Los Angeles County 2011-2012 - California Grand Jury Reports

📋February 17, 2012 — E-Subpoena System Implementation

228 pages 13 findings 19 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: LADOT agrees with the finding. Note that the issue reviewed by the CGJ focused on whether or not signs should be posted in an existing temporary preferential parking district.

F2: Localized Joint Task Force Model The respondent agrees with the findings.

F2a: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to the department received an incomplete petition in 2008.

F2b: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to a request to post signs, not "installation ( of a PPD".

F2c: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to sign posting, not "establishment of a PPD".

F3: LADOT has no position on the finding. LADOT has no record of the stated "attempts by residents to get the reasons for rescindment (of the request for sign posting]".

F5: The respondent agrees with the findings.

F6: The respondent agrees with the findings.

F7: The respondent agrees with the findings.

F8: The respondent agrees with the findings.

F9: The respondent agrees with the findings. Training

F13: Recommendation: Approve the responses to the 2010-11 findings and

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: LADOT agrees with the conclusion, but the reason for the waiting period is explained below. The particular case reviewed by the CGJ involved a dormant file, originally submitted (albeit incomplete) in 2008. One of the two blocks was verified in 2009 after a complete application was received and LADOT delayed implementation of both blocks pending verification of the second block. When the second block could not be verified, sign installation for the first block was approved in 2010 and all affected residents were notified. A counter-petition was received and verified before signs were installed, therefore the installation was cancelled.

R2: LADOT agrees with the recommendation, but will not implement in the foreseeable future due to budgetary and staff constraints. ### September 27,2011 2 Re loj4jJl ,-lei Los BOARD OF FIRE CITY OF ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONERS CALIFORNIA BRIAN L. CUMMINGS GENETHIA HUDLEY·HAYES FIRE CHIEF PRESIDENT CASIMIRO U. TOLENTINO 200 NORTH MAIN STREET VICE PRESIDENT LOS ANGELES. CA 90012 DIANA M. BONTA (213) 97&3800 ANDREW FRIEDMAN FAX: (213) 97&3815 JILL FURILLO HITP://WWW.LAFD.ORG LETICIA GOMEZ ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT I MAYOR September 27,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Subject: RESPONSE TO THE FINAL 2010-2011 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS (e-Subpoena) The Final Report of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report puts forth a number of recommendations related to the implementation of a computerized automated system (e-Subpoena) to manage the issuance and tracking of subpoenas issued by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office to law enforcement agencies throughout the county of Los Angeles. The Final Report of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report identifies the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) as one of the agencies required to provide a written response to Recommendation number one (1) of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report. Recommendation number one (1) reads as follows: "Implement e-Subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) DA subpoenas quarterly." The finding of an internal LAFD assessment of the implementation of the e-Subpoena program suggest that the implementation of the e-Subpoena program is not feasible at this time due to limited financial resources and additional staffing requirements. AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Los Angeles County Superior Court September 27,2011 of2 The LAFD estimated the following financial expenditures in order to implement e-Subpoena: 1. Roughly $75,000 to $100,000 is required to procure new hardware, software and network equipment to operate an in-house e-Subpoena application. 2. Approximately $80,000 to $90,000 would also be required to procure the additional Microsoft Active Directory (AD) licenses to provide e-mail licenses to LAFD members who do n'ot have a department issued e-mail account. 3. Two to three additional positions would be needed to meet the minimum staffing needs required to manage and support the e-Subpoena program. Although the LAFD cannot implement the e-Subpoena program at this time due to the current fiscal constraints, it recognizes the value and efficiencies derived from the use of a program such as e-Subpoena and will look into the implementation and deployment of e-Subpoena in the near future. ( Sincerely, -...,,:::~- l754-281)6 Anthony Wong www.d.monterey-pork.C8.US October 7, 2011 CITY CLERK David Barron The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon . CITY TREASURER Presiding Judge Joseph leon Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: GRAND JURY REPORT COVER LETTER DATED JUNE 23, 2011 Dear Judge Edmon: The City received a copy of the undated Grand Jury Report entitled "Whoa! The State of Public Pensions in Los Angeles County" at the end ofJune 2011 (the "Report"). The Report n3,quested that the City re¢pond~otw() recolTlmendati0rls: . 1'1. [ThClt]Monterey Park's City CbuncilCldoptpolicieslofully'fund the ARC for bpth the MMRP and OPEB retirementbenefif plans for empl()yees in' order. to ensure future funding of benefits and earn hwestment income .. which would discount the annual required contributions. 2. [That] Monterey Park's City Council direct its City management to explore alternatives for reducing retirement benefit costs, including possible additional revisions to the amount of the employee contribution pick up paid by the City and alternative employee cost sharing arrangements for retiree health benefits." This letter responds to these recommendations in accordance with Penal Code § 933(c)(d). Please note that the City identified many factual errors in the Report pertaining to" Monterey Park. While the City respectfully declines to identify each of these, it does acknowledge that (like most cities in California) the City must continue acting to address the ever,e~panding retirememfobligCltionsincurred by the City. As you are aware, these obligations were generally negotiated between tlie CitY and its· pUblic· employees over the COl)rse of.many years. While these obligations continue to increase in cost, the econ,omic downturn - .and re~ulting decrease ih public revenue - threatens the ability of every public agency in California to pay for such obligations. ' Grand Jury Report Cover Letter Dated June 23, 2011 Long before the Grand Jury issued the Report, the City Council recognized that the City must decrease its expenses as to public benefits. Consequently, it directed the City Manager to take a number of austerity measures to help balance the competing demands of public employee benefits with taxpayer interests of improving the community. Toward that goal, the City Council negotiated several issues with its employees. Listed below are several matters the City has negotiated with three of the five bargaining units st that took effect on October 1 (the Police and Fire units do not come due until June 30, 2012). Steps taken: 1) Created a second tier of retirement. Lowering the 2.7% @ 55 to 2.5% @ 55 for new non-safety employees. 2) Requiring all non-safety employees to pick up 100% of the employee's portion of the PERS contribution. (Currently 8%) 3) Eliminating OPEB benefits for all new hires, and investigative studies of a VEBA or 115 Trust account for both current employees and new hires. 4) Lowering of caps of sick time, vacation time and administrative leave time on all employees. Also agreeing to forgo any cash outs during the next 12 months of the new MOUs. 5) Adding an additional $500,000 annually towards the OPES ARC. While these actions do not completely cure the problem, they are certainly a step in the right direction. In a difficult economy, all sides mutually worked together to find solutions to the City's long term structural obligations. Should you have any further questions or follow up, please do not hesitate to contact me. POLICE DEPARTMENT Cllty ofM~tatll Beach 420 t5~Sired MANHATIAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90266 f;HO) S02-5103 FAX (310) 802-5101 EVE R. IRVINE CmEFOFPOLK:E August 4, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, Ca. 90012 Dear Presiding Judge: We recently received the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury RepOlt. The report makes the recommendation that the City of Manhattan Beach Police Department implement e-Subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure. In addition, the report recommends the City Attorney / City Prosecutor utilize the e-Subpoena system in locations wherein the police department is using the system. I have reviewed the report and agree that the e-Subpoena system could benefit our Department in the area of cost savings and improved efficiency. As a result of the Grand Jury recommendation, I have instructed my staff to begin an analysis of the e Subpoena program to determine whether we should implement the program here at the Manhattan Beach Police Department. I have asked that the review be completed within six months of the date of the Grand Jury report. This analysis and implementation review is to be completed by December 30, 2011. I want to thank you for bringing this new e-Subpoena program to my attention and I will be anxiously awaiting the results of our analysis of this program. CHIEF OF POLICE POLICE DEPARTMENT City of Manhattan Beach 420 15th Street MANHATIAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 (310) 802-5103 FAX (310) 802-5101 EVE R. IRVINE CHIEFOF POLICE January 31, 2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Alf Schonbach, Foreperson Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, California 90012 Dear Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury: We received your request for a copy of our response to the recommendations of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report. We reviewed our file and determined that we had sent the response to the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 4,2011, as instructed in the original request from the Civil Grand Jury. Apparently the response never made it to you. I am including a copy of the original response that was mailed last August 2011. If you need anything further please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you, EVE R. IRVINE CHIEF OF POLICE "Policing through Partnerships" City ofManhattan Beach Web Site: www.citymb.info Monrovia Police Department Grand Jury Response High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age By Captain Alan Sanvictores

R3: LASD and LAPD evaluate electronically transmitting other documents such as police reports andprobable cause determinations among law enforcement agencies, . prosecutors and the Court. LAPD's Response: Th.e Department agrees with the finding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The recommendation requires changes in the long standing procedures at the courts, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and LAPD. The Department is presently investigating the possibility ofproviding more services in six to twelve months to the public and other law enforcement agencies electronically. These include electronic filing and requesting of police reports, electronic case filing with the Offices of the District Attorney and City Attorney and systems to notify detectives of results from fingerprint and other forensic investigations. These projects are in the early stages of development and in many cases will require cooperation or joint development with various agencies and municipalities, Docunlellts such as Probable Cause Determinations calIDot be electronically distributed sim:e the Courts require the original report.. . , ·-i AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER www.LAPOOnfine.org www.joinLAPO.com The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon 1.14 Hi-Tech Forensics

R4: City of Bell Police Department 19. City of Manhattan Beach Police Department

R5: City of Bell Gardens Police Department 20. City of Monrovia Police Department

R6: City of Beverly Hills Police 21. City of Monterey Park Police Department Department

R7: City of Burbank Police Department 22. City of Pasadena Police Department

R8: Establish a "High Tech Forensics Bureau." This will facilitate: i. Promotions and career opportunities for those who are trained and skilled in this area without having to leave the discipline ii. Succession planning and transfer ofhigh tech expertise, preserving the investment made in creating the expertise The Culver City Police Department is a participating agency in the West Side Regional High Tech Task Force. This task force is hosted by the Beverly Hills Police Department 4040 DUQUESNE AVENUE • CULYERCITY • CALIFORNIA 90232-2882 From:Guler City Pol ice Dept - Det. 3102536115 01/31/2012 16:00 #189 P.003/003 POLICE DEPARTMENT IN\'ESTIGATIONS BUREAU CITY OF CULVER CITY (31O) 253-6300 FAX (310) 253-6115 DONALD PEDERSEN Chief of Police and is made up ofinvestigators from the Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and Culver City Police Departments; as well as the Los Angeles County Sherriff's Department and the United States Secret Service. We provide one Culver City investigator to the task force who works in such capacity on a part-time basis. Working in conjunction with the task force, our investigator is able to facilitate all ofour high tech investigative needs. Because ofthis, and in light ofour current fiscal situation, the establishment of a High Tech Forensics Bureau would be neither reasonable nor responsible. b. Update regular law enforcement recruit and detective training to include orientation, procedures, protocol, and other training with respect to digital evidence c. Include training in digital evidence collection, analysis and use in "roll call" training Our High Tech investigator is currently creating in-house training materials that, when completed, will address all ofthe above recommendations. Roll call training and other High Tech issues are provided and addressed by our investigator. We also have access to High Tech training through the West Side Regional High Tech Task Force as needed. As a department, we regularly send officers and investigators to formal High Tech training courses provided by POST and other training sources. d. Take steps to acquire POST certification for High Tech training courses for forensic examiners and cyber investigators to allow for reimbursement ofthe costs Being as we have accesses to the aforementioned training opportunities, the Culver City Police Department does not provide formal High Tech training. Feel free to contact the undersigned ifyou have any questions. Sincerely, {1~1 ['I' rol2- Scott/i.;b:; Assistant ChieforPolice SB/JW/js 4040 DUQUESNE AVENUE • CULVER CITY • CALIFORNIA • 90232-2882 From:Culer City Pol ice Dept - Det. 3102536115 01/31/2012 15:59 #189 P.001/003 CITY OF CULVER CITY CULVER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: 01/31/12 To: Name ............................................ . Natalie Organization ................................ .. Civil Grand JUry Location ....................................... .. (213) 229...2595 Fax # .............................................. From: Name ............................................ . Sgt. J. Sims #836 Organization ................................ .. Culver City Police Department Locatiou ........................................ . Culver California 90232 (310) 253·6115 Detectives Fax # ............................................. . Return Phone # ............................. . (310) 253-6306 Number ofpages:t.~;.,.:~~.~.;{yincluding cover sheet) .,-\";"" Special Instructions Culver City Police Department 4040 Duquesne Avenue Culver City, CA 90232 Telephone (310) 837-1221 Fax (310) 253-6115 - Detectives Fax (310) 253-6117 - Records FUTURE UNLIMITED ----~ Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 Your Honor, In June, 2011, The Downey Police Department received a copy of the County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury report detailing their investigation into the "High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age" within Los Angeles County. Per California Penal Code section 933, The City of Downey and The Downey Police Department are responding to the report. Upon reviewing the grand jury's investigation, we conclude the following sections applied directly to The Downey Police Department; 2a, 2b, 2c, and section 2d. We concur with the findings of the Grand Jury in these specific sections. fi Sincerely, ! \ I ~7~ Marque{~ Rick Esteves, Chief of Police Luis H. Downey Police Department City of Downey 562-904-2301 562-904-7274 ------------POLICE DEPARTMENT 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE ---P-O-ST- O-F-FI-CE- B-O-X- 7-01-6 -----n(-'\\-hlM-l-::V- C-ALIFORNIA 90241-7016 -------------~----------- ..--- GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT 1718 W. 162nd Street • Gardena, CA 90247 Phone (310) 217-9600 • Fax (310) 217-9638 August 31,2011 REF: 11-176 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 W. Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Presiding Judge: The Gardena Police Department has reviewed the e-Subpoena material provided to the Department by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury. As the respondent, we agree with the Grand Jury Reports and will establish a timeline for e-Subpoena implementation. A study of our current procedures showed execution of the system would be both feasible and beneficial to the Department. Currently, the District Attorney's Office and the Public Defender use paper printed subpoenas. The subpoenas are picked up at the Torrance Court and brought back to the Department for logging, and distribution to our personnel and witnesses. There are some instances where we receive subpoenas via FAX or U.S. mail. These subpoenas are also logged in by our subpoena control police assistant, and then physically distributed to our personnel and civil witnesses. The use of the e-Subpoena system would greatly enhance our ability to get our personnel served in a timelier manner. The system also provides a greater amount of accountability in the proof of service, by complete logging of delivery and receipt. Once in use, the e-Subpoena system would eliminate the need for our subpoena control police assistant to track and deliver court summons to our officers. The subpoena control police assistant would still be needed for the tracking and the delivery of printed subpoenas to civilian witnesses and victims. The system does require some interfacing with current IT systems. We spoke with representatives of the Inglewood Police Department and the Culver City Police Department; both agencies are currently using the system. In both instances they spoke very highly of the system and the ease of implementation through an outside vendor, WEBIPLEX in Newport Beach, CA. Service with Pride and Professionalism. II If Should you require further information, please contact Sergeant Russ Temple, Gardena Police Department Detective Bureau, at (310) 217-9636. Sincerely, Edward Medrano Chief of Police f , CITY OF GLENDORA POLICE DEPARTMENT 150 SOUTH GLENDORA AVE., (626) 914-8250 GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA 91741-3498 FAX # (626) 963-2154 ROBERT M. CASTRO, CHIEF OF POLICE June 27,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 To Whom It May Concern: This letter serves as the Glendora Police Department's response to the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury report for "eSubpoena". As to recommendation #1, "Implement e-Subpoena as a cost-saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) DA subpoenas quarterly," We agree with the fmding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Since the Glendora Police Department is a small department without dedicated subpoena control officers on staff, we will coordinate with the LA DA office to develop an e-subpoena application in-house, rather than incurring the additional software purchase and maintenance costs associated with a third-party solution which may offset the benefit of the recommendation. Our timeframe for implementation is within 1 year from the date ofthis mailing. Please contact me at 626-914-8262 with any questions. Sincerely, ~~ Robert M. Castro Chief of Police o P RID E F THE FOOTHILLS CITY OF GLENDORA POLICE DEPARTMENT 150 SOUTH GLENDORA AVE., (626) 914·8250 GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA 91741·3498 FAX # (626) 963-2154 ROBERT M. CASTRO, CHIEF OF POLICE June 27,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 To Whom It May Concern: This letter serves as the Glendora Police Department's response to the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury report for "eSubpoena". As to recommendation #1, "Implement e-Subpoena as a cost-saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) DA subpoenas quarterly." We agree with the fmding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Since the Glendora Police Department is a small department without dedicated subpoena control officers on staff, we will coordinate with the LA DA office to develop an e-subpoena application in-house, rather than incurring the additional software purchase and maintenance costs associated with a third-party solution which may offset the benefit ofthe recommendation. OUf timeframe for implementation is within 1 year from the date ofthis mailing. Please contact me at 626-914-8262 with any questions. Sincerely, 1fUrf~ Robert M. Castro Chief of Police P RID E o F THE FOOTHILLS CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 131 North Isabel Street Police Department Glendale, California 912064382 Office of the Chief of Police (818) 548-3140 www.ci.glendale.ca.us November 23,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11:"506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Dear Presiding Judge, On June 23, 2011, the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury made the following recommendations to the Glendale Police Department: 1) Implement e-Subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure, and 2) Establish a High Tech Forensics Bureau. I have. considered these recommendations. I understand the need in law enforcement to provide prosecutorial and defense agencies with an automated means to serve law enforcement officers and I also recognize the value to crime fighting oftraining our personnel in high tech forensics. Presently, our ability to implement e-Subpoena and create a High Tech Forensics Bureau is hampered by dramatic cuts over the last three years in the City of Glendale Police Department's budget, along with a significant reduction in our staffing of sworn positions. As a result, we are fiscally unable to consider implementing these recommendations at this time absent a funding source. Ronald L. DePompa Chief ofPolice RLD: rsb C: Mr. Bob Cremer, Chairperson, Continuity Committee 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury o WE RECYCLE CITY OF INGLEWOOD One W. Manchester Boulevard, Suite 860, Inglewood, CA 90301#1750 Office ofthe City .Jlttorney Tel: (310) 412~8672 Cal P. Saunders Fax: (310) 412~8865 www.cityofinglewood.org City Attorney November 29, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Comt Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: E-Subpoena Dear Presiding Judge:

R9: City of Culver City Police Department 24. City of San Fernando Police Department

R13: City of I-!untington Park Police Department 27. City of Torrance Police Department

📋February 17, 2012 — High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age

228 pages 13 findings 32 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: LADOT agrees with the finding. Note that the issue reviewed by the CGJ focused on whether or not signs should be posted in an existing temporary preferential parking district.

