Los Angeles County Grand Jury
2008-2009
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
1 Neither the County nor Adult Protective Services (APS) currently has a strategic plan in place with specific goals, objectives, targets, fiscal needs and plans and outcome measures to guide the provision of services and programs for the prevention and intervention of elder and dependent adult abuse for the next several years.
F2:
1 Current outreach conducted by APS is more reactive than proactive and not based on any analysis of demographic data showing where the risk of abuse or need for services may be greatest.
F3:
1 While APS program management has established a comprehensive ongoing training curriculum for its social work staff, adherence to the training curriculum does not appear to be taking place. The Department does not have any documentation indicating that all of the trainings have been presented or which APS social work staff attended them.
F4:
1 Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) oversight of the Community and Senior Services’ (CSS) performance in administering the Adult Protective Services (APS) program lacks a comprehensive analysis of client outcome measures.
F5:
1 A program is in place that provides preventive services to a population defined as at risk of elder abuse at two County medical facilities. The program has not been established at the County’s three other medical facilities.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1 – The Director of Community and Senior Services The Director of Community and Senior Services should develop a framework by June 2010 for preparing an elder and dependent adult abuse strategic plan specific to Adult Protective Services that addresses expected future growth in the elder population and 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 317 related funding needs, using the plans from the Long-Term Care Coordinating Council and the Area Agency on Aging as models.
R2:
1.1 – The Director of Community and Senior Services The Director of Community and Senior Services should direct APS management, by June 2010, to analyze third party research and its own data on reports of abuse and referrals to field offices to determine where the risk of abuse and need for services is greatest and then target community and media outreach accordingly.
R3:
1 - The Director of Community and Senior Services The Director of Community and Senior Services should develop control mechanisms by June 2010 to ensure that all Social Workers receive the required minimum level of ongoing training and outside agencies provide a minimum number of trainings to APS workers.
R4:
1 - The Director of the Department of Public Social Services The Director of the Department of Public Social Services should coordinate with APS management to expand the Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan compliance reviews, by June 2010, to include a review of outcome measures such as prosecution, restitution, and conservatorships as well as a comparative analysis of risk levels at initial intake and case closing.
R5:
1 – The Directors of Community and Senior Services and the Department of Health Services The Directors of Community and Senior Services and the Department of Health Services should confirm the effectiveness of results of the “Early, Medical-based Detection of Elders and Dependent Adults who have been Abused and/or Neglected” program at two County hospitals and approach the Department of Health Services about expanding the program to at least the Department’s three other major medical facilities and possibly other private facilities in the County by June 2010.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
No management system is in place at DCFS to ensure that all medical records are entered into CWS/CMS for CSW monitoring and follow up.
F2:
1.1 The number and professional skills of staff and funding allocations to the Hub Clinics vary considerably between facilities, resulting in wide variations in cost-effectiveness, equitable caseloads and productivity.
F3:
1 Foster parents and caregivers have expressed to Hub Clinic staff the need for a summary fact sheet listing age specific developmental stages and instructions for the care of children.
F4:
1.1 DHS’s oversight of the Hub Clinics has resulted in variations and omissions in key management systems including the absence of a strategic plan, goals and objectives, outcome measures for the Hub Clinic system and budgets for each clinic.
F5:
1.1 At least two Hubs currently have comprehensive assessment capacity. In some cases, they are duplicating aspects of the assessments conducted by MAT providers and the Department of Mental Health.
F6:
1.1 The new LAC+USC Medical Center has fewer licensed pediatric beds than the old facility had though the number of budgeted beds actually being used is approximately the same.
F7:
Case files and medical records for children who have changes in placement and/or CSW are often slow in getting to the corresponding Public Health Nurse to enable their monitoring of the child’s medical information.
F8:
Public Health Nurse input on cases depends on CSWs seeking them out for advice and input. As a result of these factors, children in the child welfare system do not always receive consistent medical case management and oversight. The Hub Clinics Have the Capability of Serving as Medical Homes or Medical Overseers for Children at Greatest Risk Medically or of Being Repeat Victims of Abuse There are systemic improvements that could be made at DCFS to improve the existing medical oversight and case management function. Another option to consider to better ensure medical oversight and continuity of care is establishing the Hub Clinics as medical home for at least some DCFS supervised children such as those with the most complex medical conditions and/or victims of sexual abuse. This, in fact, is supposed to 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 99 be one of the purposes of the Hub Clinics as capacity allows, according to the Memorandum of Understanding between DCFS and the Department of Health Services. Specifically, the Memorandum of Understanding states that, As capacity permits, the Medical Hubs may provide follow-up medical care for children with identified or complex medical needs which would benefit from management by a Medical Hub. This may include serving as a “medical home” for some DCFS involved children.5 “Medical home” characteristics have been defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics as: “…accessible, continuous, comprehensive, family centered, coordinated, compassionate, and culturally effective. It should be delivered or directed by well-trained physicians who provide primary care and help to manage and facilitate essentially all aspects of pediatric care.”6 Discussions with Hub Clinic administrators confirmed this definition. They indicated that their understanding of “medical home” includes facilitating pediatric care. Many Children in the Child Welfare System Qualify as Having Special Health Care Needs and Need Comprehensive Coordinated Care The American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement goes on to quote the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as stating in its Healthy People 2010 goals and objectives that: “…all children with special health care needs will receive regular ongoing comprehensive care within a medical home.” “Special health care needs” is the term used by the federal Maternal and Child Health Bureau for children “who have or are at increased risk for a chronic physical, developmental or behavioral or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children generally.” Academic and other studies have found that between 50 and 95 percent of children in foster care have medical conditions requiring attention upon entry into the child welfare system; that approximately 25 percent have three or more conditions; and that moderate to severe mental health and behavioral problems are prevalent, with between 40 and 60 percent having at least one psychiatric disorder. Chronic medical conditions, mental health problems, dental problems and developmental delays are all common7. FY 2008-09 Memorandum of Understanding between DCFS and the Department of Health Services for Countywide Medical Hub Clinics. Policy Statement: The Medical Home, Pediatrics 2002; 110(1):184-186, American Academy of Pediatrics, reaffirmed in Pediatrics 2008; 122(2):450. See: National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being # 7: Special Health Care Needs Among Children in Child Welfare, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007; and A Guide to Developing Health Care Systems for Children in Foster Care, UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, November 2001. 100 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report The Hub Clinics, in conjunction with the Public Health Nurses, could serve as medical homes for at least those children with special health care needs and those victims of sexual abuse who do not otherwise have a medical home through their current medical providers. The Hub Clinics and Public Health Nurses could together provide compre- hensive, continuous care, coordination of services and ongoing oversight. Discussions with Hub Clinic administrators confirmed that they have the expertise to be effective medical homes for foster children and youth. In addition, DCFS Social Workers, Public Health Nurses, and their supervisors and administrators, as well as Hub Clinic staff and administrators all repeatedly identified the clinics as the most qualified medical settings for foster children and youth. A secondary benefit of the Hub Clinics serving as medical homes is that clinic staff are trained and highly skilled at detecting signs of child abuse and neglect. This same level of expertise cannot be assumed for community providers. Hub Clinics Not Needed for All Children at Medical Risk but Should Be Used for Highest Medical Risk Children Who Lack Medical Homes While some children in the child welfare system undoubtedly have “medical homes” with community providers with whom they have ongoing relationships, many children do not, particularly those who end up changing placements while they are in the system. If these children also have special health care needs, they are even more at risk. Hub Clinic administrators interviewed for this investigation indicated that they would be open to the concept of serving as medical home for children in the DCFS system. A key concern expressed by some administrators was whether they had the capacity to serve all of these children on an ongoing basis. While all children in the child welfare system would benefit from having a medical home, not all children in the child welfare system, even those with special health care needs, need to have the Hub Clinics and their highly specialized teams serve as their medical homes. Some may be relatively healthy and well-served by community providers. Others may not be able to access Hub Clinics easily because of transportation issues and/or the nearest Hub Clinic being a long distance from their homes. Still others may have a relationship with a community medical provider whom they trust. Also, not all children in the DCFS system are under court supervision. Children in the DCFS system include those under Voluntary Family Maintenance, which means they get services through DCFS on a voluntary basis. These families have the freedom to choose any provider they wish as the court does not order them to see a particular provider. While there appears to be some excess capacity at certain Hub Clinics, as discussed in Section 2 of this report, expansion of staff and/or facilities might be needed at other Hubs if they were to accommodate all children needing medical homes. This consideration points to the need for a tiered approach to creating medical homes so that children needing close medical attention receive more intensive, ongoing care by the Hub Clinics as their medical home while other children receive less intensive direct service but some oversight through periodic Hub Clinic visits and reassessments. Combined with some system changes at DCFS to ensure more consistent oversight and coordination of medical services by Public Health Nurses and CSWs, more children in the system would realize the benefits of a medical home. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 101 DCFS statistics from the past three years show that there has been a yearly average of 635 cases classified as having special health care needs and 679 sexual abuse cases per year for an average of 1,306 cases, some of which might benefit from having the Hub Clinics serve as their medical home. While some number of these children may be ongoing patients at the Hub Clinics, it is assumed that most are being seen by community providers. Depending on the number of children who transfer to the Hub Clinics as their medical home and the frequency with which they schedule appointments, this could represent a sharp increase in activity at some of the clinics. However, these children now are primarily seen by private community providers and, as stated above, may have established medical homes through them. For children with special health care needs or who are victims of sexual abuse and don’t have a medical home, the Hub Clinics should be advocated for ongoing treatment. DCFS would need to develop risk criteria to identify such cases. Besides having special health care needs or being the victims of sexual abuse, other factors to consider could include frequent changes in placement, no established medical provider and other characteristics. The CSW, in collaboration with the assigned PHN for these cases, could assess the situation and make recommendations to the court so that children who meet these criteria will be required to obtain their medical services at a Hub Clinic. As this transition takes place and the number of new patients and patient visits for the Hub Clinics are determined, it may require staffing additions at some of the facilities. Presently, most direct costs of the Hub Clinics are recovered from Medi-Cal billings such that new positions added to see more patients should also recover the majority of their costs. However, some costs may be incurred as positions may need to be added to accommodate increases in caseload before the number of patients is sufficient to ensure full cost recovery through Medi-Cal. One-time costs may be incurred for space reconfigurations or expansions. Stronger Systems and Controls Needed at DCFS to Ensure Consistent Medical Case Management and Oversight In addition to directing children who meet certain criteria to the Hub Clinics for their medical home, recommended systemic changes at DCFS to improve medical case management and coordination for other children in the system include the following:
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
No management system is in place at DCFS to ensure that all medical records are entered into CWS/CMS for CSW monitoring and follow up.
