Los Angeles County Grand Jury
2007-2008
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
There is now a recently implemented cap of $900 on the amount an inmate may have in his or her account, whether deposited by outside third parties, or in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. The $900 maximum on inmate accounts is excessive, and it creates an opportunity for disparity in the jail setting, where there are many rules and regulations in place for the express purpose of maintaining a level playing field among inmates. Inmates who are able to amass such a substantial sum of money, and the amenities that money can buy, have an opportunity to use such money or amenities to barter for extraordinary privileges.
F2:
Government Code § 26640 does not speak to whether the Sheriff may release money in an inmate’s account to outside third parties at the direction of the inmate, except for that money in the inmate’s possession at the time he or she is booked into custody. There is no legitimate purpose in permitting a jail inmate to function as a cash conduit by directing the release of funds to outside third parties that were initially deposited by persons outside the jail system. - 10 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F3:
The Sheriff does not require identification from outside third parties who make cash deposits to an inmate’s account through the cashier’s office.
F4:
Cases have been identified by the district attorney wherein care providers are allegedly providing aid under different names and fraudulently collecting benefits. Cases have also been identified wherein aid recipients are allegedly receiving aid under different identities.
F5:
DPSS administers various federal and state-funded aid programs at the county level, including General Relief (welfare), CalWorks, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and IHSS. The district attorney has identified a number of cases where benefits from one program would reduce or eliminate eligibility for another program, and contends that DPSS computer databases do not “talk to” one another, so inter-program opportunities for fraud abound. - 70 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F6:
Neither the State of California nor the County of Los Angeles conducts a criminal background investigation on the provider of IHSS services. Since the recipient has carte blanche to choose a provider, but cannot conduct a background investigation, the county is in a position to do so on behalf of the recipient.
F7:
Reassessments of the recipient’s need for continuing IHSS care are not done in a timely and systematic manner.
F08:
As such, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a vendor to provide routine maintenance services. The current contract does not contain a maximum amount and the department indicated that the new agreement will also not contain such provisions. The Internal Services Department should consider a contract structure more similar to those that have been entered into by other departments and contain a maximum amount. • The Department of Public Works has entered into agreements for routine vehicle maintenance services with 76 vendors. These contracts contain provisions that cap the total expenditures by the department at a maximum amount of $1.5 million. The department expended the maximum amount for routine maintenance in FY 2006-07 and is expected to expend the maximum amount in FY 2007-08. • The Fire Department has entered into agreements with a total of 82 vendors to provide routine vehicle maintenance services for the department for a maximum amount of $3.5 million per year. The actual expenditures for services received through these agreements are the maximum of $3.5 million. • The Sheriff’s Department recently entered into an agreement with a single vendor to provide routine maintenance services for its fleet. This agreement, with the Penske Corporation, is for an amount not to exceed $16.0 million per year. Accident Costs Accident repair costs involve actual payments for County vehicle repairs involved in accidents and, in many instances, the repair costs are not covered by the contracts discussed above. Many of the accidents cost the department additional amounts that vary year-to-year. Complete and verifiable cost information was not readily available from the departments for this audit. However, the table on the next page shows the numbers of accidents as reported by the individual departments. - 109 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table 9 Reported Vehicle Accidents in the Four Largest Vehicle Usage Departments FY 2005-06 through March 2008 Ratio of Number of Number of Department Accidents to Number of Accidents* Vehicles** Sheriff’s Department 849 16.0% Public Works Department 747 40.2% Fire Department 132 9.9% Internal Services Department 124 12.8% Total 1,852 – Sources: Los Angeles County Departments * Data is for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08. The data for FY 2007-08 is year to date and does not contain the entire year. ** The number of vehicles is based on the totals received from the Auditor-Controller’s Fixed Asset database. The Sheriff’s Department can expect accidents due to vehicle pursuits and other patrol activities, and has implemented several policies and procedures to ensure that accidents are kept to a minimum and thoroughly reviewed. Further, the Risk Management Branch of the County Executive’s Office works with departments by providing “technical support (consultations, training, surveys, etc.)6” to reduce costs associated with vehicle liability. The County Executive Office continues to work with departments to keep accidents to a minimum and thus reduce claim costs and accident repair costs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the managers and staff from each of the departments included in this study. In virtually every instance, the departments responded to our requests for data and interviews in a timely manner, and provided access to records required to accomplish the study objectives. Even when access to certain records was delayed because of privacy concerns, Sheriff’s Department management and staff worked diligently toward obtaining the information we required for our review. This high level of cooperation permitted us to accomplish a complex study in the timeframe requested by the Civil Grand Jury, and provide recommendations that we believe will assist the departments to improve vehicle usage throughout the County. Chief Administrative Office Risk Management Annual Report, p. 21. - 110 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F8:
Personnel of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) are not always qualified to assess the kind and intensity of the care required, which is roughly analogous to Medicare’s definition of “custodial care.” Among the chief determining criteria for receiving IHSS is the requirement that but for this program, the recipient would require out-of-home placement. Quoting from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) report entitled In-Home Supportive Services: Past, Present and Future, January 2003: “The IHSS program is based on a social model – one that relies on a social worker assessment rather than assessment based on medical criteria. As such, caregivers are not medical personnel, nor are the social workers and, obviously, the consumer… “Quality of care is dependent on the caregivers qualifications and job satisfaction and how accurately the social worker’s assessment of the consumer’s need comports with the consumer’s actual supportive service needs.” Recipient need assessments have a significant subjective component, influenced by the personal bias of the social worker, personality interactions, and the innate desire to be charitable. DPSS also realizes that the initial assessment home visit, reassessment visits and scheduled visits are sometimes stage-managed in order to draw the maximum benefit of the program. The attempted reassessment via repeated random visits, to a supposedly housebound recipient who is never home, should be a cause for concern.
F9:
As an alternative to personalized, in-home care, electronic home monitoring could be made available for those recipients who neither want nor require personal contact. - 72 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F10:
Providers of in-home care complain that they are not getting paid by the recipients of in-home care. Conversely, recipients complain that the providers are not providing the level and/or quality of care for which they are being paid from IHSS funds. In some cases, time cards have been forged or altered.
F11:
Initial fraud referrals are supposed to be sent to DPSS headquarters. However, in some cases, DPSS employees attempting to report suspected IHSS fraud have been met with responses ranging from apathetic to hostile on the part of district office supervisors and managers. Reports of suspected fraud, forwarded to DPSS headquarters, are not followed up on with the employees who initiated the reports; in essence, a lack of feedback. Senate Bill (SB) 1104 grants jurisdiction for IHSS fraud investigations to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), formerly known as the Department of Health Services. Specific provisions contained in SB 1104 created fraud detection and quality assurance protocols, adherence to which is not optional.
F12:
An Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864, must be submitted by those who are sponsoring foreign nationals under the family- - 73 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report based immigration system. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Support is required in certain employment-based immigration situations. Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 CFRs) creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the foreign national. The Act also creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the federal agency or any state agency which may provide means-tested public benefits to the sponsored immigrant. Implemented in 1996 to ensure that foreigners do not become public charges after admittance to the U.S.A., the Affidavit of Support requirement must be satisfied in order for many foreigners to ultimately obtain legal permanent residence. The Affidavit of Support terminates once the sponsored immigrant “naturalizes” or when credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work as defined by the Social Security Act. Form I-864 and I- 864A data may be disclosed to other federal, state and local agencies providing means- tested public benefits for use in any civil action against the sponsor(s) for breach of contract. Social Security numbers may be verified with the Social Security Administration. It may also be disclosed as a matter of routine use to other federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities.
F13:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- income working individuals and families. It is not a tax rebate, but rather a federal subsidy. In addition, the EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits; the EITC will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing or most payments of temporary assistance for needy families. The EITC is based on a past and an anticipated calendar year of income. Applicants must file a federal tax return and have a valid Social Security number. Full details are contained in IRS Notice 797 and Form W-5.
F14:
Although the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot comment upon or review State of California operations, the successful and professional local administration of IHSS is dependent upon state databases. The state’s and Los Angeles County’s Department of Social Services computers and software must handshake and exchange data, primarily with the following: • State Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) • Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) There is no longer a demarcation between county and state functions; we live in a virtual world. Even checking a person’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) status requires DPSS to go through the state systems to obtain Social Security Administration data. Obviously, Los Angeles County DPSS is at the mercy, interest and competence of state agencies, particularly the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Providers and recipients of IHSS services sign and submit a biweekly timesheet which is ultimately processed by the state, the payment warrant is issued by the state, and fraud investigation is within the purview of the state. The acceptance of scrawled or absent signatures on the timesheet does not constitute good management of a multi- billion dollar program such as IHSS. Dual endorsement of the payment warrant would definitely be a good business practice.
F15:
The Advance Pay feature of IHSS is reportedly abused, particularly by the recipient receiving “advance pay” for weeks and months without submitting a time card in support of that pay.
F16:
A member of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury, a past service provider in the IHSS program, was approached by an IHSS employee to sign up to take other recipients. All the member had to do was give the IHSS employee permission to re-use the member’s provider information, which was already in DPSS files, and periodically sign papers. For this, the member would keep one-half of each check / warrant, and yield the other half to an associate of the DPSS employee. The grand jury member was subsequently approached by someone who was not a county employee, but offering a similar scam. He told the member that “…lots of people are doing it.” Needless to say, the current grand jury member emphatically refused both offers.
F17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.” APPENDIX B: TAY Survey A survey was developed and distributed to a sample of youth in DCFS and Probation, and My Friend’s Place (a drop-in center for homeless youth in Los Angeles) to get their perspective on the services and programs available to them. They were also encouraged to give comments and suggestions for new, needed programs. A total of 205 TAY participated in the survey. Approximately two-thirds of the survey participants are or were from DCFS and one-third from Probation. The survey participants were asked to rate TAY services and programs by indicating their degree of agreement with a series of statements concerning: • Education • Workforce Readiness • Life Skills • Housing • Transportation • Legal Assistance • Physical Health • Social and Emotional Wellbeing Exhibit D displays the findings for all categories using a rating scale of 1-4 to measure response averages. Exhibit D: TAY Service and Program Ratings AGREE – 4 SOMEWHAT AGREE – 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE – 2 DISAGREE – 1 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older WORKFORCE READINESS I have the job skills, knowledge and experience to get a good job. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 I have a career/employment plan for the next 2 – 5 years. 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.0 I know what services are available to help me get a job. 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.4 LIFE SKILLS I have enough savings to live independently. 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 I feel I can manage my money. 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 I know how to budget my money for groceries, etc. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 I know how to access public assistance programs if I need them. 2.9 3.5 3.6 3.3 I am aware of free public programs (library, recreational centers, etc). 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 I know how to register to vote. 2.5 1.9 3.6 3.2 HOUSING I am aware of rental costs. 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 I feel I can cover the housing costs (furniture, equipment, utilities, etc.) of living 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 independently. I know how to get rental assistance. 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.8 TRANSPORTATION I can get to work on time. 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.7 I know how to use public transportation. 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 LEGAL ASSISTANCE I know how to get legal help if I need it. 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.2 I have access to a lawyer. 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 I understand my rights if I have a problem with the law. 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 PHYSICAL HEALTH I am in good physical health (dental, vision, hearing etc.). 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 I am strong and in good shape. 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 I know how to access health care (insurance, free clinics, etc.). 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.4 I know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING I have friends and/or family members who are supportive. 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 I know how to access community based support groups (church, counselors, etc.). 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 I am able to live independently. 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 I know how/who to ask for help if I have trouble living independently. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Education Survey participants agree to some degree that they are receiving the education that they want (3.4) and are getting the assistance (3.4), information and choices (3.3) guidance (3.5), and support and advice (3.5) necessary for educational success. Workforce Readiness Survey participants agree to some degree that they have the job skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to get a job (3.3), have a 2- to 5-year employment plan (3.0), and know what services are available to help them in their job search (3.4). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds indicated ratings a lower than the older age groups. This difference might be related to the possibility that not as many 16- and 17-year-olds have jobs. Life Skills Survey participants agree to some degree that they are aware of free public programs (3.6), and know how to manage money (3.2), budget (3.4), access public assistance programs (3.3), and register to vote (3.2). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds are somewhat less self-assure in their life skills. With the lowest rating on the survey, survey - 49 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report participants somewhat disagree that they have enough savings to live independently, emphasizing a disconnect between knowledge of and success in applying life skills. Housing Survey participants agree to some degree that they aware of rental costs and those participants who are 18 and older agree somewhat that they know how to get rental assistance. 16- and 17- year-olds are less aware and participants somewhat disagree that they feel they can afford housing costs, calling attention to the lack of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area and the need for more TAY assistance in this area. Transportation Survey participants agree that they can get to work on time (3.7) and know how to use public transportation (3.8). Legal Assistance Survey participants agree somewhat that they know how to get legal help (3.2) and understand their legal rights (3.2); they are less sure (2.6) that they can access a lawyer. Physical Health Survey participants agree to some degree that they are in good physical shape (3.6), strong (3.5), know how to access health care (3.4) and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy (3.9). Social and Emotional Well-being Survey participants agree to some degree that they have family or friends that are supportive (3.6), know how to access community based groups (3.6), are able to live independently (3.2), and know how and who to ask for help if they are having trouble living independently (3.5). Additional Comments Forty seven additional comments or suggestions were received. Approximately 20% of the respondents made positive comments about their experiences, many expressing their gratitude, with TAY services and programs. The rest of the respondents commented negatively or gave suggestions for improvements. The respondents’ negative comments or suggestions in order of frequency were concerns about housing, the social worker or system, jobs/income/budgeting, quality of instruction or support, educational support and access to health care. APPENDIX C: DMH TAY Programs 5.1) Transition Age Youth Full Service Partnerships (TAY FSP) Program Description: An intensive Mental Health Services and supports program for not served, underserved, and inappropriately served SED/SPMI (Serious Emotional Disturbance/Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill) TAY based on use of effective and innovative approaches focused on achieving recommended outcomes: a) Meaningful use of time and capabilities (employment, vocational, educational, social, and community activities; b) Safe and adequate housing and living environments and reduction in homelessness; c) A network of supportive relationships; d) Timely access to needed help, including in times of crisis; - 50 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report d) Reduction in incarceration in jails and juvenile halls; e) Reduction in involuntary services, reduction in institutionalization, and reduction in out of home placements; f) Maintaining or improving physical health; g) Reduction in early pregnancy; and h) Completion of high school diploma or GED. An individualized comprehensive services and supports plan, in partnership with an FSP team, is developed for each youth focusing on recovery and resiliency/wellness. A case manager is available 24/7 to respond to clients needs (this is a critical service and support component). An array of services and supports are provided including clinical interventions, linkages and referrals, housing assistance (rental subsidies, eviction assistance), benefits establishment, money management, leisure activities and planning, vocational training, job assistance, or anything else the youth or family needs to better function. Misc. Information: This program enrolled the first client in December 2006. DMH states that available MHSA funding is currently not sufficient to provide FSP services to all SED/SPMI TAY who otherwise qualify and might benefit from them. Funding: This program is funded by the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Total funding is $19,668,660 annually and includes EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) funding and Medi-Cal. Of this, approximately 40% ($7.9 million) is targeted towards youth aging out of DCFS and Probation. Target Population/Potential clientele: This program serves 16-25 year olds in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems (system) as well as those outside the system. The $7.9 million targets youth currently in DCFS/Probation, youth aging out of the system, and youth formerly in the system. The balance of funding is for youth who are homeless or currently at risk of homelessness, are aging out of the child mental health system, leaving long-term institutional care (e.g. an Institution of Mental Disease or State Hospitals), and youth experiencing their first psychotic break. Program capacity: This program provides 1122 slots for 16-25 year olds for all of L.A. County ($17,530 per slot). Due to natural “slot-turnover” during the fiscal year, one slot usually serves more than one person. Clients served (since program inception): 1113 have been authorized (slot-turnover); 898 clients currently authorized to receive TAY FSP Services Evaluation Process: Program success is measured through the State and County approved Outcome Measures Application (OMA). Upon enrollment in an FSP program, a baseline assessment is completed by the provider agency. Subsequent updates are completed quarterly (minimally), and when there is a change in a “key event.” The OMA is an electronic-based application. 5.2) TAY Drop-In Centers Program Description: Drop-In Centers are intended as entry points into the mental health system for SED/SPMI TAY who are living on the street or in unstable living situations. Drop-In Centers provide “low-demand, high tolerance” environments in which youth can find temporary safety and basic supports (e.g. showers, meals, clothing, referrals, linkage to services, vouchers, counseling, etc.). TAY accessing Drop-In Centers have an opportunity to build trusting relationships with staff persons who can, as the youth is ready and willing, connect them to the services and supports they need in order to work toward stability and recovery. Existing Drop-In Centers operate during regular daytime hours. MHSA funding is made available to extend hours of operation to evenings and weekends for the primary purpose of ensuring access to these vital services and supports - 51 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Misc. Information: In March 2008 The Board of Supervisors approved funding for three Drop- In Centers in FY 2007-08, and two in FY 08-09. Funding: Private funding is raised by the centers for the bulk of their operations. MHSA funds are used to extend the hours of operation to evenings and weekends: $250,000 annually for each of two centers. Target Population/Potential clientele: TAY who are diagnosed SED/SPMI and living on the streets or in otherwise unstable living environments. According to DMH many of the youth accessing Drop-In Centers are current or former foster or probation youth. Program capacity: Currently two centers will be fully funded for extended hours of operation in the 2008-09 FY. If additional funding becomes available, DMH would be able to increase support of Drop-In Centers in other areas of the county. Their goal is to provide at least one center in each of the eight SPAs (Service Provider Areas). Clients served: Not available. Note: Youth accessing Drop-In Centers are not required to disclose their legal status to access services. Once trust is established, the youth may decide to disclose that information. This is an example of “low-demand, high tolerance.” Evaluation Process: Information available to DMH indicates that the Drop-In Center programs awarded MHSA funding have established records of providing effective services and successfully engaging, often difficult to reach youth in accessing their available services and supports. DMH TAY Division is developing a Drop-In Center evaluation tool to measure the success of the program in achieving the outcomes for TAY as identified in the CSS Plan. (See 5.1 above) 5.3) TAY Housing Services Program Description: This program provides the following. • Enhanced Emergency Shelter Program for TAY (EESP) $605,000 per year. This program provides temporary shelter for SED/SPMI TAY ages 18-25 in a supportive housing environment for up to 29 nights while pursuing the long-term goal of secure and permanent housing. Program offers semi-private rooms, hygiene facilities, hot meals, case management, referrals and linkage services to SED/SPMI TAY who have no other resources to pay for shelter. There is one shelter that is licensed (6-beds) to serve 16-17 years old. DMH TAY Division is working with DCFS Command Post Unit to develop protocols for access for DCFS clients. • Project-Based Operating Subsidies for Permanent Housing $390,000 per year. This program provides a unit-based housing subsidy (not an individual rental subsidy). This program is currently under development. When implemented it is estimated that approximately 83 units of affordable housing will be available to SED/SPMI TAY who are capable of living independently in the community in their own apartment/unit. • Housing Specialists, one per SPA, Total funding $575,000 per year. Housing specialists assist youth with finding, securing and retaining housing by providing individualized services including accompanying youth on housing search, advocating with landlord, and assistance completing application forms. Misc. Information: The EESP Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18,
Additional Recommendations
23
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff should impose a limit of $500 on the total amount of money an inmate has in his or her account at any given time. If the inmate is booked into custody with a sum greater than $500 in his or her possession, the inmate should be required to draw down on the amount until it falls below $500 before any deposits from outside third parties are accepted.
R2:
The Sheriff should discontinue and prohibit the practice of allowing an inmate to authorize the release of funds to outside third parties, except for money that was in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. All money deposited by outside third parties to inmate accounts should only be for use by inmates in purchasing phone cards and items from the jail store.
R3:
The Sheriff should implement procedures requiring cashier staff to request valid identification from outside third parties making deposits to an inmate’s account, unless the amount is less than a pre-determined nominal sum, such as $100. - 11 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 12 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report HELPING PROBATION AND FOSTER CARE YOUTH PREPARE FOR ADULTHOOD AND INDEPENDENCE 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Nicolina Friedman, Chair Ethell Anderson Lucy Hernandez Fred Linderman Dorothy M. Schneider - 13 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 14 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R4:
DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multi-faceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. At a minimum, we believe the following changes should be considered: 4a) A suitable overlap of mentors should be built into the program to ease a child’s transition to the new mentor. 4b) The training provided to foster families and group home staff should be increased and should include ongoing evaluation, continuous training, and recertification. 4c) The interagency teams should be trained in team building skills to ensure they can make effective group decisions and are able to connect effectively with each child. 4d) Two-way communication with the children should be the norm and to the extent possible the children should be involved in key decisions affecting them. - 36 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TAY Youth entering the Probation and Juvenile Hall schools administered by LACOE are given a test to determine their academic level of functioning. During visits to these schools, the CGJ learned from teachers, administrators and observation that students are, on average, one to three years below grade level. In spite of numerous requests, the CGJ could not get data from LACOE substantiating the reported one to three year grade level lag of the students entering their camp and hall classrooms. The State of California requires a core of 140 units for high school graduation leaving the additional coursework to be determined by school districts. Los Angeles Unified School District requires the completion of 230 units for graduation. There program calls for 150 core units leaving 80 units for supplementing core units and electives. Students may request their own transcripts from their schools before scheduling their classes. DCFS, DMH, and Probation acting in loco parentis when parents relinquish or abdicate educational rights, are responsible for guiding the educational choices of their charges. There is latitude within the system to customize high school programs to meet the individual needs of students. We have identified the following specific improvements based on our research, discussion with officials, and feedback from TAY.
R5:
The directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills for all children to better prepare them for independence. 5a) All programs should contain an identified minimum level of understanding on the part of the recipients before the program is considered delivered. 5b) Enhanced study skills and courses on practical living skills should be part of the curriculum of juvenile halls and camps. DCFS should include such courses in the schedules of students attending public schools whenever possible. 5c) Foster children should be encouraged to participate in music, art, and other nonacademic programs. Probation should seek volunteers to provide these services in juvenile halls and camps. 5d) Probation camps and halls should provide vocational training for all detainees utilizing ROP services when possible. DCFS should encourage TAY to enroll in experiential, vocational, and ROP courses. 5e) Probation and DCFS should develop additional apprentice, job training and part-time job programs with all levels of government and business to provide more practical work experience for TAY. 5f) Probation and DCFS should invite representatives from organizations such as the Forestry Service and various branches of the U.S. military to - 37 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report make presentations to youth that fully describe their educational opportunities and obligations. 5i) DCFS and Probation should develop significant incentives and rewards to encourage their wards to obtain high school graduation, or a GED, and high scholastic achievement. POST-EMANCIPATION TAY While 18 may be the age of majority, in our view a large percentage of 18 to 25 year olds currently leaving the system do not have the experience, education, maturity or means to thrive without the emotional and financial support of a family. The financial dimension is particularly difficult in Los Angeles where the cost of living is high and accommodation costs are typically double the national average. The following recommendations will help to mitigate the lack of “a safety net” that most families provide to their 18 to 25 year olds:
R6:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, DPSS, and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 – 25 who have left the system. 6a) Either through the development of affordable housing supply and/or direct subsidy, all post transition youth should have access to good quality housing at a reasonable rate. 6b) A wider range of educational supports should be made available to post transition youth including tuition, room & board, books, and other expenses required when they attend school. 6c) Independent living supports should be provided such as health care insurance, transportation assistance, food vouchers, auto insurance subsidies, clothing allowances, and access to community-based support groups. The cost of these services should be partially borne by the post- transition youth based on an income means criterion to be developed by the departments. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The development of a comprehensive and integrated information system was the most frequently mentioned requirement for improvement by County officials during the Entrance Conference. This requirement, and the need to deal with confidentiality rules to allow information sharing, was raised by last year’s CGJ and the ECC Blueprint. There is no doubt that this will be a costly exercise but the need is as obvious as the need for leadership to ensure the development of a comprehensive system. Our concern is that without comprehensive and integrated information systems, optimal decisions in the best interest of the child are unlikely. During this investigation it was clear that while evidence-based reviews are the mantra, in many programs there were not regular and systematic output-oriented evaluations. - 38 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report According to DCFS and Probation officials, many youth chose not to engage in TAY programs. We understand that teenagers can be difficult but at a minimum the evaluations of each program should include input from all youth to understand why some are not participating. There is evidence that the programs are not getting the results hoped for: - there are high incarceration rates of former system children - there is a high homeless rate - there are high pregnancy rates Conceptually, all of the programs and the resources expended on them are to have a positive impact on this population. Without follow-up data on the children, the evaluation of the real results of a program is not possible. We recognize that once a child leaves the system they are under no legal or other obligation to stay in touch and provide information on how they are doing. The departments need to stop thinking of this as an impassable roadblock and explore ways to obtain high quality follow-up information on former TAY.
R7:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost estimates to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding, and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and future programs and policy initiatives: 7a) The new information system should be designed to allow for the tracking of all children once they leave the system. 7b) Appropriate incentives and commitments should be developed to encourage former TAY to remain in contact with the system to facilitate the gathering of information on them. 7c) Until data on former TAY is available routinely, the departments should pursue sampling and other survey methods to gain an understanding of the real results of TAY programs. 7d) Until the new information system is implemented, Probation should have access to all of DCFS’s data systems to help their staff track their youth and improve their services. - 39 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R08:
As such, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a vendor to provide routine maintenance services. The current contract does not contain a maximum amount and the department indicated that the new agreement will also not contain such provisions. The Internal Services Department should consider a contract structure more similar to those that have been entered into by other departments and contain a maximum amount. • The Department of Public Works has entered into agreements for routine vehicle maintenance services with 76 vendors. These contracts contain provisions that cap the total expenditures by the department at a maximum amount of $1.5 million. The department expended the maximum amount for routine maintenance in FY 2006-07 and is expected to expend the maximum amount in FY 2007-08. • The Fire Department has entered into agreements with a total of 82 vendors to provide routine vehicle maintenance services for the department for a maximum amount of $3.5 million per year. The actual expenditures for services received through these agreements are the maximum of $3.5 million. • The Sheriff’s Department recently entered into an agreement with a single vendor to provide routine maintenance services for its fleet. This agreement, with the Penske Corporation, is for an amount not to exceed $16.0 million per year. Accident Costs Accident repair costs involve actual payments for County vehicle repairs involved in accidents and, in many instances, the repair costs are not covered by the contracts discussed above. Many of the accidents cost the department additional amounts that vary year-to-year. Complete and verifiable cost information was not readily available from the departments for this audit. However, the table on the next page shows the numbers of accidents as reported by the individual departments. - 109 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table 9 Reported Vehicle Accidents in the Four Largest Vehicle Usage Departments FY 2005-06 through March 2008 Ratio of Number of Number of Department Accidents to Number of Accidents* Vehicles** Sheriff’s Department 849 16.0% Public Works Department 747 40.2% Fire Department 132 9.9% Internal Services Department 124 12.8% Total 1,852 – Sources: Los Angeles County Departments * Data is for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08. The data for FY 2007-08 is year to date and does not contain the entire year. ** The number of vehicles is based on the totals received from the Auditor-Controller’s Fixed Asset database. The Sheriff’s Department can expect accidents due to vehicle pursuits and other patrol activities, and has implemented several policies and procedures to ensure that accidents are kept to a minimum and thoroughly reviewed. Further, the Risk Management Branch of the County Executive’s Office works with departments by providing “technical support (consultations, training, surveys, etc.)6” to reduce costs associated with vehicle liability. The County Executive Office continues to work with departments to keep accidents to a minimum and thus reduce claim costs and accident repair costs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the managers and staff from each of the departments included in this study. In virtually every instance, the departments responded to our requests for data and interviews in a timely manner, and provided access to records required to accomplish the study objectives. Even when access to certain records was delayed because of privacy concerns, Sheriff’s Department management and staff worked diligently toward obtaining the information we required for our review. This high level of cooperation permitted us to accomplish a complex study in the timeframe requested by the Civil Grand Jury, and provide recommendations that we believe will assist the departments to improve vehicle usage throughout the County. Chief Administrative Office Risk Management Annual Report, p. 21. - 110 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R8:
Continued training is necessary for DPSS employees dealing with IHSS eligibility and fraud detection, based on the best practices recommended by CWDA and the involved state and county agencies. Also, since the need for repeated in-home visits is demoralizing to the social worker, for which no amount of training will compensate, the social worker should be given the authority to “notice” a recipient to schedule an assessment visit on a certain date, under penalty of payment cutoff.
R9:
DPSS should consider electronic monitoring as an alternative to a human provider for in-home care. The electronic monitoring systems do not provide “care” as such, but do avoid the need of a little-known provider visiting the home or abode. A half dozen such systems are now on the market. In addition, the Center for Aging Services Technologies in Washington, D.C., as well as the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland are excellent sources of further information.
R10:
Payment vouchers to IHSS service providers should be made payable to both the recipient of the care and the provider, thus requiring an endorsement from each before the check can be cashed. This safeguard would curtail some of the fraud that is occurring.
R11:
DPSS must follow the fraud reporting protocols required by the language of SB 1104. Also, in the interests of good management and employee morale, DPSS must provide feedback on fraud investigations to the initiating employee. Claims and excuses that the Department of Health Care Services isn’t providing feedback to DPSS are weak; DPSS senior management must insist on this information in a periodic and timely manner.
R12:
DPSS should review applicants for IHSS as to whether they are a sponsored immigrant under Section 213a of the Act. If so, their sponsor(s) or co-sponsor(s) should be sought to provide the financial support for the applicant. This recommendation has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.
R13:
Since the income cap for receiving EITC in CY 2008 approaches $37,000, it is recommended that an applicant for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be asked if he or she has received an EITC last calendar year and is receiving one in the immediate calendar year. If so, note should be made, in the application for IHSS, of the amounts received or to be received in each year. A person receiving the EITC should not be denied eligibility for IHSS, but the amounts received in that credit should be factored into the amount of IHSS services paid for by the recipient, by means of a formula which could be changed yearly. - 74 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R14:
As well as capturing the fingerprints of both the recipient and provider during the intake / application process, as recommended elsewhere, DPSS should require a fingerprint of both the recipient and the provider on each time card, perhaps even in lieu of a signature.
R15:
DPSS should enforce the requirement that bi-weekly/monthly time cards be submitted. If time cards are not received within ten (10) business days of when due, further payment warrants or direct deposits should be terminated. Direct deposit accounts should be checked quarterly to ascertain their balance. If the balance is substantial (>$5,000), it may indicate the need for an eligibility review. - 75 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R16:
The Department of Social Services should implement the recommended security measures in this report. DPSS needs to validate program providers and recipients more aggressively, by knowing who they are to a certainty (photo and fingerprints), their actual and purported participation in the program, and the exposure of bogus providers and recipients. Reference is also made to the 1998-1999 Civil Grand Jury Final Report that recommended methods to detect and prevent attempted employee fraud, particularly the section on Internal Affairs Investigations, pages 141-152. The IHSS program is not supposed to be a cottage industry for scam artists, especially those embedded within the ranks of DPSS itself. - 76 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXPENDITURES TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECIPIENTS OF IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) BY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Time Frame No. of Recipients Federal State L.A. County TOTAL 2003-04 FY Actual 140,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 139,000,000 $ 79,000,000 $ 230,000,000 2004-05 FY Actual 145,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 181,000,000 $ 58,000,000 $ 260,000,000 2005-06 FY Actual 152,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 226,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 290,000,000 2006-07 FY Actual 160,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ 76,000,000 $ 347,000,000 2007-08 FY Budget 380,000* $ 46,000,000† $ 272,000,000† $ 65,000,000† $ 383,000,000† *statewide †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted 2008-09 FY 400,000* Projected *statewide Source: DPSS; Legislative Analyst; County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) See Notes which follow regarding this spreadsheet. - 77 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.”
R19:
Number of items in current 2,000 5,000 1,500 4,500 1,700 751 3,000 warehouse inventory
R20:
Annual average dollar value of items $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $1,300,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $682,569 $16,000,000 in warehouse inventory “$27,000,000 without textbooks; $90,000,000 to $120,000,000 w/
R21:
Annual textbooks. Sales of stock $50,000,000 $9,100,000 $4,500,000 Textbooks are $12,400,000 $729,053 $135,000,000 items in FY handled as central 2006-07 warehouse cross- docked items but are not part of inventory.”
R22:
Average Delivery Time “5 days from the during 10 days 2 days 2-3 days 1-5 days 3 days 2 -3 days Warehouse to normal School/Office times” site - 250 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 23 Does the warehouse offer a same or next-day delivery option? Six Responses: 6= “Yes” LAUSD: Yes 24 If YES, is there a charge for this service? 25 If YES, what is the amount? Six responses: 6= “No” LAUSD: Yes LAUSD: $9-13 PART IV. Non-Stock Items 26 How do District schools and offices generally purchase non-stock items? Six responses: Method of Non-Stock Requisition or P-Card Other Purchase Purchase Order Number Responding “Yes” 5 6 0 - 251 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 27 If your District uses P-Cards, please answer the questions below. A) What is the maximum number of P-Cards issued per site? Three responses: 1= “1” 1= “Most have 3” 1= ”5” LAUSD: “2” B) Is there a maximum single purchase limit? Five responses: 5= “Yes” LAUSD: Yes If yes, what is it? Five responses: 3= “$500” 1= “$4,999” 1= “Yes” LAUSD: $500 C) Is there a maximum monthly purchase limit? Five responses: 5= “Yes” If yes, what is it? Five responses: 3= “$10,000” 1= “$4,999” 1= ”$1,500” LAUSD: $10,000 - 252 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report D) What controls have been implemented to enforce these provisions? Five responses: Manual Automated Written Review & Review & Periodic P-Card Control Policies & Override of Override of Other? Audits Procedures Certain Certain Purchases Purchases Number Responding 5 3 3 3 1 “Yes” LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Other Response: “Procurement, Accounting and Audit share in monthly reviews.” 28 If your District allows personnel to order non-stock items through requisitions or purchase orders, please indicate to whom such items are submitted: Five Responses: Submitted to a Centralized District Submitted Directly to Vendor Purchasing/Procurement Office 0 responses 5 responses LAUSD= (cid:57) - 253 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 29 If your District has another method of purchasing non-stock items (other than via P-Cards, requisitions or purchase orders) please describe the method(s): Five Responses: 5= “N/A” LAUSD: No other method 30 Please indicate which statement best characterizes your District’s non-stock purchasing policy: There are NO restrictions on the type of non-stock items that District schools and offices are allowed to purchase: One Response. Restrictions: District schools District schools District schools and offices are District schools and offices are and offices are prohibited from and offices are prohibited from prohibited from purchasing prohibited from purchasing ANY purchasing non- Non-stock SPECIFIED items purchasing non- item that is stock items for purchases are that are stocked stock items for stocked by the which there is a limited to items Policy by the which there is a warehouse functionally specified on an warehouse functionally through the similar (like) item approved through the similar (like) item District’s non- stocked in the product list. District’s non- stocked in the stock warehouse with stock warehouse with purchasing SOME purchasing NO exceptions. processes. exceptions. processes. Number of “Yes” 1 2 1 1 0 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) - 254 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 31 What controls have been implemented to enforce these non-stock purchasing restrictions? Please check all that apply: Monthly/Annual Manual Review Automated Review Written Audits of Non- and Override of and Override of Control Policies and Other Stock Restricted Non- Restricted Non- Procedures Purchases Stock Purchases Stock Purchases Number of 5 5 5 5 6 Responses Number of “Yes” 5 0 1 1 1 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) Other response: “Evaluation Policy” PART VI. Performance Measurement and Documentation: Which of the following measures does your district use to monitor performance of the warehouse function? 32 Districts reporting: Six responses: Performance Any Performance Performance Customer Service Flow Charts Measure Measures Audits/Reviews Surveys Number of “Yes” 5 4 5 5 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) - 255 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 256 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report LOS ANGELES COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTERS 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Lionel S. Martinez, Chair Judy Hsu James Kaiser Lloyd R. Smith 257 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 258 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report LOS ANGELES COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTERS INTRODUCTION As a result of a citizen’s complaint, the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate the operation of the Los Angeles County Rehabilitation Centers. According to the complaint a rehab center resident at the time of discharge was so sick that he required emergency ambulance transportation to a hospital. He died later that evening. Finally, the complaint states that all of this occurred with no assistance from rehabilitation center staff. Based on the results of the investigation, the Civil Grand Jury has determined there are areas for improvement in the policies and procedures of the rehabilitation centers. OBJECTIVES and SCOPE The purpose of this report is to investigate the policies and procedures of Los Angeles County Rehabilitation Centers. The primary focus of the investigation was operational procedures as they pertain to residents who become ill or are injured while residing at the rehabilitation centers. The Civil Grand Jury identified two county rehabilitation centers, both of which are administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. These centers are : Acton Rehabilitation Center 30500 Arrastre Canyon Road Acton, California Warm Springs Rehabilitation Center 38200 North Lake Hughes Road Castaic, California
R16-17:
18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 -
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There is now a recently implemented cap of $900 on the amount an inmate may have in his or her account, whether deposited by outside third parties, or in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. The $900 maximum on inmate accounts is excessive, and it creates an opportunity for disparity in the jail setting, where there are many rules and regulations in place for the express purpose of maintaining a level playing field among inmates. Inmates who are able to amass such a substantial sum of money, and the amenities that money can buy, have an opportunity to use such money or amenities to barter for extraordinary privileges.
