Gran Jurado del Condado de Los Angeles
2012-2013
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Continuity Report
County of Los Angeles
From the consolidated annual report · 303 páginas
📑 Year-End Report
Continuity Committee Responses
From the consolidated annual report · 71 páginas
Individual reports (20)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Who: Your Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip, Code: _______________________________________________________________ Telephone: ( ) Extension: ______________
R2:
What: Subject of Complaint. Briefly state the nature of complaint and the action of what Los Angeles County department, section, agency, or official(s) that you believe was illegal or improper. Use additional sheets if necessary. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________
R3:
When: Date(s) of incident: _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________
R4:
Where: Names and addresses of other departments, agencies or officials involved in this com- plaint. Include dates and types of contact, i.e. phone, letter, personal. Use additional sheets if necessary. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________
R5:
Why/How: Attach pertinent documents and correspondence with dates. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Rev 01/17/2013 162 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE Complaint Guidelines Communications from the public can provide valuable information to the Grand Jury. Any private citizen, government employee, or officer may submit a completed complaint form to request that the Grand Jury conduct an investigation. This complaint must be in writing and is treated as confidential. Prior to submitting the Complaint Form to the Grand Jury office, please retain a copy for your records if needed. Receipt of all complaints will be acknowledged. If the Civil Grand Jury determines that a matter is within the legally permissible scope of its investigative powers and would warrant further inquiry, additional information may be requested. If a matter does not fall within the Grand Jury's investigative authority or the Jury determines not to investigate a complaint, no action will be taken and there will be no further contact from the Civil Grand Jury. The findings of any investigation conducted by the Grand Jury can be communicated only in a formal final report published at the conclusion of the Grand Jury's term, June 30th. Some complaints are not suitable for civil grand jury action. For example, the Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over judicial performance, actions of the court, or cases that are pending in the courts. Grievances of this nature must be resolved through the established judicial appeal system. The Civil Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate federal or state agencies. Only causes of action occurring within the County of Los Angeles are eligible for review. The jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury includes the following: Consideration of evidence of misconduct against public officials within Los Angeles County. Inquiry into the condition and management of the jails within the county. Investigation and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts. Investigation of the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. Mail complaint form to: Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 163 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE 164 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT CONTINUITY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Jeff Clements-Chair Mel Widawski Thomas Scheerer Gil Zeal Jerry Strofs
R13:
REPORT OF THE CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE In accordance with established practice, the 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) established a Citizens Complaint Committee (Committee) to review and consider written communications addressed to it by members of the public. During its term, the Committee reviewed 72 letters from citizens, many of which contained accompanying documents. Twenty-three letters requested Grand Jury review of criminal proceedings, convictions or alleged police or prosecutorial misconduct which were beyond the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. In four instances, citizens requested that the Grand Jury take action in matters involving State Hospitals or the Workers Compensation Appeals Board which are also beyond the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. In nine instances, the Grand Jury was asked to intercede in private contractual issues or employment relations issues which were beyond the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. In two instances, after consideration by the entire Grand Jury, citizens were referred to other Los Angeles County or City agencies to pursue the issues raised. In many other cases, the Grand Jury determined that no action was appropriate. In one instance, a letter received from a citizen regarding the transfer of funds by the City of Glendale from Glendale Water & Power to the City’s general fund prompted a formal investigation by the Grand Jury. As a result, the Grand Jury issued an interim report on March 22, 2013 expressing its concerns regarding Glendale’s compliance with Propositions 218 and 26. The Grand Jury also received several letters regarding housing in the City of Los Angeles. These letters were received well into the Committee’s term. The Grand Jury then informed the citizens who wrote letters to the Grand Jury and encouraged them to communicate their concerns to the 2013-2014 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury. Citizens who wish to submit complaints to the Grand Jury should do so by using the following complaint form and guidelines which may also be found at the Civil Grand Jury website, www.http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/jury/pdf/investigation.pdf. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 161 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM Please Review Attached Complaint Guidelines Before Completing this Form PLEASE PRINT DATE: _____________________________
R14:
CONTINUITY COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Continuity Committee serves as a bridge connecting the work of previous Los Angeles County Grand Juries (Grand Jury) to the current Grand Jury. The Continuity Committee main- tained complete records of responses to the recommendations by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. Fur- ther, the 2012-2013 Continuity Committee created a list of current recommendations issued in
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Training of all Custody Personnel As stated before, the Sheriff proposes no significant changes to Academy training.8 This makes sense for many reasons. One, the Academy trains officers for other law enforcement agencies with no Custody responsibility. Further, most of the positions in the Sheriff’s Department are non- custody related. The Sheriff’s Department views the role of the Academy as providing more of a foundation with the probation period being one where the specifics of the job are learned while on the job. Finally, creating a separate Academy will degrade the perception of Custody deputies and Patrol deputies that they are one force. The Grand Jury supports the position of the Sheriff’s Department and does not believe a separate Academy experience needs to happen. That said, more should be and will be done under the Sheriff’s Plan. The Department will in- crease the amount of specific training post Academy from two to four weeks. Those additional two weeks will consist of a “Jail Operation Continuum.” Further, the amount of time spent as- sessing and evaluating deputies will increase from 12 to 16 weeks.