R2:
1 – The Director of the Department of Health Services The Director of the Department of Health Services should, by June 2010, establish staffing, service level, funding, service mix and outcome standards for the Hub Clinics using formulae based on the number and nature of patient visits and services, with input from Hub Clinic directors and the Department of Children and Family Services.
R3:
1 – The Director of the Department of Children and Family Services The Director of the Department of Children and Family Services should direct the CSWs and PHNs to create age-specific information sheets to be given to foster parents or caregivers at the time the detained child is placed in their care. These sheets should be sized for easy access, such as for posting on a refrigerator or note-board, and give in- formation listing normal behavior and expectations and also what steps should be taken in emergencies.
R4:
1 – The Director of the Department of Health Services The Director of the Department of Health Services should delegate management oversight responsibility to an existing manager for all Hub Clinic operations by the end of 2009 to include development of: a) a County-wide strategic plan; b) system-wide policies and procedures and outcome measures; c) individual facility budget tracking systems; and d) a capacity tracking system. Hub Clinic directors should report directly to this manager in addition to their clinical reporting relationships.
R5:
1.1 – The Directors of the Departments of Children and Family Services, Health Services and Mental Health The Directors of the Departments of Children and Family Services, Health Services and Mental Health should enter into an agreement wherein the Hub Clinics with the professional capabilities would become DMH-contracted MAT Providers and perform MAT assessments for children they see, whenever possible to be implemented by the end of 2009.
R6:
1.1 – The Director of the Department of Health Services The Director of the Department of Health Services should direct senior staff to collaborate with DCFS and LAC+USC management to prepare alternative plans by the end of 2009 to ensure sufficient and appropriate pediatric inpatient capacity at the facility given the projected pediatric patient population in coming years, including more foster youth using the Hub Clinics.
R7:
Case files and medical records for children who have changes in placement and/or CSW are often slow in getting to the corresponding Public Health Nurse to enable their monitoring of the child’s medical information.
R8:
Public Health Nurse input on cases depends on CSWs seeking them out for advice and input. As a result of these factors, children in the child welfare system do not always receive consistent medical case management and oversight. The Hub Clinics Have the Capability of Serving as Medical Homes or Medical Overseers for Children at Greatest Risk Medically or of Being Repeat Victims of Abuse There are systemic improvements that could be made at DCFS to improve the existing medical oversight and case management function. Another option to consider to better ensure medical oversight and continuity of care is establishing the Hub Clinics as medical home for at least some DCFS supervised children such as those with the most complex medical conditions and/or victims of sexual abuse. This, in fact, is supposed to 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 99 be one of the purposes of the Hub Clinics as capacity allows, according to the Memorandum of Understanding between DCFS and the Department of Health Services. Specifically, the Memorandum of Understanding states that, As capacity permits, the Medical Hubs may provide follow-up medical care for children with identified or complex medical needs which would benefit from management by a Medical Hub. This may include serving as a “medical home” for some DCFS involved children.5 “Medical home” characteristics have been defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics as: “…accessible, continuous, comprehensive, family centered, coordinated, compassionate, and culturally effective. It should be delivered or directed by well-trained physicians who provide primary care and help to manage and facilitate essentially all aspects of pediatric care.”6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F2:
1 With high school graduation rates for 12th graders among the lowest in the entire State, the LAUSD has placed great emphasis on improving that percentage.
F3:
1.1 In 1999, the LAUSD BOE unanimously passed a resolution to reinstate arts for all students in all grade levels, in all schools and in all four art forms. In the same year LAUSD created an arts education branch that was dedicated to delivering on that promise. In response to both actions the Wallace Foundation provided a grant of $600,000 to develop a plan to deliver on the promise. Nine years later only 25% of elementary students in LAUSD receive regular arts instruction. 3.2 LAUSD – Current Challenges LAUSD is facing a $700 million budget short-fall this fiscal year and the possibility of a $300 million budget short-fall next year. As a result, these budget reductions will impact every aspect of LAUSD operations. In addition to cuts that impact direct instruction at the school level, District administration has proposed a major reduction of personnel that will result in severe organizational re-structuring. LAUSD has publicly stated that its dedication to arts education instruction is steadfast and it will, therefore, not seek to cut arts programs. On the federal level, President Obama has recently declared that even a high school graduation is not enough for those entering the work force if they have any hope of meeting the demands of the 21st century. The President has gone further and suggested that a national policy be established that would encourage one full year of schooling past high school graduation, if our children are going to make a meaningful contribution to the global economic marketplace. Given that commitment, it is easy to understand why the recently announced Federal stimulus package will include a budget supplement of more than $800 million over the next two years for LAUSD. As yet unannounced is the portion of this supplement that might be allocated to arts education. Unfortunately, the budget reduction plans, as currently designed, include a dramatic re- organization of the Arts Education Branch, including the elimination of the Director level administrative position. An Administrative Coordinator is slated to fill this role. In 12 Wallace Foundation press release of October 28, 2008. Wallace Foundation press release. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 229 addition, the eight local district level administrative coordinating positions are destined for elimination.14 With such dramatic staff reductions in the central administrative structure, the ability to continue to deliver the quality of performance that led to the follow-up grant from the Wallace Foundation must be questioned. According to LAUSD administration, the new arts high school, currently designated Central L.A. High School #9, is probably the most expensive high school construction project in the nation. Because of LAUSD's commitment to arts education, in addition to past significant planning and cost issues associated with the new school, the responsibility for oversight of all aspects of the project, going forward, will be assumed by the Superintendent. This level of direct involvement in such a project at the highest level of LAUSD administration is unusual and might very well be precedent-setting.