F2:
Government Code § 26640 does not speak to whether the Sheriff may release money in an inmate’s account to outside third parties at the direction of the inmate, except for that money in the inmate’s possession at the time he or she is booked into custody. There is no legitimate purpose in permitting a jail inmate to function as a cash conduit by directing the release of funds to outside third parties that were initially deposited by persons outside the jail system. - 10 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F3:
The Sheriff does not require identification from outside third parties who make cash deposits to an inmate’s account through the cashier’s office.
F4:
The fourth recommendation involves organizational changes to improve trust by youth already in the system. Many young people mistrust adults even when they are motivated by the highest ideals. Mentoring has proven successful in many instances especially when the ratio of youth to mentor is low. Continuous training for caregivers and foster parents is imperative in order to provide the best possible role models. Communication skills, early interventions to offset problems, and decision-making skills are crucial if programs are to have the positive impact we strive to achieve. Better and more effective communication is needed between the Probation Officers and schools with students in the probation system.
F5:
The fifth recommendation involves enhanced educational improvements for TAY. Vocational training, life skills programs, enriched music and art programs, as well as apprenticeship and on-the- job training will do much to support the regular high school curriculum required by State law to ensure that students graduate from high school equipped with the tools needed for successful adulthood.
F6:
The sixth recommendation calls for improved programs for post-emancipation TAY.
F7:
The seventh recommendation calls for the development of a comprehensive information system that captures the records on all current wards and continues to collect information through surveys on successes and problems after emancipation. This information is vital as a planning, evaluation, and budgeting tool. - 16 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Our recommendations are deliberately directional. We hope we have provided enough specificity to make our intent clear while leaving room for creativity. We strongly encourage the many intelligent and dedicated people who are involved in the lives of TAY to set the bar even higher by focusing on the real life results achieved by all TAY. APPROACH TO THE INVESTIGATION During our review of DCFS and Probation’s TAY programs, our data collection consisted of: • Site visits to facilities and discussions with service providers including probation officers and social workers • Interviews with key officials at DCFS, Probation, DMH, LACOE, and the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court of the Los Angeles Superior Court • An entrance conference with the Los Angeles County Deputy Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Children & Families Well-Being and key officials from DCFS, Probation, DPSS, LACOE, and DMH to solicit their support of the investigation and their ideas for improvement of the TAY system • Research of: − TAY best practices used in other jurisdictions − Analysis of data provided by DCFS, Probation, DMH, and other agencies − A survey of TAY currently in DCFS and Probation as well as those who have left the system − Discussion of data findings and conclusions with DCFS, Probation, and DMH officials - 17 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report OVERVIEW OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Currently over 3000 children enter DCFS and probation each month. In 2007, 2,629 youth exited the system as follows: AGE 17 18 19 20 21+ TOTAL Probation 25 643 65 9 5 747 DCFS 9 1,160 476 175 62 1,882 TOTAL 34 1,803 541 184 67 2,629 These counts should decrease over time as DCFS’s new initiatives to place their wards in permanent placement are successful. As of March 2008 there were 8,676 youth who will likely transition from the system to independence versus returning home: AGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 + TOTAL Probation 86 212 308 363 124 6 27 1,126 DCFS 1,337 1,493 1,586 1,572 1,023 378 121 7,550 TOTAL 1,423 1,705 1,894 1,935 1,147 384 147 8,626 These youth receive training and support both pre- and post-transition in the following areas: • Living skills (including budgeting, banking, and grocery shopping) • Housing assistance (including assistance in signing a lease, arranging utilities, and rental subsidies in some cases) • Education Assistance (including assistance with applications, tuition assistance, and tutoring) • Vocational Training/Employment Assistance (including job skills assessment, referrals to vocational programs, and employment agencies • Living support (including bus passes, clothing allowances, car insurance assistance, and legal referrals) The basic goals of these programs are to help TAY to become self-sufficient adults. The total funding of these programs has been estimated by DCFS/Probation and DMH at $95,686,359. Mental health care services are provided by DMH. - 18 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report RESEARCH
F8:
DCFS YOUTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT 2007 In 2007 the Ombudsman received 236 complaints from TAY as follows: DCFS Probation Total Pre-emancipated youth 53 16 69 Emancipated youth 156 11 167 Total 209 27 236 - 32 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Their top 5 concerns were: Housing (103), ILP issues including Life Skills Classes (45), School Assistance (38), Transportation (13), and Documentation (13). A summary of the report is available in Appendix E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOW IN THE NEXT SECTION - 33 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A NEW VISION Much has been done to shift the focus of the system from safety and security in the case of DCFS and detention in the case of Probation, to creating a positive impact on each child’s life during their stay in the system. There is a strong leadership team in place who are committed to implementing evidence-based best practices. The new organizational structure and the leadership of the Deputy CEO are focused on integrated service and prevention. Despite these positives we have concluded from our investigation that there is much more to do. Some of the areas we feel need to be addressed include: - Reaching more high risk families as a prevention measure - The lack of continuity of a significant adult in each child’s life - The general low level of trust the children have of the system - Enhanced educational coordination, support and enrichment - More experiential opportunities in life skills particularly in job training - More housing, job, life skills support post-emancipation - Improved information systems including post-emancipation - More systematic and evidence-based evaluations of programs There is both an opportunity and a responsibility for Los Angeles County to become a national leader in helping our children in the system thrive. It has been over five years since the last major plan was developed. It is time to refocus all the parties that are involved with TAY.
F17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.” APPENDIX B: TAY Survey A survey was developed and distributed to a sample of youth in DCFS and Probation, and My Friend’s Place (a drop-in center for homeless youth in Los Angeles) to get their perspective on the services and programs available to them. They were also encouraged to give comments and suggestions for new, needed programs. A total of 205 TAY participated in the survey. Approximately two-thirds of the survey participants are or were from DCFS and one-third from Probation. The survey participants were asked to rate TAY services and programs by indicating their degree of agreement with a series of statements concerning: • Education • Workforce Readiness • Life Skills • Housing • Transportation • Legal Assistance • Physical Health • Social and Emotional Wellbeing Exhibit D displays the findings for all categories using a rating scale of 1-4 to measure response averages. Exhibit D: TAY Service and Program Ratings AGREE – 4 SOMEWHAT AGREE – 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE – 2 DISAGREE – 1 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older WORKFORCE READINESS I have the job skills, knowledge and experience to get a good job. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 I have a career/employment plan for the next 2 – 5 years. 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.0 I know what services are available to help me get a job. 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.4 LIFE SKILLS I have enough savings to live independently. 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 I feel I can manage my money. 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 I know how to budget my money for groceries, etc. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 I know how to access public assistance programs if I need them. 2.9 3.5 3.6 3.3 I am aware of free public programs (library, recreational centers, etc). 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 I know how to register to vote. 2.5 1.9 3.6 3.2 HOUSING I am aware of rental costs. 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 I feel I can cover the housing costs (furniture, equipment, utilities, etc.) of living 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 independently. I know how to get rental assistance. 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.8 TRANSPORTATION I can get to work on time. 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.7 I know how to use public transportation. 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 LEGAL ASSISTANCE I know how to get legal help if I need it. 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.2 I have access to a lawyer. 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 I understand my rights if I have a problem with the law. 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 PHYSICAL HEALTH I am in good physical health (dental, vision, hearing etc.). 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 I am strong and in good shape. 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 I know how to access health care (insurance, free clinics, etc.). 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.4 I know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING I have friends and/or family members who are supportive. 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 I know how to access community based support groups (church, counselors, etc.). 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 I am able to live independently. 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 I know how/who to ask for help if I have trouble living independently. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Education Survey participants agree to some degree that they are receiving the education that they want (3.4) and are getting the assistance (3.4), information and choices (3.3) guidance (3.5), and support and advice (3.5) necessary for educational success. Workforce Readiness Survey participants agree to some degree that they have the job skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to get a job (3.3), have a 2- to 5-year employment plan (3.0), and know what services are available to help them in their job search (3.4). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds indicated ratings a lower than the older age groups. This difference might be related to the possibility that not as many 16- and 17-year-olds have jobs. Life Skills Survey participants agree to some degree that they are aware of free public programs (3.6), and know how to manage money (3.2), budget (3.4), access public assistance programs (3.3), and register to vote (3.2). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds are somewhat less self-assure in their life skills. With the lowest rating on the survey, survey - 49 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report participants somewhat disagree that they have enough savings to live independently, emphasizing a disconnect between knowledge of and success in applying life skills. Housing Survey participants agree to some degree that they aware of rental costs and those participants who are 18 and older agree somewhat that they know how to get rental assistance. 16- and 17- year-olds are less aware and participants somewhat disagree that they feel they can afford housing costs, calling attention to the lack of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area and the need for more TAY assistance in this area. Transportation Survey participants agree that they can get to work on time (3.7) and know how to use public transportation (3.8). Legal Assistance Survey participants agree somewhat that they know how to get legal help (3.2) and understand their legal rights (3.2); they are less sure (2.6) that they can access a lawyer. Physical Health Survey participants agree to some degree that they are in good physical shape (3.6), strong (3.5), know how to access health care (3.4) and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy (3.9). Social and Emotional Well-being Survey participants agree to some degree that they have family or friends that are supportive (3.6), know how to access community based groups (3.6), are able to live independently (3.2), and know how and who to ask for help if they are having trouble living independently (3.5). Additional Comments Forty seven additional comments or suggestions were received. Approximately 20% of the respondents made positive comments about their experiences, many expressing their gratitude, with TAY services and programs. The rest of the respondents commented negatively or gave suggestions for improvements. The respondents’ negative comments or suggestions in order of frequency were concerns about housing, the social worker or system, jobs/income/budgeting, quality of instruction or support, educational support and access to health care. APPENDIX C: DMH TAY Programs 5.1) Transition Age Youth Full Service Partnerships (TAY FSP) Program Description: An intensive Mental Health Services and supports program for not served, underserved, and inappropriately served SED/SPMI (Serious Emotional Disturbance/Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill) TAY based on use of effective and innovative approaches focused on achieving recommended outcomes: a) Meaningful use of time and capabilities (employment, vocational, educational, social, and community activities; b) Safe and adequate housing and living environments and reduction in homelessness; c) A network of supportive relationships; d) Timely access to needed help, including in times of crisis; - 50 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report d) Reduction in incarceration in jails and juvenile halls; e) Reduction in involuntary services, reduction in institutionalization, and reduction in out of home placements; f) Maintaining or improving physical health; g) Reduction in early pregnancy; and h) Completion of high school diploma or GED. An individualized comprehensive services and supports plan, in partnership with an FSP team, is developed for each youth focusing on recovery and resiliency/wellness. A case manager is available 24/7 to respond to clients needs (this is a critical service and support component). An array of services and supports are provided including clinical interventions, linkages and referrals, housing assistance (rental subsidies, eviction assistance), benefits establishment, money management, leisure activities and planning, vocational training, job assistance, or anything else the youth or family needs to better function. Misc. Information: This program enrolled the first client in December 2006. DMH states that available MHSA funding is currently not sufficient to provide FSP services to all SED/SPMI TAY who otherwise qualify and might benefit from them. Funding: This program is funded by the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Total funding is $19,668,660 annually and includes EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) funding and Medi-Cal. Of this, approximately 40% ($7.9 million) is targeted towards youth aging out of DCFS and Probation. Target Population/Potential clientele: This program serves 16-25 year olds in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems (system) as well as those outside the system. The $7.9 million targets youth currently in DCFS/Probation, youth aging out of the system, and youth formerly in the system. The balance of funding is for youth who are homeless or currently at risk of homelessness, are aging out of the child mental health system, leaving long-term institutional care (e.g. an Institution of Mental Disease or State Hospitals), and youth experiencing their first psychotic break. Program capacity: This program provides 1122 slots for 16-25 year olds for all of L.A. County ($17,530 per slot). Due to natural “slot-turnover” during the fiscal year, one slot usually serves more than one person. Clients served (since program inception): 1113 have been authorized (slot-turnover); 898 clients currently authorized to receive TAY FSP Services Evaluation Process: Program success is measured through the State and County approved Outcome Measures Application (OMA). Upon enrollment in an FSP program, a baseline assessment is completed by the provider agency. Subsequent updates are completed quarterly (minimally), and when there is a change in a “key event.” The OMA is an electronic-based application. 5.2) TAY Drop-In Centers Program Description: Drop-In Centers are intended as entry points into the mental health system for SED/SPMI TAY who are living on the street or in unstable living situations. Drop-In Centers provide “low-demand, high tolerance” environments in which youth can find temporary safety and basic supports (e.g. showers, meals, clothing, referrals, linkage to services, vouchers, counseling, etc.). TAY accessing Drop-In Centers have an opportunity to build trusting relationships with staff persons who can, as the youth is ready and willing, connect them to the services and supports they need in order to work toward stability and recovery. Existing Drop-In Centers operate during regular daytime hours. MHSA funding is made available to extend hours of operation to evenings and weekends for the primary purpose of ensuring access to these vital services and supports - 51 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Misc. Information: In March 2008 The Board of Supervisors approved funding for three Drop- In Centers in FY 2007-08, and two in FY 08-09. Funding: Private funding is raised by the centers for the bulk of their operations. MHSA funds are used to extend the hours of operation to evenings and weekends: $250,000 annually for each of two centers. Target Population/Potential clientele: TAY who are diagnosed SED/SPMI and living on the streets or in otherwise unstable living environments. According to DMH many of the youth accessing Drop-In Centers are current or former foster or probation youth. Program capacity: Currently two centers will be fully funded for extended hours of operation in the 2008-09 FY. If additional funding becomes available, DMH would be able to increase support of Drop-In Centers in other areas of the county. Their goal is to provide at least one center in each of the eight SPAs (Service Provider Areas). Clients served: Not available. Note: Youth accessing Drop-In Centers are not required to disclose their legal status to access services. Once trust is established, the youth may decide to disclose that information. This is an example of “low-demand, high tolerance.” Evaluation Process: Information available to DMH indicates that the Drop-In Center programs awarded MHSA funding have established records of providing effective services and successfully engaging, often difficult to reach youth in accessing their available services and supports. DMH TAY Division is developing a Drop-In Center evaluation tool to measure the success of the program in achieving the outcomes for TAY as identified in the CSS Plan. (See 5.1 above) 5.3) TAY Housing Services Program Description: This program provides the following. • Enhanced Emergency Shelter Program for TAY (EESP) $605,000 per year. This program provides temporary shelter for SED/SPMI TAY ages 18-25 in a supportive housing environment for up to 29 nights while pursuing the long-term goal of secure and permanent housing. Program offers semi-private rooms, hygiene facilities, hot meals, case management, referrals and linkage services to SED/SPMI TAY who have no other resources to pay for shelter. There is one shelter that is licensed (6-beds) to serve 16-17 years old. DMH TAY Division is working with DCFS Command Post Unit to develop protocols for access for DCFS clients. • Project-Based Operating Subsidies for Permanent Housing $390,000 per year. This program provides a unit-based housing subsidy (not an individual rental subsidy). This program is currently under development. When implemented it is estimated that approximately 83 units of affordable housing will be available to SED/SPMI TAY who are capable of living independently in the community in their own apartment/unit. • Housing Specialists, one per SPA, Total funding $575,000 per year. Housing specialists assist youth with finding, securing and retaining housing by providing individualized services including accompanying youth on housing search, advocating with landlord, and assistance completing application forms. Misc. Information: The EESP Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18,
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff should impose a limit of $500 on the total amount of money an inmate has in his or her account at any given time. If the inmate is booked into custody with a sum greater than $500 in his or her possession, the inmate should be required to draw down on the amount until it falls below $500 before any deposits from outside third parties are accepted.
R2:
The Sheriff should discontinue and prohibit the practice of allowing an inmate to authorize the release of funds to outside third parties, except for money that was in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. All money deposited by outside third parties to inmate accounts should only be for use by inmates in purchasing phone cards and items from the jail store.
R3:
The Sheriff should implement procedures requiring cashier staff to request valid identification from outside third parties making deposits to an inmate’s account, unless the amount is less than a pre-determined nominal sum, such as $100. - 11 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 12 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report HELPING PROBATION AND FOSTER CARE YOUTH PREPARE FOR ADULTHOOD AND INDEPENDENCE 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Nicolina Friedman, Chair Ethell Anderson Lucy Hernandez Fred Linderman Dorothy M. Schneider - 13 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 14 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R4:
DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multi-faceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. At a minimum, we believe the following changes should be considered: 4a) A suitable overlap of mentors should be built into the program to ease a child’s transition to the new mentor. 4b) The training provided to foster families and group home staff should be increased and should include ongoing evaluation, continuous training, and recertification. 4c) The interagency teams should be trained in team building skills to ensure they can make effective group decisions and are able to connect effectively with each child. 4d) Two-way communication with the children should be the norm and to the extent possible the children should be involved in key decisions affecting them. - 36 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TAY Youth entering the Probation and Juvenile Hall schools administered by LACOE are given a test to determine their academic level of functioning. During visits to these schools, the CGJ learned from teachers, administrators and observation that students are, on average, one to three years below grade level. In spite of numerous requests, the CGJ could not get data from LACOE substantiating the reported one to three year grade level lag of the students entering their camp and hall classrooms. The State of California requires a core of 140 units for high school graduation leaving the additional coursework to be determined by school districts. Los Angeles Unified School District requires the completion of 230 units for graduation. There program calls for 150 core units leaving 80 units for supplementing core units and electives. Students may request their own transcripts from their schools before scheduling their classes. DCFS, DMH, and Probation acting in loco parentis when parents relinquish or abdicate educational rights, are responsible for guiding the educational choices of their charges. There is latitude within the system to customize high school programs to meet the individual needs of students. We have identified the following specific improvements based on our research, discussion with officials, and feedback from TAY.
R5:
The directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills for all children to better prepare them for independence. 5a) All programs should contain an identified minimum level of understanding on the part of the recipients before the program is considered delivered. 5b) Enhanced study skills and courses on practical living skills should be part of the curriculum of juvenile halls and camps. DCFS should include such courses in the schedules of students attending public schools whenever possible. 5c) Foster children should be encouraged to participate in music, art, and other nonacademic programs. Probation should seek volunteers to provide these services in juvenile halls and camps. 5d) Probation camps and halls should provide vocational training for all detainees utilizing ROP services when possible. DCFS should encourage TAY to enroll in experiential, vocational, and ROP courses. 5e) Probation and DCFS should develop additional apprentice, job training and part-time job programs with all levels of government and business to provide more practical work experience for TAY. 5f) Probation and DCFS should invite representatives from organizations such as the Forestry Service and various branches of the U.S. military to - 37 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report make presentations to youth that fully describe their educational opportunities and obligations. 5i) DCFS and Probation should develop significant incentives and rewards to encourage their wards to obtain high school graduation, or a GED, and high scholastic achievement. POST-EMANCIPATION TAY While 18 may be the age of majority, in our view a large percentage of 18 to 25 year olds currently leaving the system do not have the experience, education, maturity or means to thrive without the emotional and financial support of a family. The financial dimension is particularly difficult in Los Angeles where the cost of living is high and accommodation costs are typically double the national average. The following recommendations will help to mitigate the lack of “a safety net” that most families provide to their 18 to 25 year olds:
R6:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, DPSS, and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 – 25 who have left the system. 6a) Either through the development of affordable housing supply and/or direct subsidy, all post transition youth should have access to good quality housing at a reasonable rate. 6b) A wider range of educational supports should be made available to post transition youth including tuition, room & board, books, and other expenses required when they attend school. 6c) Independent living supports should be provided such as health care insurance, transportation assistance, food vouchers, auto insurance subsidies, clothing allowances, and access to community-based support groups. The cost of these services should be partially borne by the post- transition youth based on an income means criterion to be developed by the departments. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The development of a comprehensive and integrated information system was the most frequently mentioned requirement for improvement by County officials during the Entrance Conference. This requirement, and the need to deal with confidentiality rules to allow information sharing, was raised by last year’s CGJ and the ECC Blueprint. There is no doubt that this will be a costly exercise but the need is as obvious as the need for leadership to ensure the development of a comprehensive system. Our concern is that without comprehensive and integrated information systems, optimal decisions in the best interest of the child are unlikely. During this investigation it was clear that while evidence-based reviews are the mantra, in many programs there were not regular and systematic output-oriented evaluations. - 38 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report According to DCFS and Probation officials, many youth chose not to engage in TAY programs. We understand that teenagers can be difficult but at a minimum the evaluations of each program should include input from all youth to understand why some are not participating. There is evidence that the programs are not getting the results hoped for: - there are high incarceration rates of former system children - there is a high homeless rate - there are high pregnancy rates Conceptually, all of the programs and the resources expended on them are to have a positive impact on this population. Without follow-up data on the children, the evaluation of the real results of a program is not possible. We recognize that once a child leaves the system they are under no legal or other obligation to stay in touch and provide information on how they are doing. The departments need to stop thinking of this as an impassable roadblock and explore ways to obtain high quality follow-up information on former TAY.
R7:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost estimates to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding, and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and future programs and policy initiatives: 7a) The new information system should be designed to allow for the tracking of all children once they leave the system. 7b) Appropriate incentives and commitments should be developed to encourage former TAY to remain in contact with the system to facilitate the gathering of information on them. 7c) Until data on former TAY is available routinely, the departments should pursue sampling and other survey methods to gain an understanding of the real results of TAY programs. 7d) Until the new information system is implemented, Probation should have access to all of DCFS’s data systems to help their staff track their youth and improve their services. - 39 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R8:
DCFS YOUTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT 2007 In 2007 the Ombudsman received 236 complaints from TAY as follows: DCFS Probation Total Pre-emancipated youth 53 16 69 Emancipated youth 156 11 167 Total 209 27 236 - 32 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Their top 5 concerns were: Housing (103), ILP issues including Life Skills Classes (45), School Assistance (38), Transportation (13), and Documentation (13). A summary of the report is available in
R17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.”
R16-17:
18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 -
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
There is now a recently implemented cap of $900 on the amount an inmate may have in his or her account, whether deposited by outside third parties, or in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. The $900 maximum on inmate accounts is excessive, and it creates an opportunity for disparity in the jail setting, where there are many rules and regulations in place for the express purpose of maintaining a level playing field among inmates. Inmates who are able to amass such a substantial sum of money, and the amenities that money can buy, have an opportunity to use such money or amenities to barter for extraordinary privileges.
F2:
Government Code § 26640 does not speak to whether the Sheriff may release money in an inmate’s account to outside third parties at the direction of the inmate, except for that money in the inmate’s possession at the time he or she is booked into custody. There is no legitimate purpose in permitting a jail inmate to function as a cash conduit by directing the release of funds to outside third parties that were initially deposited by persons outside the jail system.
F3:
The Sheriff does not require identification from outside third parties who make cash deposits to an inmate’s account through the cashier’s office.
F4:
Cases have been identified by the district attorney wherein care providers are allegedly providing aid under different names and fraudulently collecting benefits. Cases have also been identified wherein aid recipients are allegedly receiving aid under different identities.
F5:
DPSS administers various federal and state-funded aid programs at the county level, including General Relief (welfare), CalWorks, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and IHSS. The district attorney has identified a number of cases where benefits from one program would reduce or eliminate eligibility for another program, and contends that DPSS computer databases do not “talk to” one another, so inter-program opportunities for fraud abound.
F6:
Neither the State of California nor the County of Los Angeles conducts a criminal background investigation on the provider of IHSS services. Since the recipient has carte blanche to choose a provider, but cannot conduct a background investigation, the county is in a position to do so on behalf of the recipient.
F7:
Reassessments of the recipient’s need for continuing IHSS care are not done in a timely and systematic manner.
F08:
As such, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a vendor to provide routine maintenance services. The current contract does not contain a maximum amount and the department indicated that the new agreement will also not contain such provisions. The Internal Services Department should consider a contract structure more similar to those that have been entered into by other departments and contain a maximum amount. • The Department of Public Works has entered into agreements for routine vehicle maintenance services with 76 vendors. These contracts contain provisions that cap the total expenditures by the department at a maximum amount of $1.5 million. The department expended the maximum amount for routine maintenance in FY 2006-07 and is expected to expend the maximum amount in FY 2007-08. • The Fire Department has entered into agreements with a total of 82 vendors to provide routine vehicle maintenance services for the department for a maximum amount of $3.5 million per year. The actual expenditures for services received through these agreements are the maximum of $3.5 million. • The Sheriff’s Department recently entered into an agreement with a single vendor to provide routine maintenance services for its fleet. This agreement, with the Penske Corporation, is for an amount not to exceed $16.0 million per year. Accident Costs Accident repair costs involve actual payments for County vehicle repairs involved in accidents and, in many instances, the repair costs are not covered by the contracts discussed above. Many of the accidents cost the department additional amounts that vary year-to-year. Complete and verifiable cost information was not readily available from the departments for this audit. However, the table on the next page shows the numbers of accidents as reported by the individual departments. Table 9 Reported Vehicle Accidents in the Four Largest Vehicle Usage Departments FY 2005-06 through March 2008 Ratio of Number of Number of Department Accidents to Number of Accidents* Vehicles** Sheriff’s Department 849 16.0% Public Works Department 747 40.2% Fire Department 132 9.9% Internal Services Department 124 12.8% Total 1,852 – Sources: Los Angeles County Departments * Data is for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08. The data for FY 2007-08 is year to date and does not contain the entire year. ** The number of vehicles is based on the totals received from the Auditor-Controller’s Fixed Asset database. The Sheriff’s Department can expect accidents due to vehicle pursuits and other patrol activities, and has implemented several policies and procedures to ensure that accidents are kept to a minimum and thoroughly reviewed. Further, the Risk Management Branch of the County Executive’s Office works with departments by providing “technical support (consultations, training, surveys, etc.)6” to reduce costs associated with vehicle liability. The County Executive Office continues to work with departments to keep accidents to a minimum and thus reduce claim costs and accident repair costs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the managers and staff from each of the departments included in this study. In virtually every instance, the departments responded to our requests for data and interviews in a timely manner, and provided access to records required to accomplish the study objectives. Even when access to certain records was delayed because of privacy concerns, Sheriff’s Department management and staff worked diligently toward obtaining the information we required for our review. This high level of cooperation permitted us to accomplish a complex study in the timeframe requested by the Civil Grand Jury, and provide recommendations that we believe will assist the departments to improve vehicle usage throughout the County. Chief Administrative Office Risk Management Annual Report, p. 21.
F8:
Personnel of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) are not always qualified to assess the kind and intensity of the care required, which is roughly analogous to Medicare’s definition of “custodial care.” Among the chief determining criteria for receiving IHSS is the requirement that but for this program, the recipient would require out-of-home placement. Quoting from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) report entitled In-Home Supportive Services: Past, Present and Future, January 2003: “The IHSS program is based on a social model – one that relies on a social worker assessment rather than assessment based on medical criteria. As such, caregivers are not medical personnel, nor are the social workers and, obviously, the consumer… “Quality of care is dependent on the caregivers qualifications and job satisfaction and how accurately the social worker’s assessment of the consumer’s need comports with the consumer’s actual supportive service needs.” Recipient need assessments have a significant subjective component, influenced by the personal bias of the social worker, personality interactions, and the innate desire to be charitable. DPSS also realizes that the initial assessment home visit, reassessment visits and scheduled visits are sometimes stage-managed in order to draw the maximum benefit of the program. The attempted reassessment via repeated random visits, to a supposedly housebound recipient who is never home, should be a cause for concern.
F9:
As an alternative to personalized, in-home care, electronic home monitoring could be made available for those recipients who neither want nor require personal contact.
F10:
Providers of in-home care complain that they are not getting paid by the recipients of in-home care. Conversely, recipients complain that the providers are not providing the level and/or quality of care for which they are being paid from IHSS funds. In some cases, time cards have been forged or altered.
F11:
Initial fraud referrals are supposed to be sent to DPSS headquarters. However, in some cases, DPSS employees attempting to report suspected IHSS fraud have been met with responses ranging from apathetic to hostile on the part of district office supervisors and managers. Reports of suspected fraud, forwarded to DPSS headquarters, are not followed up on with the employees who initiated the reports; in essence, a lack of feedback. Senate Bill (SB) 1104 grants jurisdiction for IHSS fraud investigations to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), formerly known as the Department of Health Services. Specific provisions contained in SB 1104 created fraud detection and quality assurance protocols, adherence to which is not optional.
F12:
An Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864, must be submitted by those who are sponsoring foreign nationals under the family- based immigration system. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Support is required in certain employment-based immigration situations. Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 CFRs) creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the foreign national. The Act also creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the federal agency or any state agency which may provide means-tested public benefits to the sponsored immigrant. Implemented in 1996 to ensure that foreigners do not become public charges after admittance to the U.S.A., the Affidavit of Support requirement must be satisfied in order for many foreigners to ultimately obtain legal permanent residence. The Affidavit of Support terminates once the sponsored immigrant “naturalizes” or when credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work as defined by the Social Security Act. Form I-864 and I- 864A data may be disclosed to other federal, state and local agencies providing means- tested public benefits for use in any civil action against the sponsor(s) for breach of contract. Social Security numbers may be verified with the Social Security Administration. It may also be disclosed as a matter of routine use to other federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities.
F13:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- income working individuals and families. It is not a tax rebate, but rather a federal subsidy. In addition, the EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits; the EITC will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing or most payments of temporary assistance for needy families. The EITC is based on a past and an anticipated calendar year of income. Applicants must file a federal tax return and have a valid Social Security number. Full details are contained in IRS Notice 797 and Form W-5.
F14:
Although the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot comment upon or review State of California operations, the successful and professional local administration of IHSS is dependent upon state databases. The state’s and Los Angeles County’s Department of Social Services computers and software must handshake and exchange data, primarily with the following: • State Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) • Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) There is no longer a demarcation between county and state functions; we live in a virtual world. Even checking a person’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) status requires DPSS to go through the state systems to obtain Social Security Administration data. Obviously, Los Angeles County DPSS is at the mercy, interest and competence of state agencies, particularly the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Providers and recipients of IHSS services sign and submit a biweekly timesheet which is ultimately processed by the state, the payment warrant is issued by the state, and fraud investigation is within the purview of the state. The acceptance of scrawled or absent signatures on the timesheet does not constitute good management of a multi- billion dollar program such as IHSS. Dual endorsement of the payment warrant would definitely be a good business practice.
F15:
The Advance Pay feature of IHSS is reportedly abused, particularly by the recipient receiving “advance pay” for weeks and months without submitting a time card in support of that pay.
F16:
A member of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury, a past service provider in the IHSS program, was approached by an IHSS employee to sign up to take other recipients. All the member had to do was give the IHSS employee permission to re-use the member’s provider information, which was already in DPSS files, and periodically sign papers. For this, the member would keep one-half of each check / warrant, and yield the other half to an associate of the DPSS employee. The grand jury member was subsequently approached by someone who was not a county employee, but offering a similar scam. He told the member that “…lots of people are doing it.” Needless to say, the current grand jury member emphatically refused both offers.