F2:
Training of Leadership 7 Sheriff’s Plan, p6 8 Sheriff’s Plan p3 6 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Those at the sergeant level and above will continue to receive 24 hours of training over three days. This training has a largely administrative focus specific to the particular facility. The only additional training being proposed is eight hours of training that would revisit the topics proposed in the “Jail Operations Continuum”. These eight hours would most likely be given in two hour chunks of intense format training. The timing is meant to avoid backfilling a position.9 This may not be enough or the right emphasis. First of all, as conveyed to the Grand Jury and also found running through the Commission’s Report were issues of failure of leadership-- specifically as it relates to mentoring, managing, conveying expectation and communication. Running a jail, especially some of the larger facilities, is a complex operation that involves sev- eral skill sets and contingencies. A career as a deputy may provide the necessary education in jail operations but not necessarily in management. Too much seems to rest on the individual’s intuition when a little training coupled with that common sense could go a long way. Much of the focus on leadership training has been on forms and required paperwork. If a ser- geant is not provided any additional training in areas such as staff assessment, evaluation, men- toring or effective leadership, what will an additional four weeks of assessment time of deputies add? Training should be viewed broadly as not just conveying information but conveying expec- tation. Especially now that sergeants will have to command the respect and train both deputies staying in Custody and those going on Patrol, it is more imperative than ever that they have the tools to stress and continuously emphasize the Nobility Policing and Constitutional Jailing that are stated values of the Department. The idea of providing training in two hour portions is a smart one that will allow a position not to have to be backfilled but the Department, for both cost and for other practical reasons needs to be focused on other methods of teaching these key skills. It may, for example need to award merit points that are necessary for promotion to those deputies and those in leadership who seek out educational opportunities on their own time. The Department is starting and needs to devote more efforts to utilizing on line resources so that individual topics can be learned over a few days. C. Custody Division Training Bureau The Sheriff’s Department is proposing a whole new infrastructure called the Custody Division Training Bureau to focus specifically on training that currently assumes staffing with close to 80- 100 officers of all ranks.10 We appreciate the greater focus on training. Particularly, we applaud the fact that the eight large facilities will have staff exclusively focused on training. The remain- der of the staff being proposed will take a more centralized approach with some focused specifi- cally on violence related issues and others will focus on the already mandated STC (Standards and Training for Correctional Officers) training which is required annually by the state. Information provided by interviews with Sheriff’s Department personnel 10 Interview with key Sheriff Department personnel, report of Implementation Monitor to Board of Supervisors, Feb- ruary 12, 2013 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 7 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Coming up with the proposed structure is just the first step. Funding from the Board of Supervi- sors will make or break this step. Assuming funding is available, creating curriculum that is ef- fective is an even bigger challenge. Curriculum that allows deputies to learn at their own pace sometimes is both more beneficial for learning and potentially more cost effective. Making training meaningful for the responsibilities at hand is also critical, which further requires a more individualized approach. For example, STC training requires that certain topics be covered yearly and by the time those mandatory topics like first aid and CPR training are covered, 70% of the time may already be utilized. There should be a way to pre-test people and let them “test out” of topics they already know. These individuals should be able to move on to other topics. It may be more cost effective to offer incentive payment for classes done through the County’s e- learning system. Finally if the Department truly values education for its staff, then it should cre- ate a culture where learning on one’s own time is considered necessary for promotion. This may entail dealing with potential labor issues. The Department should focus then on making material accessible and high quality. IV. Types of Facilities A. Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) The Commission’s Report focuses primarily on issues that arose at MCJ and extrapolated its findings to the Department as a whole. The Grand Jury visited many of the other facilities and is not sure if the problems of MCJ are necessarily the problems of the system. The Commission Report specifically stated that it would not address the adequacy of the architectural issues at MCJ. Instead it echoes other commissions and reports that call for the demolishing and rebuild- ing of the facility. We raise this issue only to say that in times of limited funding, it may be bet- ter to apply money and require change at those sites as opposed to changing the whole system. B. Other Large Jail Facilities From the Commission Report, it is unclear whether other entities like the Pitchess Ranch facili- ties, which house close to 10,000 inmates, require the same shift in organizational structure and staffing. Given that Dual Track is implemented system-wide, it is still relevant to look at staffing and cultural expectations at other facilities and see if all of the requirements should be imple- mented beyond MCJ. Pitchess Ranch (with its 4 facilities) is essentially its own small city com- plete with several industries and even its own power plant. Much of the housing is dormitory style versus at MCJ where inmates are housed in 2-man and 4-man cells. There are also several businesses on site with multiple workers. On our tour it became evident that it was helpful for the custody officers to learn the communities in these dorm settings. This was especially true in seeing potential issues on the yard during recreation when a few deputies would oversee over 150 inmates at a time. Rotation of officers, which the other sections of the Commission Report recommended, may actually do harm at these facilities. The needs and challenges of Court Facilities also contrast with MCJ. Most of these facilities are run down and as of January 2013, often lacked cameras. The challenge here is the transient population and the danger of smuggling contraband and information between inmates while go- ing back and forth to hearings and the home jail facility. Deputy training would ideally include different modules for these settings. 8 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING
F3:
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
F4:
Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F5:
All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F6:
To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:
F8:
LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Several negative articles in various Los Angeles area newspapers regarding poor response time to 9-1-1 medical emergency calls within the City of Los Angeles prompted this investigation1. A committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that response times in the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) began to increase when its budget was decreased. The Grand Jury believes that the Los Angeles City Council may have relied on inaccurate response time data2 in making its budget reduction decision. The Grand Jury also found that LAFD does not utilize its resources to its best advantage. To be specific, the Grand Jury urges that LAFD’s funding be restored, that its engine companies be reinstated, it incorpo- rate civilian call handlers, use a non-proprietary Emergency Medical Dispatch protocol and up- date technical equipment.