Page 75

F2: Localized Joint Task Force Model The respondent agrees with the findings.

Page 66

F2a: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to the department received an incomplete petition in 2008.

Page 75

F2b: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to a request to post signs, not "installation { of a PPD".

Page 75

F2c: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to sign posting, not "establishment of a PPD".

Page 75

F3: LADOT has no position on the finding. LADOT has no record of the stated "attempts by residents to get the reasons for rescindment [of the request f9r sign posting]".

Page 75

F4: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to canceling the July 29, 2010 approval of sign posting. LADOT notified all the affected residents in writing that the sign posting was imminent, but did not notify the affected residents when a counter-petition opposing sign posting was verified and the sign posting canceled. LADOT agrees that residents should have been informed. September 27, 2011 1 County of Los Angeles CIVIL GRAND JURY CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMiNAl JUSTICE CENTER 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET· ELEVENTH FloOR • ROOM 11-505 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE (213) 893-1047 • FAX (213) 229-2595 http://www.grandjury.co.la.ca.usI June 23. 2011 SheriffLee Baca Los Angeles Sheriffs Department 4700 Ramona Blvd. Monterey Park. California 91754 Re: PRE RELEASE DELIVERY OF A PORTION OF THE 2010-2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY eM GR..ANri JiJRy REPORT. NOTE: DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY REPORT CONTENTS PRIOR TO JUNE 30, 2011 Dear SheriffBaoa: Pursuant to California Penal Code §933.05(f): A grandjwy shall provide to the iifjected agency a copy oflheportion ofthe grandjury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release andafter the approval ofthe presidingjudge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body ofa public agency shall disclose 07QI contents ofthe report prior 10 the public release ofthe final report. The Final Report by the 201 0-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jw:y will be released to the public on June 30, 2011. ! I '<, In accordance with this requirement. please acknowledge receipt ofthe portion ofthe 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report that affects this agency, department, or governing body by signing this letter. Thejurors delivering this report will retain the copy ofthis letter signed by the recipient or recipient's agent. A response to all Recommendations in a Civil Grand Jmy Report is required by California Penal Code §933(c) and §933.0S within ninety (90) days following the release ofthe Report to the public. Attached are instructions on how to respond. Sincerely. Joe Safier, Foreperson 2010-20] 1 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury RECEIVED BY DATE / l ~y J). 6~ Printed Name Attachments (2) At'ITONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA Commission RONALD O. NICHOLS Mayor mOMAS S. SAYLES, President Gener.i11 Manager ERIC HOLOMAN, Vice President RICHARD F. MOSS CHRISTINAE. NOONAN iONATIIAN PARFREY BARBARA E. MOSCHOS, Secretary September 27, 2011. The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 Dear Presiding Judge Edmqn: Subject: Additional tim~J~ClIJ~~ted bytheBdar~ ~:l.Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles to respond to: Final Report -130) Whoa! The State of Public Pensions in Los Angeles County Assessment of the State of Pension Plans in Los Angeles County Phase II: Section 2 City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Employee Retirement Plan (pp. 254-265) Water and Power Conservation . .. a way of life 111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles, California 90012-2607 Mailing address: Box 51111, Los Angeles 90051-5700 Telephone: (213) 367-4211 table addres.s: DEWAPOLA .,.i • ~andmadoftom~_ '...: , I The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon September 27,2011 On June 30, 2011 the, Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury issued its final report. Two of the 13 investigative reports contained within the finat report concern the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (lithe Department") and call upon the Board of Water and Power Commissioners (lithe Board") of the City otlos Angeles to respond to these reports. Under California Penal Code § 933{c), the "governing body of the public agency must comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under control of the governing body" within 90 days of the date the grand jury submitted its final report. Both reports inform the Board that its response is due on September 30, 2011. See Final Report at pp.128, 265. The'Board respectfully requests that it be allowed an additional 30 days within which to file its responses to the findings and recommendations set forth in the two investigative reports referenced above. Should this request be granted, the new deadline for response would become Monday, October 31,2011, inasmuch as the 30th will be a Sunday. The requested additional time is needed for two reasons: 1. Additional time is needed to complete the analYSis of the grand jury's findings and recommendations and prepare responding comments for the Board's consideration. The Board's response must be built upon a thorough analysis of the findings and

Page 75

F5: The respondent agrees with the findings.

Page 66

F6: The respondent agrees with the findings.

Page 66

F7: The respondent agrees with the findings.

Page 66

F8: The respondent agrees with the findings.

Page 66

F9: The respondent agrees with the findings. Training

F13: Recommendation: Approve the responses to the 2010-11 findings and

Page 105

Additional Recommendations 32

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: lInpl~mente-Subpoena as n cost saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enf6rcement agencies receiving a.t least one hundred fifty (:1.50) DA subpoenas quarterly. . .' . . - . , ' . . . . . ResponseJ: The recommendation has not yetheenirrtplemertted, hut the Torrance Police Department has resear:ched implementation of an E':Subp()ena systeJ;lland plans to begin beta testing ofthistechnology illFall2011. Staffhas examined avair~bleE-Subpoena software packages successfully deployed by law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County and plans to deploy a sihlilat system for asixmonthtrial period. .Through E-Subpoenairnplementation, the departmenthopestohetterits cost and process efficienc'ie's through such features as:. email .notification oi'subpoenareceipt and seivice,stre~lilledaudittrails, email notification ofofficer appearance instni~tions, and centralized perforrn.ance repoftingand service tracking. Additionally, the City ofTorrance prosecutor's Office has expressed interest in participating in the police department'sE-Subpoena testtrial,and discussions for coordination are ongoing. Sincerely, ~e~~----~~- Chief of Police OF TORRANCE POLlCE DEPARTMENT JOHN J.NEU Ci-IIEFOF POUCE September 16,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justite Center 2l0W. Temple St., 11th Floor, Rm. 11-506 Los Angeles, CA90012 Dear Presiding Judge of the L.A. Sllperior Court: Incompliance with Califorma Penal Code requirements, the Torrance Police Department has reviewed the recommendations detailed in the 2010-2011 L.A. County Grand Jury Report "High TechForeflsics andCyber. Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age" and provides the following responses:

Page 97

R2: Additional time is needed in order to allow the Board of Water and Power Commissioners sufficient time to consider the matter. The reports call upon the Board to serve as the responding "agency" for all recommendations, but three of them also require responses from the City Council and the Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System ("LACERSII) Board of Administration. Under the Los Angeles City Charter, the Board serves as "head" bf the Department, Charter § 600(b), and thus serves functionally as the "governing body" referenced in California Penal Code § 933(c) over matters within the Board's Charter authority. The Board is one of the citizen boards heading major City operating departments (others include Airports, Harbor, Fire, Police, Library, Public Works, and Recreation and Parks). Charter §§ 500(a), 600(a). The Board conducts regular meetings twice a month (1st & 3rd Tuesdays). Rules of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners, Rule 1 (Res. 011-223, March 1, 2011), although it can and sometimes does call special meetings. If the Board is the responding lIagency," it must approve the response. Board approval is given by majority vote of its members, Charter § 503(c), at a noticed meeting as required by the applicable open meetings law, the Ralph M. Brown Act. California Government Code §§ 54950 ef seq. The additional time requested will afford the Board sufficient opportunity to review analysis by Department staff in various functional areas and receive other input so that it can determine the responses to be made. The Board should be able to complete this work by the October 31 deadline being requested. Thomas S. Sayles President Board of Water and Power Commissioners c: Ronald O. Nichols General Manager 244674v2 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CARMEN A. TRUTANICH RICHARD M. BRCWN CITYATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ANtl PCWER GENERAL COUNSEL LEGAL tllVISICJN FDR WATER AND POWER P.O. EltlX 61111 - SUITE 340 LtlS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90061-0100 HAND DELIVERED TELEPHONE (213) 367-4600 FAX (213) 3S7-461313 November 17, 2011 The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 Alf Schonbach, Foreperson Civil Grand Jury County of Los Angeles Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 W. Temple Street Room 11-506 Re: Status report on the progress of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles in responding to: Final Report -130) Whoa! The State of Public Pensions in Los Angeles County Assessment of the State of Pension Plans in Los Angeles County Phase II: Section 2 City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Employee Retirement Plan (pp. 254-265) Dear Presiding Judge Edmon and Foreperson Schon bach: AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon Alf Schonbach, Foreperson November 17, 2011 In a letter of November 1,2011, this Office indicated that it would keep the Court and the Grand Jury advised of the progress of this matter until the response of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners was filed. We can report that the Board considered a preliminary draft prepared by staff at its regular meeting on November 15, 2011. While it had been anticipated that all Board members would be present, only three (but still a quorum) were present. The draft response was discussed by the members present, but no action was taken at that time to approve a response. The Board will require additional time to consider its response and have the matter before the Board when more members are present. In consideration of the Holidays, the Board meets only once in December. The Board deferred consideration until a meeting in January. This Office will continue to keep the Court and the Grand Jury advised of the progress of this matter until the Board's response is filed. eneral Counsel Department of Water and Power cc: Thomas S. Sayles President Board of Water and Power Commissioners Ronald O. Nichols General Manager Department of Water and Power 246981v1 m~<-t;s~~ redondo B E A C H ( Police Department 401 Diamond Street, P.O. Box 639 tel 310379-2477 W. Joseph Leonardi Redondo Beach, California 90277-0639 fax 310372-0167 Chief of Police www.redondo.org August 8, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Subj: 2010-2011 CGJ Report Recommendations Madam:

Page 78

R2a: E~tablish a "High Tech Forensics Bureau." Response 2a: The Torrance Police Department has already implemented this recommendation. A High Ttch Crimes detail, housed in the Detectives DIvision, was established in January 2010. A full-time detective is assigned to the detailasthe Computer Forensics Lab investigator. The Department completed renovations to establish a state of the art computer forensics lab in August 2010 which houses the equipment and systems needed for digital evidence processing. Detective duties intiude:conductinginvestigations a.rid digitcilevidence recoveryort computers, cell phones and various electromc devices; performing surveillance video recovery and enha.p.cement investigations; providing expert witn.ess testimony in court; l:lnd assisting ta~k force members with cases and warmhtsat various locations around Los Angeles County. The detective is assigned to the Los Angeles Police Department's Internet Crimes AgaihstChildren (ICAC) Task Force and the United States Secret Service's Los Angeles Electromcs Crimes Task Force (LAECTF). He is a graduate of the National Computer F orensicInstitute "Basic Computer Evidence Recovery Traimng";has attained "ACE" certificationin Access Data's Forensic Tool Kit; and is trained in mobile phone and computer forensics, as well a.s advanced internet examinations; As ofMarch 2011,the detallhas coinpleted 41 forensic investigations with evidence retrieved from computers, cell phones, electronic video and audio, dIgital video recorders (DVR) and global positioning systems (OPS\ These investigations included criminal cases involving homicide, identity theft, narcotjcs, theft and sex crimes. Another detective has been assigned to the High Tech Crimes detail and is being trained accordingly, as the original Computer Forensics Lab investigator isonmedicl:llieave .. 3300 Civic Center Drive. Torrance, California 90503-5056 • Telephone 310/328-3456. Facsimile 310/618-5532 · ;. { Recommendation 2b. Updateregular law enforcement recruit and detectivetraining to I' include orientation, procedures, protocols and oth~r trai.ningwith respect to digital' eviden'ce. . ' . . Response 2b: The Torrance Police Departmenthas;:tlready i 111pletnented this recommendation. Personnel fromtheHigh Tech Crimes detail and Detectives Division periodically inform new and experienced patrol officers ofthe purpose and capabilities ofthe High Tech Crimes detail. Presentation content inc~udes digital evidence recognition and preservation and(ih overview of what circumstances warrant call out ofthe Computer Forensics Lab investigator. Additionally, Field Training Officers incorporate basic digitalevidence training for newly hired officers as circumstances arisein the field; i.e. theft ofGPS-enabledelectronic devices, call/text data for cell phones in possession ofknown criminals,etc. Policeoftlcer probationers are therefore exposed to hands-on learning oppofhmities regarding the recognition, preservation and use of digital evidence in everyday police work. .,

Page 98

R2b: Updateregular law enforcement recruit and detectivetraining to include orientation, procedures, protocols and oth~r trai.ningwith respect to digital' eviden'ce. . ' . . Response 2b: The Torrance Police Departmenthas;:tlready i111pletnented this recommendation. Personnel fromtheHigh Tech Crimes detail and Detectives Division periodically inform new and experienced patrol officers ofthe purpose and capabilities ofthe High Tech Crimes detail. Presentation content inc~udes digital evidence recognition and preservation and(ih overview of what circumstances warrant call out ofthe Computer Forensics Lab investigator. Additionally, Field Training Officers incorporate basic digitalevidence training for newly hired officers as circumstances arisein the field; i.e. theft ofGPS-enabledelectronic devices, call/text data for cell phones in possession ofknown criminals,etc. Policeoftlcer probationers are therefore exposed to hands-on learning oppofhmities regarding the recognition, preservation and use of digital evidence in everyday police work. .,

R2c: Include trainillg in digital evidence collection, analysis and use in "roll call" training. Response 2c:. The Torrance Police Department has already implemented this recommendation. As mentioned earlier,personnel from the High Tech Crimesdet(iil and Detectives Division periodically present digital evidence information to patrol staff. These presentations are made at daily patrolbriefings and heighten officer awareness of digital evidence impoliance, recognition and preservation. Patrol officers are also informed ofthe capabilities ofthe High Tech Crimes detail and under what circumstances the detail's specialized skills should be called out to a crime scene. Recommendation2d. Take stepsto~cquire the POST certification for High Tech training courses for forensic. examiners and cyber investigators to allow for reimbtirselDent of the costs. Respollse 2d: Therecormnendatiori is not applicable .. It is the Torrance PoliceDepartment's understanding that POST certification is the responsibility ofthe training provider. The department is not a provider ofHigh Tech training. Sincerely, ~"1----- ~n\(Neu Chief ofPolice C· I T YO F TORRANCE November 30, 2011 Mr. Bob Cremer, Chairperson, Continuity Committee 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury· Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 W. Temple St.; 11th FIQor, Rm. 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Cremer: This correspondence is in response to your letter dated November 18,2011 which noted that the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury had not received the required responses from the Torrance Police Department. . Copies ofthe Torrance Police Department's written response letters, as well as the confinnation receipt letters have been enclosed for your reference as follows: (1) "E-Subpoena, One Way to End the Paper Chase" response letter (1) "High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age" response letter (I) "E-Subpoena, One Way to End the Paper Chase" confinnation receipt letter (1) "High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age" confinnation receipt letter Please feel free to contact me, Kent Sentinella, Administrative Analyst at (310) 618 ...5677 should you require anything further. Sincerely, JOHN J.NEU ChiefofPolice 14~ Kent Sentirtella, Administrative Analyst Torrance Police Department . Enclosures ( 4) cc: Mr. Alf Schonbach, Foreperson 3300 Civic Center Drive-Torrance, California 90503-5056 • Telephone 310/618-5677 • Facsimile 310/618-5635 P Dpartment olia ier lMI.fI.... .........-----Quality People - Quality Service-- a -..-...------ Jeff A. Piper Chief of Police Serving the Communities of Whittier and Santa Fe Springs September 19, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: Response to Civil Grand Jury High Tech Forensics Recommendations Dear Presiding Judge, Please allow this correspondence to fulfill the requirements set forth in Penal Code Sections 933( c) and 933.05 in responding to the High Tech Forensics report submitted by the Civil Grand Jury.