F17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.” APPENDIX B: TAY Survey A survey was developed and distributed to a sample of youth in DCFS and Probation, and My Friend’s Place (a drop-in center for homeless youth in Los Angeles) to get their perspective on the services and programs available to them. They were also encouraged to give comments and suggestions for new, needed programs. A total of 205 TAY participated in the survey. Approximately two-thirds of the survey participants are or were from DCFS and one-third from Probation. The survey participants were asked to rate TAY services and programs by indicating their degree of agreement with a series of statements concerning: • Education • Workforce Readiness • Life Skills • Housing • Transportation • Legal Assistance • Physical Health • Social and Emotional Wellbeing Exhibit D displays the findings for all categories using a rating scale of 1-4 to measure response averages. Exhibit D: TAY Service and Program Ratings AGREE – 4 SOMEWHAT AGREE – 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE – 2 DISAGREE – 1 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older WORKFORCE READINESS I have the job skills, knowledge and experience to get a good job. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 I have a career/employment plan for the next 2 – 5 years. 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.0 I know what services are available to help me get a job. 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.4 LIFE SKILLS I have enough savings to live independently. 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 I feel I can manage my money. 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 I know how to budget my money for groceries, etc. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 I know how to access public assistance programs if I need them. 2.9 3.5 3.6 3.3 I am aware of free public programs (library, recreational centers, etc). 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 I know how to register to vote. 2.5 1.9 3.6 3.2 HOUSING I am aware of rental costs. 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 I feel I can cover the housing costs (furniture, equipment, utilities, etc.) of living 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 independently. I know how to get rental assistance. 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.8 TRANSPORTATION I can get to work on time. 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.7 I know how to use public transportation. 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 LEGAL ASSISTANCE I know how to get legal help if I need it. 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.2 I have access to a lawyer. 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 I understand my rights if I have a problem with the law. 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 PHYSICAL HEALTH I am in good physical health (dental, vision, hearing etc.). 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 I am strong and in good shape. 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 I know how to access health care (insurance, free clinics, etc.). 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.4 I know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING I have friends and/or family members who are supportive. 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 I know how to access community based support groups (church, counselors, etc.). 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 I am able to live independently. 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 I know how/who to ask for help if I have trouble living independently. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Education Survey participants agree to some degree that they are receiving the education that they want (3.4) and are getting the assistance (3.4), information and choices (3.3) guidance (3.5), and support and advice (3.5) necessary for educational success. Workforce Readiness Survey participants agree to some degree that they have the job skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to get a job (3.3), have a 2- to 5-year employment plan (3.0), and know what services are available to help them in their job search (3.4). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds indicated ratings a lower than the older age groups. This difference might be related to the possibility that not as many 16- and 17-year-olds have jobs. Life Skills Survey participants agree to some degree that they are aware of free public programs (3.6), and know how to manage money (3.2), budget (3.4), access public assistance programs (3.3), and register to vote (3.2). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds are somewhat less self-assure in their life skills. With the lowest rating on the survey, survey participants somewhat disagree that they have enough savings to live independently, emphasizing a disconnect between knowledge of and success in applying life skills. Housing Survey participants agree to some degree that they aware of rental costs and those participants who are 18 and older agree somewhat that they know how to get rental assistance. 16- and 17- year-olds are less aware and participants somewhat disagree that they feel they can afford housing costs, calling attention to the lack of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area and the need for more TAY assistance in this area. Transportation Survey participants agree that they can get to work on time (3.7) and know how to use public transportation (3.8). Legal Assistance Survey participants agree somewhat that they know how to get legal help (3.2) and understand their legal rights (3.2); they are less sure (2.6) that they can access a lawyer. Physical Health Survey participants agree to some degree that they are in good physical shape (3.6), strong (3.5), know how to access health care (3.4) and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy (3.9). Social and Emotional Well-being Survey participants agree to some degree that they have family or friends that are supportive (3.6), know how to access community based groups (3.6), are able to live independently (3.2), and know how and who to ask for help if they are having trouble living independently (3.5). Additional Comments Forty seven additional comments or suggestions were received. Approximately 20% of the respondents made positive comments about their experiences, many expressing their gratitude, with TAY services and programs. The rest of the respondents commented negatively or gave suggestions for improvements. The respondents’ negative comments or suggestions in order of frequency were concerns about housing, the social worker or system, jobs/income/budgeting, quality of instruction or support, educational support and access to health care. APPENDIX C: DMH TAY Programs 5.1) Transition Age Youth Full Service Partnerships (TAY FSP) Program Description: An intensive Mental Health Services and supports program for not served, underserved, and inappropriately served SED/SPMI (Serious Emotional Disturbance/Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill) TAY based on use of effective and innovative approaches focused on achieving recommended outcomes: a) Meaningful use of time and capabilities (employment, vocational, educational, social, and community activities; b) Safe and adequate housing and living environments and reduction in homelessness; c) A network of supportive relationships; d) Timely access to needed help, including in times of crisis; d) Reduction in incarceration in jails and juvenile halls; e) Reduction in involuntary services, reduction in institutionalization, and reduction in out of home placements; f) Maintaining or improving physical health; g) Reduction in early pregnancy; and h) Completion of high school diploma or GED. An individualized comprehensive services and supports plan, in partnership with an FSP team, is developed for each youth focusing on recovery and resiliency/wellness. A case manager is available 24/7 to respond to clients needs (this is a critical service and support component). An array of services and supports are provided including clinical interventions, linkages and referrals, housing assistance (rental subsidies, eviction assistance), benefits establishment, money management, leisure activities and planning, vocational training, job assistance, or anything else the youth or family needs to better function. Misc. Information: This program enrolled the first client in December 2006. DMH states that available MHSA funding is currently not sufficient to provide FSP services to all SED/SPMI TAY who otherwise qualify and might benefit from them. Funding: This program is funded by the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Total funding is $19,668,660 annually and includes EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) funding and Medi-Cal. Of this, approximately 40% ($7.9 million) is targeted towards youth aging out of DCFS and Probation. Target Population/Potential clientele: This program serves 16-25 year olds in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems (system) as well as those outside the system. The $7.9 million targets youth currently in DCFS/Probation, youth aging out of the system, and youth formerly in the system. The balance of funding is for youth who are homeless or currently at risk of homelessness, are aging out of the child mental health system, leaving long-term institutional care (e.g. an Institution of Mental Disease or State Hospitals), and youth experiencing their first psychotic break. Program capacity: This program provides 1122 slots for 16-25 year olds for all of L.A. County ($17,530 per slot). Due to natural “slot-turnover” during the fiscal year, one slot usually serves more than one person. Clients served (since program inception): 1113 have been authorized (slot-turnover); 898 clients currently authorized to receive TAY FSP Services Evaluation Process: Program success is measured through the State and County approved Outcome Measures Application (OMA). Upon enrollment in an FSP program, a baseline assessment is completed by the provider agency. Subsequent updates are completed quarterly (minimally), and when there is a change in a “key event.” The OMA is an electronic-based application. 5.2) TAY Drop-In Centers Program Description: Drop-In Centers are intended as entry points into the mental health system for SED/SPMI TAY who are living on the street or in unstable living situations. Drop-In Centers provide “low-demand, high tolerance” environments in which youth can find temporary safety and basic supports (e.g. showers, meals, clothing, referrals, linkage to services, vouchers, counseling, etc.). TAY accessing Drop-In Centers have an opportunity to build trusting relationships with staff persons who can, as the youth is ready and willing, connect them to the services and supports they need in order to work toward stability and recovery. Existing Drop-In Centers operate during regular daytime hours. MHSA funding is made available to extend hours of operation to evenings and weekends for the primary purpose of ensuring access to these vital services and supports Misc. Information: In March 2008 The Board of Supervisors approved funding for three Drop- In Centers in FY 2007-08, and two in FY 08-09. Funding: Private funding is raised by the centers for the bulk of their operations. MHSA funds are used to extend the hours of operation to evenings and weekends: $250,000 annually for each of two centers. Target Population/Potential clientele: TAY who are diagnosed SED/SPMI and living on the streets or in otherwise unstable living environments. According to DMH many of the youth accessing Drop-In Centers are current or former foster or probation youth. Program capacity: Currently two centers will be fully funded for extended hours of operation in the 2008-09 FY. If additional funding becomes available, DMH would be able to increase support of Drop-In Centers in other areas of the county. Their goal is to provide at least one center in each of the eight SPAs (Service Provider Areas). Clients served: Not available. Note: Youth accessing Drop-In Centers are not required to disclose their legal status to access services. Once trust is established, the youth may decide to disclose that information. This is an example of “low-demand, high tolerance.” Evaluation Process: Information available to DMH indicates that the Drop-In Center programs awarded MHSA funding have established records of providing effective services and successfully engaging, often difficult to reach youth in accessing their available services and supports. DMH TAY Division is developing a Drop-In Center evaluation tool to measure the success of the program in achieving the outcomes for TAY as identified in the CSS Plan. (See 5.1 above) 5.3) TAY Housing Services Program Description: This program provides the following. • Enhanced Emergency Shelter Program for TAY (EESP) $605,000 per year. This program provides temporary shelter for SED/SPMI TAY ages 18-25 in a supportive housing environment for up to 29 nights while pursuing the long-term goal of secure and permanent housing. Program offers semi-private rooms, hygiene facilities, hot meals, case management, referrals and linkage services to SED/SPMI TAY who have no other resources to pay for shelter. There is one shelter that is licensed (6-beds) to serve 16-17 years old. DMH TAY Division is working with DCFS Command Post Unit to develop protocols for access for DCFS clients. • Project-Based Operating Subsidies for Permanent Housing $390,000 per year. This program provides a unit-based housing subsidy (not an individual rental subsidy). This program is currently under development. When implemented it is estimated that approximately 83 units of affordable housing will be available to SED/SPMI TAY who are capable of living independently in the community in their own apartment/unit. • Housing Specialists, one per SPA, Total funding $575,000 per year. Housing specialists assist youth with finding, securing and retaining housing by providing individualized services including accompanying youth on housing search, advocating with landlord, and assistance completing application forms. Misc. Information: The EESP Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18,
Additional Recommendations
23
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff should impose a limit of $500 on the total amount of money an inmate has in his or her account at any given time. If the inmate is booked into custody with a sum greater than $500 in his or her possession, the inmate should be required to draw down on the amount until it falls below $500 before any deposits from outside third parties are accepted.
R2:
The Sheriff should discontinue and prohibit the practice of allowing an inmate to authorize the release of funds to outside third parties, except for money that was in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. All money deposited by outside third parties to inmate accounts should only be for use by inmates in purchasing phone cards and items from the jail store.
R3:
The Sheriff should implement procedures requiring cashier staff to request valid identification from outside third parties making deposits to an inmate’s account, unless the amount is less than a pre-determined nominal sum, such as $100.
R4:
DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multi-faceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. At a minimum, we believe the following changes should be considered: 4a) A suitable overlap of mentors should be built into the program to ease a child’s transition to the new mentor. 4b) The training provided to foster families and group home staff should be increased and should include ongoing evaluation, continuous training, and recertification. 4c) The interagency teams should be trained in team building skills to ensure they can make effective group decisions and are able to connect effectively with each child. 4d) Two-way communication with the children should be the norm and to the extent possible the children should be involved in key decisions affecting them. EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TAY Youth entering the Probation and Juvenile Hall schools administered by LACOE are given a test to determine their academic level of functioning. During visits to these schools, the CGJ learned from teachers, administrators and observation that students are, on average, one to three years below grade level. In spite of numerous requests, the CGJ could not get data from LACOE substantiating the reported one to three year grade level lag of the students entering their camp and hall classrooms. The State of California requires a core of 140 units for high school graduation leaving the additional coursework to be determined by school districts. Los Angeles Unified School District requires the completion of 230 units for graduation. There program calls for 150 core units leaving 80 units for supplementing core units and electives. Students may request their own transcripts from their schools before scheduling their classes. DCFS, DMH, and Probation acting in loco parentis when parents relinquish or abdicate educational rights, are responsible for guiding the educational choices of their charges. There is latitude within the system to customize high school programs to meet the individual needs of students. We have identified the following specific improvements based on our research, discussion with officials, and feedback from TAY.
R5:
The directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills for all children to better prepare them for independence. 5a) All programs should contain an identified minimum level of understanding on the part of the recipients before the program is considered delivered. 5b) Enhanced study skills and courses on practical living skills should be part of the curriculum of juvenile halls and camps. DCFS should include such courses in the schedules of students attending public schools whenever possible. 5c) Foster children should be encouraged to participate in music, art, and other nonacademic programs. Probation should seek volunteers to provide these services in juvenile halls and camps. 5d) Probation camps and halls should provide vocational training for all detainees utilizing ROP services when possible. DCFS should encourage TAY to enroll in experiential, vocational, and ROP courses. 5e) Probation and DCFS should develop additional apprentice, job training and part-time job programs with all levels of government and business to provide more practical work experience for TAY. 5f) Probation and DCFS should invite representatives from organizations such as the Forestry Service and various branches of the U.S. military to make presentations to youth that fully describe their educational opportunities and obligations. 5i) DCFS and Probation should develop significant incentives and rewards to encourage their wards to obtain high school graduation, or a GED, and high scholastic achievement. POST-EMANCIPATION TAY While 18 may be the age of majority, in our view a large percentage of 18 to 25 year olds currently leaving the system do not have the experience, education, maturity or means to thrive without the emotional and financial support of a family. The financial dimension is particularly difficult in Los Angeles where the cost of living is high and accommodation costs are typically double the national average. The following recommendations will help to mitigate the lack of “a safety net” that most families provide to their 18 to 25 year olds:
R6:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, DPSS, and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 – 25 who have left the system. 6a) Either through the development of affordable housing supply and/or direct subsidy, all post transition youth should have access to good quality housing at a reasonable rate. 6b) A wider range of educational supports should be made available to post transition youth including tuition, room & board, books, and other expenses required when they attend school. 6c) Independent living supports should be provided such as health care insurance, transportation assistance, food vouchers, auto insurance subsidies, clothing allowances, and access to community-based support groups. The cost of these services should be partially borne by the post- transition youth based on an income means criterion to be developed by the departments. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The development of a comprehensive and integrated information system was the most frequently mentioned requirement for improvement by County officials during the Entrance Conference. This requirement, and the need to deal with confidentiality rules to allow information sharing, was raised by last year’s CGJ and the ECC Blueprint. There is no doubt that this will be a costly exercise but the need is as obvious as the need for leadership to ensure the development of a comprehensive system. Our concern is that without comprehensive and integrated information systems, optimal decisions in the best interest of the child are unlikely. During this investigation it was clear that while evidence-based reviews are the mantra, in many programs there were not regular and systematic output-oriented evaluations. According to DCFS and Probation officials, many youth chose not to engage in TAY programs. We understand that teenagers can be difficult but at a minimum the evaluations of each program should include input from all youth to understand why some are not participating. There is evidence that the programs are not getting the results hoped for: - there are high incarceration rates of former system children - there is a high homeless rate - there are high pregnancy rates Conceptually, all of the programs and the resources expended on them are to have a positive impact on this population. Without follow-up data on the children, the evaluation of the real results of a program is not possible. We recognize that once a child leaves the system they are under no legal or other obligation to stay in touch and provide information on how they are doing. The departments need to stop thinking of this as an impassable roadblock and explore ways to obtain high quality follow-up information on former TAY.
R7:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost estimates to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding, and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and future programs and policy initiatives: 7a) The new information system should be designed to allow for the tracking of all children once they leave the system. 7b) Appropriate incentives and commitments should be developed to encourage former TAY to remain in contact with the system to facilitate the gathering of information on them. 7c) Until data on former TAY is available routinely, the departments should pursue sampling and other survey methods to gain an understanding of the real results of TAY programs. 7d) Until the new information system is implemented, Probation should have access to all of DCFS’s data systems to help their staff track their youth and improve their services.
R08:
As such, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a vendor to provide routine maintenance services. The current contract does not contain a maximum amount and the department indicated that the new agreement will also not contain such provisions. The Internal Services Department should consider a contract structure more similar to those that have been entered into by other departments and contain a maximum amount. • The Department of Public Works has entered into agreements for routine vehicle maintenance services with 76 vendors. These contracts contain provisions that cap the total expenditures by the department at a maximum amount of $1.5 million. The department expended the maximum amount for routine maintenance in FY 2006-07 and is expected to expend the maximum amount in FY 2007-08. • The Fire Department has entered into agreements with a total of 82 vendors to provide routine vehicle maintenance services for the department for a maximum amount of $3.5 million per year. The actual expenditures for services received through these agreements are the maximum of $3.5 million. • The Sheriff’s Department recently entered into an agreement with a single vendor to provide routine maintenance services for its fleet. This agreement, with the Penske Corporation, is for an amount not to exceed $16.0 million per year. Accident Costs Accident repair costs involve actual payments for County vehicle repairs involved in accidents and, in many instances, the repair costs are not covered by the contracts discussed above. Many of the accidents cost the department additional amounts that vary year-to-year. Complete and verifiable cost information was not readily available from the departments for this audit. However, the table on the next page shows the numbers of accidents as reported by the individual departments. Table 9 Reported Vehicle Accidents in the Four Largest Vehicle Usage Departments FY 2005-06 through March 2008 Ratio of Number of Number of Department Accidents to Number of Accidents* Vehicles** Sheriff’s Department 849 16.0% Public Works Department 747 40.2% Fire Department 132 9.9% Internal Services Department 124 12.8% Total 1,852 – Sources: Los Angeles County Departments * Data is for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08. The data for FY 2007-08 is year to date and does not contain the entire year. ** The number of vehicles is based on the totals received from the Auditor-Controller’s Fixed Asset database. The Sheriff’s Department can expect accidents due to vehicle pursuits and other patrol activities, and has implemented several policies and procedures to ensure that accidents are kept to a minimum and thoroughly reviewed. Further, the Risk Management Branch of the County Executive’s Office works with departments by providing “technical support (consultations, training, surveys, etc.)6” to reduce costs associated with vehicle liability. The County Executive Office continues to work with departments to keep accidents to a minimum and thus reduce claim costs and accident repair costs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the managers and staff from each of the departments included in this study. In virtually every instance, the departments responded to our requests for data and interviews in a timely manner, and provided access to records required to accomplish the study objectives. Even when access to certain records was delayed because of privacy concerns, Sheriff’s Department management and staff worked diligently toward obtaining the information we required for our review. This high level of cooperation permitted us to accomplish a complex study in the timeframe requested by the Civil Grand Jury, and provide recommendations that we believe will assist the departments to improve vehicle usage throughout the County. Chief Administrative Office Risk Management Annual Report, p. 21.
R8:
Continued training is necessary for DPSS employees dealing with IHSS eligibility and fraud detection, based on the best practices recommended by CWDA and the involved state and county agencies. Also, since the need for repeated in-home visits is demoralizing to the social worker, for which no amount of training will compensate, the social worker should be given the authority to “notice” a recipient to schedule an assessment visit on a certain date, under penalty of payment cutoff.
R9:
DPSS should consider electronic monitoring as an alternative to a human provider for in-home care. The electronic monitoring systems do not provide “care” as such, but do avoid the need of a little-known provider visiting the home or abode. A half dozen such systems are now on the market. In addition, the Center for Aging Services Technologies in Washington, D.C., as well as the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland are excellent sources of further information.
R10:
Payment vouchers to IHSS service providers should be made payable to both the recipient of the care and the provider, thus requiring an endorsement from each before the check can be cashed. This safeguard would curtail some of the fraud that is occurring.
R11:
DPSS must follow the fraud reporting protocols required by the language of SB 1104. Also, in the interests of good management and employee morale, DPSS must provide feedback on fraud investigations to the initiating employee. Claims and excuses that the Department of Health Care Services isn’t providing feedback to DPSS are weak; DPSS senior management must insist on this information in a periodic and timely manner.
R12:
DPSS should review applicants for IHSS as to whether they are a sponsored immigrant under Section 213a of the Act. If so, their sponsor(s) or co-sponsor(s) should be sought to provide the financial support for the applicant. This recommendation has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.
R13:
Since the income cap for receiving EITC in CY 2008 approaches $37,000, it is recommended that an applicant for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be asked if he or she has received an EITC last calendar year and is receiving one in the immediate calendar year. If so, note should be made, in the application for IHSS, of the amounts received or to be received in each year. A person receiving the EITC should not be denied eligibility for IHSS, but the amounts received in that credit should be factored into the amount of IHSS services paid for by the recipient, by means of a formula which could be changed yearly.
R14:
As well as capturing the fingerprints of both the recipient and provider during the intake / application process, as recommended elsewhere, DPSS should require a fingerprint of both the recipient and the provider on each time card, perhaps even in lieu of a signature.
R15:
DPSS should enforce the requirement that bi-weekly/monthly time cards be submitted. If time cards are not received within ten (10) business days of when due, further payment warrants or direct deposits should be terminated. Direct deposit accounts should be checked quarterly to ascertain their balance. If the balance is substantial (>$5,000), it may indicate the need for an eligibility review.
R16:
The Department of Social Services should implement the recommended security measures in this report. DPSS needs to validate program providers and recipients more aggressively, by knowing who they are to a certainty (photo and fingerprints), their actual and purported participation in the program, and the exposure of bogus providers and recipients. Reference is also made to the 1998-1999 Civil Grand Jury Final Report that recommended methods to detect and prevent attempted employee fraud, particularly the section on Internal Affairs Investigations, pages 141-152. The IHSS program is not supposed to be a cottage industry for scam artists, especially those embedded within the ranks of DPSS itself. EXPENDITURES TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECIPIENTS OF IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) BY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Time Frame No. of Recipients Federal State L.A. County TOTAL 2003-04 FY Actual 140,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 139,000,000 $ 79,000,000 $ 230,000,000 2004-05 FY Actual 145,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 181,000,000 $ 58,000,000 $ 260,000,000 2005-06 FY Actual 152,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 226,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 290,000,000 2006-07 FY Actual 160,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ 76,000,000 $ 347,000,000 2007-08 FY Budget 380,000* $ 46,000,000† $ 272,000,000† $ 65,000,000† $ 383,000,000† *statewide †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted 2008-09 FY 400,000* Projected *statewide Source: DPSS; Legislative Analyst; County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) See Notes which follow regarding this spreadsheet.
R17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.”
R19:
Number of items in current 2,000 5,000 1,500 4,500 1,700 751 3,000 warehouse inventory
R20:
Annual average dollar value of items $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $1,300,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $682,569 $16,000,000 in warehouse inventory “$27,000,000 without textbooks; $90,000,000 to $120,000,000 w/
R21:
Annual textbooks. Sales of stock $50,000,000 $9,100,000 $4,500,000 Textbooks are $12,400,000 $729,053 $135,000,000 items in FY handled as central 2006-07 warehouse cross- docked items but are not part of inventory.”
R22:
Average Delivery Time “5 days from the during 10 days 2 days 2-3 days 1-5 days 3 days 2 -3 days Warehouse to normal School/Office times” site 23 Does the warehouse offer a same or next-day delivery option? Six Responses: 6= “Yes” LAUSD: Yes 24 If YES, is there a charge for this service? 25 If YES, what is the amount? Six responses: 6= “No” LAUSD: Yes LAUSD: $9-13 PART IV. Non-Stock Items 26 How do District schools and offices generally purchase non-stock items? Six responses: Method of Non-Stock Requisition or P-Card Other Purchase Purchase Order Number Responding “Yes” 5 6 0 27 If your District uses P-Cards, please answer the questions below. A) What is the maximum number of P-Cards issued per site? Three responses: 1= “1” 1= “Most have 3” 1= ”5” LAUSD: “2” B) Is there a maximum single purchase limit? Five responses: 5= “Yes” LAUSD: Yes If yes, what is it? Five responses: 3= “$500” 1= “$4,999” 1= “Yes” LAUSD: $500 C) Is there a maximum monthly purchase limit? Five responses: 5= “Yes” If yes, what is it? Five responses: 3= “$10,000” 1= “$4,999” 1= ”$1,500” LAUSD: $10,000 D) What controls have been implemented to enforce these provisions? Five responses: Manual Automated Written Review & Review & Periodic P-Card Control Policies & Override of Override of Other? Audits Procedures Certain Certain Purchases Purchases Number Responding 5 3 3 3 1 “Yes” LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Other Response: “Procurement, Accounting and Audit share in monthly reviews.” 28 If your District allows personnel to order non-stock items through requisitions or purchase orders, please indicate to whom such items are submitted: Five Responses: Submitted to a Centralized District Submitted Directly to Vendor Purchasing/Procurement Office 0 responses 5 responses LAUSD= (cid:57) 29 If your District has another method of purchasing non-stock items (other than via P-Cards, requisitions or purchase orders) please describe the method(s): Five Responses: 5= “N/A” LAUSD: No other method 30 Please indicate which statement best characterizes your District’s non-stock purchasing policy: There are NO restrictions on the type of non-stock items that District schools and offices are allowed to purchase: One Response. Restrictions: District schools District schools District schools and offices are District schools and offices are and offices are prohibited from and offices are prohibited from prohibited from purchasing prohibited from purchasing ANY purchasing non- Non-stock SPECIFIED items purchasing non- item that is stock items for purchases are that are stocked stock items for stocked by the which there is a limited to items Policy by the which there is a warehouse functionally specified on an warehouse functionally through the similar (like) item approved through the similar (like) item District’s non- stocked in the product list. District’s non- stocked in the stock warehouse with stock warehouse with purchasing SOME purchasing NO exceptions. processes. exceptions. processes. Number of “Yes” 1 2 1 1 0 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) 31 What controls have been implemented to enforce these non-stock purchasing restrictions? Please check all that apply: Monthly/Annual Manual Review Automated Review Written Audits of Non- and Override of and Override of Control Policies and Other Stock Restricted Non- Restricted Non- Procedures Purchases Stock Purchases Stock Purchases Number of 5 5 5 5 6 Responses Number of “Yes” 5 0 1 1 1 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) Other response: “Evaluation Policy” PART VI. Performance Measurement and Documentation: Which of the following measures does your district use to monitor performance of the warehouse function? 32 Districts reporting: Six responses: Performance Any Performance Performance Customer Service Flow Charts Measure Measures Audits/Reviews Surveys Number of “Yes” 5 4 5 5 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) 256 LOS ANGELES COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTERS 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Lionel S. Martinez, Chair Judy Hsu James Kaiser Lloyd R. Smith 257 258 LOS ANGELES COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTERS INTRODUCTION As a result of a citizen’s complaint, the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate the operation of the Los Angeles County Rehabilitation Centers. According to the complaint a rehab center resident at the time of discharge was so sick that he required emergency ambulance transportation to a hospital. He died later that evening. Finally, the complaint states that all of this occurred with no assistance from rehabilitation center staff. Based on the results of the investigation, the Civil Grand Jury has determined there are areas for improvement in the policies and procedures of the rehabilitation centers. OBJECTIVES and SCOPE The purpose of this report is to investigate the policies and procedures of Los Angeles County Rehabilitation Centers. The primary focus of the investigation was operational procedures as they pertain to residents who become ill or are injured while residing at the rehabilitation centers. The Civil Grand Jury identified two county rehabilitation centers, both of which are administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. These centers are : Acton Rehabilitation Center 30500 Arrastre Canyon Road Acton, California Warm Springs Rehabilitation Center 38200 North Lake Hughes Road Castaic, California
R16-17:
18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
There is now a recently implemented cap of $900 on the amount an inmate may have in his or her account, whether deposited by outside third parties, or in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. The $900 maximum on inmate accounts is excessive, and it creates an opportunity for disparity in the jail setting, where there are many rules and regulations in place for the express purpose of maintaining a level playing field among inmates. Inmates who are able to amass such a substantial sum of money, and the amenities that money can buy, have an opportunity to use such money or amenities to barter for extraordinary privileges.
F2:
Government Code § 26640 does not speak to whether the Sheriff may release money in an inmate’s account to outside third parties at the direction of the inmate, except for that money in the inmate’s possession at the time he or she is booked into custody. There is no legitimate purpose in permitting a jail inmate to function as a cash conduit by directing the release of funds to outside third parties that were initially deposited by persons outside the jail system. - 10 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F3:
The Sheriff does not require identification from outside third parties who make cash deposits to an inmate’s account through the cashier’s office.
F4:
Cases have been identified by the district attorney wherein care providers are allegedly providing aid under different names and fraudulently collecting benefits. Cases have also been identified wherein aid recipients are allegedly receiving aid under different identities.
F5:
DPSS administers various federal and state-funded aid programs at the county level, including General Relief (welfare), CalWorks, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and IHSS. The district attorney has identified a number of cases where benefits from one program would reduce or eliminate eligibility for another program, and contends that DPSS computer databases do not “talk to” one another, so inter-program opportunities for fraud abound. - 70 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F6:
Neither the State of California nor the County of Los Angeles conducts a criminal background investigation on the provider of IHSS services. Since the recipient has carte blanche to choose a provider, but cannot conduct a background investigation, the county is in a position to do so on behalf of the recipient.
F7:
Reassessments of the recipient’s need for continuing IHSS care are not done in a timely and systematic manner.
F08:
As such, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a vendor to provide routine maintenance services. The current contract does not contain a maximum amount and the department indicated that the new agreement will also not contain such provisions. The Internal Services Department should consider a contract structure more similar to those that have been entered into by other departments and contain a maximum amount. • The Department of Public Works has entered into agreements for routine vehicle maintenance services with 76 vendors. These contracts contain provisions that cap the total expenditures by the department at a maximum amount of $1.5 million. The department expended the maximum amount for routine maintenance in FY 2006-07 and is expected to expend the maximum amount in FY 2007-08. • The Fire Department has entered into agreements with a total of 82 vendors to provide routine vehicle maintenance services for the department for a maximum amount of $3.5 million per year. The actual expenditures for services received through these agreements are the maximum of $3.5 million. • The Sheriff’s Department recently entered into an agreement with a single vendor to provide routine maintenance services for its fleet. This agreement, with the Penske Corporation, is for an amount not to exceed $16.0 million per year. Accident Costs Accident repair costs involve actual payments for County vehicle repairs involved in accidents and, in many instances, the repair costs are not covered by the contracts discussed above. Many of the accidents cost the department additional amounts that vary year-to-year. Complete and verifiable cost information was not readily available from the departments for this audit. However, the table on the next page shows the numbers of accidents as reported by the individual departments. - 109 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table 9 Reported Vehicle Accidents in the Four Largest Vehicle Usage Departments FY 2005-06 through March 2008 Ratio of Number of Number of Department Accidents to Number of Accidents* Vehicles** Sheriff’s Department 849 16.0% Public Works Department 747 40.2% Fire Department 132 9.9% Internal Services Department 124 12.8% Total 1,852 – Sources: Los Angeles County Departments * Data is for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08. The data for FY 2007-08 is year to date and does not contain the entire year. ** The number of vehicles is based on the totals received from the Auditor-Controller’s Fixed Asset database. The Sheriff’s Department can expect accidents due to vehicle pursuits and other patrol activities, and has implemented several policies and procedures to ensure that accidents are kept to a minimum and thoroughly reviewed. Further, the Risk Management Branch of the County Executive’s Office works with departments by providing “technical support (consultations, training, surveys, etc.)6” to reduce costs associated with vehicle liability. The County Executive Office continues to work with departments to keep accidents to a minimum and thus reduce claim costs and accident repair costs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the managers and staff from each of the departments included in this study. In virtually every instance, the departments responded to our requests for data and interviews in a timely manner, and provided access to records required to accomplish the study objectives. Even when access to certain records was delayed because of privacy concerns, Sheriff’s Department management and staff worked diligently toward obtaining the information we required for our review. This high level of cooperation permitted us to accomplish a complex study in the timeframe requested by the Civil Grand Jury, and provide recommendations that we believe will assist the departments to improve vehicle usage throughout the County. Chief Administrative Office Risk Management Annual Report, p. 21. - 110 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F8:
Personnel of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) are not always qualified to assess the kind and intensity of the care required, which is roughly analogous to Medicare’s definition of “custodial care.” Among the chief determining criteria for receiving IHSS is the requirement that but for this program, the recipient would require out-of-home placement. Quoting from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) report entitled In-Home Supportive Services: Past, Present and Future, January 2003: “The IHSS program is based on a social model – one that relies on a social worker assessment rather than assessment based on medical criteria. As such, caregivers are not medical personnel, nor are the social workers and, obviously, the consumer… “Quality of care is dependent on the caregivers qualifications and job satisfaction and how accurately the social worker’s assessment of the consumer’s need comports with the consumer’s actual supportive service needs.” Recipient need assessments have a significant subjective component, influenced by the personal bias of the social worker, personality interactions, and the innate desire to be charitable. DPSS also realizes that the initial assessment home visit, reassessment visits and scheduled visits are sometimes stage-managed in order to draw the maximum benefit of the program. The attempted reassessment via repeated random visits, to a supposedly housebound recipient who is never home, should be a cause for concern.
F9:
As an alternative to personalized, in-home care, electronic home monitoring could be made available for those recipients who neither want nor require personal contact. - 72 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F10:
Providers of in-home care complain that they are not getting paid by the recipients of in-home care. Conversely, recipients complain that the providers are not providing the level and/or quality of care for which they are being paid from IHSS funds. In some cases, time cards have been forged or altered.
F11:
Initial fraud referrals are supposed to be sent to DPSS headquarters. However, in some cases, DPSS employees attempting to report suspected IHSS fraud have been met with responses ranging from apathetic to hostile on the part of district office supervisors and managers. Reports of suspected fraud, forwarded to DPSS headquarters, are not followed up on with the employees who initiated the reports; in essence, a lack of feedback. Senate Bill (SB) 1104 grants jurisdiction for IHSS fraud investigations to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), formerly known as the Department of Health Services. Specific provisions contained in SB 1104 created fraud detection and quality assurance protocols, adherence to which is not optional.
F12:
An Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864, must be submitted by those who are sponsoring foreign nationals under the family- - 73 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report based immigration system. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Support is required in certain employment-based immigration situations. Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 CFRs) creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the foreign national. The Act also creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the federal agency or any state agency which may provide means-tested public benefits to the sponsored immigrant. Implemented in 1996 to ensure that foreigners do not become public charges after admittance to the U.S.A., the Affidavit of Support requirement must be satisfied in order for many foreigners to ultimately obtain legal permanent residence. The Affidavit of Support terminates once the sponsored immigrant “naturalizes” or when credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work as defined by the Social Security Act. Form I-864 and I- 864A data may be disclosed to other federal, state and local agencies providing means- tested public benefits for use in any civil action against the sponsor(s) for breach of contract. Social Security numbers may be verified with the Social Security Administration. It may also be disclosed as a matter of routine use to other federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities.
F13:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- income working individuals and families. It is not a tax rebate, but rather a federal subsidy. In addition, the EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits; the EITC will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing or most payments of temporary assistance for needy families. The EITC is based on a past and an anticipated calendar year of income. Applicants must file a federal tax return and have a valid Social Security number. Full details are contained in IRS Notice 797 and Form W-5.
F14:
Although the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot comment upon or review State of California operations, the successful and professional local administration of IHSS is dependent upon state databases. The state’s and Los Angeles County’s Department of Social Services computers and software must handshake and exchange data, primarily with the following: • State Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) • Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) There is no longer a demarcation between county and state functions; we live in a virtual world. Even checking a person’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) status requires DPSS to go through the state systems to obtain Social Security Administration data. Obviously, Los Angeles County DPSS is at the mercy, interest and competence of state agencies, particularly the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Providers and recipients of IHSS services sign and submit a biweekly timesheet which is ultimately processed by the state, the payment warrant is issued by the state, and fraud investigation is within the purview of the state. The acceptance of scrawled or absent signatures on the timesheet does not constitute good management of a multi- billion dollar program such as IHSS. Dual endorsement of the payment warrant would definitely be a good business practice.
F15:
The Advance Pay feature of IHSS is reportedly abused, particularly by the recipient receiving “advance pay” for weeks and months without submitting a time card in support of that pay.
F16:
A member of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury, a past service provider in the IHSS program, was approached by an IHSS employee to sign up to take other recipients. All the member had to do was give the IHSS employee permission to re-use the member’s provider information, which was already in DPSS files, and periodically sign papers. For this, the member would keep one-half of each check / warrant, and yield the other half to an associate of the DPSS employee. The grand jury member was subsequently approached by someone who was not a county employee, but offering a similar scam. He told the member that “…lots of people are doing it.” Needless to say, the current grand jury member emphatically refused both offers.