Recomendaciones adicionales
53
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
Most cities have adopted a “Conflict of Interest” code.
R6:
Most cities have adopted an “Investment” policy.
R7:
Most cities published their financial reports or CAFR to their website. RECOMMENDATIONS – GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 2
R8:
All cities maintained an adequate accounting system. Most issued timely financial statements and a CAFR in compliance with standards, and most made the CAFR readily accessible to the general public on their website. RECOMMENDATIONS – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3
R9:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on governance: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Audit Committee
R10:
Does your city have an audit committee that is formally established by enabling resolution or other appropriate legal means? o Yes o No
R11:
Is the audit committee directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, and oversight of the work of independent accountants engaged to perform independent audit, review, or attestation services? o Yes o No
R12:
More information on each of these fiscal health criteria, and the results of the comparison, is contained within the sections following this exhibit. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 98 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Agoura Hills 79 (41.5%) 24 (.3%) 29 3.82 24 7.54 45 0.8% 70 (2.6%) 36 3.5% 16 8.1% 1 285.1% 74 (78.3%) 14 80.3% 9 85.5% Alhambra 12 3.9% 5 6.0% 52 2.48 52 3.77 6 8.1% 34 14.6% 44 1.5% 51 (2.3%) 13 24.3% 47 (5.2%) 67 4.7% 64 0.7% Arcadia 63 (15.3%) 37 (4.2%) 23 4.31 28 6.92 70 (3.5%) 74 (5.7%) 52 0.0% 58 (5.0%) 34 6.1% 42 (3.5%) 50 19.0% 45 20.3% Artesia 52 (8.4%) 70 (17.1%) 67 1.77 39 5.05 44 0.8% 37 8.8% 20 8.3% 54 (3.5%) 11 25.3% 51 (7.1%) 31 44.9% 32 35.0% Azusa 68 (19.8%) NA 0.0% 71 1.69 NA 0.00 73 (4.8%) NA 0.0% 30 4.7% NA 0.0% 3 68.8% NA 0.0% 83 (15.3%) 67 0.0% Baldwin Park 16 2.2% 33 (2.8%) 56 2.28 48 4.48 28 2.4% 15 39.9% 23 7.1% 35 3.8% 64 (9.7%) 49 (5.8%) 56 15.3% 56 8.1% Bell Gardens 33 (2.4%) 46 (7.3%) 41 2.93 25 7.25 72 (4.5%) 10 63.6% 15 10.0% 40 1.7% 36 5.0% 36 (1.9%) 18 73.2% 67 0.0% Bellflower 25 (.8%) 12 4.1% 36 3.29 46 4.64 5 8.2% 31 15.6% 29 4.7% 44 1.0% 41 2.3% 30 1.5% 20 70.0% 15 63.0% Beverly Hills 6 5.7% 3 8.5% 51 2.55 63 2.83 8 6.6% 38 8.2% 11 11.8% 9 11.1% 44 0.4% 11 9.4% 33 43.7% 24 45.5% Bradbury 82 (108.2%) NA 0.0% 2 49.28 NA 0.00 80 (10.1%) NA 0.0% 83 (59.2%) NA 0.0% 76 (23.9%) NA 0.0% 6 187.6% 67 0.0% Burbank 54 (1.5%) 69 (16.6%) 32 3.52 40 4.98 56 (.6%) 40 7.9% 74 (15.0%) 68 (13.0%) 61 (7.0%) 58 (14.2%) 43 31.1% 67 0.0% Calabasas 39 (4.0%) 22 0.2% 35 3.48 57 3.52 15 5.2% 59 (.0%) 33 4.3% 34 3.9% 52 (3.6%) 20 4.5% 13 86.8% 7 94.1% Carson 58 (11.7%) 74 (24.5%) 48 2.65 74 1.96 78 (9.5%) 73 (4.4%) 24 7.1% 18 7.6% 10 29.3% 4 26.0% 51 18.4% 38 26.4% Cerritos 55 (10.1%) 35 (3.2%) 45 2.83 6 39.19 61 (1.0%) 12 51.7% 72 (14.1%) 76 (44.0%) 53 (4.2%) 61 (16.1%) 9 103.1% 11 77.9% Claremont 5 8.5% 9 4.9% 22 4.45 41 4.93 21 3.1% 60 (.2%) 21 8.0% 14 8.7% 17 15.1% 10 14.4% 44 30.9% 34 31.7% Commerce 61 (12.1%) 31 (2.0%) 72 1.69 76 1.61 74 (5.0%) 42 6.6% 45 1.5% 20 6.6% 47 0.1% 19 5.3% 19 71.8% 12 77.1% Covina 66 (17.8%) 63 (13.7%) 49 2.61 53 3.69 76 (5.8%) 76 (8.2%) 42 1.9% 59 (5.0%) 23 9.4% 56 (9.2%) 39 36.3% 35 31.1% Cudahy 84 (170.3%) 58 (12.0%) 82 1.29 14 15.61 84 (72.8%) 1 260.9% 69 (9.8%) 67 (11.9%) 73 (15.6%) 55 (9.2%) 10 103.0% 8 88.5% Culver City 17 2.1% 68 (15.5%) 69 1.73 38 5.08 34 2.0% 7 80.9% 6 16.4% 53 (3.3%) 9 29.4% 39 (2.6%) 24 61.4% 