F4:
1 A sequential and continuous arts education program, especially if introduced early in a child’s life, does produce significant and meaningful increases in academic performance. Further, children who receive such exposure are able to concentrate for longer periods of time, have fewer disruptive behavioral problems, achieve higher scores in standardized tests, graduate at higher rates and are accepted for entry into four-year post-secondary institutions of higher learning in greater numbers. In addition, such a program also has a long-term impact on the positive contributions that the child can and will make later in life.18 5.0 Local Activities Los Angeles is a center for the creative and entertainment industries, with the film and television businesses being prime examples. It is not surprising that there are many local “feeder” opportunities for students and professionals alike. California Institute of Arts (CalArts) and The Coburn School are two renowned examples. Here are a few other promising examples of such opportunities. 5.1 Renaissance Arts Academy (RenArts) Located in Eagle Rock and established in 2003, as of 2008 this LAUSD charter school educates 290 students in grades 6-12. Its mission is to provide an integrated classical education through rigorous academic inquiry, collaborative small-group instruction, and professionally guided arts training. Selection for admission is strictly on a lottery system, due to a greater demand than spaces available. Students live in thirty different zip codes throughout the County and are 54% Hispanic, 29% Caucasian, 12% African American, 3% Asian/Pacific Islanders and 2% Native American.19 Academic instruction follows federal and state-mandated requirements and students are placed in each subject class in accordance with their achievement rather than grade level. That environment results in classes that have 10-15 students from a variety of different grade levels but similar levels of accomplishment. Catterall, J.S., R. Chapleau, and J. Iwanaga. Information included by RenArts in their Bravo Award entry application, 2008. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 233 Along with the requirement to take the state-mandated academic core subjects, all students at RenArts must either learn to play a stringed instrument or to study dance. Only 5% of those entering students have had any prior experience with either. Students receive over 10 hours of instruction per week, during the regular school day, in music or dance and daily homework assignments are replaced with home instrumental or dance practice. With a curriculum that is “non-traditional”, one can assume there is a self- selection process that results in a student population that is talented and not typical of most public schools. In 2008, the school had an Annual Performance Index (API) of 858, the highest of any high school within the LAUSD system.20 The API score is a measure of the combined achievement and accomplishment of the entire student body. In addition, RenArts had a 100% graduation rate as well as a 100% passage of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Both of these results are above those achieved at other LAUSD high schools as well as the average for the District. What conclusions can be drawn from these results? While it may be difficult to point only to the significant exposure to and involvement in music or dance for the students, it is certainly reasonable to deduce that this element is a contributing factor to their achievement. Are there others? Of course. The individual student, the size of the classes, the emphasis placed on education at home, the pressure to be involved and to succeed that is placed on students by their peers as well as the experience and background of the teachers are factors in attaining such impressive results. However, involvement in music, dance and the arts is most certainly a factor. 5.2 Inner-City Arts Founded in 1989, Inner-City Arts works in partnership with LAUSD to bring elementary and middle school students to their campus during the school day for instruction in the visual and performing arts. The number of students served annually has steadily grown over the years and now stands at 8,000 of the city’s most at-risk youths, grade K-8. Located in the heart of Skid Row, Inner-City Arts students are the children of the working poor. Most live at or below the poverty level. The campus represents an oasis where professional artists teach students in a real studio environment. As indicated in the Inner-City Arts literature, programs last 75 minutes and are held for LAUSD students who are bused in twice a week from nearby schools. Each of the various classes runs for 8 weeks and accommodates an entire class of students including the teacher from the “home” school. In 2001, Inner-City Arts received the prestigious Coming Up Taller Award from the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities that recognized the contribution that the Center was making to the local community. As Bob Bates, the Co-founder said: “Our students are encouraged to explore and take risks. They learn to work with their strengths and limitations and mistakes are part of the creative process, merely road signs along a path of lifetime learning. By overcoming challenges, our students begin to recognize their potential in an ever-changing world.” 20 RenArts Bravo Award entry application. 234 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report With the commitment and energy exhibited by the staff and attending students, it is not surprising that an evaluation of Inner-City Arts by the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies provided conclusive evidence that classes in which teachers and children actively participated side by side in programs scored dramatically better in math, reading and language arts on statewide standardized tests than children with no association with Inner-City Arts.21 It is also not surprising that studies show that arts programs, such as Inner-City Arts, help retain students and eliminate the achievement gap. Research has shown that the arts can play a uniquely transformative role for students who are having trouble achieving academically through more conventional means.22 5.3 Arts for All Established by the Los Angeles County Arts Commission (LACAC) on July 15, 2002, Arts for All has the mission to “bring about systemic change in the school Districts of Los Angeles County in order to implement comprehensive, sequential K-12 arts education for every public school student, adopting curricula in alignment with the State Board of Education-approved Visual and Performing Arts Framework and Standards” (emphasis added). The vision of Arts for All is to provide to every public school student in the County a high-quality education of which the arts are an intrinsic part. They recognize that such an achievement will: • strengthen a child’s academic growth and development • prepare a child to make a positive contribution to the community • ensure a creative and competitive workforce will be able to meet the economic opportunities of the present and the future A sequential curriculum is one that is cumulative, with each unit of learning building upon the previous one. This means providing “repeated exposure to processes, content, concepts, questions and the opportunity to solve increasingly challenging problems as skills grow.”24 The vision of Arts for All extends beyond sequential instruction to recommend art instruction during the school day be included in the budget of every County school district.25 21 Evaluation results showed student Stanford 9 scores increased 17.8% in reading, 8.3% in language arts and 25% in mathematics. “Title VII, Project ALL Arts for Language and Learning, 1998-2002”, April 2002, Funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development. Edited by Richard J. Deasy. Arts Education Partnership, National Endowment for the Arts and the U.S. Department of Education, 2002. Los Angeles County Regional Blueprint for Arts Education, published by LACAC, 2008. Arts Curriculum Framework web site, Mass. Department of Education, www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/arts/1996/princ.html. Los Angeles County Regional Blueprint for Arts Education. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 235 Arts for All was adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in 2002. At that time, the LAUSD arts education initiative, established in 1999, was already three years old. LACAC reports that in the nine years since the establishment of the LAUSD program, the forward movement shown in arts education in the District has been “remarkable.”26 In measure after measure, Arts for All reports progress in achieving its goals. Perhaps most importantly, the results achieved support the contention that “the importance of laying a firm foundation for sequential arts education cannot be overemphasized.”27 The report goes on to say that “the arts coordinator provides pivotal leadership to drive implementation.”28 5.4 Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) LACOE is governed by the Los Angeles County Board of Education whose members are appointed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. While LACOE is driven, in large measure, to assist the 80 separate school districts within Los Angeles County in instituting the policies that are mandated by the State Board of Education, it is also involved in assisting districts in the implementation of the Federal mandates of the NCLB Act of 2001. NCLB mandates that all core subjects must be taught during the school day. For the first time, the arts were included in the list of core subjects, along with mathematics, history, science and English. Unfortunately, as school curricula become more impacted, school districts have relegated the arts to an after-school activity, thus reducing the effectiveness of the concept of sequential and continuous arts learning and exposure. In the 2006-2007 State budget a one-time block grant (AB1802/Chapter 79) of $500 million was dedicated to the Arts, Music and Physical Education. In addition, an annual block grant (AB1811/Chapter 48) of over $100 million was allocated to the Arts and Music. Both grants were distributed to school districts throughout the State. In addition to the state funds allocated for arts education, mentioned above, the Hewitt Foundation provided a grant to arts initiatives established by the California County Superintendent Educational Services Agency (CCSESA). The eleven art coordinator members of CCSESA are tasked with integration of the arts into the curriculum. It is therefore clear that the awareness of the importance of an arts education extends from the Federally mandated NCLB to the State of California as well as to the Arts Education Branch of LAUSD. 26 2008 AEPI. 27 2008 AEPI. 28 2008 AEPI. 236 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 6.0 Conclusion – A Promise Worth Keeping “In 1999, the LAUSD Board of Education (BOE) unanimously passed a resolution to reinstate arts for all students in all grade levels, in all schools and in all four art forms (music, dance, theater and visual arts).”29 As mandated by the Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the California State Board of Education and the Los Angeles Unified School District Arts Education initiative of 1999, arts education must be an integral part of the curriculum for every student. Few can dispute the value of the inclusion of such an element as one of the core curriculum subjects, along with English, mathematics, science and history. Few would disagree that providing instruction in each of these core subjects on a regular, continuous and sequential basis is the appropriate mechanism for maximizing the opportunity for learning. With respect to arts education, study after study has shown that a continuous and sequential exposure is the most effective way of achieving benefits that go beyond the arts activity itself. Long-term longitudinal studies have clearly established the direct relationship between the introduction of arts education early in students’ careers with their ability to concentrate, to focus on learning, to achieve higher scores on standardized tests and to stay in school longer.30 Additionally, such exposure has other non-academic, long-term and positive effects on growth, maturity and involvement. Experience has demonstrated that those with such exposure vote and volunteer more often, learn to work collaboratively more effectively and get accepted to four-year post- secondary education institutions in higher numbers.31 The Wallace Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to expanding participation in the arts nationwide, recognized the proposed direction of LAUSD in 1999 with a $600,000 grant. This grant was awarded following the unanimous passage on July 22, 1999 by the LAUSD Board of Education of a resolution to “reinstate the arts for all students, at all grade levels, in all schools, in all art forms.”32 During the past 9 years, the vision of guaranteeing a student’s right to a comprehensive, coherent, sequential arts education has begun to be delivered.33 In response to this successful beginning, the Wallace Foundation has again agreed to a second grant of $600,000 to extend the original LAUSD vision for another 10 years beginning in September 2009. This extension clearly demonstrates the support and respect that the Foundation has for the efforts and success of the first 10-year program. The results of the first 10 years were achieved at LAUSD with the establishment of a dedicated, centralized Arts Education Branch. It is therefore important to continue to deliver the positive results throughout the District through the administration of a centralized vision, strategic plan, and management structure. Arts Education Branch Strategic Plan. Catterall, J.S., R. Chapleau, and J. Iwanaga. Catterall, J.S., R. Chapleau, and J. Iwanaga. LAUSD application to the Wallace Foundation for a second 10-year grant of $600,000. Wallace Foundation press release of October 28, 2008. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 237 It is instructive to note that LAUSD continues to emphasize the importance of increasing the rate of passage of the CAHSEE, as well as the graduation rate for high school seniors and a reduction of the dropout rate for all grades. With the positive results that have been established by others through their independent, long-term longitudinal studies, the direct link between arts education and academic achievement has been proven. It is also clear that local activities involved in the delivery of intensive arts instruction support the direct link. “…the County is at a critical juncture in bringing back the arts to its schools on a truly systemic basis. In community after community, educators have demonstrated a commitment to restoring arts education in their school Districts, recognizing the vital importance of the arts in preparing students for the region’s creative economy. In the face of impending enormous state budget cuts, it is critical that local education leaders stay the course and preserve the foundation that has been built to support quality arts education. To do otherwise would be to deprive another generation of students of the well-rounded education essential for the economy of the future.” 34 34 2008 AEPI. 238 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 2009 – A DECISIVE YEAR FOR ARTS EDUCATION AT LAUSD A Promise Worth Keeping FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
2.1 – LAUSD Board of Education The LAUSD Board of Education should reaffirm its 1999 resolution prior to the implementation of the second 10-year plan to provide a sequential arts education for all students, at all grade levels, in all schools, in all four art forms. Reaffirmation of the resolution will provide clear Board policy direction for LAUSD administration. The robust implementation of a second 10-year Plan would predictably result in additional significant increases in the number of schools meeting the directive that will hopefully lead to continued increases in meeting district-wide goals for both graduation rates and CAHSEE results.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
DCFS facilities housing foster care children had appropriate documented plans and procedures for handling youths during a disaster. In addition, fire drills were performed and documented on a routine (monthly) basis. Although they did not meet the state deadline for implementation, DCFS has prepared and distributed their CWSDR Plan.