F17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.” APPENDIX B: TAY Survey A survey was developed and distributed to a sample of youth in DCFS and Probation, and My Friend’s Place (a drop-in center for homeless youth in Los Angeles) to get their perspective on the services and programs available to them. They were also encouraged to give comments and suggestions for new, needed programs. A total of 205 TAY participated in the survey. Approximately two-thirds of the survey participants are or were from DCFS and one-third from Probation. The survey participants were asked to rate TAY services and programs by indicating their degree of agreement with a series of statements concerning: • Education • Workforce Readiness • Life Skills • Housing • Transportation • Legal Assistance • Physical Health • Social and Emotional Wellbeing Exhibit D displays the findings for all categories using a rating scale of 1-4 to measure response averages. Exhibit D: TAY Service and Program Ratings AGREE – 4 SOMEWHAT AGREE – 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE – 2 DISAGREE – 1 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older WORKFORCE READINESS I have the job skills, knowledge and experience to get a good job. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 I have a career/employment plan for the next 2 – 5 years. 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.0 I know what services are available to help me get a job. 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.4 LIFE SKILLS I have enough savings to live independently. 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 I feel I can manage my money. 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 I know how to budget my money for groceries, etc. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 I know how to access public assistance programs if I need them. 2.9 3.5 3.6 3.3 I am aware of free public programs (library, recreational centers, etc). 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 I know how to register to vote. 2.5 1.9 3.6 3.2 HOUSING I am aware of rental costs. 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 I feel I can cover the housing costs (furniture, equipment, utilities, etc.) of living 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 independently. I know how to get rental assistance. 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.8 TRANSPORTATION I can get to work on time. 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.7 I know how to use public transportation. 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 LEGAL ASSISTANCE I know how to get legal help if I need it. 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.2 I have access to a lawyer. 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 I understand my rights if I have a problem with the law. 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 PHYSICAL HEALTH I am in good physical health (dental, vision, hearing etc.). 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 I am strong and in good shape. 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 I know how to access health care (insurance, free clinics, etc.). 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.4 I know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING I have friends and/or family members who are supportive. 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 I know how to access community based support groups (church, counselors, etc.). 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 I am able to live independently. 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 I know how/who to ask for help if I have trouble living independently. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Education Survey participants agree to some degree that they are receiving the education that they want (3.4) and are getting the assistance (3.4), information and choices (3.3) guidance (3.5), and support and advice (3.5) necessary for educational success. Workforce Readiness Survey participants agree to some degree that they have the job skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to get a job (3.3), have a 2- to 5-year employment plan (3.0), and know what services are available to help them in their job search (3.4). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds indicated ratings a lower than the older age groups. This difference might be related to the possibility that not as many 16- and 17-year-olds have jobs. Life Skills Survey participants agree to some degree that they are aware of free public programs (3.6), and know how to manage money (3.2), budget (3.4), access public assistance programs (3.3), and register to vote (3.2). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds are somewhat less self-assure in their life skills. With the lowest rating on the survey, survey - 49 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report participants somewhat disagree that they have enough savings to live independently, emphasizing a disconnect between knowledge of and success in applying life skills. Housing Survey participants agree to some degree that they aware of rental costs and those participants who are 18 and older agree somewhat that they know how to get rental assistance. 16- and 17- year-olds are less aware and participants somewhat disagree that they feel they can afford housing costs, calling attention to the lack of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area and the need for more TAY assistance in this area. Transportation Survey participants agree that they can get to work on time (3.7) and know how to use public transportation (3.8). Legal Assistance Survey participants agree somewhat that they know how to get legal help (3.2) and understand their legal rights (3.2); they are less sure (2.6) that they can access a lawyer. Physical Health Survey participants agree to some degree that they are in good physical shape (3.6), strong (3.5), know how to access health care (3.4) and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy (3.9). Social and Emotional Well-being Survey participants agree to some degree that they have family or friends that are supportive (3.6), know how to access community based groups (3.6), are able to live independently (3.2), and know how and who to ask for help if they are having trouble living independently (3.5). Additional Comments Forty seven additional comments or suggestions were received. Approximately 20% of the respondents made positive comments about their experiences, many expressing their gratitude, with TAY services and programs. The rest of the respondents commented negatively or gave suggestions for improvements. The respondents’ negative comments or suggestions in order of frequency were concerns about housing, the social worker or system, jobs/income/budgeting, quality of instruction or support, educational support and access to health care. APPENDIX C: DMH TAY Programs 5.1) Transition Age Youth Full Service Partnerships (TAY FSP) Program Description: An intensive Mental Health Services and supports program for not served, underserved, and inappropriately served SED/SPMI (Serious Emotional Disturbance/Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill) TAY based on use of effective and innovative approaches focused on achieving recommended outcomes: a) Meaningful use of time and capabilities (employment, vocational, educational, social, and community activities; b) Safe and adequate housing and living environments and reduction in homelessness; c) A network of supportive relationships; d) Timely access to needed help, including in times of crisis; - 50 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report d) Reduction in incarceration in jails and juvenile halls; e) Reduction in involuntary services, reduction in institutionalization, and reduction in out of home placements; f) Maintaining or improving physical health; g) Reduction in early pregnancy; and h) Completion of high school diploma or GED. An individualized comprehensive services and supports plan, in partnership with an FSP team, is developed for each youth focusing on recovery and resiliency/wellness. A case manager is available 24/7 to respond to clients needs (this is a critical service and support component). An array of services and supports are provided including clinical interventions, linkages and referrals, housing assistance (rental subsidies, eviction assistance), benefits establishment, money management, leisure activities and planning, vocational training, job assistance, or anything else the youth or family needs to better function. Misc. Information: This program enrolled the first client in December 2006. DMH states that available MHSA funding is currently not sufficient to provide FSP services to all SED/SPMI TAY who otherwise qualify and might benefit from them. Funding: This program is funded by the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Total funding is $19,668,660 annually and includes EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) funding and Medi-Cal. Of this, approximately 40% ($7.9 million) is targeted towards youth aging out of DCFS and Probation. Target Population/Potential clientele: This program serves 16-25 year olds in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems (system) as well as those outside the system. The $7.9 million targets youth currently in DCFS/Probation, youth aging out of the system, and youth formerly in the system. The balance of funding is for youth who are homeless or currently at risk of homelessness, are aging out of the child mental health system, leaving long-term institutional care (e.g. an Institution of Mental Disease or State Hospitals), and youth experiencing their first psychotic break. Program capacity: This program provides 1122 slots for 16-25 year olds for all of L.A. County ($17,530 per slot). Due to natural “slot-turnover” during the fiscal year, one slot usually serves more than one person. Clients served (since program inception): 1113 have been authorized (slot-turnover); 898 clients currently authorized to receive TAY FSP Services Evaluation Process: Program success is measured through the State and County approved Outcome Measures Application (OMA). Upon enrollment in an FSP program, a baseline assessment is completed by the provider agency. Subsequent updates are completed quarterly (minimally), and when there is a change in a “key event.” The OMA is an electronic-based application. 5.2) TAY Drop-In Centers Program Description: Drop-In Centers are intended as entry points into the mental health system for SED/SPMI TAY who are living on the street or in unstable living situations. Drop-In Centers provide “low-demand, high tolerance” environments in which youth can find temporary safety and basic supports (e.g. showers, meals, clothing, referrals, linkage to services, vouchers, counseling, etc.). TAY accessing Drop-In Centers have an opportunity to build trusting relationships with staff persons who can, as the youth is ready and willing, connect them to the services and supports they need in order to work toward stability and recovery. Existing Drop-In Centers operate during regular daytime hours. MHSA funding is made available to extend hours of operation to evenings and weekends for the primary purpose of ensuring access to these vital services and supports - 51 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Misc. Information: In March 2008 The Board of Supervisors approved funding for three Drop- In Centers in FY 2007-08, and two in FY 08-09. Funding: Private funding is raised by the centers for the bulk of their operations. MHSA funds are used to extend the hours of operation to evenings and weekends: $250,000 annually for each of two centers. Target Population/Potential clientele: TAY who are diagnosed SED/SPMI and living on the streets or in otherwise unstable living environments. According to DMH many of the youth accessing Drop-In Centers are current or former foster or probation youth. Program capacity: Currently two centers will be fully funded for extended hours of operation in the 2008-09 FY. If additional funding becomes available, DMH would be able to increase support of Drop-In Centers in other areas of the county. Their goal is to provide at least one center in each of the eight SPAs (Service Provider Areas). Clients served: Not available. Note: Youth accessing Drop-In Centers are not required to disclose their legal status to access services. Once trust is established, the youth may decide to disclose that information. This is an example of “low-demand, high tolerance.” Evaluation Process: Information available to DMH indicates that the Drop-In Center programs awarded MHSA funding have established records of providing effective services and successfully engaging, often difficult to reach youth in accessing their available services and supports. DMH TAY Division is developing a Drop-In Center evaluation tool to measure the success of the program in achieving the outcomes for TAY as identified in the CSS Plan. (See 5.1 above) 5.3) TAY Housing Services Program Description: This program provides the following. • Enhanced Emergency Shelter Program for TAY (EESP) $605,000 per year. This program provides temporary shelter for SED/SPMI TAY ages 18-25 in a supportive housing environment for up to 29 nights while pursuing the long-term goal of secure and permanent housing. Program offers semi-private rooms, hygiene facilities, hot meals, case management, referrals and linkage services to SED/SPMI TAY who have no other resources to pay for shelter. There is one shelter that is licensed (6-beds) to serve 16-17 years old. DMH TAY Division is working with DCFS Command Post Unit to develop protocols for access for DCFS clients. • Project-Based Operating Subsidies for Permanent Housing $390,000 per year. This program provides a unit-based housing subsidy (not an individual rental subsidy). This program is currently under development. When implemented it is estimated that approximately 83 units of affordable housing will be available to SED/SPMI TAY who are capable of living independently in the community in their own apartment/unit. • Housing Specialists, one per SPA, Total funding $575,000 per year. Housing specialists assist youth with finding, securing and retaining housing by providing individualized services including accompanying youth on housing search, advocating with landlord, and assistance completing application forms. Misc. Information: The EESP Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18,
Additional Recommendations
23
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff should impose a limit of $500 on the total amount of money an inmate has in his or her account at any given time. If the inmate is booked into custody with a sum greater than $500 in his or her possession, the inmate should be required to draw down on the amount until it falls below $500 before any deposits from outside third parties are accepted.
R2:
The Sheriff should discontinue and prohibit the practice of allowing an inmate to authorize the release of funds to outside third parties, except for money that was in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. All money deposited by outside third parties to inmate accounts should only be for use by inmates in purchasing phone cards and items from the jail store.
R3:
The Sheriff should implement procedures requiring cashier staff to request valid identification from outside third parties making deposits to an inmate’s account, unless the amount is less than a pre-determined nominal sum, such as $100. - 11 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 12 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report HELPING PROBATION AND FOSTER CARE YOUTH PREPARE FOR ADULTHOOD AND INDEPENDENCE 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Nicolina Friedman, Chair Ethell Anderson Lucy Hernandez Fred Linderman Dorothy M. Schneider - 13 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 14 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R4:
DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multi-faceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. At a minimum, we believe the following changes should be considered: 4a) A suitable overlap of mentors should be built into the program to ease a child’s transition to the new mentor. 4b) The training provided to foster families and group home staff should be increased and should include ongoing evaluation, continuous training, and recertification. 4c) The interagency teams should be trained in team building skills to ensure they can make effective group decisions and are able to connect effectively with each child. 4d) Two-way communication with the children should be the norm and to the extent possible the children should be involved in key decisions affecting them. - 36 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TAY Youth entering the Probation and Juvenile Hall schools administered by LACOE are given a test to determine their academic level of functioning. During visits to these schools, the CGJ learned from teachers, administrators and observation that students are, on average, one to three years below grade level. In spite of numerous requests, the CGJ could not get data from LACOE substantiating the reported one to three year grade level lag of the students entering their camp and hall classrooms. The State of California requires a core of 140 units for high school graduation leaving the additional coursework to be determined by school districts. Los Angeles Unified School District requires the completion of 230 units for graduation. There program calls for 150 core units leaving 80 units for supplementing core units and electives. Students may request their own transcripts from their schools before scheduling their classes. DCFS, DMH, and Probation acting in loco parentis when parents relinquish or abdicate educational rights, are responsible for guiding the educational choices of their charges. There is latitude within the system to customize high school programs to meet the individual needs of students. We have identified the following specific improvements based on our research, discussion with officials, and feedback from TAY.
R5:
The directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills for all children to better prepare them for independence. 5a) All programs should contain an identified minimum level of understanding on the part of the recipients before the program is considered delivered. 5b) Enhanced study skills and courses on practical living skills should be part of the curriculum of juvenile halls and camps. DCFS should include such courses in the schedules of students attending public schools whenever possible. 5c) Foster children should be encouraged to participate in music, art, and other nonacademic programs. Probation should seek volunteers to provide these services in juvenile halls and camps. 5d) Probation camps and halls should provide vocational training for all detainees utilizing ROP services when possible. DCFS should encourage TAY to enroll in experiential, vocational, and ROP courses. 5e) Probation and DCFS should develop additional apprentice, job training and part-time job programs with all levels of government and business to provide more practical work experience for TAY. 5f) Probation and DCFS should invite representatives from organizations such as the Forestry Service and various branches of the U.S. military to - 37 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report make presentations to youth that fully describe their educational opportunities and obligations. 5i) DCFS and Probation should develop significant incentives and rewards to encourage their wards to obtain high school graduation, or a GED, and high scholastic achievement. POST-EMANCIPATION TAY While 18 may be the age of majority, in our view a large percentage of 18 to 25 year olds currently leaving the system do not have the experience, education, maturity or means to thrive without the emotional and financial support of a family. The financial dimension is particularly difficult in Los Angeles where the cost of living is high and accommodation costs are typically double the national average. The following recommendations will help to mitigate the lack of “a safety net” that most families provide to their 18 to 25 year olds:
R6:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, DPSS, and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 – 25 who have left the system. 6a) Either through the development of affordable housing supply and/or direct subsidy, all post transition youth should have access to good quality housing at a reasonable rate. 6b) A wider range of educational supports should be made available to post transition youth including tuition, room & board, books, and other expenses required when they attend school. 6c) Independent living supports should be provided such as health care insurance, transportation assistance, food vouchers, auto insurance subsidies, clothing allowances, and access to community-based support groups. The cost of these services should be partially borne by the post- transition youth based on an income means criterion to be developed by the departments. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The development of a comprehensive and integrated information system was the most frequently mentioned requirement for improvement by County officials during the Entrance Conference. This requirement, and the need to deal with confidentiality rules to allow information sharing, was raised by last year’s CGJ and the ECC Blueprint. There is no doubt that this will be a costly exercise but the need is as obvious as the need for leadership to ensure the development of a comprehensive system. Our concern is that without comprehensive and integrated information systems, optimal decisions in the best interest of the child are unlikely. During this investigation it was clear that while evidence-based reviews are the mantra, in many programs there were not regular and systematic output-oriented evaluations. - 38 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report According to DCFS and Probation officials, many youth chose not to engage in TAY programs. We understand that teenagers can be difficult but at a minimum the evaluations of each program should include input from all youth to understand why some are not participating. There is evidence that the programs are not getting the results hoped for: - there are high incarceration rates of former system children - there is a high homeless rate - there are high pregnancy rates Conceptually, all of the programs and the resources expended on them are to have a positive impact on this population. Without follow-up data on the children, the evaluation of the real results of a program is not possible. We recognize that once a child leaves the system they are under no legal or other obligation to stay in touch and provide information on how they are doing. The departments need to stop thinking of this as an impassable roadblock and explore ways to obtain high quality follow-up information on former TAY.
R7:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost estimates to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding, and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and future programs and policy initiatives: 7a) The new information system should be designed to allow for the tracking of all children once they leave the system. 7b) Appropriate incentives and commitments should be developed to encourage former TAY to remain in contact with the system to facilitate the gathering of information on them. 7c) Until data on former TAY is available routinely, the departments should pursue sampling and other survey methods to gain an understanding of the real results of TAY programs. 7d) Until the new information system is implemented, Probation should have access to all of DCFS’s data systems to help their staff track their youth and improve their services. - 39 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R08:
As such, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a vendor to provide routine maintenance services. The current contract does not contain a maximum amount and the department indicated that the new agreement will also not contain such provisions. The Internal Services Department should consider a contract structure more similar to those that have been entered into by other departments and contain a maximum amount. • The Department of Public Works has entered into agreements for routine vehicle maintenance services with 76 vendors. These contracts contain provisions that cap the total expenditures by the department at a maximum amount of $1.5 million. The department expended the maximum amount for routine maintenance in FY 2006-07 and is expected to expend the maximum amount in FY 2007-08. • The Fire Department has entered into agreements with a total of 82 vendors to provide routine vehicle maintenance services for the department for a maximum amount of $3.5 million per year. The actual expenditures for services received through these agreements are the maximum of $3.5 million. • The Sheriff’s Department recently entered into an agreement with a single vendor to provide routine maintenance services for its fleet. This agreement, with the Penske Corporation, is for an amount not to exceed $16.0 million per year. Accident Costs Accident repair costs involve actual payments for County vehicle repairs involved in accidents and, in many instances, the repair costs are not covered by the contracts discussed above. Many of the accidents cost the department additional amounts that vary year-to-year. Complete and verifiable cost information was not readily available from the departments for this audit. However, the table on the next page shows the numbers of accidents as reported by the individual departments. - 109 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table 9 Reported Vehicle Accidents in the Four Largest Vehicle Usage Departments FY 2005-06 through March 2008 Ratio of Number of Number of Department Accidents to Number of Accidents* Vehicles** Sheriff’s Department 849 16.0% Public Works Department 747 40.2% Fire Department 132 9.9% Internal Services Department 124 12.8% Total 1,852 – Sources: Los Angeles County Departments * Data is for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08. The data for FY 2007-08 is year to date and does not contain the entire year. ** The number of vehicles is based on the totals received from the Auditor-Controller’s Fixed Asset database. The Sheriff’s Department can expect accidents due to vehicle pursuits and other patrol activities, and has implemented several policies and procedures to ensure that accidents are kept to a minimum and thoroughly reviewed. Further, the Risk Management Branch of the County Executive’s Office works with departments by providing “technical support (consultations, training, surveys, etc.)6” to reduce costs associated with vehicle liability. The County Executive Office continues to work with departments to keep accidents to a minimum and thus reduce claim costs and accident repair costs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the managers and staff from each of the departments included in this study. In virtually every instance, the departments responded to our requests for data and interviews in a timely manner, and provided access to records required to accomplish the study objectives. Even when access to certain records was delayed because of privacy concerns, Sheriff’s Department management and staff worked diligently toward obtaining the information we required for our review. This high level of cooperation permitted us to accomplish a complex study in the timeframe requested by the Civil Grand Jury, and provide recommendations that we believe will assist the departments to improve vehicle usage throughout the County. Chief Administrative Office Risk Management Annual Report, p. 21. - 110 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R8:
Continued training is necessary for DPSS employees dealing with IHSS eligibility and fraud detection, based on the best practices recommended by CWDA and the involved state and county agencies. Also, since the need for repeated in-home visits is demoralizing to the social worker, for which no amount of training will compensate, the social worker should be given the authority to “notice” a recipient to schedule an assessment visit on a certain date, under penalty of payment cutoff.
R9:
DPSS should consider electronic monitoring as an alternative to a human provider for in-home care. The electronic monitoring systems do not provide “care” as such, but do avoid the need of a little-known provider visiting the home or abode. A half dozen such systems are now on the market. In addition, the Center for Aging Services Technologies in Washington, D.C., as well as the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland are excellent sources of further information.
R10:
Payment vouchers to IHSS service providers should be made payable to both the recipient of the care and the provider, thus requiring an endorsement from each before the check can be cashed. This safeguard would curtail some of the fraud that is occurring.
R11:
DPSS must follow the fraud reporting protocols required by the language of SB 1104. Also, in the interests of good management and employee morale, DPSS must provide feedback on fraud investigations to the initiating employee. Claims and excuses that the Department of Health Care Services isn’t providing feedback to DPSS are weak; DPSS senior management must insist on this information in a periodic and timely manner.
R12:
DPSS should review applicants for IHSS as to whether they are a sponsored immigrant under Section 213a of the Act. If so, their sponsor(s) or co-sponsor(s) should be sought to provide the financial support for the applicant. This recommendation has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.
R13:
Since the income cap for receiving EITC in CY 2008 approaches $37,000, it is recommended that an applicant for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be asked if he or she has received an EITC last calendar year and is receiving one in the immediate calendar year. If so, note should be made, in the application for IHSS, of the amounts received or to be received in each year. A person receiving the EITC should not be denied eligibility for IHSS, but the amounts received in that credit should be factored into the amount of IHSS services paid for by the recipient, by means of a formula which could be changed yearly. - 74 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R14:
As well as capturing the fingerprints of both the recipient and provider during the intake / application process, as recommended elsewhere, DPSS should require a fingerprint of both the recipient and the provider on each time card, perhaps even in lieu of a signature.
R15:
DPSS should enforce the requirement that bi-weekly/monthly time cards be submitted. If time cards are not received within ten (10) business days of when due, further payment warrants or direct deposits should be terminated. Direct deposit accounts should be checked quarterly to ascertain their balance. If the balance is substantial (>$5,000), it may indicate the need for an eligibility review. - 75 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R16:
The Department of Social Services should implement the recommended security measures in this report. DPSS needs to validate program providers and recipients more aggressively, by knowing who they are to a certainty (photo and fingerprints), their actual and purported participation in the program, and the exposure of bogus providers and recipients. Reference is also made to the 1998-1999 Civil Grand Jury Final Report that recommended methods to detect and prevent attempted employee fraud, particularly the section on Internal Affairs Investigations, pages 141-152. The IHSS program is not supposed to be a cottage industry for scam artists, especially those embedded within the ranks of DPSS itself. - 76 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXPENDITURES TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECIPIENTS OF IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) BY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Time Frame No. of Recipients Federal State L.A. County TOTAL 2003-04 FY Actual 140,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 139,000,000 $ 79,000,000 $ 230,000,000 2004-05 FY Actual 145,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 181,000,000 $ 58,000,000 $ 260,000,000 2005-06 FY Actual 152,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 226,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 290,000,000 2006-07 FY Actual 160,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ 76,000,000 $ 347,000,000 2007-08 FY Budget 380,000* $ 46,000,000† $ 272,000,000† $ 65,000,000† $ 383,000,000† *statewide †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted 2008-09 FY 400,000* Projected *statewide Source: DPSS; Legislative Analyst; County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) See Notes which follow regarding this spreadsheet. - 77 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.”
R19:
Number of items in current 2,000 5,000 1,500 4,500 1,700 751 3,000 warehouse inventory
R20:
Annual average dollar value of items $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $1,300,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $682,569 $16,000,000 in warehouse inventory “$27,000,000 without textbooks; $90,000,000 to $120,000,000 w/
R21:
Annual textbooks. Sales of stock $50,000,000 $9,100,000 $4,500,000 Textbooks are $12,400,000 $729,053 $135,000,000 items in FY handled as central 2006-07 warehouse cross- docked items but are not part of inventory.”
R22:
Average Delivery Time “5 days from the during 10 days 2 days 2-3 days 1-5 days 3 days 2 -3 days Warehouse to normal School/Office times” site - 250 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 23 Does the warehouse offer a same or next-day delivery option? Six Responses: 6= “Yes” LAUSD: Yes 24 If YES, is there a charge for this service? 25 If YES, what is the amount? Six responses: 6= “No” LAUSD: Yes LAUSD: $9-13 PART IV. Non-Stock Items 26 How do District schools and offices generally purchase non-stock items? Six responses: Method of Non-Stock Requisition or P-Card Other Purchase Purchase Order Number Responding “Yes” 5 6 0 - 251 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 27 If your District uses P-Cards, please answer the questions below. A) What is the maximum number of P-Cards issued per site? Three responses: 1= “1” 1= “Most have 3” 1= ”5” LAUSD: “2” B) Is there a maximum single purchase limit? Five responses: 5= “Yes” LAUSD: Yes If yes, what is it? Five responses: 3= “$500” 1= “$4,999” 1= “Yes” LAUSD: $500 C) Is there a maximum monthly purchase limit? Five responses: 5= “Yes” If yes, what is it? Five responses: 3= “$10,000” 1= “$4,999” 1= ”$1,500” LAUSD: $10,000 - 252 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report D) What controls have been implemented to enforce these provisions? Five responses: Manual Automated Written Review & Review & Periodic P-Card Control Policies & Override of Override of Other? Audits Procedures Certain Certain Purchases Purchases Number Responding 5 3 3 3 1 “Yes” LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Other Response: “Procurement, Accounting and Audit share in monthly reviews.” 28 If your District allows personnel to order non-stock items through requisitions or purchase orders, please indicate to whom such items are submitted: Five Responses: Submitted to a Centralized District Submitted Directly to Vendor Purchasing/Procurement Office 0 responses 5 responses LAUSD= (cid:57) - 253 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 29 If your District has another method of purchasing non-stock items (other than via P-Cards, requisitions or purchase orders) please describe the method(s): Five Responses: 5= “N/A” LAUSD: No other method 30 Please indicate which statement best characterizes your District’s non-stock purchasing policy: There are NO restrictions on the type of non-stock items that District schools and offices are allowed to purchase: One Response. Restrictions: District schools District schools District schools and offices are District schools and offices are and offices are prohibited from and offices are prohibited from prohibited from purchasing prohibited from purchasing ANY purchasing non- Non-stock SPECIFIED items purchasing non- item that is stock items for purchases are that are stocked stock items for stocked by the which there is a limited to items Policy by the which there is a warehouse functionally specified on an warehouse functionally through the similar (like) item approved through the similar (like) item District’s non- stocked in the product list. District’s non- stocked in the stock warehouse with stock warehouse with purchasing SOME purchasing NO exceptions. processes. exceptions. processes. Number of “Yes” 1 2 1 1 0 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) - 254 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 31 What controls have been implemented to enforce these non-stock purchasing restrictions? Please check all that apply: Monthly/Annual Manual Review Automated Review Written Audits of Non- and Override of and Override of Control Policies and Other Stock Restricted Non- Restricted Non- Procedures Purchases Stock Purchases Stock Purchases Number of 5 5 5 5 6 Responses Number of “Yes” 5 0 1 1 1 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) Other response: “Evaluation Policy” PART VI. Performance Measurement and Documentation: Which of the following measures does your district use to monitor performance of the warehouse function? 32 Districts reporting: Six responses: Performance Any Performance Performance Customer Service Flow Charts Measure Measures Audits/Reviews Surveys Number of “Yes” 5 4 5 5 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) - 255 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 256 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report LOS ANGELES COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTERS 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Lionel S. Martinez, Chair Judy Hsu James Kaiser Lloyd R. Smith 257 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 258 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report LOS ANGELES COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTERS INTRODUCTION As a result of a citizen’s complaint, the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate the operation of the Los Angeles County Rehabilitation Centers. According to the complaint a rehab center resident at the time of discharge was so sick that he required emergency ambulance transportation to a hospital. He died later that evening. Finally, the complaint states that all of this occurred with no assistance from rehabilitation center staff. Based on the results of the investigation, the Civil Grand Jury has determined there are areas for improvement in the policies and procedures of the rehabilitation centers. OBJECTIVES and SCOPE The purpose of this report is to investigate the policies and procedures of Los Angeles County Rehabilitation Centers. The primary focus of the investigation was operational procedures as they pertain to residents who become ill or are injured while residing at the rehabilitation centers. The Civil Grand Jury identified two county rehabilitation centers, both of which are administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. These centers are : Acton Rehabilitation Center 30500 Arrastre Canyon Road Acton, California Warm Springs Rehabilitation Center 38200 North Lake Hughes Road Castaic, California
R16-17:
18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 -
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F2:
There were rented refrigerated trailers used for the storage of forensic evidence to be processed by the crime lab that are parked at the loading dock of the Scientific Investigation Division facility at Erwin C. Piper Technical Center, despite the fact that there is abundant empty floor space inside the facility.
F3:
The Property Division of the Los Angeles Police Department has a policy of retaining hundreds of thousands of items of evidence for 65 years.
F4:
The laboratory areas have emergency decontamination showers in the hall. We noted that there were no drains in the floor. It was explained that the flooded floor was easier to maintain than drains.
F5:
In the vehicle inspection areas, the doors do not adequately block outside light, permitting too much ambient light to be present for investigations requiring alternate light sources to reveal latent evidence.
F6:
There are only two allocated intern positions for graduate students to obtain work experience in the LAPD and LASD crime laboratories.
F7:
One of the considerations for the consolidation of the LAPD and LASD crime labs was to add more personnel in expanded quarters to alleviate the backlog of evidence testing, including DNA testing. A recommendation by a medical expert on sexual abuse suggested that analysis of DNA be prioritized in cases of rape, particularly in cases of rape by a perpetrator unknown to the victim.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Los Angeles City Department of General Services should request that the refrigerated storage area currently in use by the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department be reconfigured or expanded in the empty area presently assigned to the Scientific Investigation Division at that site, so that the leases of refrigerated trailers can be terminated, and the City of Los Angeles be no longer obligated to rent them or use valuable loading dock space at the Erwin C. Piper Technical Building.
R3:
The Los Angeles Police Department should review their policy of retaining evidence in the property division for sixty-five years, and develop a policy of disposing of all items not needed for current trials or those in which a retrial could be ordered following a post-conviction appeal by a defendant.
R4:
The Joint Powers Authority of the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center should review why there are no floor drains beneath the decontamination showers located in the hallways of the new crime laboratory This may allow run-off to travel into the various rooms of the building under the doors, some of which do not have adequate 269 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report thresholds or weather-stripping at their base The governing authority should direct that appropriate refitting, if any, be done to redirect, capture and dispose of the runoff.
R5:
The Joint Powers Authority of the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center should review why there are light leaks in the vehicle inspection areas that lessen the effectiveness of alternative light sources, the use of which is often necessary to discover evidence that is difficult to detect under traditional light sources. Appropriate refitting, if any, be should be done to eliminate the light leaks.
R6:
The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department should hire additional interns from the California State University Los Angeles Department of Criminalistics, or other students in this same specialization at other universities.
R7:
It is recommended that the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department should accelerate the analysis of stored DNA samples in rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim. 270 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PART 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Octavio “Toby” Chavez Richard Niederberg Dolores Rillos Arnie L. Spears 271 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 272 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PART
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
LARTCS is and will be the communication system for public safety agencies, within the County of Los Angeles, for the next decade. It is wholly adequate to serve its purpose, except in the case of a widespread major disaster. No communication system can withstand a natural or manmade catastrophe.
F2:
LA-RICS is now in the phase of system-engineering and specification development. It is scheduled to be purchased and developed over the next decade. An implementation schedule is presented in the referenced brochure on LA-RICS.
F3:
The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department is the backbone organization for the operation of LARTCS. Sheriff personnel are also heavily involved in the development of LA-RICS. The present Civil Grand Jury has found the personnel involved in both of these systems to be both competent and cooperative. We say this here to reassure the public that knowledgeable people are guiding these developments. (Copies of LARTCS and LA-RICS brochures will appear at the conclusion of the last part of this report). 282 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE COMMUNITY-BASED PART 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Octavio “Toby” Chavez Richard Niederberg Dolores Rillos Arnie L. Spears 283 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 284 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE COMMUNITY-BASED PART OVERVIEW While fire suppression and law enforcement personnel are the most visible users of handheld radios, in times of civic unrest and natural or manmade disasters, the citizens of the area affected, who are the true first responders, constitute an important part of the communication system through their use of their own handheld radios. The (city of) Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) is a lead agency in the integration of citizen volunteers into the disaster relief system, primarily through its development of the Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT) training program, including quarterly hands-on exercises, monthly battalion meetings, Division training, classes narrowly tailored to specific subject matters, and working at public events to enhance certain skills that can best be learned in a real-world environment, particularly the efficient use of handheld radios in high-traffic situations. The Los Angeles Fire Department also supports and regulates the Auxiliary Communications Service (ACS), which is a network of hundreds of licensed amateur radio (Ham) operators. Many CERT members are also licensed amateur radio operators who can be deployed to wherever needed by the Los Angeles Fire Department without being accompanied by an ACS member. The frequency that CERT and ACS often tune to, before being directed to another frequency being utilized for a specific location or a specific team at a particular emergency, is 147.300MHz. The reallocation of frequency bandwidth has significantly affected the utilization of handheld radios by police, fire, sheriff, and other professional personnel, but it has also affected the utilization of handheld radios by citizens. The use of Citizen Band radio frequencies, and the handheld radios designed to utilize these frequencies, has rapidly declined after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed the rules when the number of channels was increased from 23 to 40, but the permitted transmit power was decreased. Channel 9 (27.065 MHz) was/is the emergency contact frequency. Subsequently, the FCC established two new sequential series of frequencies with lower-numbered, lower-power frequencies that can be used by persons without FCC licenses entitled Family Radio Service (FRS), and higher-numbered, higher- powered frequencies reserved for those persons holding General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) licenses. In this area, Channel 11 (467.6375 MHz) is routinely used for CERT exercises. 285 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Also available for citizen use are Marine Radios which were designed for ship-to- ship and ship-to-shore communications. Even though their use land-to-land is generally prohibited by the FCC rules, in the case of a true emergency, a radio on a boat in a stranded or injured person’s driveway could be their only way to seek assistance. Marine Channel 16 (156.800 MHz) is monitored by persons listening for distress calls. Likewise, a handheld Air Band Radio, whose use is normally prohibited when not in conjunction with the operation of an aircraft air-to-air or air-to-aircraft control personnel, could be used briefly in case of an emergency when no other method of communication was available. Frequency 121.5 MHz is monitored by persons listening for distress calls. Business Band radios are of limited assistance in case of an emergency; as they operate on private or semi-private channels that are not likely to be monitored by emergency personnel. Cellular phones will be of little use in case of any widespread emergency, both because the system will become overloaded quickly and because of the probability of damage to either the cell towers or the possibility that the repeaters and the central telephone office could lose power following the depletion of the back-up battery systems or the fuel required to run the back-up generators continuously for any significant period of time. In contrast, although most recently manufactured handheld amateur radios can use repeaters in their Duplex mode (transmitting on one frequency and receiving on another frequency, often using a repeater), they also can communicate handheld–to- handheld in their Simplex mode (transmitting and receiving sequentially on the same frequency). The public can also purchase handheld scanners (radios that only receive broadcasts, but can do so on a large number of frequencies) at local consumer electronics stores, including some advanced models which can store 5,000 or more channels programmed into memory, and have the ability to receive broadcasts by systems which employ digital trunking. Scanners allow citizens to monitor broadcasts by all of the above radio types, including evacuation orders for emergency personnel or equipment in their area, if the citizen has, or can obtain, the frequencies being utilized by their local agencies. (A copy of the Los Angeles City Fire Department Disaster Preparedness Training brochure follows this report). 286 tropeR laniF yruJ dnarG liviC ytnuoC selegnA soL 8002-7002 782 tropeR laniF yruJ dnarG liviC ytnuoC selegnA soL 8002-7002 882 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 289 tropeR laniF yruJ dnarG liviC ytnuoC selegnA soL 8002-7002 092
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the County Emergency Operations Center and its related agencies be directed to prepare a detailed operational plan which would start to be implemented when a “shelter-in-place” widespread disaster is realized to exist, be it in the first minute or the first day. Examples of harsh realities which might occur include: • What to do with overwhelming numbers of the dead • How to deal with injured and ill persons when the hospitals cannot treat all those in need • Chaos on the streets creating the potential for large scale crime and vandalism It is the recommended intent that the preparation of the plan force thought and planning about these so-called “unthinkables” before they occur.
R2:
The County EOC and its related agencies provide a briefing to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, along with all mayors and city council members, on the specifics of this operational plan. It anticipated that this operational plan, if it is realistic and pragmatic, will contain harsh and unpleasant action items which may upset its audience.
R3:
As part of the operational plan, public announcements should be prepared in advance so that they are not formulated in a time of crisis. Such public announcements should provide “how to” guidance and the rights and duties of an individual citizen affected by a widespread general emergency. The information contained in these announcements should provide very simple, pragmatic, but realistic approaches to helping people who may be in shock, physically and/or emotionally, from the circumstances in which they find themselves. 276 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY PART 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Octavio “Toby” Chavez Richard Niederberg Dolores Rillos Arnie L. Spears 277 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 278 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY PART
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
There is a substantial deviation between the original proposal and rationale used to justify the building of the new facility and what was actually realized in the way of cooperation between the LASD and the LAPD.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City Controller and the County Audit-Controller should initiate an audit to quantify the promised savings to the taxpayer through the economy and efficiency brought about by unification of their respective labs. The audit should be 268
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
When a person obtains Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, he or she is assumed eligible for IHSS assistance. The District Attorney contends that if the Department of Public Social Services determines that the person has assets which would make him/her ineligible for SSI, the DPSS caseworker does not notify the Social Security Administration of these findings. However, in the Grand Jury’s discussions with executive management from DPSS, we were advised that all sixty existing field offices do in fact have a liaison person who contacts the Social Security Administration and advises it of a recipient’s possible ineligibility for SSI and other issues of concern, to the extent allowed by current privacy laws. It should also be noted that SSI recipients must report their annual income at telephone number 1-800-772-1213. Reference can be made to Social Security Publication SSA-4926-SM (January 2008). Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is not the same as Social Security benefits paid to those age 62 and over.
F2:
DPSS collects time sheets which are supposed to be signed by the IHSS aid recipient and the aid provider. Information from that time sheet is forwarded to the State of California, and a state warrant, made payable to the aid provider, is prepared. DPSS keeps the time sheets, but has no filing system for easy retrieval of these important records, which are often required by the district attorney in the prosecution of fraud cases. DPSS executive management concedes this is a problem, due to the enormous amount of paperwork received per month (over 300,000 time sheets) by the Central Time Sheet Processing Operation, and the current system of filing, which is by manual batching. DPSS is holding off on a more efficient, automated approach to this filing - 69 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report system due to a pending upgrade to the state’s computer system, which will hopefully address some of the inefficiencies of manual processing.
F3:
When a person applies for IHSS assistance, a medical verification of the person’s physical/mental/medical condition is required to be prepared and signed by a medical doctor. Without validation, the process as it currently exists is subject to fraudulent use and/or signature forgery.
F4:
Cases have been identified by the district attorney wherein care providers are allegedly providing aid under different names and fraudulently collecting benefits. Cases have also been identified wherein aid recipients are allegedly receiving aid under different identities.
F5:
DPSS administers various federal and state-funded aid programs at the county level, including General Relief (welfare), CalWorks, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and IHSS. The district attorney has identified a number of cases where benefits from one program would reduce or eliminate eligibility for another program, and contends that DPSS computer databases do not “talk to” one another, so inter-program opportunities for fraud abound. - 70 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F6:
Neither the State of California nor the County of Los Angeles conducts a criminal background investigation on the provider of IHSS services. Since the recipient has carte blanche to choose a provider, but cannot conduct a background investigation, the county is in a position to do so on behalf of the recipient.