Page 99

R3: The timeframe for implementation will depend on the cost of the implementation and the ability to coordinate the requirements of the Information Technology Departments of the City of Redondo Beach and the District Attorney's Office. The Police Department does not have information technology personnel dedicated to the department and projects are based on priority need. The Redondo Beach Police Department agrees that the E-Subpoena system can be beneficial and improve procedure, but not for the reasons stated by the Grand Jury report. We disagree with some of assertions of the Grand Jury; they are not accurate as applied to the Redondo Beach Police Department. The Grand Jury uses the los Angeles Police Department and others as the litmus test for efficiency and effectiveness. One size does not fit all, and the report does not account for agencies that have instituted subpoena control with policy, procedure and other computer programs for many years. The Redondo Beach Police Department has instituted a monitored and controlled subpoena program for more than thirteen years. We adapted practices learned from the Torrance Police Department that implemented these programs before us. The report emphasizes the strict time requirements of arraignment and preliminary hearing as being one of the primary needs for the system. It posits that the DA's lack of knowledge of completed service is the reason for issuing subpoenas to all officers on a case. "When paper subpoenas are delivered and hand distributed, the DA has no timely confirmation of who is served. For example, if six officers investigate a crime, unless the prosecutor knows the lead officer receives their subpoena the DA often sends to all six officers involved." This is stated again on , item 7.a. Our experience is that two very different criteria affect the number of subpoenas and the timeliness of subpoena delivery that far exceeds the effects of confirmation. First, the filing deputy, and not the prosecutor for the preliminary hearing, determines the number of officers subpoenaed to a case. The prelim deputy often does not receive or see the case until the day of the prelim and does not determine officers' attendance. If the police department attempts to reduce the number of officers appearing, it is done through personal contact with the witness coordinator for the local office. Second, the three-day workweek affects the ability of the department to serve officers if the subpoenas arrive on or after the last workday of their schedule. When leave time is granted, this exacerbates the problem. The Redondo Beach Police Department retrieves its local subpoenas daily from the court and distributes them as soon as possible on the next available work day of the officers. More than 90% of all felony subpoenas for the Redondo Beach officers are from the Torrance Office. Delays do not occur for the majority of the department's subpoenas. A Court Liaison Officer dedicated to the retrieval, delivery, and proof of service of subpoenas manages our cases daily. The Court Liaison Officer confers with the witness coordinator in the Torrance DA's Office daily to reduce the number of officers called to cases. They work closely together, and they are effective. This combined with a Court Subpoena Database that has been used in our Department since about 1998 saves as much as $60,000 or more in costs per month. It is the personal contact and credibility ofthese persons that realizes the reductions. When our liaison officer attempts to achieve the same results with foreign courts in other parts of Los Angeles and Orange County, they meet with resistance and often cannot reduce the number of officers. This occurs even with evidence of proof of service. This is why we believe the comments of the report are not accurate regarding the controlling factor to reduce the number of officers subpoenaed to appear. With certain defense attorneys, the control is even less, as we believe they subpoena all officers to cause an economic disadvantage in an attempt to discourage going to trial by raising overtime costs. , Item 12 "Less manpower is needed to generate mail and manually track each subpoena." We believe that this will only be true if we are able to create an interface between our existing court tracking software and the e-Subpoena system and/or our Court Liaison Officer has the ability to receive notification of service in real time to allow adequate follow-up when subpoena timelines are critical. Their current involvement in service and validation of service for the DA will be impeded if the transactions are between the system and the officer only, and they require the Court Liaison Officer to run ad hoc queries to determine status. It is imperative that our management knows when the officer is subpoenaed and their response to the subpoena. , Item 16 "Several departments that have implemented e-Subpoena encourage their officers to check email on their days off." We know from previous labor issues in the City of Redondo Beach that this will cause labor objections and assertions that this violates FLSA de minimus rules. If the time lines of a court appearance are close, the department will have to make contact with the officer to give a verbal order with or without the e-Subpoena system. We are interested in determining how the system will deal with officers that are in long-term leave .f. , status or that are on leave. There are legitimate excusable circumstances that prevent officers' attendance at court. With our current procedures, we are aware of these circumstances and can assist in finding alternatives to mitigate them. "This new system also permits law enforcement management to track offending officers with a history of missed hearings or who intentionally run up court appearance overtime. Previously, such officers could not be disciplined, as the agency had no knowledge of officers who were abusing the system./I Again, the Grand Jury is making an assumption based on the LAPD and not on other agencies. We have long held our officers accountable to court appearances, and we have concern that the direct link between officer and the DA can lessen this accountability through the technology rather than improving it. We have attempted to contact the DA's Office regarding the requirements and process to implement the e-Subpoena system. We will attempt to implement the system as long as it enhances our ability to hold officers accountable for their court appearances. Sincerely, { j County of Los Angeles CIVIL GRAND JURY CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET· ELEVENTH FLOOR· ROOM 11-506 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE (213) 893-1047' FAX (213) 229-2595 http://www.grandJury.cQ.la.ca.us/ November 18,2011 Chief Joe Payne South Pasadena Police Department 1422 Mission Street South Pasadena, California 91030 Dear Chief Payne: Pursuant to Penal Code §933, all Agencies cited in the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report are required to respond to the recommendations provided in the Final Report within sixty days for elected officials and no longer than ninety days for public agencies. Please note, as oftoday's date the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury has not received· the required responses from your agency. If you have already responded to the recommendation(s) in the Final Report, please disregard this notice. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, /! /J ~-:L- t-~~"-<'\. Bob Cremer, Chairperson, Continuity Committee 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Alf Schonbach, Foreperson 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury E..SUBPOENA ONE WAY TO END THE PAPER CHASE Committee Members Chairperson: Joseph H. Saner John A Rangel Susan Stetson METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ reviewed DA prepared e-Subpoena presentation materials, an overview of the County's Information Systems Advisory Board (ISAB" Proactive Information Exchange (PIX) system, and several LEA e~Subpoena Policy/Procedure statements. The CGJ analyzed statistics of subpoenas issued by the DA during 2010 and prepared a Report of LEAs in descending order of number of subpoenas received. In addition, CGJ members met or spoke with representatives of the DA, ISAB and the following LEAs and City Attorneys to discuss the system:

Page 80

R4: City of Bell Police Department 19. City of Manhattan Beach Police Department

Page 84

R5: City of Bell Gardens Police Department 20. City of Monrovia Police Department

Page 84

R6: City of Beverly Hills Police 21. City of Monterey Park Police Department Department

Page 84

R7: City of Burbank Police Department 22. City of Pasadena Police Department

Page 84

R8: City of Covina Police Department 23. City of Redondo Beach Police Department

Page 85

R9: City of Culver City Police Department 24. City of San Fernando Police Department

Page 85

R10: City of Gardena Police Department

Page 85

R11: City of Glendale Police Department Department

Page 85

R12: City of Glendora Police Department 26. City of South Pasadena Police Department

Page 85

R13: City of I-!untington Park Police Department 27. City of Torrance Police Department

Page 85

R14: City of Inglewood Police Department 28. City of West Covina Police Department

Page 85

R15: City of Inglewood City Attorney

Page 85

R16: City of Long Beach Police Department

R17: City of Los Angeles Fire Department

R18: City of Los Angeles Unified School

Page 84

R19: City of Manhattan Beach Police Department

R20: The following is a Table of law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) subpoenas from the DA during the period October through December 2010 and their e-Subpoena implementation status: LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY-ISSUED LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBPOENAS AGENCIES RECEIVING AT LEAST 150 SUBPOENAS FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBERTHRU DECEMBER, 2010 No. e-Subpoena Agency Issued Status CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 2,128 Interested PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT 988 GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT 903 HUNTINGTON PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT 685 BURBANK POLlCE DEPARTMENT 612 HAWTHORNE POLlCE DEPARTMENT 604 Interested WHiniER POLICE DEPARTMENT 593 SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT 537 In process LASD VARIOUS 515 Implemented GARDENA POLlCE DEPARTMENT 501 DOWNEY POLlCE DEPARTMENT 490 Interested EL MONTE POLICE DEPARTMENT 474 Interested POMONA POLICE DEPARTMENT 456 Interested ALHAMBRA POLICE DEPARTMENT 433 L. A. CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 422 SOUTH GATE POLICE DEPARTMENT 421 Interested TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT 403 MONTEREY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT 366 WEST COVINA POLICE DEPARTMENT 364 L. A. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PO 318 L. A. COUNTY CORONER 300 Interested EL SEGUNDO POLICE DEPARTMENT 274 Interested MONTEBELLO POLlCE DEPARTMENT 271 In process L. A. COUNTY PROBATION 255 Interested SAN FERNANDO POLICE DEPARTMENT 216 MANHATIAN BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 189 BEVERLY HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT 182 COVINA POLICE DEPARTMENT 176 MONROVIA POLICE DEPARTMENT 168 GLENDORA POLICE DEPARTMENT 163 SAN GABRIEL POLICE DEPARTMENT 163 BELL GARDENS POLICE DEPARTMENT 159 REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 159 BELL POLICE DEPARTMENT 157 LAPD VARIOUS 155 Implemented SOUTH PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT 154 26 2010-2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY City of Covina (Police Department) City of Gardena (Police Department) City of Glendale (Police Department) City of Glendora (Police Department) City of Huntington Park (Police Department) City of Los Angeles Fire Department City of Los Angeles Unified School District (School Police) City of Manhattan Beach (Police Department) City of Monrovia (Police Department) City of Monterey Park (Police Department) City of Pasadena (Police Department) City of Redondo Beach (Police Department) City of San Fernando (Police Department) City of San Gabriel (Police Department) City of South Pasadena (Police Department) City of Torrance (Police Department) City of West Covina (Police Department) City of Whittier (Police Department) 2 City of Inglewood (City Attorney) 3 City of Los Angeles (Police Department) County of Los Angeles (Sheriffs Department) 4 County of Los Angeles (Sheriffs Department) 5 County of Los Angeles (District Attorney) 28 2010·2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY . , THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 30 2010-2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Police Department 333 Olympic Drive Santa Monica, California 90401 City of Santa Monica® November 29,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 Dear Presiding Judge: Pursuant to California Penal Code section §933, the Santa Monica Police Department hereby responds to certain sections of the County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury's re

Page 87

R21: City of Monterey Park Police Department

R22: City of Pasadena Police Department

R23: City of Redondo Beach Police Department

R24: City of San Fernando Police Department

R25: City of San Gabriel Police

Page 85

R26: City of South Pasadena Police Department

R27: City of Torrance Police Department

R28: City of West Covina Police Department

R29: City of Whittier Police Department 22 2010·2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY c. Improved control using case management systems versus ad hoc e-mail d. PIX ensures reliable delivery/return receipt and a standard interface to different law enforcement agency systems All DA, Public Defender, APD, and City Attorneys/City Prosecutors in the future can use the same message formats and delivery mechanisms.

Page 85

📋February 17, 2012 — Implementation of E-Subpoena system

228 pages 13 findings 19 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: LADOT agrees with the finding. Note that the issue reviewed by the CGJ focused on whether or not signs should be posted in an existing temporary preferential parking district.

F2: Localized Joint Task Force Model The respondent agrees with the findings.

F2a: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to the department received an incomplete petition in 2008.

F2b: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to a request to post signs, not "installation ( of a PPD".

F2c: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to sign posting, not "establishment of a PPD".

F3: LADOT has no position on the finding. LADOT has no record of the stated "attempts by residents to get the reasons for rescindment (of the request for sign posting]".

F5: The respondent agrees with the findings.

F6: The respondent agrees with the findings.

F7: The respondent agrees with the findings.

F8: The respondent agrees with the findings.

F9: The respondent agrees with the findings. Training

F13: Recommendation: Approve the responses to the 2010-11 findings and

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: City of Bell Police Department 19. City of Manhattan Beach Police Department

R5: City of Bell Gardens Police Department 20. City of Monrovia Police Department

R6: City of Beverly Hills Police 21. City of Monterey Park Police Department Department

R7: City of Burbank Police Department 22. City of Pasadena Police Department

R9: City of Culver City Police Department 24. City of San Fernando Police Department

R13: City of I-!untington Park Police Department 27. City of Torrance Police Department

📋February 17, 2012 — Implementation of the E-Subpoena program

228 pages 6 findings 25 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: LADOT agrees with the finding. Note that the issue reviewed by the CGJ focused on whether or not signs should be posted in an existing temporary preferential parking district.

Page 29

F2a: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to the department received an incomplete petition in 2008.

Page 29

F2b: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to a request to post signs, not "installation ( of a PPD".

Page 29

F2c: LADOT agrees with the finding, as it relates to sign posting, not "establishment of a PPD".

Page 29

F3: LADOT has no position on the finding. LADOT has no record of the stated "attempts by residents to get the reasons for rescindment (of the request for sign posting]".

Page 29

Additional Recommendations 25

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 30

R2: LADOT agrees with the recommendation, but will not implement in the foreseeable future due to budgetary and staff constraints. ### September 27,2011 2 Re loj4jJl ,-lei Los BOARD OF FIRE CITY OF ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONERS CALIFORNIA BRIAN L. CUMMINGS GENETHIA HUDLEY·HAYES FIRE CHIEF PRESIDENT CASIMIRO U. TOLENTINO 200 NORTH MAIN STREET VICE PRESIDENT LOS ANGELES. CA 90012 DIANA M. BONTA (213) 97&3800 ANDREW FRIEDMAN FAX: (213) 97&3815 JILL FURILLO HITP://WWW.LAFD.ORG LETICIA GOMEZ ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT I MAYOR September 27,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Subject: RESPONSE TO THE FINAL 2010-2011 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS (e-Subpoena) The Final Report of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report puts forth a number of recommendations related to the implementation of a computerized automated system (e-Subpoena) to manage the issuance and tracking of subpoenas issued by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office to law enforcement agencies throughout the county of Los Angeles. The Final Report of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report identifies the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) as one of the agencies required to provide a written response to Recommendation number one (1) of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report. Recommendation number one (1) reads as follows: "Implement e-Subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) DA subpoenas quarterly." The finding of an internal LAFD assessment of the implementation of the e-Subpoena program suggest that the implementation of the e-Subpoena program is not feasible at this time due to limited financial resources and additional staffing requirements. AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Los Angeles County Superior Court September 27,2011 of2 The LAFD estimated the following financial expenditures in order to implement e-Subpoena: 1. Roughly $75,000 to $100,000 is required to procure new hardware, software and network equipment to operate an in-house e-Subpoena application. 2. Approximately $80,000 to $90,000 would also be required to procure the additional Microsoft Active Directory (AD) licenses to provide e-mail licenses to LAFD members who do n'ot have a department issued e-mail account. 3. Two to three additional positions would be needed to meet the minimum staffing needs required to manage and support the e-Subpoena program. Although the LAFD cannot implement the e-Subpoena program at this time due to the current fiscal constraints, it recognizes the value and efficiencies derived from the use of a program such as e-Subpoena and will look into the implementation and deployment of e-Subpoena in the near future. ( Sincerely, -...,,:::~- <llnunttr nf 1Jln5 i\ng:eI:e5 ( d§henff' Eepatitttettf lIea()-IJUa:rnrs 5 47DD 3Ra:molta: 16luukua:r() jJl[.nmerey JTa:rk, OIa:lifornia: 91754-2169 LEROY D. BACA. SHERIFF September 30, 2011 The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmond Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11~506 Los Angeles, California 90012-3210 Dear Judge Edmond: / i 2010-2011 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC LEGAL SERVICE AND LEGAL DOCUMENT DELIVERY This is in response to your memorandum dated July 18,2011, directing a written response to Recommendations 3 and 4 of the 2010-2011 Grand Jury report entitled "E-Subpoena One Way to End the Paper Chase." These recommendations pertain to the utilization of electronic means to accomplish legal service transactions and delivery of legal documents between justice agencies and the courts. RECOMMENDATION NO.3 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Los Angeles Police Department evaluate electronically transmitting documents such as police reports and probable cause determinations among law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and the Court. RESPONSE The Information Systems Advisory Body (ISAB) ofthe Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, which represents a number of County agencies including the Sheriff, Judges, District Attorney and Public Defender, is in the process of implementing this recommendation. ISAB has identified several electronic Probable Cause Determination (ePCD) service and delivery system implementation options including development of a system utilizing a private vendor; development of a system utilizing in-house LASD information technology; or, adoption of an existing system. ISAB solicited and received an estimate from an existing County IT vendor (Global 360) for the cost of developing a custom ePCD solution, and is also closely evaluating an existing ePCD system developed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 0/ :7l 7radifion dervice ( Judge Edmond - 2- September 30,2011 ISAB estimates that a best option will be selected and an ePCD solution will be implemented within one to two years. Regarding the electronic delivery ofpolice reports, LASD currently has a small scale, ad-hoc implementation with expansion efforts underway. LASD crime/incident reports are usually completed manually, on paper forms and then partially converted into digital form at the station level. Some report information is inputted into the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS) during processing. The paper form is also converted to a digital image capable ofbeing electronically transmitted, but this process can take as long as six months. Technical obstacles to full implementation ofdigital police report delivery are in the process of being addressed. The Sheriffs Integrated Records Retrieval and Assembly System (SIRRAS) is being replaced by the Sheriffs Electronic Criminal Documents Archive (SECDA) which uses a universal imaging format. LASD is also replacing equipment in its patrol vehicles to more capable mobile data computers. In conjunction with this replacement effort, is the development ofa Field Based Incident Reporting System (FIBRS). Upon completion ofthese two technology upgrade initiatives, LASD will have the infrastructure in place to create, archive and transmit police reports in electronic form. LASD also intends to replace its obsolete records management system (LARCIS) with a more modem system (iNets) that will give LASD the capability to implement a completely electronic, "paperless" records system. In conclusion, planning and implementation are underway, by ISAB and LASD, to electronically create, store and transmit Probable Cause Determination and police reports internally and externally to other criminal justice agencies. RECOMMENDATION NO.4 LASD to expand implementation offiling Pitchess motions electronically. A Pitchess motion defines those portions ofa deputy's personnel file which may be made available to defonse counsel. RESPONSE Electronic filing ofPitc hess motions has been implemented among LASD, Public Defender's Office and Office of the County Counsel. The system will soon be utilized by more justice agencies within the County. A plan to add additional functions and capabilities has also been established. The idea of electronic delivery ofPitc hess motions was conceived and brought to fruition by the LASD Risk Management Bureau's Discovery Unit in collaboration with the Public Defender's Office, Office ofthe County Counsel, Alternate Public Defender's Office, and the Civil Service Commission. Following a successful pilot program in 2009 at the Compton Courthouse, the Sheriff and Public Defender applied for and were awarded a $75,000 grant from the County's Quality and Productivity Commission. This grant provided funding for the hardware and Judge Edmond -3 - September 30, 2011 software resources needed to put the system, named ePitchess, into production at the fourteen busiest courthouses throughout the County. Since the initial deployment, this innovative system has achieved significant operating efficiencies among all participating entities in the form oftime and resource savings and much better accountability and tracking. The ePitchess system was expanded to include the Alternate Public Defender and the county Civil Service Commission. Justice agencies outside county government are also adopting ePitchess; the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles City Attorney currently have a pre-production pilot program in progress. A four-phase program plan has been established to guide the ePitchess system to a future "build-out" state: Phase I implements Pitchess motion document creation, filing and receipt acknowledgement capabilities; Phase II adds opposition document creation and filing; Phase III adds compliance report creation and filing; Phase IV adds scheduling information and services. Current production systems encompass Phases I and II. Future expansion, which will occur as organization sponsors emerge and resources become available, will successively add Phases III and IV capabilities. In conclusion, the electronic filing ofPitc hess Motions has been implemented among the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Public Defender's Office and Office of the County Counsel. The inclusion ofthe Alternate Public Defender, Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles City Attorney's office is imminent. A program plan has been established to enhance the impressive efficiencies ofePitchess by adding further capabilities and functions in the future. Sincerely, ~ LE OYD.BACA S$RlFF LDB:DB:JG:ES:llr c: DSB DSB File (2011GJRecommendation092211) THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES 425 S. Palos Verdes Street Post OHlce Box 151 San Pedro. CA 90733-0151 TEL/TDD 310 SEA-PORT www.portollosangeles.org Antonio R. Villaraigosa Mayor, City ofLos Angeles Board of Harbor Cindy Mlsclkowskl David Adan Robin M. Kramer Douglas P. Krause Sung Won Sohn. Ph.D. Commissioners President Vice President Geraldine Knatz. Ph.D. Executive Director September 12, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 Dear Judge: We have received the audit report from the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (LACCGJ) related to the Harbor Department and appreciate the efforts undertaken in your review of the Port of Los Angeles. We would like to respond to the recommendations therein.

