, the amount paid, and the work accomplished. A cross check between child care provider services and IHSS services, requiring copies of tax returns, and random field checks at the employment location should be mandatory. DPSS should eliminate child care allowance if employment legitimacy cannot be determined.
R15:
Any paid child care in excess of ten hours per day for 5 days per week or 12 hours per day for 4 days per week should be monitored and verified on site by DPSS.
R16:
Trustline Registry Form background check must be approved and received by DPSS prior to any authorization for child care (including License-exempt and Trustline Exempt). DPSS should work with the State to expedite the Trustline Registry Form.
R17:
The definition of “own children” should be limited to only the biological or legally adopted children of the child care provider. A limit should be placed on the number of children cared for by one child care provider, based on the capacity of the provider and the site, to provide safe and healthy child care. 248 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
R18:
Contract agency employees should be required by DPSS to undergo the same background checks required of DPSS employees in the same job category.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Although the child care payment amount is based on an approved number of child care hours, DPSS does not verify the actual number of attendance hours and does not require the APPs in the current contracts to verify the number of hours provided.
F2:
Although DPSS procedures require original documents from parents and child care providers, copies are often accepted.
F3:
Although the CalWORKS California-administered Stage 2 and 3 child care programs require sign-in and sign-out sheets for children in day care, the County of Los Angeles-administered child care Stage 1 program has no such requirement.
F4:
Signatures of the parent or child care provider on forms being processed by the APPs are not always matched to other documents in the file.
F5:
Agreements between the APPs and the child care providers may not stipulate all the requirements of DPSS and the State-required child health and safety issues.
F6:
A Contract Monitoring Project and a Contract Monitoring Division Report, both completed by the County of Los Angeles Auditor/Controller, cited the following: • A parent reported that neither she nor her child had received services from the child care provider for which the County was billed $12,400. • A parent case file did not contain a copy of the day care provider’s current business license, taxpayer identification number, or Social Security number as required by the contract. • Child care payments were made to child care providers for parents who were not qualified or enrolled in any activity which qualified them for benefits. • DPSS was billed twice for the same retroactive services.
F7:
The APP child care outreach marketing program lacks County of Los Angeles direction. We are not aware of documentation as to the effectiveness of this program, the reach of the marketing, media used, or responses.
F8:
DPSS and the APPs communicate primarily through the GAIN Employment Activity and Reporting System (GEARS) computer system which is maintained by DPSS. The APPs report that when the system is down, data communication with DPSS ends. The GEARS system is supposed to provide the APPs with correct and current information. However, we are told the data on the GEARS system may be out of date by as much as one to two weeks.
F9:
Some personnel of DPSS and APPs advise that changes in employment, job training, or school hours are entered into the GEARS system by DPSS only at the beginning of the month. If any of these hours of attendance change on the 2nd of the month or thereafter, the full payment for child care continues until the end of the month.
F10:
The DPSS process requires that the parent report their attendance at school or training. APP personnel and DPSS investigators indicate that self-certification is not always reliable.
F11:
Any changes in the parent’s schedule that would affect child care hours are reported by the parent on a Quarterly Report (QR7) form supplied by DPSS.
F12:
Not all DPSS forms specify that the parent or child care provider is signing under penalty of perjury.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
There should be random and unannounced visits at least once every ninety days to the child care sites to verify the childrens’ presence. This verification should be done either by DPSS or be required by the APPs in revised DPSS-APP contracts.
R2:
DPSS should require the APPs to accept only original documents or copies that have been seen and annotated by DPSS.
R3:
DPSS should require by incorporation in the APP contract daily parental sign-in and sign-out sheets.
R4:
DPSS should ensure by monthly file reviews that signatures on signature cards in files match the signatures of the parent and child care provider. The Auditor-Controller and contracts department of DPSS must also have access to these records for audits. These requirements must also be included in the APP contract. 244 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
R5:
DPSS should review the DPSS-APP contracts and agreements to ensure that child health and safety requirements are addressed by both the APPs and child care providers.
R6:
Each step of the DPSS process should be verified, and APP contracts and files should be monitored and audited: to prevent paying for child care not provided, to ensure that parents are eligible for child care support, to eliminate double billing, and to ensure that documentation required by the contract is in place through random reviews of APP files. DPSS has the primary responsibility for verification and should request assistance as needed from the Auditor-Controller, District Attorney and Chief Administrative Office.
R7:
Marketing of the APP CalWORKS child care outreach program should be regularly evaluated by DPSS to determine its effectiveness. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 245
R8:
DPSS should designate staff and a contact phone number for the APPs to call for case information when the GEARS data system is down and circulate a memo to all APPs with this information. DPSS should ensure that participant data is entered into the GEARS system daily.
R9:
Any changes in attendance should be entered daily on the GEARS system by DPSS to eliminate overpayment.
R10:
The school or the training site should send to DPSS a monthly attendance verification based on records which are retained by the school or training site and made available to county auditors.