F2:
Although Probation department camps and juvenile halls were conducting monthly fire drills and do have formal written emergency plans, the department itself had not prepared the required CWSDR Plan, and its emergency plan did not address the issues in Recommendations 3 through 6 below.
F3:
Three camp sites did not have emergency generators to power lights, refrigerators and other camp equipment. Since the camps are in remote areas of the County, a power outage would make them solely reliant on batteries, therefore limiting the period of time the camp staff and detainees could be sheltered before they could be evacuated.
F4:
There was no evidence that breathing masks and goggles were available and distributed at Camp Holton during the Merek fire to minimize the impact of breathing problems during the emergency. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 275
F5:
The Probation Department plan does not specify who will provide secure transportation in the event an evacuation is required. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has buses which are designed to move inmates securely. Because of the risk of escape, unsecured buses are not a viable option.
F6:
Based on the Merek fire transcript, the primary access route to Camp Holton was blocked by downed power lines. In the event an evacuation had been ordered, buses would have been prevented from reaching the camp.
F7:
The Auditor-Controller does not have in their DCFS Group Home Program Review Checklist specific procedures to ensure each foster care facility has a complete and current version of the LIC 610 Disaster Plan and a log of fire drills conducted.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
– Director of DCFS The Director of DCFS should incorporate relevant sections of their plan into all new standard contracts with group homes, foster care families and foster family agencies where appropriate. At a minimum, the contracts should add a section reinforcing caregiver responsibilities for preserving records and maintaining possession of the records at all times during a disaster.
R2:
– Chief Probation Officer The Chief Probation Officer should prepare their version of the CWSDR Plan within six months.
R3:
– Chief Probation Officer The Chief Probation Officer should continue with the Department’s existing plan to install a generator for Camps Miller and Kilpatrick. The Chief Probation Officer, within the next six months, should obtain a special use permit for U.S. Forestry land that would allow them to install a generator at Camp Headquarters and Camp Holton. Finally, the Chief Probation Officer should, within the next six months, install a generator at Camp Routh.
R4:
– Chief Probation Officer Accordingly, the Chief Probation Officer should, within the next six months, ensure adequate supplies of goggles and masks are stored at each facility and distributed when air quality is impaired during a brush fire or similar problem.
R5:
– Chief Probation Officer Within the next six months, the Chief Probation Officer should formalize an agreement with the Sheriff to ensure availability of buses, or explore alternative options such as acquiring a fleet of appropriately configured vehicles to evacuate at least one full camp.
R6:
– Chief Probation Officer Based on this experience, the Chief Probation Officer should, within the next six months, review each camp to ensure that there is a secondary ingress/egress route for transportation vehicles.
R7:
– Auditor-Controller The Auditor-Controller should incorporate a specific procedure to verify that each foster care facility has the two documents identified in Finding 7. 276 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report LIST OF ACRONYMS CWSDRP - California Child Welfare Services Disaster Response Plan DCFS - Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services LIC 610 - California Department of Social Services, Emergency Disaster Plan for Child Care Centers form 610 SEMS - Standardized Emergency Management System PL - Public Law
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
1 In response to information-sharing challenges, many youth-serving agencies have established Multi-Disciplinary Teams that conference on specific cases. Much like IEPs, these MDTs coordinate services provided by professionals from multiple youth- serving agencies in an attempt to ensure student success. Most MDTs require parental consent before the service providers may discuss a particular child’s case, which may result in the failure to integrate services for a significant number of at-risk youth.
F2:
1 LAUSD created the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Unit with programs such as the Diploma Project and Comprehensive Student Support to specifically target students at risk of dropping out of school, and to provide intervention services at all education levels. However, there are a small number of Diploma Project Advisors and CSS Outreach Coordinators given the size of the at-risk population. The current FY 2009-10 budget proposal recommends that the non-grant programs be eliminated.
F3:
1 Dropout Prevention and Recovery’s Diploma Project currently has only two measures that provide evidence that the program is achieving its goals: an increase in graduation rate and reduction in potential dropout list. While these two methods do show positive results, the graduation rate increase is not clearly or solely linked to the work of the Diploma Project, and the reduction in the potential dropout rate does not encompass all of the efforts or work of the DPAs.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1 – The Superintendent of LAUSD The Superintendent of LAUSD should convene a committee of program, technology, and legal representatives of relevant departments* to identify existing underutilized opportunities for information sharing as well as areas in which legislative proposals may be warranted.
R2:
1 – The Board of Education of the LAUSD The Board of Education of the LAUSD should at least continue funding for the non-grant funded portions of the Dropout Prevention Program, given the program’s significance providing intensive dropout prevention services to the most at-risk students.
R3:
1 – The Superintendent of the LAUSD The Superintendent of the LAUSD should implement, by June 2010, a comprehensive set of outcome-based objectives and performance measures that clearly link available data with program goals for the Diploma Project. 216 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
There will be no risk that they become lost.
F2:
1 Although sharing information for youth under County care is beneficial, electronic links between certain County systems are legally prohibited.
F3:
1 The Center under development at Magnolia Place is a community-based facility that offers services and support to local residents in a nurturing and welcoming manner.
F4:
1 The CGJ understands that the CEO has directed staff to evaluate the role of the CIO. This evaluation highlights the need for the role of the County CIO to be expanded and enhanced to provide a coordination point for all IT needs within the County. However, the recommendation does not include giving the County CIO the responsibility for con- ducting procurements of sophisticated information systems County-wide in conjunction with the departments which will be utilizing the systems. Procurement of sophisticated information systems requires the application of highly technical skills including: • writing functional specifications for systems • defining the skills and experience that bidding contractors must possess • drafting contracts that specify required results and threaten penalties for failures • defining how the procurement process will run • overseeing contractors’ work during the development phase • establishing and supervising acceptance criteria for the new system These skills are gained only through professional training and experience.
F5:
1 The DCEO of the Children and Families Well-Being Cluster has been tasked with spearheading the CCMS effort. The results have not yet been presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval and subsequent implementation.
F6:
1 Differing views concerning the protection of individuals’ healthcare privacy rights and sharing information openly between agencies have been voiced. Information technology can offer a solution to this dilemma.
F7:
1 The Katie A. case demonstrates how the inability or unwillingness to share vital information between departments, and bureaucratic reluctance to accept and respond to serious complaints of inadequate care-giving, can prove damaging and expensive to the County. The State’s resistance to settling their case with the plaintiff class, and to 254 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report assist in seeking solutions to the information-sharing dilemma, presents unnecessary barriers to the performance of the County’s goals.
F8:
1 Of the County departments identified in the May 9, 2007 MOU mandated by the Board of Supervisors to take action, only DCFS has implemented a policy.
F9:
1 SCAN reports at HUBs are not kept in an automated database, so, as paper documents, they are subject to being misplaced or lost when sent out to a requestor.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
8 in Figure 1). 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 245
R2:
1 – DCFS and DHS As direct electronic links between mHUB and myCSW software programs would violate the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) regulations, DCFS and DHS should set up non-electronic processes for information-sharing (See
R3:
1 – DCEO of Children and Families Well-Being Cluster The Deputy Chief Executive Officer (DCEO) of the Children and Families Well-Being Cluster should take immediate action to extend the agency cooperation concept of Magnolia Place.
R4:
1 – The County Chief Executive Officer and Chief Information Officer The CEO should mandate that the County CIO be included from the beginning in the development and procurement of all sophisticated IT systems, utilizing the CIO’s professional expertise with extensive cooperation from each user organization. There should only be very limited and specific instances, mandated by the County CIO’s office, in which user organizations may bypass CIO procurement services. The County CIO should work with the user organization at the beginning of the project development cycle to identify the respective roles and responsibilities to be assumed by the CIO and the user department staff. 5. The Comprehensive Case Management System (CCMS) A CCMS team involving representatives of 14 County departments has been formed for the purpose of creating a coordinated program for facilitating greater function and use of IT capabilities within the current legal impediments to cross-departmental information- sharing.