17 58.4% Diamond Bar 76 (32.0%) 76 (65.8%) 4 24.92 8 25.49 63 (1.3%) 64 (1.3%) 82 (55.5%) 71 (24.1%) 78 (31.1%) 66 (19.4%) 25 60.2% 18 56.7% Downey 65 (17.8%) 62 (13.5%) 30 3.76 44 4.74 75 (5.1%) 44 5.7% 70 (10.9%) 62 (8.5%) 66 (9.9%) 60 (14.4%) 57 14.8% 55 8.8% Duarte 31 (1.6%) 19 1.0% 21 4.46 7 34.15 16 5.1% 22 27.0% 1 42.6% 19 6.7% 4 58.3% 21 3.8% 11 97.4% 6 109.0% El Monte 56 (10.4%) 28 (1.3%) 19 4.77 33 5.44 43 1.0% 49 4.1% 56 (1.9%) 56 (4.9%) 33 6.2% 32 0.8% 55 16.9% 48 16.3% El Segundo 35 (3.1%) 61 (13.5%) 16 5.47 47 4.49 65 (1.5%) 72 (3.4%) 60 (4.1%) 60 (7.0%) 51 (3.1%) 67 (19.5%) 62 9.8% 52 14.6% Gardena 8 4.8% 13 4.1% 42 2.89 62 2.91 55 (.4%) 66 (1.9%) 19 8.5% 31 5.2% 29 7.1% 16 7.5% 70 0.7% 66 0.5% Glendale 53 (9.1%) 56 (11.2%) 27 3.90 42 4.89 50 0.1% 62 (1.0%) 73 (14.8%) 70 (16.7%) 19 11.3% 70 (55.6%) 36 38.7% 40 23.3% Glendora 44 (5.6%) 36 (3.9%) 33 3.50 37 5.08 48 0.3% 47 4.7% 28 5.9% 52 (2.6%) 37 4.2% 57 (9.6%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Hawaiian Gardens 32 (2.3%) NA 0.0% 75 1.52 NA 0.00 52 0.0% NA 0.0% 59 (3.5%) NA 0.0% 54 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 7 120.3% 67 0.0% Hawthorne 20 1.4% 16 3.4% 79 1.38 67 2.51 13 5.7% 5 118.4% 10 14.0% 7 11.3% 15 19.4% 71 (59.0%) 41 33.1% 37 28.8% Hermosa Beach 13 3.7% 2 10.7% 12 7.44 31 5.89 39 1.5% 69 (2.4%) 14 10.6% 5 13.6% 18 11.7% 22 3.5% 49 23.2% 41 23.3% Hidden Hills 70 (23.3%) 8 5.6% 10 10.54 16 12.22 40 1.5% 57 0.2% 79 (32.0%) 21 6.5% 65 (9.8%) 25 2.3% 3 207.2% 2 291.9% Huntington Park 40 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 84 0.62 NA 0.00 83 (13.0%) NA 0.0% 39 2.4% NA 0.0% 38 3.5% NA 0.0% 45 30.7% 67 0.0% Industry 60 (12.0%) 51 (9.6%) 66 1.85 72 2.12 14 5.7% 75 (6.2%) 2 30.0% 41 1.4% 30 6.9% 48 (5.3%) 1 607.2% 1 454.7% Inglewood 9 4.7% NA 0.0% 74 1.60 NA 0.00 67 (2.8%) NA 0.0% 57 (2.7%) NA 0.0% 68 (12.5%) NA 0.0% 52 18.3% 67 0.0% Irwindale 7 5.3% 52 (9.8%) 58 2.25 5 40.08 3 8.5% 14 40.3% 37 3.1% 63 (9.1%) 2 143.7% 63 (17.0%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% La Canada Flintridge 3 11.6% 26 (.8%) 50 2.60 65 2.66 10 6.0% 51 1.9% 5 16.6% 11 10.4% 28 7.3% 38 (2.1%) 8 119.3% 5 116.3% La Habra Heights 1 25.4% NA 0.0% 8 11.75 NA 0.00 60 (1.0%) NA 0.0% 49 0.6% NA 0.0% 48 (.6%) NA 0.0% 5 195.2% 67 0.0% La Mirada 27 (1.0%) 29 (1.3%) 65 1.85 17 11.38 2 11.8% 4 128.7% 16 9.6% 2 23.3% 42 2.0% 15 7.6% 17 73.2% 10 85.1% La Puente 50 (7.7%) 45 (7.0%) 59 2.23 64 2.82 38 1.5% 35 10.4% 63 (5.6%) 6 11.4% 50 (2.8%) 72 (59.6%) 28 54.8% 22 50.6% La Verne 11 4.3% 25 (.6%) 15 5.48 27 6.94 27 2.4% 54 1.3% 67 (7.7%) 50 (2.3%) 35 6.0% 6 19.3% 72 0.0% 67 0.0% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 99 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Lakewood 15 2.4% 21 0.7% 11 8.85 11 17.97 24 2.8% 24 24.5% 27 6.2% 29 5.7% 26 7.6% 17 6.7% 68 3.2% 59 6.5% Lancaster 69 (21.8%) 49 (9.2%) 28 3.88 10 18.04 64 (1.4%) 23 25.2% 76 (23.3%) 47 (.9%) 74 (17.0%) 69 (38.6%) 46 30.2% 43 21.5% Lawndale 77 (39.1%) NA 0.0% 44 2.85 NA 0.00 46 0.5% NA 0.0% 81 (36.5%) NA 0.0% 57 (5.6%) NA 0.0% 16 74.9% 67 0.0% Lomita 42 (5.1%) 48 (7.8%) 17 4.99 34 5.33 66 (1.7%) 65 (1.5%) 40 2.1% 33 4.0% 69 (13.0%) 24 2.5% 64 8.5% 60 5.1% Long Beach 26 (.9%) 75 (25.2%) 57 2.25 69 2.39 11 5.9% 53 1.5% 53 (.2%) 38 2.3% 82 (59.1%) 9 15.1% 71 0.2% 62 1.3% Los Angeles 43 (5.3%) 44 (6.6%) 68 1.74 75 1.77 26 2.7% 48 4.5% 25 6.4% 26 6.1% 16 19.1% 12 9.2% 66 6.5% 58 6.7% Lynwood 57 (11.5%) 40 (4.9%) 53 2.47 58 3.42 35 1.8% 63 (1.2%) 64 (5.7%) 48 (1.0%) 75 (21.2%) 59 (14.3%) 53 18.2% 47 18.5% Malibu 73 (29.2%) 55 (11.1%) 38 3.01 61 2.95 49 0.2% 71 (3.3%) 