Los Angeles County Grand Jury
2009-2010
Findings & Recommendations
8 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. 274 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
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.
F09:
Congregate meals are provided by a combination of the local community-based organizations and city agencies. Almost half of the budget goes to meals. 302 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Table 1.2 Area Agency on Aging Performance Measures Actual Actual Estimated Projected Performance Measures 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Indicators Percent of clients who reported that it would be difficult to remain 84% 85% 85% 85% independent in their home without home delivered meals Percent of clients who reported they ate more food because they 72% 73% 73% 75% attended the Senior Nutrition program Percent of clients who reported they enjoyed the healthy food at 91% 91% 91% 95% congregate meal sites Operational Measures Number of home delivered meals 936,464 858,977 984,200 922,300 a served Cost per home delivered meals $4.46 $4.46 $4.75 $4.75 served Unduplicated number of senior nutrition congregate meal 27,564 26,080 26,100 26,100 participants Number of congregate meals 1,348,755 1,350,843 1,350,800 1,273,700 b served Cost per congregate meals $3.90 $4.10 $4.35 $4.35 Number of Integrated Care 10,081 10,224 10,000 c 10,000 Management clients served Family Caregiver Support clients 2,675 2,568 2,580 2,600 served Family Caregiver Support cost per $1,190 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 client Source: CEO’s Recommended CSS Budget, FY 2008-9. a Decrease is attributable to an increase in the average cost per meal. b Decrease is attributable to an increase in the average cost per meal. c Decrease is attributable to a decrease in funding. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 303 Table 1.3 Area Agency on Aging Budget FY 2006-07, FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 3-Year FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 Percent Final Final Original Change Administration Area Plan Admin 1,500,449 1,535,614 1,555,790 3.7% HICAP Admin a 57,632 57,880 58,089 0.8% Title V Admin b 145,266 161,496 161,496 11.2% Total Admin 1,703,347 1,754,990 1,775,375 4.2% Area Plan- Direct Services Supportive Services 837,034 1,569,418 1,254,837 49.9% Family Caregiver 262,001 1,587,559 768,329 193.3% Support Total Direct Services 1,099,035 3,156,977 2,023,166 84.1% Area Plan- Contracted Services Supportive Services/ Elder Abuse 5,799,940 5,036,477 4,693,443 -19.1% Prevention/ Ombudsman Nutrition/Home Delivered/Congregate 10,676,817 11,595,117 10,343,785 -3.1% Meals Programs Disease Prevention 408,339 465,956 443,590 8.6% Family Caregiver 3,245,891 1,810,532 1,471,889 -54.7% Support Community Based 1,173,094 1,173,094 1,079,243 -8.0% Services Program Federal Citation 280,127 294,048 295,367 5.4% Penalty Account Total Contracted 21,584,208 20,375,224 18,327,317 -15.1% Services HICAP Program 922,431 797,578 789,871 -14.4% Title V Program 2,323,131 2,715,469 2,324,165 <0.1% PROGRAM (Area 25,928,805 27,045,248 23,464,519 -9.5% Plan, HICAP, Title V) Total AAA (Admin and 27,632,152 28,800,238 25,239,894 -8.7% Program) Source: CSS AAA Programs, FY 2006-07, FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 Budget. a HICAP: Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program b Title V programs provide part-time jobs for unemployed low-income people aged 55 and older. 304 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Seamless Senior Services Initiative Attempts to Coordinate 20 Agencies More than 20 County departments and agencies provide services to seniors and as a result of the large and growing elderly population in Los Angeles County, the County Chief Executive Officer launched the Seamless Senior Services (S3) Initiative in April
Additional Recommendations
8
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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 275 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 276 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report EXTENDING FOSTER CARE FROM AGE 18 TO 21 “So I’m Eighteen, Now What?” Woodrow “Woody” Hollier–Chair Gloria J. Williams–Vice Chair Nora Clark Jamesetta McDonald A Report by the Los Angeles County 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury EXTENDING FOSTER CARE FROM AGE 18 TO 21 “So I’m Eighteen, Now What?” Nearly one hundred times a day, a child in California is placed in foster care. Los Angeles County alone “parents” just under 30,000 abused and neglected foster youth. Too often, however, the dependent children in LA County lag behind national standards in relation to the minimal care and protection we strive to achieve for foster youth. As a result, today’s troubled foster youth may become tomorrow’s troubled adults. More than half will be unemployed, almost a third will become homeless, and one in five will be incarcerated within two years of leaving foster care.1
R09:
Congregate meals are provided by a combination of the local community-based organizations and city agencies. Almost half of the budget goes to meals. 302 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Table 1.2 Area Agency on Aging Performance Measures Actual Actual Estimated Projected Performance Measures 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Indicators Percent of clients who reported that it would be difficult to remain 84% 85% 85% 85% independent in their home without home delivered meals Percent of clients who reported they ate more food because they 72% 73% 73% 75% attended the Senior Nutrition program Percent of clients who reported they enjoyed the healthy food at 91% 91% 91% 95% congregate meal sites Operational Measures Number of home delivered meals 936,464 858,977 984,200 922,300 a served Cost per home delivered meals $4.46 $4.46 $4.75 $4.75 served Unduplicated number of senior nutrition congregate meal 27,564 26,080 26,100 26,100 participants Number of congregate meals 1,348,755 1,350,843 1,350,800 1,273,700 b served Cost per congregate meals $3.90 $4.10 $4.35 $4.35 Number of Integrated Care 10,081 10,224 10,000 c 10,000 Management clients served Family Caregiver Support clients 2,675 2,568 2,580 2,600 served Family Caregiver Support cost per $1,190 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 client Source: CEO’s Recommended CSS Budget, FY 2008-9. a Decrease is attributable to an increase in the average cost per meal. b Decrease is attributable to an increase in the average cost per meal. c Decrease is attributable to a decrease in funding. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 303 Table 1.3 Area Agency on Aging Budget FY 2006-07, FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 3-Year FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 Percent Final Final Original Change Administration Area Plan Admin 1,500,449 1,535,614 1,555,790 3.7% HICAP Admin a 57,632 57,880 58,089 0.8% Title V Admin b 145,266 161,496 161,496 11.2% Total Admin 1,703,347 1,754,990 1,775,375 4.2% Area Plan- Direct Services Supportive Services 837,034 1,569,418 1,254,837 49.9% Family Caregiver 262,001 1,587,559 768,329 193.3% Support Total Direct Services 1,099,035 3,156,977 2,023,166 84.1% Area Plan- Contracted Services Supportive Services/ Elder Abuse 5,799,940 5,036,477 4,693,443 -19.1% Prevention/ Ombudsman Nutrition/Home Delivered/Congregate 10,676,817 11,595,117 10,343,785 -3.1% Meals Programs Disease Prevention 408,339 465,956 443,590 8.6% Family Caregiver 3,245,891 1,810,532 1,471,889 -54.7% Support Community Based 1,173,094 1,173,094 1,079,243 -8.0% Services Program Federal Citation 280,127 294,048 295,367 5.4% Penalty Account Total Contracted 21,584,208 20,375,224 18,327,317 -15.1% Services HICAP Program 922,431 797,578 789,871 -14.4% Title V Program 2,323,131 2,715,469 2,324,165 <0.1% PROGRAM (Area 25,928,805 27,045,248 23,464,519 -9.5% Plan, HICAP, Title V) Total AAA (Admin and 27,632,152 28,800,238 25,239,894 -8.7% Program) Source: CSS AAA Programs, FY 2006-07, FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 Budget. a HICAP: Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program b Title V programs provide part-time jobs for unemployed low-income people aged 55 and older. 304 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Seamless Senior Services Initiative Attempts to Coordinate 20 Agencies More than 20 County departments and agencies provide services to seniors and as a result of the large and growing elderly population in Los Angeles County, the County Chief Executive Officer launched the Seamless Senior Services (S3) Initiative in April
Quick View
Full Details →
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 98 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 99 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. 100 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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 98 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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
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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 215
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The SCAR system does not currently have a good method of tracking the sources of SCARs e.g., schools and hospitals. This would be helpful in historical comparisons to determine where training and education should take place.
F2:
The E-SCAR grant is scheduled to terminate June 30, 2010. There would be funds still available within the grant. This can be extended by the CEO.
F3:
There is a concern that law enforcement officers are not aware of the need to make SCAR reports in cases of child endangerment. The case of a DUI arrestee with a small child in a vehicle is an example that needs to be reported and more thoroughly investigated by both DCFS and law enforcement.
F4:
There remain a number of improvements to E-SCARs to be made. These include the handling of rerouted E-SCARs, proper contact individuals, the roles of the users and E-SCAR search capabilities. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 11 DCFS
F5:
An insufficient number of Human Service Aides are used to augment the efforts of the social workers.
F6:
DCFS co-location with law enforcement appears to have benefits toward improving child abuse response and investigation effectiveness
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Office of the District Attorney, Department of Child and Family Services and LASD should lead an effort to develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Operational Agreement, as appropriate, among all of the parties within Los Angeles County involved in the E-SCAR system for communicating cases of suspected child abuse.
R2:
The E-SCAR Memorandum of Understanding/Operational Agreement should define the roles of the participants as to the communication and transmission of data and information among themselves and their coordination of responses. Time-to-respond and best practices standards should be established by DA, DCFS, LASD and the other parties to the Memorandum of Understanding/Operational Agreement for use as benchmarks by the participants. The Memorandum/Agreement should not, however, attempt to define or dictate the operations of the various groups as to their internal processes and protocols used in investigating, prosecuting or resolving reported child abuse allegations. STEERING COMMITTEE
R3:
The DA’s Office, DCFS and LASD should lead an effort to establish an expanded, permanent Steering Committee composed of representatives of the various agencies that participate in the E-SCAR process to oversee the system from the standpoint of enhancements, user friendliness and effectiveness of the various stakeholders.
R4:
The Steering Committee as a body should assure that the system receives optimal use and is enhanced periodically with such items as: • Clarifying documentation of the procedures for rerouting E-SCARs that have been sent to the incorrect LEA • Establishing and maintaining a list of the critical contact individuals in the various groups involved. This list should be part of the system and should be available to all who have access to it • Expanding the search capabilities of the system to the extent possible within statutory privacy concerns to include responding officer’s name, victim’s mother’s name and other relevant criteria 12 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT • Incorporating a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) into the system as a ready reference for users to assure that the system is receiving optimal use • Establishing a formal process to seek suggested enhancements or modifications to the system among its various users • Incorporating a list of recent enhancements or changes to the system for ready reference • Monitoring the consistency and speed of handling of E-SCARs by the various law enforcement agencies • Encouraging training of Mandated Reporters as to their reporting role • Maintaining, updating and communicating a chart of information flows and action responsibilities for all of the participants in the child abuse reporting and response effort in Los Angeles County (An abbreviated flowchart of DCFS’s recently updated version is attached as Appendix A.) SCARs
R5:
The DA’s office and DCFS should amend the SCAR/E-SCAR process to im- prove the identification of the sources of SCARs to the maximum extent pos- sible under privacy law concerns. This will help to better monitor the compli- ance with Mandated Reporter rules at the institution level e.g., schools, hos- pitals, and law enforcement. This can be accomplished by requiring the use of the existing fields in the SCAR input process. Results should be mon- itored and followed up with the appropriate training and education. E-SCARs
R6:
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should take steps to assure that there will be adequate continuing funding to maintain the systems integri- ity of the E-SCAR process. Any complex system requires ongoing maintenan- ce to make minor improvements and changes as the system matures. It has been estimated that one to two full time systems analysts plus support for a cost of $100,000 to $250,000 per year would be adequate. opment grant until all authorized funds have been expended.
R7:
The DA’s Office, DCFS and LASD should expand the awareness of all law en- forcement personnel as to their roles as Mandated Reporters especially as the requirement to cross-report suspected child abuse or endangerment cases en- countered in the field. DCFS
R8:
The Department of Children and Family Services should consider the employ- ment of additional Human Services Aides to alleviate some of the less critical work performed by the social workers. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 13
R9:
As demonstrated at the Palmdale Sheriff’s station, co-location of DCFS social workers at law enforcement facilities has helped foster better cooperation and more effective communication between the two groups. LASD and DCFS should make a thorough evaluation of this approach and expand the concept wherever practical.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The complainant contended that during the planning and deployment phase the staffing allocation was not adequate to handle the anticipated increase in calls. The PCS civilian staff allocation, originally budgeted in FY 2004, included: Communication Dispatcher levels I-IV (sixty-one), Supervisors (five) and Center Coordinator (one) for a total of sixty-seven staff positions. A concentrated effort to add staff was deferred until August 2009. In response to the public posting of the Communication Dispatcher position, over 400 applications were received. The application process includes: written test, oral interview, psychological assessment and background check. Of the total applicants only thirty-seven candidates advanced to the background check. Twenty-seven applicants did not proceed in the process for the following reasons: • Seven declined to participate in the process • Two disqualified • Six not recommended for hire as a result of background check • Twelve withdrew The standards and requirement levels are high. As of January 2010 there were ten applicants still in the hiring process. Upon hiring, trainees will be required to complete training for twelve months, plus an additional six months of supervised training. The complainant alleged that the number of calls upon deployment of W911 increased by 67%. Statistical records indicated an overall increase of calls at 53%. The complainant also contended the increase in calls caused a delay in answering Calls For Service. The standard time for answering emergency calls is ten seconds. The first phase-in of the six major wireless carriers began in November 2008 and was completed March 2009. The CGJ reviewed Calls For Service statistical data for January 2009 through December 2009. The record indicates that during ten months of the period reviewed, the ten second standard for answering calls was met 91.7% of the time. Records indicated the answer time dropped below the ten second standard during a two month period in July and August 2009 when it declined to 86.7% and 89.4%, respectively.
F2:
The City of Long Beach is currently conducting an audit of the CPS which includes operations, increase of calls and best business practices. Results of that audit are pending. 18 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The complainant contended that during the planning and deployment phase the staffing allocation was not adequate to handle the anticipated increase in calls. The PCS civilian staff allocation, originally budgeted in FY 2004, included: Communication Dispatcher levels I-IV (sixty-one), Supervisors (five) and Center Coordinator (one) for a total of sixty-seven staff positions. A concentrated effort to add staff was deferred until August 2009. In response to the public posting of the Communication Dispatcher position, over 400 applications were received. The application process includes: written test, oral interview, psychological assessment and background check. Of the total applicants only thirty-seven candidates advanced to the background check. Twenty-seven applicants did not proceed in the process for the following reasons: • Seven declined to participate in the process • Two disqualified • Six not recommended for hire as a result of background check • Twelve withdrew The standards and requirement levels are high. As of January 2010 there were ten applicants still in the hiring process. Upon hiring, trainees will be required to complete training for twelve months, plus an additional six months of supervised training. The complainant alleged that the number of calls upon deployment of W911 increased by 67%. Statistical records indicated an overall increase of calls at 53%. The complainant also contended the increase in calls caused a delay in answering Calls For Service. The standard time for answering emergency calls is ten seconds. The first phase-in of the six major wireless carriers began in November 2008 and was completed March 2009. The CGJ reviewed Calls For Service statistical data for January 2009 through December 2009. The record indicates that during ten months of the period reviewed, the ten second standard for answering calls was met 91.7% of the time. Records indicated the answer time dropped below the ten second standard during a two month period in July and August 2009 when it declined to 86.7% and 89.4%, respectively.
F2:
The City of Long Beach is currently conducting an audit of the CPS which includes operations, increase of calls and best business practices. Results of that audit are pending. 18 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Long Beach should continue to aggressively hire staff to operate the PCS in spite of the difficulties of hiring and training qualified applicants.
R2:
An Audit firm should be hired to: • Conduct a comprehensive review of the staffing, operations and practices • Determine what additional procedures should be implemented • Evaluate a cost-effective-manner to operate the PCS 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 19 This page intentionally left blank . 20 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Entry into the Inglewood Police Department for inspection proved to be difficult, even with a prior day’s call to announce the inspection. The CGJ was turned away; it took a telephone call to the Inglewood Police Chief to gain entry. This was the only city not allowing easy access to the jails.
F2:
The Temple City Sheriff’s Station staff stated that they have 5 custody assistants, enough to have one person guarding the inmates at all times but, for safety, they would prefer two guards at all times. This would require another 5 custody assistants, which they also stated could not always be justified by the number of inmates, which fluctuates daily.
F3:
Staff stated that the Pitchess Detention Center East Facility had cameras installed in jail dormitories in 2005. They said they have been very useful at recording the origin of incidences of violence amongst inmates. The cameras were a pilot program but have not yet been installed elsewhere to staff’s knowledge.