Page 30

R2a: Establish a "High Tech Forensics Bureau." This willfacilitate: i. Promotions and career opportunities for those who are trained and skilled in this area without having to leave the discipline. ii. Succession planning and transfer ofhigh tech expertise, preserving the investment made in creating the expertise. LAPD's Response: The Department agrees with the finding that a "High Tech Forensics Bureau" should be established to facilitate theaforementioned advantages. The Department already has a Scientific Investigation Division (SID) whose areas of:responsibility include the collection and analysis offorensic evidence, staffed by highly trained civilian employees. Therefore, the recommendation to establish a bureau will be considered as implemented.

Page 24

R2b: Update regular law eriforcement recruit and detective training to include orientation, procedures, protocols and other training with respect to digital evidence. LAPD's Response: The Department agrees with the finding and has implemented the recommendation. In November 2010, the Recruit Lesson Plan was updated to include orientation, procedures, protocols and other training with respect to digital evidence .. In {, ) December 2010, Special Order No. 34 was published, delineating the procedures for the retrieval and booking of audio and video evidence. This order was issued to all LAPD employees via the Learning Management System.

Page 24

R2d: Take steps to acquire the POST certification for High Tech training courses for forensic examiners and eyber investigators to allow for reimbursement ofthe costs. LAPD's Response: The Department does not agree with the finding and will not implement the recommendation. Scientific Investigation Division staff requires significant technical training and continuing education to develop and maintain their expeltise. To fulfill this need, the Narcotics Analysis Laboratory Trust Fund (NALTF) was created in the late 1990's 1:J fund narcotics related analysis and equipment, in addition to training opportunities for all members of SID. Approximately $150,000 is available through NALTF for training each fiscal year. Furthermore, SID staff also attends training and continuing education events funded through State and federal grants. The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon 1.14 ) Technical training is also available through the California Criminalistic Institute, State of California Department of Justice, and Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Robert Presley Institute of Criminal Investigations at no cost to POST supported or State of California based law enforcement agencies. Since there are sufficient funding available for SID personnel and non-SID personnel to attend high technology courses, the recommendation will not be implemented. Jails Committee

Page 24

R2e: Include training in digital evidence collection, analysis and use in "roll call" training. LAPD's Response: The Department partially agrees with the finding and has implemented part ofthe recommendation. From January 2011 through June 2011, SID provided roll call training to employees assigned to Office ofOperations and Detective Bureau on the digital multimedia evidence retrieval. The analysis ofdigital evidence remains the responsibility of SID and therefore the analysis of digital training was not provided.

Page 24

Page 23

R3a: West Los Angeles Police Department - To establish continuous training for the staff: i. To ensure they are informed ofthe results ofthe previous Correctional Standards Report ii, To ensure that staffadhere to the recommendations made in the previous Correctional Standards Report

Page 25

R3b: Establish a central location for safety gear. LAPD's Response: The Department does not agree with the finding and Recommendations 3a and 3b. The Civil Grand Jury visited West Los Angles Area Community Police Station (WLA (,' CPS) to inspect their jail for housing conditions, medical needs, food, staff training, safety and , '~ .I fire procedures, administrative processes and guidelines, as well as inmate living needs. West Los Angeles Area Community Police Station did not have a jail and had informed the Civil Grand Jury accordingly. However, the Civil Grand Jury continued their inspection and found WLA CPS staff not well versed in the existing jail policies and procedures. Since WLA CPS did not have ajail, the employees were neither expected to know nor responsible for knowing jail policies and procedures such as housing conditions, medical needs, food, staff training, safety and fire procedures, administrative processes and guidelines, as well as inmate living needs. Therefore, LAPD will not implement Recommendations 3a and 3b. Note: The report referred to WLA CPS as West Los Angeles Police Department. West Los Angeles Area Community Police Station personnel confirmed that an inspection was conducted by the Civil Grand Jury. There is no West Los Angeles Police Department. Should you have any questions or require further information, please have a member ofyour staff contact Police Administrator Gerald L. Chaleff, Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing, at (213) 486-8730. r YY yrul r!. ~ Chief POLICE DEPARTMENT City of Manhattan Beach 420 15th Street MANHATIAN BEACH, CALlFORNIA 90266 (310) 802-5103 FAX (310) 802-5101 EVE R.lRVINE CHIEF OfPOU<;E August 4, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, Ca. 90012 Dear Presiding Judge: We recently received the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report. The report makes the recommendation that the City of Manhattan Beach Police Department implement e-Subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure. In addition, the report recommends the City Attorney I City Prosecutor utilize the e-Subpoena system in locations wherein the police depaltment is using the system. I have reviewed the report and agree that the e-Subpoena system could benefit our Department in the area of cost savings and improved efficiency. As a result of the Grand Jury recommendation, I have instlUcted my staff to begin an analysis of the e Subpoena program to determine whether we should implement the program here at the Manhattan Beach Police Department. I have asked that the review be completed within six months of the date of the Grand Jury report. This analysis and implementation review is to be completed by December 30, 2011. I want to thank you for bringing this new e-Subpoena program to my attention and I will be anxiously awaiting the results of our analysis of this program. Thank you, ~ EVE R. IRVINE CHIEF OF POLICE "Policing through Partllerships" City of Manhattan Beach Web Site: www.citvmb.info City of HUNTINGTON PARK California POLICE DEPARTMENT 6542 MILES AVENUE, HUNTINGTON PARK, CALIFORNIA 90255-4386 TEL. (323) 826-6629 • FAX (323) 826-6680 JORGE CISNEROS CHIEF OF POLICE August 3,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortage Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, California 90012-3210 Re: Response to Recommendations by the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury To Whom it May Concern: ( On June 30, 2010, the Huntington Park Police Department received a portion ofthe 2010 ~. 2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report that affects this agency. The Huntington Park Police Department is responding to recommendation number one; Implement e-subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) DA subpoenas quarterly. The Huntington Park Police Department agrees with the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury recommendations in regards to recommendation number one, in fact we were in the process of evaluating the e-subpoena system prior to the recommendations and are supportive ofthis efficiency measure. The Huntington Park Police Department is currently working with a third party vendor to implement the e-subpoena system. We anticipate this system to be fully functional within the next 90 days and will notify you once the program has been fully implemented. If we can be of any further assistance please contact Lieutenant Anthony Porter at (323)826-6641 Z i JClrge Cisneros Chief of Police JC/AP laccgjresp CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA Jaime de la Vega DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GENERAL MANAGER 100 S, Main St., 10th Floor LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 972·8480 FAX (866) 530·3154 ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR September 28, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Court 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, California 90012-3210 Subject: Response to "Final Report, 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury, County of Los Angeles", June 30,2011 re: Preferential Parking Your Honor: { >, The Los Angeles Department of Transportation's response to the Civil Grand Jury's (CGJ) findings and recommendations are attached. Feel free to contact me at (213) 972-8448 or jaime.delavega@lacity.org or Assistant General Manager Amir Sedadi at (213) 972-8422 or amir.sedadi@lacity.org if you have any questions or need additional information. " " e la Vega I Manager Enclosure cc: Amir Sedadi, Assistant General Manager Tamara Martin, Parking Permits Division Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Response to "Final Report, 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury, County of Los Angeles", June 30,2011 re: Preferential Parking For purposes of the following responses, LADOT assumed that the term "PPD" refers to temporary preferential parking district 130 and petition activity surrounding sign posting on the 1600 block of Hi-Point Street.

Page 25

R4: Los Angeles City Council, the DWP Board of Commissioners and LACERS Board of Administrators need to amend the reciprocity agreement between LACERS and WPERP with regard to the transfer of employer pension contributions in order to prevent such inequity in the future. LACERS Response: As stated in the answer to Recommendation #3, as system administrator, the LACERS Board has no authority to negotiate retirement benefits, including but not limited to reciprocity benefits with WPERP. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact Tom Moutes, LACERS General Manager at 213-473-7280. Sincerely, ~~ent Board of Administration RC:TM:bc 2011-0902-072 C: Eric Garcetti, City Council President Gerry F. Miller, Chief Legislative Analyst Miguel A. Santana, City Administrative Officer Matthew Rudnick, Mayor's Office LACERS Board of Administration OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ANT 0 N loR. V ILL A R A I GO S A September 12, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 Dear Judge: We have received the audit report from the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (LACCGJ) related to the Harbor Department and appreciate the efforts undertaken in your review of the Port of Los Angeles. Our office concurs with Board of Harbor Commission President Cindy Miscikowski's responses to the recommendations in the report. We would like to respond additionally to recommendation 3.

Page 40

R5: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R6: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R7: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R8: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R9: The respondent agrees with the finding. 1• (v1. Th~"" ~''~"n'''_p on d e n~ ... . a~g r"~"Q,,",, ""';i"t'Lh. tho'"' fi 1 " . ' . d ! , ne~; '

Page 46

R11: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R12: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R13: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R14: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R15: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R16: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R17: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R18: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R19: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Page 46

R20: The respondent agrees with the finding. @xcetlence • G!Jnnovation • G!Jnter;z:itlj Responses to the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury's Recommendations:

Page 46

📋Aging-out of the Foster Care System

14 pages 8 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The CGJ found that the per-inmate cost of medications at LASD was higher than the surveyed counties in all but one county.

Page 181

F2: The procurement of medications is through a contract provider (drug wholesaler) via the Electronic Countywide Accounting Purchasing System (ECAPS). ECAPS does not provide the capability for use of a perpetual inventory system. A perpetual in- ventory is an ongoing count of medications, on hand, at any particular point in time. Control drugs are inventoried on a perpetual system called the C-2 PYXIS System.

Page 181

F3: The total LASD pharmacy services staff was 119 people at the time of inspection. This includes:  1 chief pharmacist  2 pharmacy supervisors  1 procurement pharmacist  51 general pharmacists  60 pharmacy technicians  2 pharmacy helpers  2 typist clerks

Page 181

F4: The configurations of personnel at the three licensed pharmacies were:  Twin Towers: 1 pharmacy supervisor, 2 pharmacists, 2 pharmacy technicians, 1 pharmacy helper per shift  Men’s Central Jail: 1 pharmacy supervisor, 2 pharmacists, 2 pharmacy techni- cians, 1 pharmacy helper per shift  CRDF: 1 pharmacy supervisor, 2 pharmacists, 2 pharmacy technicians, 1 phar- macy helper per shift

Page 181

F5: LASD pharmacies use the AutoMed System manufactured by Amersource-Bergen Company. 57% percent of all prescriptions dispensed by the LASD pharmacies are via automation.

Page 181

F6: The transmittal of medication orders was performed electronically.

Page 181

F7: Verification of medications dispensed from the C-2PYXIS system was done by pharmacists and recorded manually.

Page 181

F8: The pharmacies at MCJ and CRDF have limited space for the storage and dispens- ing of all items necessary to provide medications for inmates. 2011-2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 159 INMATE MEDICATIONS

Page 181

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should provide a system similar to the C-2 PYXIS system for maintaining a perpetual inventory system for all medica- tions supplied to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Pharmacies.

Page 175

R2: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department pharmacy personnel should re- duce the daily costs of medications prescribed by doctors for inmate needs through the increased use of generic drugs as they become available.

Page 175

R3: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department pharmacy personnel should in- crease the use of automated dispensing of medications via the AutoMed System to a staff-recommended level of 75% of all medications to provide better control and accuracy of dispensed medications.

Page 175

R4: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department pharmacy should use an automat- ed system for monitoring and recording all medications dispensed via the AutoMed System.

Page 175

R5: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should provide additional space to maintain adequate working areas for the pharmacy personnel and storage of all medications at Men’s Central Jail and Century Regional Detention Facility.

Page 175

R6: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should continue its plans to open a State-licensed pharmacy at Pitchess Detention Center within the next fiscal year.

Page 175

📋Aging-out of the Foster Care System

14 pages 8 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The CGJ found that the per-inmate cost of medications at LASD was higher than the surveyed counties in all but one county.

Page 181

F5: LASD pharmacies use the AutoMed System manufactured by Amersource-Bergen Company. 57% percent of all prescriptions dispensed by the LASD pharmacies are via automation.

Page 181

F6: The transmittal of medication orders was performed electronically.

Page 181

F7: Verification of medications dispensed from the C-2PYXIS system was done by pharmacists and recorded manually.

Page 181

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 175

R4: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department pharmacy should use an automat- ed system for monitoring and recording all medications dispensed via the AutoMed System.

Page 175

R6: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should continue its plans to open a State-licensed pharmacy at Pitchess Detention Center within the next fiscal year.

Page 175

📋Central Basin Municipal Water District

4 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Department of Children and Family Services should continue to implement those recommendations that are currently partially implemented or still in progress at the end of the Fiscal Year 2012-2013.

Page 391

R2: The Department of Children and Family Services should endeavor to include as part of its yearly budget those recommendations that were not implemented due to budgetary constraints for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013.

Page 391

📋Central Basin Municipal Water District

4 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 391

📋Charter Cities' Fiscal Health, Governance and Management Practices

104 pages 66 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 66

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All charter cities reviewed in this report should adopt financial planning, revenue and expenditure policies to guide cities’ officials to develop sustainable, balanced budg- ets.

Page 15

R2: All charter cities reviewed in this report should develop a balanced budget and commit to operate within budget constraints.

Page 15

R3: All charter cities reviewed in this report should commit to not using one-time reve- nues to fund recurring or on-going expenditures.

Page 15

R4: All charter cities reviewed in this report should adopt multi-year budgets for better planning to ensure the delivery of basic services before funding projects of lower pri- ority.

Page 15

R5: All charter cities reviewed in this report should adopt a method and practice of sav- ing into a reserve or “rainy day” fund to be supplement operating revenue in years of short fall.

Page 15

R6: Charter cities should develop and adopt a strategic plan that articulates the mission, vision, core values and priorities (goals and objectives) for the City. The following cities should develop and adopt such a strategic plan: Arcadia, Compton, Industry, Inglewood.

Page 15

R7: Charter cities should develop and report on performance measures or indicators to evaluate outcomes or progress on priorities. These performance measures should be quantified, focused on outcomes or results, and information should be provided for several years to allow evaluation of progress over time. The following cities should develop such performance measures for indicators: Arcadia, Bell, Compton, Industry, Inglewood, Lancaster, Temple City.

Page 15

R8: Charter city councils should continue to maintain a governance policy that specifical- ly defines the relationship between the council and executive. Charter city councils should continue providing specific annual goals for the city’s executive (City Manag- er or City Administrator) and conduct meaningful evaluations annually. The following cities should do so: Alhambra, Bell, Industry, Inglewood, Lancaster. 56 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CHARTER CITIES – RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 15

R9: Charter cities should formally establish an audit committee making it directly respon- sible for the work of the independent auditor. The following cities should formally establish an audit committee: Alhambra, Arcadia, Bell, Cerritos, Compton, Industry, Inglewood, Irwindale, Palmdale, Pomona, Santa Monica, Signal Hill, Temple City, Torrance, Whittier.

Page 15

R10: All charter cities reviewed in this report should continue requiring compliance with standards of independence for the external auditor. Cities that do not currently se- lect the auditor through a competitive process should do so. Cities that allow the auditor to provide non-audit services should ensure appropriate review and approval of those services.

Page 15

R11: Charter cities should review and update accounting policies and procedures to en- sure they are appropriately detailed and define the specific authority and responsibility of employees. Cities should also establish a policy requiring policies and procedures to be reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years. The following cities should review and update accounting policies and proce- dures at least once every three years: Alhambra, Arcadia, Bell, Burbank, Industry, Inglewood, Lancaster, Pasadena, Pomona, Santa Monica, Temple City.

Page 16

R12: Charter cities should review and update policies and procedures for reporting fraud, abuse and questionable practices including a practical mechanism, such as a fraud hotline, to permit the confidential, anonymous reporting of concerns. The following cities should adopt such policies and procedures: Alhambra, Arcadia, Burbank, In- dustry, Inglewood, Irwindale, Santa Monica, Temple City.