61 (4.2%) 57 (4.9%) 77 (23.9%) 54 (8.7%) 42 31.2% 28 36.2% Manhattan Beach 10 4.3% 17 3.2% 24 4.12 50 4.07 29 2.4% 45 5.3% 32 4.3% 28 5.7% 24 9.1% 33 (.2%) 37 36.7% 29 35.6% Monrovia 78 (40.3%) 53 (10.0%) 80 1.30 66 2.65 81 (10.8%) 3 163.7% 78 (31.8%) 72 (27.2%) 71 (14.0%) 76 (374.5%) 84 (27.1%) 76 (27.7%) Montebello 34 (2.5%) 27 (.9%) 77 1.51 68 2.43 9 6.3% 18 37.5% 77 (25.4%) 74 (31.8%) 83 (174.5%) 2 43.8% 61 10.5% 49 15.9% Monterey Park 36 (3.2%) 50 (9.4%) 70 1.72 60 3.01 25 2.7% 16 39.6% 58 (3.1%) 45 0.6% 55 (4.5%) 7 18.1% 65 8.3% 57 7.8% Norwalk 47 (6.9%) 10 4.6% 60 2.20 32 5.70 53 (.1%) 19 33.6% 4 17.6% 17 7.8% 8 36.0% 65 (19.0%) 48 25.4% 36 29.9% Palmdale 19 1.4% 41 (5.6%) 31 3.73 26 7.13 51 0.1% 32 15.3% 9 14.4% 39 1.8% 12 24.7% 52 (7.1%) 38 36.5% 33 34.6% Palos Verdes Estates 28 (1.0%) 39 (4.8%) 1 50.47 3 44.98 62 (1.1%) 68 (2.4%) 41 2.1% 32 4.9% 22 9.4% 44 (4.7%) 60 10.7% 50 15.7% Paramount 62 (12.5%) 38 (4.7%) 61 2.13 22 9.94 77 (6.3%) 17 39.5% 51 0.2% 42 1.4% 5 42.6% 29 1.6% 30 49.9% 23 49.6% Pasadena 51 (8.3%) 72 (18.0%) 63 2.01 73 2.04 23 3.0% 26 20.7% 22 7.3% 8 11.2% 67 (12.4%) 14 7.7% 78 (.8%) 75 (23.1%) Pico Rivera 64 (17.1%) 59 (12.4%) 54 2.32 54 3.67 20 3.2% 8 80.9% 68 (8.6%) 49 (1.7%) 60 (6.8%) 31 1.2% 59 11.5% 67 0.0% Pomona 48 (7.0%) 57 (11.2%) 78 1.48 71 2.22 57 (.7%) 13 41.0% 48 0.9% 24 6.2% 70 (13.0%) 73 (62.2%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Rancho Palos Verdes 4 10.4% 1 11.8% 7 12.25 4 41.90 22 3.0% 29 16.4% 3 25.5% 1 26.2% 49 (2.4%) 18 5.6% 22 66.7% 14 71.4% Redondo Beach 23 (.0%) 34 (3.0%) 20 4.57 36 5.13 32 2.2% 36 10.0% 34 4.1% 37 2.4% 6 38.0% 37 (1.9%) 72 0.0% 65 0.6% Rolling Hills 80 (45.6%) 66 (14.3%) 3 36.59 2 45.56 82 (12.9%) 52 1.5% 38 2.6% 69 (16.0%) 39 3.1% 50 (6.4%) 4 206.8% 3 177.0% Rolling Hills Estates 30 (1.6%) 11 4.5% 9 10.57 19 10.72 31 2.4% 39 8.1% 65 (7.3%) 22 6.3% 72 (15.1%) 8 17.0% 47 28.5% 30 35.2% Rosemead 71 (26.4%) 71 (17.3%) 64 1.98 15 15.41 4 8.4% 11 56.2% 66 (7.6%) 46 0.4% 63 (9.6%) 41 (3.3%) 26 57.6% 20 56.0% San Dimas 75 (30.5%) 6 5.9% 25 4.11 20 10.30 33 2.1% 20 33.2% 46 1.3% 36 2.5% 43 1.6% 35 (.9%) 27 55.2% 19 56.1% San Fernando 49 (7.5%) 30 (1.6%) 39 2.98 43 4.81 58 (.7%) 50 3.0% 80 (32.0%) 73 (30.0%) 84 (704.9%) 75 (99.7%) 81 (4.4%) 74 (10.0%) San Gabriel 45 (5.8%) 47 (7.7%) 18 4.81 45 4.70 69 (3.4%) 67 (2.2%) 75 (22.2%) 75 (33.4%) 46 0.2% 68 (25.9%) 79 (2.1%) 61 3.5% San Marino 72 (27.2%) 67 (15.0%) 5 15.44 9 21.50 47 0.4% 58 0.2% 18 9.1% 15 8.7% 62 (8.9%) 64 (18.1%) 15 79.8% 13 72.6% Santa Clarita 67 (19.7%) 32 (2.4%) 14 6.22 21 10.14 36 1.7% 43 6.1% 7 15.5% 61 (8.0%) 25 7.6% 62 (16.4%) 21 69.7% 16 58.4% Santa Fe Springs 24 (.7%) 73 (19.0%) 73 1.66 29 6.27 19 3.7% 9 72.8% 71 (11.4%) 65 (11.4%) 31 6.7% 5 25.4% 40 35.4% 25 43.1% Santa Monica 46 (6.7%) 42 (5.9%) 26 3.98 35 5.28 30 2.4% 30 16.3% 55 (1.7%) 3 23.2% 7 37.0% 3 41.0% 34 40.0% 31 35.1% Sierra Madre 37 (3.3%) 64 (13.7%) 6 12.97 12 16.57 59 (.8%) 61 (.4%) 12 11.3% 10 10.5% 27 7.5% 53 (7.4%) 23 65.2% 54 12.2% Signal Hill 81 (64.0%) 65 (14.2%) 76 1.52 18 11.31 41 1.3% 6 101.5% 31 4.5% 25 6.1% 20 9.8% 23 2.5% 35 39.1% 27 41.7% South El Monte 21 0.2% 15 3.5% 83 1.13 23 9.38 1 100.0% 2 237.1% 50 0.4% 12 9.6% 80 (51.7%) 1 59.7% 69 2.0% 53 13.2% South Gate 14 2.4% 14 3.6% 47 2.68 56 3.56 7 6.8% 33 14.6% 54 (1.0%) 43 1.2% 32 6.5% 26 2.0% 58 13.2% 46 19.5% South Pasadena 38 (3.9%) 4 7.7% 55 2.31 70 2.32 17 4.0% 55 0.9% 13 11.2% 30 5.5% 14 20.8% 13 9.0% 29 53.9% 21 55.6% Temple City 2 12.0% 18 2.2% 13 7.19 13 16.34 12 5.7% 41 7.7% 26 6.3% 27 5.8% 40 2.5% 45 (5.0%) 2 236.1% 42 22.5% Torrance 18 2.0% 7 5.8% 43 