R11:
Any changes in the parent’s schedule that would affect child care hours should be reported monthly instead of quarterly and verified by DPSS to eliminate overpayment for child care. This monthly report and the record of its verification should also be available to county auditors.
R12:
DPSS should require that all forms are signed under penalty of perjury. 246 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
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.
F2:
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 293 City Department and Agency Strategic Planning Findings: • Many City of Los Angeles departments and agencies have initiated the development of strategic plans. Many of these strategic plans have provided needed direction, focused the organization on key issues, and resulted in improved service delivery. • The City of Los Angeles has not developed nor implemented an approach or model for City departments and agencies to use in developing and implementing strategic plans. • The City of Los Angeles has implemented the LA-STAT system as a mechanism for tracking and reporting the performance of City departments and agencies. Many of the performance indicators reported in the LA-STAT system are not reporting on the results or outcomes of City operations and efforts. Most report on workload, or operational characteristics. • The LA-STAT performance measurement system is not effective at communicating to constituents and clients or employees what the City departments and agencies are providing or accomplishing, or in identifying areas in need of management attention and change.
F3:
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.
F4:
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.
F5:
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.
F6:
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. Departments and agencies should define a manageable set of key performance indicators that are directly related to strategic visions, goals, or objectives.
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. 294 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 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.
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 293 City Department and Agency Strategic Planning
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. 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. 294 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury HOW TO RESPOND TO RECOMMENDATIONS 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 295 296 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The respondent agrees with the findings.
R2:
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reason therefor.
R3:
The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
R4:
The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
R5:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
R6:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. Responses to the Grand Jury Final Report recommendations should be sent to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court 111 North Hill Street Mosk Courthouse Room 204 Los Angeles CA 90012 298 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury STANDING COMMITTEES 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 299 300 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury AUDIT Jeffery Wallace, Chair Octavio V. Chavez, Vice Chair Adele Coy Sidney Munshin Arnie Spears Royce Steward 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 301 302 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury AUDIT COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The Audit Committee was charged with assisting the Civil Grand Jury by developing a process and procedure for the identification and selection of consulting or auditing firms to be engaged to conduct investigations under its purview.
Findings & Recommendations
10 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. 54 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 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 55 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. 56 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 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 69
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.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The CAO should allocate staff resources and funds to OEM to expand efforts that address resident preparedness.
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:
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: Chief Administrative Office: Approve a Manpower Shortage Bonus for nursing staff assigned to work in the LAC+USC Jail Ward, making their pay comparable to the compensation paid nurses at Twin Towers/Men’s Central Jail medical facility.
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 a. The CAO should ensure that special efforts to ensure their responsible County of Los Angeles preparedness for emergencies. 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 57
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. 58 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury COMMUNICATION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND DURING AN EMERGENCY
R7:
The City and County Administrative Officers should offer incentives and encourage programs that capitalize on the talents and interest of ham radio operators
R8:
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.
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. 70 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
R11:
Insufficient resources are The City and County Administrative Officers provided to train workers should require that proposals for new needed to operate and communication systems or major system maintain emergency improvements specify the life cycle cost of communications systems. operations, maintenance, and training and allocate fund as required.
R12:
The use of communication When Los Angeles City and County purchases systems for extended new communication equipment, bid documents periods can be hampered should require suppliers to offer maintenance by shortages of parts and parts, training, and related services throughout maintenance training. the life of the system. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 45 46 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ARE WE READY?
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
Apollo -There is no community center. Correct the public information flyer.
R6:
Athens - The entire park and center need refurbishing. The maintenance area should be fenced in.
R10:
Bodger - The center needs painting.
R11:
Charter Oak - A separate activity room is needed. Right now, everyone shares a gated courtyard.
R14:
Crescenta Valley Community - Activities should be posted. The center was closed, and it looked like nothing was happening there at any time. The playground equipment is in need of repair.
R15:
Dalton – Build a larger activity room. The area now is too small, and the cabinets need replacing. The outside shelter needs painting.
R16:
DelAire - Both the community center and the gym need painting. The restroom needs to be upgraded for handicapped accessibility. No fire sprinklers were seen in the community center.
R19:
Enterprise - The kitchen needs painting, and new cupboards are needed. The playground equipment is not up to standard.
R29:
Loma Alta - Keep the present activity building, along with the new gym, as many activities take place in this building.
R30:
Los Robles – There is no community center. Correct the public information flyer.
R32:
Mary M. Bethune - The kitchen needs upgrading. Gym tiles need replacing.
R49:
Victoria - The office/meeting room needs air conditioning. The kitchen needs painting. The restrooms need upgrading for handicapped accessibility. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 7 8 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury DISABLED ACCESS TO PERFORMING ARTS AND VISUAL ARTS FACILITIES AND COUNTY PARKS IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Richard Niederberg, Chair Beverlee Bickmore Robert Howell Sally James Dick Lewis Jeffery Wallace 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 9 10 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury DISABLED ACCESS TO PERFORMING AND VISUAL ARTS VENUES AND COUNTY PARKS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY – AN UPDATE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
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
2
Not linked to specific findings.