Page 16

R13: Charter cities should periodically review and update internal control procedures over financial management. The Following cities should review and update internal con- trol procedures over financial matters: Bell, Industry, Inglewood.

Page 16

R14: Charter cities that have not adopted a policy requiring an unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures should develop such policies. The following cit- ies should adopt such a policy: Alhambra, Arcadia, Bell, Cerritos, Compton, Downey, Glendale, Industry, Lancaster, Pomona, Redondo Beach, Temple City, Torrance, Vernon, Whittier.

Page 16

R15: Charter cities must develop and publish a timely Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The city of Bell should do so.

Page 16

R16: Charter cities that have not published financial reports on the city’s website should do so. The city of Industry should do so.

Page 16

R17: Charter cities should develop controls over sole sourced contracting to prevent pref- erential granting of contracts. The following cities should develop such controls: Bell, Industry, Irwindale, Temple City. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 57 CHARTER CITIES – RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 16

R18: Charter cities should develop policies and procedures for selecting and negotiating fair prices for architectural and engineering services consistent with state codes. The following cities should develop such policies and procedures: Arcadia, Bell, Cerritos, Industry, Inglewood, Irwindale, Pasadena, Whittier.

Page 16

R19: All charter cities reviewed in this report should provide policies and procedures for ensuring prices negotiated for substantial contract change orders are fair and rea- sonable, and establish internal controls over substantial contract change orders so that same contractors not repeatedly awarded contracts. The following cities should do so: Alhambra, Bell, Cerritos, Inglewood, Irwindale, Lancaster, Temple City, Tor- rance, Whittier.

Page 16

R20: All charter cities should develop policies and procedures for documenting compli- ance with procurement requirements, and provide contract compliance and oversight and have annual audit oversight with an outside accounting firm. The following cities should do so: Bell, Cerritos, Inglewood, Irwindale, Lancaster, Whittier.

Page 16

R21: All charter city councils, and citizens of the cities, reviewed in this report should an- nually review the actual compensation received by employees of their cities.

Page 16

R22: All charter city councils of the cities reviewed in this report should have access to prevailing municipal wage rates and/or salary ranges for comparable cities in order to identify any individual city position(s) whose salaries exceed the normal salary range for those positions. Approval of any exceptional salaries should be based on justifications of exceptional and unique job responsibilities. 58 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CHARTER CITIES ACRONYMS AICPA American Institute of Certified Public Accountants CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports CalPERS California Public Employees Retirement System CFO Chief Financial Officer CGJ Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury CPCC California Public Contract Code FPPC California Fair Political Practices Commission FY Fiscal Year GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GAAS Generally Accepted Auditing Standards GAS Government Auditing Standards GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board GFOA Government Finance Officers Association IIA Institute of Internal Auditors RFP Request for Proposal SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats APPENDICES A

Page 17

R23: Are accounting policies and procedures reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years on a predetermined schedule? o Yes o No

Page 22

R24: Do the accounting policies and procedures specifically define the authority and respon- sibility of all employees, including the authority to authorize transactions and the responsibility for safekeeping of assets and records? o Yes o No

Page 22

R25: Please provide a copy of the accounting policies and procedures manual.

Page 22

R26: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding accounting policies and proce- dures: 66 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CHARTER CITIES –

Page 22

R27: Does your City have policies and procedures to encourage and facilitate the reporting of fraud or abuse and questionable accounting or auditing practices? o Yes o No

Page 22

R28: Does your City have a formally adopted and widely distributed and publicized ethics pol- icy? o Yes o No

Page 23

R29: Does your City have a practical mechanism, such as a fraud hotline, to permit the confi- dential, anonymous reporting of concerns about fraud, abuse, or questionable practices? o Yes o No

Page 23

R30: Are concerns received regarding fraud, abuse, or questionable practices reviewed by in- ternal auditors, with documentation reviewed by the Audit Committee. o Yes o No

Page 23

R31: Please provide a copy of the ethics policy and information on mechanisms for reporting concerns of fraud, abuse, or questionable practices.

Page 23

R32: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding reporting of fraud, abuse, and questionable practices: Internal Controls

Page 23

R33: Are internal control procedures over financial management formally documented? o Yes o No

Page 23

R34: Do internal control procedures include practical means for lower level employees to re- port instances of management override of controls? o Yes o No

Page 23

R35: Are internal control procedures evaluated to determine if those controls are adequately designed to achieve their intended purpose, have actually been implemented, and con- tinue to function as designed? o Yes o No

Page 23

R36: Are potential internal control weaknesses documented in exception reports? o Yes 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 67 CHARTER CITIES –

Page 23

R37: Is there a process in place to identify changes in what is being controlled or controls themselves, and corrective action plans are developed with an appropriate timeline? o Yes o No

Page 23

R38: Please provide a copy of the internal control procedures over financial management.

Page 23

R39: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal con- trols: Internal Audit

Page 23

R40: Does your City have an internal audit function formally established by charter, enabling resolution, or other legal means? o Yes o No

Page 23

R41: Is the work of the internal audit function conducted in accordance with the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards? o Yes o No

Page 23

R42: Are all reports of the Internal Audit function provided to or available to the Audit Com- mittee? o Yes o No

Page 23

R43: Please provide a copy of the formal action establishing the internal audit function.

Page 23

R44: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal au- dit: 68 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CHARTER CITIES –

Page 23

R45: Does your City have a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be main- tained in the General Fund? o Yes o No

Page 23

R46: Does this policy require an unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months of reg- ular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures? o Yes o No

Page 23

R47: Please provide a copy of the formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund.

Page 23

R48: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on general fund unrestricted fund balance: Financial and Public Reporting Practices

Page 23

R49: Does your City maintain an accounting system adequate to provide all the data needed for the timely preparation of financial statement for the entire entity in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)? o Yes o No

Page 23

R50: Does your City issue timely financial statements for the entire financial reporting entity in conformity with GAAP as part of a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)? o Yes o No

Page 24

R51: Has your City’s financial statements been independently audited in accordance with ei- ther generally accepted auditing standards (GAAP) or Government Auditing Standards (GAS)? o Yes o No

Page 24

R52: Are the annual budget documents or CAFR for your City published and readily accessible to the general public on your City’s website? o Yes o No 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 69 CHARTER CITIES – APPENDIX B

Page 24

R53: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on financial and public reporting practices: Employee Compensation

Page 24

R54: Please provide a list of all employees with total compensation for CY 2011 in excess of $175,000 as reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Please provide detail about the compensation for each employee (salary, overtime, car allowance, vacation payout, sick leave payout, etc.).

Page 24

R55: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding employee compensation: Procurement and Contracting

Page 24

R56: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures defining competitive bid- ding requirements and practices for the procurement of goods and services? o Yes o No

Page 24

R57: Does your City Charter or City ordinance provide exemption from competitive procure- ment requirements of California’s Public Contracting Code? o Yes o No

Page 24

R58: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for documenting compli- ance with procurement requirements? o Yes o No

Page 24

R59: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for selecting firms that provide architectural and engineering services? o Yes o No

Page 24

R60: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for ensuring that prices for negotiated contracts are fair and reasonable? o Yes o No 70 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CHARTER CITIES – APPENDIX B

Page 24

R61: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for ensuring that prices negotiated for contract change orders are fair and reasonable? o Yes o No

Page 24

R62: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures establishing internal con- trols over sole-source contracting? o Yes o No

Page 24

R63: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures establishing internal con- trols over contract change orders? o Yes o No

Page 24

R64: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for providing contract compliance and oversight? o Yes o No

Page 25

R65: Please provide copies of the:  formal policy defining competitive bidding requirements and practices for the procurement of goods and services,  City Charter or City ordinance providing exemption from competitive procure- ment requirements of California’s Public Contracting Code,  formally adopted policies and procedures for documenting compliance with pro- curement requirements,  formally adopted policies and procedures for selecting firms that provide archi- tectural and engineering services,  formally adopted policies and procedures for ensuring that prices for negotiated contracts are fair and reasonable,  formal policy establishing internal controls over sole-source contracting,  formal policy establishing internal controls over contract change orders,  formal policy and procedures for providing contract compliance and oversight.

Page 25

R66: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on procure- ment and contracting: 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 71 CHARTER CITIES –

Page 25

📋Charter Cities' Fiscal Health, Governance and Management Practices

104 pages 66 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 66

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All charter cities reviewed in this report should adopt financial planning, revenue and expenditure policies to guide cities’ officials to develop sustainable, balanced budg- ets.

Page 15

R2: All charter cities reviewed in this report should develop a balanced budget and commit to operate within budget constraints.

Page 15

R3: All charter cities reviewed in this report should commit to not using one-time reve- nues to fund recurring or on-going expenditures.

Page 15

R4: All charter cities reviewed in this report should adopt multi-year budgets for better planning to ensure the delivery of basic services before funding projects of lower pri- ority.

Page 15

R5: All charter cities reviewed in this report should adopt a method and practice of sav- ing into a reserve or “rainy day” fund to be supplement operating revenue in years of short fall.

Page 15

Page 16

R15: Charter cities must develop and publish a timely Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The city of Bell should do so.

Page 16

R16: Charter cities that have not published financial reports on the city’s website should do so. The city of Industry should do so.

Page 16

R21: All charter city councils, and citizens of the cities, reviewed in this report should an- nually review the actual compensation received by employees of their cities.

Page 16

Page 17

R23: Are accounting policies and procedures reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years on a predetermined schedule? o Yes o No

Page 22

R25: Please provide a copy of the accounting policies and procedures manual.

Page 22

R26: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding accounting policies and proce- dures: 66 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CHARTER CITIES –

Page 22

R27: Does your City have policies and procedures to encourage and facilitate the reporting of fraud or abuse and questionable accounting or auditing practices? o Yes o No

Page 22

R28: Does your City have a formally adopted and widely distributed and publicized ethics pol- icy? o Yes o No

Page 23

R29: Does your City have a practical mechanism, such as a fraud hotline, to permit the confi- dential, anonymous reporting of concerns about fraud, abuse, or questionable practices? o Yes o No

Page 23

R30: Are concerns received regarding fraud, abuse, or questionable practices reviewed by in- ternal auditors, with documentation reviewed by the Audit Committee. o Yes o No

Page 23

R31: Please provide a copy of the ethics policy and information on mechanisms for reporting concerns of fraud, abuse, or questionable practices.

Page 23

R32: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding reporting of fraud, abuse, and questionable practices: Internal Controls

Page 23

R33: Are internal control procedures over financial management formally documented? o Yes o No

Page 23

R34: Do internal control procedures include practical means for lower level employees to re- port instances of management override of controls? o Yes o No

Page 23

R36: Are potential internal control weaknesses documented in exception reports? o Yes 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 67 CHARTER CITIES –

Page 23

R37: Is there a process in place to identify changes in what is being controlled or controls themselves, and corrective action plans are developed with an appropriate timeline? o Yes o No

Page 23

R38: Please provide a copy of the internal control procedures over financial management.

Page 23

R39: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal con- trols: Internal Audit

Page 23

R40: Does your City have an internal audit function formally established by charter, enabling resolution, or other legal means? o Yes o No

Page 23

R41: Is the work of the internal audit function conducted in accordance with the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards? o Yes o No

Page 23

R42: Are all reports of the Internal Audit function provided to or available to the Audit Com- mittee? o Yes o No

Page 23

R43: Please provide a copy of the formal action establishing the internal audit function.

Page 23

R44: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal au- dit: 68 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CHARTER CITIES –

Page 23

R45: Does your City have a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be main- tained in the General Fund? o Yes o No

Page 23

R46: Does this policy require an unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months of reg- ular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures? o Yes o No

Page 23

R47: Please provide a copy of the formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund.

Page 23

R48: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on general fund unrestricted fund balance: Financial and Public Reporting Practices

Page 23

R50: Does your City issue timely financial statements for the entire financial reporting entity in conformity with GAAP as part of a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)? o Yes o No

Page 24

R51: Has your City’s financial statements been independently audited in accordance with ei- ther generally accepted auditing standards (GAAP) or Government Auditing Standards (GAS)? o Yes o No

Page 24

R53: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on financial and public reporting practices: Employee Compensation

Page 24

R55: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding employee compensation: Procurement and Contracting

Page 24

R56: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures defining competitive bid- ding requirements and practices for the procurement of goods and services? o Yes o No

Page 24

R57: Does your City Charter or City ordinance provide exemption from competitive procure- ment requirements of California’s Public Contracting Code? o Yes o No

Page 24

R58: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for documenting compli- ance with procurement requirements? o Yes o No

Page 24

R59: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for selecting firms that provide architectural and engineering services? o Yes o No

Page 24

R61: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for ensuring that prices negotiated for contract change orders are fair and reasonable? o Yes o No

Page 24

R62: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures establishing internal con- trols over sole-source contracting? o Yes o No

Page 24

R63: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures establishing internal con- trols over contract change orders? o Yes o No

Page 24

R64: Does your City have formally adopted policies and procedures for providing contract compliance and oversight? o Yes o No

Page 25

R66: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on procure- ment and contracting: 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 71 CHARTER CITIES –

Page 25

📋Child Death Mitigation in Los Angeles County

40 pages 6 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: DCA does not have a dedicated hotline and webpage to make DCA services more accessible to foster youth. These resources could assist youth in filing a consumer complaint, speaking directly with DCA staff, and scheduling one-on-one consumer counseling. In discussion with high-level staff at the DCA, they agreed that there was a cost-effective solution to this issue that would be targeted specifically to the TAY population, if the Board of Supervisors provided the necessary funding.

Page 190

F2: DCA has held pilot consumer education workshops for TAYs at group homes and probation facilities. These presentations were given to TAYs to assist them in transitioning to adulthood outside of the foster care system and be more self- sufficient. Expanded workshops could teach foster youth and their care providers (such as social workers, probation officers, group home staff, and foster parents) how to identify, prevent and resolve top consumer issues such as identity theft, landlord/tenant disputes, car purchasing difficulties, education scams, and credit/finance problems.

Page 190

F3: DCA agreed that since their staff had a larger population of volunteers (approximately 75) than actual salaried employees (approximately 50), and that they could solicit additional volunteers, specifically targeting the senior citizen population. This is a population of citizens that has not specifically been targeted in the past. Volunteers not only answer phones and assist individuals with consumer issues, but also accompany individuals when they are pursuing such things as housing and transportation needs. This would be of great service to TAYs who for the most part have no previous experience with renting of housing, purchasing a form of transportation, banking, or applying for a job. 164 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT AGING-OUT - TAY

Page 190

F4: DCA could provide internships in which TAYs can gain first-hand experience in helping consumers resolve financial scams, and learn about how to protect themselves and their friends from consumer fraud. Unpaid internships could be made immediately available. If additional funding were identified, paid internships could also be developed.

Page 191

F5: DCFS Youth Development Services Division, Independent Living Program has developed an "Emancipation Resource Directory" that is given to the TAYs when they leave the foster care system. The directory is in dire need of reorganization. This Directory, although it contains excellent information, is not user-friendly and lacks proper organization of the material. Also, the CGJ felt that the contact information to DCA should be listed as one of the first contacts in the directory. Transportation

Page 190

F6: MTA has agreed with the action plan made by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to provide "no-cost EZ Transit Passes" on all municipal and rail systems to DCFS and probation youth transitioning out of the county systems, for youth ages 18-21 for a 12 month period. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 165 AGING-OUT - TAY

Page 191

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: 2: Child rights. The BOS, CEO, and the Director of DCFS should take steps for Los Angeles County to become a national leader in the promotion and perpetuation of children’s rights and adopt and maintain a charter for children’s rights. DCFS currently has a children’s rights charter specifically for children in its care in the child welfare system, but the County does not have one for all children. The United States is one of only three countries, including Somalia and South Sudan, which has not joined the international community in supporting the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), an international human rights treaty setting out the civil, polit- ical, economic, social, health, and cultural rights of children. The County of Los Angeles is often known nationwide as a trend-setter and a leader on social issues. Children’s rights should be one of these areas. Although the United States has not adopted the CRC, the County of Los Angeles should reaffirm and pro- mote its own child rights charter as an example for the nation. Children’s rights to a safe and nurturing upbringing should be a societal commitment. 1.2.1. The Director of DCFS should ensure the County’s child rights’ charter for chil- dren in its care is updated and operational within DCFS. The updated charter should also include tighter definitions of what constitutes psychological, emotional, or verbal abuse; neglect; and failure to thrive and are 194 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT CHILD DEATH MITIGATION consistent with existing penal code definitions. Once tighter definitions and ex- pectations are developed, the BOS will have the ability to lobby for improved leg- islation. This updated charter will help clarify DCFS’s expectations of staff as they carry out their duties. 1.2.2. Although DCFS reports directly to the BOS, the BOS should direct the CEO and involved cluster Deputy CEOs to work with DCFS and the other County depart- ments to develop a children’s rights charter for the BOS to review, refine, and adopt.

Page 222

R2: 6. A check list for child death investigations. The Coroner, working with law enforcement officials and the Director of DCFS, should develop a check list for law enforcement and DCFS staff of unique factors to look for in child death cases. To address reports that law enforcement officers and DCFS staff members have varying levels of experience and skill in investigating child deaths, a new comprehensive check list could be a first step toward standardization of this important procedure and would provide a valuable training tool that could be improved over time.