2.88 55 3.66 42 1.2% 27 18.6% 43 1.9% 23 6.2% 58 (6.0%) 27 1.9% 63 9.7% 44 21.4% Vernon 83 (110.4%) 77 (83.9%) 81 1.29 77 1.14 79 (9.7%) 77 (51.4%) 84 (100.3%) 77 (108.1%) 81 (58.5%) 77 (455.0%) 82 (8.2%) 77 (47.4%) Walnut 74 (29.3%) 23 (.0%) 34 3.49 1 48.92 54 (.2%) 21 31.7% 35 3.5% 64 (10.3%) 79 (31.7%) 46 (5.2%) 72 0.0% 63 0.7% West Covina 29 (1.2%) 43 (6.3%) 62 2.07 51 4.00 71 (3.9%) 25 21.8% 62 (5.5%) 66 (11.7%) 59 (6.2%) 40 (2.9%) 54 17.0% 39 24.4% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 100 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent West Hollywood 59 (11.8%) 20 1.0% 46 2.78 49 4.23 18 3.9% 46 5.0% 8 14.7% 4 17.4% 21 9.6% 28 1.7% 80 (2.2%) 51 15.6% Westlake Village 41 (4.6%) 54 (10.9%) 37 3.13 59 3.16 68 (3.3%) 56 0.3% 47 1.2% 13 9.4% 56 (5.4%) 34 (.9%) 12 92.7% 4 139.3% Whittier 22 (.0%) 60 (12.6%) 40 2.94 30 6.23 37 1.5% 28 18.2% 17 9.3% 55 (4.3%) 45 0.2% 43 (4.4%) 32 43.7% 26 42.0% Average - All Cities (12.5%) (6.2%) 5.45 8.92 0.8% 24.0% (1.7%) (1.5%) (3.8%) (14.5%) 51.4% 38.3% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 101 CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 102 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Net Revenue Percent – All Funds Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all revenues remaining after all city expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net revenues and percentage would be negative. The net revenue percent is calculated by dividing net revenues by total revenues. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following Exhibit shows, only 21 of the 84 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2010-11 than revenue received. The remaining 61 cities spent more than they received in revenue. Both the cities of Vernon and Bradbury spent more than twice what was received in revenues. On average, cities expended 12.5% more than they received in revenue during FY 2010-11. The exhibit also shows that only 22 of the 77 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2011-12 than revenue received. The remaining 55 cities spent more than they received in revenue. The City of Vernon spent nearly 84% more than it received in revenue. On average, cities expended 6.2% more than they received in revenue during FY 2011-
R13:
Please provide a copy of the action formally establishing the audit committee.
R14:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit committees: Audit Procurement
R15:
Do your city’s audit contracts require auditors of financial statements conform with the independence standard defined in the General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards? o Yes o No
R16:
In selecting independent auditors does your city undertake a full-scale competitive process at the end of the term of each audit contract? o Yes o No
R17:
Years with City 18. Audit Contract Term Current Auditor Agoura Hills 3 3 + 2 one year renewals Alhambra 7 5 Arcadia 2 4 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 144 Exhibit 11: Responses to Questions on Independent Auditor Contract Term
R18:
How long is the term of your current independent audit contract? __________Years
R19:
Does your city have a formal policy requiring that the independent auditor be replaced at the end of the audit contract? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
R20:
Does your city allow the independent auditor to provide nonaudit services to the city? o Yes o No
R21:
If yes, does the Audit Committee review and approve these services? o Yes o No
R22:
Please provide a copy of the formal policies related to audit procurement.