F4:
Maintenance, cleaning and painting issues were noted for six facilities: Long Beach Superior Court - Latex gloves were strewn over a wide area outside the men’s holding cells. There were holes in walls in two areas. The men’s multiple inmate holding cell had a foul odor. Narrow corridors were cluttered with boxes and trash. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 419 Metropolitan Traffic Court - The female holding tank had toilet paper plastered on the walls. Hallways were extremely crowded and dirty. Pasadena Court - The interior needs painting. Pico Rivera Station - Painting on floors and doors was unfinished. South Gate PD - Both the exterior and the interior need cleaning and maintenance. Southwest Area LAPD - The interior needs paint and better lighting; it is dark and dingy. The exterior needs better maintenance and debris removal.
F5:
Seven facilities had maintenance issues: Kenyon Juvenile Justice Center - Paint was flaking off the walls in the cells throughout. Camp Afflerbaugh - The Gymnasium was in dire need of paint. Camp Miller - The shower room and hand washing basin area was unsanitary and in need of plumbing repair. Camp Scott - Gopher holes in the athletic field prevented its use. Broken walkway pavement was dangerous. Camp Scudder - Gopher holes in the athletic field prevented its use. Camp Munz - The bathroom had plaster holes and broken windows. Camp Mendenhall - The drinking fountain near the dining room was inoperable, the gym stage was damaged, and the pavement by the gym was broken, dangerous and roped off.
F6:
Camps Miller, Kilpatrick, Holton and Routh did not have emergency generators.
F7:
Staff said that Camp Scott and Camp Scudder had difficulty evacuating during a recent fire due to a lack of buses. 420 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
F8:
Camp Scott houses a large mental health facility while all female mental health patients receiving psychotropic medication are housed at nearby Camp Scudder. The Mental Health Director requested that the two camp populations be switched so that patients would be closer to their appropriate service needs.
F9:
Five Camps had laundry and related sanitation problems: Camp Miller had dozens of bags of backlogged, soiled laundry filled with clothing and bedding. Over 50 large black trash bags of laundry were found on one visit to Camp Miller, leaving the juvenile inmates, in some cases, without clean clothing. At Camps Mendenhall, Munz, Scott and Scudder staff stated that the juvenile inmates spent much of their day doing laundry instead of more productive activities. Machines at Miller, Munz, Mendenhall, Scott and Scudder were inadequate for the volume of laundry. Letters relative to the laundry problem at Camp Miller were sent by this CGJ to Robert B. Taylor, Chief Probation Officer, and to Doyle Campbell, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Public Safety, requesting correction of this situation as it posed an imminent health problem for the juvenile inmates. In addition, the previous year’s CGJ had found serious laundry and maintenance issues at Camp Miller which had not been corrected as of 12/1/08. No response was received by this CGJ to the letters requesting attention to this problem. Staff at Camp Miller said that they had on many occasions spoken with the Management Service Bureau but were unable to get an acceptable response to this problem. They had previously taken their laundry by truck to nearby Camp Gonzales but couldn’t continue to do so because their ratio of staff members to detainees would be in jeopardy.
F10:
The Challenger Camps have, according to the mental health practitioners on staff, a waiting list of 135 juvenile inmates requiring help. Staffing does not meet the need.
F11:
The CGJ is well aware of the “Memorandum of Agreement Between The United States and The County of Los Angeles Regarding The Los Angeles Probation Camps.” It is also aware of the appointment of the Monitor and the Monitoring Team, the deadlines for implementation plans and written policies, and the status report timing over the four year period of monitoring the implementation. This CGJ knows that practices to be corrected include juvenile justice and use of force, grievance systems, suicide prevention, and mental health assessment and care. However, inspection of the camps produced systemic evidence of management and organizational shortcomings as well as operational problems. Each and every camp had its own set of problems, indicative of the lack of consistent operational standards applied by Senior Management. It is this CGJ’s finding that each camp commander ran an independent fiefdom, whether by design or by necessity. There appeared to be a disparity of resources available to the different camp directors. Decentralization was the rule that governed the widespread inconsistency.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
– Inglewood Police Department The Inglewood Police Department should instruct their supervisors and staff of the role and responsibilities of the CGJ for inspections under the California Administrative Code and Title 15, particularly since inspections by the CGJ occur annually at Sheriff and city- run jails.
R2:
– Sheriff’s Department The Sheriff’s Department should examine the need for additional staffing at Temple City based on the volume by day of inmates over a year’s time and determine if additional custody assistants could be added.
R3:
– Sheriff’s Department The Sheriff’s Department should examine the pilot program plan, determine if other facilities could benefit from cameras in protecting both the rights of staff and of inmates, and detail the related budget implications for other jails.
R4:
- Sheriff’s Department, Southgate PD, LAPD The above mentioned law enforcement agencies should schedule corrective measures and remedy these health and maintenance issues within the next quarter. Juvenile Detention Facilities
R5:
- Probation Camp supervisory personnel should schedule corrective measures with Internal Services Department (ISD) and remedy these maintenance issues within the next quarter. Senior departmental management should monitor execution of same.
R6:
- Probation 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 proceed with a special use permit for U.S. Forestry land to install a generator at Camp Headquarters/Holton. Finally, the Chief Probation Officer should, within the next six months, install a generator at Camp Routh.
R7:
– Probation 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.
R8:
- Probation Senior management should review the proposal and implementation plan of the Mental Health Director at Camp Scott and determine the proposed cost, if any, of same within the next quarter.
R9:
- Probation A proposal for the resolution of the laundry should be developed by the Probation Department and presented to the Board of Supervisors within this quarter. Short term implementation of a proposed Sheriff’s Department centralized laundry system for all camps should be tested for these camps within the quarter. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 421
R10:
- Probation An analysis of the mental health staffing needs at the Challenger Camps should be completed within the quarter, specifically to fulfill the requirements of the “Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States and the County of Los Angeles Regarding The Los Angeles Probation Camps.” The memorandum of agreement requires implementation plans due 120 days from the agreement signing (October 31, 2008) and written policies due 180 days from the agreement signing. That would make documentation due in spring (April, May) 2009.
R11:
– Board of Supervisors The CGJ does not believe that it is solely sufficient to correct the practices in the Youth Camps as the Justice Department requires. The CGJ recommends that the Board of Supervisors initiate a thorough review of the Probation Department senior management and their management practices related to the Los Angeles Probation Camps. This examination should include reporting structure, operational standards, accountability measures, shared best practices, and performance reviews. This should be accomplished within this calendar year and coincide with the development of the Justice Department monitoring process. A more effective management structure should be the result. 422 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Exhibit I DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION REPORT by the JAILS COMMITTEE of the )_______________________________________________________ (2)_______________________________________________________ (3)_______________________________________________________ Rating Compliant Non-Compliant Staffing Emergency Procedures Mental Health Education/Vocational Training Restraints Sanitation Segregation Biomedical/Behavioral Research Healthcare/Triage/Safety GENERAL APPEARANCE & COMMENTS ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Exhibit I 424 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Exhibit I 426 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report SPEAKERS AND EVENTS COMMITTEE Peter Doctorow–Chair Nora Clark–Vice Chair Stephanie Alexander Robert W. Chu A Report by the Los Angeles County 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury SPEAKERS AND EVENTS COMMITTEE
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
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 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 253 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.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Auditor-Controller does not have a policy/procedural manual outlining the process of receiving calls and cataloging key statistical records
F2:
There is no special emphasis on reporting drug/alcohol abuse
F3:
The availability of this public 800 number hotline resource is not well known
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A Department of Occupational Health and Safety pre-employment positive drug test should preclude an applicant from applying for any county posit- ion for at least one year. An applicant’s positive test result should be avail- able to other county departments for reference.
R2:
DOH should coordinate with the City of Los Angeles Department of Person- nel in negotiating for drug testing contractors. Utilizing the same contract- ors may result in significant cost savings. Los Angeles Sheriff Risk Management Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) has 10,000 sworn officers and 8,000 civilian employees. Random drug testing began in 1993 with all ranks tested, as well as civilian personnel who handle drug evidence. The CGJ reviewed the LASD drug testing procedures. Random selection of an employee to be tested has a number of thorough steps. Each step protects the employee’s privacy and rights. The results are revealed only to the supervisor when a test is positive. In the final step, a Medical Review Officer interviews the employee to determine if any reason for the positive result may have been overlooked. When there is no further choice or doubt, the supervisor initiates disciplinary action or termination. Refusal to submit to testing is cause which merits the same action. Steroid testing is not deemed necessary. Alcohol abuse is not randomly tested; possible abuse is referred to Internal Affairs. In the matter of an off-duty DUI or domestic violence incident, when alcohol is a factor, the arrest information is published (without using their name). A first offender is offered counseling and is subject to fifteen days off without pay. Cost for tests is $10. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states that no personnel below the rank of Sergeant may conduct random testing. The 2003 budget crisis forced the Department to eliminate testing teams. In 2005, the Department hired retired Sergeants under a 120-day program to administer random drug tests. Presently random drug testing is not being conducted. 32 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATION
R3:
LASD Risk Management Department should resume random drug testing. Los Angeles County Fire Department Although the CGJ met with the managers of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the managers were reluctant to provide information regarding their policy procedure and drug testing statistics. Los Angeles County Probation Department The Department of Probation (DOP) has 6,100 budgeted positions of which 4,000 have peace officer status. Pre-employment drug testing began in 2007, however random drug testing of Deputy Probation Officers with peace office status along with other key DOP personnel are not currently conducted. Since August 2007 there have been eighteen individuals charged with possession of controlled substances resulting in: • 12 employees discharged • 2 offenders suspended • 3 pending performance management review • 1 unknown disposition There is a DOT requirement to test transportation/drivers employed by DOP. The Department utilizes the DOT guidelines to test transportation/drivers. Implementation of random testing DOP employees would be a collective bargaining issue. DOP negotiates with two unions consisting of three bargaining units. To date the unions has not agreed to random testing. A probation employee arrested for drug use anywhere at any time is subject to investigation and possible termination under the zero tolerance policy.
R4:
Department of Probation (DOP) key employees should be randomly tested. This would include Deputy Probation Officers who are considered safety of- ficers and should be held responsible and accountable as are the Police, safe- ty Police and Sheriff’s Officers. In addition, permanent county employees of residential detention centers and services should be randomly tested. County of Los Angeles Safety Police The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) is scheduled to merge with the Sheriff’s Department in June 2010. Currently there are 596 sworn officers, 70 civilian and approximately 1,100 contracted employees. OSP provides policing staff for: 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 33 • Board of Supervisors • Chief Economic Office • Registrar Recorder • Department of Public Social Services • Department of Children and Family Services • Department of Health Services • Department of Mental Health • Department of Parks and Recreation • Department of Probation All employment candidates are drug tested. Random drug testing procedures mirror those of the Sheriff’s Department. The OSP also manages a public Hotline. This Hotline is for the public and employees to anonymously report suspected fraud, job abuse, drug abuse as well as malfeasance of vendors, managers, or contractors. OSP is required to report the complaints to the appropriate department for investigation.
R5:
The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) public Hotline should be integrated into the Sheriff’s Department and continue to function. Develop and maintain a categorized log of all calls. Initiate a county wide awareness pro- gram relative to the ability of the Hotline to anonymously report job related abuses. Office of the Auditor Controller The Auditor Controller staff also maintains a free County Fraud Hotline which receives allegations of fraud, drug/alcohol abuse and other complaints pertaining to county employees, managers, contractors and vendors. Allegations are also submitted and received by mail as well by walk-in contact. Each allegation is logged, a report is submitted or referral sent to the appropriate department for investigation and resolution. If a complaint is criminal in nature, the law enforcement agency of jurisdiction is contacted to investigate and adjudicate.
R6:
The Office of Auditor-Controller should develop a policy/procedure manual to categorize, maintain statistical records of complaints, communicate to all 34 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT agencies the availability of the Hotline, publicize the Hotline number and stress the assurance of confidentiality. CITY OF LOS ANGELES FINDING City of Los Angeles Department of Personnel The City of Los Angeles Department of Personnel manages approximately 45,000 employees. There is mandatory pre-employment drug testing for Police, transportation/drivers, Airport Police, Harbor Police and Medical Personnel. A prospective employee who fails a pre-employment drug test may apply for a different position. There is no automatic preclusion from employment. Commercial vehicle drivers fall under DOT rules for testing. DOT requires yearly random testing of 50% of the 3000 commercial drivers. The City uses five clinics for testing and drug tests have a twenty to forty-eight hour turn around. Cost to the City is approximately $13 per test. Testing is conducted by breath or urine specimens; rarely is blood drawn. Individuals who fall under reasonable suspicion are immediately placed on suspension, seen by a doctor and excused for the balance of the day. Human Resources Department (HRD) is contacted to confirm the results. An employee who has tested positive may not return to duty until cleared by the Medical Review Officer (MRO). The MRO requires the employee to complete counseling and/or rehabilitation. Upon returning to duty, the MRO will schedule up to three follow up random tests. A subject’s refusal to be tested is deemed to be the same as a positive test result.
R7:
The Los Angeles City Department of Personnel should collaborate and share contract information with other agencies including the County of Los Angeles to utilize the same drug testing facilities as a possible cost saving measure. Los Angeles Police Department The Los Angeles Police Department has approximately 10,000 officers. Officers are tested up to six times per year during their one year probationary period,. Permanent officers below the rank of Captain are subject to random testing three times per year. Officers testing positive are referred to a Board of Review and may be terminated. Since 1991 sixteen officers have been terminated. If an officer voluntarily informs the department of an addiction or other drug use related problems, he/she will be eligible for the Employee Assistance Program. Participation is confidential and the department cooperates and encourages the employee’s rehabilitation. The employee is allowed to use sick time and other available accrued time during the rehabilitation period. The drug testing procedures for probationary and permanent employees follow a very strict protocol to assure a drug free workplace. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 35 Los Angeles City Fire Department After numerous attempts by the CGJ to schedule an information gathering meeting, Los Angeles City Fire Department failed to respond. 36 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
LASD Risk Management Department should resume random drug testing. Los Angeles County Fire Department Although the CGJ met with the managers of the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the managers were reluctant to provide information regarding their policy procedure and drug testing statistics. Los Angeles County Probation Department The Department of Probation (DOP) has 6,100 budgeted positions of which 4,000 have peace officer status. Pre-employment drug testing began in 2007, however random drug testing of Deputy Probation Officers with peace office status along with other key DOP personnel are not currently conducted. Since August 2007 there have been eighteen individuals charged with possession of controlled substances resulting in: • 12 employees discharged • 2 offenders suspended • 3 pending performance management review • 1 unknown disposition There is a DOT requirement to test transportation/drivers employed by DOP. The Department utilizes the DOT guidelines to test transportation/drivers. Implementation of random testing DOP employees would be a collective bargaining issue. DOP negotiates with two unions consisting of three bargaining units. To date the unions has not agreed to random testing. A probation employee arrested for drug use anywhere at any time is subject to investigation and possible termination under the zero tolerance policy.
R4:
Department of Probation (DOP) key employees should be randomly tested. This would include Deputy Probation Officers who are considered safety of- ficers and should be held responsible and accountable as are the Police, safe- ty Police and Sheriff’s Officers. In addition, permanent county employees of residential detention centers and services should be randomly tested. County of Los Angeles Safety Police The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) is scheduled to merge with the Sheriff’s Department in June 2010. Currently there are 596 sworn officers, 70 civilian and approximately 1,100 contracted employees. OSP provides policing staff for: 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 33 • Board of Supervisors • Chief Economic Office • Registrar Recorder • Department of Public Social Services • Department of Children and Family Services • Department of Health Services • Department of Mental Health • Department of Parks and Recreation • Department of Probation All employment candidates are drug tested. Random drug testing procedures mirror those of the Sheriff’s Department. The OSP also manages a public Hotline. This Hotline is for the public and employees to anonymously report suspected fraud, job abuse, drug abuse as well as malfeasance of vendors, managers, or contractors. OSP is required to report the complaints to the appropriate department for investigation.
R5:
The Los Angeles County Office of Safety Police (OSP) public Hotline should be integrated into the Sheriff’s Department and continue to function. Develop and maintain a categorized log of all calls. Initiate a county wide awareness pro- gram relative to the ability of the Hotline to anonymously report job related abuses. Office of the Auditor Controller The Auditor Controller staff also maintains a free County Fraud Hotline which receives allegations of fraud, drug/alcohol abuse and other complaints pertaining to county employees, managers, contractors and vendors. Allegations are also submitted and received by mail as well by walk-in contact. Each allegation is logged, a report is submitted or referral sent to the appropriate department for investigation and resolution. If a complaint is criminal in nature, the law enforcement agency of jurisdiction is contacted to investigate and adjudicate.