Page 226

R3: 1. A 23-hour assessment center. The Director of DCFS should evaluate the potential for implementing a 23-hour assessment center for children who are at risk, and seek BOS approval based on the results of that evaluation. Such assessment centers, similar to Orangewood in Orange County, California, are staffed with skilled professionals, similar to DCFS CSWs, DMH psychiatric social work- ers, and DPH public health nurses. They can build trust and assess the child in a safe environment, and are more likely to make accurate assessments and appropriate placements if deemed necessary. This recommendation is similar to one made by the CGJ in 1999-2000. (Note: The in- tent of this recommendation is not to replicate the McLaren model of the past.) Given the size of the County, DCFS should pilot one 23-hour assessment center and, once fully operational, evaluate its relative effectiveness and determine if additional centers are warranted.

Page 228

R4: The Department of Consumer Affairs provide unpaid internships for TAYs so they could gain first-hand experience in helping consumers resolve financial scams, and learn about how to protect themselves and their friends from consumer fraud. DCA consider establishing paid internships with a stipend.

Page 189

R5: The Department of Children and Family Services Youth Development Services Division, Independent Living Program reorganize the Emancipation Resource Directory to a more user-friendly document with the contact information for DCA listed as one of the first contacts in the directory, and that physical copies be bound for easy access and use by TAYs.

Page 189

R6: The Metropolitan Transit Authority Board of Directors follow through with their commitment slated to begin 7/1/12, to provide "no-cost EZ Transit Passes" on all municipal and rail systems to DCFS and probation youth transitioning out of the county systems, for youth ages 18-21, for longer than a 12 month period, and on a continuing basis until the youth reaches his or her 22nd birthday. 166 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT AGING-OUT - TAY

Page 189

R7: Exit Conference. An Exit Conference was held to discuss the findings and rec- ommendations. The Exit Conference included representatives who attended the Entrance Conference and were joined by Task Force members. Their feedback has been incorporated into the Final Report. The term “front-line” staff member refers to any DCFS employees who interface with the clients or their families, including CSWs, SCSWs, or CPHL staff. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 183 CHILD DEATH MITIGATION

Page 189

R18-21: for a 12 month period. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 165

Page 191

📋Child Death Mitigation in Los Angeles County

40 pages 6 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

Page 190

Page 191

Page 190

Page 191

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 222

Page 226

Page 228

Page 189

R18-21: for a 12 month period. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 165

Page 191

📋Citizen Complaint: City of Long Beach

2 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: The Deputy CEO should develop and Not Applicable - Awaiting direction from CEO implement a regular and systematic pro- DCFS continues to support this recommendation cess of program review and evaluation for and awaits direction from the CEO regarding how TAY programs which includes a goal of its TAY programs can be evaluated via a sys- periodic, streamlining of operations in tematic process. DCFS, Probation and DMH. 2b. Agencies should cultivate community Partially Implemented - Ongoing resources and partnerships to seek new The Department has a new staff member whose revenue sources, including grants from sole responsibility is to develop resources such private and governmental agencies, to as grant funding, donations, computers, and cor- fund the new programs. porate sponsors. This staff member also works with our faith-based and community partners in a collaborative approach to identifying community resources.

Page 401

R3: DCFS, Probation, DMH, and DPSS Partially Implemented - July, 2013 should develop and implement innovative The Community-Based Support Division has programs to target high-risk families and several prevention-based projects recently ap- high-risk children for proactive early inter- proved to receive an increase to their funding vention. through the Title IV-E Waiver. On December 13, 2011 the Board of Supervisors agreed with the proposal to utilize Title IV-E Waiver funds to increase the Prevention Initiative Demonstration Project (PlDP) by an additional $1.25 million for fiscal year 2011-2012, and to fund an additional year (FY2012- 2013) at a total program budget of $2.5 million. In conjunction with DCFS Regional Offices, most 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 361 DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-C 2007–2008 Item and Recommendation Status and Response PlDP agencies have initiated Visitation Centers at faith-based community centers to provide safe and family-centered, locations when monitors are required for visitation. The Year-Two PlDP Evaluation and Executive Summary reports have been completed and the results and recommendations were presented to the Board Deputies as well as the Children's Commission. This evaluation provided evidence based results demonstrating generally positive outcomes for building family strengths; safer communities; decreased subsequent referrals to the child abuse hot line and increased family sta- bility. DCFS has requested and extension of the PlDP program through June 30, 2013. Further- more, several of the more promising strategies are being incorporated into the Promoting Safe and Stable Families/CAPIT program re-design, which is projected to begin July 1, 2013. In addition to prevention programs, addressing the needs of high-risk communities requires con- sideration of caseload size and complexity, re- cruitment and retention for social workers serving these communities. Difficulty in working with cli- ents and the scarcity of resources to meet the needs of the community must be acknowledged. In high risk communities, there is increased pov- erty, high rates of unemployment, high crime rates, and significant disparities in health related issues, which all impact family functioning and add to the complexity of case issues. 3d. More intensive programs on drugs Partially Implemented - January, 2013 and access to drug rehabilitation pro- DCFS and the Department of Public Health grams should be provided to parents for (DPH) Substance Abuse Prevention and Control themselves and their children. (SAPC) are working to strengthen collaborative efforts through Project SAFE (Screening and As- sessment for Family Engagement). Specifically, the Project SAFE collaboration seeks to strengthen the screening and assessment pro- cess for better identification of the needs of cli- ents with substance use disorders and provide timely access to treatment. The intent of this ini- tiative is to develop a comprehensive screening and assessment protocol emphasizing clinical assessments and therapeutic interventions by 362 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Page 401

📋Citizen Complaint: City of Long Beach

2 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 401

📋Education of Incarcerated Juveniles

32 pages 10 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: Substitute teachers are frequently employed because of the year-round calendar and teachers’ training schedule. Students who leave the camp schools frequently return to local schools that are on the traditional calendar.

Page 251

F2: There is uneven educational use of computers and technology by students. Some students are very comfortable using computers to share research and reports, while other students have no opportunity to work on computers.

Page 251

F3: The academic program at The Road to Success Academy is highly acclaimed by teachers, students and probation officers at Scott and Scudder Camps. Project- based academic programs are more efficient for record keeping. Project-based academic programs engage the students in learning more intensely than traditional education.

Page 251

F4: Teachers at the juvenile camps and halls’ schools are appropriately credentialed by the State of California. However, teachers do not all have the same level of competence. Some teachers are allowed to continue to teach despite their inability to manage a classroom.

Page 251

F5: Students at some of the camps are transported long distances to LAC+USC Hospital for a number of medical procedures so they miss valuable class time.

Page 251

F6: Vocational education opportunities are limited at the camps due to scheduling challenges.

Page 251

F7: Mentors and volunteers provide a strong motivation to youth for inspiration and are excellent role models.

Page 251

F8: Juveniles benefit from additional leisure reading materials.

Page 251

F9: Probation officers play a very important role in support of education of students at the camps.

Page 251

F10: The CGJ saw no court officers at the camps. The CGJ was told by probation officers that they have not seen court officers visit the camps.

Page 251

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Address the situation of the frequent use of substitute teachers. Long- term substitutes must be trained with the regular teachers for continuity of the education program. Change to a traditional, September-June calendar, to parallel other districts in Los Angeles, with staff development occurring primarily during the 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 221 DETAINEE EDUCATION summer. Summer school could be provided for remedial and elective courses. This would give teachers, who prefer working year-round, an opportunity to do so.

Page 229

R2: Expand the use of computers and technology for students’ education, and provide technical support for teachers.

Page 229

R3: Have teachers observe classes at the Road to Success Academy, to better implement the reforms detailed in the CERC report to the Board of Supervisors.

Page 229

R4: 1. DCFS technology and information system improvements. The Director of DCFS should work with the State of California to close the gap in the Department’s information needs and propose operational improvements to the systems, particularly interfaces with the State and County systems. This information should then be integrated into DCFS’s own Information Technology (IT) Plan with quick milestones – six months or less – for enhancing access to information critical to effective DCFS operations. A DCFS IT Plan should also outline needed:  Report writing tools  Key performance indicators, metrics, and dashboards for monitoring performance and outcomes  Standard management reports for analyzing data, identifying trends, and making empirically based decisions  Priorities for approaching the State for system upgrades and refinements, making access to needed data and information easier

Page 231

R5: Negotiate and provide a contract with local hospitals for inoculations and medical services so that juveniles are not absent from classes, and staff is not away from camp for extended periods of time. The Chief of the Los Angeles County Probation Department and The Superintendent of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

Page 229

R6: Address scheduling challenges of vocational education. Vocational education should be an integral part of the program at the camps.

Page 229

R7: Implement a program for volunteers at the camps. A dedicated coordinator position in LACOE, or at various juvenile detention sites, would expand the involvement of the community.

Page 229

R8: Provide soft-back leisure reading books to promote book clubs at the camps and to give to the students as they leave.

Page 229

R9: Form a task force to develop a process so that probation staff and teachers can communicate and work together in a more meaningful way.

Page 229

R10: Invite members of the juvenile court system to visit and observe the improved educational programs at the juvenile camps.

Page 229

📋Education of Incarcerated Juveniles

32 pages 10 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

Page 251

F5: Students at some of the camps are transported long distances to LAC+USC Hospital for a number of medical procedures so they miss valuable class time.

Page 251

F6: Vocational education opportunities are limited at the camps due to scheduling challenges.

Page 251

F7: Mentors and volunteers provide a strong motivation to youth for inspiration and are excellent role models.

Page 251

F8: Juveniles benefit from additional leisure reading materials.

Page 251

F9: Probation officers play a very important role in support of education of students at the camps.

Page 251

F10: The CGJ saw no court officers at the camps. The CGJ was told by probation officers that they have not seen court officers visit the camps.

Page 251

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 229

R2: Expand the use of computers and technology for students’ education, and provide technical support for teachers.

Page 229

R3: Have teachers observe classes at the Road to Success Academy, to better implement the reforms detailed in the CERC report to the Board of Supervisors.

Page 229

Page 231

Page 229

R6: Address scheduling challenges of vocational education. Vocational education should be an integral part of the program at the camps.

Page 229

R7: Implement a program for volunteers at the camps. A dedicated coordinator position in LACOE, or at various juvenile detention sites, would expand the involvement of the community.

Page 229

R8: Provide soft-back leisure reading books to promote book clubs at the camps and to give to the students as they leave.

Page 229

R9: Form a task force to develop a process so that probation staff and teachers can communicate and work together in a more meaningful way.

Page 229

R10: Invite members of the juvenile court system to visit and observe the improved educational programs at the juvenile camps.

Page 229

📋Expanding the Role of the Hub Clinics

60 pages 2 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F3: opportunities for DCFS management to work with CSWs that have a history of cases that are not referred to or result in missed appointments at Hub Clinics. Additionally, DCFS and DHS should establish clear roles and responsibilities for temporary CSWs or PHNs that will be placed at the Hub Clinics to facilitate following up on missed appoint- ments and referrals to special medical and mental health services. FINDINGS – DCFS ACCOUNTABILITY 3.1. In FY 2010-11, 22.9 percent, or 6,822 out of 29,743 scheduled appointments at Hub Clinics were missed across all seven Hub Clinics. This contributes to an ineffi- cient use of resources at Hub Clinics. Opportunities are missed to schedule new DCFS referrals, increasing the risk of youth not receiving needed medical and/or mental health diagnoses, care and services. 3.2. An analysis of missed appointments for Forensic Evaluations scheduled at LAC+USC revealed that more than half of the no-shows did not have an appoint- ment rescheduled within that same month. 3.3. A majority of the referrals for Forensic Evaluations are for non-detained youth. Timely Forensic Evaluations for non-detained youth at Hub Clinics with medical providers that have specialized training in detecting abuse and neglect could help to reduce the risk of further abuse and, possibly, the number of child deaths among open DCFS cases in which the youth is placed in-home with their alleged abusers. 3.4. More systematic referral and access to outpatient mental health services for non- detained youth and their parents for a period of six months after the non-detained youth first enters the child welfare system may help prevent further abuse and ne- glect for this population. 3.5. Hub Clinics lack sufficient resources to follow up on no-shows and reschedule ap- pointments, as well as referrals to medical specialists and/or mental health ser- vices. Follow up should be conducted by DCFS staff, as consistent with existing DCFS policies and procedures. 3.6. Some DCFS CSWs lack an understanding of department policies and procedures regarding Hub Clinic referrals and follow up on missed appointments. 3.7. A system of management accountability is being implemented by DCFS. Though it is an improvement over current practices, this system could be further improved to 284 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 3. DCFS ACCOUNTABILITY include concrete processes for addressing problem cases and communication fail- ures among CSWs. 3.8. While funding has been approved to hire and temporarily co-locate Public Health Nurses and Children’s Social Workers at the Hub Clinics, roles and responsibilities could be more clearly defined and directed toward utilizing these new positions to follow up on missed appointments and referrals to specialized medical and mental health services.

Page 316

F4: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THROUGH DMH Multidisciplinary Assessment Teams (MATs) As part of the County of Los Angeles’ settlement agreement from the Katie A. lawsuit,10 the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has made it a policy that all newly detained youth are required to receive a mental health screening or assessment and appropriate linkage to services in a timely manner. To accomplish this, DCFS and the Department of Mental Health (DMH) have collaborated to expand their Multidiscipli- nary Assessment Team (MAT) Assessment Program to all Service Planning Areas. However, this assessment occurs independent of the DCFS detention process, which includes the Initial Medical Exam and mental health screening at the Hub Clinics. Once detained by DCFS as a result of a court order, a youth is referred by staff for a multidisciplinary assessment, generally conducted by a DMH-contracted community- based organization called a MAT Provider. This assessment is intended to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complicated issues that families face when they first enter the foster care system and to enable DCFS Children’s Social Workers (CSWs) to determine more effectively 1) the appropriate placement for the youth; 2) services needed by the youth and their families; and 3) early diagnosis and intervention of critical medical, dental and mental health issues. The MAT Provider gathers information from various sources in the following key areas with regard to the youth and their family: 1) level of engagement; 2) family’s functioning; 3) family’s strengths and needs; 4) child’s functioning, including interpersonal, physical health, mental health, developmental, educational, and vocational functioning, if appli- cable; 5) child’s strengths and needs; 6) current placement; and 7) alternate place- ments, if applicable. For MAT sessions, interviews are conducted with the youth’s parents and/or caregivers and parent-child interactions are observed. A team is assembled to evaluate the find- ings from the interviews and plan for needed services. This team generally includes a mix of individuals involved with the case including: the caregiver; family members; the child, if appropriate; Children’s Social Worker (CSW); Public Health Nurse (PHN) and others concerned with the case. MAT Assessments and Hub Clinics Linkage between the MAT Assessments and Hub Clinics is very limited. The most direct linkage is through the use of the medical report from the Initial Medical Examinations at the Hub Clinics, but these reports are not always available or used in MAT Assess- 10 In July 2002, the “Katie A., et al. v. Diana Bontá" class-action lawsuit was filed against the State of California and the County of Los Angeles on behalf of five named plaintiff foster children and a class of children and young adults who are in the custody of DCFS, or have been referred to or are subject to being referred to DCFS. In lieu of mone- tary compensation, the Katie A. plaintiffs requested that the State and County improve upon its delivery of mental health services to children and families. http://www.lacdcfs.org/katieA/docs/Settlement%20Agreement.pdf 286 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 4. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ments. For instance, youth referred for a MAT Assessment can obtain a medical report from either a Hub Clinic or a community provider. Although detained youth are mandat- ed by DCFS to obtain an Initial Medical Examination at one of the Hub Clinics, a sepa- rate DCFS policy on MAT Assessments contradicts this requirement by allowing the as- sessments to include medical exams from community providers. Secondly, per DCFS and DMH policy, the MAT Assessment must be completed within 30-45 days after acceptance of a referral. However, according to DMH management, though DCFS requires Initial Medical Examinations to be completed at the Hub Clinics within 30 days of initial placement, the actual timing of the Initial Medical Examinations does not always coincide with the 30-45 day requirement for the completion of the MAT Assessment. As discussed in Section 3 of this report, 22.9 percent of the referrals to the Hub Clinics in FY 2010-11 resulted in missed appointments. Because the findings of the MAT Assessment must be presented to the Court, the medical exam is often provided by a community provider. As previously mentioned, a MAT team consisting of various stakeholders and service providers is assembled to evaluate the detained youth’s condition and service needs. According to the Memorandum of Understanding between DCFS and DHS, one of the goals of the Hub Clinics is to “improve coordination and child health care outcomes.” Though their input could be valuable, particularly for youth with Special Health Care Needs,11 except for rare occasions, Hub Clinic staff do not participate in the MAT team meetings. Without the participation of medical Hub Clinic staff and PHNs in MAT team meetings, an opportunity is lost to improve coordination and integration of medical and other care in service plans. PHNs could serve as the critical link between the Hub Clinics and the MAT Assess- ments because of their understanding of medical issues and their responsibility to coun- sel CSWs on medical issues related to their cases. With the approval of additional Title IV-E Waiver funds for hiring PHNs to be co-located at the Hub Clinics, DCFS and DHS should include attending MAT Assessments as one of the prioritized responsibilities of these PHNs. Mental Health Screenings and Ongoing Mental Health Services An additional shared goal of the MAT Assessments conducted by MAT Providers and the Initial Medical Exams conducted at the Hub Clinics is to perform mental health screenings, identify mental health needs, and ensure linkage to additional services. Though there are shared goals in identifying mental health needs, the MAT Providers and the Hub Clinics were provided different mental health screening tools by DMH. In particular, the MAT Providers use a more in-depth screening tool. According to DMH management, the use of different mental health screening tools at the Hub Clinics is dic- 11 Special Health Care Needs is defined by DCFS Procedural Guide 0600-505.10 as: 1) a condition that can rapidly deteriorate resulting in permanent injury or death, or 2) a medical condition that requires specialized in-home health care. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 287 EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 4. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES tated by the varying levels of expertise of the screeners at the Hubs. Inconsistent train- ing and the use of a different screening tool could potentially lead to: 1) inability to iden- tify mental health services that are needed or 2) referrals for mental health services that are not needed. Although DMH-contracted MAT Providers are able to provide MAT Assessments as well as ongoing mental health services, there is limited linkage between the MAT Providers and Hub Clinics for ongoing mental health services. There are 50 organizations in the County that contract with DMH to be MAT Providers and provide MAT Assessments and ongoing mental health services. In contrast, there are seven Hub Clinic locations and only two are affiliated with organizations that have contracts with DMH to be MAT Providers and ongoing mental health service providers: LAC+USC and Children’s Hos- pital. The East San Gabriel Valley Satellite Hub Clinic has access to mental health ser- vice providers through its affiliation with LAC+USC. Data on mental health screenings at the Hub Clinics in FY 2010-11 illustrates that as high as 80 percent of youth screened at the clinics have a positive result, indicating a need for additional mental health services. Without strong linkages to the DMH system, these youth are in danger of not receiving needed mental health services, violating the intent of the Katie A. Settlement. Table 4-1 below shows the number of mental health screenings and results across all Hub Clinics in FY 2010-11. Table 4-1. Number of Mental Health Screenings and Results (FY 2010-11) ESGV H-UCLA LAC+USC MLK OV-UCLA HD CHLA TOTAL # Screenings 1,184 1,713 6,244 1,537 1,051 1,238 466 13,433 # Positive Results 482 859 3,253 322 844 802 369 6,931 % Positive 41% 50% 52% 21% 80% 65% 79% 52% Source: DHS records System of Integration LAC+USC and Children’s Hospital are the only Hub Clinics that are able to provide mental health services simultaneously or immediately after an Initial Medical Examina- tion because they are both affiliated with larger organizations that contain separate mental health service divisions that are also DMH contractors. (The Violence Interven- tion Project is the parent non-profit organization for the LAC+USC Hub Clinic and the Children’s Hospital Hub Clinic is part of Children’s Hospital LA.) The East San Gabriel Valley Satellite has access to mental health providers through LAC+USC. The new Children’s Medical Village at LAC+USC, which is slated to begin operations in 2012, will also provide mental health services to its patients as part of its comprehensive, multi- disciplinary approach. Two other Hub Clinics are poised to provide more direct linkages to mental health ser- vices. Though they are not officially affiliated, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Hub Clinic is located in the same building as SHIELDS, a DMH contractor and MAT Provider, while the Harbor-UCLA Hub Clinic is located a few bungalows away from Children’s Institute, 288 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R30-45: days after acceptance of a referral. However, according to DMH management, though DCFS requires Initial Medical Examinations to be completed at the Hub Clinics within 30 days of initial placement, the actual timing of the Initial Medical Examinations does not always coincide with the 30-45 day requirement for the completion of the MAT Assessment. As discussed in Section 3 of this report, 22.9 percent of the referrals to the Hub Clinics in FY 2010-11 resulted in missed appointments. Because the findings of the MAT Assessment must be presented to the Court, the medical exam is often provided by a community provider. As previously mentioned, a MAT team consisting of various stakeholders and service providers is assembled to evaluate the detained youth’s condition and service needs. According to the Memorandum of Understanding between DCFS and DHS, one of the goals of the Hub Clinics is to “improve coordination and child health care outcomes.” Though their input could be valuable, particularly for youth with Special Health Care Needs,11 except for rare occasions, Hub Clinic staff do not participate in the MAT team meetings. Without the participation of medical Hub Clinic staff and PHNs in MAT team meetings, an opportunity is lost to improve coordination and integration of medical and other care in service plans. PHNs could serve as the critical link between the Hub Clinics and the MAT Assess- ments because of their understanding of medical issues and their responsibility to coun- sel CSWs on medical issues related to their cases. With the approval of additional Title IV-E Waiver funds for hiring PHNs to be co-located at the Hub Clinics, DCFS and DHS should include attending MAT Assessments as one of the prioritized responsibilities of these PHNs. Mental Health Screenings and Ongoing Mental Health Services An additional shared goal of the MAT Assessments conducted by MAT Providers and the Initial Medical Exams conducted at the Hub Clinics is to perform mental health screenings, identify mental health needs, and ensure linkage to additional services. Though there are shared goals in identifying mental health needs, the MAT Providers and the Hub Clinics were provided different mental health screening tools by DMH. In particular, the MAT Providers use a more in-depth screening tool. According to DMH management, the use of different mental health screening tools at the Hub Clinics is dic- 11 Special Health Care Needs is defined by DCFS Procedural Guide 0600-505.10 as: 1) a condition that can rapidly deteriorate resulting in permanent injury or death, or 2) a medical condition that requires specialized in-home health care. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 287