F7:
Reassessments of the recipient’s need for continuing IHSS care are not done in a timely and systematic manner.
F08:
As such, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a vendor to provide routine maintenance services. The current contract does not contain a maximum amount and the department indicated that the new agreement will also not contain such provisions. The Internal Services Department should consider a contract structure more similar to those that have been entered into by other departments and contain a maximum amount. • The Department of Public Works has entered into agreements for routine vehicle maintenance services with 76 vendors. These contracts contain provisions that cap the total expenditures by the department at a maximum amount of $1.5 million. The department expended the maximum amount for routine maintenance in FY 2006-07 and is expected to expend the maximum amount in FY 2007-08. • The Fire Department has entered into agreements with a total of 82 vendors to provide routine vehicle maintenance services for the department for a maximum amount of $3.5 million per year. The actual expenditures for services received through these agreements are the maximum of $3.5 million. • The Sheriff’s Department recently entered into an agreement with a single vendor to provide routine maintenance services for its fleet. This agreement, with the Penske Corporation, is for an amount not to exceed $16.0 million per year. Accident Costs Accident repair costs involve actual payments for County vehicle repairs involved in accidents and, in many instances, the repair costs are not covered by the contracts discussed above. Many of the accidents cost the department additional amounts that vary year-to-year. Complete and verifiable cost information was not readily available from the departments for this audit. However, the table on the next page shows the numbers of accidents as reported by the individual departments. - 109 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table 9 Reported Vehicle Accidents in the Four Largest Vehicle Usage Departments FY 2005-06 through March 2008 Ratio of Number of Number of Department Accidents to Number of Accidents* Vehicles** Sheriff’s Department 849 16.0% Public Works Department 747 40.2% Fire Department 132 9.9% Internal Services Department 124 12.8% Total 1,852 – Sources: Los Angeles County Departments * Data is for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08. The data for FY 2007-08 is year to date and does not contain the entire year. ** The number of vehicles is based on the totals received from the Auditor-Controller’s Fixed Asset database. The Sheriff’s Department can expect accidents due to vehicle pursuits and other patrol activities, and has implemented several policies and procedures to ensure that accidents are kept to a minimum and thoroughly reviewed. Further, the Risk Management Branch of the County Executive’s Office works with departments by providing “technical support (consultations, training, surveys, etc.)6” to reduce costs associated with vehicle liability. The County Executive Office continues to work with departments to keep accidents to a minimum and thus reduce claim costs and accident repair costs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the managers and staff from each of the departments included in this study. In virtually every instance, the departments responded to our requests for data and interviews in a timely manner, and provided access to records required to accomplish the study objectives. Even when access to certain records was delayed because of privacy concerns, Sheriff’s Department management and staff worked diligently toward obtaining the information we required for our review. This high level of cooperation permitted us to accomplish a complex study in the timeframe requested by the Civil Grand Jury, and provide recommendations that we believe will assist the departments to improve vehicle usage throughout the County. Chief Administrative Office Risk Management Annual Report, p. 21. - 110 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F8:
Personnel of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) are not always qualified to assess the kind and intensity of the care required, which is roughly analogous to Medicare’s definition of “custodial care.” Among the chief determining criteria for receiving IHSS is the requirement that but for this program, the recipient would require out-of-home placement. Quoting from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) report entitled In-Home Supportive Services: Past, Present and Future, January 2003: “The IHSS program is based on a social model – one that relies on a social worker assessment rather than assessment based on medical criteria. As such, caregivers are not medical personnel, nor are the social workers and, obviously, the consumer… “Quality of care is dependent on the caregivers qualifications and job satisfaction and how accurately the social worker’s assessment of the consumer’s need comports with the consumer’s actual supportive service needs.” Recipient need assessments have a significant subjective component, influenced by the personal bias of the social worker, personality interactions, and the innate desire to be charitable. DPSS also realizes that the initial assessment home visit, reassessment visits and scheduled visits are sometimes stage-managed in order to draw the maximum benefit of the program. The attempted reassessment via repeated random visits, to a supposedly housebound recipient who is never home, should be a cause for concern.
F9:
As an alternative to personalized, in-home care, electronic home monitoring could be made available for those recipients who neither want nor require personal contact. - 72 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F10:
Providers of in-home care complain that they are not getting paid by the recipients of in-home care. Conversely, recipients complain that the providers are not providing the level and/or quality of care for which they are being paid from IHSS funds. In some cases, time cards have been forged or altered.
F11:
Initial fraud referrals are supposed to be sent to DPSS headquarters. However, in some cases, DPSS employees attempting to report suspected IHSS fraud have been met with responses ranging from apathetic to hostile on the part of district office supervisors and managers. Reports of suspected fraud, forwarded to DPSS headquarters, are not followed up on with the employees who initiated the reports; in essence, a lack of feedback. Senate Bill (SB) 1104 grants jurisdiction for IHSS fraud investigations to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), formerly known as the Department of Health Services. Specific provisions contained in SB 1104 created fraud detection and quality assurance protocols, adherence to which is not optional.
F12:
An Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864, must be submitted by those who are sponsoring foreign nationals under the family- - 73 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report based immigration system. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Support is required in certain employment-based immigration situations. Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 CFRs) creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the foreign national. The Act also creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the federal agency or any state agency which may provide means-tested public benefits to the sponsored immigrant. Implemented in 1996 to ensure that foreigners do not become public charges after admittance to the U.S.A., the Affidavit of Support requirement must be satisfied in order for many foreigners to ultimately obtain legal permanent residence. The Affidavit of Support terminates once the sponsored immigrant “naturalizes” or when credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work as defined by the Social Security Act. Form I-864 and I- 864A data may be disclosed to other federal, state and local agencies providing means- tested public benefits for use in any civil action against the sponsor(s) for breach of contract. Social Security numbers may be verified with the Social Security Administration. It may also be disclosed as a matter of routine use to other federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities.
F13:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- income working individuals and families. It is not a tax rebate, but rather a federal subsidy. In addition, the EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits; the EITC will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing or most payments of temporary assistance for needy families. The EITC is based on a past and an anticipated calendar year of income. Applicants must file a federal tax return and have a valid Social Security number. Full details are contained in IRS Notice 797 and Form W-5.
F14:
Although the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot comment upon or review State of California operations, the successful and professional local administration of IHSS is dependent upon state databases. The state’s and Los Angeles County’s Department of Social Services computers and software must handshake and exchange data, primarily with the following: • State Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) • Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) There is no longer a demarcation between county and state functions; we live in a virtual world. Even checking a person’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) status requires DPSS to go through the state systems to obtain Social Security Administration data. Obviously, Los Angeles County DPSS is at the mercy, interest and competence of state agencies, particularly the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Providers and recipients of IHSS services sign and submit a biweekly timesheet which is ultimately processed by the state, the payment warrant is issued by the state, and fraud investigation is within the purview of the state. The acceptance of scrawled or absent signatures on the timesheet does not constitute good management of a multi- billion dollar program such as IHSS. Dual endorsement of the payment warrant would definitely be a good business practice.
F15:
The Advance Pay feature of IHSS is reportedly abused, particularly by the recipient receiving “advance pay” for weeks and months without submitting a time card in support of that pay.
F16:
A member of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury, a past service provider in the IHSS program, was approached by an IHSS employee to sign up to take other recipients. All the member had to do was give the IHSS employee permission to re-use the member’s provider information, which was already in DPSS files, and periodically sign papers. For this, the member would keep one-half of each check / warrant, and yield the other half to an associate of the DPSS employee. The grand jury member was subsequently approached by someone who was not a county employee, but offering a similar scam. He told the member that “…lots of people are doing it.” Needless to say, the current grand jury member emphatically refused both offers.
Additional Recommendations
23
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A county leadership team under the direction of the Deputy CEO and including DCFS, DPSS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should develop a new strategic plan to refocus TAY programs on integration, efficiency, and effectiveness. The team should address the following strategic issues: 1a) Keeping kids from entering the system 1b) Providing a relevant and high quality education, addressing job and life skills 1c) Instituting stronger evidenced-based and comprehensive evaluations focused on real results achieved 1d) Developing a clear parenting model with specific values that are consistently reinforced 1e) Shifting more resources from post-emancipation to pre-emancipation to reach a wider audience 1f) Identifying potential TAY younger than 14 to intensify efforts earlier to improve their chances of success 1g) Identifying areas of duplicated services and funding - 34 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report FINANCING THE IMPROVEMENTS There has been a significant drop in DCFS cases from 65,659 a decade ago to 23,268 today. Probation case load is down but not as significantly. One result of the reduction in numbers has been a decrease in the average social worker case load from 55-70 to 20-40. In addition, several departmental initiatives designed to emphasize detention prevention, improved safety, and higher levels of permanent placements have been absorbed, according to departmental officials. This investigation did not focus on the internal efficiencies of the departments. Nevertheless, based on best practices, our observations and current budget constraints:
R2:
The Deputy CEO should develop and implement a regular and systematic process of program review and evaluation for TAY programs which includes a goal of periodic streamlining of operations in DCFS, Probation, and DMH. 2a) The savings generated by successful streamlining should be maintained in the departments to help defray the funding of new programs. 2b) Agencies should cultivate community resources and partnerships to seek new revenue sources, including grants from private and governmental agencies, to fund the new programs. PREVENTION The departments have implemented wraparound services to support families at risk in order to maintain children with their families. While many of our recommendations are oriented toward improving the results of children who enter the system, there is no illusion that the system will ever be transformed to an environment that can replace the love of a family or parents. A focus on prevention will provide a positive return to the children, their families and the system in terms of cost avoidance. The conventional wisdom has always been that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” The following list of recommendations is by no means complete. Departments are urged to initiate a creative brainstorming exercise with the key stakeholders and acknowledged experts in the field, to identify specific strategies:
R3:
DCFS, Probation, DMH, and DPSS should develop and implement innovative programs to target high risk families and high risk children for proactive early intervention. Some specific ideas that should be considered are: 3a) High-risk neighborhoods should be identified and a proactive outreach program should be developed to connect with high risk families. The departments should use language appropriate to the families to facilitate understanding and their engagement in the program. - 35 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 3b) A line of communication for teachers, principles, school resource officers, police and the Sheriff departments, clergy and community/ recreation center staff, and others, that addresses confidentiality requirements, should be implemented to provide DCFS, DMH, and Probation with early intervention opportunities. 3c) Probation should work proactively with schools that have students already in the criminal justice system to prevent additional delinquent behavior. 3d) More intensive programs on drugs and access to drug rehabilitation programs should be provided to parents for themselves and their children. 3e) Professional marketing firms and local universities should be approached to develop pro bono advertising strategies to more effectively reach families in need. BUILDING TRUST We believe that a major short coming in the system is the lack of continuity of a significant adult in the life of the child – the analogue of a parent. We recognize that the organizational problems of case load management and staff turnover exacerbates this problem. Last year’s CGJ recommended case managers and interagency teams which the departments support and are implementing. Based on feedback from our survey of TAY and best practice research, we believe more must be done to create a sense of continuity and trust for each child.
R4:
DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multi-faceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. At a minimum, we believe the following changes should be considered: 4a) A suitable overlap of mentors should be built into the program to ease a child’s transition to the new mentor. 4b) The training provided to foster families and group home staff should be increased and should include ongoing evaluation, continuous training, and recertification. 4c) The interagency teams should be trained in team building skills to ensure they can make effective group decisions and are able to connect effectively with each child. 4d) Two-way communication with the children should be the norm and to the extent possible the children should be involved in key decisions affecting them. - 36 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TAY Youth entering the Probation and Juvenile Hall schools administered by LACOE are given a test to determine their academic level of functioning. During visits to these schools, the CGJ learned from teachers, administrators and observation that students are, on average, one to three years below grade level. In spite of numerous requests, the CGJ could not get data from LACOE substantiating the reported one to three year grade level lag of the students entering their camp and hall classrooms. The State of California requires a core of 140 units for high school graduation leaving the additional coursework to be determined by school districts. Los Angeles Unified School District requires the completion of 230 units for graduation. There program calls for 150 core units leaving 80 units for supplementing core units and electives. Students may request their own transcripts from their schools before scheduling their classes. DCFS, DMH, and Probation acting in loco parentis when parents relinquish or abdicate educational rights, are responsible for guiding the educational choices of their charges. There is latitude within the system to customize high school programs to meet the individual needs of students. We have identified the following specific improvements based on our research, discussion with officials, and feedback from TAY.
R5:
The directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills for all children to better prepare them for independence. 5a) All programs should contain an identified minimum level of understanding on the part of the recipients before the program is considered delivered. 5b) Enhanced study skills and courses on practical living skills should be part of the curriculum of juvenile halls and camps. DCFS should include such courses in the schedules of students attending public schools whenever possible. 5c) Foster children should be encouraged to participate in music, art, and other nonacademic programs. Probation should seek volunteers to provide these services in juvenile halls and camps. 5d) Probation camps and halls should provide vocational training for all detainees utilizing ROP services when possible. DCFS should encourage TAY to enroll in experiential, vocational, and ROP courses. 5e) Probation and DCFS should develop additional apprentice, job training and part-time job programs with all levels of government and business to provide more practical work experience for TAY. 5f) Probation and DCFS should invite representatives from organizations such as the Forestry Service and various branches of the U.S. military to - 37 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report make presentations to youth that fully describe their educational opportunities and obligations. 5i) DCFS and Probation should develop significant incentives and rewards to encourage their wards to obtain high school graduation, or a GED, and high scholastic achievement. POST-EMANCIPATION TAY While 18 may be the age of majority, in our view a large percentage of 18 to 25 year olds currently leaving the system do not have the experience, education, maturity or means to thrive without the emotional and financial support of a family. The financial dimension is particularly difficult in Los Angeles where the cost of living is high and accommodation costs are typically double the national average. The following recommendations will help to mitigate the lack of “a safety net” that most families provide to their 18 to 25 year olds:
R6:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, DPSS, and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 – 25 who have left the system. 6a) Either through the development of affordable housing supply and/or direct subsidy, all post transition youth should have access to good quality housing at a reasonable rate. 6b) A wider range of educational supports should be made available to post transition youth including tuition, room & board, books, and other expenses required when they attend school. 6c) Independent living supports should be provided such as health care insurance, transportation assistance, food vouchers, auto insurance subsidies, clothing allowances, and access to community-based support groups. The cost of these services should be partially borne by the post- transition youth based on an income means criterion to be developed by the departments. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The development of a comprehensive and integrated information system was the most frequently mentioned requirement for improvement by County officials during the Entrance Conference. This requirement, and the need to deal with confidentiality rules to allow information sharing, was raised by last year’s CGJ and the ECC Blueprint. There is no doubt that this will be a costly exercise but the need is as obvious as the need for leadership to ensure the development of a comprehensive system. Our concern is that without comprehensive and integrated information systems, optimal decisions in the best interest of the child are unlikely. During this investigation it was clear that while evidence-based reviews are the mantra, in many programs there were not regular and systematic output-oriented evaluations. - 38 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report According to DCFS and Probation officials, many youth chose not to engage in TAY programs. We understand that teenagers can be difficult but at a minimum the evaluations of each program should include input from all youth to understand why some are not participating. There is evidence that the programs are not getting the results hoped for: - there are high incarceration rates of former system children - there is a high homeless rate - there are high pregnancy rates Conceptually, all of the programs and the resources expended on them are to have a positive impact on this population. Without follow-up data on the children, the evaluation of the real results of a program is not possible. We recognize that once a child leaves the system they are under no legal or other obligation to stay in touch and provide information on how they are doing. The departments need to stop thinking of this as an impassable roadblock and explore ways to obtain high quality follow-up information on former TAY.
R7:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost estimates to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding, and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and future programs and policy initiatives: 7a) The new information system should be designed to allow for the tracking of all children once they leave the system. 7b) Appropriate incentives and commitments should be developed to encourage former TAY to remain in contact with the system to facilitate the gathering of information on them. 7c) Until data on former TAY is available routinely, the departments should pursue sampling and other survey methods to gain an understanding of the real results of TAY programs. 7d) Until the new information system is implemented, Probation should have access to all of DCFS’s data systems to help their staff track their youth and improve their services. - 39 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R08:
As such, the department is in the process of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a vendor to provide routine maintenance services. The current contract does not contain a maximum amount and the department indicated that the new agreement will also not contain such provisions. The Internal Services Department should consider a contract structure more similar to those that have been entered into by other departments and contain a maximum amount. • The Department of Public Works has entered into agreements for routine vehicle maintenance services with 76 vendors. These contracts contain provisions that cap the total expenditures by the department at a maximum amount of $1.5 million. The department expended the maximum amount for routine maintenance in FY 2006-07 and is expected to expend the maximum amount in FY 2007-08. • The Fire Department has entered into agreements with a total of 82 vendors to provide routine vehicle maintenance services for the department for a maximum amount of $3.5 million per year. The actual expenditures for services received through these agreements are the maximum of $3.5 million. • The Sheriff’s Department recently entered into an agreement with a single vendor to provide routine maintenance services for its fleet. This agreement, with the Penske Corporation, is for an amount not to exceed $16.0 million per year. Accident Costs Accident repair costs involve actual payments for County vehicle repairs involved in accidents and, in many instances, the repair costs are not covered by the contracts discussed above. Many of the accidents cost the department additional amounts that vary year-to-year. Complete and verifiable cost information was not readily available from the departments for this audit. However, the table on the next page shows the numbers of accidents as reported by the individual departments. - 109 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table 9 Reported Vehicle Accidents in the Four Largest Vehicle Usage Departments FY 2005-06 through March 2008 Ratio of Number of Number of Department Accidents to Number of Accidents* Vehicles** Sheriff’s Department 849 16.0% Public Works Department 747 40.2% Fire Department 132 9.9% Internal Services Department 124 12.8% Total 1,852 – Sources: Los Angeles County Departments * Data is for FY 2005-06 to FY 2007-08. The data for FY 2007-08 is year to date and does not contain the entire year. ** The number of vehicles is based on the totals received from the Auditor-Controller’s Fixed Asset database. The Sheriff’s Department can expect accidents due to vehicle pursuits and other patrol activities, and has implemented several policies and procedures to ensure that accidents are kept to a minimum and thoroughly reviewed. Further, the Risk Management Branch of the County Executive’s Office works with departments by providing “technical support (consultations, training, surveys, etc.)6” to reduce costs associated with vehicle liability. The County Executive Office continues to work with departments to keep accidents to a minimum and thus reduce claim costs and accident repair costs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the managers and staff from each of the departments included in this study. In virtually every instance, the departments responded to our requests for data and interviews in a timely manner, and provided access to records required to accomplish the study objectives. Even when access to certain records was delayed because of privacy concerns, Sheriff’s Department management and staff worked diligently toward obtaining the information we required for our review. This high level of cooperation permitted us to accomplish a complex study in the timeframe requested by the Civil Grand Jury, and provide recommendations that we believe will assist the departments to improve vehicle usage throughout the County. Chief Administrative Office Risk Management Annual Report, p. 21. - 110 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R8:
Continued training is necessary for DPSS employees dealing with IHSS eligibility and fraud detection, based on the best practices recommended by CWDA and the involved state and county agencies. Also, since the need for repeated in-home visits is demoralizing to the social worker, for which no amount of training will compensate, the social worker should be given the authority to “notice” a recipient to schedule an assessment visit on a certain date, under penalty of payment cutoff.
R9:
DPSS should consider electronic monitoring as an alternative to a human provider for in-home care. The electronic monitoring systems do not provide “care” as such, but do avoid the need of a little-known provider visiting the home or abode. A half dozen such systems are now on the market. In addition, the Center for Aging Services Technologies in Washington, D.C., as well as the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland are excellent sources of further information.
R10:
Payment vouchers to IHSS service providers should be made payable to both the recipient of the care and the provider, thus requiring an endorsement from each before the check can be cashed. This safeguard would curtail some of the fraud that is occurring.
R11:
DPSS must follow the fraud reporting protocols required by the language of SB 1104. Also, in the interests of good management and employee morale, DPSS must provide feedback on fraud investigations to the initiating employee. Claims and excuses that the Department of Health Care Services isn’t providing feedback to DPSS are weak; DPSS senior management must insist on this information in a periodic and timely manner.
R12:
DPSS should review applicants for IHSS as to whether they are a sponsored immigrant under Section 213a of the Act. If so, their sponsor(s) or co-sponsor(s) should be sought to provide the financial support for the applicant. This recommendation has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.
R13:
Since the income cap for receiving EITC in CY 2008 approaches $37,000, it is recommended that an applicant for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be asked if he or she has received an EITC last calendar year and is receiving one in the immediate calendar year. If so, note should be made, in the application for IHSS, of the amounts received or to be received in each year. A person receiving the EITC should not be denied eligibility for IHSS, but the amounts received in that credit should be factored into the amount of IHSS services paid for by the recipient, by means of a formula which could be changed yearly. - 74 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R14:
As well as capturing the fingerprints of both the recipient and provider during the intake / application process, as recommended elsewhere, DPSS should require a fingerprint of both the recipient and the provider on each time card, perhaps even in lieu of a signature.
R15:
DPSS should enforce the requirement that bi-weekly/monthly time cards be submitted. If time cards are not received within ten (10) business days of when due, further payment warrants or direct deposits should be terminated. Direct deposit accounts should be checked quarterly to ascertain their balance. If the balance is substantial (>$5,000), it may indicate the need for an eligibility review. - 75 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R16:
The Department of Social Services should implement the recommended security measures in this report. DPSS needs to validate program providers and recipients more aggressively, by knowing who they are to a certainty (photo and fingerprints), their actual and purported participation in the program, and the exposure of bogus providers and recipients. Reference is also made to the 1998-1999 Civil Grand Jury Final Report that recommended methods to detect and prevent attempted employee fraud, particularly the section on Internal Affairs Investigations, pages 141-152. The IHSS program is not supposed to be a cottage industry for scam artists, especially those embedded within the ranks of DPSS itself. - 76 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXPENDITURES TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECIPIENTS OF IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) BY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Time Frame No. of Recipients Federal State L.A. County TOTAL 2003-04 FY Actual 140,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 139,000,000 $ 79,000,000 $ 230,000,000 2004-05 FY Actual 145,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 181,000,000 $ 58,000,000 $ 260,000,000 2005-06 FY Actual 152,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 226,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 290,000,000 2006-07 FY Actual 160,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ 76,000,000 $ 347,000,000 2007-08 FY Budget 380,000* $ 46,000,000† $ 272,000,000† $ 65,000,000† $ 383,000,000† *statewide †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted 2008-09 FY 400,000* Projected *statewide Source: DPSS; Legislative Analyst; County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) See Notes which follow regarding this spreadsheet. - 77 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.”
R19:
Number of items in current 2,000 5,000 1,500 4,500 1,700 751 3,000 warehouse inventory
R20:
Annual average dollar value of items $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $1,300,000 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $682,569 $16,000,000 in warehouse inventory “$27,000,000 without textbooks; $90,000,000 to $120,000,000 w/
R21:
Annual textbooks. Sales of stock $50,000,000 $9,100,000 $4,500,000 Textbooks are $12,400,000 $729,053 $135,000,000 items in FY handled as central 2006-07 warehouse cross- docked items but are not part of inventory.”
R22:
Average Delivery Time “5 days from the during 10 days 2 days 2-3 days 1-5 days 3 days 2 -3 days Warehouse to normal School/Office times” site - 250 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 23 Does the warehouse offer a same or next-day delivery option? Six Responses: 6= “Yes” LAUSD: Yes 24 If YES, is there a charge for this service? 25 If YES, what is the amount? Six responses: 6= “No” LAUSD: Yes LAUSD: $9-13 PART IV. Non-Stock Items 26 How do District schools and offices generally purchase non-stock items? Six responses: Method of Non-Stock Requisition or P-Card Other Purchase Purchase Order Number Responding “Yes” 5 6 0 - 251 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 27 If your District uses P-Cards, please answer the questions below. A) What is the maximum number of P-Cards issued per site? Three responses: 1= “1” 1= “Most have 3” 1= ”5” LAUSD: “2” B) Is there a maximum single purchase limit? Five responses: 5= “Yes” LAUSD: Yes If yes, what is it? Five responses: 3= “$500” 1= “$4,999” 1= “Yes” LAUSD: $500 C) Is there a maximum monthly purchase limit? Five responses: 5= “Yes” If yes, what is it? Five responses: 3= “$10,000” 1= “$4,999” 1= ”$1,500” LAUSD: $10,000 - 252 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report D) What controls have been implemented to enforce these provisions? Five responses: Manual Automated Written Review & Review & Periodic P-Card Control Policies & Override of Override of Other? Audits Procedures Certain Certain Purchases Purchases Number Responding 5 3 3 3 1 “Yes” LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) Other Response: “Procurement, Accounting and Audit share in monthly reviews.” 28 If your District allows personnel to order non-stock items through requisitions or purchase orders, please indicate to whom such items are submitted: Five Responses: Submitted to a Centralized District Submitted Directly to Vendor Purchasing/Procurement Office 0 responses 5 responses LAUSD= (cid:57) - 253 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 29 If your District has another method of purchasing non-stock items (other than via P-Cards, requisitions or purchase orders) please describe the method(s): Five Responses: 5= “N/A” LAUSD: No other method 30 Please indicate which statement best characterizes your District’s non-stock purchasing policy: There are NO restrictions on the type of non-stock items that District schools and offices are allowed to purchase: One Response. Restrictions: District schools District schools District schools and offices are District schools and offices are and offices are prohibited from and offices are prohibited from prohibited from purchasing prohibited from purchasing ANY purchasing non- Non-stock SPECIFIED items purchasing non- item that is stock items for purchases are that are stocked stock items for stocked by the which there is a limited to items Policy by the which there is a warehouse functionally specified on an warehouse functionally through the similar (like) item approved through the similar (like) item District’s non- stocked in the product list. District’s non- stocked in the stock warehouse with stock warehouse with purchasing SOME purchasing NO exceptions. processes. exceptions. processes. Number of “Yes” 1 2 1 1 0 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) - 254 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 31 What controls have been implemented to enforce these non-stock purchasing restrictions? Please check all that apply: Monthly/Annual Manual Review Automated Review Written Audits of Non- and Override of and Override of Control Policies and Other Stock Restricted Non- Restricted Non- Procedures Purchases Stock Purchases Stock Purchases Number of 5 5 5 5 6 Responses Number of “Yes” 5 0 1 1 1 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) Other response: “Evaluation Policy” PART VI. Performance Measurement and Documentation: Which of the following measures does your district use to monitor performance of the warehouse function? 32 Districts reporting: Six responses: Performance Any Performance Performance Customer Service Flow Charts Measure Measures Audits/Reviews Surveys Number of “Yes” 5 4 5 5 Responses LAUSD (cid:57) (cid:57) (cid:57) - 255 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 256 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report LOS ANGELES COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTERS 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Lionel S. Martinez, Chair Judy Hsu James Kaiser Lloyd R. Smith 257 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 258 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report LOS ANGELES COUNTY REHABILITATION CENTERS INTRODUCTION As a result of a citizen’s complaint, the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate the operation of the Los Angeles County Rehabilitation Centers. According to the complaint a rehab center resident at the time of discharge was so sick that he required emergency ambulance transportation to a hospital. He died later that evening. Finally, the complaint states that all of this occurred with no assistance from rehabilitation center staff. Based on the results of the investigation, the Civil Grand Jury has determined there are areas for improvement in the policies and procedures of the rehabilitation centers. OBJECTIVES and SCOPE The purpose of this report is to investigate the policies and procedures of Los Angeles County Rehabilitation Centers. The primary focus of the investigation was operational procedures as they pertain to residents who become ill or are injured while residing at the rehabilitation centers. The Civil Grand Jury identified two county rehabilitation centers, both of which are administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. These centers are : Acton Rehabilitation Center 30500 Arrastre Canyon Road Acton, California Warm Springs Rehabilitation Center 38200 North Lake Hughes Road Castaic, California
R16-17:
18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 -
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
When a person obtains Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, he or she is assumed eligible for IHSS assistance. The District Attorney contends that if the Department of Public Social Services determines that the person has assets which would make him/her ineligible for SSI, the DPSS caseworker does not notify the Social Security Administration of these findings. However, in the Grand Jury’s discussions with executive management from DPSS, we were advised that all sixty existing field offices do in fact have a liaison person who contacts the Social Security Administration and advises it of a recipient’s possible ineligibility for SSI and other issues of concern, to the extent allowed by current privacy laws. It should also be noted that SSI recipients must report their annual income at telephone number 1-800-772-1213. Reference can be made to Social Security Publication SSA-4926-SM (January 2008). Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is not the same as Social Security benefits paid to those age 62 and over.
F2:
DPSS collects time sheets which are supposed to be signed by the IHSS aid recipient and the aid provider. Information from that time sheet is forwarded to the State of California, and a state warrant, made payable to the aid provider, is prepared. DPSS keeps the time sheets, but has no filing system for easy retrieval of these important records, which are often required by the district attorney in the prosecution of fraud cases. DPSS executive management concedes this is a problem, due to the enormous amount of paperwork received per month (over 300,000 time sheets) by the Central Time Sheet Processing Operation, and the current system of filing, which is by manual batching. DPSS is holding off on a more efficient, automated approach to this filing - 69 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report system due to a pending upgrade to the state’s computer system, which will hopefully address some of the inefficiencies of manual processing.
F3:
When a person applies for IHSS assistance, a medical verification of the person’s physical/mental/medical condition is required to be prepared and signed by a medical doctor. Without validation, the process as it currently exists is subject to fraudulent use and/or signature forgery.
F4:
Cases have been identified by the district attorney wherein care providers are allegedly providing aid under different names and fraudulently collecting benefits. Cases have also been identified wherein aid recipients are allegedly receiving aid under different identities.
F5:
DPSS administers various federal and state-funded aid programs at the county level, including General Relief (welfare), CalWorks, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and IHSS. The district attorney has identified a number of cases where benefits from one program would reduce or eliminate eligibility for another program, and contends that DPSS computer databases do not “talk to” one another, so inter-program opportunities for fraud abound. - 70 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F6:
Neither the State of California nor the County of Los Angeles conducts a criminal background investigation on the provider of IHSS services. Since the recipient has carte blanche to choose a provider, but cannot conduct a background investigation, the county is in a position to do so on behalf of the recipient.
F7:
Reassessments of the recipient’s need for continuing IHSS care are not done in a timely and systematic manner.
F8:
Personnel of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) are not always qualified to assess the kind and intensity of the care required, which is roughly analogous to Medicare’s definition of “custodial care.” Among the chief determining criteria for receiving IHSS is the requirement that but for this program, the recipient would require out-of-home placement. Quoting from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) report entitled In-Home Supportive Services: Past, Present and Future, January 2003: “The IHSS program is based on a social model – one that relies on a social worker assessment rather than assessment based on medical criteria. As such, caregivers are not medical personnel, nor are the social workers and, obviously, the consumer… “Quality of care is dependent on the caregivers qualifications and job satisfaction and how accurately the social worker’s assessment of the consumer’s need comports with the consumer’s actual supportive service needs.” Recipient need assessments have a significant subjective component, influenced by the personal bias of the social worker, personality interactions, and the innate desire to be charitable. DPSS also realizes that the initial assessment home visit, reassessment visits and scheduled visits are sometimes stage-managed in order to draw the maximum benefit of the program. The attempted reassessment via repeated random visits, to a supposedly housebound recipient who is never home, should be a cause for concern.
F9:
As an alternative to personalized, in-home care, electronic home monitoring could be made available for those recipients who neither want nor require personal contact. - 72 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F10:
Providers of in-home care complain that they are not getting paid by the recipients of in-home care. Conversely, recipients complain that the providers are not providing the level and/or quality of care for which they are being paid from IHSS funds. In some cases, time cards have been forged or altered.
F11:
Initial fraud referrals are supposed to be sent to DPSS headquarters. However, in some cases, DPSS employees attempting to report suspected IHSS fraud have been met with responses ranging from apathetic to hostile on the part of district office supervisors and managers. Reports of suspected fraud, forwarded to DPSS headquarters, are not followed up on with the employees who initiated the reports; in essence, a lack of feedback. Senate Bill (SB) 1104 grants jurisdiction for IHSS fraud investigations to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), formerly known as the Department of Health Services. Specific provisions contained in SB 1104 created fraud detection and quality assurance protocols, adherence to which is not optional.
F12:
An Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864, must be submitted by those who are sponsoring foreign nationals under the family- - 73 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report based immigration system. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Support is required in certain employment-based immigration situations. Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 CFRs) creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the foreign national. The Act also creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the federal agency or any state agency which may provide means-tested public benefits to the sponsored immigrant. Implemented in 1996 to ensure that foreigners do not become public charges after admittance to the U.S.A., the Affidavit of Support requirement must be satisfied in order for many foreigners to ultimately obtain legal permanent residence. The Affidavit of Support terminates once the sponsored immigrant “naturalizes” or when credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work as defined by the Social Security Act. Form I-864 and I- 864A data may be disclosed to other federal, state and local agencies providing means- tested public benefits for use in any civil action against the sponsor(s) for breach of contract. Social Security numbers may be verified with the Social Security Administration. It may also be disclosed as a matter of routine use to other federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities.
F13:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- income working individuals and families. It is not a tax rebate, but rather a federal subsidy. In addition, the EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits; the EITC will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing or most payments of temporary assistance for needy families. The EITC is based on a past and an anticipated calendar year of income. Applicants must file a federal tax return and have a valid Social Security number. Full details are contained in IRS Notice 797 and Form W-5.
F14:
Although the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot comment upon or review State of California operations, the successful and professional local administration of IHSS is dependent upon state databases. The state’s and Los Angeles County’s Department of Social Services computers and software must handshake and exchange data, primarily with the following: • State Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) • Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) There is no longer a demarcation between county and state functions; we live in a virtual world. Even checking a person’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) status requires DPSS to go through the state systems to obtain Social Security Administration data. Obviously, Los Angeles County DPSS is at the mercy, interest and competence of state agencies, particularly the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Providers and recipients of IHSS services sign and submit a biweekly timesheet which is ultimately processed by the state, the payment warrant is issued by the state, and fraud investigation is within the purview of the state. The acceptance of scrawled or absent signatures on the timesheet does not constitute good management of a multi- billion dollar program such as IHSS. Dual endorsement of the payment warrant would definitely be a good business practice.
F15:
The Advance Pay feature of IHSS is reportedly abused, particularly by the recipient receiving “advance pay” for weeks and months without submitting a time card in support of that pay.
F16:
A member of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury, a past service provider in the IHSS program, was approached by an IHSS employee to sign up to take other recipients. All the member had to do was give the IHSS employee permission to re-use the member’s provider information, which was already in DPSS files, and periodically sign papers. For this, the member would keep one-half of each check / warrant, and yield the other half to an associate of the DPSS employee. The grand jury member was subsequently approached by someone who was not a county employee, but offering a similar scam. He told the member that “…lots of people are doing it.” Needless to say, the current grand jury member emphatically refused both offers.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Department of Public Social Services should ensure that staff communicate with the Social Security Administration regarding any factors which may affect the SSI eligibility of IHSS or other aid recipients. Similarly, DPSS must stay aware of any SSI reassessments of an applicant’s / recipient’s disability. In those cases where eligibility is mandated by law, DPSS should, at a minimum, require a statement of facts provided by the recipient under penalty of perjury as to the need for financial support and medical services.
R2:
DPSS should develop a system of filing those records so they may be easily located when needed by the district attorney for court proceedings in IHSS fraud prosecutions. A possible approach would be to capture the recipient’s Social Security number or fingerprint on the time sheet, digitize it into a local database and link it to the recipient and provider names, the time frame of the time sheet, plus any other information that might be of future interest. The time sheets themselves would be stored as images, in chronological order, for a limited time period, such as three to five years.