R6:
The Office of Auditor-Controller should develop a policy/procedure manual to categorize, maintain statistical records of complaints, communicate to all 34 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT agencies the availability of the Hotline, publicize the Hotline number and stress the assurance of confidentiality. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
R7:
The Los Angeles City Department of Personnel should collaborate and share contract information with other agencies including the County of Los Angeles to utilize the same drug testing facilities as a possible cost saving measure. Los Angeles Police Department The Los Angeles Police Department has approximately 10,000 officers. Officers are tested up to six times per year during their one year probationary period,. Permanent officers below the rank of Captain are subject to random testing three times per year. Officers testing positive are referred to a Board of Review and may be terminated. Since 1991 sixteen officers have been terminated. If an officer voluntarily informs the department of an addiction or other drug use related problems, he/she will be eligible for the Employee Assistance Program. Participation is confidential and the department cooperates and encourages the employee’s rehabilitation. The employee is allowed to use sick time and other available accrued time during the rehabilitation period. The drug testing procedures for probationary and permanent employees follow a very strict protocol to assure a drug free workplace. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 35 Los Angeles City Fire Department After numerous attempts by the CGJ to schedule an information gathering meeting, Los Angeles City Fire Department failed to respond. 36 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 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:
Interviews were conducted with LAUSD representatives from the Instruction Support Services Division, including the Assistant Superintendent, program managers from the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Program, program managers from the Beyond the Bell Program, and others. Interviews were also conducted with the LAUSD General Counsel’s Office regarding the confidentiality of student records.
F4:
Interviews were conducted with LACOE representatives regarding the agency’s role serving students who are at risk of academic failure.
F5:
County Counsel was requested to provide information on the confidentiality of juvenile records in the areas of juvenile justice, health, mental health, substance abuse treatment, children and family services, and others. Los Angeles County Office of Education Mission and Activities Los Angeles County is home to 80 school districts and nearly 1.7 million students. The two major educational institutions include the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). LACOE has been designated by the California Department of Education (CDE) as the intermediary organization between local school districts and the State, providing training services for teachers, administrators and parents. In this role, LACOE also compiles countywide data and statistics for the State Department of Education, monitors low performing schools and performs a variety of consulting and support services for all 80 of the school districts in the County. LACOE also manages three educational programs, including: • Special Education, which provides specific services and support to students with learning and/or developmental disabilities • Juvenile Court Schools, which provide education and support services to delinquent and dependent youth in the County’s juvenile halls • Alternative Education, which provides alternative education for students at high risk of academic failure in mainstream public school settings Because all LACOE educational programs are directed towards students who have severe learning disabilities, are involved in the criminal justice system, or have failed in traditional school settings, LACOE representatives have indicated that these programs are directed toward students who are all at risk of academic failure. With that in mind, this report did not focus on the performance of LACOE students. This report does, however, focus on LAUSD, the largest district in Los Angeles County and the second largest school district in the country. They do attempt to identify students at risk of dropping out or not graduating. For those so identified, they provide comprehensive services and programs for students, teachers, parents and administrators, including special education and gifted education programs, and perform 178 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report extensive educational research and planning. In 2007-2008, the District provided services to over 690,000 students, grades K through 12, with nearly 84,000 staff and an annual budget of $13.9 billion. Students living in the LAUSD service area are ethnically and economically diverse. Based on District statistics, between 65 and 72 percent of all students are economically disadvantaged, and over 30 percent of high school students move residence during the school year. According to research, the demographics of the student population served by LAUSD makes them at risk of academic failure. Much has been published regarding certain predictors of dropping out of school, particularly with regards to the significant effects of poverty and ethnicity.1 According to the California Dropout Research Project, a research institute at the University of California, the reasons that students drop out of school fall into two general categories: 1) individual factors, which include educational performance, behaviors, attitudes, and background (ethnicity, English as a second language, and gender); and 2) institutional factors, which include school facilities and resources, family makeup, and communities.2 In 2006, the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Program was established by action of the LAUSD Board of Education. This program has focused on dropout prevention and is housed within the Instruction Support Services Division,3 with a primary emphasis to “assist in reducing the number of youth dropping out of school by focusing on the prevention, intervention, and recovery efforts of potential student dropouts and address the personal and academic needs of these at-risk youth and their families.”4 However, because of the economic difficulties being faced by the District, this program has been targeted for elimination in FY 2009-10. The central office staff of the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Program coordinates services at the district level to ensure schools are supported and teachers are trained regarding best practices concerning at-risk students and dropout prevention at levels of both primary and secondary education. The unit manages three dropout prevention programs, including the Comprehensive Student Support Program, the CAHSEE to College program, and the largest program, The Diploma Project. Besides running these programs, the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Program manages approximately 240 pupil service and attendance counselors, hosts an annual District-wide conference on dropout prevention, and offers ongoing professional development to staff in the District. Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7 (2), 55-71. Oakes, J. et al. (2007) “California Opportunity Indicators: Informing and Monitoring California’s Progress Towards Equitable College Access,” in G. Orfield and X. Gandara (Eds.), Expanding Opportunity in Higher Education: California and the Nation. Russell Rumberger and Sun Ah Lim, “Why Students Drop Out of School: A Review of 25 Years of Research,” California Dropout Research Project # 15, October 2008. Certainly there are other divisions and units within LAUSD that work towards increasing academic success, if not all LAUSD departments. The District runs departments of physical health services, mental health services, academic counseling, and special education programs, just to name a few. However, the focus of this report is on the unit created and designated for targeted dropout prevention programs, the Dropout Prevention and Recovery unit. Informational fact sheet provided by Dropout Prevention and Recovery Unit managers. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 179 The three dropout prevention programs target different levels of the LAUSD student population. The Comprehensive Student Support Program was established as part of SB65 School-based Pupil Motivation and Maintenance Program legislation that provided funding for schools to implement a comprehensive dropout plan focused on prevention, intervention and recovery efforts, specifically in the elementary schools. The Diploma Project targets middle and high school students who are considered to be at risk based on an assessment of multiple academic and attendance factors, and the CAHSEE to College Program targets high school students who may have passed all high school graduation requirements, but have been unable to pass CAHSEE. For FY 2009-10, the Superintendent has recommended that the Diploma Project and CAHSEE to College programs be eliminated as part of the larger budget strategy designed to deal with the current State budget crisis. Because the outcome of LAUSD Board budget deliberations is unknown at this time, this report provides analysis related to information sharing among the family of youth service providers as a first step toward establishing a more comprehensive menu of risk factors to be considered by schools and other agencies that serve at-risk youth and a strengthened system for assessing risk of individual students and the student population, as a whole. 180 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Los Angeles County is home to 80 school districts and nearly 1.7 million students. The two major educational institutions in the County are the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). In Fiscal Year 2007-08, LAUSD served over 690,000 students, grades K through 12, with its nearly 84,000 staff and an annual budget of $13.9 billion. District statistics show that between 65 and 72 percent of all students are economically disadvantaged and the dropout rate is approximately 30 percent, compared to a statewide average of 21 percent. Programs and services at LAUSD to serve youths at risk of dropping out or not passing the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) were the primary focus of this Civil Grand Jury investigation. Key findings and recommendations: Early dropout prevention and intervention efforts are hindered by Countywide constraints on information sharing.
Additional Recommendations
5
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:
Interviews were conducted with LAUSD representatives from the Instruction Support Services Division, including the Assistant Superintendent, program managers from the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Program, program managers from the Beyond the Bell Program, and others. Interviews were also conducted with the LAUSD General Counsel’s Office regarding the confidentiality of student records.
R4:
Interviews were conducted with LACOE representatives regarding the agency’s role serving students who are at risk of academic failure.
R5:
County Counsel was requested to provide information on the confidentiality of juvenile records in the areas of juvenile justice, health, mental health, substance abuse treatment, children and family services, and others. Los Angeles County Office of Education Mission and Activities Los Angeles County is home to 80 school districts and nearly 1.7 million students. The two major educational institutions include the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). LACOE has been designated by the California Department of Education (CDE) as the intermediary organization between local school districts and the State, providing training services for teachers, administrators and parents. In this role, LACOE also compiles countywide data and statistics for the State Department of Education, monitors low performing schools and performs a variety of consulting and support services for all 80 of the school districts in the County. LACOE also manages three educational programs, including: • Special Education, which provides specific services and support to students with learning and/or developmental disabilities • Juvenile Court Schools, which provide education and support services to delinquent and dependent youth in the County’s juvenile halls • Alternative Education, which provides alternative education for students at high risk of academic failure in mainstream public school settings Because all LACOE educational programs are directed towards students who have severe learning disabilities, are involved in the criminal justice system, or have failed in traditional school settings, LACOE representatives have indicated that these programs are directed toward students who are all at risk of academic failure. With that in mind, this report did not focus on the performance of LACOE students. This report does, however, focus on LAUSD, the largest district in Los Angeles County and the second largest school district in the country. They do attempt to identify students at risk of dropping out or not graduating. For those so identified, they provide comprehensive services and programs for students, teachers, parents and administrators, including special education and gifted education programs, and perform 178 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report extensive educational research and planning. In 2007-2008, the District provided services to over 690,000 students, grades K through 12, with nearly 84,000 staff and an annual budget of $13.9 billion. Students living in the LAUSD service area are ethnically and economically diverse. Based on District statistics, between 65 and 72 percent of all students are economically disadvantaged, and over 30 percent of high school students move residence during the school year. According to research, the demographics of the student population served by LAUSD makes them at risk of academic failure. Much has been published regarding certain predictors of dropping out of school, particularly with regards to the significant effects of poverty and ethnicity.1 According to the California Dropout Research Project, a research institute at the University of California, the reasons that students drop out of school fall into two general categories: 1) individual factors, which include educational performance, behaviors, attitudes, and background (ethnicity, English as a second language, and gender); and 2) institutional factors, which include school facilities and resources, family makeup, and communities.2 In 2006, the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Program was established by action of the LAUSD Board of Education. This program has focused on dropout prevention and is housed within the Instruction Support Services Division,3 with a primary emphasis to “assist in reducing the number of youth dropping out of school by focusing on the prevention, intervention, and recovery efforts of potential student dropouts and address the personal and academic needs of these at-risk youth and their families.”4 However, because of the economic difficulties being faced by the District, this program has been targeted for elimination in FY 2009-10. The central office staff of the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Program coordinates services at the district level to ensure schools are supported and teachers are trained regarding best practices concerning at-risk students and dropout prevention at levels of both primary and secondary education. The unit manages three dropout prevention programs, including the Comprehensive Student Support Program, the CAHSEE to College program, and the largest program, The Diploma Project. Besides running these programs, the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Program manages approximately 240 pupil service and attendance counselors, hosts an annual District-wide conference on dropout prevention, and offers ongoing professional development to staff in the District. Brooks-Gunn, J. & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7 (2), 55-71. Oakes, J. et al. (2007) “California Opportunity Indicators: Informing and Monitoring California’s Progress Towards Equitable College Access,” in G. Orfield and X. Gandara (Eds.), Expanding Opportunity in Higher Education: California and the Nation. Russell Rumberger and Sun Ah Lim, “Why Students Drop Out of School: A Review of 25 Years of Research,” California Dropout Research Project # 15, October 2008. Certainly there are other divisions and units within LAUSD that work towards increasing academic success, if not all LAUSD departments. The District runs departments of physical health services, mental health services, academic counseling, and special education programs, just to name a few. However, the focus of this report is on the unit created and designated for targeted dropout prevention programs, the Dropout Prevention and Recovery unit. Informational fact sheet provided by Dropout Prevention and Recovery Unit managers. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 179 The three dropout prevention programs target different levels of the LAUSD student population. The Comprehensive Student Support Program was established as part of SB65 School-based Pupil Motivation and Maintenance Program legislation that provided funding for schools to implement a comprehensive dropout plan focused on prevention, intervention and recovery efforts, specifically in the elementary schools. The Diploma Project targets middle and high school students who are considered to be at risk based on an assessment of multiple academic and attendance factors, and the CAHSEE to College Program targets high school students who may have passed all high school graduation requirements, but have been unable to pass CAHSEE. For FY 2009-10, the Superintendent has recommended that the Diploma Project and CAHSEE to College programs be eliminated as part of the larger budget strategy designed to deal with the current State budget crisis. Because the outcome of LAUSD Board budget deliberations is unknown at this time, this report provides analysis related to information sharing among the family of youth service providers as a first step toward establishing a more comprehensive menu of risk factors to be considered by schools and other agencies that serve at-risk youth and a strengthened system for assessing risk of individual students and the student population, as a whole. 180 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Los Angeles County is home to 80 school districts and nearly 1.7 million students. The two major educational institutions in the County are the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). In Fiscal Year 2007-08, LAUSD served over 690,000 students, grades K through 12, with its nearly 84,000 staff and an annual budget of $13.9 billion. District statistics show that between 65 and 72 percent of all students are economically disadvantaged and the dropout rate is approximately 30 percent, compared to a statewide average of 21 percent. Programs and services at LAUSD to serve youths at risk of dropping out or not passing the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) were the primary focus of this Civil Grand Jury investigation. Key findings and recommendations: Early dropout prevention and intervention efforts are hindered by Countywide constraints on information sharing.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
To improve the quality of laboratory services provided to the criminal justice system
F2:
To offer the general public and users of laboratory services a national standard and means of identifying laboratory facilities that satisfy accreditation criteria
F3:
To develop and maintain criteria which can be used by a laboratory to assess its level of performance and strengthen the operation 38 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F4:
To provide an independent, impartial, and objective system by which laboratory facilities can benefit from a total organization review In 2005, examiners assigned to the Manual Comparison Detail were involved in erroneous identification of evidence in two separate cases. This error resulted in false arrest in each case. The incidents were investigated and revealed a lack of supervisory oversight which may have contributed to the errors. The current ratio of supervisor to employees is 1:14. The industry standards show that an efficient supervisor to employee ratio is 1:8.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Ensure the building plans for the new facility include the essential space ac- commodations for the staff, space for files, work areas conducive to a lab en- vironment and room for growth.
R2:
Upon relocation and consolidation of the Tech Lab, the Latent Print Unit should begin to conform to the American Society of Crime Lab Directors requirements for accreditation. This process requires and includes the following: • Complete Manuals and Standard of Operations • Administrative review of all casework and reports • Technical review of a minimum of 10% of the Analytical Detail assignments • Ensure each subordinate is accountable to only one supervisor per function • Monitor laboratory during vacant hours by an intrusion alarm or by security personnel • Secure storage areas to prevent theft or interference and ensure limited controlled access. The storage conditions shall prevent loss, deterioration, contamination and maintain integrity and identity of the evidence • Ensure staff vacancies are filled and decrease the current ratio of supervisor to employee to 1:8
R3:
All staff should be fully trained and all manuals should be updated and/or com- pleted. Until the accreditation process has been completed utilize Lead Tech- cians in a supervisory capacity to ensure better quality control LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT–SECTION II
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Fewer inmates were housed in the non-specialized unit of the LAC+USC Medical Center in 2010 (one per day) than in 2005 (fifteen per day). In addition, a major safety change has occurred in that all inmates housed in specialized or non- specialized units are accompanied by a Deputy at all times rather than being restrained to the bed.
F2:
The installation of enhanced diagnostic capabilities at Twin Towers such as MRI and CT has not been accomplished and may not be practical because of budgetary and staffing considerations.
F3:
Orthopedic urgent care has not been instituted at Twin Towers primarily because of the inability of the Sheriff’s Department to attract the appropriate medical professionals.
F4:
The layout of the new LAC+USC Jail Ward has tripled the requirement for Deputies and Custody Assistants.
F5:
Twin Towers and LAC+USC have access to each other’s inmate medical records’ systems although they are not integrated.
F6:
Both the Laboratory and Pharmacy functions at Twin Towers are provided by outside contractors. The County may be better served if these services were provided by LAC+USC. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 47
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Executive Management of both the Sheriff’s Department and LAC+USC should establish a task force to review all of the medical services which are currently out-sourced by Twin Towers with the goal of integrating those services into the LAC+USC operations. This would be particularly relevant to Laboratory and Pharmacy which could possibly be established as satellites of LAC+USC’s services. Twin Towers could also possibly piggyback on the existing contracts that LAC+USC currently has for CT and MRI services if appropriate.
R2:
To streamline the hiring process, the Sheriff’s Department should speed up the background investigation process for physicians hired by Twin Towers.