Page 319

📋Expanding the Role of the Hub Clinics

60 pages 2 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

Page 316

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 319

📋First 5 LA

24 pages 3 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: The CGJ found that change in the executive-level management has resulted in improved transparency, staff morale, and cooperation with outside agencies.

Page 124

F2: Current First 5 LA executive management has been responsive to the audit findings and recommendations.

Page 124

F3: First 5 LA has made significant progress in implementing the audit

Page 124

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Chief Executive Officer of First 5 LA should implement the remaining audit recommendations in a timely manner.

Page 119

R2: The First 5 LA Commission should monitor the activities of the agency to ensure compliance with revised policies and procedures.

Page 119

📋First 5 LA

24 pages 3 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: The CGJ found that change in the executive-level management has resulted in improved transparency, staff morale, and cooperation with outside agencies.

Page 124

F2: Current First 5 LA executive management has been responsive to the audit findings and recommendations.

Page 124

F3: First 5 LA has made significant progress in implementing the audit

Page 124

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Chief Executive Officer of First 5 LA should implement the remaining audit recommendations in a timely manner.

Page 119

R2: The First 5 LA Commission should monitor the activities of the agency to ensure compliance with revised policies and procedures.

Page 119

📋Identity Theft of Foster Children

28 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The nonminor is completing secondary education or a program leading to an equivalent credential.

Page 326

F2: The nonminor is enrolled in an institution which provides postsecondary or vocational educational education.

Page 326

F3: The nonminor is participating in a program or activity designed to pro- mote, or remove barriers to employment.

Page 326

F4: The nonminor is employed for at least 80 hours per month.

Page 326

F5: The nonminor is incapable of doing any of the activities described in sub- paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, due to a medical condition, and that inca- pability is supported by regularly updated information in the case plan of the nonminor. Based on data provided by DCFS, the total population in Los Angeles County eligible for extended foster care services due to AB 12 is estimated to be between 3,800 (16 and 17 year olds as of Nov. 30, 2011) to 5,483 (including those 18 and older as of Nov. 30, 2011). However, this estimate does not include Transition Age and eligible youth that may enter or exit the child welfare system up until 2014, the expected sunset date for AB 12 unless it is extended by the State legislature. Medical and mental health services for youth aged 18 years or older and under the ju- risdiction of DCFS have been limited. However, there are services offered by DMH that youth can continue to receive after they turn 18, independent of their status with DCFS. With the implementation of extended foster care services under AB 12, DCFS, DHS, and DMH should improve or create systems to address the specialized needs of youth aged 18 years or older. Medical Services for 18 Year Olds and Older Prior to the implementation of AB 12, DCFS provided youth aging out of the system with referral information on medical and mental health services and requirements for receiv- ing Medi-Cal under the Former Foster Care Children Program (FFCC) which allowed coverage until the age of 21. However, the former foster care youth would have to re- new their enrollment in Medi-Cal themselves, and DCFS management reported that not all of them were doing so. California Welfare and Institutions Code §11403(a) 18 California Welfare and Institutions Code §11403(b) 294 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 5. TRANSITION AGE YOUTH Since most Transition Age Youth are eligible for Medi-Cal coverage, they can obtain medical services from any Medi-Cal provider. There is no mandate or requirement for this population to go to a Hub Clinic. As a result, a majority of the Hub Clinics report serving very few youth aged 18 years or older. Medically Fragile/Vulnerable Youth who are medically fragile/vulnerable are those with special needs due to a mental health diagnosis, developmental delay or a physical or medical condition that requires specific care.19 As of November 30, 2011, there were 2,163 youth under the jurisdiction of DCFS identified as medically fragile/vulnerable, of which 198 were 18 years old or older. Within the medically fragile/vulnerable group, there is a subgroup of youth receiving DCFS services from the Medical Case Management Services (MCMS) Unit. These youth have special health care needs defined as: 1) a condition that can rapidly deterio- rate, resulting in permanent injury or death, or 2) a medical condition that requires spe- cialized in-home health care such as an enteral feeding tube, ventilator, intravenous therapy, or other medical or surgical procedures or special medication regiments.20 Youth under the supervision of the MCMS Unit require the most medical care and atten- tion of all the medically fragile/vulnerable youth under the jurisdiction of DCFS. The MCMS Unit works with families, caretakers, and the youth to ensure that the youth ob- tain the medical services they need. As of February 2012, there was a total of 580 youth under the MCMS Unit, of which 52 are 18 years old or older. The medical services for youth under the supervision of the MCMS Unit are funded through 1) Medi-Cal’s fee-for-service or managed care, depending on their enrollment; 2) California Children’s Services for special equipment such as wheelchairs and beds; and 3) Regional Centers21 for services such as occupational, physical and behavioral therapy. When youth under the supervision of the MCMS Unit turn 18, they may either remain under the supervision of the MCMS Unit because they are still in high school or the Courts have not terminated their DCFS cases due to severe health conditions. Medical- ly fragile/vulnerable youth over the age of 18 who are eligible for long-term Regional Center services are transitioned to service coordination by their local Regional Centers. If a youth does not fall under any of these categories, he/she could be emancipated and transitioned out of DCFS or any other supervision and oversight. DCFS Procedural Guide 0900-522.10 (Specialized Care Increment – D – Rate), DCFS Procedural Guide 0900- 522.11 (Specialized Care Increment – F – Rate). DCFS Procedural Guide 0600-505.10 (Assessments of and Services for Children with Special Health Care Needs) 21 Regional Centers are non-profit agencies under contract with the California Department of Developmental Services that help coordinate services needed because of a developmental disability. Depending on eligibility, most services offered at Regional Centers are free regardless of age or income. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 295 EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 5. TRANSITION AGE YOUTH Medically fragile/vulnerable youth aged 18 and older who do not remain with DCFS or who are not eligible for Regional Center services are at risk of abuse, isolation, home- lessness, neglect, or self-neglect. However, these youth are eligible for referrals to Adult Protective Services (APS) so that they may continue to have contact with social workers and access to needed services. It is unclear if all medically fragile/vulnerable youth ag- ing out of DCFS services are referred and transitioned to APS, when they are not eligi- ble for Regional Center services, but DCFS should strive to make such referrals when- ever possible. According to DCFS management, the medically fragile/vulnerable youth under the su- pervision of the MCMS Unit only access or interact with Hub Clinic staff when they are newly detained and require an Initial Medical Examination. These exams provide the medical history for the newly detained youth. However, continued medical services are obtained at specialized clinics across public and private hospitals throughout the Coun- ty. Although Hub Clinics may not offer the specialized services and clinics needed by the medically fragile/vulnerable youth under the MCMS Unit, the Hub Clinics can still play a role as the medical home for youth with multiple medical providers and specialists within the hospital system affiliated with each Hub Clinic. The Hub Clinics can also serve as the medical coordinators for the medically fragile/vulnerable Transition Age Youth who are 18 and older and have not transitioned to Regional Center services, such as an 18 year old who is diabetic and is in constant need of insulin shots. To serve as the medi- cal home, Hub Clinics would have to obtain and maintain all medical records for the pa- tient from multiple service providers within the hospital system affiliated with each Hub Clinic. Currently, DCFS staff coordinates services across multiple providers in different hospital systems for these youth, and should continue doing so for youth with medical providers across both County and private hospital systems. However, the specialized medical knowledge of Hub Clinic staff could facilitate the transfer of medical information more easily for medically fragile/vulnerable youth with specialists in the same hospital system. Ideally, youth aging out of DCFS would be transitioned to a program where they still have access to social workers and coordinated medical and mental health services ei- ther through a Regional Center, if developmentally disabled, or Adult Protective Ser- vices. For youth transitioned to Adult Protective Services, the Hub Clinics could com- plement the social services provided by coordinating the youth’s medical services. Mental Health Services for TAYs According to data provided by DMH, 3,904 DCFS youths with open DMH cases were aged 16 or older, representing 16.2 percent of the a total of 24,116 DCFS youths with open DMH cases. This also represents 71.2 percent of the 5,483 youth under the juris- diction of DCFS who were 16 years old or older as of November 30, 2011. These youths could have received DMH services through any number of DMH programs pro- 296 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 5. TRANSITION AGE YOUTH vided throughout the County including: 1) services provided through the Multidisciplinary Assessment Team (MAT) Assessment Program,22 2) Full Service Partnership Program (FSP),23 3) Assertive Community Treatment (ACT),24 and 4) Specialized Foster Care In- tensive In-Home Mental Health Services (IIHMHS),25 etc. Only two of the seven Hub Clinics, LAC+USC and Children’s Hospital, have contracts with DMH and have multiple mental health service professionals onsite. The East San Gabriel Valley Satellite Hub Clinic has access to mental health service providers through its affiliation with LAC+USC. Children’s Hospital is the only Hub Clinic that has services directed specifically toward Transition Age Youth. These are provided by the Children Hospital’s Division of Ado- lescent Medicine and located in a clinic separate from the CHLA Hub Clinic for younger children. Services for 12 to 21 year olds include specialized services for adolescents dealing with anger management, depression, substance abuse, homelessness, HIV and transgender issues. These services are provided to all adolescents, not just those re- ferred to the Hub Clinic by DCFS. Furthermore, LAC+USC hopes to obtain additional funding and resources to expand its Children’s Medical Village to include service for adults. This would require staffing the Medical Village with providers who are trained in both pediatrics and adult medicine, similar to the staff at the Children’s Hospital Division of Adolescent Medicine. Further, LAC+USC hopes to include Adult Protective Services staff in its proposed expanded Medical Village to provide easy access to social work services while remaining the med- ical home and coordinator of medical and mental health services for medically frag- ile/vulnerable Transition Age Youth aged 18 and older. Targeted Medical and Mental Health Services for Transition Age Youth As discussed in Section 1 of this report, “The Model Medical Hub Clinic”, model Hub Clinics should serve as the medical home and provide onsite mental health services for youth under the jurisdiction of DCFS. With the implementation of AB 12, youth aged 18 years old and older will continue to be eligible for medical and mental health services at Hub Clinics. At this time, Children’s Hospital is the only Hub Clinic that is able to pro- vide both medical and mental health services that are targeted toward the issues and 22 The Multidisciplinary Assessment Team (MAT) Assessment Program provides comprehensive assessments to evaluate a foster youth’s needs and strengths in various areas including medical, dental, developmental, hear- ing/language, education, mental health, vocational, and family/caregiver issues. The Transition Age Youth Full Service Partnership Program offers intensive services with 24/7 staff availability to help 16 to 25 year olds address emotional, housing, physical health, transportation, and other needs to help them function independently in the community. Assertive Community Treatment is a team-based approach to the provision of treatment, rehabilitation, and support services. A variety of services are offered under the Specialized Foster Care Intensive In-Home Mental Health Services (IIHMHS) program, including 24/7 intensive case management, Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Functional Family Therapy, as well as programs to assist caregivers with behavioral and emotional problems in young children. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 297 EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 5. TRANSITION AGE YOUTH concerns of youth 18 years old and older. Therefore, DCFS should encourage youth 18 years old and older with complex medical and/or mental health needs to go to the Chil- dren’s Hospital services. According to Children’s Hospital staff, should referrals to the adolescent clinic from DCFS increase, the clinic would then consider applying for Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) status, which would allow the clinic to receive greater reimbursement for costs than they currently receive through Medi-Cal. However, until the adolescent clinic officially receives such a status, the clinic will need grant funding to absorb the addition- al referrals. Children’s Hospital is not conveniently located for all Transition Age Youth located throughout the County, particularly for the medically fragile/vulnerable youth aged 18 and older. DCFS, DHS, and DMH should work together to identify funding for additional transportation services to and from CHLA. Currently, Children’s Hospital is able to pro- vide transportation passes to youth participating in its Full Service Partnership Program, funded through a DMH contract. Similar funding should be identified or expanded for the additional DCFS referrals of youth to the Children’s Hospital. For youth who are not lo- cated near public transportation, DCFS, DHS, and DMH should explore funding for van services. This type of service is already provided to youth living in the Lancas- ter/Palmdale area for services at the High Desert Hub Clinic. Children’s Hospital currently has the greatest capacity to serve the special needs of Transition Age Youth aged 18 and older. Additionally, resources could be designated or reassigned to LAC+USC to expand its Children’s Medical Village to include medical services for adults and access to Adult Protective Services social workers to meet the medical and mental health needs of Transition Age Youth aged 18 and older. SUMMARY Prior to January 1, 2012, most youth under the jurisdiction of DCFS were emancipated and their DCFS cases were terminated after they turned 18 years old. Though there were exceptions for some 18 year olds to remain under foster care and receive inten- sive case management services, a majority of the youth 18 years old or older received additional DCFS services on a voluntary basis but did not access medical and mental health services at the Hub Clinics. Though most of these youth were eligible for Medi- Cal after they turned 18, which could reimburse the Hub Clinics if used by the youth, their choice of medical provider was left up to them. None of the County-affiliated Hub Clinics made special efforts to encourage these youth to obtain medical care from them. With the passage of extended foster care services through AB 12, as of January 1, 2012, youth under the jurisdiction of DCFS can remain in the child welfare system until the age of 21, as long as they meet certain criteria. Therefore, Transition Age Youth aged 18 to 21 could continue to use Hub Clinics for medical and mental health needs. Their medical care would continue to be reimbursed under the Medi-Cal fee-for-service arrangement, which provides a better cost recovery for the clinics than Medi-Cal man- aged care rates. 298 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 5. TRANSITION AGE YOUTH A majority of the Hub Clinics currently do not provide medical services to youth under the jurisdiction of DCFS that are 18 years old or older. Youth that are medically frag- ile/vulnerable currently receive medical services from specialized medical providers and clinics throughout the County. Further, only two of the Hub Clinics have Department of Mental Health contracts and multiple mental health providers at their Hub Clinics to pro- vide mental health services to DCFS youth. Only Children’s Hospital LA offers an ado- lescent clinic that provides medical and mental health services targeted toward youth aged 12 to 21. However, LAC+USC has plans to expand its Children’s Medical Village with medical services for adults, particularly Transition Age Youth aged 18 and older, including access to Adult Protective Services social workers. The Hub Clinics could serve as medical homes for medically fragile/vulnerable TAYs by coordinating services among the various specialized medical and mental health provid- ers, as long as they are within the same hospital system. Such coordination would re- quire additional training for the medical providers to be aware of the various issues spe- cific to TAYs. Finally, DCFS and DHS could refer other medically fragile/vulnerable TAYs to Children’s Hospital to benefit from their specialized Adolescent Clinic and initi- ate a plan to establish similar specialty clinics for TAYs at some or all of the County Hub Clinics. The Hub Clinic with the greatest capacity for expansion of services for Transi- tion Age Youth is currently LAC+USC because it is building a Children’s Medical Village with an aim to provide access to subspecialty medical services beginning in the summer of 2012. FINDINGS 5.1. According to national statistics, youth transitioning out of foster care are at risk and have higher rates of homelessness, as well as mental health, physical, and devel- opmental problems. For example, 27 percent of the nation’s homeless population have been in foster care, while youth emancipating out of foster care have a one in six chance of being homeless within one year. 5.2. As of November 30, 2011, there were 1,672 youth under the jurisdiction of DCFS that were 18 or older. Prior to January 1, 2012, most of these youth were emanci- pated and their DCFS cases were terminated after they turned 18 years old. Most of these youth were only able to receive additional DCFS services on a voluntary basis and, though not precluded from doing so, most did not access medical and mental health services at the Hub Clinics which are generally geared toward chil- dren, and have not made efforts to encourage Transition Age Youth emancipating from the child welfare system to use their services. 5.3. With the passage of extended foster care services through AB 12, youth under the jurisdiction of DCFS may now remain in the child welfare system until the age of 21, as long as they meet certain criteria. Based on DCFS data on youth 16 years old and older and under DCFS jurisdiction as of November, 30, 2011, the estimat- ed total number of Transition Age Youth that could remain in DCFS through 2014 ranges from 3,800 to 5,483 youth. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 299 EXPANDING HUB CLINICS – 5. TRANSITION AGE YOUTH 5.4. The number of medically fragile/vulnerable youth with special needs due to a men- tal health diagnosis, developmental delay or a physical or medical condition that requires specific care under the jurisdiction of DCFS was 2,163 as of November 30, 2011, of which 198 were 18 years old or older. Though Hub Clinics may not of- fer the specialized services and clinics needed by the medically fragile/vulnerable youth, the Hub Clinics can still play a role as the medical homes for youth who need to see multiple medical providers and specialists within the hospital system affiliated with each Hub Clinic. 5.5. The majority of the Hub Clinics currently do not provide medical services to youth aged 18 years old or older. Further, only two of the Hub Clinics have Department of Health contracts and multiple mental health providers onsite at their Hub Clinics to provide mental health services to DCFS youth. Only Children’s Hospital LA current- ly offers an adolescent clinic that provides medical and mental health services tar- geted toward youth age 12 to 21 years old. However, LAC+USC has plans to ex- pand its Children’s Medical Village, which will provide access to several medical subspecialty services, to include adult medical services for Transition Age Youth aged 18 or older.