R3:
These evaluation / rating forms should be checked by staff by verifying the validity of the doctor’s medical license number (which is provided on the form) and/or calling the doctor’s office. Speaking to the doctor will put him/her on notice that their name and license number are being used.
R4:
Ideally, all recipients and care providers should be fingerprinted and photographed by DPSS during the In Home Supportive Services application / intake process. All medical and financial intake documents should be signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury.
R5:
DPSS must develop an enhanced computer database which will allow for effective cross-referencing and interfacing of information on recipients of various aid programs administered by the department. In essence, this is a virtual database on all DPSS clients.
R6:
Applicants to the County of Los Angeles IHSS program should be fingerprinted and photographed as part of the intake process. The provider, as selected by the applicant, should also be fingerprinted and photographed. The presentation of a driver’s license or resident alien card, both easily purchased “on the street,” should not suffice as adequate identification. Fingerprints, once taken, should be processed through California’s Department of Justice and onward to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and its integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). The purpose of fingerprinting is to validate the recipient and provider identities and to discover any criminal background. The county should conduct a criminal background check on the chosen provider for the protection of the recipient. If a criminal background is discovered, the provider may be disqualified, against criteria yet to be established. This background check, presumably carried out by the Los Angeles County Department of Social Services (DPSS), should include checks of the California Health and Human Services database, the California Criminal History System and the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), to the extent allowed by law.
R7:
At minimum, a face-to-face interview with both the recipient and the provider should be conducted every 12 months. This interview should be conducted in the recipient’s home or place of abode, with the provider present. - 71 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R8:
Continued training is necessary for DPSS employees dealing with IHSS eligibility and fraud detection, based on the best practices recommended by CWDA and the involved state and county agencies. Also, since the need for repeated in-home visits is demoralizing to the social worker, for which no amount of training will compensate, the social worker should be given the authority to “notice” a recipient to schedule an assessment visit on a certain date, under penalty of payment cutoff.
R9:
DPSS should consider electronic monitoring as an alternative to a human provider for in-home care. The electronic monitoring systems do not provide “care” as such, but do avoid the need of a little-known provider visiting the home or abode. A half dozen such systems are now on the market. In addition, the Center for Aging Services Technologies in Washington, D.C., as well as the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland are excellent sources of further information.
R10:
Payment vouchers to IHSS service providers should be made payable to both the recipient of the care and the provider, thus requiring an endorsement from each before the check can be cashed. This safeguard would curtail some of the fraud that is occurring.
R11:
DPSS must follow the fraud reporting protocols required by the language of SB 1104. Also, in the interests of good management and employee morale, DPSS must provide feedback on fraud investigations to the initiating employee. Claims and excuses that the Department of Health Care Services isn’t providing feedback to DPSS are weak; DPSS senior management must insist on this information in a periodic and timely manner.
R12:
DPSS should review applicants for IHSS as to whether they are a sponsored immigrant under Section 213a of the Act. If so, their sponsor(s) or co-sponsor(s) should be sought to provide the financial support for the applicant. This recommendation has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.
R13:
Since the income cap for receiving EITC in CY 2008 approaches $37,000, it is recommended that an applicant for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be asked if he or she has received an EITC last calendar year and is receiving one in the immediate calendar year. If so, note should be made, in the application for IHSS, of the amounts received or to be received in each year. A person receiving the EITC should not be denied eligibility for IHSS, but the amounts received in that credit should be factored into the amount of IHSS services paid for by the recipient, by means of a formula which could be changed yearly. - 74 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R14:
As well as capturing the fingerprints of both the recipient and provider during the intake / application process, as recommended elsewhere, DPSS should require a fingerprint of both the recipient and the provider on each time card, perhaps even in lieu of a signature.
R15:
DPSS should enforce the requirement that bi-weekly/monthly time cards be submitted. If time cards are not received within ten (10) business days of when due, further payment warrants or direct deposits should be terminated. Direct deposit accounts should be checked quarterly to ascertain their balance. If the balance is substantial (>$5,000), it may indicate the need for an eligibility review. - 75 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R16:
The Department of Social Services should implement the recommended security measures in this report. DPSS needs to validate program providers and recipients more aggressively, by knowing who they are to a certainty (photo and fingerprints), their actual and purported participation in the program, and the exposure of bogus providers and recipients. Reference is also made to the 1998-1999 Civil Grand Jury Final Report that recommended methods to detect and prevent attempted employee fraud, particularly the section on Internal Affairs Investigations, pages 141-152. The IHSS program is not supposed to be a cottage industry for scam artists, especially those embedded within the ranks of DPSS itself. - 76 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXPENDITURES TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECIPIENTS OF IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) BY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Time Frame No. of Recipients Federal State L.A. County TOTAL 2003-04 FY Actual 140,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 139,000,000 $ 79,000,000 $ 230,000,000 2004-05 FY Actual 145,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 181,000,000 $ 58,000,000 $ 260,000,000 2005-06 FY Actual 152,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 226,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 290,000,000 2006-07 FY Actual 160,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ 76,000,000 $ 347,000,000 2007-08 FY Budget 380,000* $ 46,000,000† $ 272,000,000† $ 65,000,000† $ 383,000,000† *statewide †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted 2008-09 FY 400,000* Projected *statewide Source: DPSS; Legislative Analyst; County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) See Notes which follow regarding this spreadsheet. - 77 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
There are no written policies and procedures instructing staff when a resident becomes ill or is injured at the rehabilitation centers.
F2:
Rehabilitation center residents are not given a medical evaluation prior to release.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Department of Public Health should develop written policies and procedures instructing staff upon the event a resident becomes ill or is injured at the rehabilitation center.
R2:
Acton and Warm Springs Rehabilitation Centers’ residents should have medical evaluations prior to release. This will serve as a safeguard for both the residents and the Department of Public Health. 261 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 262
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Los Angeles County Code does not provide a clear framework for departments to develop vehicle fleet management policies and procedures and has sections that are too specific and would be more appropriate as part of department policies and procedures.
F2:
Los Angeles County Department vehicle use policies and procedures are inconsistent across departments and create disparities for employee use of County vehicles.
F3:
Department take-home vehicle policies and procedures vary in stringency, are difficult to reconcile with actual take-home vehicles on an ongoing basis, and put the County’s fixed assets at increased risk of abuse.
F4:
A total of 18 employees in the Coroner’s Office had County take-home vehicles. However, the department did not report taxable income for any of these 18 employees.
F5:
THERE IS NO COUNTY-WIDE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF COUNTY TAKE-HOME VEHICLES TO ENSURE JUSTIFICATION IS CONSISTENT AND WARRANTED, BASED ON BUSINESS NEED.
F6:
The County does not systematically analyze the costs related to staff using County vehicles for take-home purposes compared to the cost of using personal vehicles. With a review of business need for vehicles, the County can determine the justification in business need and costs to providing County vehicles or reimbursing staff for using personal vehicles. - 147 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1: County Code Chapter 5.40 sections should be amended by the Board of Supervisors to create a simple framework for departments using County vehicles.
R2:
1: The Auditor-Controller’s Office should work with County departments to ensure the accuracy of documentation showing employees receiving imputed taxable income from take-home vehicle use.
R3:
1: The Board of Supervisors should direct all County departments to track and monitor after-hour vehicle usage to ensure sufficient business justification exists for the take home vehicle.
R4:
1: The Internal Services Department should review the composition of the County fleet annually to identify the number of vehicles considered to be luxury or over $30,000, and provide the report to the Board of Supervisors.
R12:
The “Department Assigned Vehicle Record and Approval” includes the Sheriff one-way mileage from home to primary work address for an employee, and non-sworn personnel must file with the Auditor-Controller’s Office each year. Source: Los Angeles County Department Policies and Procedures - 122 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The County has no internal controls in place to ensure County departments do not purchase vehicles that have features that exceed those required for routine County business.
F2:
There are dozens of vehicles that appear to have features that exceed need based on intended use, resulting in unnecessary costs for the County.
F3:
Some departments have vehicles that are not expensive, other departments have purchased luxury vehicles for the Department Director or other senior managers. Without clear direction from the Board of Supervisors, departments do not have any clear incentives to purchase vehicles that minimize cost.
F4:
There are discrepancies between the databases that individual departments, the Internal Services Department and the Auditor-Controller maintain.
F5:
The Purchasing Branch lacks internal management controls to effectively monitor staff compliance with and enforcement of District Top 30 policy and to ensure that appropriate steps are taken by Buyer staff to minimize non-stock purchases of non-Top 30 like items.
F6:
The Purchasing Branch does not consistently analyze non- stock data for the purposes of identifying items that should be moved into stock. - 194 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1: Require that the Purchasing Branch enforce the District’s restriction on purchasing Top 30 items from sources other than District warehouses by: (a) reviewing P-Card transactions to identify Top 30 purchase violations as part of the P-Card Unit’s audit function; (b) developing and communicating formal, written policies and procedures regarding District non-stock purchasing processes; and, (c) implementing internal management controls to monitor, track, and document staff compliance with and enforcement of these polices and procedures.
R2:
1: Direct Inventory Management staff to analyze and quarterly report to warehouse management all warehouse items that have turnover rates of less than one in a year or less than two for two consecutive years.
R3:
1: Direct staff to prepare an annual report for management presenting year-to-year gross dollar and commodity unit discrepancies, rather than net discrepancies as is currently reported between inventory records and actual inventory found in the warehouses, as part of the annual Business Service’s Division Service Efforts and Accomplishments. - 166 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R4:
1: The Internal Services Department should review the composition of the County fleet annually to identify the number of vehicles considered to be luxury or over $30,000, and provide the report to the Board of Supervisors.
R5:
District $6 to $7 $5.1 Billion $1.5 Billion $600 Million $2.0 Billion $2.2 Billion $7 Billion* Annual Budget Billion
R6:
Confirmation No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes of Warehouse Response Facility * General Fund PART II. Overview of District Warehouse Operations and Funding 7 How many discrete physical warehouse facilities does the District operate? Five Responses: 2= “10 or more” 1= “1” 2= “4” LAUSD: 3 - 244 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 8 Do you operate a warehouse for any of the following purposes? (Check all that apply): Six responses: Field Number Responding “Yes” LAUSD Food/Food 6 (cid:57) Supplies General Stores 6 (cid:57) Salvage 6 (cid:57) Maintenance 6 (cid:57) Other 4 (cid:57) District Responding “Yes” to Other Response Broward County, FL “Food supplies, but not commodities” “Transportation vehicles parts inventory is not included in the data provided. Food cafeteria paper supplies are Miami-Dade included, but not food inventory. Food (frozen, fresh, canned goods) inventory and distribution is outsourced.” “Food Services has a warehouse for storage, PPO has warehouse for receiving, storage and issuing stock. IMC San Diego textbook and library warehouse and Supply Center receiving, stocking and issuing forms and textbooks and salvage material.” Montgomery County, MD “Science kits.” LAUSD Small General Stores satellite at District headquarters. - 245 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 9 Are any of these functions combined into a single facility? If yes, please describe briefly below. Four responses: Number Responding “Yes” 3 District Responding “Yes” Response “One warehouse for each of the following: surplus, Broward County, FL textbooks, transportation parts, operating supplies, stockroom” “Food Services leases a cold storage warehouse and storage warehouse, PPO operates a maintenance warehouse. IMC has a warehouse for textbook, science San Diego kits, library books and Supply Center for stocking, issuing and Receiving Annex for surplus and salvage furniture and for issuing and storing can food products.” “Yes, main general warehouse houses the supplies and Montgomery County, MD furniture operation.” LAUSD General Stores and Foods are located in a single facility. Is the delivery function a part of the District’s warehouse operations or is it separate? Six Responses: 6= “Part of Warehouse Division” LAUSD: “Part of Warehouse Division” - 246 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 11 Do any of the District’s warehouse facilities have an integrated automated warehouse management system (WMS)? Six responses: 4= “Yes” 2= “No” LAUSD: No 12 If YES, please indicate the capabilities of the WMS. Real Time Cycle Order Stock Bar Receiver Responses Inventory Other Counting Picking Replenishment Coding Confirmation Mgmt. Number of 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Responses Number Responding 2 4 4 4 1 3 2 “Yes” “Others” Responses: “MRP”; “This applies to the supply warehouse only, not furniture.” - 247 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 13 Using the matrix below please indicate (1) which statement best describes your District’s warehouse purchasing policy and (2) what controls are currently being used to enforce this policy. (Check all that apply): Number Responding LAUSD “Yes” District schools and offices are required to purchase all goods from the District's 0 warehouse District schools and offices are required to purchase some goods from the District's 5 (cid:57) warehouse. District schools and offices are not required to 1 purchase goods from the District's warehouse. Monitored Written by Periodic Controls Policies & Training Other Computer Audits Procedures System Number of 5 5 5 5 5 Responses Number Responding 2 4 1 1 1 “Yes” LAUSD (cid:57) “Other” responses: “We carry some forms not sold elsewhere”; “District schools are recommended to purchase goods from the district's warehouse, but it is not policy.” - 248 -
R10:
What is the amount and dollar value of each of the following types of products within LAUSD’s warehouses? a. Like products, which are functionally alike but differ in non-functional attributes; b. Obsolete products, which still have functionality but have lost their consumer demand; c. Perishable products, which should not be used after a certain specified date and/or naturally reach an unusable condition; and, d. Lost products, which have gone missing from one inventory cycle to the next due to shrinkage, damage, theft or misplacement.
R11:
How much did these products cost LAUSD, and is there any remaining value of obsolete products?
R12:
Have policies and procedures been established to limit individual purchases of like products at different prices, dispose of obsolete products or products that have perished, and to minimize the inappropriate loss of warehouse inventory, and are such procedures being followed?
R13:
What management systems, reporting processes and internal controls have been established to monitor the level of like, obsolete, perishable and lost products? The scope of the audit covered the questions outline above regarding the District’s warehouse function, including its General Stores, Foods, Maintenance and Salvage Warehouses and Beaudry Street facility, a total of five facilities. Organizationally, these - 159 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report facilities are located in the District’s Materiel Management Branch that also contains Stock Purchasing (items in the warehouse), Inventory Management Services, Truck Operations, or delivery services, including a mail unit and a Reprographics unit, and a Marketing division. The Materiel Management Branch is part of the District’s Business Services Division. During the course of this audit, a reorganization took place in which the separate Procurement Services Branch of Business Services, responsible for non- stock purchasing and contracting, was merged with the Stock Purchasing unit, thus becoming part of the Materiel Management Branch. The approved operating budget for the Materiel Management Branch for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 contains $41.2 million in expenditures and 380 full-time equivalent positions, including the Reprographics and Mail units which were not part of this audit scope. Budgeted Fiscal Year 2007-2008 expenditures for the Procurement Services Group, a separate unit at the time the budget was adopted, is $6.4 million. With the merger of the Procurement Services Group into the Materiel Management Branch, the total Fiscal Year 2007-2008 budget would be approximately $47.6 million. The Materiel Management Branch and Procurement Services Group serve all of the District’s schools and offices, all cafeterias and food preparation facilities and the Maintenance and Operations division. Though part of the District’s operations, the disposition of used and old textbooks was not within the purview of the scope of this audit. Tables I.1 and I.2 present Fiscal Year 2006-2007 data on the District’s warehouse inventory and District-wide expenditures by procurement method. Table I.1 District Stock Items Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Average Number of Percent of Warehouse Inventory Stock Items* Total Stock Value* General S1 Stores 3,046 54.4% $9,656,504.40 M10 Maintenance 1,506 26.9% $1,717,894.90 F Foods** 655 11.7% $4,821,031.14 Beaudry BGS General Store 397 7.1% $55,844.03 TOTAL 5,604 100% $16,251,274.47 * Number of Stock Items as of February 13, 2008- excluding BGS (Stock Items by Commodity Code) **Includes F6 Grocery, F6S Staples/Supplies, F6M Meats, and F38P Produce. - 160 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table I.2 Stock, Non-Stock, and Procurement Card Expenditures Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Type Sub-total Total General Stores $49,873,684 Maintenance $6,600,486 Foods $45,261,399 BGS $525,569 Stock* $102,261,138 Non-Stock** $329,560,916 Procurement Card*** $40,080,736 TOTAL $471,902,790 *Stock total based on stock disbursements as of June 29,2007 (Inventory Turns Report) **Non-Stock total based on Fiscal Year 2006-2007 non-stock requisition data ***P-Card total annualized based on total Fiscal Year 2006-2007 expenditures of $33,400,613.00 from Sept. 2006 through June 2007 END OF INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE - 161 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Executive Summary This performance audit of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s warehouse Function Department was conducted by Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC for the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Civil Grand Jury of Los Angeles County. Key findings and the audit recommendations are as follows: Section 1: Required Warehouse Purchases & Like Products District schools and offices are purchasing items from the 30 top selling product (cid:137) categories from outside vendors using District Procurement Cards (P-Cards) in violation of District policy. On average, “Top 30” items purchased from outside vendors cost approximately 40 to 86 percent more than Top 30 items purchased from the General Stores Warehouse, resulting in estimated District-wide excess expenditures of between $1.7 and $2.8 million per year. Though District policy states that P-Card purchases will be reviewed to ensure (cid:137) compliance with the restriction on Top 30 purchases from outside vendors, such monitoring is not being performed by the Purchasing Branch to ensure that these products are not being procured by District staff at higher prices from outside vendors. District policy does not preclude District schools and offices from purchasing non- (cid:137) Top 30 items and like items from outside vendors with their P-Cards or through the non-stock purchasing process, even though the District reports that their prices are an average of 86 percent lower at the warehouse. District records show that such items are being purchased at higher prices with P-Cards and through the non-stock requisition process, resulting in estimated excess costs of $7.7 million per year. District employees are not consistently receiving District-negotiated discounts from (cid:137) non-stock contract vendors when making purchases using their P-Cards. The Purchasing Branch lacks internal management controls to effectively monitor (cid:137) staff compliance with and enforcement of District Top 30 policy and to ensure that appropriate steps are taken by Buyer staff to minimize non-stock purchases of non- Top 30 like items. The Purchasing Branch does not consistently analyze non-stock data for the (cid:137) purposes of identifying items that should be moved into stock. - 162 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Based on these findings, it is recommended that District management should: Recommendation 1.1: Require that the Purchasing Branch enforce the District’s restriction on purchasing Top 30 items from sources other than District warehouses by: (a) reviewing P-Card transactions to identify Top 30 purchase violations as part of the P-Card Unit’s audit function; (b) developing and communicating formal, written policies and procedures regarding District non-stock purchasing processes; and, (c) implementing internal management controls to monitor, track, and document staff compliance with and enforcement of these polices and procedures. Recommendation 1.2: Amend the Top 30 policy to promote greater compliance and to discourage the purchasing of Top 30 and non-Top 30 like and identical items from outside vendors at higher costs by extending required warehouse purchases for all items that fall under the broad Top 30 categories rather than specific products in each category, as is current policy. Recommendation 1.3: Direct Purchasing Branch management to require that all Buyers document and report their contacts with schools and offices to attempt to redirect non-stock requisitions for outside vendors to the warehouse for items identical to or like those available in the warehouse at lower cost. Recommendation 1.4: Require Purchasing Branch management to annually track and report to District management the number and dollar amount of non-stock requisitions that are converted into stock requisitions by non-stock Buyers to avoid purchase of the same or like items that are available from the warehouse at less cost. Recommendation 1.5: Require school principals and office managers to provide District management with written justifications for their purchases from outside vendors at higher cost of items available in the warehouse when they are identified by Purchasing Branch review of detailed P-Card transaction data and/or to surrender their P-Cards in cases of ongoing violations of District policies regarding purchases from the warehouse. - 163 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation 1.6: Require that the Purchasing Branch ensure that District P-Card holders are consistently receiving discounts from non-stock contract vendors, with the discount received reflected in the detailed P- Card purchase data received from the District’s third party P-Card administrator. P-Card holders should be instructed to routinely inquire about such discounts when making purchases from non-stock contract vendors. Recommendation 1.7: Negotiate with the District’s third party P-Card administrator to provide more detailed information regarding the quantities and unit prices paid for items purchased using District P-Cards for the purposes of tracking employee compliance with the Top 30 and related policies to minimize purchasing costs, to ensure that discounts are being obtained and to identify items that should be moved into stock. Recommendation 1.8: Require that the Purchasing Branch develop polices and procedures for conducting quarterly reviews of the District’s Integrated Financial System (IFS) vendor reports and other applicable non- stock data for the purposes of identifying items that should be moved into stock, including details on how such information will be communicated to inventory management personnel in the Materiel Management Branch. SECTION 2: INVENTORY MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS THE DISTRICT IS NOT SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVING LOW TURNOVER, LOW (cid:137) DEMAND ITEMS FROM INVENTORY BASED ON INVENTORY TURNOVER ANALYSES. THE MAJORITY OF ITEMS IN THE GENERAL STORES WAREHOUSE HAD A TURNOVER RATE OF LESS THAN FOUR IN FISCAL YEARS 2006-2007 AND 2005-2006 AND 383 ITEMS IN FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 HAD A TURNOVER RATE OF LESS THAN ONE. THE HIGH NUMBER OF LOW TURNOVER ITEMS INDICATES OVERSUPPLY IN THE WAREHOUSE OF LOW DEMAND ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED TO MINIMIZE WAREHOUSE COSTS AND/OR OVER-ORDERING OF ITEMS THAT ARE IN DEMAND, REPRESENTING SPENDING FOR THOSE ITEMS BEYOND WHAT IS NEEDED, UNNECESSARILY TYING UP DISTRICT CASH. Many warehouse items in the high volume Top 30 selling categories were found to (cid:137) have low inventory turnover rates, indicating over-ordering. Another indicator of this is the average of 4.2 months worth of stock maintained in the warehouse for 239 of the Top 30 items. This appears to be excessive since District policy is to maintain three months worth of stock for each item. Further, most vendors can reportedly - 164 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report deliver their orders within one month, indicating that the District quantity ordering policy is also higher than needed. District suggestions that high turnover rates are due to unexpected changes in (cid:137) demand due to grant funded art and sports programs is not supported by inventory data that shows a small percentage of sports and arts supplies had high turnover in FISCAL YEAR 2006-07. The District does not have a systematic analytical approach to adding new items to (cid:137) inventory. Materiel Management Branch (MMB) staff do get suggestions and input from District customers and Buyers but analysis of non-stock and Procurement Card product purchase data are not conducted for this purpose, potentially leaving the warehouse without products that its customers want. Based on these findings, it is recommended that District management should: Recommendation 2.1: Direct Inventory Management staff to analyze and quarterly report to warehouse management all warehouse items that have turnover rates of less than one in a year or less than two for two consecutive years. Recommendation 2.2: Direct warehouse management to develop a policy to remove all items with turnover rates of two or less for two consecutive years unless there are documented unusual circumstances warranting retention of the items. Recommendation 2.4: Direct Inventory Management staff to develop a systematic approach to analyzing District consumption patterns using non- stock requisition and Procurement Card purchase data to identify items being purchased at such a level that it would make economic sense to stock the item in the warehouse. ommendation 2.3: Direct Inventory Management staff to analyze procurement quantities for all warehouse items and to establish lower order quantities for most items based on actual annual disbursement quantities, prices and the cost of storing the items, possibly using a computer-based Economic Order Quantity formula or another structured, systematic, data- based approach. - 165 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report SECTION 3: WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT OF LOST OR UNACCOUNTED FOR PRODUCTS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE INVENTORY ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING FROM THE (cid:137) ANNUAL PHYSICAL COUNT AND ADJUSTMENTS TO INVENTORY RECORDS MADE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WERE VALUED AT $2.9 MILLION, OR 18 PERCENT OF AVERAGE INVENTORY VALUE IN FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007. THIS RATE EXCEEDS THE STANDARD INVENTORY ADJUSTMENT BENCHMARK OF TEN PERCENT AND RAISES THE RISK OF THE WAREHOUSES BEING UNABLE TO MEET CUSTOMER DEMAND AND OF THEFT OR MISUSE OF DISTRICT ASSETS. THIS AMOUNT IS NOT REPORTED TO DISTRICT MANAGEMENT TO MEASURE AND IMPROVE ON WAREHOUSE PERFORMANCE. Independent On-site Warehouse Inventory Tests conducted for this audit showed (cid:137) significant discrepancies between the District’s electronic inventory records and amounts found in the warehouses. Staff training for the annual physical count is not sufficient. Ongoing inventory (cid:137) adjustments reported and recorded by warehouse staff are not independently verified by the Job Cost Accounting Section staff to ensure their legitimacy. Order error inventory adjustments are made to electronic inventory records by warehouse staff without review or verification by independent non-warehouse staff. Deficiencies were found in the order filling processes at each warehouse with (cid:137) potential impact on the accuracy of inventory records maintained electronically. These deficiencies include: the absence of verification of order accuracy in the individual commodities being shipped from the warehouses; and, a computer inventory tracking system that is often inconsistent with the actual movement of inventory. The District’s Maintenance Warehouse must use two separate computer systems to (cid:137) process Maintenance Warehouse stock orders and inventory adjustments. Based on these findings, it is recommended that District management should: Recommendation 3.1: Direct staff to prepare an annual report for management presenting year-to-year gross dollar and commodity unit discrepancies, rather than net discrepancies as is currently reported between inventory records and actual inventory found in the warehouses, as part of the annual Business Service’s Division Service Efforts and Accomplishments. - 166 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation 3.2: Direct staff to prepare formal written policies and procedures to improve internal controls over the annual physical count including enhanced staff training for the process, adding periodic cycle counts to the control processes where randomly selected items are spot counted during the year and enhanced documentation and independent verification by the Job Cost Accounting Section of all inventory adjustments resulting from the annual physical count and others proposed during the year by warehouse staff. Use of outside contractors for the annual inventory count should also be considered. Recommendation 3.3: Delegate responsibility to the Materiel Management Branch and warehouse managers to reduce the gross discrepancy levels at the warehouses from the current 18 percent to at least 10 percent and preferably lower over the next two years and to submit written reports to executive management once a year on progress in accomplishing this goal. Recommendation 3.4: Direct warehouse management to develop a formal data entry process and inventory controls for the District’s Integrated Financial System (IFS) electronic inventory management system and for each warehouse’s order filling procedures, starting with the entry point of an order by a customer to creating greater accuracy checks against item control sheets and detailed item pick and issue tickets generated by IFS and performing and documenting spot checks for order accuracy before orders are shipped from the warehouses. Recommendation 3.5: Direct Materiel Management Branch staff to determine the costs and benefits of modifying the Maintenance Warehouse’s MAXIMO software so that Maintenance inventory order data is recorded in sufficient detail and merged with IFS to ensure that consistent and accurate inventory updates are made in both systems. - 167 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report SECTION 4: MANAGEMENT OF OBSOLETE ITEMS IN THE SALVAGE WAREHOUSE Warehouse staff currently do not electronically compile or keep track of a tally of the (cid:137) salvage/obsolete items that are delivered to the warehouse, resulting in a lack of a formalized accounting of the number, types, and values of the obsolete and salvage materials and equipment delivered to the Salvage Warehouse. Currently, the only tracking system in place involves the filing of the physical copies of the Transportation Order forms, which are grouped alphabetically by school sites and by fiscal quarter. The Salvage Warehouse lacks formal policies and procedures for reconciling the (cid:137) number of items picked-up at the schools and offices with the number of items that are actually delivered to the Salvage Warehouse. As such, no formal accounting of salvage and obsolete items takes place, which increases the risk of misuse or theft of salvage and obsolete items. Similarly, some items that schools or offices have requested for pick up are not delivered to the Salvage Warehouse without documented explanation. The District’s Salvage Warehouse lacks policies and procedures for how to group (cid:137) and classify salvage and obsolete items received at the Salvage Warehouse, increasing the risk of misuse or theft of such items. Formal standards are not in place for determining which materials should be dumped, recycled, sold or auctioned, or retained by the warehouse staff for reuse by other District schools and offices. The District lacks standards for how Salvage Warehouse staff assigns base asking (cid:137) prices to items that are to be sold or auctioned. Base prices are established solely based on staff’s opinion of the value of items to be sold, potentially resulting in under- or over-valuing District assets. The Salvage Warehouse will lose approximately $300,000 in revenue in Fiscal Year (cid:137) 2007-2008, or approximately 61 percent of its total revenue, previously generated from auctioning District computers and peripherals. The District now has entered in to an agreement transferring that equipment to Apple Computer, Incorporated who has guaranteed that no confidential data from the devices will be released and all equipment will be disposed of without environmental harm. District staff could not report if the benefits of this new arrangement offsets the loss in revenues, which will increase the net costs of warehouse operations. District contracts for hauling and wood disposal were not reviewed as they could not (cid:137) be produced by District staff. - 168 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Based on these findings, it is recommended that District management should: Recommendation 4.1: Establish formal and consistent written policies and procedures for tracking and processing items that were not picked-up by the drivers or where quantities delivered are different than the amount originally requested by the District school or office. Recommendation 4.2: Establish and implement written policies and procedures that include guidelines for systematically and electronically keeping a tally and tracking information regarding all salvage and obsolete items that are delivered to the Salvage Warehouse. At a minimum, the District should electronically input the following information from the Transportation Order forms: (a) item description; (b) serial numbers; (c) the quantity entered by the school/office; (d) the quantity that actually arrived at the warehouse; (e) consistent grouping classification; (f) relevant date; and, (g) form numbers. The Salvage Warehouse should then use these Transportation Order data to keep track of the items on an ongoing basis and generate reports on Salvage Warehouse items and activities. Recommendation 4.3: Establish standards for assigning base asking prices to items that are to be sold or auctioned to continue the feasibility of meeting the 50 percent cost recovery goal from auction revenues of operational costs. Recommendation 4.4: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of alternative options to destroy end-of-life electronic assets in an environmentally-sound manner, with the goal to determine ways to recuperate the lost auction revenue associated with computer and electronic sales. Recommendation 4.5: Establish contracts with one or more vendors governing hauling and wood disposal. Table E.1 on the next page presents a summary of estimated savings resulting from implementation of the audit recommendations. As shown, estimated one-time savings are between $390,000 and $1.1 million. Estimated annual savings are between $10.7 and $11.8 million per year. Additional savings are possible because some of the audit analysis that the estimates are based on stemmed from limited samples. - 169 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table E.1 Estimated savings based on audit sample and other analyses Estimated Estimated one- annual Recommendation time savings* savings* 1.1: Require that the Purchasing Branch enforce the District’s restriction on purchasing Top 30 items from sources other than District warehouses by: (a) reviewing P-Card transactions to identify Top 30 purchase violations as part of the P-Card Unit’s audit $1.7 - 2.8 function; (b) developing and communicating million/year+ formal, written policies and procedures regarding District non-stock purchasing processes; and, (c) implementing internal management controls to monitor, track, and document staff compliance with and enforcement of these polices and procedures. 1.3: Direct Purchasing Branch management to require that all Buyers document and report their contacts with schools and offices to $7.7 attempt to redirect non-stock requisitions for million/year+ outside vendors to the warehouse for items identical to or like those available in the warehouse at lower cost. 2.3: Direct Inventory Management staff to analyze procurement quantities for all warehouse items and to establish lower order quantities for most items based on actual $390,000 - $1.1 annual disbursement quantities, prices and the million+ cost of storing the items, possibly using a computer-based Economic Order Quantity formula or another structured, systematic, data- based approach. 3.3: Delegate responsibility to the Materiel Management Branch and warehouse managers to reduce the gross discrepancy levels at the warehouses from the current 18 $1.3 percent to at least 10 percent and preferably million/year lower over the next two years and to submit written reports to executive management once a year on progress in accomplishing this goal. $390,000 - $1.1 $10.7 – 11.8 Total million+ million/year+ * A + sign indicates that the estimated savings were based on analysis of a limited sample and that the actual savings could be greater. END OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY METHODOLOGY SECTION FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE - 170 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That no action be taken
R2:
That there is no jurisdiction over the Complaint subject matter
R3:
That there be a referral of the Complaint to an appropriate committee for further investigation and recommendations
R4:
To undertake some other appropriate disposition of the Complaint Once the Citizen Complaints Committee has recommended a specific disposition of a particular complaint, each case was submitted to the entire Grand Jury for its review, evaluation and vote as to whether the Committee’s preliminary recommendation should be approved, amended as appropriate, referred back to Committee, or to otherwise determine that some alternative course of action should be pursued. The jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury includes the following: • Consideration of evidence of misconduct by public officials within Los Angeles County. • Inquiry into the condition and management of jails within the county • Investigation and reports on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of county and cities including special districts created by state law. - 309 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report The 2007-2008 Citizens Complaint Committee received and processed 75 complaints. The complaints which were processed fell into 7 basic categories as reflected in the following breakdown: CATEGORY NUMBER No Grand Jury jurisdiction (state, federal & court) 20 Governmental mismanagement, waste or incompetence 7 Inmate complaint about court, trial, prison conditions or 5 mistreatment Misconduct of law enforcement agents 19 Governmental malfeasance or corruption 8 Vague or incomplete complaint 6 Non-governmental /personal disputes 10 TOTAL 75
R5:
Why/How: Attach pertinent documents and correspondence with dates. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ - 311 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report COMPLAINT GUIDELINES Receipt of all complaints will be acknowledged by mail. If a matter does not fall within the Civil Grand Jury’s investigative authority, or the Jury determines not to investigate a complaint, no action will be taken and there will be no further contact from the Jury. The
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There is now a recently implemented cap of $900 on the amount an inmate may have in his or her account, whether deposited by outside third parties, or in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. The $900 maximum on inmate accounts is excessive, and it creates an opportunity for disparity in the jail setting, where there are many rules and regulations in place for the express purpose of maintaining a level playing field among inmates. Inmates who are able to amass such a substantial sum of money, and the amenities that money can buy, have an opportunity to use such money or amenities to barter for extraordinary privileges.
F2:
Government Code § 26640 does not speak to whether the Sheriff may release money in an inmate’s account to outside third parties at the direction of the inmate, except for that money in the inmate’s possession at the time he or she is booked into custody. There is no legitimate purpose in permitting a jail inmate to function as a cash conduit by directing the release of funds to outside third parties that were initially deposited by persons outside the jail system. - 10 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F3:
The Sheriff does not require identification from outside third parties who make cash deposits to an inmate’s account through the cashier’s office.
F4:
The fourth recommendation involves organizational changes to improve trust by youth already in the system. Many young people mistrust adults even when they are motivated by the highest ideals. Mentoring has proven successful in many instances especially when the ratio of youth to mentor is low. Continuous training for caregivers and foster parents is imperative in order to provide the best possible role models. Communication skills, early interventions to offset problems, and decision-making skills are crucial if programs are to have the positive impact we strive to achieve. Better and more effective communication is needed between the Probation Officers and schools with students in the probation system.
F5:
The fifth recommendation involves enhanced educational improvements for TAY. Vocational training, life skills programs, enriched music and art programs, as well as apprenticeship and on-the- job training will do much to support the regular high school curriculum required by State law to ensure that students graduate from high school equipped with the tools needed for successful adulthood.
F6:
The sixth recommendation calls for improved programs for post-emancipation TAY.