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 71 72 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury APPENDICES 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 73
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F2:
Approve interior demolition including hazard material removal
F3:
Authorize contract documents for actual construction design. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted. Construction costs rise and the County has dragged its feet for 12 years. While projects are explored and scrapped (at great cost), the value of the $16 million FEMA Grant is greatly diminished. Projections today for refurbishing the HOJ are in the $200 million range. Each year all of the above costs are growing. THE COUNTY MUST MOVE FORWARD TO FORMULATE A PLAN AND ACT ON IT IMMEDIATELY.
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. Chief Administrative Officer:
Additional Recommendations
19
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
R9:
Complaint Forms MANUAL COMMENTS ______________________________________________________________________ 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 115 ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT LIFE SAFETY REVIEW Exiting /Fire Suppression Y N NA a. Building evacuation procedure (demonstrated by staff) b. Area of refuge established (demonstrated by staff) c. Exit Signs posted (demonstrated by staff) e. Two means of egress (demonstrated by staff) f. Automatic sprinkler system g. Sprinkler heads concealed (no access to inmates) h. Fire extinguishers Certification current Staff access only i. Breathing Apparatus j. Smoke Management System (Air Exhaust) ACCOMMODATIONS Temporary Holding Cells a. Seating provided for 16 inmates maximum b. Water closet , wash basin, drink fountain provided within c. Staff visual supervision (during occupancy) a. Limit 8 inmates b. No seating allowed c. Water closet / wash basin/ drink fountain provided within d. Padded partition next to toilet fixture Safety Cell a. Limit one (1) inmate b. No seating allowed c. Flush toilet in floor d. Padded – walls and floor e. Variable intensity lighting f. Vertical view panels g. Food pass Single Occupancy Cell a. Water closet / wash basin / drink fountain provided within b. Bunk, desk & seat (Type I omit desk and seat) 116 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT Double Occupancy Cell Y N NA a. Same as single occupancy with two bunks Dormitories a. Max capacity 64 inmates, no less than 4 b. Access to water closets separate from wash basin and drinking fountains. Dayrooms a. Tables & seating for max bed count b. Showers Exercise Area (3 hours. / week) a. Type I & II outdoor area 15’ high Multi-purpose Space (Type I & II Required for correctional programs a. Classroom setting b. Other Medical Examination Room (Type I & II with 25 + inmates a. Located within security area b. Pharmaceuticals locked (secure from inmates) Commissary (Type II & III) a. Ability of inmate to purchase personal items Dining Facilities (Type II & III) Visitor Space Storage Rooms a. Personal property (note ventilation – exhaust) b. Institutional clothing etc. Emergency Power Confidential Rooms (Type II) Attorney Interview Space Telephone (Blue Phone) 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 117 ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT Food Service – On Site SAT NOT SAT NA a. Sanitary Conditions (floor Sinks, etc. b. Refrigeration: Cold Storage Temp.__________ Freezer Temp. ______________ c. Dry Food Storage (on Stainless Steel Shelving) Food Service – Off Site Hot / Cold separation assembly APPEARANCE a. Graffiti b. Pealing paint c. Lighting d. Lockers e. Desks f. Mattresses g. Bedding / Pillows h. Sleeping Room Door Panels i. Locks (include function) GENERAL COMMENTS ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 118 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury (APPENDIX B) JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT BY THE JAILS COMMITTEE OF THE 2005-2006 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY DATE__________ARRIVAL TIME:________am/pm DEPARTURE TIME______ FACILITY NAME:__________________________________________________ ADDRESS________________________________________________________ TELEPHONE NUMBER:_____________ CONTACT:_______________ CAPACITY_______POPULATION________ TOTAL EMPLOYEES__________ PROBATION OFFICERS ___________ CUSTODY ASSIST._________ INSPECTED BY: (1) ____________________________ (2)_____________________________ (3)_____________________________ REVIEW PREVIOUS INSPECTION REPORTS Agency when inspected report available Y N NA Correction Standards Authority (CAS – BOC) State Fire Marshal (SFM) Environmental Health Medical / Mental Health Health / Nutrition JAIL MANUALS REVIEW (Policies and Procedures)
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 * 8, 22 ASESP + 21st CCLC YS CARE 41 County
R19:
LA’s BEST * 71, 38 ASESP + 21st CCLC LA’s BEST 38 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: 136 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Exhibit I-5: After School Program Participants by Ethnicity Ethnic Description Count % of After School % in Day School American Indian/Alaska Native 175 0.2 .3 Asian 1,368 1.6 3.8 Black 10,963 12.8 11.6 Hispanic 69,932 81.4 72.8 White 2,231 2.6 9.0 Filipino 1,115 1.3 2.2 Pacific Islander 175 0.2 .3 TOTAL 85,959 100 100 Note: These participation data are based all age groups not just K – 5. The participation rate varied by grade (from 4 to 12 %) for K - 5 schools. 