R5:
1 – DCEO of Children and Families Well-Being Cluster The DCEO should present the results of the coordinated CCMS effort to the Board of Supervisors as quickly as feasible for approval and implementation. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 251 6. Limitations imposed by legal restrictions A major factor confronting many County agencies that keep extensive computer-based records for youth under their care is that existing Federal and State information handling rules and privacy protection statutes actually are intended to prevent the release of patient information, except in special pre-approved circumstances. Only limited off-line, non-automated exchange and sharing of information through Multi-Disciplinary Teams is available. This is a time-consuming process requiring pre-coordination and significant paperwork. The standards for limiting information sharing have been set by several California and Federal statutes, as occasionally modified in Federal Court legal actions (see section 7.0 Katie A.) The dual purpose and effect of these rules and actions has been to provide guidelines for acquiring, processing, interchanging, and storing healthcare information while protecting the privacy of persons receiving care. The key statutes affecting personal privacy and information-sharing are described below: CAPTA The Federal Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires child protective services to refer children aged 0-36 months, who are victims of substantial child abuse or neglect, to Early Intervention Services. In order to provide services to these children, DCFS has coordinated this referral effort between Regional Centers, medical HUBs, and the Department of Mental Health (DMH) to screen these children for developmental or mental health problems, and then refer them as needed to Regional Centers for necessary care. This process, and the necessary coordination between these agencies, is carefully done so as to ensure both the confidentiality of these minors’ personal information and of their care and safety, as required by two other statutes, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and CMIA (California Confidentiality of Medical information Act). HIPAA HIPAA was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services (CMS) website, HIPAA protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs and requires the establishment of national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health insurance plans, and employers. It helps patients keep private the personal health information they have submitted to insurers. Other provisions address the security and privacy of health data. The idea is that, if individuals know that personal health information submitted to their insurers is carefully managed and protected, they will be more willing to submit that information. Thus HIPAA both encourages and supports electronic patient care information-sharing but only if rules for protecting patient information are followed. CMIA The State of California, in 2007 and 2008, implemented AB 1687 and AB 2352. This legislation is intended to deal affirmatively with health record-keeping and processing under HIPAA and CMIA. These statutes state that there are no legal barriers preventing a health or mental health care provider from disclosing medical information 252 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report to a County social worker, a probation officer, or any other person who is legally authorized to have custody or care of a minor, for the purpose of coordinating the provision of healthcare services to the minor. This form of disclosure, however, must be recognized as being different from giving social workers unlimited, on-line access to a minor’s complete electronically stored medical history files. Such on-line access is still prohibited by law. SACWIS and CWS/CMS DCFS is required to utilize California’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS), an automated database system that contains all case-related information on each DCFS client, as its sole electronic system for child welfare case management. CWS/CMS users are mandated to comply with the rules of the Federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) because California received Federal funding to create and maintain the CWS/CMS system. Consequently, if the Federal government determined that the County’s management and handling of CWS/CMS records was not in compliance with SACWIS requirements, Federal funding could be disallowed. SACWIS rules include prohibition of many information-handling activities, including, but not limited to, prevention of the utilization of competing data systems, duplicative data entries into more than one system, and duplicative functionality. Consequently, if a County department ,such as DCFS, were to create a centralized database (in addition to CWS/CMS) which housed the same detailed client information as does CWS/CMS, and was accessible at one or more levels of confidentiality to all DCFS employees, it could be deemed a competing system by the Federal government and thus violate SACWIS. One methodology successfully employed by the County which does involve cross- departmental information-sharing (although not on-line sharing) is the use of “Multi- Disciplinary Teams” composed of health and other professionals assembled from several departments to plan health diagnosis and treatment of juveniles under County care. These teams meet and use health information on specific individuals extracted from multiple databases to plan the minor’s care. This kind of information-sharing is legally permitted because it does not require cross-departmental electronic file access by County personnel. Each health professional accesses only his or her own database.
R6:
1 – DCFS, DHS, DMH and DPH To the extent permitted by law, DCFS, DHS, DMH, and DPH should provide skilled healthcare professionals access to a youth’s healthcare information regardless of the department in which the information was originally obtained. However, such access should be limited to those personnel who have been provided confidential user names and passwords. Requiring the use of user names and passwords for maintaining 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 253 information privacy is a proven tool which makes the control of such access safe and feasible. 7. Katie A. In July 2002, a class-action lawsuit, hereinafter referred to as “Katie A.”, was filed in Federal District Court against the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. The suit alleged that children in contact with the County’s foster care system were not receiving mental health and other foster care services to which they were entitled, potentially creating or aggravating mental health problems for those youth. In 2003, the County entered into a Settlement Agreement under which the Court established an Advisory Panel to monitor, evaluate, and report to the Court on County plans and efforts to fulfill their obligations under the Agreement. On August 16, 2005, the Advisory Panel issued its fifth report concluding that the County had not developed a sufficient plan nor taken sufficiently effective steps to meet the needs of the plaintiff class, and was therefore, not meeting the obligations of the Settlement Agreement. In response, the County first developed the 2005 County Plan and then the 2007 Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and now has developed the targeted enhancements and coordinated vision of the Strategic Plan in consultation with the Advisory Panel. The Strategic Plan, along with the accountability oversight provision, has been developed to fulfill the terms of the Settlement Agreement and provide a viable exit from Court jurisdiction. An important change occurred when the County and plaintiffs joined to obtain a Court order which permitted the two County agencies to conduct data matches and exchange information for planning and service purposes. More specifically, DMH, and DCFS, were allowed by Court order to share specific patient/youth records. Before this order, the ability to share such information was limited because of strict Federal and State confidentiality provisions, which in part led to the initiation of the lawsuit and presented a major barrier preventing compliance with the Settlement Agreement. To understand the financial magnitude of the settlement, it is important to understand that the County is now estimated to spend over $200 million dollars annually to provide intensive and individualized mental health care services in conjunction with qualified staff, and medical HUB services deemed reasonable and necessary by the Court and its Advisory Panel for members of the settlement class. Initial steps have been taken by DMH to facilitate information sharing using the data warehouse/data-mining software. In addition, efforts are underway at the HUBs to assess 100% of newly detained children through the Multidisciplinary Assessment Teams (MAT) Program. The plan is to require that all CSWs similarly screen all children for mental health issues in newly detained open cases as well as children in existing open DCFS cases.
R7:
1.1 – The County Chief Executive Officer The CEO should caucus with DCFS and DMH, as well as with the DCEO of the Children and Families Well-being Cluster and the County Counsel, to develop strategies for implementation of standards, remedies, and legislative changes at both County, State and Federal levels that will enable continuing improvement of healthcare delivery to County residents, consistent with the improvements which have been achieved as a result of Katie A. Court and Advisory Panel supervision.
R8:
1 – DHS, DMH and Probation DHS, DMH, and Probation should each immediately develop and implement policies based on the May 9, 2007 Board of Supervisors MOU. Information Technology Developments Significant information technology developments identified below are under way in the County at this time. Redesign of LEADER: While the County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) is not seen as a key health care provider, it does provide key services to the needy, many of whom are also receiving health care from DCFS, DHS, or DMH, and thus needs to share information with these departments on services being provided to these persons.
R9:
1 - DHS DHS should direct that SCAN reports (officially entitled “California Office of Emergency Services – Medical Report: Suspected Child Physical Abuse and Neglect Examination – OES 900 form) be entered electronically at HUBs by the end of September 2009 so that: 1. There will be no risk that they become lost. 2. DCFS office personnel are not obliged to decode someone else’s handwriting in taking the data from the SCAN reports. 10. Conclusion Through this CGJ’s “follow-on” investigation, we documented a number of issues related to information-sharing. Of those issues, there are several that the CGJ intends should be given the highest priority on the County’s “to do” list. These are: 1. Implementation of EMPI and expanding its scope to other departmental services. 2. Strategizing for and meeting with State officials to work for legislative amendments to key state statutes itemized in this report which inhibit information-sharing on healthcare issues. 3. Redefining the responsibilities of the County CIO to include, for all major departmental information system acquisitions, active participation in: • implementation planning, • preparation of functional specifications, • definition of contractor skill and experience specifications, and • system selection process and issue resolution; 4. All departments which share responsibilities for providing essential services to County citizens should caucus and appoint cross-departmental coordination 262 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report committees with principal responsibility for investigating problems in, and facilitating solutions of, information-sharing issues. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 263 HEALTH INFORMATION-SHARING FOR AT-RISK YOUTH Overcoming Obstacles
R10:
Conclusion Through this CGJ’s “follow-on” investigation, we documented a number of issues related to information-sharing. Of those issues, there are several that the CGJ intends should be given the highest priority on the County’s “to do” list. These are:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
1 There is no set of regional interagency goals or objectives to address gang reduction in Los Angeles County.
F2:
1 The Los Angeles Unified School District’s budgetary commitment to targeted gang reduction is essentially limited to the more broadly defined Youth Relations Unit, the total cost of which is $1.3 million.