F7:
The seventh recommendation calls for the development of a comprehensive information system that captures the records on all current wards and continues to collect information through surveys on successes and problems after emancipation. This information is vital as a planning, evaluation, and budgeting tool. - 16 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Our recommendations are deliberately directional. We hope we have provided enough specificity to make our intent clear while leaving room for creativity. We strongly encourage the many intelligent and dedicated people who are involved in the lives of TAY to set the bar even higher by focusing on the real life results achieved by all TAY. APPROACH TO THE INVESTIGATION During our review of DCFS and Probation’s TAY programs, our data collection consisted of: • Site visits to facilities and discussions with service providers including probation officers and social workers • Interviews with key officials at DCFS, Probation, DMH, LACOE, and the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court of the Los Angeles Superior Court • An entrance conference with the Los Angeles County Deputy Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Children & Families Well-Being and key officials from DCFS, Probation, DPSS, LACOE, and DMH to solicit their support of the investigation and their ideas for improvement of the TAY system • Research of: − TAY best practices used in other jurisdictions − Analysis of data provided by DCFS, Probation, DMH, and other agencies − A survey of TAY currently in DCFS and Probation as well as those who have left the system − Discussion of data findings and conclusions with DCFS, Probation, and DMH officials - 17 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report OVERVIEW OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Currently over 3000 children enter DCFS and probation each month. In 2007, 2,629 youth exited the system as follows: AGE 17 18 19 20 21+ TOTAL Probation 25 643 65 9 5 747 DCFS 9 1,160 476 175 62 1,882 TOTAL 34 1,803 541 184 67 2,629 These counts should decrease over time as DCFS’s new initiatives to place their wards in permanent placement are successful. As of March 2008 there were 8,676 youth who will likely transition from the system to independence versus returning home: AGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 + TOTAL Probation 86 212 308 363 124 6 27 1,126 DCFS 1,337 1,493 1,586 1,572 1,023 378 121 7,550 TOTAL 1,423 1,705 1,894 1,935 1,147 384 147 8,626 These youth receive training and support both pre- and post-transition in the following areas: • Living skills (including budgeting, banking, and grocery shopping) • Housing assistance (including assistance in signing a lease, arranging utilities, and rental subsidies in some cases) • Education Assistance (including assistance with applications, tuition assistance, and tutoring) • Vocational Training/Employment Assistance (including job skills assessment, referrals to vocational programs, and employment agencies • Living support (including bus passes, clothing allowances, car insurance assistance, and legal referrals) The basic goals of these programs are to help TAY to become self-sufficient adults. The total funding of these programs has been estimated by DCFS/Probation and DMH at $95,686,359. Mental health care services are provided by DMH. - 18 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report RESEARCH
F8:
DCFS YOUTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT 2007 In 2007 the Ombudsman received 236 complaints from TAY as follows: DCFS Probation Total Pre-emancipated youth 53 16 69 Emancipated youth 156 11 167 Total 209 27 236 - 32 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Their top 5 concerns were: Housing (103), ILP issues including Life Skills Classes (45), School Assistance (38), Transportation (13), and Documentation (13). A summary of the report is available in Appendix E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOW IN THE NEXT SECTION - 33 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A NEW VISION Much has been done to shift the focus of the system from safety and security in the case of DCFS and detention in the case of Probation, to creating a positive impact on each child’s life during their stay in the system. There is a strong leadership team in place who are committed to implementing evidence-based best practices. The new organizational structure and the leadership of the Deputy CEO are focused on integrated service and prevention. Despite these positives we have concluded from our investigation that there is much more to do. Some of the areas we feel need to be addressed include: - Reaching more high risk families as a prevention measure - The lack of continuity of a significant adult in each child’s life - The general low level of trust the children have of the system - Enhanced educational coordination, support and enrichment - More experiential opportunities in life skills particularly in job training - More housing, job, life skills support post-emancipation - Improved information systems including post-emancipation - More systematic and evidence-based evaluations of programs There is both an opportunity and a responsibility for Los Angeles County to become a national leader in helping our children in the system thrive. It has been over five years since the last major plan was developed. It is time to refocus all the parties that are involved with TAY.
F17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.” APPENDIX B: TAY Survey A survey was developed and distributed to a sample of youth in DCFS and Probation, and My Friend’s Place (a drop-in center for homeless youth in Los Angeles) to get their perspective on the services and programs available to them. They were also encouraged to give comments and suggestions for new, needed programs. A total of 205 TAY participated in the survey. Approximately two-thirds of the survey participants are or were from DCFS and one-third from Probation. The survey participants were asked to rate TAY services and programs by indicating their degree of agreement with a series of statements concerning: • Education • Workforce Readiness • Life Skills • Housing • Transportation • Legal Assistance • Physical Health • Social and Emotional Wellbeing Exhibit D displays the findings for all categories using a rating scale of 1-4 to measure response averages. Exhibit D: TAY Service and Program Ratings AGREE – 4 SOMEWHAT AGREE – 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE – 2 DISAGREE – 1 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older WORKFORCE READINESS I have the job skills, knowledge and experience to get a good job. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 I have a career/employment plan for the next 2 – 5 years. 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.0 I know what services are available to help me get a job. 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.4 LIFE SKILLS I have enough savings to live independently. 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 I feel I can manage my money. 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 I know how to budget my money for groceries, etc. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 I know how to access public assistance programs if I need them. 2.9 3.5 3.6 3.3 I am aware of free public programs (library, recreational centers, etc). 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 I know how to register to vote. 2.5 1.9 3.6 3.2 HOUSING I am aware of rental costs. 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 I feel I can cover the housing costs (furniture, equipment, utilities, etc.) of living 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 independently. I know how to get rental assistance. 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.8 TRANSPORTATION I can get to work on time. 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.7 I know how to use public transportation. 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 LEGAL ASSISTANCE I know how to get legal help if I need it. 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.2 I have access to a lawyer. 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 I understand my rights if I have a problem with the law. 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 PHYSICAL HEALTH I am in good physical health (dental, vision, hearing etc.). 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 I am strong and in good shape. 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 I know how to access health care (insurance, free clinics, etc.). 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.4 I know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING I have friends and/or family members who are supportive. 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 I know how to access community based support groups (church, counselors, etc.). 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 I am able to live independently. 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 I know how/who to ask for help if I have trouble living independently. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Education Survey participants agree to some degree that they are receiving the education that they want (3.4) and are getting the assistance (3.4), information and choices (3.3) guidance (3.5), and support and advice (3.5) necessary for educational success. Workforce Readiness Survey participants agree to some degree that they have the job skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to get a job (3.3), have a 2- to 5-year employment plan (3.0), and know what services are available to help them in their job search (3.4). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds indicated ratings a lower than the older age groups. This difference might be related to the possibility that not as many 16- and 17-year-olds have jobs. Life Skills Survey participants agree to some degree that they are aware of free public programs (3.6), and know how to manage money (3.2), budget (3.4), access public assistance programs (3.3), and register to vote (3.2). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds are somewhat less self-assure in their life skills. With the lowest rating on the survey, survey - 49 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report participants somewhat disagree that they have enough savings to live independently, emphasizing a disconnect between knowledge of and success in applying life skills. Housing Survey participants agree to some degree that they aware of rental costs and those participants who are 18 and older agree somewhat that they know how to get rental assistance. 16- and 17- year-olds are less aware and participants somewhat disagree that they feel they can afford housing costs, calling attention to the lack of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area and the need for more TAY assistance in this area. Transportation Survey participants agree that they can get to work on time (3.7) and know how to use public transportation (3.8). Legal Assistance Survey participants agree somewhat that they know how to get legal help (3.2) and understand their legal rights (3.2); they are less sure (2.6) that they can access a lawyer. Physical Health Survey participants agree to some degree that they are in good physical shape (3.6), strong (3.5), know how to access health care (3.4) and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy (3.9). Social and Emotional Well-being Survey participants agree to some degree that they have family or friends that are supportive (3.6), know how to access community based groups (3.6), are able to live independently (3.2), and know how and who to ask for help if they are having trouble living independently (3.5). Additional Comments Forty seven additional comments or suggestions were received. Approximately 20% of the respondents made positive comments about their experiences, many expressing their gratitude, with TAY services and programs. The rest of the respondents commented negatively or gave suggestions for improvements. The respondents’ negative comments or suggestions in order of frequency were concerns about housing, the social worker or system, jobs/income/budgeting, quality of instruction or support, educational support and access to health care. APPENDIX C: DMH TAY Programs 5.1) Transition Age Youth Full Service Partnerships (TAY FSP) Program Description: An intensive Mental Health Services and supports program for not served, underserved, and inappropriately served SED/SPMI (Serious Emotional Disturbance/Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill) TAY based on use of effective and innovative approaches focused on achieving recommended outcomes: a) Meaningful use of time and capabilities (employment, vocational, educational, social, and community activities; b) Safe and adequate housing and living environments and reduction in homelessness; c) A network of supportive relationships; d) Timely access to needed help, including in times of crisis; - 50 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report d) Reduction in incarceration in jails and juvenile halls; e) Reduction in involuntary services, reduction in institutionalization, and reduction in out of home placements; f) Maintaining or improving physical health; g) Reduction in early pregnancy; and h) Completion of high school diploma or GED. An individualized comprehensive services and supports plan, in partnership with an FSP team, is developed for each youth focusing on recovery and resiliency/wellness. A case manager is available 24/7 to respond to clients needs (this is a critical service and support component). An array of services and supports are provided including clinical interventions, linkages and referrals, housing assistance (rental subsidies, eviction assistance), benefits establishment, money management, leisure activities and planning, vocational training, job assistance, or anything else the youth or family needs to better function. Misc. Information: This program enrolled the first client in December 2006. DMH states that available MHSA funding is currently not sufficient to provide FSP services to all SED/SPMI TAY who otherwise qualify and might benefit from them. Funding: This program is funded by the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Total funding is $19,668,660 annually and includes EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) funding and Medi-Cal. Of this, approximately 40% ($7.9 million) is targeted towards youth aging out of DCFS and Probation. Target Population/Potential clientele: This program serves 16-25 year olds in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems (system) as well as those outside the system. The $7.9 million targets youth currently in DCFS/Probation, youth aging out of the system, and youth formerly in the system. The balance of funding is for youth who are homeless or currently at risk of homelessness, are aging out of the child mental health system, leaving long-term institutional care (e.g. an Institution of Mental Disease or State Hospitals), and youth experiencing their first psychotic break. Program capacity: This program provides 1122 slots for 16-25 year olds for all of L.A. County ($17,530 per slot). Due to natural “slot-turnover” during the fiscal year, one slot usually serves more than one person. Clients served (since program inception): 1113 have been authorized (slot-turnover); 898 clients currently authorized to receive TAY FSP Services Evaluation Process: Program success is measured through the State and County approved Outcome Measures Application (OMA). Upon enrollment in an FSP program, a baseline assessment is completed by the provider agency. Subsequent updates are completed quarterly (minimally), and when there is a change in a “key event.” The OMA is an electronic-based application. 5.2) TAY Drop-In Centers Program Description: Drop-In Centers are intended as entry points into the mental health system for SED/SPMI TAY who are living on the street or in unstable living situations. Drop-In Centers provide “low-demand, high tolerance” environments in which youth can find temporary safety and basic supports (e.g. showers, meals, clothing, referrals, linkage to services, vouchers, counseling, etc.). TAY accessing Drop-In Centers have an opportunity to build trusting relationships with staff persons who can, as the youth is ready and willing, connect them to the services and supports they need in order to work toward stability and recovery. Existing Drop-In Centers operate during regular daytime hours. MHSA funding is made available to extend hours of operation to evenings and weekends for the primary purpose of ensuring access to these vital services and supports - 51 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Misc. Information: In March 2008 The Board of Supervisors approved funding for three Drop- In Centers in FY 2007-08, and two in FY 08-09. Funding: Private funding is raised by the centers for the bulk of their operations. MHSA funds are used to extend the hours of operation to evenings and weekends: $250,000 annually for each of two centers. Target Population/Potential clientele: TAY who are diagnosed SED/SPMI and living on the streets or in otherwise unstable living environments. According to DMH many of the youth accessing Drop-In Centers are current or former foster or probation youth. Program capacity: Currently two centers will be fully funded for extended hours of operation in the 2008-09 FY. If additional funding becomes available, DMH would be able to increase support of Drop-In Centers in other areas of the county. Their goal is to provide at least one center in each of the eight SPAs (Service Provider Areas). Clients served: Not available. Note: Youth accessing Drop-In Centers are not required to disclose their legal status to access services. Once trust is established, the youth may decide to disclose that information. This is an example of “low-demand, high tolerance.” Evaluation Process: Information available to DMH indicates that the Drop-In Center programs awarded MHSA funding have established records of providing effective services and successfully engaging, often difficult to reach youth in accessing their available services and supports. DMH TAY Division is developing a Drop-In Center evaluation tool to measure the success of the program in achieving the outcomes for TAY as identified in the CSS Plan. (See 5.1 above) 5.3) TAY Housing Services Program Description: This program provides the following. • Enhanced Emergency Shelter Program for TAY (EESP) $605,000 per year. This program provides temporary shelter for SED/SPMI TAY ages 18-25 in a supportive housing environment for up to 29 nights while pursuing the long-term goal of secure and permanent housing. Program offers semi-private rooms, hygiene facilities, hot meals, case management, referrals and linkage services to SED/SPMI TAY who have no other resources to pay for shelter. There is one shelter that is licensed (6-beds) to serve 16-17 years old. DMH TAY Division is working with DCFS Command Post Unit to develop protocols for access for DCFS clients. • Project-Based Operating Subsidies for Permanent Housing $390,000 per year. This program provides a unit-based housing subsidy (not an individual rental subsidy). This program is currently under development. When implemented it is estimated that approximately 83 units of affordable housing will be available to SED/SPMI TAY who are capable of living independently in the community in their own apartment/unit. • Housing Specialists, one per SPA, Total funding $575,000 per year. Housing specialists assist youth with finding, securing and retaining housing by providing individualized services including accompanying youth on housing search, advocating with landlord, and assistance completing application forms. Misc. Information: The EESP Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18,
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff should impose a limit of $500 on the total amount of money an inmate has in his or her account at any given time. If the inmate is booked into custody with a sum greater than $500 in his or her possession, the inmate should be required to draw down on the amount until it falls below $500 before any deposits from outside third parties are accepted.
R2:
The Sheriff should discontinue and prohibit the practice of allowing an inmate to authorize the release of funds to outside third parties, except for money that was in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. All money deposited by outside third parties to inmate accounts should only be for use by inmates in purchasing phone cards and items from the jail store.
R3:
The Sheriff should implement procedures requiring cashier staff to request valid identification from outside third parties making deposits to an inmate’s account, unless the amount is less than a pre-determined nominal sum, such as $100. - 11 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 12 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report HELPING PROBATION AND FOSTER CARE YOUTH PREPARE FOR ADULTHOOD AND INDEPENDENCE 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Nicolina Friedman, Chair Ethell Anderson Lucy Hernandez Fred Linderman Dorothy M. Schneider - 13 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 14 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R4:
DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multi-faceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. At a minimum, we believe the following changes should be considered: 4a) A suitable overlap of mentors should be built into the program to ease a child’s transition to the new mentor. 4b) The training provided to foster families and group home staff should be increased and should include ongoing evaluation, continuous training, and recertification. 4c) The interagency teams should be trained in team building skills to ensure they can make effective group decisions and are able to connect effectively with each child. 4d) Two-way communication with the children should be the norm and to the extent possible the children should be involved in key decisions affecting them. - 36 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TAY Youth entering the Probation and Juvenile Hall schools administered by LACOE are given a test to determine their academic level of functioning. During visits to these schools, the CGJ learned from teachers, administrators and observation that students are, on average, one to three years below grade level. In spite of numerous requests, the CGJ could not get data from LACOE substantiating the reported one to three year grade level lag of the students entering their camp and hall classrooms. The State of California requires a core of 140 units for high school graduation leaving the additional coursework to be determined by school districts. Los Angeles Unified School District requires the completion of 230 units for graduation. There program calls for 150 core units leaving 80 units for supplementing core units and electives. Students may request their own transcripts from their schools before scheduling their classes. DCFS, DMH, and Probation acting in loco parentis when parents relinquish or abdicate educational rights, are responsible for guiding the educational choices of their charges. There is latitude within the system to customize high school programs to meet the individual needs of students. We have identified the following specific improvements based on our research, discussion with officials, and feedback from TAY.
R5:
The directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills for all children to better prepare them for independence. 5a) All programs should contain an identified minimum level of understanding on the part of the recipients before the program is considered delivered. 5b) Enhanced study skills and courses on practical living skills should be part of the curriculum of juvenile halls and camps. DCFS should include such courses in the schedules of students attending public schools whenever possible. 5c) Foster children should be encouraged to participate in music, art, and other nonacademic programs. Probation should seek volunteers to provide these services in juvenile halls and camps. 5d) Probation camps and halls should provide vocational training for all detainees utilizing ROP services when possible. DCFS should encourage TAY to enroll in experiential, vocational, and ROP courses. 5e) Probation and DCFS should develop additional apprentice, job training and part-time job programs with all levels of government and business to provide more practical work experience for TAY. 5f) Probation and DCFS should invite representatives from organizations such as the Forestry Service and various branches of the U.S. military to - 37 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report make presentations to youth that fully describe their educational opportunities and obligations. 5i) DCFS and Probation should develop significant incentives and rewards to encourage their wards to obtain high school graduation, or a GED, and high scholastic achievement. POST-EMANCIPATION TAY While 18 may be the age of majority, in our view a large percentage of 18 to 25 year olds currently leaving the system do not have the experience, education, maturity or means to thrive without the emotional and financial support of a family. The financial dimension is particularly difficult in Los Angeles where the cost of living is high and accommodation costs are typically double the national average. The following recommendations will help to mitigate the lack of “a safety net” that most families provide to their 18 to 25 year olds:
R6:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, DPSS, and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 – 25 who have left the system. 6a) Either through the development of affordable housing supply and/or direct subsidy, all post transition youth should have access to good quality housing at a reasonable rate. 6b) A wider range of educational supports should be made available to post transition youth including tuition, room & board, books, and other expenses required when they attend school. 6c) Independent living supports should be provided such as health care insurance, transportation assistance, food vouchers, auto insurance subsidies, clothing allowances, and access to community-based support groups. The cost of these services should be partially borne by the post- transition youth based on an income means criterion to be developed by the departments. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The development of a comprehensive and integrated information system was the most frequently mentioned requirement for improvement by County officials during the Entrance Conference. This requirement, and the need to deal with confidentiality rules to allow information sharing, was raised by last year’s CGJ and the ECC Blueprint. There is no doubt that this will be a costly exercise but the need is as obvious as the need for leadership to ensure the development of a comprehensive system. Our concern is that without comprehensive and integrated information systems, optimal decisions in the best interest of the child are unlikely. During this investigation it was clear that while evidence-based reviews are the mantra, in many programs there were not regular and systematic output-oriented evaluations. - 38 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report According to DCFS and Probation officials, many youth chose not to engage in TAY programs. We understand that teenagers can be difficult but at a minimum the evaluations of each program should include input from all youth to understand why some are not participating. There is evidence that the programs are not getting the results hoped for: - there are high incarceration rates of former system children - there is a high homeless rate - there are high pregnancy rates Conceptually, all of the programs and the resources expended on them are to have a positive impact on this population. Without follow-up data on the children, the evaluation of the real results of a program is not possible. We recognize that once a child leaves the system they are under no legal or other obligation to stay in touch and provide information on how they are doing. The departments need to stop thinking of this as an impassable roadblock and explore ways to obtain high quality follow-up information on former TAY.
R7:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost estimates to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding, and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and future programs and policy initiatives: 7a) The new information system should be designed to allow for the tracking of all children once they leave the system. 7b) Appropriate incentives and commitments should be developed to encourage former TAY to remain in contact with the system to facilitate the gathering of information on them. 7c) Until data on former TAY is available routinely, the departments should pursue sampling and other survey methods to gain an understanding of the real results of TAY programs. 7d) Until the new information system is implemented, Probation should have access to all of DCFS’s data systems to help their staff track their youth and improve their services. - 39 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R8:
DCFS YOUTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT 2007 In 2007 the Ombudsman received 236 complaints from TAY as follows: DCFS Probation Total Pre-emancipated youth 53 16 69 Emancipated youth 156 11 167 Total 209 27 236 - 32 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Their top 5 concerns were: Housing (103), ILP issues including Life Skills Classes (45), School Assistance (38), Transportation (13), and Documentation (13). A summary of the report is available in
R17:
• The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, valerie.jenkins@state.co.us. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. - 43 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, william.pinto@po.state.ct.us. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, Ternst@idcfs.state.il.us Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” - 44 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, mkroner@lys.org. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, nancy.martinez@dfa.state.ny.us Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, Bblumenthal@njhmfa.state.nj.us Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” - 45 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; dansell@ou.edu. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and - 46 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; internship@workforce.org, http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth - 47 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.”
R16-17:
18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 - 48 -
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Sheriff’s Department, Probation Department and police agencies should utilize non-sworn personnel to perform clerical and routine duties.
R2:
Crescenta Valley LASD, Glendale Courthouse, Lakewood LASD, Lennox LASD. There is a need to construct secure facilities to transport inmates to or from buses to holding areas in order to protect staff, inmates and the public.
R3:
All LASD and LAPD detention facilities should be well lit.
R4:
Pasadena and Glendale Courthouses with LASD holding facilities need earthquake repair and retrofitting.
R5:
LASD and LAPD policy and procedure manuals need to be kept in a central location and reviewed annually and updated as necessary. These manuals should be available to the public on demand.
R6:
It is strongly recommended that the number of deputies at the Compton Courthouse be increased and that an additional high security floor be added. Escorting inmates from detention to courtroom lock ups with too few escorts endangers the safety of the public, court employees and Sheriff’s deputies.
R7:
Boxed / dry and refrigerated foods in LASD jails and detention facilities must observe first in first out rotation of products. Food containers must be labeled to indicate contents and expiration date. All food products must be disposed of by the expiration date.
R8:
All medications in LASD jails and detention facilities must be adequately secured and dispensed only by licensed personnel or trained non-licensed personnel. Inmates receiving medication should be properly identified by wrist bands. - 327 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R9:
An inspection by EPA and/or Cal OSHA to ensure staff safety and determine if the LAPD Northeast facility should remain in use. CAMP RECOMMENDATIONS
R10:
All medication must be adequately secured and dispensed only by licensed personnel or trained non-licensed personnel. Juveniles receiving medication should be properly identified by wrist bands. - 328 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report REPORT OF THE CONTINUITY COMMITTEE 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Standing Committee Nicolina Friedman, Chair John Gleiter Lionel S. Martinez Ernest Oestreich - 329 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report - 330 -
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F2:
There were rented refrigerated trailers used for the storage of forensic evidence to be processed by the crime lab that are parked at the loading dock of the Scientific Investigation Division facility at Erwin C. Piper Technical Center, despite the fact that there is abundant empty floor space inside the facility.
F3:
The Property Division of the Los Angeles Police Department has a policy of retaining hundreds of thousands of items of evidence for 65 years.
F4:
The laboratory areas have emergency decontamination showers in the hall. We noted that there were no drains in the floor. It was explained that the flooded floor was easier to maintain than drains.
F5:
In the vehicle inspection areas, the doors do not adequately block outside light, permitting too much ambient light to be present for investigations requiring alternate light sources to reveal latent evidence.
F6:
There are only two allocated intern positions for graduate students to obtain work experience in the LAPD and LASD crime laboratories.
F7:
One of the considerations for the consolidation of the LAPD and LASD crime labs was to add more personnel in expanded quarters to alleviate the backlog of evidence testing, including DNA testing. A recommendation by a medical expert on sexual abuse suggested that analysis of DNA be prioritized in cases of rape, particularly in cases of rape by a perpetrator unknown to the victim.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Los Angeles City Department of General Services should request that the refrigerated storage area currently in use by the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department be reconfigured or expanded in the empty area presently assigned to the Scientific Investigation Division at that site, so that the leases of refrigerated trailers can be terminated, and the City of Los Angeles be no longer obligated to rent them or use valuable loading dock space at the Erwin C. Piper Technical Building.
R3:
The Los Angeles Police Department should review their policy of retaining evidence in the property division for sixty-five years, and develop a policy of disposing of all items not needed for current trials or those in which a retrial could be ordered following a post-conviction appeal by a defendant.
R4:
The Joint Powers Authority of the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center should review why there are no floor drains beneath the decontamination showers located in the hallways of the new crime laboratory This may allow run-off to travel into the various rooms of the building under the doors, some of which do not have adequate 269 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report thresholds or weather-stripping at their base The governing authority should direct that appropriate refitting, if any, be done to redirect, capture and dispose of the runoff.
R5:
The Joint Powers Authority of the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center should review why there are light leaks in the vehicle inspection areas that lessen the effectiveness of alternative light sources, the use of which is often necessary to discover evidence that is difficult to detect under traditional light sources. Appropriate refitting, if any, be should be done to eliminate the light leaks.
R6:
The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department should hire additional interns from the California State University Los Angeles Department of Criminalistics, or other students in this same specialization at other universities.
R7:
It is recommended that the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department should accelerate the analysis of stored DNA samples in rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim. 270 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PART 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Octavio “Toby” Chavez Richard Niederberg Dolores Rillos Arnie L. Spears 271 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 272 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PART
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
LARTCS is and will be the communication system for public safety agencies, within the County of Los Angeles, for the next decade. It is wholly adequate to serve its purpose, except in the case of a widespread major disaster. No communication system can withstand a natural or manmade catastrophe.
F2:
LA-RICS is now in the phase of system-engineering and specification development. It is scheduled to be purchased and developed over the next decade. An implementation schedule is presented in the referenced brochure on LA-RICS.
F3:
The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department is the backbone organization for the operation of LARTCS. Sheriff personnel are also heavily involved in the development of LA-RICS. The present Civil Grand Jury has found the personnel involved in both of these systems to be both competent and cooperative. We say this here to reassure the public that knowledgeable people are guiding these developments. (Copies of LARTCS and LA-RICS brochures will appear at the conclusion of the last part of this report). 282 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE COMMUNITY-BASED PART 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Octavio “Toby” Chavez Richard Niederberg Dolores Rillos Arnie L. Spears 283 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 284 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE COMMUNITY-BASED PART OVERVIEW While fire suppression and law enforcement personnel are the most visible users of handheld radios, in times of civic unrest and natural or manmade disasters, the citizens of the area affected, who are the true first responders, constitute an important part of the communication system through their use of their own handheld radios. The (city of) Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) is a lead agency in the integration of citizen volunteers into the disaster relief system, primarily through its development of the Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT) training program, including quarterly hands-on exercises, monthly battalion meetings, Division training, classes narrowly tailored to specific subject matters, and working at public events to enhance certain skills that can best be learned in a real-world environment, particularly the efficient use of handheld radios in high-traffic situations. The Los Angeles Fire Department also supports and regulates the Auxiliary Communications Service (ACS), which is a network of hundreds of licensed amateur radio (Ham) operators. Many CERT members are also licensed amateur radio operators who can be deployed to wherever needed by the Los Angeles Fire Department without being accompanied by an ACS member. The frequency that CERT and ACS often tune to, before being directed to another frequency being utilized for a specific location or a specific team at a particular emergency, is 147.300MHz. The reallocation of frequency bandwidth has significantly affected the utilization of handheld radios by police, fire, sheriff, and other professional personnel, but it has also affected the utilization of handheld radios by citizens. The use of Citizen Band radio frequencies, and the handheld radios designed to utilize these frequencies, has rapidly declined after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed the rules when the number of channels was increased from 23 to 40, but the permitted transmit power was decreased. Channel 9 (27.065 MHz) was/is the emergency contact frequency. Subsequently, the FCC established two new sequential series of frequencies with lower-numbered, lower-power frequencies that can be used by persons without FCC licenses entitled Family Radio Service (FRS), and higher-numbered, higher- powered frequencies reserved for those persons holding General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) licenses. In this area, Channel 11 (467.6375 MHz) is routinely used for CERT exercises. 285 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Also available for citizen use are Marine Radios which were designed for ship-to- ship and ship-to-shore communications. Even though their use land-to-land is generally prohibited by the FCC rules, in the case of a true emergency, a radio on a boat in a stranded or injured person’s driveway could be their only way to seek assistance. Marine Channel 16 (156.800 MHz) is monitored by persons listening for distress calls. Likewise, a handheld Air Band Radio, whose use is normally prohibited when not in conjunction with the operation of an aircraft air-to-air or air-to-aircraft control personnel, could be used briefly in case of an emergency when no other method of communication was available. Frequency 121.5 MHz is monitored by persons listening for distress calls. Business Band radios are of limited assistance in case of an emergency; as they operate on private or semi-private channels that are not likely to be monitored by emergency personnel. Cellular phones will be of little use in case of any widespread emergency, both because the system will become overloaded quickly and because of the probability of damage to either the cell towers or the possibility that the repeaters and the central telephone office could lose power following the depletion of the back-up battery systems or the fuel required to run the back-up generators continuously for any significant period of time. In contrast, although most recently manufactured handheld amateur radios can use repeaters in their Duplex mode (transmitting on one frequency and receiving on another frequency, often using a repeater), they also can communicate handheld–to- handheld in their Simplex mode (transmitting and receiving sequentially on the same frequency). The public can also purchase handheld scanners (radios that only receive broadcasts, but can do so on a large number of frequencies) at local consumer electronics stores, including some advanced models which can store 5,000 or more channels programmed into memory, and have the ability to receive broadcasts by systems which employ digital trunking. Scanners allow citizens to monitor broadcasts by all of the above radio types, including evacuation orders for emergency personnel or equipment in their area, if the citizen has, or can obtain, the frequencies being utilized by their local agencies. (A copy of the Los Angeles City Fire Department Disaster Preparedness Training brochure follows this report). 286 tropeR laniF yruJ dnarG liviC ytnuoC selegnA soL 8002-7002 782 tropeR laniF yruJ dnarG liviC ytnuoC selegnA soL 8002-7002 882 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 289 tropeR laniF yruJ dnarG liviC ytnuoC selegnA soL 8002-7002 092
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That the County Emergency Operations Center and its related agencies be directed to prepare a detailed operational plan which would start to be implemented when a “shelter-in-place” widespread disaster is realized to exist, be it in the first minute or the first day. Examples of harsh realities which might occur include: • What to do with overwhelming numbers of the dead • How to deal with injured and ill persons when the hospitals cannot treat all those in need • Chaos on the streets creating the potential for large scale crime and vandalism It is the recommended intent that the preparation of the plan force thought and planning about these so-called “unthinkables” before they occur.
R2:
The County EOC and its related agencies provide a briefing to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, along with all mayors and city council members, on the specifics of this operational plan. It anticipated that this operational plan, if it is realistic and pragmatic, will contain harsh and unpleasant action items which may upset its audience.
R3:
As part of the operational plan, public announcements should be prepared in advance so that they are not formulated in a time of crisis. Such public announcements should provide “how to” guidance and the rights and duties of an individual citizen affected by a widespread general emergency. The information contained in these announcements should provide very simple, pragmatic, but realistic approaches to helping people who may be in shock, physically and/or emotionally, from the circumstances in which they find themselves. 276 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY PART 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Octavio “Toby” Chavez Richard Niederberg Dolores Rillos Arnie L. Spears 277 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 278 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY PART
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
There is a substantial deviation between the original proposal and rationale used to justify the building of the new facility and what was actually realized in the way of cooperation between the LASD and the LAPD.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City Controller and the County Audit-Controller should initiate an audit to quantify the promised savings to the taxpayer through the economy and efficiency brought about by unification of their respective labs. The audit should be 268
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
When a person obtains Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, he or she is assumed eligible for IHSS assistance. The District Attorney contends that if the Department of Public Social Services determines that the person has assets which would make him/her ineligible for SSI, the DPSS caseworker does not notify the Social Security Administration of these findings. However, in the Grand Jury’s discussions with executive management from DPSS, we were advised that all sixty existing field offices do in fact have a liaison person who contacts the Social Security Administration and advises it of a recipient’s possible ineligibility for SSI and other issues of concern, to the extent allowed by current privacy laws. It should also be noted that SSI recipients must report their annual income at telephone number 1-800-772-1213. Reference can be made to Social Security Publication SSA-4926-SM (January 2008). Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is not the same as Social Security benefits paid to those age 62 and over.
F2:
DPSS collects time sheets which are supposed to be signed by the IHSS aid recipient and the aid provider. Information from that time sheet is forwarded to the State of California, and a state warrant, made payable to the aid provider, is prepared. DPSS keeps the time sheets, but has no filing system for easy retrieval of these important records, which are often required by the district attorney in the prosecution of fraud cases. DPSS executive management concedes this is a problem, due to the enormous amount of paperwork received per month (over 300,000 time sheets) by the Central Time Sheet Processing Operation, and the current system of filing, which is by manual batching. DPSS is holding off on a more efficient, automated approach to this filing - 69 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report system due to a pending upgrade to the state’s computer system, which will hopefully address some of the inefficiencies of manual processing.
F3:
When a person applies for IHSS assistance, a medical verification of the person’s physical/mental/medical condition is required to be prepared and signed by a medical doctor. Without validation, the process as it currently exists is subject to fraudulent use and/or signature forgery.
F4:
Cases have been identified by the district attorney wherein care providers are allegedly providing aid under different names and fraudulently collecting benefits. Cases have also been identified wherein aid recipients are allegedly receiving aid under different identities.
F5:
DPSS administers various federal and state-funded aid programs at the county level, including General Relief (welfare), CalWorks, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and IHSS. The district attorney has identified a number of cases where benefits from one program would reduce or eliminate eligibility for another program, and contends that DPSS computer databases do not “talk to” one another, so inter-program opportunities for fraud abound. - 70 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F6:
Neither the State of California nor the County of Los Angeles conducts a criminal background investigation on the provider of IHSS services. Since the recipient has carte blanche to choose a provider, but cannot conduct a background investigation, the county is in a position to do so on behalf of the recipient.
F7:
Reassessments of the recipient’s need for continuing IHSS care are not done in a timely and systematic manner.
F8:
Personnel of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) are not always qualified to assess the kind and intensity of the care required, which is roughly analogous to Medicare’s definition of “custodial care.” Among the chief determining criteria for receiving IHSS is the requirement that but for this program, the recipient would require out-of-home placement. Quoting from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) report entitled In-Home Supportive Services: Past, Present and Future, January 2003: “The IHSS program is based on a social model – one that relies on a social worker assessment rather than assessment based on medical criteria. As such, caregivers are not medical personnel, nor are the social workers and, obviously, the consumer… “Quality of care is dependent on the caregivers qualifications and job satisfaction and how accurately the social worker’s assessment of the consumer’s need comports with the consumer’s actual supportive service needs.” Recipient need assessments have a significant subjective component, influenced by the personal bias of the social worker, personality interactions, and the innate desire to be charitable. DPSS also realizes that the initial assessment home visit, reassessment visits and scheduled visits are sometimes stage-managed in order to draw the maximum benefit of the program. The attempted reassessment via repeated random visits, to a supposedly housebound recipient who is never home, should be a cause for concern.
F9:
As an alternative to personalized, in-home care, electronic home monitoring could be made available for those recipients who neither want nor require personal contact. - 72 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
F10:
Providers of in-home care complain that they are not getting paid by the recipients of in-home care. Conversely, recipients complain that the providers are not providing the level and/or quality of care for which they are being paid from IHSS funds. In some cases, time cards have been forged or altered.
F11:
Initial fraud referrals are supposed to be sent to DPSS headquarters. However, in some cases, DPSS employees attempting to report suspected IHSS fraud have been met with responses ranging from apathetic to hostile on the part of district office supervisors and managers. Reports of suspected fraud, forwarded to DPSS headquarters, are not followed up on with the employees who initiated the reports; in essence, a lack of feedback. Senate Bill (SB) 1104 grants jurisdiction for IHSS fraud investigations to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), formerly known as the Department of Health Services. Specific provisions contained in SB 1104 created fraud detection and quality assurance protocols, adherence to which is not optional.
F12:
An Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864, must be submitted by those who are sponsoring foreign nationals under the family- - 73 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report based immigration system. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Support is required in certain employment-based immigration situations. Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 CFRs) creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the foreign national. The Act also creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the federal agency or any state agency which may provide means-tested public benefits to the sponsored immigrant. Implemented in 1996 to ensure that foreigners do not become public charges after admittance to the U.S.A., the Affidavit of Support requirement must be satisfied in order for many foreigners to ultimately obtain legal permanent residence. The Affidavit of Support terminates once the sponsored immigrant “naturalizes” or when credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work as defined by the Social Security Act. Form I-864 and I- 864A data may be disclosed to other federal, state and local agencies providing means- tested public benefits for use in any civil action against the sponsor(s) for breach of contract. Social Security numbers may be verified with the Social Security Administration. It may also be disclosed as a matter of routine use to other federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities.