Page 326

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Director of DCFS should immediately instruct the managers and personnel to place the foster child’s name, date of birth and SSN into all three CRBs and immediately suppress those records as soon as the child becomes a ward of DCFS. Foster children would be better served and protected from identity theft if their identifying information was immediately entered into CRB files as soon as they become wards of DCFS and these credit records were suppressed at the same time.

Page 321

R2: The Director of DCA, for all children that already exist in the foster care system, should clear and suppress the corrupted credit records of DCFS wards on a monthly basis as they turn 16. Assuming that birthdays are distributed evenly during any year, approximately 176 records would have to be checked by DCA each month or about nine records per day. When fraudulent credit records are deleted, they should be immediately suppressed to prevent further corruption.

Page 321

R3: The Chief of the Probation Department should work with DCFS and take the necessary steps to include Probation Department wards’ information into the CRBs in the same manner as DCFS wards (see Recommendation 1).

Page 321

R4: The Director of DCA should assume the lead role in correcting the corrupted CRB records of foster children. Corrupted CRB records of foster children should be corrected by a governmental agency such as DCA to prevent the foster child from being exposed to the expense and complexity of dealing with the various commercial agencies that deal with identity theft (see Exhibit 1).

Page 321

R5: The Director of DCA should expand its existing telephone voicemail system to add a menu number for the aged out foster children who are encountering identity theft problems, and other problems unique to aging out of the foster care system.

Page 321

R6: The Director of DCA should solicit, train, and encourage the use of senior citizen volunteers to aid the aging out foster youths in dealing with preventing future identity theft and fraud. Senior citizen DCA volunteers could be used to assist the foster youths by educating and acquainting them with resources such as the proper use of credit and debit cards. 2011-2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 311 IDENTITY THEFT

Page 321

📋Identity Theft of Foster Children

28 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The nonminor is completing secondary education or a program leading to an equivalent credential.

Page 326

F2: The nonminor is enrolled in an institution which provides postsecondary or vocational educational education.

Page 326

F3: The nonminor is participating in a program or activity designed to pro- mote, or remove barriers to employment.

Page 326

F4: The nonminor is employed for at least 80 hours per month.

Page 326

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 321

📋Medication for Inmates

8 pages 11 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The Coroner has enlarged its morgue space and has built an adjacent building with a 500 slab capacity for the storage of bodies.

Page 169

F2: The Coroner transfers unclaimed remains to Los Angeles County+USC Hospital for cremation services and no longer performs these services.

Page 169

F3: The Emergency Operations Plan provided to the CGJ was a comprehensive plan adopted on March 22, 2011. The EOP appeared to be a plan written and adopted by a state wide organization. Many of the positions of responsibility are not specific to the personnel currently employed by the Coroner. Even though job descriptions are specified, actual responsibilities are difficult to determine.

Page 169

F4: The EOP does not provide training or continued education programs with key per- sonnel. Continued formal training is a key component for success in implementation of the EOP.

Page 169

F5: The position of Director is scheduled to become vacant as of March 2012 due to the retirement of the current Director. The Chief Medical Examiner is also scheduled to retire at the end of 2012. However, the Succession Plan does not provide the search progress, the qualifications, or the possible candidates for the filling of vacant positions at the Coroner nor does it provide a direct succession plan for the key posi- tions such as the Chief Medical Examiner or Director.

Page 169

F6: The Coroner currently uses an antiquated, non-web based, non-secure file man- agement system that can no longer be upgraded. Intake of bodies and evidence is currently tracked manually, not electronically. This leaves evidence open to error in criminal cases and identification matters. These handwritten documents are filed in individual folders in cabinets. Currently, in the event of a fire or flood, all records could be lost or destroyed.

Page 169

F7: The Coroner Forensic Science Laboratories have been accredited since 1993. New requirements for accreditation are being adopted by ISO and the need for a special- ist to ensure the accreditation process is met is critical.

Page 167

F8: Budget restrictions have eliminated the replacement of vehicles in the last three years and several vehicles have exceeded the 100,000 mileage marker.

Page 169

F9: The Coroner has no power back-up generators to use in the event of power outages.

Page 169

F10: The Antelope Valley Regional Office of the Coroner is over 25 years old. It does not meet the need for Coroner services in the high desert.

Page 169

F11: The Coroner’s security system should be updated in light of the extreme sensitivity of the Coroner’s forensic operations. 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 149 CORONER

Page 169

Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should assign specific employees to act as the Department Emergency Coordinator, Public Information Officer, Opera- tions Section Chief, Logistics Section Chief, Finance/Administration Section Chief, and Coroner Representative to the County Emergency Operations Center. These positions should be filled by other specific, capable, and qualified employees in the event that those assigned employees are no longer employed by the Coroner or un- able to perform the assigned duties.

Page 167

R2: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should provide ongoing training for all employees on a regular basis.

Page 167

R3: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should begin an immediate search for a replacement of the Chief Medical Examiner prior to the retirement of the current Chief Medical Examiner in 2012.

Page 167

R4: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should seek the necessary fund- ing for the adoption of the Electronic Case File System (ECFS) necessary for the Coroner to track and manage coroner case documents, including evidence, photo- graphs, and other related objects or materials.

Page 167

R5: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should create a Senior Criminalist position dedicated to quality assurance to ensure a successful ISO Laboratory Ac- creditation.

Page 167

R6: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should purchase four additional vehicles necessary for the Coroner to provide the services necessary for the County.

Page 167

R7: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should seek and purchase/pursue three generators for the Coroner for use in case of power outages during emergency situations.

Page 167

R8: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should upgrade or replace the An- telope Valley Regional Office.

Page 167

R9: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should establish a keyless card entry system for security of the building used by the Coroner.

Page 167

📋Medication for Inmates

8 pages 11 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The Coroner has enlarged its morgue space and has built an adjacent building with a 500 slab capacity for the storage of bodies.

Page 169

F2: The Coroner transfers unclaimed remains to Los Angeles County+USC Hospital for cremation services and no longer performs these services.

Page 169

F4: The EOP does not provide training or continued education programs with key per- sonnel. Continued formal training is a key component for success in implementation of the EOP.

Page 169

Page 167

F8: Budget restrictions have eliminated the replacement of vehicles in the last three years and several vehicles have exceeded the 100,000 mileage marker.

Page 169

F9: The Coroner has no power back-up generators to use in the event of power outages.

Page 169

F10: The Antelope Valley Regional Office of the Coroner is over 25 years old. It does not meet the need for Coroner services in the high desert.

Page 169

Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 167

R2: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should provide ongoing training for all employees on a regular basis.

Page 167

R3: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should begin an immediate search for a replacement of the Chief Medical Examiner prior to the retirement of the current Chief Medical Examiner in 2012.

Page 167

R5: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should create a Senior Criminalist position dedicated to quality assurance to ensure a successful ISO Laboratory Ac- creditation.

Page 167

R6: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should purchase four additional vehicles necessary for the Coroner to provide the services necessary for the County.

Page 167

R7: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should seek and purchase/pursue three generators for the Coroner for use in case of power outages during emergency situations.

Page 167

R8: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should upgrade or replace the An- telope Valley Regional Office.

Page 167

R9: The Los Angeles County Office of the Coroner should establish a keyless card entry system for security of the building used by the Coroner.

Page 167

📋Office of the Coroner

10 pages 9 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The “Carve-Out” program, currently used by the Fire Department, not only reduces the time needed to refer injured workers to medical personnel, but also minimizes the number of disputes regarding LC 4850 eligibility resulting from medical treatment plans and opinions.

Page 157

F2: Although California Labor Code §3812 et seq. recognizes the concept of certain “presumptive” injuries associated with safety workers, cities and counties may rebut these presumptions based on available eye witnesses and applicable case infor- mation.

Page 157

F3: Conducting analyses of on-the-job injuries incurred by County safety workers should assist County departments to identify the most frequently occurring injuries, and as- sist the departments to develop specific training programs to reduce the occurrence of these injuries.

Page 157

F4: Individuals on LC 4850 leave may seek ways to manipulate the program’s rules and regulations to gain more than one year of benefits.

Page 157

F5: The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) pub- lishes researched and tested guidelines covering on-the-job injuries and effective quality of care, reduction of unnecessary medical procedures, and full health restora- tion recommendations. These standards are included in the Medical Treatment Utili- zation Schedule (MTUS). The standards are used by several of the counties sur- veyed by the CGJ.

Page 157

F6: The Sheriff’s Department often uses sworn officers to transport injured workers to scheduled appointments with physicians.

Page 157

F7: The Sheriff’s Department often uses sworn officers to conduct drive-by surveillance of officers assigned to their homes as part of their LC 4850 injury recovery plans.

Page 157

F8: Data provided by the County’s Risk Management Branch of the Chief Executive Of- fice suggests that individual safety workers may view the benefits of the LC 4850 20112012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 139 LABOR CODE §4850 program as an entitlement, and make efforts to gain LC 4850 status just prior to their planned retirement dates, thereby increasing their final retirement benefits. 8

Page 157

F9: Discussions with the County’s Risk Management Branch suggest that on occasion an injured safety worker remains on LC 4850 status after clear evidence is available to indicate that the worker’s disability will prevent him from ever returning to perfor- mance of his duties.

Page 158

Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Los Angeles County Sheriff and Probation Departments should adopt the “carve-out” program, as used by the Fire Department, to expedite the process of re- ferring injured workers to approved physicians and to reduce the frequency of LC 4850 eligibility disputes.

Page 157

R2: The Los Angeles County Sheriff, Fire, and Probation Departments should con- tinue to review all cases involving presumptive injuries to assure that each injury in question is job-related.

Page 157

R3: The Los Angeles County Sheriff and Probation Departments should adopt the practice of the Fire Department by gathering statistics to determine the most com- mon and prevalent on-the-job injuries, and use these statistics to develop specific in- jury prevention and mitigation programs and training.

Page 157

R4: The Los Angeles County Sheriff, Fire, and Probation Departments should scru- tinize requests from injured workers seeking to renew additional years of 4850 status by considering whether changes of medical tests, exams, and treatment plans have occurred.

Page 157

R5: The Los Angeles County Sheriff, Fire, and Probation Departments should en- sure that the guidelines and standards established by the Medical Treatment Utiliza- tion Schedule (MTUS), which includes American College of Occupational and Envi- ronmental Medicine (ACOEM) recommendations, are used when setting treatment plans and time off from work in order to reduce excessive absences.

Page 157

R6: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should consider using non-sworn personnel to transport and accompany newly injured workers to the primary treating physicians, allowing sworn officers to continue with mission-specific duties.

Page 157

R7: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department should consider the use of non- sworn personnel or sworn personnel on modified duty to monitor the activities of 8 Source: “Report of the Influence of the State of California Labor Code 4850 and the County of Los An- geles Service Connected Disability Retirements on the County of Los Angeles Workers’ Compensation Program”, January 2005; published by the Chief Administrative Office of the County of Los Angeles 140 20112012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT LABOR CODE §4850 workers on LC 4850 leave to ensure full compliance with medical plans, allowing sworn officers to continue with mission-specific duties.

Page 157

R8: The Los Angeles County Sheriff, Fire, and Probation Departments should re- view and compare the frequency of employees’ LC 4850 initial claim dates that im- mediately precede their retirement dates, to determine if the LC 4850 program is be- ing used in accordance with its intent.

Page 158

R9: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should sponsor or support legisla- tion allowing a public jurisdiction to terminate LC 4850 benefits and authorize disabil- ity pension benefits when clear and convincing evidence exists that an employee’s work-related disability will preclude the worker from ever returning to the perfor- mance of his duties.

Page 158

📋Office of the Coroner

10 pages 9 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

Page 157

F4: Individuals on LC 4850 leave may seek ways to manipulate the program’s rules and regulations to gain more than one year of benefits.

Page 157

F6: The Sheriff’s Department often uses sworn officers to transport injured workers to scheduled appointments with physicians.

Page 157

F7: The Sheriff’s Department often uses sworn officers to conduct drive-by surveillance of officers assigned to their homes as part of their LC 4850 injury recovery plans.

Page 157

Page 158

Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 157

R2: The Los Angeles County Sheriff, Fire, and Probation Departments should con- tinue to review all cases involving presumptive injuries to assure that each injury in question is job-related.

Page 157

Page 158

📋Probation Department

8 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Scalability: Going Statewide The procedures used in the pilot project for ordering credit reports and transmitting the sensitive data electronically among DCFS, the CRAs and the remediation agencies proved both efficient and secure. Based on the pilot project, the work of a foster care agency in creating and transmitting a report of foster children’s identifying information and then transmitting it to the three CRAs on a quarterly basis would amount to less than 100 hours a year plus one-time work at start-up of less than 50 hours. This workload would be the same regardless of the number of records in the report. For each of California’s 58 counties to do the same thing would mean 58 times the workload statewide. The CRAs have said that they could not use the pilot project data transmission procedures for all the counties individually. We also have serious concerns about the security risks of involving so many entities in transmitting such sensitive data. The “manual” alternative of the county agencies sending individual written requests to the credit reporting agencies, providing the necessary documentation for each child, would be far more labor- intensive than making a bulk request electronically. The counties would then have to send the paper credit reports received to the remediation agencies, which would add to the workload and the security risk. The last thing we want to do is to expose foster children Calif o rn ia O f fic e o f P riv ac y P rot e c t ion | 14 330 2011-2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Page 364

R3: To Catch the Thieves At the end of the pilot, the data received from the CRAs and copies of the clearance letters from creditors and collectors were provided to DCFS. We have suggested to DCFS that they add the clearance letters to the files of important documents that foster children receive upon emancipation, for use in the event that they experience problems with their credit records in the future. We have also encouraged DCFS to work with DCA in bringing the data to the attention of local law enforcement for investigation. See

Page 364

📋Probation Department

8 pages 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 364