R3:
The Executive Management of both the Sheriff’s Department and LAC+USC should consider the possibility of integrating the computerized Medical Records systems of Twin Towers and LAC+USC as a pilot project for future integration of the medical records of all of the DHS medical facilities.
R4:
LAC+USC Medical Center and Twin Towers should institute a program of informal observation visits for medical personnel from LAC+USC through the Twin Towers medical facility to provide familiarity with the unique issues relating to medical services in an incarceration setting. 48 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Fewer inmates were housed in the non-specialized unit of the LAC+USC Medical Center in 2010 (one per day) than in 2005 (fifteen per day). In addition, a major safety change has occurred in that all inmates housed in specialized or non- specialized units are accompanied by a Deputy at all times rather than being restrained to the bed.
F2:
The installation of enhanced diagnostic capabilities at Twin Towers such as MRI and CT has not been accomplished and may not be practical because of budgetary and staffing considerations.
F3:
Orthopedic urgent care has not been instituted at Twin Towers primarily because of the inability of the Sheriff’s Department to attract the appropriate medical professionals.
F4:
The layout of the new LAC+USC Jail Ward has tripled the requirement for Deputies and Custody Assistants.
F5:
Twin Towers and LAC+USC have access to each other’s inmate medical records’ systems although they are not integrated.
F6:
Both the Laboratory and Pharmacy functions at Twin Towers are provided by outside contractors. The County may be better served if these services were provided by LAC+USC. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Staff- Of the twenty-nine parks visited, the CGJ found only two which were adequately staffed.
F2:
Sanitation- In most parks visited, the CGJ found unsanitary, graffiti and trash- filled restrooms.
F3:
Security- Some parks require heightened security due to their location. Yet the CGJ noted that security cameras were inoperable or non-existent. Some parks had infrequent security patrols. Some were unreasonably permissive of homeless and others using the parks for illegal purposes.
F4:
Repair- The CGJ visited some parks where maintenance equipment was not operating. This diminished the attractiveness of the park. Equipment needed for the maintenance and attractiveness of the park was not operating. For example, in one nature park the pumps circulating the water had been out of operation for a long period. Parking areas were unpaved. 52 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F5:
Signage- Some parks have no signs indicating the park office.
F6:
Staff- Some employees did not wear the issued identifying nametags. This could lead to unauthorized persons misleading park visitors.
F7:
Volunteers- Parks need volunteers, from community organizations and businesses.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation and The City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks should ensure that the parks are adequately staffed.
R2:
Ensure that restrooms are regularly inspected and cleaned.
R3:
Coordinate with law enforcement which provides security; ensure existing security cameras are operable
R4:
Maintain equipment; blacktop and mark parking areas.
R5:
Provide signs that clearly identify park offices.
R6:
Employees should wear employee identification nametags.
R7:
Enlist community businesses and residents to contribute resources and volunteers. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 53 This page intentionally left blank 54 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RECREATION AND PARKS INSPECTION REPORT This page intentionally left blank 56
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Staff- Of the twenty-nine parks visited, the CGJ found only two which were adequately staffed.
F2:
Sanitation- In most parks visited, the CGJ found unsanitary, graffiti and trash- filled restrooms.
F3:
Security- Some parks require heightened security due to their location. Yet the CGJ noted that security cameras were inoperable or non-existent. Some parks had infrequent security patrols. Some were unreasonably permissive of homeless and others using the parks for illegal purposes.
F4:
Repair- The CGJ visited some parks where maintenance equipment was not operating. This diminished the attractiveness of the park. Equipment needed for the maintenance and attractiveness of the park was not operating. For example, in one nature park the pumps circulating the water had been out of operation for a long period. Parking areas were unpaved. 52 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F5:
Signage- Some parks have no signs indicating the park office.
F6:
Staff- Some employees did not wear the issued identifying nametags. This could lead to unauthorized persons misleading park visitors.
F7:
Volunteers- Parks need volunteers, from community organizations and businesses.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
LAUSD should implement an emergency plan for the support of Integrated Financial Systems (IFS), the current operating system for accounts payable.
R2:
LAUSD should review alternative methods to support IFS activities in case of a major failure.
R3:
LAUSD should review any considerations to reduce current staff within Information Technology Group (ITG) supporting IFS and review the impact of bumping from future budget reductions on this portion of ITG.
R4:
LAUSD should proceed with a definitive Plan to implement Release III, Accounts Payable and related modules of Business Tools for Schools (BTS) as soon as possible with appropriate oversight, planning, timing and cost estimates.
R5:
LAUSD should review and ensure the lessons learned from Release II implementation be actively followed in Release III implementation.
R6:
LAUSD should ensure proper training processes be completed for all people involved prior to the implementation of Release III Accounts Payable of BTS.
R7:
LAUSD should ensure proper management oversight of normal control reports during the implementation of Release III Account Payable.
R8:
LAUSD should designate appropriate internal upper level management to actively participate in an Information Technology Steering Committee. This group would oversee the decisions, costs, and progress on all ITG projects. This group would also be responsible for responding to audits involving LAUSD system’s projects as well as follow-up to audit recommendations. This group would possibly include the Chief Technology Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, the head of Educational Activities and a member of the LAUSD Board of Education (BOE).
R9:
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) should review any audit with significant findings within a six-month period for compliance and response. The CGJ recommends that OIG should specifically review the four audits previously performed on the payroll system. 64 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Manual of Policy and Procedures was not updated nor had it been communicated well to employees. A panel of retired employees updated the manual for inclusion in the new computer system.
F2:
Although the Public Guardian allotted 100 overtime hours per week in the budget, only eight overtime hours were actually claimed weekly.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Manual of Policy and Procedures was not updated nor had it been communicated well to employees. A panel of retired employees updated the manual for inclusion in the new computer system.
F2:
Although the Public Guardian allotted 100 overtime hours per week in the budget, only eight overtime hours were actually claimed weekly.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Communicate to all employees and new hires the Manual of Policy and Proce- dures and instruct them in using it. Emphasize the most pertinent changes. Use specially trained employees to assist fellow employees and new hires in understanding the manual and answering any questions.
R2:
Judiciously assign overtime work to reduce any backlog of cases and to ens- ure timely responses to new cases 66 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Implementation of these recommendations would have a beneficial impact on the operation of the Office of the Public Guardian. Los Angeles County Public Guardian has a Deputy Director who is moving forward on the recommendations of blue CONSULTING. The County is at a critical juncture in maintaining its guardianship of citizens who need care. In community after community, the Public Guardian has demonstrated a commitment to the welfare of its senior citizens. Recognizing the vital importance of the department in the face of impending enormous budget cuts, it is critical that leaders stay the course and preserve the foundation of trust that has been basic to the support the Public Guardian. To do otherwise would be to deprive the citizens who built our country of well deserved care. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 67 This page intentionally left blank 68 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Implementation of the Enterprise Master Person Identifier (EMPI) software (See section 8.3 below) and expanding its scope to other departmental services.
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. 228 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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. 232 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 233 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. 234 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 235 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. 236 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 237 2009 – A DECISIVE YEAR FOR ARTS EDUCATION AT LAUSD A Promise Worth Keeping FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
8 in Figure 1). 244 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
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:
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.
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. 250 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 251 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 252 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
1 There is no set of regional interagency goals or objectives to address gang reduction in Los Angeles County.
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 normal 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. 128 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
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:
A site visit was conducted at the Probation Department’s new pilot Day Reporting Center in South Los Angeles. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 137
F8:
Many of the data sources on gang reduction in Los Angeles County were reviewed including: • “Citywide Gang Activity Reduction Strategy,” (The Advancement Project, Los Angeles City County ad hoc Committee on Gang Violence and Youth Development 2007) • “Blueprint for a Comprehensive Citywide Anti-Gang Strategy,” (Los Angeles City Controller’s Office, 2008) • “Follow-up Audit on the Blueprint for a Comprehensive City-wide Anti-Gang Strategy,” (City Controller Laura Chick, 2009) • “The Comprehensive Collaboratives Addressing Youth Gangs,” (Urban Insti- tute, 2008) 138 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: GANG REDUCTION EFFORTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office estimates that there are 1,400 crimi- nal street gangs in Los Angeles County. There are reportedly at least 41,000 members in the City of Los Angeles alone and a countless number of youth at risk of gang in- volvement. The Los Angeles Police Department reported that the total number of gang- related crimes in 2008 was 6,877, of which 167 were homicides;4 an untold number of innocent by-standers were victimized as well. The collateral damage to stressed fami- lies, trauma-exposed children and vulnerable communities are immeasurable. None of the data collected for this investigation permitted segregation of reported gang membership by level of involvement or other factors. Anecdotal comments, however, made by individuals during the course of this investigation suggest that gang members involved in violent criminal activities represent a very small portion of the County’s youth and they are largely related to street drug trade, turf wars and revenge. Unfortunately, there is no universal definition of gang membership and some statistics on gang involvement count everything from young people who dress like gang members to international drug traffickers. It has also been estimated that the most violent criminal gangs in Los Angeles County represent less than 20 per cent of the total gang membership. This means that 80 per cent of the youth involved in gangs are not career criminals or engaged in violent activities. Consequently, gang reduction, as the City of Los Angeles maintains, must include a multi-faceted strategy. The Mayor’s office will continue to give priority to controlling violence through suppression tactics, while also providing prevention and intervention services to at-risk youth. To address the youth gang problem, programs related to gang prevention, intervention, suppression, and re-entry are housed in several agencies, both public and private, throughout the Los Angeles region. Law enforcement, education, social services and health agencies offer a variety of public and private programs that range widely in degree of gang focus and level of risk targeted. These programs and services were the focus of this Civil Grand Jury investigation. LAUSD is in a position to have a very positive anti-gang impact on its students. The District is in the process of compiling an inventory of gang reduction programs in its schools but will not have completed its survey until March 2010, and will not move forward on a comprehensive anti-gang strategy until all statistics have been analyzed. LACOE, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, is intimately involved in the education of children already identified as being at-risk but has only one employee, a Safety Coordinator in the Safe Schools Division, dedicated to regional gang reduction efforts. 4 “Citywide Gang Crime Summary, December 2008” Los Angeles Police Department, Gang and Opera- tions Support Division, January 8, 2009. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 139 Key findings and recommendations: Fiscal Accountability and Interagency Coordination of Gang Reduction Programs County-wide is Lacking.
Additional Recommendations
8
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 – 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 130 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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:
A site visit was conducted at the Probation Department’s new pilot Day Reporting Center in South Los Angeles. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 137
R8:
Many of the data sources on gang reduction in Los Angeles County were reviewed including: • “Citywide Gang Activity Reduction Strategy,” (The Advancement Project, Los Angeles City County ad hoc Committee on Gang Violence and Youth Development 2007) • “Blueprint for a Comprehensive Citywide Anti-Gang Strategy,” (Los Angeles City Controller’s Office, 2008) • “Follow-up Audit on the Blueprint for a Comprehensive City-wide Anti-Gang Strategy,” (City Controller Laura Chick, 2009) • “The Comprehensive Collaboratives Addressing Youth Gangs,” (Urban Insti- tute, 2008) 138 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: GANG REDUCTION EFFORTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office estimates that there are 1,400 crimi- nal street gangs in Los Angeles County. There are reportedly at least 41,000 members in the City of Los Angeles alone and a countless number of youth at risk of gang in- volvement. The Los Angeles Police Department reported that the total number of gang- related crimes in 2008 was 6,877, of which 167 were homicides;4 an untold number of innocent by-standers were victimized as well. The collateral damage to stressed fami- lies, trauma-exposed children and vulnerable communities are immeasurable. None of the data collected for this investigation permitted segregation of reported gang membership by level of involvement or other factors. Anecdotal comments, however, made by individuals during the course of this investigation suggest that gang members involved in violent criminal activities represent a very small portion of the County’s youth and they are largely related to street drug trade, turf wars and revenge. Unfortunately, there is no universal definition of gang membership and some statistics on gang involvement count everything from young people who dress like gang members to international drug traffickers. It has also been estimated that the most violent criminal gangs in Los Angeles County represent less than 20 per cent of the total gang membership. This means that 80 per cent of the youth involved in gangs are not career criminals or engaged in violent activities. Consequently, gang reduction, as the City of Los Angeles maintains, must include a multi-faceted strategy. The Mayor’s office will continue to give priority to controlling violence through suppression tactics, while also providing prevention and intervention services to at-risk youth. To address the youth gang problem, programs related to gang prevention, intervention, suppression, and re-entry are housed in several agencies, both public and private, throughout the Los Angeles region. Law enforcement, education, social services and health agencies offer a variety of public and private programs that range widely in degree of gang focus and level of risk targeted. These programs and services were the focus of this Civil Grand Jury investigation. LAUSD is in a position to have a very positive anti-gang impact on its students. The District is in the process of compiling an inventory of gang reduction programs in its schools but will not have completed its survey until March 2010, and will not move forward on a comprehensive anti-gang strategy until all statistics have been analyzed. LACOE, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, is intimately involved in the education of children already identified as being at-risk but has only one employee, a Safety Coordinator in the Safe Schools Division, dedicated to regional gang reduction efforts. 4 “Citywide Gang Crime Summary, December 2008” Los Angeles Police Department, Gang and Opera- tions Support Division, January 8, 2009. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 139 Key findings and recommendations: Fiscal Accountability and Interagency Coordination of Gang Reduction Programs County-wide is Lacking.
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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 265
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 assist in seeking solutions to the information-sharing dilemma, presents unnecessary barriers to the performance of the County’s goals.
F8:
5 Full cross-departmental cooperation regarding the intended creation, implementation, and employment of EMPI has occurred. However, full County funding for EMPI development (estimated at $5.46 million) has not yet been approved, although County approval of $1.8 million for DHS’s initial EMPI work is adequate for the current state of implementation. Full and complete implementation of EMPI is not expected until June 2013. A sign of optimism regarding the expected greater utility and sophistication to become available under EMPI is that DMH is already seeking software contractor bids for the development of its new Integrated Behavioral Health Information System (IBHIS), which will be linked to EMPI. Magnolia Place is intended to be the County’s test bed for putting EMPI into use. This testing, under the auspices of the Comprehensive Case Management group named in section 5.0, will identify all County services (and others for which the client may qualify) being provided. EMPI will be a very effective tool for improving cross-departmental information-sharing. To date, the County CIO has not been involved in this critical electronic system acquisition.
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
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
There will be no risk that they become lost.
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.
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.
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 information privacy is a proven tool which makes the control of such access safe and feasible.
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:
5.1 – The Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors should fully fund EMPI development with all possible speed and direct DHS to complete implementation no later than the end of 2010.
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 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 261 committees with principal responsibility for investigating problems in, and facilitating solutions of, information-sharing issues. 262 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report HEALTH INFORMATION-SHARING FOR AT-RISK YOUTH Overcoming Obstacles
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The projected population increase will surpass the county’s ability to export enough solid waste to keep up with the amount of trash generated in the next ten years. The projected export figure for 2018 is 48,000 tons per day, without any new facilities to supplement solid waste reduction. The proposed three demonstration plants will have the combined capacity to process 450 to 900 tons a day. This is far short of keeping up with the burden of an expanding population.
F2:
Even with three successful demonstration plants in place by 2016 or 2017, the capacity of a conversion technology plant will be inadequate to meet the projected estimates of the population at that time. The projected estimated charge to dispose of solid waste at a landfill for these new plants is between $55-95/ ton.
F3:
The projected costs of building each of three plants is approximately $40-90 million. The funding to build will be borne by private companies who operate each facility. The county will be an interested observer and each plant will operate under a conditional use permit.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The projected population increase will surpass the county’s ability to export enough solid waste to keep up with the amount of trash generated in the next ten years. The projected export figure for 2018 is 48,000 tons per day, without any new facilities to supplement solid waste reduction. The proposed three demonstration plants will have the combined capacity to process 450 to 900 tons a day. This is far short of keeping up with the burden of an expanding population.
F2:
Even with three successful demonstration plants in place by 2016 or 2017, the capacity of a conversion technology plant will be inadequate to meet the projected estimates of the population at that time. The projected estimated charge to dispose of solid waste at a landfill for these new plants is between $55-95/ ton.
F3:
The projected costs of building each of three plants is approximately $40-90 million. The funding to build will be borne by private companies who operate each facility. The county will be an interested observer and each plant will operate under a conditional use permit.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should support those Los Angeles County organizations working toward a zero-waste future and work with communities in Southern California to create demonstration conversion technology facilities.