F3:
It provides regionalized and specialized support service for districts, educators and parents in a number of areas including school reform, school-community 166 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report partnerships, ROP, welfare-to-work and parenting programs, and the largest Head Start program in the nation. It is generally acknowledged that schools play critical roles in gang prevention and intervention. Because of the types of at-risk children in LACOE schools and facilities it would seem that LACOE would have an enhanced capability to provide gang reduction services to their at-risk students. Virtually all of the students in LACOE schools are at risk. Unfortunately, LACOE does not have a staff person dedicated solely to gang reduction efforts. Their efforts are limited to a single staff member, the Safety Coordinator within the Safe Schools Division. The Safety Coordinator provides several safety-related support services to schools on an as-requested or voluntary basis. These services include assistance in preparation of school safety plans (which contains gang risk intervention elements), one-time workshops on gang reduction, and other services related to school violence and youth relations issues. In addition, the Safety Coordinator provides mediation and violence suppression assistance in response to campus incidents. Campus Crime Records are Deficient The Los Angeles School Police Department (LASPD) is the police force within LAUSD. With a budget of approximately $50 million and a staff of approximately 340 officers, every high school in LAUSD is assigned at least one full time dedicated Police Officer and 37 campuses have two Officers. Approximately half of the middle schools are assigned a Police Officer, and the other half are assigned a uniformed school safety officer. LASPD works in concert with Youth Relations and the Crisis Response Team, as well as the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), to respond to incidents on campus, though there is no specialized gang unit within LASPD. Department management reports that the data analysis unit is short-staffed with only four analysts, and that additional staff resources are needed to reduce the backlog in processing crime reports and data. Without a current database of crime reports, routine summary reports cannot be produced and management is hindered in its ability to make informed decisions about policy and operations. The only available routine reports summarize the “calls for service” which are entered into a database on a real-time basis. (Note that this problem was also addressed at length in a 2007 study18 of LAUSD safety and security.) Further, the State does not require that schools track campus crimes by whether such crimes are gang or non-gang related, and the District does not require that such data be compiled or reported either. Therefore, the LASPD is not able to report on the percentage of campus crimes that are gang-related. Further, it should be noted that, at the time of this report, the LASPD had a one-year backlog, or approximately 17,000 crime reports, waiting for data to be entered. 18 “A Study of Safety and Security in the Los Angeles Unified School District,” December 17, 2007, Evergreen Solutions, LLC. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 167 Even if the data entry were up to date, however, summary reports would not offer any information related to gangs since that information is not captured on the reports. The fact that school leadership has not prioritized the collection of information related to campus crime and has not required that gang-specific information be tracked reflects a choice not to seriously prioritize gang reduction on campus. Without knowledge of the full scope of the problem, LASPD, academic staff, and student support staff cannot effectively strategize toward gang reduction. The Superintendent should require the LASPD to eliminate its data entry backlog and, if needed, redirect funding so that sufficient staff resources are available to continually manage data entry in the future. LASPD should develop and implement a policy to track campus gang incidents. GRYD Office Collaboration is Ad Hoc The GRYD office was established in 2008 as a strategy for centralizing gang reduction efforts and coordinating across City agencies. The Office was established partly in response to the City Controller’s report of February 200819, which called for a major restructuring of gang reduction and youth development efforts in the City. As mentioned earlier in this section, the Controller’s report included a focus on strong school involvement in the centralized approach. One mechanism the GRYD Office uses to coordinate across agencies is the GRYD Cabinet, a group of directors and leaders from gang- and youth-relevant departments in Los Angeles that has met monthly under the leadership of the GRYD Director since May
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1.1 – Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors By December 31, 2009, the Board of Supervisors should establish an independent, regional coordinating commission to develop regional interagency goals and objectives to coordinate gang reduction efforts. It should include representation of city- and school board-level officials, along with appointed leaders of departments key to gang reduction as well as representation of community-based and faith-based organizations.
R2:
1.1 – The Superintendent of the LAUSD and the Mayor The Superintendent of the LAUSD and the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles in collaboration with the GRYD Director establish an MOU in which they define a service approach that aggressively provides gang prevention services to students.
R3:
It provides regionalized and specialized support service for districts, educators and parents in a number of areas including school reform, school-community 166 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report partnerships, ROP, welfare-to-work and parenting programs, and the largest Head Start program in the nation. It is generally acknowledged that schools play critical roles in gang prevention and intervention. Because of the types of at-risk children in LACOE schools and facilities it would seem that LACOE would have an enhanced capability to provide gang reduction services to their at-risk students. Virtually all of the students in LACOE schools are at risk. Unfortunately, LACOE does not have a staff person dedicated solely to gang reduction efforts. Their efforts are limited to a single staff member, the Safety Coordinator within the Safe Schools Division. The Safety Coordinator provides several safety-related support services to schools on an as-requested or voluntary basis. These services include assistance in preparation of school safety plans (which contains gang risk intervention elements), one-time workshops on gang reduction, and other services related to school violence and youth relations issues. In addition, the Safety Coordinator provides mediation and violence suppression assistance in response to campus incidents. Campus Crime Records are Deficient The Los Angeles School Police Department (LASPD) is the police force within LAUSD. With a budget of approximately $50 million and a staff of approximately 340 officers, every high school in LAUSD is assigned at least one full time dedicated Police Officer and 37 campuses have two Officers. Approximately half of the middle schools are assigned a Police Officer, and the other half are assigned a uniformed school safety officer. LASPD works in concert with Youth Relations and the Crisis Response Team, as well as the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), to respond to incidents on campus, though there is no specialized gang unit within LASPD. Department management reports that the data analysis unit is short-staffed with only four analysts, and that additional staff resources are needed to reduce the backlog in processing crime reports and data. Without a current database of crime reports, routine summary reports cannot be produced and management is hindered in its ability to make informed decisions about policy and operations. The only available routine reports summarize the “calls for service” which are entered into a database on a real-time basis. (Note that this problem was also addressed at length in a 2007 study18 of LAUSD safety and security.) Further, the State does not require that schools track campus crimes by whether such crimes are gang or non-gang related, and the District does not require that such data be compiled or reported either. Therefore, the LASPD is not able to report on the percentage of campus crimes that are gang-related. Further, it should be noted that, at the time of this report, the LASPD had a one-year backlog, or approximately 17,000 crime reports, waiting for data to be entered. 18 “A Study of Safety and Security in the Los Angeles Unified School District,” December 17, 2007, Evergreen Solutions, LLC. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 167 Even if the data entry were up to date, however, summary reports would not offer any information related to gangs since that information is not captured on the reports. The fact that school leadership has not prioritized the collection of information related to campus crime and has not required that gang-specific information be tracked reflects a choice not to seriously prioritize gang reduction on campus. Without knowledge of the full scope of the problem, LASPD, academic staff, and student support staff cannot effectively strategize toward gang reduction. The Superintendent should require the LASPD to eliminate its data entry backlog and, if needed, redirect funding so that sufficient staff resources are available to continually manage data entry in the future. LASPD should develop and implement a policy to track campus gang incidents. GRYD Office Collaboration is Ad Hoc The GRYD office was established in 2008 as a strategy for centralizing gang reduction efforts and coordinating across City agencies. The Office was established partly in response to the City Controller’s report of February 200819, which called for a major restructuring of gang reduction and youth development efforts in the City. As mentioned earlier in this section, the Controller’s report included a focus on strong school involvement in the centralized approach. One mechanism the GRYD Office uses to coordinate across agencies is the GRYD Cabinet, a group of directors and leaders from gang- and youth-relevant departments in Los Angeles that has met monthly under the leadership of the GRYD Director since May
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
1 At the present time, many foster care children exit the system around the age of 18 without the proper preparation for adult living or the necessary survival skills. 2.0 Edelman Children’s Court Located in the bucolic hills of Monterey Park, stands a remarkable building: the Edmund D. Edelman Children’s Court. Completed in 1992, it is a purpose-built facility about five miles east of downtown Los Angeles. It resembles not a courthouse but the campus of some high-tech company in the hills of Silicon Valley. Twenty-five courtrooms provide a warm and friendly place in which juvenile dependency issues are discussed for almost 20,000 individuals each year.3 The Edelman Children’s Court works to ensure that all youth receive permanent homes in a timely fashion, either through reunification with their rehabilitated parents or through adoption, legal guardianship, or long-term foster care. Notwithstanding the efforts of the 2 Website www.fostercaremonth.org. Family Court Chronicles web site, www.familycourtchronicles.com. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 279 people involved in the proceedings at the court, examination of the overall foster care system leads one to conclude that the long-term outlook for those youths who, of necessity, become wards of the court is not good.4 3.0 HR6893 Introduced in the U.S. Congress on September 15, 2008, and on October 7, 2008, President Bush signed the “Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act” into law. One of the proponents for and a driving factor in the passage of this bill, HR6893, was California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. The bill will allow states to receive federal funds to provide foster care, kinship-guardian and adoption assistance benefits to support youths until age twenty-one. HR6893 provides a significant opportunity for states that subsequently enact legislation to accept the financial assistance and the corresponding regulations governing the usage of such funds. Some of the many benefits available to states through their enactment include: 1. An annual grant of $15 million. This grant will be available from 2009-2013 and would require that an extensive search be conducted for suitable relatives with whom a foster child may be placed. These supplemental funds would be used to expand the existing “Family Connections Grant.” These grants are competitively awarded to public welfare agencies and/or eligible private non-profit agencies for residential family treatment centers. 2. It would also mandate that 3% of these funds be used to evaluate and oversee grantee programs such as intensive family-finding efforts and family group decision-making meetings.5 4.0 AB12 Existing law, through the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program (Kin- GAP), which is a part of the CalWorks program, provides aid on behalf of eligible children who are placed in the homes of relative caretakers. The program is funded by state, county and available federal funds. California Assembly Bill 12 was introduced in the State Legislature on December 1, 2008. If adopted, it would become effective on January 1, 2010, would repeal the Kin- GAP Program and would require the state to exercise its option under specified federal law to establish a new kinship guardianship assistance payment program. Existing law establishes the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) Program, under which counties provide payments to foster care providers on behalf of qualified children in foster care. The program is funded by a combination of federal, state and county funds. Under existing law, AFDC-FC benefits are available, with specified exceptions, on behalf of qualified children under 18 years of age. Moneys from the State of California General Fund are continuously appropriated to pay for the state’s share of AFDC-FC costs. Family Court Chronicles web site, www.familycourtchronicles.com. Congressional Research Service, memorandum, Washington, D.C., September 15, 2008. 280 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report AB12 would require the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to amend its foster care state plan required under specified federal law, to extend AFDC-FC benefits, commencing October 1, 2010, to specified individuals up to 21 years of age, in accordance with a designated provision of federal law. This bill would provide that no appropriation from the general fund would be made for the purposes of implementing these provisions. By increasing duties of counties (including Los Angeles) administering the AFDC-FC program, AB12 also would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. AB12 would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.6 These changes represent what most legislators believe are socially responsible improvements to the current California foster care system. Enactment of AB12 would mean that California “would use federal funds for costs that are currently borne by the state and counties. This would achieve substantial savings from declines in homelessness, teen pregnancy, unemployment, public assistance, and other expensive outcomes for young adults who would otherwise be forced out of foster care at the age of eighteen.”7 Currently, California assumes the responsibility of a parent for children in foster care who have been removed from their homes as a result of abuse or neglect. That responsibility continues until foster children exit the system, either through reunification, adoption or “emancipation” by reaching the age at which foster care benefits and services are no longer provided.8 Information revealed in the AB12 Fact Sheet provided by Assembly Member James T. Beall, Jr., shows that in 1998, California created a new means of permanency for abused and neglected children by enacting `SB1901 (McPherson). SB1901 established the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (Kin-Gap) to allow children to exit the child welfare system to stable and permanent relative guardianships. The Kin-Gap Program has been extremely successful. In 2007-2008, there were approximately 14,000 former foster children living with relative guardians and supported through Kin- Gap. Unlike foster care or adoption, however, there have been no federal funds available until now for relative guardianship; all Kin-Gap costs have been borne by California. Annually, around 5,000 young people emancipate from California’s foster care system. Research shows that youth who “age-out” of foster care without having had permanent guardians have lower educational achievement and are more likely to experience homelessness, unemployment, unplanned pregnancies, and involvement with the legal system. Although evidence from other states demonstrates that providing an option for 6 Total Capital web site, www.totalcapitol.com, author James T. Beall, Jr., California Assembly Member. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass AB12 Fact Sheet, December 5, 2008. AB12 Fact Sheet. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 281 foster care until age 21 dramatically improves these outcomes, federal and California foster care assistance now stop at age 18 or 19.9 The bottom line is clear. By enacting state Assembly Bill 12, the State of California (and the County of Los Angeles) would be required to establish a Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payments Program similar to the one that already exists. However, this new program would extend such services to qualifying children and their families until the child reaches age 21. The State, and subsequently the counties would receive funds from the federal government for extending foster care to age 21.