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 137 138 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury II: FINDINGS A. SURVEY RESULTS A survey was designed and sent to the key after school program stakeholders to ascertain their perceptions of how the program was operating. The respondents were asked to rank a series of statements such as follows: Please indicate your degree of agreement with the following statement. Disagree Disagree Agree SomewhatAgree No opinion Somewhat 1 2 3 4 Not included in All students who want/need after school Response programs have appropriate access to them. Average There were considerable differences in how the various stakeholders rated these statements. The differences may be a result of different expectations, some of which may be unrealistic given the: current legal requirements, financing available, and the organizational capacity of the system. Exhibit II-2 categorizes the 730 respondents to the survey by stakeholder group: Exhibit II-2: Respondents by BTB Stakeholder Affiliation Response Response Stakeholder Category Total Percent Parent 219 30% Principal or Designate 176 24% On-Site After School Program Administrator, Teacher, or Staff 201 28% BTB Contractor 17 2% BTB Official 14 2% LAUSD Senior Official or Board Member 7 1% Other 10 1% Skipped this question 86 12% TOTAL 730 100% The following is a summary of the survey results by area of inquiry. A detailed analysis is available in
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Although the child care payment amount is based on an approved number of child care hours, DPSS does not verify the actual number of attendance hours and does not require the APPs in the current contracts to verify the number of hours provided.
F2:
Although DPSS procedures require original documents from parents and child care providers, copies are often accepted.
F3:
Although the CalWORKS California-administered Stage 2 and 3 child care programs require sign-in and sign-out sheets for children in day care, the County of Los Angeles-administered child care Stage 1 program has no such requirement.
F4:
Signatures of the parent or child care provider on forms being processed by the APPs are not always matched to other documents in the file.
F5:
Agreements between the APPs and the child care providers may not stipulate all the requirements of DPSS and the State-required child health and safety issues.
F6:
A Contract Monitoring Project and a Contract Monitoring Division Report, both completed by the County of Los Angeles Auditor/Controller, cited the following: • A parent reported that neither she nor her child had received services from the child care provider for which the County was billed $12,400. • A parent case file did not contain a copy of the day care provider’s current business license, taxpayer identification number, or Social Security number as required by the contract. • Child care payments were made to child care providers for parents who were not qualified or enrolled in any activity which qualified them for benefits. • DPSS was billed twice for the same retroactive services.
F7:
The APP child care outreach marketing program lacks County of Los Angeles direction. We are not aware of documentation as to the effectiveness of this program, the reach of the marketing, media used, or responses.
F8:
DPSS and the APPs communicate primarily through the GAIN Employment Activity and Reporting System (GEARS) computer system which is maintained by DPSS. The APPs report that when the system is down, data communication with DPSS ends. The GEARS system is supposed to provide the APPs with correct and current information. However, we are told the data on the GEARS system may be out of date by as much as one to two weeks.
F9:
Some personnel of DPSS and APPs advise that changes in employment, job training, or school hours are entered into the GEARS system by DPSS only at the beginning of the month. If any of these hours of attendance change on the 2nd of the month or thereafter, the full payment for child care continues until the end of the month.
F10:
The DPSS process requires that the parent report their attendance at school or training. APP personnel and DPSS investigators indicate that self-certification is not always reliable.
F11:
Any changes in the parent’s schedule that would affect child care hours are reported by the parent on a Quarterly Report (QR7) form supplied by DPSS.
F12:
Not all DPSS forms specify that the parent or child care provider is signing under penalty of perjury.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
There should be random and unannounced visits at least once every ninety days to the child care sites to verify the childrens’ presence. This verification should be done either by DPSS or be required by the APPs in revised DPSS-APP contracts.
R2:
DPSS should require the APPs to accept only original documents or copies that have been seen and annotated by DPSS.
R3:
DPSS should require by incorporation in the APP contract daily parental sign-in and sign-out sheets.
R4:
DPSS should ensure by monthly file reviews that signatures on signature cards in files match the signatures of the parent and child care provider. The Auditor-Controller and contracts department of DPSS must also have access to these records for audits. These requirements must also be included in the APP contract. 244 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
R5:
DPSS should review the DPSS-APP contracts and agreements to ensure that child health and safety requirements are addressed by both the APPs and child care providers.
R6:
Each step of the DPSS process should be verified, and APP contracts and files should be monitored and audited: to prevent paying for child care not provided, to ensure that parents are eligible for child care support, to eliminate double billing, and to ensure that documentation required by the contract is in place through random reviews of APP files. DPSS has the primary responsibility for verification and should request assistance as needed from the Auditor-Controller, District Attorney and Chief Administrative Office.