R2:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should evaluate and promote the development of the most promising conversion technology to recover energy, products and other benefits from waste.
R3:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should educate the public about solid waste challenges. CONCLUSION The CGJ concluded this project is long overdue and must be viewed relative to the long range ramifications that further inaction would engender. The projected population growth in both the state and county brings with it the need for a greater reduction and disposal of solid waste and makes the project of paramount importance. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 71 This page intentionally left blank 72 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
This Department is utilizing an automated response system to assist pollworkers during elections. This system will track real time problems and lead to quicker response to Election Day issues.
F2:
The Registrar of Voters has implemented a website to check voter registration status (https://lavote.net/secured/voter_reg/). A frequent reason for provisional ballots being used during primary elections is voters’ disagreement with the party affiliation given in the roster. Unfortunately, the website which verifies voter registration is difficult to find and does not show party affiliation.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
– The Registrar of Voters The Registrar should continue to use this system. Resulting information should be evaluated in order to be better prepared for upcoming elections.
R2:
– The Registrar of Voters The Registrar of Voters should correct the website to verify voter registration with a link under the “Voter & Election Information” menu at the left of the front page, in addition to the icon near the top of the front page. The results of the voter registration status query should show party affiliation in addition to the validity of registration. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 401 Exhibit I PROVISIONAL BALLOT OVERVIEW This page and the information in the following two tables were provided to us by the Registrar of Voters. According to California Election Code (secs. 14310, 14311) registered voters whose voter registration or Vote By Mail status cannot be determined may vote a provisional ballot on Election Day. Provisional voters are voters who typically move to a different residence address within the same county and fail to reregister to vote or who otherwise fail to notify the county elections official and who attempt to vote at a polling location. They may also be voters whose Vote By Mail status cannot be determined. Provisional voters may vote at polling locations, county election offices, or at designated central locations if they fill out and sign a provisional ballot envelope and provide proof of residency such as a driver’s license or an item containing their name and current address. A government issued photo ID is not required. Assigned precincts for registered voters are determined by a voter's residence as referenced on their voter registration form. All voters who choose to vote at the polls are encouraged to visit their assigned precinct polling place location. However, voters who choose to vote at a location other than their assigned precinct may vote a provisional ballot. All polling place staff are trained to notify voters of their voting options, including their eligibility to vote a provisional ballot. After a provisional ballot is voted a voter's registration status must be determined at Election Headquarters before the provisional ballot is counted and added to the overall election tally. If a voter's registration status cannot be determined his/her provisional ballot is not counted. The Election Code was amended by the State Assembly in 2003. Prior to that time, most provisional ballot races were not counted- The current Election Code allows provisional voters whose registration status can be verified and who vote outside of their precinct location but within their assigned electoral jurisdictions (such as school board or state assembly districts) to have their vote counted. Votes for statewide or presidential candidates and ballot measures will also be counted if they are cast outside of a voter's electoral jurisdiction. To facilitate this process, staff at the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's office segregate all provisional ballot envelopes to determine the registration status and precincts of provisional voters. Then, staff determines the eligible contests in those precincts and the contests marked on the ballot. If a contest or contests on a voted ballot do not represent those contests offered on the precinct ballot, the ballot is remade to include only those votes cast that correspond with those contests offered in the precinct. Then, eligible ballots are counted and added to the final tally. All provisional ballot envelopes are marked and entered into the system as "count". 402 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report Exhibit I 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 403 404 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F1:
Operations, including work flow
F2:
Management COST A critical component of an MOU is a formal plan outlining a pooled budget. This process, after trust has been established, should be one of the first responsibilities of an Oversight Committee. The degree to which the involved parties are both frank and realistic at the onset of negotiations may determine the eventual success or failure of the project. An assumption may be made that all the participants will have a buy-in, that demand, or a list of demands, that if unmet, will be enough for the involved party to decline to participate. A genuine effort to accommodate each participant’s basic requirements is important. However, it is equally important for each participant to rank its needs. It may not be necessary for all essential items to be attained immediately. Additional components of cost savings are in the areas of transportation, document e-filing, and personnel deployment. Different agencies will realize different savings. Ideally, those who stand to realize the greatest savings will contribute the most, thus sharing their savings to stretch the budgets of the other participants. Another significant cost was the technology which has several components:
F3:
Recurring cost What would be a deal breaker? The participants responded that reduced budgets could affect their support of this effort. OPERATIONS The MOU would clearly define the daily operational responsibilities. An example would be the timely filing of discovery documents to the PD, preferably via electronic-delivery. This topic came up several times during the CGJ’s investigation. In essence, the PD would like to have 90% of their daily case-load delivered by a prescribed time to allow adequate time to schedule, interview and 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 75 appear. This would facilitate better organization of its resources and allow for better representation of its clients. Additionally, it would save time and money. The operational process would include a detailed workflow statement. This statement would show the details when each person involved in the video- conferencing technology hub system would interface as well as the responsibilities of that person in the process. Each participant would have an opportunity to develop processes within the operational section of the MOU that should lead to better efficiency, result in cost savings and set forth the responsibilities, and timelines Another major focus should be directed to the discussion and completion of a five year Strategic Plan for the implementation of a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system. TECHNOLOGY In this section of the MOU, the foundation is set with respect to hardware and software needed. This includes security of information, cameras, video monitors, middleware, compatibility, and required installation. There will be different levels of requirements among the various uses of video- conferencing technology such as need for a life-like experience, versus what is required for interviews, visitations, and conferencing. Consideration also needs to be given to security of information, as well as to privacy of the conversations between the PD and Alternate Public Defender offices and their clients. This would involve a middleware system and encryption. Any system must be compatible with what is already installed within the county and open to further expansion within the county. Allowances must be built into the cost for installations made in older buildings that may have asbestos. Discussions need to be centered on Broadband, Wi-Fi, or the other available technologies based on convenience, cost, and reliability. MANAGEMENT Emphasis should be given to the designation of key personnel from each agency to comprise an Oversight Committee, whose main function would be to proactively resolve any issues or disputes. Consideration is given to the inclusion of three to five members who come from the community to add diversity and balance. It is paramount the appointed leaders have the ability to act on behalf of their agencies. This creates timely resolution of issues and builds trust. The focus of this Oversight Committee is to ensure necessary MOU compliance. Issues or 76 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT disputes are heard and resolved in a timely manner to assure success beyond the pilot stage and for full countywide implementation. This Oversight Committee shall meet monthly, issue an agenda, have public meetings, promote public participation, and issue minutes to assure transparency. Section III TECHNOLOGY FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING Informational Security A key concern for all types of video-conferencing technology was the security of the information being transmitted, the audio being captured and the record of all proceedings. There was also the security of the discussion between the defendant and their legal counsel. It appears there were a number of security measures that need to be taken to ensure the system processes were proper. Technical There were a number of providers for video equipment. The displays can be plasma, LCD or projector images. The key decisions on the service used are experience, reliability, stability and service. The transmission varies by type and distance. The alternatives include:
F4:
Coaxial cable can handle up to 750 feet
F5:
RF cable – cable type depends on distance
F6:
Fiber Optic Cable – in a single or Multi –Node
F7:
UTP – Category 3,4,5 or 6
F8:
ISDN – Dial out to public
F9:
IP– LAN/WAN The implementation being completed by ISD was a Polycom System that was expandable and upgradeable. Two other major suppliers of video-conferencing technology equipment were Nefsis and Vulgate. Cost An expert in the field of video-conferencing technology estimated the cost of installation for video-conferencing technology would be between $30 and $40 thousand for each facility. In Los Angeles County there would be fifteen to twenty installations to achieve a video-conferencing technology hub system. This would mean a cost of between $500 thousand and $1 million. This does not include an estimated cost of $1-1.5million for the middleware which was required to control the access and privacy of the information between the parties. The cost estimate was a maximum $2.5 million for the entire Los Angeles County 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 77 system’s technical expense. This expert estimated the cost savings indicated a twelve to eighteen month short-term payback. Section IV LAPD METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER FINDINGS During its investigation into the implementation of video conferencing technology in various detention facilities in Los Angeles County, members of the CGJ visited the LAPD MDC at 100 N. Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles. It will supplant the older Metropolitan Judicial Center, which opened in 1955 and has been known since summer 1966 as Parker Center. The construction budget for the LAPD MDC was originally $70 million. In 2009, the estimated cost incurred was $85 million. This amount is increasing as design flaws are discovered and necessary corrections are made. The CGJ team noted a number of such basic flaws while touring the building, but the focus here is video-conferencing technology. Video arraignment and video visitation are the only aspects of video- conferencing technology currently being addressed in the LAPD MDC. A room located on the first floor adjacent to the booking area is expected to provide space for video arraignments. The room, approximately 20’ by 20’, had been wired for video, but at the time of the CGJ’s inspection, no equipment had been installed. The otherwise empty room had three rows of benches attached to the floor. The benches were outfitted with restraints. The security cameras failed to properly cover this room. Adjacent to this room were four smaller interview rooms that are better suited for video arraignments as they are more secure and allow for privacy between the defendants and their attorneys. The CGJ noted that the single large room does not allow for the segregation of defendants. Such segregation, by gang affiliation, sexual orientation, and race, was widely accepted by law enforcement agencies to be essential in maintaining the safety of both defendants and security personnel. The CGJ learned that for such safety to be provided, that the area would likely require modification and staffing would have to be increased by five to seven additional employees. The present design of the area offers no provision for client/attorney confidentiality and gives no consideration to the critical function of interpreters. It was expected that when/if this room is utilized, it will be used only for Felony Narcotics Arraignments, resulting in a projected 40 to 60 arraignments per day. The CGJ was satisfied with the video visitation installation at the LAPD MDC which had a room in the main lobby that contained sixteen video display terminals linked to sixteen inmate video visitation rooms within this detention 78 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT facility. This arrangement allowed for greater safety of those visiting and reduces the movement of the defendant within this facility.
F10:
Operations, including work flow
F11:
Management COST A critical component of an MOU is a formal plan outlining a pooled budget. This process, after trust has been established, should be one of the first responsibilities of an Oversight Committee. The degree to which the involved parties are both frank and realistic at the onset of negotiations may determine the eventual success or failure of the project. An assumption may be made that all the participants will have a buy-in, that demand, or a list of demands, that if unmet, will be enough for the involved party to decline to participate. A genuine effort to accommodate each participant’s basic requirements is important. However, it is equally important for each participant to rank its needs. It may not be necessary for all essential items to be attained immediately. Additional components of cost savings are in the areas of transportation, document e-filing, and personnel deployment. Different agencies will realize different savings. Ideally, those who stand to realize the greatest savings will contribute the most, thus sharing their savings to stretch the budgets of the other participants. Another significant cost was the technology which has several components:
F12:
Recurring cost What would be a deal breaker? The participants responded that reduced budgets could affect their support of this effort. OPERATIONS The MOU would clearly define the daily operational responsibilities. An example would be the timely filing of discovery documents to the PD, preferably via electronic-delivery. This topic came up several times during the CGJ’s investigation. In essence, the PD would like to have 90% of their daily case-load delivered by a prescribed time to allow adequate time to schedule, interview and 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 75 appear. This would facilitate better organization of its resources and allow for better representation of its clients. Additionally, it would save time and money. The operational process would include a detailed workflow statement. This statement would show the details when each person involved in the video- conferencing technology hub system would interface as well as the responsibilities of that person in the process. Each participant would have an opportunity to develop processes within the operational section of the MOU that should lead to better efficiency, result in cost savings and set forth the responsibilities, and timelines Another major focus should be directed to the discussion and completion of a five year Strategic Plan for the implementation of a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system. TECHNOLOGY In this section of the MOU, the foundation is set with respect to hardware and software needed. This includes security of information, cameras, video monitors, middleware, compatibility, and required installation. There will be different levels of requirements among the various uses of video- conferencing technology such as need for a life-like experience, versus what is required for interviews, visitations, and conferencing. Consideration also needs to be given to security of information, as well as to privacy of the conversations between the PD and Alternate Public Defender offices and their clients. This would involve a middleware system and encryption. Any system must be compatible with what is already installed within the county and open to further expansion within the county. Allowances must be built into the cost for installations made in older buildings that may have asbestos. Discussions need to be centered on Broadband, Wi-Fi, or the other available technologies based on convenience, cost, and reliability. MANAGEMENT Emphasis should be given to the designation of key personnel from each agency to comprise an Oversight Committee, whose main function would be to proactively resolve any issues or disputes. Consideration is given to the inclusion of three to five members who come from the community to add diversity and balance. It is paramount the appointed leaders have the ability to act on behalf of their agencies. This creates timely resolution of issues and builds trust. The focus of this Oversight Committee is to ensure necessary MOU compliance. Issues or 76 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT disputes are heard and resolved in a timely manner to assure success beyond the pilot stage and for full countywide implementation. This Oversight Committee shall meet monthly, issue an agenda, have public meetings, promote public participation, and issue minutes to assure transparency. Section III TECHNOLOGY FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING Informational Security A key concern for all types of video-conferencing technology was the security of the information being transmitted, the audio being captured and the record of all proceedings. There was also the security of the discussion between the defendant and their legal counsel. It appears there were a number of security measures that need to be taken to ensure the system processes were proper. Technical There were a number of providers for video equipment. The displays can be plasma, LCD or projector images. The key decisions on the service used are experience, reliability, stability and service. The transmission varies by type and distance. The alternatives include:
F13:
Coaxial cable can handle up to 750 feet
F14:
RF cable – cable type depends on distance
F15:
Fiber Optic Cable – in a single or Multi –Node
F16:
UTP – Category 3,4,5 or 6
F17:
ISDN – Dial out to public
F18:
IP– LAN/WAN The implementation being completed by ISD was a Polycom System that was expandable and upgradeable. Two other major suppliers of video-conferencing technology equipment were Nefsis and Vulgate. Cost An expert in the field of video-conferencing technology estimated the cost of installation for video-conferencing technology would be between $30 and $40 thousand for each facility. In Los Angeles County there would be fifteen to twenty installations to achieve a video-conferencing technology hub system. This would mean a cost of between $500 thousand and $1 million. This does not include an estimated cost of $1-1.5million for the middleware which was required to control the access and privacy of the information between the parties. The cost estimate was a maximum $2.5 million for the entire Los Angeles County 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 77 system’s technical expense. This expert estimated the cost savings indicated a twelve to eighteen month short-term payback. Section IV LAPD METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER FINDINGS During its investigation into the implementation of video conferencing technology in various detention facilities in Los Angeles County, members of the CGJ visited the LAPD MDC at 100 N. Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles. It will supplant the older Metropolitan Judicial Center, which opened in 1955 and has been known since summer 1966 as Parker Center. The construction budget for the LAPD MDC was originally $70 million. In 2009, the estimated cost incurred was $85 million. This amount is increasing as design flaws are discovered and necessary corrections are made. The CGJ team noted a number of such basic flaws while touring the building, but the focus here is video-conferencing technology. Video arraignment and video visitation are the only aspects of video- conferencing technology currently being addressed in the LAPD MDC. A room located on the first floor adjacent to the booking area is expected to provide space for video arraignments. The room, approximately 20’ by 20’, had been wired for video, but at the time of the CGJ’s inspection, no equipment had been installed. The otherwise empty room had three rows of benches attached to the floor. The benches were outfitted with restraints. The security cameras failed to properly cover this room. Adjacent to this room were four smaller interview rooms that are better suited for video arraignments as they are more secure and allow for privacy between the defendants and their attorneys. The CGJ noted that the single large room does not allow for the segregation of defendants. Such segregation, by gang affiliation, sexual orientation, and race, was widely accepted by law enforcement agencies to be essential in maintaining the safety of both defendants and security personnel. The CGJ learned that for such safety to be provided, that the area would likely require modification and staffing would have to be increased by five to seven additional employees. The present design of the area offers no provision for client/attorney confidentiality and gives no consideration to the critical function of interpreters. It was expected that when/if this room is utilized, it will be used only for Felony Narcotics Arraignments, resulting in a projected 40 to 60 arraignments per day. The CGJ was satisfied with the video visitation installation at the LAPD MDC which had a room in the main lobby that contained sixteen video display terminals linked to sixteen inmate video visitation rooms within this detention 78 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT facility. This arrangement allowed for greater safety of those visiting and reduces the movement of the defendant within this facility.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should draft/complete a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for a countywide video- conferencing technology hub system. The MOU should include: • A consensus of each participant’s involvement with its role clearly defined and stated • A well defined dispute resolution process • A detailed workflow statement • The cost agreement between the participants, allocated in a shared pool • The establishment of an Oversight Committee with representatives from each participating department, agency, or individual
R2:
The Oversight Committee for the countywide video-conferencing technology hub system should include: • A representative from the District of Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The CEO of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, LAPD, and LASD with authority to negotiate and make decisions that are involved in the entire process • Meetings scheduled on a monthly basis • Quarterly meetings with public attendance • Published minutes • Authority to interact with state and federal agencies • Ability to expand video-conferencing technology on a countywide basis
R3:
The District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, The CEO of the County of Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Public Defender, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should draft a Five Year Strategic Plan for a countywide video-conferencing technology hub system that includes the following: • Visitations • Interviews • Conferencing 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 79
R4:
The LAPD should modify the LAPD Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) as follows: • The four small interview rooms at the LAPD MDC should be rewired for video equipment and used as the principal space for video- conferencing applications • The security cameras, at the LADP MDC, should be adjusted, or their location changed, so that the 20’ by 20’ holding room is effectively monitored
R5:
In the future, when the LAPD considers any building project(s), particularly of the magnitude of the LAPD MDC, the design and bidding procedures should be more critically examined at the onset. Further, it is recommended that an Oversight Committee should guide and advise the architects and initial planners. Had this format been followed in the blueprint stage of the LAPD MDC, substantial monetary losses might have been avoided. 80 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT LIST OF ACRONYMS VIDEO-CONFERENCING TECHNOLOGY CGJ The 2009-2010 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury DA District Attorney ISD Internal Service Department LAPD Los Angeles Police Department LASD Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department MDC Metropolitan Detention Center MOU Memorandum of Understanding PD Public Defender 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 81 This page intentionally left blank 82 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
10 Glendale Water and Power (GWP), Long Beach Water Department, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Pasadena Water and Power Department, City of San Fernando Public Works Water, and the City of Santa Monica Water Department should support instructional literature and possible funding efforts for home purple pipe installations and gray water systems. Geographic Water Use To gain an understanding of water use, six LAC cities’ water departments were reviewed to see if they were targeting any specific geographic areas. The cities 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 97 selected were Santa Monica, Glendale, San Fernando, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. None of the cities questioned targeted specific geographic areas at the current time. San Fernando targeted the top ten internal users for water and has achieved a 5% reduction in use. The city was planning to review the top ten external users of water. HOW WAS THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO PUBLIC WORKS WATER WAS ABLE TO REPLACE 75% OF ITS WATER CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE?