F4:
1 As of April 2009, other states have already enacted bills similar to AB12 that establish their commitment to the principles outlined in HR6893.
F5:
0.1 The Los Angeles County Wraparound Program is not widely publicized among those citizens who would be the primary recipients of the services and support that it offers. In addition, those within DCFS who might otherwise raise the awareness of the program are not completely fluent in its operation, function and structure. As a consequence, many children and families that might otherwise benefit from its services are deprived of its availability.
F6:
1 If AB12 is enacted by the State of California, in accordance with the conditions enumerated in HR6893, specific educational requirements will need to be met for all children in foster care. Such requirements will certainly have costs associated with the required provisions. However, it is important to note that HR6893 also provides for such services to be reimbursed by the federal government. 7.0 Conclusion “At eighteen, foster care children currently exit the system. Most do so, without any benefits. They have a substandard education. Fifty-one percent who “age-out” of the foster care system are unemployable, and as a result, are homeless within eighteen months. Nearly 70% of those incarcerated, in California, are products of the foster care system, in some manner. The system has forsaken these youths.”16 By almost any standard, the foster care system has failed to provide the nurturing and healthy environment that children need if they are to grow to be mature adults capable of competing in the world of the 21st Century. This is not to say that the agencies involved in servicing these youths lack good intentions. Nor can it be said that the individuals who are charged with providing support in the affected agencies are not interested in helping the children. However, the caseloads of CSWs are too great. The systemic and endemic problems associated with growing up in the second largest city and the largest county in the nation are complex. The financial obligations of the State 15 Congressional Research Service, memorandum, Washington, D.C., September 15, 2008. AB12 Fact Sheet 286 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report and the County to care for those who have the weakest voices, is a heavy burden. It is incumbent upon those engaged in these efforts to seek every available opportunity to offer more, to seek to provide a better long-term outcome and to continue to fight against all odds on behalf of our at-risk youth. In states that currently do provide foster care to children until age 21, the evidence is clear. The long-term outcomes for these children are dramatically improved. Now, the State of California has the opportunity to enact legislation that will do exactly what other states have already chosen to do, specifically, extend the age at which children continue to be able to receive the services and support of the County agencies until they reach 21. This can be accomplished with no increase in costs to the County. With this in mind, it is important for those in the County to continue to advocate on behalf of those who can’t speak for themselves and to strongly support the enactment of state Assembly Bill 12. Passage of AB12 would demonstrate the on-going government commitment to those who cannot advocate for themselves. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 287 EXTENDING FOSTER CARE FROM AGE 18 TO 21 “SO I’M EIGHTEEN, NOW WHAT?” FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
1 – Board of Supervisors The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should actively lobby the California State Legislature to enact Assembly Bill 12 so that foster care services can be extended to youths until age 21. 5.0 Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) Foster care is designed to provide supportive services and safe shelter for children who can no longer be maintained in their home. The ultimate focus is to attempt to reunite the child with the parents or alternatively with a relative who can act as guardian. Unfortunately, some children return to the same abusive environment from which they were removed. In the interim, DCFS seeks to provide the most suitable living arrangement for the child. And, while it is certainly less than optimal, such contracted living arrangements may well become the eventual “home” for many children. Unfortunately, caseloads for the Children’s Social Workers (CSWs) within DCFS are significantly higher than the optimum recommended. Current caseloads can be as high as 27 youth per CSW (1:27); whereas, the optimum caseload should be no greater than 1:16.10 As a result, the youths assigned to CSWs may not receive the service and support that is expected and should be delivered. DCFS currently provides several important programs and services that are designed to provide for the well-being of the child. The goal of these programs is to keep the family unit intact, whenever possible. In addition, where siblings are involved, every attempt should be made to keep them together in the living arrangement. Family Preservation – This program is designed to bring intensive short-term services to strengthen parents’ ability to function effectively, keep the child safe at home, and reduce the need for out-placement. Wraparound – With 15 interagency screening committee teams and probation officers in the program, the Wraparound Program has been available since 1998. As 9 AB12 Fact Sheet 10 California Research Bureau, Washington, D.C, report of July 1, 2006. 282 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report conceived, a team is formed whose responsibility is the on-going well-being of the child. Unfortunately, it is still not well publicized and is, therefore, under-utilized due to lack of funding. Under the federal HR6893 act, states are required to have procedures to ensure that 90 days before a child in foster care reaches his/her 18th birthday11 the child’s caseworker and other representatives (as appropriate) must help the child develop a personal transition plan. This plan must include specific options on housing, health insurance, education, local opportunities for mentors, continuing support services, workforce supports and employment services. Will this require CSWs to meet the required conditions mandated by HR6893? Yes, it will. However, the individual CSWs should already be providing these services and offering this level of support to each youth during the normal course of their responsibilities. Staff members of the Probation Department report that forms required to process youths who have “aged-out” of the system into some form of housing, usually require a minimum of 90 days to be processed through the court system. During this period, the youth is either on the street, with someone who might be able to provide shelter or incarcerated. None of these alternatives are desirable nor should they be acceptable. The DCFS and the Probation Department provide a variety of training and services to dependent youth and wards of the courts. Some of these include: • financial assistance for education • reimbursement for health services not covered by Medi-cal • transportation • employment assistance • occupation training • training for independent living skills
R5:
0.1 – DCFS DCFS should ensure that all CSWs are aware of and are trained in the services offered through the Wraparound Program by creating a training program by June 2010.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
1.1 The seven Youth Councils in the geographic region of Los Angeles County do not work together to promote youth employment programs. Although the Workforce Investment Act does not require collaboration among the Youth Councils, increased coordination of youth employment programs would better leverage resources. Youth Councils with minimal business representation could benefit from resources provided by business members of other Youth Councils, including assistance in recruiting business members and links to private employers who could provide jobs to youth. Increased coordination would also help local Workforce Investment Areas publicize existing programs and recruit youth to programs who otherwise may not be reached.
F2:
1 The Department of Human Resources’ Student Worker and Career Development Intern Programs are underutilized with only 65 percent of budgeted positions filled in FY 2007- 08. The program is not mandatory for County departments and only two of the County’s ten largest departments participated in the Career Development Intern Program for foster youth in FY 2007-08.