R23:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit procurement: Accounting Policies and Procedures
R24:
Are accounting policies and procedures formally documented in an accounting policies and procedures manual? o Yes o No
R25:
Are accounting policies and procedures reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years on a predetermined schedule? o Yes o No
R26:
Do the accounting policies and procedures specifically define the authority and responsibility of all employees, including the authority to authorize transactions and the responsibility for safekeeping of assets and records? o Yes o No
R27:
Please provide a copy of the accounting policies and procedures manual.
R28:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding accounting policies and procedures: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Reporting of Fraud, Abuse, and Questionable Practices
R29:
Does your city have policies and procedures to encourage and facilitate the reporting of fraud or abuse (whistleblowers) and questionable accounting or auditing practices? o Yes o No
R30:
Does your city have a formally adopted and widely distributed and publicized ethics policy? o Yes o No
R31:
Does your city have a practical mechanism, such as a fraud hot line, to permit the confidential, anonymous reporting of concerns about fraud, abuse, or questionable practices? o Yes o No
R32:
Are concerns received regarding fraud, abuse, or questionable practices reviewed by internal auditors, with documentation reviewed by the Audit Committee. o Yes o No
R33:
Please provide a copy of the ethics policy and information on mechanisms for reporting concerns of fraud, abuse, or questionable practices.
R34:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding reporting of fraud, abuse, and questionable practices: Internal Controls
R35:
Are internal control procedures over financial management formally documented? o Yes o No
R36:
Do internal control procedures include practical means for lower level employees to report instances of management override of controls? o Yes o No
R37:
Are internal control procedures evaluated to determine if those controls are adequately designed to achieve their intended purpose, have actually been implemented, and continue to function as designed? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
R38:
Are potential internal control weaknesses documented in exception reports? o Yes o No
R39:
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
R40:
Please provide a copy of the internal control procedures over financial management.
R41:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal controls: Internal Audit
R42:
Does your city have an internal audit function formally established by enabling resolution or other legal means? o Yes o No
R43:
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
R44:
Are all reports of the Internal Audit function provided to or available to the Audit Committee? o Yes o No
R45:
Please provide a copy of the formal action establishing the internal audit function.
R46:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal audit: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT General Fund Unrestricted Fund Balance
R47:
Does your city have a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund? o Yes o No
R48:
Does this policy require an unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures? o Yes o No
R49:
Please provide a copy of the formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund.
R50:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on general fund unrestricted fund balance: Financial and Public Reporting Practices
R51:
Does your city maintain an accounting system adequate to provide all the data needed for the timely preparation of financial statement in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)? o Yes o No
R52:
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
R53:
Has your city’s financial statements been independently audited in accordance with either generally accepted auditing standards (GAAP) or Government Auditing Standards (GAS)? o Yes o No
R54:
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
R55:
Are city financial management staff members of and participate in the Government Finance Officers Association ? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
R56:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on financial and public reporting practices: Please provide the contact information for the individual with primary responsibility for completing this survey: Name: ___________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________ PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
R56-58:
Agency City Manager City of Cerritos City Manager City of Signal Hill Page Report Title Responses Recommendations Brief Description of Topic
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Training of all Custody Personnel As stated before, the Sheriff proposes no significant changes to Academy training.8 This makes sense for many reasons. One, the Academy trains officers for other law enforcement agencies with no Custody responsibility. Further, most of the positions in the Sheriff’s Department are non- custody related. The Sheriff’s Department views the role of the Academy as providing more of a foundation with the probation period being one where the specifics of the job are learned while on the job. Finally, creating a separate Academy will degrade the perception of Custody deputies and Patrol deputies that they are one force. The Grand Jury supports the position of the Sheriff’s Department and does not believe a separate Academy experience needs to happen. That said, more should be and will be done under the Sheriff’s Plan. The Department will in- crease the amount of specific training post Academy from two to four weeks. Those additional two weeks will consist of a “Jail Operation Continuum.” Further, the amount of time spent as- sessing and evaluating deputies will increase from 12 to 16 weeks.