R2:
16 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should establish a full-time position of Inspector General in the City Controller auditor’s office funded by the LADWP. This position would be dedicated to auditing and reviewing activities of the LADWP only. 2.17 The Inspector General for LADWP would be administered and selected by the Los Angeles City Controller. Water Rates Some rate increases for water nationwide were predicated on poor financial management and fraud by the specific water district. Many times water rate increases were dependent on the replacement of the infrastructure. Rate increases reflected the increased cost of acquiring additional water sources. Fixed costs for infrastructure were an ongoing issue in LAC, especially in the City of Los Angeles. Rate increases are a way to force conservation. The rates to the users of water in Los Angeles increased even though more water was being conserved. Because there was a shortage of water in LAC, it was imperative that all residents should use less water on a regular basis. The cost of replacing and retrofitting the infrastructure must still be absorbed. The use of fewer gallons of water means infrastructure repair and replacement expenses would be spread over fewer gallons of water. 114 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The LADWP continued to increase the rates for water usage to its customers on a regular basis; primarily as a result that much of the existing infrastructure is over one hundred years old. The rates are evaluated by the BWPC and passed on to the Los Angeles City Council for approval, and finally signed by the Mayor of Los Angeles. LADWP recommended the following objectives to restructure water rates (BWPC Proposal April 23, 2009): 1. To encourage conservation on a year-round basis modify the existing rates so that the differential between the First and Second Tier rates is based on the marginal cost of treated water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). 2. Include all surcharges and pass-through charges in both First Tier and Second Tier rates. 3. Keep the Second Tier base rates the same year-round rather than reduced during the low season. 4. Establish a Third Tier rate based on the marginal cost of recycled water to be imposed for very high usage, consistent with the original concept for LADWP’s water rate structure to provide a forward-looking price signal for the cost of new water supplies. 5. Realign household size adjustments at the First Tier rate using the current best management practices and technologies for indoor water use. 6. Utilize application of climate based conservation data to make adjustments in current First Tier usage blocks. 7. Increase low income and lifeline subsidies. 8. Update General Provision J of the Water Rates Ordinance, Adjustment Factor Limitations, based on the current projections for the adjustment factor components. 9. Modify Water Shortage Year Rates based on experience following initial implementation of these rates in 2009 and incorporate the rate restructuring. Increase the current minimum period for review by the City Council and the Mayor following approval by the Board to implement Shortage Year Rates from fifteen days to thirty days. 10. Eliminate Board approval of the water recycle contract for each LADWP customer and establish the commodity charge as 80% of the total First Tier billing rate for potable water (including adjustments). 11. Set lot size or temperature zone adjustments. 12. Revise the Water Quality Adjustment cap requirements. 13. Revise the Water Procurement Adjustment factor to encourage water conservation and fully recognize the results of demand-side management programs. LADWP water rates were based on establishing a water budget for a reasonable amount of water for each consumer. Consumption within that amount was then charged at First Tier rates. Consumption above the budget was charged at the higher Second Tier rate. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 115 The cost to validate the methodologies and analyses that their rate increases will be based on, included up to $150,000 in consulting services. In addition to LADWP staff expense, it was proposed that a resolution to the BWPC for the adoption of the rate increase be completed by January 2010. The process from proposal to approval was nine months. Water rate increases were approved by Los Angeles City Council and were passed on to the consumers within the city. These rate increases were predicated on water use and conservation efforts. Los Angeles had fixed costs for the delivery of water to the LADWP consumer. Additionally, many cities such as Pasadena, Glendale, Santa Monica, and Long Beach had tiered water rates based on the consumer’s use of water over and above set limits. In early 2010 San Fernando did not have a tiered rate system in place for water usage but was considering this option. There was general public agreement for the addition of a ratepayer advocate (RPA) responsible to review any rate increases. The RPA should be acceptable to all stakeholders. The RPA must function outside of the LADWP organization. The RPA must be assured of full access to any and all data and information from the LADWP that would be needed to accomplish its goals. The CGJ recommends that funding of the RPA, its staff, and office come from the LADWP. These are funds that are paid by all ratepayers. The selection and appointment process for creating the RPA must be accomplished with the utmost care to assure every interested party in the city of the independence and integrity of the RPA's organization and recommendations. Requirements for the RPA organization would include: • A staff of competent, qualified analysts and experts in the electric and water utility industries who will evaluate all significant proposals and monitor and advise management, when warranted, of any proposed or actual actions or omissions that may adversely affect the LADWP's ratepayers • The ability to monitor and provide transparency to ratepayers of all major projects and project proposals of management • The responsibility to monitor and publicize where necessary efforts by the LADWP to increase rates • The monitoring and publicizing of the status of the infrastructure and technology necessary to run LADWP effectively and efficiently • The review and analysis on a timely and continuous basis of the operations, finances, and management of the LADWP • The Rate Payers Advocate shall be beholden only to LADWP Rate Payers, although it may advise the City Council, the Mayor, and other interested parties • A place at the table at meetings of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners and at the City Council when LADWP affairs are being discussed • Complete independence from the governments of the City, County, and State and any of their suppliers or unions • The necessary education, experience and skills to perform its duties, including an understanding of the operations and finances of public utilities 116 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 2.18 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should require a detailed analysis of the basis of any rate increase and this analysis should be included in that portion of the rate increase. 2.19 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should provide the basis and details for any rate increases to the public with an appropriate period allowing for public response. 2.20 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should provide the basis and details of any significant changes to the billing process with an appropriate period allowing for public response. 2.21 LADWP should establish a Rate Payer Advocate organization with the duties and structure as defined above. Non-Revenue Water (NRW) NRW was defined as water that has been produced and is lost before it reached the customer. Losses could be real losses through leaks, sometimes also referred to as physical losses or apparent losses (for example through theft or metering inaccuracies). High levels of NRW are detrimental to the financial viability of water utilities, as well to the quality of water itself. NRW is typically measured as the volume of water lost as a share of net water produced. It is sometimes also expressed as the volume of water lost per kilometer of water distribution network per day There are other sources of NRW, the major sources were leaks, evaporation, fire hydrants, inaccurate meters, and unauthorized use. The California Department of Water Resources distinguished between authorized unmetered uses and water losses. Authorized unmetered uses could have included water used for beneficial purposes, such as fire fighting and main flushing. Most definitions identified some of the potential sources of NRW, including water for fire fighting and flushing, leaks and breaks, illegal connections, faulty meters, and other sources. A report entitled Water Conservation a Local and Regional Perspective was submitted to the World Water Forum, by the LADWP and the MWD of Southern California, dated March 2006 with the following statement: “In terms of total actual use within the City, single-family and multi-family dwellings constitute the greatest demands (60% of the total demand). Commercial water use accounts for over 20%, governmental use about 7 percent, industrial use about 4%, and non-revenue water system loss accounts for about 8% of the total water demand. “Non-revenue water is lost in the process of transporting and delivering water to customers. LADWP’s efforts to minimize water loss through an aggressive infrastructure rehabilitation and maintenance program include pipeline rehabilitation, leak detection and repair, meter replacement, and cement lining programs.” 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 117 It was also reported on February 2007 in a report titled, Water Loss Control in North America: More Cost Effective Than Customer Side Conservation- Why Wouldn’t You Do It? “LADWP has a relatively low level of real water losses. However, economic analyses have shown that a more aggressive active leak detection and repair policy is economically feasible. Since the part of the project has not started yet it was necessary to estimate the cost for the leak detection and repair program based on average industry cost data. The average cost for the entire program including the cost for a detailed water audit that forms the bases for the intervention program and the cost to detect and repair the leaks was calculated to be $347 per acre foot of water saved.” The CGJ was informed by LADWP that in 2009 the NRW was approximately 4.5%. This would be a significant change from what was reported in the March 2006 report, and was consistent with the February 2007 report that was prepared in conjunction with the 2007 CA/NV AWWA (American Water Works Association) Spring Conference held in Las Vegas. The CGJ reviewed literature on the percent of NRW throughout the United States. The rate went as high as 40% and as low as 2%. The CGJ commended LADWP for maintaining such a low percent on NRW.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
13
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
10 Glendale Water and Power (GWP), Long Beach Water Department, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Pasadena Water and Power Department, City of San Fernando Public Works Water, and the City of Santa Monica Water Department should support instructional literature and possible funding efforts for home purple pipe installations and gray water systems. Geographic Water Use To gain an understanding of water use, six LAC cities’ water departments were reviewed to see if they were targeting any specific geographic areas. The cities 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 97 selected were Santa Monica, Glendale, San Fernando, Long Beach, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. None of the cities questioned targeted specific geographic areas at the current time. San Fernando targeted the top ten internal users for water and has achieved a 5% reduction in use. The city was planning to review the top ten external users of water. HOW WAS THE CITY OF SAN FERNANDO PUBLIC WORKS WATER WAS ABLE TO REPLACE 75% OF ITS WATER CONVEYANCE INFRASTRUCTURE?
R2:
Extraction Well Number 2. The NHOU-R2 was not expected to be operational until 2015. The NHOU-R2 would not address the lower concentration or secondary plume that had already escaped the NHOU zone of influence. Although the concentration of the secondary plume was low in terms of Superfund Clean-up targets, it was still too high in terms of a drinking water source. The California Department of Public Health considered this secondary plume an extremely impaired drinking water source that could not be provided to the consumer without further treatment to meet state standards. A viable solution was to construct a groundwater purification complex in the SFB. The purification complex would expedite the groundwater remediation and contaminant mass removal associated with the secondary contamination plume, and enable LADWP to utilize all of its groundwater production wells in the SFB that are threatened or shutdown due to contamination. This purification complex would be a very cost effective way of ensuring LADWP’s future water supply compared to the cost of imported water, recycled water, and desalination. In order to determine the design criteria for the purification complex and to obtain the necessary approval form the California Department of Public Health, LADWP began a six-year, $19 million Groundwater System Improvement Study in the SFB. As part of this study, LADWP would secure a monitoring well-drilling contract by mid 2010 to install approximately forty new monitoring wells in the SFB that would assist with further characterizing the contamination in the SFB. LADWP was also working with the cities of Glendale and Burbank to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a list of projects needed to address various cleanup issues in the SFB. The MOU would allow the cities to more effectively secure federal funding for the needed facilities to clean up the SFB. LADWP was also implementing a cost-effective wellhead treatment to restore groundwater production while centralized treatment facilities were advanced. LADWP was maintaining and operating the initial NHOU-R2 remedy through various funding agreements from USEPA. No other federal funding had been provided to LADWP for addressing the groundwater contamination in the SFB. LADWP believed additional funding would be acquired in the future. Glendale Water and Power stated their supply of water from the SFB has not been affected by the contamination. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 107 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.3 LADWP should continue maximum efforts to obtain USEPA funding for the cleanup of the San Fernando Basin Aquifer. 2.4 LADWP should develop a detailed projection of the cost of the cleanup and securing the filtration processes on the wells of the San Fernando Basin Aquifer to obtain the maximum water output according to its legal rights, including the timeframe for completing this process. 2.5 LADWP should have a new review made of the amount of water that can be pumped from the SFB. Due to the future increased demand for water and possible reductions in water sources the SFB may be a major source of potable water. Owens Valley LADWP reported significant expenditures to date for environmental restoration and annual recurring maintenance of Owens River, and Owens and Mono Lakes. LADWP owned and operated the LAA that transported water from the Owens River and Mono and Owens Lake (OROML) to the City of Los Angeles. No major construction had occurred on the aqueduct or attendant facilities in recent years. There were no planned construction projects for this system known at the time of this report. However, LADWP was required by court order to restore habitat in the OROML, estimated to cost approximately $78 million. Water from the OROML is imported by LADWP. Due to the population growth of the city LADWP purchased water rights and started importing water via the Los Angeles Aqueduct from the OROML in 1913. LADWP expanded its presence and drew more water in successive years causing Mono and Owens lakes to dry up. Flow of the Owens River and other streams and rivers was diverted into the LAA and over time severe environmental damage began to occur. The LADWP was sued by the USEPA for dust mitigation. The main damage was that the dry lakebeds became dust hazards. Even before the environmental concerns became an issue, the diversion of water damaged the agricultural industry creating water wars between the LADWP and the residents of the affected areas. In 1989 the California Supreme Court halted all water diversions by LADWP and ordered an extensive ecosystem study to be prepared by the Water Resources Control Board (WCRB). After a series of legal defeats, the LADWP agreed to increase the permanent flows of the creeks and rivers to restore Owens Lake and Mono Lake. The California Supreme Court ruling required the Owens Lake level must reach three feet before LADWP can take 15,000 AFY. Once the level reached thirteen feet, LADWP will be allowed to take 30,000 AFY. This amount was only one-third of the amount of water taken by LADWP in 1988. 108 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Mono Lake’s recovery plan also followed the same timeline as Owens Lake’s except that it was ordered by the court in response to a lawsuit filed by the Audubon Society which cited the California Fish and Game Code and not any environmental concerns. Weather, over which no one has any control, cooperated with the LADWP for the recovery of the ecosystem by providing a large supply of water, thus advancing the timeline. However, recent years of low rain and snow pack had hampered the supply of water, causing a shortage in the allowable water for the LADWP. Statistics show that in 2008 LADWP received one-half of OROML water it did in 2001. IEA Report In 2002, the Industrial, Economic, and Administration (IEA) prepared a survey of the LADWP that contained numerous important and critical recommendations. The IEA again prepared a survey of LADWP in a report published on February 5, 2009 with follow-up to the 2002 recommendations and significant new recommendations. The significant issues raised from the 2002 review were organizational changes that impact operational continuity, adequate sources of water supply, improved communication with the consumer and required enhancements to infrastructure, and the lack of strategic planning process, Chart 6 delineates the areas covered in the IEA 2002 report that were reviewed in the IEA 2009 report as to the relevancy of the areas covered and the progress by LADWP in responding to those recommendations. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 109 Chart 6 IEA Recommendations (Chart made by CGJ based on information from the IEA Report RELEVANCY FOLLOW-UP PROGRESS Review Area and specific recommendations Not Moderately High Some Limited Moderate Significant Strategic Planning Emphasize strategic Planning 1 1 Culture change on strategic planning 1 1 Organizational changes 1 1 Examine Preferred Practices Model 1 1 Integrate Joint System 1 1 Joint System performance measurements 1 1 Total 0 2 4 3 3 0 0 Adequacy of Water Resources: Storage on LA Aquaduct 1 1 Use of MWD analysis of need 1 1 Alternate sources other than MWD 1 1 Legal issue with San Diego on MWD volume 1 1 Limitations of recycled water 1 1 New Quality Standards 1 1 Identify unaccounted water sources 1 1 Upgrade Pumping Capacity 1 1 Total 2 1 5 2 0 2 4 Water Quality Number of samples exceeding secondary samples 1 1 BWG-developed single-index measurement 1 1 Establish formal water Quality Goal 1 1 Benchmark against other cities 1 1 IT for useful data 1 1 Formal goals and objectives for the WSCS 1 1 Solicite expert advice on annual report 1 1 Proactive process for customer info on water quality 1 1 Formal well turn-on and turn-off process 1 1 Four alternates in Finding 12 1 1 Total 2 5 3 6 2 0 2 Installation & Maintenance of Water Infrastructure: Main line replacement project costs collected and analyzed 1 1 IT System fior WETS more user friendly 1 1 Time Schedule for in-house truck line construction 1 1 Establish time and cost performance targets for Trunk Line 1 1 Total 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Grand Total 4 8 16 11 5 2 10 Chart 6 indicates it was apparent that LADWP had received moderate to highly significant recommendations on the planning process but had only some or limited progress. The CGJ interviewed members of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners (BWPC) and various senior management-level personnel concerning the strategic planning process. It appeared the proper level of recognition in the usefulness of this highly regarded management tool was lacking. The CGJ interviewed the GWP about key issues in the management of its organization and the successes in accomplishing goals and strategies. GWP was extremely proud of its planning process and the output of its strategic plan document. As the CGJ reviewed this document, it was apparent GWP understood how to accomplish the task of completing and utilizing the strategic plan. Its plan included specific targeted tasks, due dates, impact statements, persons responsible and progress measurement criteria. 