F13:
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- income working individuals and families. It is not a tax rebate, but rather a federal subsidy. In addition, the EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits; the EITC will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing or most payments of temporary assistance for needy families. The EITC is based on a past and an anticipated calendar year of income. Applicants must file a federal tax return and have a valid Social Security number. Full details are contained in IRS Notice 797 and Form W-5.
F14:
Although the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot comment upon or review State of California operations, the successful and professional local administration of IHSS is dependent upon state databases. The state’s and Los Angeles County’s Department of Social Services computers and software must handshake and exchange data, primarily with the following: • State Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) • Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) There is no longer a demarcation between county and state functions; we live in a virtual world. Even checking a person’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) status requires DPSS to go through the state systems to obtain Social Security Administration data. Obviously, Los Angeles County DPSS is at the mercy, interest and competence of state agencies, particularly the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Providers and recipients of IHSS services sign and submit a biweekly timesheet which is ultimately processed by the state, the payment warrant is issued by the state, and fraud investigation is within the purview of the state. The acceptance of scrawled or absent signatures on the timesheet does not constitute good management of a multi- billion dollar program such as IHSS. Dual endorsement of the payment warrant would definitely be a good business practice.
F15:
The Advance Pay feature of IHSS is reportedly abused, particularly by the recipient receiving “advance pay” for weeks and months without submitting a time card in support of that pay.
F16:
A member of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury, a past service provider in the IHSS program, was approached by an IHSS employee to sign up to take other recipients. All the member had to do was give the IHSS employee permission to re-use the member’s provider information, which was already in DPSS files, and periodically sign papers. For this, the member would keep one-half of each check / warrant, and yield the other half to an associate of the DPSS employee. The grand jury member was subsequently approached by someone who was not a county employee, but offering a similar scam. He told the member that “…lots of people are doing it.” Needless to say, the current grand jury member emphatically refused both offers.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Department of Public Social Services should ensure that staff communicate with the Social Security Administration regarding any factors which may affect the SSI eligibility of IHSS or other aid recipients. Similarly, DPSS must stay aware of any SSI reassessments of an applicant’s / recipient’s disability. In those cases where eligibility is mandated by law, DPSS should, at a minimum, require a statement of facts provided by the recipient under penalty of perjury as to the need for financial support and medical services.
R2:
DPSS should develop a system of filing those records so they may be easily located when needed by the district attorney for court proceedings in IHSS fraud prosecutions. A possible approach would be to capture the recipient’s Social Security number or fingerprint on the time sheet, digitize it into a local database and link it to the recipient and provider names, the time frame of the time sheet, plus any other information that might be of future interest. The time sheets themselves would be stored as images, in chronological order, for a limited time period, such as three to five years.
R3:
These evaluation / rating forms should be checked by staff by verifying the validity of the doctor’s medical license number (which is provided on the form) and/or calling the doctor’s office. Speaking to the doctor will put him/her on notice that their name and license number are being used.
R4:
Ideally, all recipients and care providers should be fingerprinted and photographed by DPSS during the In Home Supportive Services application / intake process. All medical and financial intake documents should be signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury.
R5:
DPSS must develop an enhanced computer database which will allow for effective cross-referencing and interfacing of information on recipients of various aid programs administered by the department. In essence, this is a virtual database on all DPSS clients.
R6:
Applicants to the County of Los Angeles IHSS program should be fingerprinted and photographed as part of the intake process. The provider, as selected by the applicant, should also be fingerprinted and photographed. The presentation of a driver’s license or resident alien card, both easily purchased “on the street,” should not suffice as adequate identification. Fingerprints, once taken, should be processed through California’s Department of Justice and onward to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and its integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). The purpose of fingerprinting is to validate the recipient and provider identities and to discover any criminal background. The county should conduct a criminal background check on the chosen provider for the protection of the recipient. If a criminal background is discovered, the provider may be disqualified, against criteria yet to be established. This background check, presumably carried out by the Los Angeles County Department of Social Services (DPSS), should include checks of the California Health and Human Services database, the California Criminal History System and the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), to the extent allowed by law.
R7:
At minimum, a face-to-face interview with both the recipient and the provider should be conducted every 12 months. This interview should be conducted in the recipient’s home or place of abode, with the provider present. - 71 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R8:
Continued training is necessary for DPSS employees dealing with IHSS eligibility and fraud detection, based on the best practices recommended by CWDA and the involved state and county agencies. Also, since the need for repeated in-home visits is demoralizing to the social worker, for which no amount of training will compensate, the social worker should be given the authority to “notice” a recipient to schedule an assessment visit on a certain date, under penalty of payment cutoff.
R9:
DPSS should consider electronic monitoring as an alternative to a human provider for in-home care. The electronic monitoring systems do not provide “care” as such, but do avoid the need of a little-known provider visiting the home or abode. A half dozen such systems are now on the market. In addition, the Center for Aging Services Technologies in Washington, D.C., as well as the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland are excellent sources of further information.
R10:
Payment vouchers to IHSS service providers should be made payable to both the recipient of the care and the provider, thus requiring an endorsement from each before the check can be cashed. This safeguard would curtail some of the fraud that is occurring.
R11:
DPSS must follow the fraud reporting protocols required by the language of SB 1104. Also, in the interests of good management and employee morale, DPSS must provide feedback on fraud investigations to the initiating employee. Claims and excuses that the Department of Health Care Services isn’t providing feedback to DPSS are weak; DPSS senior management must insist on this information in a periodic and timely manner.
R12:
DPSS should review applicants for IHSS as to whether they are a sponsored immigrant under Section 213a of the Act. If so, their sponsor(s) or co-sponsor(s) should be sought to provide the financial support for the applicant. This recommendation has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.
R13:
Since the income cap for receiving EITC in CY 2008 approaches $37,000, it is recommended that an applicant for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be asked if he or she has received an EITC last calendar year and is receiving one in the immediate calendar year. If so, note should be made, in the application for IHSS, of the amounts received or to be received in each year. A person receiving the EITC should not be denied eligibility for IHSS, but the amounts received in that credit should be factored into the amount of IHSS services paid for by the recipient, by means of a formula which could be changed yearly. - 74 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R14:
As well as capturing the fingerprints of both the recipient and provider during the intake / application process, as recommended elsewhere, DPSS should require a fingerprint of both the recipient and the provider on each time card, perhaps even in lieu of a signature.
R15:
DPSS should enforce the requirement that bi-weekly/monthly time cards be submitted. If time cards are not received within ten (10) business days of when due, further payment warrants or direct deposits should be terminated. Direct deposit accounts should be checked quarterly to ascertain their balance. If the balance is substantial (>$5,000), it may indicate the need for an eligibility review. - 75 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R16:
The Department of Social Services should implement the recommended security measures in this report. DPSS needs to validate program providers and recipients more aggressively, by knowing who they are to a certainty (photo and fingerprints), their actual and purported participation in the program, and the exposure of bogus providers and recipients. Reference is also made to the 1998-1999 Civil Grand Jury Final Report that recommended methods to detect and prevent attempted employee fraud, particularly the section on Internal Affairs Investigations, pages 141-152. The IHSS program is not supposed to be a cottage industry for scam artists, especially those embedded within the ranks of DPSS itself. - 76 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXPENDITURES TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECIPIENTS OF IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) BY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Time Frame No. of Recipients Federal State L.A. County TOTAL 2003-04 FY Actual 140,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 139,000,000 $ 79,000,000 $ 230,000,000 2004-05 FY Actual 145,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 181,000,000 $ 58,000,000 $ 260,000,000 2005-06 FY Actual 152,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 226,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 290,000,000 2006-07 FY Actual 160,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ 76,000,000 $ 347,000,000 2007-08 FY Budget 380,000* $ 46,000,000† $ 272,000,000† $ 65,000,000† $ 383,000,000† *statewide †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted 2008-09 FY 400,000* Projected *statewide Source: DPSS; Legislative Analyst; County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) See Notes which follow regarding this spreadsheet. - 77 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That no action be taken
R2:
That there is no jurisdiction over the Complaint subject matter
R3:
That there be a referral of the Complaint to an appropriate committee for further investigation and recommendations
R4:
To undertake some other appropriate disposition of the Complaint Once the Citizen Complaints Committee has recommended a specific disposition of a particular complaint, each case was submitted to the entire Grand Jury for its review, evaluation and vote as to whether the Committee’s preliminary recommendation should be approved, amended as appropriate, referred back to Committee, or to otherwise determine that some alternative course of action should be pursued. The jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury includes the following: • Consideration of evidence of misconduct by public officials within Los Angeles County. • Inquiry into the condition and management of jails within the county • Investigation and reports on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of county and cities including special districts created by state law. - 309 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report The 2007-2008 Citizens Complaint Committee received and processed 75 complaints. The complaints which were processed fell into 7 basic categories as reflected in the following breakdown: CATEGORY NUMBER No Grand Jury jurisdiction (state, federal & court) 20 Governmental mismanagement, waste or incompetence 7 Inmate complaint about court, trial, prison conditions or 5 mistreatment Misconduct of law enforcement agents 19 Governmental malfeasance or corruption 8 Vague or incomplete complaint 6 Non-governmental /personal disputes 10 TOTAL 75
R5:
Why/How: Attach pertinent documents and correspondence with dates. _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ - 311 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report COMPLAINT GUIDELINES Receipt of all complaints will be acknowledged by mail. If a matter does not fall within the Civil Grand Jury’s investigative authority, or the Jury determines not to investigate a complaint, no action will be taken and there will be no further contact from the Jury. The
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
There are no written policies and procedures instructing staff when a resident becomes ill or is injured at the rehabilitation centers.
F2:
Rehabilitation center residents are not given a medical evaluation prior to release.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Department of Public Health should develop written policies and procedures instructing staff upon the event a resident becomes ill or is injured at the rehabilitation center.
R2:
Acton and Warm Springs Rehabilitation Centers’ residents should have medical evaluations prior to release. This will serve as a safeguard for both the residents and the Department of Public Health. 261 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 262
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Los Angeles County Code does not provide a clear framework for departments to develop vehicle fleet management policies and procedures and has sections that are too specific and would be more appropriate as part of department policies and procedures.
F2:
Los Angeles County Department vehicle use policies and procedures are inconsistent across departments and create disparities for employee use of County vehicles.
F3:
Department take-home vehicle policies and procedures vary in stringency, are difficult to reconcile with actual take-home vehicles on an ongoing basis, and put the County’s fixed assets at increased risk of abuse.
F4:
A total of 18 employees in the Coroner’s Office had County take-home vehicles. However, the department did not report taxable income for any of these 18 employees.
F5:
THERE IS NO COUNTY-WIDE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF COUNTY TAKE-HOME VEHICLES TO ENSURE JUSTIFICATION IS CONSISTENT AND WARRANTED, BASED ON BUSINESS NEED.
F6:
The County does not systematically analyze the costs related to staff using County vehicles for take-home purposes compared to the cost of using personal vehicles. With a review of business need for vehicles, the County can determine the justification in business need and costs to providing County vehicles or reimbursing staff for using personal vehicles. - 147 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1: County Code Chapter 5.40 sections should be amended by the Board of Supervisors to create a simple framework for departments using County vehicles.
R2:
1: The Auditor-Controller’s Office should work with County departments to ensure the accuracy of documentation showing employees receiving imputed taxable income from take-home vehicle use.
R3:
1: The Board of Supervisors should direct all County departments to track and monitor after-hour vehicle usage to ensure sufficient business justification exists for the take home vehicle.
R4:
1: The Internal Services Department should review the composition of the County fleet annually to identify the number of vehicles considered to be luxury or over $30,000, and provide the report to the Board of Supervisors.
R12:
The “Department Assigned Vehicle Record and Approval” includes the Sheriff one-way mileage from home to primary work address for an employee, and non-sworn personnel must file with the Auditor-Controller’s Office each year. Source: Los Angeles County Department Policies and Procedures - 122 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The County has no internal controls in place to ensure County departments do not purchase vehicles that have features that exceed those required for routine County business.
F2:
There are dozens of vehicles that appear to have features that exceed need based on intended use, resulting in unnecessary costs for the County.
F3:
Some departments have vehicles that are not expensive, other departments have purchased luxury vehicles for the Department Director or other senior managers. Without clear direction from the Board of Supervisors, departments do not have any clear incentives to purchase vehicles that minimize cost.
F4:
There are discrepancies between the databases that individual departments, the Internal Services Department and the Auditor-Controller maintain.
F5:
The Purchasing Branch lacks internal management controls to effectively monitor staff compliance with and enforcement of District Top 30 policy and to ensure that appropriate steps are taken by Buyer staff to minimize non-stock purchases of non-Top 30 like items.
F6:
The Purchasing Branch does not consistently analyze non- stock data for the purposes of identifying items that should be moved into stock. - 194 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1: Require that the Purchasing Branch enforce the District’s restriction on purchasing Top 30 items from sources other than District warehouses by: (a) reviewing P-Card transactions to identify Top 30 purchase violations as part of the P-Card Unit’s audit function; (b) developing and communicating formal, written policies and procedures regarding District non-stock purchasing processes; and, (c) implementing internal management controls to monitor, track, and document staff compliance with and enforcement of these polices and procedures.
R2:
1: Direct Inventory Management staff to analyze and quarterly report to warehouse management all warehouse items that have turnover rates of less than one in a year or less than two for two consecutive years.
R3:
1: Direct staff to prepare an annual report for management presenting year-to-year gross dollar and commodity unit discrepancies, rather than net discrepancies as is currently reported between inventory records and actual inventory found in the warehouses, as part of the annual Business Service’s Division Service Efforts and Accomplishments. - 166 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report
R4:
1: The Internal Services Department should review the composition of the County fleet annually to identify the number of vehicles considered to be luxury or over $30,000, and provide the report to the Board of Supervisors.
R5:
District $6 to $7 $5.1 Billion $1.5 Billion $600 Million $2.0 Billion $2.2 Billion $7 Billion* Annual Budget Billion
R6:
Confirmation No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes of Warehouse Response Facility * General Fund PART II. Overview of District Warehouse Operations and Funding 7 How many discrete physical warehouse facilities does the District operate? Five Responses: 2= “10 or more” 1= “1” 2= “4” LAUSD: 3 - 244 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 8 Do you operate a warehouse for any of the following purposes? (Check all that apply): Six responses: Field Number Responding “Yes” LAUSD Food/Food 6 (cid:57) Supplies General Stores 6 (cid:57) Salvage 6 (cid:57) Maintenance 6 (cid:57) Other 4 (cid:57) District Responding “Yes” to Other Response Broward County, FL “Food supplies, but not commodities” “Transportation vehicles parts inventory is not included in the data provided. Food cafeteria paper supplies are Miami-Dade included, but not food inventory. Food (frozen, fresh, canned goods) inventory and distribution is outsourced.” “Food Services has a warehouse for storage, PPO has warehouse for receiving, storage and issuing stock. IMC San Diego textbook and library warehouse and Supply Center receiving, stocking and issuing forms and textbooks and salvage material.” Montgomery County, MD “Science kits.” LAUSD Small General Stores satellite at District headquarters. - 245 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 9 Are any of these functions combined into a single facility? If yes, please describe briefly below. Four responses: Number Responding “Yes” 3 District Responding “Yes” Response “One warehouse for each of the following: surplus, Broward County, FL textbooks, transportation parts, operating supplies, stockroom” “Food Services leases a cold storage warehouse and storage warehouse, PPO operates a maintenance warehouse. IMC has a warehouse for textbook, science San Diego kits, library books and Supply Center for stocking, issuing and Receiving Annex for surplus and salvage furniture and for issuing and storing can food products.” “Yes, main general warehouse houses the supplies and Montgomery County, MD furniture operation.” LAUSD General Stores and Foods are located in a single facility. Is the delivery function a part of the District’s warehouse operations or is it separate? Six Responses: 6= “Part of Warehouse Division” LAUSD: “Part of Warehouse Division” - 246 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 11 Do any of the District’s warehouse facilities have an integrated automated warehouse management system (WMS)? Six responses: 4= “Yes” 2= “No” LAUSD: No 12 If YES, please indicate the capabilities of the WMS. Real Time Cycle Order Stock Bar Receiver Responses Inventory Other Counting Picking Replenishment Coding Confirmation Mgmt. Number of 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Responses Number Responding 2 4 4 4 1 3 2 “Yes” “Others” Responses: “MRP”; “This applies to the supply warehouse only, not furniture.” - 247 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 13 Using the matrix below please indicate (1) which statement best describes your District’s warehouse purchasing policy and (2) what controls are currently being used to enforce this policy. (Check all that apply): Number Responding LAUSD “Yes” District schools and offices are required to purchase all goods from the District's 0 warehouse District schools and offices are required to purchase some goods from the District's 5 (cid:57) warehouse. District schools and offices are not required to 1 purchase goods from the District's warehouse. Monitored Written by Periodic Controls Policies & Training Other Computer Audits Procedures System Number of 5 5 5 5 5 Responses Number Responding 2 4 1 1 1 “Yes” LAUSD (cid:57) “Other” responses: “We carry some forms not sold elsewhere”; “District schools are recommended to purchase goods from the district's warehouse, but it is not policy.” - 248 -
R10:
What is the amount and dollar value of each of the following types of products within LAUSD’s warehouses? a. Like products, which are functionally alike but differ in non-functional attributes; b. Obsolete products, which still have functionality but have lost their consumer demand; c. Perishable products, which should not be used after a certain specified date and/or naturally reach an unusable condition; and, d. Lost products, which have gone missing from one inventory cycle to the next due to shrinkage, damage, theft or misplacement.
R11:
How much did these products cost LAUSD, and is there any remaining value of obsolete products?
R12:
Have policies and procedures been established to limit individual purchases of like products at different prices, dispose of obsolete products or products that have perished, and to minimize the inappropriate loss of warehouse inventory, and are such procedures being followed?
R13:
What management systems, reporting processes and internal controls have been established to monitor the level of like, obsolete, perishable and lost products? The scope of the audit covered the questions outline above regarding the District’s warehouse function, including its General Stores, Foods, Maintenance and Salvage Warehouses and Beaudry Street facility, a total of five facilities. Organizationally, these - 159 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report facilities are located in the District’s Materiel Management Branch that also contains Stock Purchasing (items in the warehouse), Inventory Management Services, Truck Operations, or delivery services, including a mail unit and a Reprographics unit, and a Marketing division. The Materiel Management Branch is part of the District’s Business Services Division. During the course of this audit, a reorganization took place in which the separate Procurement Services Branch of Business Services, responsible for non- stock purchasing and contracting, was merged with the Stock Purchasing unit, thus becoming part of the Materiel Management Branch. The approved operating budget for the Materiel Management Branch for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 contains $41.2 million in expenditures and 380 full-time equivalent positions, including the Reprographics and Mail units which were not part of this audit scope. Budgeted Fiscal Year 2007-2008 expenditures for the Procurement Services Group, a separate unit at the time the budget was adopted, is $6.4 million. With the merger of the Procurement Services Group into the Materiel Management Branch, the total Fiscal Year 2007-2008 budget would be approximately $47.6 million. The Materiel Management Branch and Procurement Services Group serve all of the District’s schools and offices, all cafeterias and food preparation facilities and the Maintenance and Operations division. Though part of the District’s operations, the disposition of used and old textbooks was not within the purview of the scope of this audit. Tables I.1 and I.2 present Fiscal Year 2006-2007 data on the District’s warehouse inventory and District-wide expenditures by procurement method. Table I.1 District Stock Items Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Average Number of Percent of Warehouse Inventory Stock Items* Total Stock Value* General S1 Stores 3,046 54.4% $9,656,504.40 M10 Maintenance 1,506 26.9% $1,717,894.90 F Foods** 655 11.7% $4,821,031.14 Beaudry BGS General Store 397 7.1% $55,844.03 TOTAL 5,604 100% $16,251,274.47 * Number of Stock Items as of February 13, 2008- excluding BGS (Stock Items by Commodity Code) **Includes F6 Grocery, F6S Staples/Supplies, F6M Meats, and F38P Produce. - 160 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table I.2 Stock, Non-Stock, and Procurement Card Expenditures Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Type Sub-total Total General Stores $49,873,684 Maintenance $6,600,486 Foods $45,261,399 BGS $525,569 Stock* $102,261,138 Non-Stock** $329,560,916 Procurement Card*** $40,080,736 TOTAL $471,902,790 *Stock total based on stock disbursements as of June 29,2007 (Inventory Turns Report) **Non-Stock total based on Fiscal Year 2006-2007 non-stock requisition data ***P-Card total annualized based on total Fiscal Year 2006-2007 expenditures of $33,400,613.00 from Sept. 2006 through June 2007 END OF INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE - 161 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Executive Summary This performance audit of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s warehouse Function Department was conducted by Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC for the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Civil Grand Jury of Los Angeles County. Key findings and the audit recommendations are as follows: Section 1: Required Warehouse Purchases & Like Products District schools and offices are purchasing items from the 30 top selling product (cid:137) categories from outside vendors using District Procurement Cards (P-Cards) in violation of District policy. On average, “Top 30” items purchased from outside vendors cost approximately 40 to 86 percent more than Top 30 items purchased from the General Stores Warehouse, resulting in estimated District-wide excess expenditures of between $1.7 and $2.8 million per year. Though District policy states that P-Card purchases will be reviewed to ensure (cid:137) compliance with the restriction on Top 30 purchases from outside vendors, such monitoring is not being performed by the Purchasing Branch to ensure that these products are not being procured by District staff at higher prices from outside vendors. District policy does not preclude District schools and offices from purchasing non- (cid:137) Top 30 items and like items from outside vendors with their P-Cards or through the non-stock purchasing process, even though the District reports that their prices are an average of 86 percent lower at the warehouse. District records show that such items are being purchased at higher prices with P-Cards and through the non-stock requisition process, resulting in estimated excess costs of $7.7 million per year. District employees are not consistently receiving District-negotiated discounts from (cid:137) non-stock contract vendors when making purchases using their P-Cards. The Purchasing Branch lacks internal management controls to effectively monitor (cid:137) staff compliance with and enforcement of District Top 30 policy and to ensure that appropriate steps are taken by Buyer staff to minimize non-stock purchases of non- Top 30 like items. The Purchasing Branch does not consistently analyze non-stock data for the (cid:137) purposes of identifying items that should be moved into stock. - 162 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Based on these findings, it is recommended that District management should: Recommendation 1.1: Require that the Purchasing Branch enforce the District’s restriction on purchasing Top 30 items from sources other than District warehouses by: (a) reviewing P-Card transactions to identify Top 30 purchase violations as part of the P-Card Unit’s audit function; (b) developing and communicating formal, written policies and procedures regarding District non-stock purchasing processes; and, (c) implementing internal management controls to monitor, track, and document staff compliance with and enforcement of these polices and procedures. Recommendation 1.2: Amend the Top 30 policy to promote greater compliance and to discourage the purchasing of Top 30 and non-Top 30 like and identical items from outside vendors at higher costs by extending required warehouse purchases for all items that fall under the broad Top 30 categories rather than specific products in each category, as is current policy. Recommendation 1.3: Direct Purchasing Branch management to require that all Buyers document and report their contacts with schools and offices to attempt to redirect non-stock requisitions for outside vendors to the warehouse for items identical to or like those available in the warehouse at lower cost. Recommendation 1.4: Require Purchasing Branch management to annually track and report to District management the number and dollar amount of non-stock requisitions that are converted into stock requisitions by non-stock Buyers to avoid purchase of the same or like items that are available from the warehouse at less cost. Recommendation 1.5: Require school principals and office managers to provide District management with written justifications for their purchases from outside vendors at higher cost of items available in the warehouse when they are identified by Purchasing Branch review of detailed P-Card transaction data and/or to surrender their P-Cards in cases of ongoing violations of District policies regarding purchases from the warehouse. - 163 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation 1.6: Require that the Purchasing Branch ensure that District P-Card holders are consistently receiving discounts from non-stock contract vendors, with the discount received reflected in the detailed P- Card purchase data received from the District’s third party P-Card administrator. P-Card holders should be instructed to routinely inquire about such discounts when making purchases from non-stock contract vendors. Recommendation 1.7: Negotiate with the District’s third party P-Card administrator to provide more detailed information regarding the quantities and unit prices paid for items purchased using District P-Cards for the purposes of tracking employee compliance with the Top 30 and related policies to minimize purchasing costs, to ensure that discounts are being obtained and to identify items that should be moved into stock. Recommendation 1.8: Require that the Purchasing Branch develop polices and procedures for conducting quarterly reviews of the District’s Integrated Financial System (IFS) vendor reports and other applicable non- stock data for the purposes of identifying items that should be moved into stock, including details on how such information will be communicated to inventory management personnel in the Materiel Management Branch. SECTION 2: INVENTORY MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS THE DISTRICT IS NOT SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVING LOW TURNOVER, LOW (cid:137) DEMAND ITEMS FROM INVENTORY BASED ON INVENTORY TURNOVER ANALYSES. THE MAJORITY OF ITEMS IN THE GENERAL STORES WAREHOUSE HAD A TURNOVER RATE OF LESS THAN FOUR IN FISCAL YEARS 2006-2007 AND 2005-2006 AND 383 ITEMS IN FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 HAD A TURNOVER RATE OF LESS THAN ONE. THE HIGH NUMBER OF LOW TURNOVER ITEMS INDICATES OVERSUPPLY IN THE WAREHOUSE OF LOW DEMAND ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED TO MINIMIZE WAREHOUSE COSTS AND/OR OVER-ORDERING OF ITEMS THAT ARE IN DEMAND, REPRESENTING SPENDING FOR THOSE ITEMS BEYOND WHAT IS NEEDED, UNNECESSARILY TYING UP DISTRICT CASH. Many warehouse items in the high volume Top 30 selling categories were found to (cid:137) have low inventory turnover rates, indicating over-ordering. Another indicator of this is the average of 4.2 months worth of stock maintained in the warehouse for 239 of the Top 30 items. This appears to be excessive since District policy is to maintain three months worth of stock for each item. Further, most vendors can reportedly - 164 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report deliver their orders within one month, indicating that the District quantity ordering policy is also higher than needed. District suggestions that high turnover rates are due to unexpected changes in (cid:137) demand due to grant funded art and sports programs is not supported by inventory data that shows a small percentage of sports and arts supplies had high turnover in FISCAL YEAR 2006-07. The District does not have a systematic analytical approach to adding new items to (cid:137) inventory. Materiel Management Branch (MMB) staff do get suggestions and input from District customers and Buyers but analysis of non-stock and Procurement Card product purchase data are not conducted for this purpose, potentially leaving the warehouse without products that its customers want. Based on these findings, it is recommended that District management should: Recommendation 2.1: Direct Inventory Management staff to analyze and quarterly report to warehouse management all warehouse items that have turnover rates of less than one in a year or less than two for two consecutive years. Recommendation 2.2: Direct warehouse management to develop a policy to remove all items with turnover rates of two or less for two consecutive years unless there are documented unusual circumstances warranting retention of the items. Recommendation 2.4: Direct Inventory Management staff to develop a systematic approach to analyzing District consumption patterns using non- stock requisition and Procurement Card purchase data to identify items being purchased at such a level that it would make economic sense to stock the item in the warehouse. ommendation 2.3: Direct Inventory Management staff to analyze procurement quantities for all warehouse items and to establish lower order quantities for most items based on actual annual disbursement quantities, prices and the cost of storing the items, possibly using a computer-based Economic Order Quantity formula or another structured, systematic, data- based approach. - 165 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report SECTION 3: WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT OF LOST OR UNACCOUNTED FOR PRODUCTS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE INVENTORY ADJUSTMENTS RESULTING FROM THE (cid:137) ANNUAL PHYSICAL COUNT AND ADJUSTMENTS TO INVENTORY RECORDS MADE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WERE VALUED AT $2.9 MILLION, OR 18 PERCENT OF AVERAGE INVENTORY VALUE IN FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007. THIS RATE EXCEEDS THE STANDARD INVENTORY ADJUSTMENT BENCHMARK OF TEN PERCENT AND RAISES THE RISK OF THE WAREHOUSES BEING UNABLE TO MEET CUSTOMER DEMAND AND OF THEFT OR MISUSE OF DISTRICT ASSETS. THIS AMOUNT IS NOT REPORTED TO DISTRICT MANAGEMENT TO MEASURE AND IMPROVE ON WAREHOUSE PERFORMANCE. Independent On-site Warehouse Inventory Tests conducted for this audit showed (cid:137) significant discrepancies between the District’s electronic inventory records and amounts found in the warehouses. Staff training for the annual physical count is not sufficient. Ongoing inventory (cid:137) adjustments reported and recorded by warehouse staff are not independently verified by the Job Cost Accounting Section staff to ensure their legitimacy. Order error inventory adjustments are made to electronic inventory records by warehouse staff without review or verification by independent non-warehouse staff. Deficiencies were found in the order filling processes at each warehouse with (cid:137) potential impact on the accuracy of inventory records maintained electronically. These deficiencies include: the absence of verification of order accuracy in the individual commodities being shipped from the warehouses; and, a computer inventory tracking system that is often inconsistent with the actual movement of inventory. The District’s Maintenance Warehouse must use two separate computer systems to (cid:137) process Maintenance Warehouse stock orders and inventory adjustments. Based on these findings, it is recommended that District management should: Recommendation 3.1: Direct staff to prepare an annual report for management presenting year-to-year gross dollar and commodity unit discrepancies, rather than net discrepancies as is currently reported between inventory records and actual inventory found in the warehouses, as part of the annual Business Service’s Division Service Efforts and Accomplishments. - 166 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation 3.2: Direct staff to prepare formal written policies and procedures to improve internal controls over the annual physical count including enhanced staff training for the process, adding periodic cycle counts to the control processes where randomly selected items are spot counted during the year and enhanced documentation and independent verification by the Job Cost Accounting Section of all inventory adjustments resulting from the annual physical count and others proposed during the year by warehouse staff. Use of outside contractors for the annual inventory count should also be considered. Recommendation 3.3: Delegate responsibility to the Materiel Management Branch and warehouse managers to reduce the gross discrepancy levels at the warehouses from the current 18 percent to at least 10 percent and preferably lower over the next two years and to submit written reports to executive management once a year on progress in accomplishing this goal. Recommendation 3.4: Direct warehouse management to develop a formal data entry process and inventory controls for the District’s Integrated Financial System (IFS) electronic inventory management system and for each warehouse’s order filling procedures, starting with the entry point of an order by a customer to creating greater accuracy checks against item control sheets and detailed item pick and issue tickets generated by IFS and performing and documenting spot checks for order accuracy before orders are shipped from the warehouses. Recommendation 3.5: Direct Materiel Management Branch staff to determine the costs and benefits of modifying the Maintenance Warehouse’s MAXIMO software so that Maintenance inventory order data is recorded in sufficient detail and merged with IFS to ensure that consistent and accurate inventory updates are made in both systems. - 167 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report SECTION 4: MANAGEMENT OF OBSOLETE ITEMS IN THE SALVAGE WAREHOUSE Warehouse staff currently do not electronically compile or keep track of a tally of the (cid:137) salvage/obsolete items that are delivered to the warehouse, resulting in a lack of a formalized accounting of the number, types, and values of the obsolete and salvage materials and equipment delivered to the Salvage Warehouse. Currently, the only tracking system in place involves the filing of the physical copies of the Transportation Order forms, which are grouped alphabetically by school sites and by fiscal quarter. The Salvage Warehouse lacks formal policies and procedures for reconciling the (cid:137) number of items picked-up at the schools and offices with the number of items that are actually delivered to the Salvage Warehouse. As such, no formal accounting of salvage and obsolete items takes place, which increases the risk of misuse or theft of salvage and obsolete items. Similarly, some items that schools or offices have requested for pick up are not delivered to the Salvage Warehouse without documented explanation. The District’s Salvage Warehouse lacks policies and procedures for how to group (cid:137) and classify salvage and obsolete items received at the Salvage Warehouse, increasing the risk of misuse or theft of such items. Formal standards are not in place for determining which materials should be dumped, recycled, sold or auctioned, or retained by the warehouse staff for reuse by other District schools and offices. The District lacks standards for how Salvage Warehouse staff assigns base asking (cid:137) prices to items that are to be sold or auctioned. Base prices are established solely based on staff’s opinion of the value of items to be sold, potentially resulting in under- or over-valuing District assets. The Salvage Warehouse will lose approximately $300,000 in revenue in Fiscal Year (cid:137) 2007-2008, or approximately 61 percent of its total revenue, previously generated from auctioning District computers and peripherals. The District now has entered in to an agreement transferring that equipment to Apple Computer, Incorporated who has guaranteed that no confidential data from the devices will be released and all equipment will be disposed of without environmental harm. District staff could not report if the benefits of this new arrangement offsets the loss in revenues, which will increase the net costs of warehouse operations. District contracts for hauling and wood disposal were not reviewed as they could not (cid:137) be produced by District staff. - 168 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Based on these findings, it is recommended that District management should: Recommendation 4.1: Establish formal and consistent written policies and procedures for tracking and processing items that were not picked-up by the drivers or where quantities delivered are different than the amount originally requested by the District school or office. Recommendation 4.2: Establish and implement written policies and procedures that include guidelines for systematically and electronically keeping a tally and tracking information regarding all salvage and obsolete items that are delivered to the Salvage Warehouse. At a minimum, the District should electronically input the following information from the Transportation Order forms: (a) item description; (b) serial numbers; (c) the quantity entered by the school/office; (d) the quantity that actually arrived at the warehouse; (e) consistent grouping classification; (f) relevant date; and, (g) form numbers. The Salvage Warehouse should then use these Transportation Order data to keep track of the items on an ongoing basis and generate reports on Salvage Warehouse items and activities. Recommendation 4.3: Establish standards for assigning base asking prices to items that are to be sold or auctioned to continue the feasibility of meeting the 50 percent cost recovery goal from auction revenues of operational costs. Recommendation 4.4: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of alternative options to destroy end-of-life electronic assets in an environmentally-sound manner, with the goal to determine ways to recuperate the lost auction revenue associated with computer and electronic sales. Recommendation 4.5: Establish contracts with one or more vendors governing hauling and wood disposal. Table E.1 on the next page presents a summary of estimated savings resulting from implementation of the audit recommendations. As shown, estimated one-time savings are between $390,000 and $1.1 million. Estimated annual savings are between $10.7 and $11.8 million per year. Additional savings are possible because some of the audit analysis that the estimates are based on stemmed from limited samples. - 169 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Table E.1 Estimated savings based on audit sample and other analyses Estimated Estimated one- annual Recommendation time savings* savings* 1.1: Require that the Purchasing Branch enforce the District’s restriction on purchasing Top 30 items from sources other than District warehouses by: (a) reviewing P-Card transactions to identify Top 30 purchase violations as part of the P-Card Unit’s audit $1.7 - 2.8 function; (b) developing and communicating million/year+ formal, written policies and procedures regarding District non-stock purchasing processes; and, (c) implementing internal management controls to monitor, track, and document staff compliance with and enforcement of these polices and procedures. 1.3: Direct Purchasing Branch management to require that all Buyers document and report their contacts with schools and offices to $7.7 attempt to redirect non-stock requisitions for million/year+ outside vendors to the warehouse for items identical to or like those available in the warehouse at lower cost. 2.3: Direct Inventory Management staff to analyze procurement quantities for all warehouse items and to establish lower order quantities for most items based on actual $390,000 - $1.1 annual disbursement quantities, prices and the million+ cost of storing the items, possibly using a computer-based Economic Order Quantity formula or another structured, systematic, data- based approach. 3.3: Delegate responsibility to the Materiel Management Branch and warehouse managers to reduce the gross discrepancy levels at the warehouses from the current 18 $1.3 percent to at least 10 percent and preferably million/year lower over the next two years and to submit written reports to executive management once a year on progress in accomplishing this goal. $390,000 - $1.1 $10.7 – 11.8 Total million+ million/year+ * A + sign indicates that the estimated savings were based on analysis of a limited sample and that the actual savings could be greater. END OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY METHODOLOGY SECTION FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE - 170 - 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report