R7:
Marketing of the APP CalWORKS child care outreach program should be regularly evaluated by DPSS to determine its effectiveness. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 245
R8:
DPSS should designate staff and a contact phone number for the APPs to call for case information when the GEARS data system is down and circulate a memo to all APPs with this information. DPSS should ensure that participant data is entered into the GEARS system daily.
R9:
Any changes in attendance should be entered daily on the GEARS system by DPSS to eliminate overpayment.
R10:
The school or the training site should send to DPSS a monthly attendance verification based on records which are retained by the school or training site and made available to county auditors.
R11:
Any changes in the parent’s schedule that would affect child care hours should be reported monthly instead of quarterly and verified by DPSS to eliminate overpayment for child care. This monthly report and the record of its verification should also be available to county auditors.
R12:
DPSS should require that all forms are signed under penalty of perjury. 246 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Who: Your Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip, Code: _______________________________________________________________ Telephone: ( ) Extension: ______________
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. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 309 Rev.05/03/06 310 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury County of Los Angeles CIVIL GRAND JURY CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET • ELEVENTH FLOOR • ROOM 11-506 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE (213) 893-1047 • FAX (213) 229-2595 http://www.grandjury.co.la.ca.us/ (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. Please note that the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate Federal agencies, State agencies, or the Courts. Only local governments within Los Angeles County are subject to Grand Jury review. Sincerely, Grand Jury Staff sjp 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 311 312 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury CONTINUITY Dick Lewis, Vice Chair Michael Roberts, Secretary Patricia Baraz Beverlee Bickmore Richard Niederberg Zelda Plotkin 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 313 314 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury CONTINUITY COMMITTEE
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Making Los Angeles the safest big City in America
F2:
Ensuring neighborhoods are good places to live 272 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
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. Although the Priority Based Budget approach was a step in the right direction, it does not meet the strategic planning needs of the City. Because this is a budget approach, it is by definition short-term and provides only a short-term perspective – tied to the one year budget process. Long-term strategic direction, ranging from 5 to 10 years, is needed. The budget is a powerful tool for implementing strategic direction. The strategic plan should be clearly linked to the budget process. However, the strategic planning process should precede and direct the budget process. Additionally, the Priority Based Budgeting approach does not appear to have had any substantive impact on City services. The budget summary organizes and presents existing City services in the six priorities. However, there does not appear to be any re- alignment of City functions or services to reflect these priorities. Implementation of an effective strategic plan should result in some structural and budgetary re-alignment of City functions and services to reflect the strategic vision and priorities. Finding: The Mayor’s Office “A Fresh Start” document provides some City-wide strategic direction for the City of Los Angeles. In May 2005 the incoming Mayor issued a document entitled “A Fresh Start.” This document established the top five priorities for Mayor in his management of City 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 273 departments. Each priority included several initiatives for making progress on these priorities. The following outlines these priorities and initiatives:
F13:
Alleged child care fraud is referred by the APPs to the DPSS Welfare Fraud Prevention Section. This section checks the referral to ensure that all pertinent documents are attached to the referral. DPSS investigates the allegations of fraud and may refer the case to the County of Los Angeles District Attorney for prosecution. The Civil Grand Jury is concerned that in a one year period hundreds of referrals from the APPs to the DPSS Welfare Fraud Section resulted in only ten referrals to the District Attorney’s office. Some DPSS Welfare Fraud Prevention Section personnel have inadequate training to detect evidence of fraud. .
F14:
Misrepresentation of employment is a major source of welfare fraud: • Some parents in the welfare to work program earn very little income - a few hundred dollars per month - but are reimbursed thousands of dollars per month for miles driven and child care expenses. • The same person (child care provider) who is paid by the County to provide child care services may also be receiving In Home Support Services (IHSS) from the County. The IHSS worker is provided to individuals to assist them in activities of daily living. A CalWORKS participant/parent could be employed to provide IHSS services to the same person (child care provider) providing their child care. There is no cross check. • Fictitious names of employers and places of employment have been “verified” by phone calls made to co-conspirators. • Some parents work as aides with the IHSS Program and receive thousands of dollars in mileage. • Some parents claim to work for relatives. • Some parents conspire with friends or relatives to fraudulently claim child care benefits and split the money. • Some parents claim to provide tutoring during the hours the child is in school. • Some child care providers claim hours for care during the hours the child is in school. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 247
F15:
DPSS has stated that: “There is no limit, currently, to the number of hours allowed to the parent for paid child care per day”.
F16:
Trustline Registry Form: this form “….was created by the California Legislature to offer parents, employment agencies, Child Care Resource and Referral Programs (APPs and DPSS), and child care providers access to a background check conducted by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) which includes checks of the California Criminal History System and Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) at the DOC and FBI records.” This form is processed for DPSS by the appropriate State licensing department and the State advises that it may take six weeks or more to complete.