110 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The CGJ also noted that the IEA made recommendations concerning the use of recycled water. The CGJ’s investigation indicated recycled water was a relevant issue with insufficient progress. Later in this report, the CGJ addressed the issues and opportunities of using recycled water. As mentioned earlier in the report, Orange County has made significant strides and accomplished marked results in this area. Further, the IEA 2009 report made new recommendations. Some of the key recommendations included: • Support MWD/DWR current efforts on water transfers, and Delta levee improvements and benchmark progress against new reliability goals • Urge and team with MWD to take a leadership role in the development of a new generation of The California Water Plan that provides a blueprint for a state-wide drought shortage sharing policy, and a long-term drought period water transfer options program • Develop a LADWP drought use reduction targets and performance as a percent of standardized state-wide baseline water use • Use their California Conservation Councils’ Best Management Practices as benchmarks against other utilities’ achievements, through investments in standardized reporting • Create a unit cost of water policy goal, together with acceptable rate increases to achieve policy objectives regarding source reliability, water quality and environmental protection • The linkages between strategic objectives and the budget must be clearly stated. Ideally, all major budget decisions should be based on the strategic plan, and all strategic plan elements should have clear support in the budget • Once a comprehensive strategic plan is in place, an annual review of the strategic plan should be completed in time for the annual budget process to incorporate into the budget proposal any changes in the goal objectives • Each business unit should review its operating plan to assure it is aligned with the strategic plan and to make modifications to their operating plan to reflect changes in the operating environment as well as progress made on achieving business unit goals and objectives. The CGJ again recognized that IEA stressed the importance and the objectives of completing a comprehensive strategic plan. IEA also recommended significant improvements to the billing system and information being provided to the consumer. The CGJ has included these recommendations in Section III of this report concerning Smart Bills. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.6 The Mayor of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should mandate that top management complete a strategic plan with appropriate goals and objectives, target completion 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 111 dates for all actions, people assigned responsibility for each action and methods to measure the results and completion of all targeted actions. 2.7 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should hold, at a minimum, quarterly reviews of strategic plan implementation and review status and measurements of all action items. 2.8 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should review, at a minimum semi-annually, action taken on Industrial, Economic, and Administration Report recommendations. 2.9 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should approve any changes to the targeted objectives, goals, dates or responsibilities to complete strategic plan issues. 2.10 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should consider using the GWP as an example of how to complete and execute a Strategic Planning Process. 2.11 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should expect that all issues classified as highly relevant in the Industrial, Economic, and Administration Reports have targeted completion dates and identify the specific person responsible for leading the corrective action associated with that recommendation. City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners (BWPC) The five-member BWPC established a policy for LADWP to meet regularly. The BWPC meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 12:30 p.m. The meeting location was: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Room 1555-H, 15th Floor 111 North Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Regular meeting agendas were available to the public at least seventy-two hours before the Board met. The BWPC members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council for five-year terms. LADWP’s website contains the official rules and guidelines of the meetings of the BWPC. The standing committees of the BWPC were: Affirmative Action-Outreach Committee Audit Committee Contracts, Land and Legal Committee Finance and Risk Management Committee Safety and Personnel Committee Public Affairs Committee Inyo County/Los Angeles Standing Committee In a BWPC public meeting attended by the CGJ, the President of BWPC said the commissioners were not involved in the resignation of the former General Manager, nor 112 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT in the decision and process of approving a consulting contract with him. The CGJ concurred with the President of BWPC’s recommendation to have any future contracts of employment or consulting by past LADWP employees be approved by the BWPC. During various interviews, the CGJ was informed that a majority of the BWPC’s time was spent on energy issues. This was somewhat understandable since a majority of the infrastructure and income to LADWP relates to energy. Due to publicized water main breaks, concerns had been escalated during the CGJ review; otherwise water had not been a major issue. Due to the importance and the significant of water issues, BWPC might consider dividing the authority and responsibility for energy and water within LADWP. This would be accomplished by establishing two separate entities. The BWPC had the power to authorize any contracts and purchase agreements up to $150,000. Due to budget constraints and increased focus on efficiency, this amount should be reduced to $50,000. The CGJ reviewed the content of BWPC agendas and found there was little formal reporting of LADWP interaction and issues associated with MWD. The CGJ believed that the BWPC should regularly have a formal update from LADWP management on MWD activities and actions. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.12 The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should amend the rules governing LADWP such that the City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners be involved in the approval process of hiring or terminating key LADWP executives as well as authorizing consulting contracts. 2.13 The Mayor of Los Angeles and the City Council should consider dividing the Operations of the LADWP into an Energy Department and a Water Department. 2.14 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should pass a resolution to have approval authority for contracts and purchase agreements not to exceed $50,000. 2.15 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should adopt as part of its agenda a regularly scheduled reporting procedure from LADWP Management on Municipal water District of Southern California activities and actions. Inspector General There had been numerous audits and reviews of LADWP, by the IEA, Huron Consulting Group, and the Los Angeles Office of the City Controller. These reviews indicated there were a number of issues that required a higher level of oversight by an independent organization. Within LAC and other Los Angeles City organizations, the position of Inspector General existed. Examples were Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles County Board of 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 113 Supervisors, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Los Angeles Police Department. The Inspector General in these previous organization performed audits and investigated activities with a focus upon the independent review and appraisal of the activities of their appointed agency. This individual was required to make periodic reports to the governing body. This proposed position within LADWP, acting with the BWPC, would review contract assignments, provide independent assessment of water rate increases, review financial justifications for using internal work forces versus outside work forces for sustainability of the infrastructure of water delivery and storage, study and report on emergency management preparedness and security issues, provide information technology reviews and be involved in any other areas requiring an independent review. The CGJ believed the periodic reviews from various agencies was insufficient to support the requirements of the LADWP. The Inspector General would also be the ideal position to use for an independent audit of its follow-up activities. It was recommended to current and the former BWPC that the Inspector General would be a full-time position in the City Controller’s Audit office funded by the LADWP. The BWPC concurred with this recommendation. The person filling this position would be selected and administered by the Los Angeles City Controller.
R3:
Panel Discussion The City of San Fernando Public Works Water had an ordinance that required 50% of a yard has vegetation. It also used the water from purged fire hydrants to clean the streets, water the planted median strips in the city and other needs for water in the city. There were no city ordinances restricting daily watering. Pasadena Water and Power held workshops to provide tips for consumers on conservation. The city required consumers to water their properties only once per week for ten minutes per zone. The City of Santa Monica Water Department used processed runoff water from the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Facility for city sprinklers and also at the cemetery. There were no city ordinances restricting water use by homeowners and businesses for landscaping. The Long Beach Water Department required that residents only water their plants and lawns three days per week: Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays for ten minutes per zone. The CGJ had received a number of methods being utilized to promote water conservation. The following list is not in order of effectiveness or number of water districts that are using them: • Promote public participation in reporting excess water usage such as broken sprinklers, watering on unauthorized days and broken water lines • Increase public awareness programs for water conservative appliances • Educate consumers on water availability and supply • Promote water rate structures to encourage heavy users to reduce water usage • Utility employees provide water conservation analysis for commercial and high usage consumers • Water districts promote programs to provide smart meters so the consumer can understand the usage in their household • Water districts provide programs to redirect rain spout water for external usage, including the use of rain barrels 102 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT • Water districts provide increased usage of treated wastewater including educating the user of the safety of using treated wastewater • Use water tank trucks to capture the water from water main purging operations and using this water for various civic water needs • Convert lawns to water conserving plants and flora • Provide intermediate meters that measure inside versus outside consumption. This allows the consumer to determine where the water usage is going. It might be possible for the utility company to distinguish rates for life support versus outside water usage • Promote the use of purple pipes in homes to capture the water from dishwashers, showers and sinks for outside lawn use • Promote the use of rain barrels to capture water runoff • Establish an ordinance for limited watering days and duration of outside landscaping • Establish a comprehensive list of water sensitive plants and ground cover that can be purchased for outside landscaping • Hold quarterly meetings to discuss successful water conservation methods for implementation within each district SECTION II LADWP, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES GENERAL DISCUSSION Mayor’s Plan In May 2008, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa coordinated with the LADWP a report titled, Securing L.A.’s Water Supply. The plan was an attempt to respond to water shortages in 2007 and to initiate a proposal to rethink existing and future water supplies. The plan would respond to a demand for an additional 100 thousand AF of water per year by
R4:
Establish a Third Tier rate based on the marginal cost of recycled water to be imposed for very high usage, consistent with the original concept for LADWP’s water rate structure to provide a forward-looking price signal for the cost of new water supplies.
R5:
Realign household size adjustments at the First Tier rate using the current best management practices and technologies for indoor water use.
R6:
Utilize application of climate based conservation data to make adjustments in current First Tier usage blocks.
R7:
Increase low income and lifeline subsidies.
R8:
Update General Provision J of the Water Rates Ordinance, Adjustment Factor Limitations, based on the current projections for the adjustment factor components.
R9:
Modify Water Shortage Year Rates based on experience following initial implementation of these rates in 2009 and incorporate the rate restructuring. Increase the current minimum period for review by the City Council and the Mayor following approval by the Board to implement Shortage Year Rates from fifteen days to thirty days.
R10:
Eliminate Board approval of the water recycle contract for each LADWP customer and establish the commodity charge as 80% of the total First Tier billing rate for potable water (including adjustments).
R11:
Set lot size or temperature zone adjustments.
R12:
Revise the Water Quality Adjustment cap requirements.
R13:
Revise the Water Procurement Adjustment factor to encourage water conservation and fully recognize the results of demand-side management programs. LADWP water rates were based on establishing a water budget for a reasonable amount of water for each consumer. Consumption within that amount was then charged at First Tier rates. Consumption above the budget was charged at the higher Second Tier rate. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 115 The cost to validate the methodologies and analyses that their rate increases will be based on, included up to $150,000 in consulting services. In addition to LADWP staff expense, it was proposed that a resolution to the BWPC for the adoption of the rate increase be completed by January 2010. The process from proposal to approval was nine months. Water rate increases were approved by Los Angeles City Council and were passed on to the consumers within the city. These rate increases were predicated on water use and conservation efforts. Los Angeles had fixed costs for the delivery of water to the LADWP consumer. Additionally, many cities such as Pasadena, Glendale, Santa Monica, and Long Beach had tiered water rates based on the consumer’s use of water over and above set limits. In early 2010 San Fernando did not have a tiered rate system in place for water usage but was considering this option. There was general public agreement for the addition of a ratepayer advocate (RPA) responsible to review any rate increases. The RPA should be acceptable to all stakeholders. The RPA must function outside of the LADWP organization. The RPA must be assured of full access to any and all data and information from the LADWP that would be needed to accomplish its goals. The CGJ recommends that funding of the RPA, its staff, and office come from the LADWP. These are funds that are paid by all ratepayers. The selection and appointment process for creating the RPA must be accomplished with the utmost care to assure every interested party in the city of the independence and integrity of the RPA's organization and recommendations. Requirements for the RPA organization would include: • A staff of competent, qualified analysts and experts in the electric and water utility industries who will evaluate all significant proposals and monitor and advise management, when warranted, of any proposed or actual actions or omissions that may adversely affect the LADWP's ratepayers • The ability to monitor and provide transparency to ratepayers of all major projects and project proposals of management • The responsibility to monitor and publicize where necessary efforts by the LADWP to increase rates • The monitoring and publicizing of the status of the infrastructure and technology necessary to run LADWP effectively and efficiently • The review and analysis on a timely and continuous basis of the operations, finances, and management of the LADWP • The Rate Payers Advocate shall be beholden only to LADWP Rate Payers, although it may advise the City Council, the Mayor, and other interested parties • A place at the table at meetings of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners and at the City Council when LADWP affairs are being discussed • Complete independence from the governments of the City, County, and State and any of their suppliers or unions • The necessary education, experience and skills to perform its duties, including an understanding of the operations and finances of public utilities 116 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 2.18 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should require a detailed analysis of the basis of any rate increase and this analysis should be included in that portion of the rate increase. 2.19 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should provide the basis and details for any rate increases to the public with an appropriate period allowing for public response. 2.20 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should provide the basis and details of any significant changes to the billing process with an appropriate period allowing for public response. 2.21 LADWP should establish a Rate Payer Advocate organization with the duties and structure as defined above. Non-Revenue Water (NRW) NRW was defined as water that has been produced and is lost before it reached the customer. Losses could be real losses through leaks, sometimes also referred to as physical losses or apparent losses (for example through theft or metering inaccuracies). High levels of NRW are detrimental to the financial viability of water utilities, as well to the quality of water itself. NRW is typically measured as the volume of water lost as a share of net water produced. It is sometimes also expressed as the volume of water lost per kilometer of water distribution network per day There are other sources of NRW, the major sources were leaks, evaporation, fire hydrants, inaccurate meters, and unauthorized use. The California Department of Water Resources distinguished between authorized unmetered uses and water losses. Authorized unmetered uses could have included water used for beneficial purposes, such as fire fighting and main flushing. Most definitions identified some of the potential sources of NRW, including water for fire fighting and flushing, leaks and breaks, illegal connections, faulty meters, and other sources. A report entitled Water Conservation a Local and Regional Perspective was submitted to the World Water Forum, by the LADWP and the MWD of Southern California, dated March 2006 with the following statement: “In terms of total actual use within the City, single-family and multi-family dwellings constitute the greatest demands (60% of the total demand). Commercial water use accounts for over 20%, governmental use about 7 percent, industrial use about 4%, and non-revenue water system loss accounts for about 8% of the total water demand. “Non-revenue water is lost in the process of transporting and delivering water to customers. LADWP’s efforts to minimize water loss through an aggressive infrastructure rehabilitation and maintenance program include pipeline rehabilitation, leak detection and repair, meter replacement, and cement lining programs.” 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 117 It was also reported on February 2007 in a report titled, Water Loss Control in North America: More Cost Effective Than Customer Side Conservation- Why Wouldn’t You Do It? “LADWP has a relatively low level of real water losses. However, economic analyses have shown that a more aggressive active leak detection and repair policy is economically feasible. Since the part of the project has not started yet it was necessary to estimate the cost for the leak detection and repair program based on average industry cost data. The average cost for the entire program including the cost for a detailed water audit that forms the bases for the intervention program and the cost to detect and repair the leaks was calculated to be $347 per acre foot of water saved.” The CGJ was informed by LADWP that in 2009 the NRW was approximately 4.5%. This would be a significant change from what was reported in the March 2006 report, and was consistent with the February 2007 report that was prepared in conjunction with the 2007 CA/NV AWWA (American Water Works Association) Spring Conference held in Las Vegas. The CGJ reviewed literature on the percent of NRW throughout the United States. The rate went as high as 40% and as low as 2%. The CGJ commended LADWP for maintaining such a low percent on NRW. RECOMMENDATION 2.22 That LADWP initiate an aggressive active leak detection and repair program to reduce the negative financial impact to LADWP customers. Water Line Breaks The CGJ repeatedly learned from news sources about the number and severity of water line breaks within the LADWP infrastructure. The BWPC said the number of breaks that occurred during 2009 was within the range of the number of breaks in former years. The LADWP provided information on its website concerning the water breaks. This information included that due to colder water entering the distribution system from the Eastern Sierra Nevada during the winter months, the LADWP water system typically experienced an increase in water main breaks. The colder water caused the pipes to shrink slightly, (known as thermal contraction), which could cause pipes to break. Winter leaks occurred most frequently in the early morning hours (3 a.m.