F3:
1 Only one-fourth of foster and probation youth are served by youth employment programs earmarked for these populations. While the number of eligible youth far exceeds the number of actual youth participants, existing youth employment programs are underutilized. In FY 2007-08, the County of Los Angeles under spent available funds by $1.5 million, representing an estimated 500 youth employment opportunities. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the seven Workforce Investment Areas in the geographic region of Los Angeles County will receive millions of dollars14 in federal stimulus funds to pay for work experience programs for low-income and at-risk youth. The County of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles will receive the largest share of these funds. The County of Los Angeles, as well as other local governments in the geographic region of Los Angeles County, will need to increase recruitment efforts for youth employment programs to ensure effective use of the federal stimulus funds. Foster and youth participation in youth employment programs funded by the Workforce Investment Act has declined. Foster and probation youth made up only 17 percent of County of Los Angeles Workforce Investment Act participants in FY 2007-08 compared to 21 percent of participants in FY 2005-06. Less than one-half of the Hire LA’s Youth employment program slots set aside for foster and probation youth are filled by Independent Living Program youth each year, although the Independent Living Program has primary responsibility for youth transitioning from foster and County care to living in the community, including providing job readiness and work opportunities. The actual allocation has not yet been determined. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 51
F4:
1 The County of Los Angeles does not have a first source hiring program, missing an opportunity to increase the number of jobs available to low-income and at-risk youth and young adults. The City of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, and Los Angeles World Airports have established first source hiring programs requiring publicly-funded contractors and employers to provide job opportunities to local residents, thus increasing the availability of jobs available to low income adults and youth. As of February 19, 2009, local governments receiving Proposition A funds had spent $54.6 million on employment for at-risk youth, exceeding required spending of $44.2 million by $10.4 million. According to the County of Los Angeles Auditor-Controller, (a) the City of Lancaster received $1.6 million Proposition A funds in FY 2003-04 and (b) the City of Downey received $436,861 in FY 2004-05. However, as of February 2009 (a) the City of Lancaster had spent only $1,564 to meet its youth employment goals, and (b) the City of Downey had spent no funds to meet its youth employment goals. 56 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
F5:
The Residential Treatment Services Bureau oversees the CALGrip Project. This is an 18-month demonstration project at Camps Afflerbaugh and Paige in the 12 The Probation Department has 18 camps at 9 locations throughout the County, providing custody and rehabilitation to juveniles convicted of crimes and sentenced to incarceration. Also, the Probation department operates a residential treatment center, the Dorothy Kirby Center, in conjunction with the Department of Mental Health. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 47 eastern part of Los Angeles County. The demonstration project provides two programs: (1) a training and job placement program for gang affiliated and at-risk youth ages 17 to 18 years serving sentences in Camps Afflerbaugh and Paige, and (2) a work experience program for gang affiliated youth ages 18 to 24 residing in San Gabriel Valley. Both programs provide job readiness training, life and basic skills training, support for earning industry-recognized “diversified occupations” credentials, and preparation to begin unsubsidized employment or advanced training. These programs are provided through an agreement between the Probation Department and LA Works, a Workforce Investment Act one-stop provider.
F6:
The Residential Treatment Services Bureau oversees the “Project Youth Embrace” two-year demonstration project at Camp Miller in collaboration with the Public Defender and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice. The program provides comprehensive re-entry services to juvenile offenders returning to the community from custody or out-of- home placement, including housing, mental health and substance abuse, education, health, and vocational services. As part of this project, a community provider, Homeboy Industries, offers job training and employment assistance. Job developers work with local employers to find available jobs and work one-on- one with probation youth to develop resumes and interviewing skills and to match youth with jobs. Youth are often placed into jobs in small businesses operated by Homeboy Industries, such as bakery, silkscreen, café, landscaping, maintenance, and other businesses.
F7:
The Adult Field Services Bureau administers the Day Reporting Center, which provides services to young adult men, ages 18 years to 24 years with gang involvement. The Day Reporting Center is funded by a three-year, $5 million State grant to provide intensive employment and support services. Youth Employment Programs Targeted to Foster and Probation Youth are Underutilized While the number of low-income youth in Los Angeles County eligible for federal, state, and local youth employment programs far exceeds the availability of these programs, existing programs are underutilized. For example, the County of Los Angeles under spent Workforce Investment Act funds allocated to youth employment program service providers, who operate the one-stop youth centers and provide job readiness, job placement, and other services funded by the Workforce Investment Act, in FY 2007-08. Additionally, the County’s Youth Jobs Program has not been fully utilized since its inception in FY 2005-06. More than 10 percent of the program’s funds have remained unspent at the end of each year. In FY 2007-08, the County of Los Angeles under spent for youth employment programs by $1.5 million, equivalent to an estimated 500 youth jobs, as shown in Table 3.1. 48 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Table 3.1 County of Los Angeles Unexpended Workforce Investment Act and Youth Jobs Program Funds FY 2007-08 Youth Jobs Program Workforce Investment Act Services Providers Total Budget $6,479,886 $10,082,832 $16,562,718 Expenditures 5,789,529 9,289,919 15,079,448 Surplus/(Deficit) $690,357 $792,913 $1,483,270 Surplus as a Percent of Budget 11% 8% 9%
F08:
The program is not mandatory for County departments and only two of the County’s ten largest departments participated in the Career Development Intern Program for foster youth in FY 2007-08.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1 – The Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should direct the Director of the Department of Community and Senior Services, Director of the Department of Children and Family Services, and Chief Probation Officer, in consultation with the Chief Executive Office, to develop a streamlined process for collaboration among entities overseeing youth employment programs, including the County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles Youth Councils, and County departments, with a report to the Board of Supervisors by December 31, 2009. As part of this effort, the Director of the Department of Community and Senior Services, Director of the Department of Children and Family Services, and Chief Probation Officer should consider increased communication and coordination with the seven Youth Councils in the geographic region of Los Angeles. 34 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
R2:
1.1 – The Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should immediately make participation in the Department of Human Resources’ Student Worker and Career Development Intern Programs mandatory for all County departments with at least 2,000 budgeted positions.
R3:
1.1 – The Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should make baseline funding for the Youth Jobs Program available on an ongoing basis, with the exception of FY 2009-10 in which one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds will supplant local funds for youth employment programs.
R4:
1 – The Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should direct the Chief Executive Officer, in conjunction with the Workforce Investment Board, to present a proposal on implementing a First Source Hiring Program, prior to December 31, 2009.
R5:
The Residential Treatment Services Bureau oversees the CALGrip Project. This is an 18-month demonstration project at Camps Afflerbaugh and Paige in the 12 The Probation Department has 18 camps at 9 locations throughout the County, providing custody and rehabilitation to juveniles convicted of crimes and sentenced to incarceration. Also, the Probation department operates a residential treatment center, the Dorothy Kirby Center, in conjunction with the Department of Mental Health. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 47 eastern part of Los Angeles County. The demonstration project provides two programs: (1) a training and job placement program for gang affiliated and at-risk youth ages 17 to 18 years serving sentences in Camps Afflerbaugh and Paige, and (2) a work experience program for gang affiliated youth ages 18 to 24 residing in San Gabriel Valley. Both programs provide job readiness training, life and basic skills training, support for earning industry-recognized “diversified occupations” credentials, and preparation to begin unsubsidized employment or advanced training. These programs are provided through an agreement between the Probation Department and LA Works, a Workforce Investment Act one-stop provider.
R6:
The Residential Treatment Services Bureau oversees the “Project Youth Embrace” two-year demonstration project at Camp Miller in collaboration with the Public Defender and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice. The program provides comprehensive re-entry services to juvenile offenders returning to the community from custody or out-of- home placement, including housing, mental health and substance abuse, education, health, and vocational services. As part of this project, a community provider, Homeboy Industries, offers job training and employment assistance. Job developers work with local employers to find available jobs and work one-on- one with probation youth to develop resumes and interviewing skills and to match youth with jobs. Youth are often placed into jobs in small businesses operated by Homeboy Industries, such as bakery, silkscreen, café, landscaping, maintenance, and other businesses.
R7:
The Adult Field Services Bureau administers the Day Reporting Center, which provides services to young adult men, ages 18 years to 24 years with gang involvement. The Day Reporting Center is funded by a three-year, $5 million State grant to provide intensive employment and support services. Youth Employment Programs Targeted to Foster and Probation Youth are Underutilized While the number of low-income youth in Los Angeles County eligible for federal, state, and local youth employment programs far exceeds the availability of these programs, existing programs are underutilized. For example, the County of Los Angeles under spent Workforce Investment Act funds allocated to youth employment program service providers, who operate the one-stop youth centers and provide job readiness, job placement, and other services funded by the Workforce Investment Act, in FY 2007-08. Additionally, the County’s Youth Jobs Program has not been fully utilized since its inception in FY 2005-06. More than 10 percent of the program’s funds have remained unspent at the end of each year. In FY 2007-08, the County of Los Angeles under spent for youth employment programs by $1.5 million, equivalent to an estimated 500 youth jobs, as shown in Table 3.1. 48 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Table 3.1 County of Los Angeles Unexpended Workforce Investment Act and Youth Jobs Program Funds FY 2007-08 Youth Jobs Program Workforce Investment Act Services Providers Total Budget $6,479,886 $10,082,832 $16,562,718 Expenditures 5,789,529 9,289,919 15,079,448 Surplus/(Deficit) $690,357 $792,913 $1,483,270 Surplus as a Percent of Budget 11% 8% 9%
R08:
The program is not mandatory for County departments and only two of the County’s ten largest departments participated in the Career Development Intern Program for foster youth in FY 2007-08. Recommendation 2.1.1 – The Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should immediately make participation in the Department of Human Resources’ Student Worker and Career Development Intern Programs mandatory for all County departments with at least 2,000 budgeted positions. Recommendation 2.1.2 – The Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should immediately establish a designated set aside of the Department of Human Resources’ Student Worker positions for at-risk youth similar to what is currently required by the County’s Youth Jobs program. Recommendation 2.1.3 – The Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should require the Department of Human Resources, in coordination with the Department of Children and Family Services, the Department of 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 43 Public Social Services, the Chief Executive Officer, the Probation Department, and other applicable County departments and agencies to develop a mechanism to identify “at-risk” youth to participate in the Career Development Intern Program and the Student Worker Program. To be completed by December 31, 2009.