F17:
The County of Los Angeles Administrative Memorandum Number 00- 10, dated 5-22-00, defines a license-exempt provider’s own children in the following way: “The definition of a license-exempt child care provider’s own children include all grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and first cousins for whom child care services are being provided. These children are considered immediate family members and there is no limitation on the number that may be cared for. In addition, the license-exempt provider may also provide child care services for the children of one other family. Child care payments may be authorized during the same time period for all of the children whose parents are participating in CalWORKS welfare-to-work activities or working.” This broad, unlimited definition of license-exempt provider’s own children encourages fraud and abuse of the system.
F18:
DPSS contracts with outside agencies to provide services for the GAIN case management in two new GAIN regional offices to perform vital steps in the CalWORKS process. These contract worker positions include case workers, supervisors, and clerk typists.
Additional Recommendations
13
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 For any City government to be successful it must have the confidence and support of those it serves. Maintaining this confidence and support is often difficult because it is often difficult to clearly demonstrate what has been accomplished and what progress is being made. Is the City safer? Are neighborhoods improving? Is it easier to travel throughout the City? Are jobs and the economy improving?
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. 276 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 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. Developing strategic plans to direct government or agency operations has become a best practice in public sector management. Many states have passed legislation requiring each state agency to develop a strategic plan. The Federal government passed the Government Performance and Results Act requiring all federal agencies to develop strategic plans and performance indicators focused on outcomes or results. Many local governments require departments to develop long-term strategic plans, with some requiring they be updated yearly through development of an annual business 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. The executive management team of the City of Los Angeles has a substantial amount of knowledge and experience in strategic planning, using several different models and approaches. This knowledge and experience can be used to develop a consistent approach or model for strategic planning. A guiding coalition, taking advantage of the City’s strategic planning expertise could be formed to develop and oversee the implementation of an approach or model for City departments to use in developing and implementing strategic plans. In addition to strategic planning expertise, the guiding coalition must include key City leaders with the position power and credibility necessary to drive the implementation of the model and ensure progress is made.
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. A best practice among local governments is to hold an annual strategic planning conference for departments and agencies to share and coordinate their strategic planning efforts. The benefits of such a conference could include: • Reinforces the need for and importance of department and agency strategic planning • Provides an opportunity to share and discuss City-wide strategic information such as key trends, issues, and priorities 278 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury • Highlights past successes resulting from strategic planning, as well as shortcomings in the approach or model that need to be addressed • Facilitates discussion and coordination of common or overlapping missions, goals, and strategies Several City of Los Angeles personnel interviewed discussed the benefits of the annual Emergency Preparedness Planning Meeting held at the UCLA Conference Center. Many stated this provided an excellent opportunity for departments and agencies to discuss and coordinate on emergency planning issues and strategies. A similar planning meeting, focused on broader strategic issues facing the City, would likely have similar benefits.
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. A key element of effective strategic planning is establishing and using a set of performance indicators that specifically measure progress toward the vision, goals, or objectives. These indicators should be focused primarily on outcomes or results.
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. It is important that performance information reported be based on sound data and that the information be complete, accurate, and consistent. The intent of providing performance information is to provide a basis for evaluating the organization and to support decision making at various levels. 280 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury SPECIFIC CITY DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY STRATEGIC PLANNING EFFORTS As part of this investigation we reviewed the strategic planning efforts of seven City departments and agencies. The phases of strategic planning, and the key elements of each as described in the introductory section of this report, were used to evaluate these efforts. The following Strategic Planning Scorecard summarizes the results of our review. Specific information on each department or agency is presented following the scorecard. STRATEGIC PLANNING SCORECARD City Emergency General Information Planning Preparedness Services Technology Strategic Analysis Trends No Yes Yes Yes External Issues No Yes Yes Yes Internal Issues No Yes Partial Yes Decision Making Mission/Vision Partial Yes Yes Yes Goals/Objectives Partial Yes Partial Yes Strategies/Approach No Yes Partial Yes Implementation Responsibility Assigned No Yes Yes Yes Tracking Tools No Yes Yes Yes Evaluation/Revision Performance Indicators Partial Yes Yes Yes Customer Feedback No Yes Yes Yes Public Recreation/ Water / Works Parks Power Strategic Analysis Trends Yes Yes Yes External Issues Yes Partial Yes Internal Issues Yes Partial Partial Decision Making Mission/Vision Yes Yes Yes Goals/Objectives Yes Yes Yes Strategies/Approach Yes Yes Yes Implementation Responsibility Assigned Yes Yes Yes Tracking Tools Yes Yes Yes Evaluation/Revision Performance Indicators Yes In Development Yes Customer Feedback Yes In Development Yes 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 281 Department of City Planning The Department of City Planning: • Prepares and maintains a general plan which is a comprehensive declaration of purposes, policies and programs for the development of the City including such elements as land use, conservation, circulation, service systems, highways, public works facilities, branch administrative centers, schools, recreational facilities, and airports. • Regulates the use of privately-owned property through zoning regulation specific plan ordinances and State laws and through