-5 a.m.) when pressure was highest because of minimal use and the temperature was the coldest. Historically, LADWP had seen a six-year average of twenty-five major breaks for the month of January, compared to an average of fifteen for November. Recently, LADWP experienced, on average, approximately four breaks a day, which was an extraordinarily small number given the size and complexity of its water system. The LADWP system averages twenty leaks and breaks per 100 miles of pipe a year, 21% below the national average of twenty-five breaks per 100 miles of distribution pipe. Most breaks or leaks require small spot repairs, not full replacements. 118 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT LADWP completed a cement-mortar lining program in 2007 to extend the life of the existing pipes by fifty years. This aggressive program successfully lined a total of 1,970 miles of pipes, accounting for more than one-quarter of the expansive system. In 2007 LADWP began a formal Water Main Replacement Program to replace aging pipes. Not all of the pipes within more than 7,000 miles of pipes in this system needed to be replaced. The pipe replacement program is ongoing and aimed at replacing aged pipes to uphold the strength and reliability of this system. Fourteen full-time crews are dedicated to mainline pipe replacement. In the past two years, LADWP had replaced approximately thirty miles of mainline pipe and has set a goal of replacing approximately twenty miles in the coming year, a significant increase over the prior two-year rate. These two programs are intended to minimize main leaks, service interruptions to the customers, and potential property damage. Over the long-term, these programs will reduce water main maintenance costs, improve water quality, reduce water loss due to leakage, and improve water flow for fire emergencies. The above information supported that LADWP was doing an effective job in pipe replacement considering the size and complexity of the system. However, current and former personnel associated with the LADWP indicated that a considerable number of outside bids for the servicing of the infrastructure were not considered. It was reported these bids were approximately 60% lower than internal costs and would be completed more time efficiently. RECOMMENDATION 2.23 The City of Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners should establish a process for ensuring consideration of acquiring bids from outside firms for replacement and repair of water infrastructure. 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 119 Water Supply Projections Chart 7 – Water Demand and Supply was based on the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and the 2008 Water Supply Action Plan. 2005-2030 POPULATION, WATER DEMAND PROJECTION, & SUPPLY SOURCES Data 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 2008 Water Supply Purchased Source Action Plan Water Demand Recycled Additional Calendar Projection LAA Wells Water Conservation MWD Year Population (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) 2005 Actual 3 ,983,875 608,993 368,839 56,547 1,401 3 ,140 185,346 2010 4 ,099,389 678,000 276,000 106,000 8,750 3 ,770 283,480 2015 4 ,157,727 700,000 276,000 106,000 22,480 1 2,746 282,774 2020 4 ,215,380 726,000 276,000 106,000 50,000 2 2,010 271,990 2025 4 ,270,520 750,000 276,000 106,000 50,000 3 6,554 281,446 2030 4 ,323,307 776,000 276,000 106,000 50,000 4 8,170 295,830 AFY - Acre-Feet per Year LAA - Los Angeles Aqueduct MWD - Metropolitan Water District of Southern California LADWP indicated that in 2009 MWD would supply 70% of the water or approximately 470 thousand AF. This does not agree with the above chart LADWP provided. The amount of water from the wells was also questionable as most of the well water comes from SFB. Unless significant efforts are made on the SFB cleanup, the current supply of 50,000 AF per year will be reduced in the next three to five years. Another aspect of this projection was the total Demand Projection divided by the population expressed in gallons per day per person (GPD). In 2005 this calculation was to be 148 GPD. In 2010 the calculation was 148 GPD and by 2030 the calculation would increase to 160 GPD. The 2030 projection represents a 17% increase over 2005 and a 9% increase over 2010. This is contrary to the established goals of conservation and increasing the amount of recycled water being captured. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.24 LADWP should provide realistic projections of water demand and water supply. 2.25 LADWP should reconcile the projections with expected conservation and recycled water expectations. 2.26 LADWP should reconcile the expected demand from Metropolitan Water District (of Southern California) and coordinate this expectation with Metropolitan Water District (of Southern California). 120 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Waste Water Conversion The CGJ studied a number of water districts and agencies, usually in concert with sanitation districts that produced and sold reclaimed/recycled water. The CGJ was not provided with a definitive estimate of the cost of making wastewater potable. The answer most commonly received was It is expensive; however, it is less than the cost of desalination. The CGJ found no facilities operating in or near LAC that produce direct wastewater to potable water. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) produces indirect potable water. This reclaimed/recycled water was pumped to settling basins or ponds, where it percolated into deep aquifers and eventually mixed with the drinking water supply. OCWD published a dollar figure of $550 per AF for their reclaimed potable water. This cost seemed favorable when compared with imported water from Northern California or the Colorado River. The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) report titled Where Will We Get the Water estimates the OCWD reclaimed potable water costs $1,000 per AF. The $1,000 per AF estimated by LAEDC was an all in figure that included capital expenses, operating costs, pumping, transportation and treatment after the water was pumped to the surface. The LAEDC estimated cost figure did not compare favorably with imported water from Northern California or the Colorado River. In the future it may compare favorably depending upon the anticipated rate increase for imported water. MWD rates for water as of early 2010 were approaching $700 per AF. This rate will continue to increase. The CGJ found that the LADWP was considering pumping reclaimed/recycled water from the Tillman and Los Angeles-Glendale wastewater sanitation plants to the Hansen Spreading Grounds. This would be comparable to the OCWD process. The CGJ was unable to obtain a cost estimate from LADWP for the pumping to the Hansen Spreading Grounds. Through interviews with various water officials, the CGJ learned that new technology was being developed to reduce the cost of treating reclaimed/recycled water to make it potable. The CGJ was also aware the cost was not the only issue. There was the general public perception of the toilet to tap yuck factor which acted as a major drawback to the conversion process. The CGJ noted that the Hyperion Treatment Plant pumped approximately 360 thousand AF of safely-treated water per year directly into the ocean (capacity of this facility is 2,500 AF per day). This represented more than 50% of LADWP projected water requirements per year through 2020. There was no published information regarding converting this water to potable water. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.27 LADWP should complete a comprehensive plan to study the conversion of wastewater to potable water. This plan should include an analysis of conversion costs compared with projected purchased pricing. This 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 121 analysis should include alternative uses of the reclaimed water other than just for potable water usage. 2.28 In order to reduce the public perception of using wastewater, LADWP should publish information to the public concerning the methods other water districts are using to convert wastewater to potable water Supply Strategies Chart 8, below was provided by LAEDC concerning Southern California water supply strategies. The most favorable strategy for acquiring additional water supply is Urban Water Conservation followed by Stormwater Capture. The benefits of conservation were: • An impact equivalent to adding about 25% to regional supply • One of the most reliable strategies • One of the least risky • The most environmentally friendly • One of the least expensive strategies RECOMMENDATION 2.29 The CGJ recommends that LADWP incorporate the findings of Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation into their proposed Strategic Planning Process for objectives and targets. 122 2009-2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SECTION III SMART BILLS GENERAL DISCUSSION Water Bill Comparisons The CGJ investigated several water bills within LAC and there was one fact in common, i.e., those who use less pay more per gallon than those who use more. This, in part, is due to the fact that fixed rate portions of the bills and the tiered or block rates are not structured at a point to effectively reward those who conserve versus those who exceed their allowances. There was also a wide diversity in the types and complexity of the bills. The CCG examined the utility bills from several water retailers in LAC. The results were:
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. 50 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report
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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 55
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. 46 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 47 Table 3.1 County of Los Angeles Unexpended Workforce Investment Act and Youth Jobs Program Funds FY 2007-08 Workforce Investment Act Youth Jobs Services Program 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% Source: County of Los Angeles Department of Community and Senior Services While unexpended Workforce Investment Act funds can be carried forward into the next year with Workforce Investment Board approval, Youth Jobs Program funds - which are County General Funds - cannot. Funding for the Youth Jobs Program is often allocated late in the year, resulting in delays in recruiting youth to the program. For example, the Board of Supervisors approved funding for FY 2008-09 during the June 24, 2008 meeting for the program to begin on July 1. Whether Youth Jobs Program funding will be available in FY 2009-10 is not yet known. Foster and Probation Youth Participation in Workforce Investment Act Programs While both Workforce Investment Act youth program funding and youth participation has declined from FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08, foster and probation youth participation has declined at a greater rate. Consequently, foster and probation youth make up a smaller percentage of program participants. From FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08, for the County of Los Angeles: • Total Workforce Investment Act youth program funding decreased by 1 percent • Total youth participation decreased by 12 percent • Foster and probation youth participation decreased by 32 percent • Foster and probation youth were 21 percent of participants in FY 2005-06 but only 17 percent of participants in FY 2007-08 From FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08, for the City of Los Angeles: • Total Workforce Investment Act youth program funding decreased by 28 percent • Total youth participation decreased by 41 percent • Foster and probation youth participation decreased by 53 percent • Foster and probation youth were 10 percent of participants in FY 2005-06 but were only 8 percent of participants in FY 2007-08 Probation and Foster Youth Participation in the Youth Jobs Program The Department of Community and Senior Services implemented performance measures in FY 2007-08, requiring each contractor to report to the County on the 48 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report number of foster, probation, and CalWorks youth participating in the program. Each contractor is supposed to achieve a minimum of 30 percent foster, probation, and CalWorks youth participation, increasing that number by 5 percent per year. The Department of Community and Senior Services does not have a formal mechanism to track foster and probation youth participation in the Youth Jobs Program. Youth self- report their status and each contractor reports this information to the Department of Community and Senior Services. As shown in Table 3.3, based on self-reporting, approximately one-third of participants in the Youth Jobs Program live in CalWorks families and 7 percent are foster youth. The Department of Community and Senior Services does not track probation youth participation separately. Table 3.3 County of Los Angeles Youth Jobs Program Participation by Foster, Probation, and CalWorks Status FY 2007-2008 Youth in Total CalWorks Participants Families Foster Youth FY 2007-08 3,908 1,274 269 Percent of Total Participants - 33% 7% FY 2008-091 3,332 1,001 242 Percent of Total Participants - 30% 7% 1 As of January 5, 2009 Source: County of Los Angeles Department of Community and Senior Services 1 As of January 5, 2009. The Department of Community and Senior Services only began tracking Youth Jobs Program participation in FY 2007-08 and can not show if foster, probation, and CalWorks participation has increased by 5 percent. FY 2008-09 data is not for a complete year. Also, although the contractors receiving Youth Jobs Program funds are supposed to show that 100 percent of youth are referred to the County’s Department of Human Resources programs - Career Development Intern and the Student Worker Programs - neither the Department of Human Resources nor the Department of Community and Senior Services track this information.13 Foster and Probation Youth Participation in the City of Los Angeles Summer Youth Employment Program The Los Angeles Youth Transition Action Team has set a goal to enroll 250 foster and probation youth in the City of Los Angeles Hire LA’s Youth employment programs each year. The City of Los Angeles reported that 212 foster and probation youth participated in the program during the summer of 2008, or 85 percent of the enrollment goal of 250. In response to a request for information, the Department of Community and Senior Services began polling service providers, and as of April 10, 2009 had polled three providers who had referred all youth participants to the Department of Human Resources programs. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 49 The Department of Children and Family Services, in conjunction with the Probation Department, are the main departments in Los Angeles County responsible for foster and probation youth. The Independent Living Program (ILP), under the auspices of the Department of Children and Family Services in conjunction with the Probation Department, is responsible for youth transitioning from foster and County care into the community, including assisting with job readiness and employment. However, ILP youth make up less than half of the 250 foster and probation youth targeted for enrollment in Hire LA’s Youth.
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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 33
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. 46 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 47 Table 3.1 County of Los Angeles Unexpended Workforce Investment Act and Youth Jobs Program Funds FY 2007-08 Workforce Investment Act Youth Jobs Services Program 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% Source: County of Los Angeles Department of Community and Senior Services While unexpended Workforce Investment Act funds can be carried forward into the next year with Workforce Investment Board approval, Youth Jobs Program funds - which are County General Funds - cannot. Funding for the Youth Jobs Program is often allocated late in the year, resulting in delays in recruiting youth to the program. For example, the Board of Supervisors approved funding for FY 2008-09 during the June 24, 2008 meeting for the program to begin on July 1. Whether Youth Jobs Program funding will be available in FY 2009-10 is not yet known. Foster and Probation Youth Participation in Workforce Investment Act Programs While both Workforce Investment Act youth program funding and youth participation has declined from FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08, foster and probation youth participation has declined at a greater rate. Consequently, foster and probation youth make up a smaller percentage of program participants. From FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08, for the County of Los Angeles: • Total Workforce Investment Act youth program funding decreased by 1 percent • Total youth participation decreased by 12 percent • Foster and probation youth participation decreased by 32 percent • Foster and probation youth were 21 percent of participants in FY 2005-06 but only 17 percent of participants in FY 2007-08 From FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08, for the City of Los Angeles: • Total Workforce Investment Act youth program funding decreased by 28 percent • Total youth participation decreased by 41 percent • Foster and probation youth participation decreased by 53 percent • Foster and probation youth were 10 percent of participants in FY 2005-06 but were only 8 percent of participants in FY 2007-08 Probation and Foster Youth Participation in the Youth Jobs Program The Department of Community and Senior Services implemented performance measures in FY 2007-08, requiring each contractor to report to the County on the 48 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report number of foster, probation, and CalWorks youth participating in the program. Each contractor is supposed to achieve a minimum of 30 percent foster, probation, and CalWorks youth participation, increasing that number by 5 percent per year. The Department of Community and Senior Services does not have a formal mechanism to track foster and probation youth participation in the Youth Jobs Program. Youth self- report their status and each contractor reports this information to the Department of Community and Senior Services. As shown in Table 3.3, based on self-reporting, approximately one-third of participants in the Youth Jobs Program live in CalWorks families and 7 percent are foster youth. The Department of Community and Senior Services does not track probation youth participation separately. Table 3.3 County of Los Angeles Youth Jobs Program Participation by Foster, Probation, and CalWorks Status FY 2007-2008 Youth in Total CalWorks Participants Families Foster Youth FY 2007-08 3,908 1,274 269 Percent of Total Participants - 33% 7% FY 2008-091 3,332 1,001 242 Percent of Total Participants - 30% 7% 1 As of January 5, 2009 Source: County of Los Angeles Department of Community and Senior Services 1 As of January 5, 2009. The Department of Community and Senior Services only began tracking Youth Jobs Program participation in FY 2007-08 and can not show if foster, probation, and CalWorks participation has increased by 5 percent. FY 2008-09 data is not for a complete year. Also, although the contractors receiving Youth Jobs Program funds are supposed to show that 100 percent of youth are referred to the County’s Department of Human Resources programs - Career Development Intern and the Student Worker Programs - neither the Department of Human Resources nor the Department of Community and Senior Services track this information.13 Foster and Probation Youth Participation in the City of Los Angeles Summer Youth Employment Program The Los Angeles Youth Transition Action Team has set a goal to enroll 250 foster and probation youth in the City of Los Angeles Hire LA’s Youth employment programs each year. The City of Los Angeles reported that 212 foster and probation youth participated in the program during the summer of 2008, or 85 percent of the enrollment goal of 250. In response to a request for information, the Department of Community and Senior Services began polling service providers, and as of April 10, 2009 had polled three providers who had referred all youth participants to the Department of Human Resources programs. 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 49 The Department of Children and Family Services, in conjunction with the Probation Department, are the main departments in Los Angeles County responsible for foster and probation youth. The Independent Living Program (ILP), under the auspices of the Department of Children and Family Services in conjunction with the Probation Department, is responsible for youth transitioning from foster and County care into the community, including assisting with job readiness and employment. However, ILP youth make up less than half of the 250 foster and probation youth targeted for enrollment in Hire LA’s Youth.
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 42 2008-2009 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 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.