the approval of proposed subdivisions. • Investigates and reports on applications for amendments to zoning regulations, and passes upon zone variance and conditional use applications. • Reviews the acquisition of land by the City for public use and the disposition of surplus land. • Conducts studies relating to environmental quality, and provides advice and assistance relative to environmental matters. The Department does not have any meaningful strategic plan in place. The Department has a mission statement. However it is not tied to any strategic issues, vision, or goals. The Department has developed budget goals. However, these are short-term (one- year) goals tied to the Department’s budget requests. The Department has also developed performance indicators that are part of LA-STAT. However, again these are not related to a strategic direction or priorities. The Department did provide a draft Strategic Management Plan for the Department developed in June of 1989 and intended to cover the period from 1989 to 1994. This plan began to establish some specific objectives for the Department, as well as specific strategies for achieving those objectives. However, there is no indication that the draft plan was ever finalized or implemented. 282 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Emergency Preparedness Department The Emergency Preparedness Department is responsible for planning for and preparing the City of Los Angeles for a disaster. The Department coordinates the interdepartmental preparedness, planning, training, and recovery activities of the Emergency Operations Organization, its divisions, and all City departments. Additionally, it serves as a liaison with other municipalities, state and federal agencies, and the private sector; and performs related public education and community preparedness activities. The Department is relatively small, with a total of 17 employees. The Emergency Preparedness Department provided two Departmental Strategic Plans, one developed in 1999, and one developed in 2004. Strategic Analysis The Emergency Preparedness Department identified key strategic issues as a foundation for their strategic plans. Many of these issues are identified through an annual staff strategic planning meeting. Being a small Department provides the capability to include the entire staff in such strategic discussion and planning meetings. Strategic Decision Making Both Emergency Preparedness strategic plans provide clear mission and vision statements, establish clear priorities through goals. Strategy Implementation Specific strategies are assigned to staff, and progress is monitored through reporting at regular staff meetings. Strategy Evaluation and Revision The Emergency Preparedness Department strategic plan establishes performance measures to evaluate progress toward the vision and goals. Additionally, progress is evaluated each year at the annual Department strategic planning meeting and adjustments made as needed. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 283 Department of General Services The Department of General Services provides services to support City government. This includes managing facilities, equipment, supplies, security, communication, maintenance, and other support services for City departments. The Department of General Services did not provide a specific Department-wide strategic plan. However, the Department has some of the key elements of strategic planning. Strategic Analysis The Department of General Services has developed substantial information on key trends that impact its ability to provide service. This information is compiled into monthly and quarterly Scorecard Review Reports. These reports include substantial operational information, as well as information on customer services and satisfaction. This information could provide a strong foundation for Departmental strategic planning. Strategic Decision Making The Department of General Services has established an overall mission statement. The Department has also developed a list of the Department’s visions for the future – to be implemented between 2005 and 2009. The Department has developed budget goals. However, these are short-term (one-year) goals tied to the Department’s budget requests. The Department has also developed what it terms goals for many of its functional areas. These goals are really more tasks or projects and do not reflect the priorities of the Department or functional units. The Department has also developed performance indicators that are part of LA-STAT. However, again these are not related to a strategic direction or priorities. Strategy Implementation The Department of General Services has a very extensive project tracking and reporting system, providing executive management with a good overview of progress being made on specific projects or tasks. This could provide a good foundation for tracking on progress toward Department priorities. Strategy Evaluation and Revision The Department conducts regular review meetings on the progress made on projects and tasks. Again, this could provide a strong foundation for evaluation and revision of strategic in support of goals. 284 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Information Technology Agency The Information Technology Agency is responsible for managing the City’s information technology. Core services provided include E-Services, Policy & Planning Services, Application Portfolio Management, Communications Infrastructure Services & Support, Agency Business Support, and End User Support Services. The Information Technology Agency has a long history of developing and implementing strategic plans for its operations – dating back to an Integrated Systems Plan developed in 1975. Currently, the agency is operating under the guidance of two complementary strategic planning documents. The strategic planning document currently being used by the Information Technology Agency is the Information Technology Strategic Plan for the City of Los Angeles. This plan, developed with the assistance of Gartner Consulting, focused on the information technology needs of the City as a whole. This plan includes a City-wide vision for information technology focused on how information technology can be used to meet City business needs. The plan outlines specific strategies for City-wide information technology governance, a City-wide data architecture, and strategies to meet specific City business needs. It is apparent that the Gartner Consulting methodology for developing the City-wide Information Technology Strategic Plan was to build the plan on the mission, vision, goals or priorities of the City as a whole. However, since no City-wide strategic plan exists, it was necessary to extrapolate the key strategic elements from such things as speeches made by the Mayor and budget documents. A 2003 strategic planning document, also currently being used by the Information Technology Agency, is referred to as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) Initiative. This document and approach is focused on changing the way the City manages and deploys information technology products and services. The focus of this effort is on how the Information Technology Agency provides service and making improvements in those services. Strategic Analysis Both strategic planning efforts used by the Information Technology Agency are based on comprehensive strategic analysis efforts. Key trends have been identified and analyzed, and the perspectives of key stakeholders and customers have been collected and analyzed using both focus groups and surveys. Best practices have been identified using both outside peers and industry experts such as Gartner. Alternative strategies have been developed and analyzed. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 285 Strategic Decision Making The Information Technology Agency’s strategic plans have established clear visions and missions, and priorities reflected in goals and objectives. They also establish a broad range of strategies for achieving the vision and goals. Additionally, the Information Technology Agency has made strong use of steering committees and similar decision making bodies to ensure there is both a broad perspective available when decisions are made, and that there is involvement and ownership by those impacted by decisions or responsible for implementation. Strategy Implementation The Information Technology Agency has used a project management approach for assigning and creating accountability for implementing strategies, with routine review of progress. Strategy Evaluation and Revision The Information Technology Agency has established a comprehensive set of performance indicators or metrics to monitor and evaluate progress. This includes both general customer surveys and point of service surveys to determine satisfaction with services provided. 286 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Department of Public Works The Department of Public Works, the City's third largest Department, is responsible for construction, renovation, and the operation of City facilities and infrastructure. The Department builds the City streets, installs its sewers, and constructs storm drains as well as public buildings and service facilities. The Department is comprised of five Bureaus: • Contract Administration • Engineering • Sanitation • Street Lighting • Street Services The Department of Public Works is overseen by the Board of Public Works. The Board is an executive team composed of five members, selected and appointed by the Mayor, and confirmed by City Council to five year terms. The Board of Public Works Commissioners serve as the General Managers of the Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works developed its current strategic plan beginning in 1997, publishing the plan in 1999. The intent of the plan was to “institutionalize a continuous planning process” and “proactively address key operational and organizational issues”. The plan included four key themes or guiding principles – customer service, infrastructure, employee involvement, and one Department. Strategic Analysis The Department of Public Work’s Strategic Plan was developed on a strong foundation of strategic analysis. Customers were identified, and satisfaction surveys were used to identify their perspectives. Meetings were held with the Mayor’s Office and City Council Offices to get feedback on services and performance of the Department. Focus meetings were also held with staff from other City Departments and agencies, and a special meeting was held with the Systems Technology staff to identify issues from their perspective. To obtain input from Department employees a Department-wide Employee Conference was held. Employee surveys were also distributed to Department employees, as well as a strategic planning newsletter. The Department identified key strategic issues – developing an Issues Framework. These issues were reviewed by the Strategic Planning Committee as well as the Strategic Planning Joint Labor-Management Committee. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 287 Strategic Decision Making Through the strategic decision making process the Department developed a clear mission and vision. Strategic priorities were also developed – termed as strategic directions. Additionally, a broad range of specific strategies were developed and adopted. Strategy Implementation A key element in the implementation of the Department of Public Works’ Strategic Plan was for each of the Department’s bureaus to develop strategic plans to focus and direct individual bureau operations. Each bureau has developed such plans, and included both strategic focus and direction as well as specific tasks, with responsibility assigned. Strategy Evaluation and Revision The Department of Public Works established performance indicators. Initially these were included in a Monthly Status Report provided to Department of Public Works management. The report included high level, summarized information on financial, budgetary, personnel, and performance management Department-wide. Much of this information is now part of the LA-STAT system. The Department has also developed an annual report which summarizes the functions of each part of the Department, and outlines goals, achievements, and awards for the Department. The Department also initiated an extensive review of the Department Strategic Plan, and is in the process of updating it. 288 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
R13:
DPSS should develop and implement an enhanced welfare fraud detection and investigation training program for employees in the Welfare Fraud Prevention Section in conjunction with the Los Angeles County District Attorney and receive periodic State and local training. Personnel trained and employed by this program should be compensated commensurate with their increased responsibilities.
R14:
If the parent is working for cash or for relatives, the payer should sign, under penalty of perjury, certifying the hours, the amount paid, and the work accomplished. A cross check between child care provider services and IHSS services, requiring copies of tax returns, and random field checks at the employment location should be mandatory. DPSS should eliminate child care allowance if employment legitimacy cannot be determined.
R15:
Any paid child care in excess of ten hours per day for 5 days per week or 12 hours per day for 4 days per week should be monitored and verified on site by DPSS.
R16:
Trustline Registry Form background check must be approved and received by DPSS prior to any authorization for child care (including License-exempt and Trustline Exempt). DPSS should work with the State to expedite the Trustline Registry Form.
R17:
The definition of “own children” should be limited to only the biological or legally adopted children of the child care provider. A limit should be placed on the number of children cared for by one child care provider, based on the capacity of the provider and the site, to provide safe and healthy child care. 248 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
R18:
Contract agency employees should be required by DPSS to undergo the same background checks required of DPSS employees in the same job category.