F2:
Training of Leadership 7 Sheriff’s Plan, p6 8 Sheriff’s Plan p3 6 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Those at the sergeant level and above will continue to receive 24 hours of training over three days. This training has a largely administrative focus specific to the particular facility. The only additional training being proposed is eight hours of training that would revisit the topics proposed in the “Jail Operations Continuum”. These eight hours would most likely be given in two hour chunks of intense format training. The timing is meant to avoid backfilling a position.9 This may not be enough or the right emphasis. First of all, as conveyed to the Grand Jury and also found running through the Commission’s Report were issues of failure of leadership-- specifically as it relates to mentoring, managing, conveying expectation and communication. Running a jail, especially some of the larger facilities, is a complex operation that involves sev- eral skill sets and contingencies. A career as a deputy may provide the necessary education in jail operations but not necessarily in management. Too much seems to rest on the individual’s intuition when a little training coupled with that common sense could go a long way. Much of the focus on leadership training has been on forms and required paperwork. If a ser- geant is not provided any additional training in areas such as staff assessment, evaluation, men- toring or effective leadership, what will an additional four weeks of assessment time of deputies add? Training should be viewed broadly as not just conveying information but conveying expec- tation. Especially now that sergeants will have to command the respect and train both deputies staying in Custody and those going on Patrol, it is more imperative than ever that they have the tools to stress and continuously emphasize the Nobility Policing and Constitutional Jailing that are stated values of the Department. The idea of providing training in two hour portions is a smart one that will allow a position not to have to be backfilled but the Department, for both cost and for other practical reasons needs to be focused on other methods of teaching these key skills. It may, for example need to award merit points that are necessary for promotion to those deputies and those in leadership who seek out educational opportunities on their own time. The Department is starting and needs to devote more efforts to utilizing on line resources so that individual topics can be learned over a few days. C. Custody Division Training Bureau The Sheriff’s Department is proposing a whole new infrastructure called the Custody Division Training Bureau to focus specifically on training that currently assumes staffing with close to 80- 100 officers of all ranks.10 We appreciate the greater focus on training. Particularly, we applaud the fact that the eight large facilities will have staff exclusively focused on training. The remain- der of the staff being proposed will take a more centralized approach with some focused specifi- cally on violence related issues and others will focus on the already mandated STC (Standards and Training for Correctional Officers) training which is required annually by the state. Information provided by interviews with Sheriff’s Department personnel 10 Interview with key Sheriff Department personnel, report of Implementation Monitor to Board of Supervisors, Feb- ruary 12, 2013 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 7 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Coming up with the proposed structure is just the first step. Funding from the Board of Supervi- sors will make or break this step. Assuming funding is available, creating curriculum that is ef- fective is an even bigger challenge. Curriculum that allows deputies to learn at their own pace sometimes is both more beneficial for learning and potentially more cost effective. Making training meaningful for the responsibilities at hand is also critical, which further requires a more individualized approach. For example, STC training requires that certain topics be covered yearly and by the time those mandatory topics like first aid and CPR training are covered, 70% of the time may already be utilized. There should be a way to pre-test people and let them “test out” of topics they already know. These individuals should be able to move on to other topics. It may be more cost effective to offer incentive payment for classes done through the County’s e- learning system. Finally if the Department truly values education for its staff, then it should cre- ate a culture where learning on one’s own time is considered necessary for promotion. This may entail dealing with potential labor issues. The Department should focus then on making material accessible and high quality. IV. Types of Facilities A. Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) The Commission’s Report focuses primarily on issues that arose at MCJ and extrapolated its findings to the Department as a whole. The Grand Jury visited many of the other facilities and is not sure if the problems of MCJ are necessarily the problems of the system. The Commission Report specifically stated that it would not address the adequacy of the architectural issues at MCJ. Instead it echoes other commissions and reports that call for the demolishing and rebuild- ing of the facility. We raise this issue only to say that in times of limited funding, it may be bet- ter to apply money and require change at those sites as opposed to changing the whole system. B. Other Large Jail Facilities From the Commission Report, it is unclear whether other entities like the Pitchess Ranch facili- ties, which house close to 10,000 inmates, require the same shift in organizational structure and staffing. Given that Dual Track is implemented system-wide, it is still relevant to look at staffing and cultural expectations at other facilities and see if all of the requirements should be imple- mented beyond MCJ. Pitchess Ranch (with its 4 facilities) is essentially its own small city com- plete with several industries and even its own power plant. Much of the housing is dormitory style versus at MCJ where inmates are housed in 2-man and 4-man cells. There are also several businesses on site with multiple workers. On our tour it became evident that it was helpful for the custody officers to learn the communities in these dorm settings. This was especially true in seeing potential issues on the yard during recreation when a few deputies would oversee over 150 inmates at a time. Rotation of officers, which the other sections of the Commission Report recommended, may actually do harm at these facilities. The needs and challenges of Court Facilities also contrast with MCJ. Most of these facilities are run down and as of January 2013, often lacked cameras. The challenge here is the transient population and the danger of smuggling contraband and information between inmates while go- ing back and forth to hearings and the home jail facility. Deputy training would ideally include different modules for these settings. 8 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING
F3:
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
F4:
Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F5:
All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F6:
To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:
F8:
LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Several negative articles in various Los Angeles area newspapers regarding poor response time to 9-1-1 medical emergency calls within the City of Los Angeles prompted this investigation1. A committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that response times in the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) began to increase when its budget was decreased. The Grand Jury believes that the Los Angeles City Council may have relied on inaccurate response time data2 in making its budget reduction decision. The Grand Jury also found that LAFD does not utilize its resources to its best advantage. To be specific, the Grand Jury urges that LAFD’s funding be restored, that its engine companies be reinstated, it incorpo- rate civilian call handlers, use a non-proprietary Emergency Medical Dispatch protocol and up- date technical equipment.
Recomendaciones adicionales
52
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
Most cities have adopted a “Conflict of Interest” code.
R6:
Most cities have adopted an “Investment” policy.
R7:
Most cities published their financial reports or CAFR to their website. RECOMMENDATIONS – GOVERNANCE PRACTICES 2
R8:
All cities maintained an adequate accounting system. Most issued timely financial statements and a CAFR in compliance with standards, and most made the CAFR readily accessible to the general public on their website. RECOMMENDATIONS – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3
R9:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on governance: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Audit Committee
R10:
Does your city have an audit committee that is formally established by enabling resolution or other appropriate legal means? o Yes o No
R11:
Is the audit committee directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, and oversight of the work of independent accountants engaged to perform independent audit, review, or attestation services? o Yes o No
R12:
More information on each of these fiscal health criteria, and the results of the comparison, is contained within the sections following this exhibit. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 98 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Agoura Hills 79 (41.5%) 24 (.3%) 29 3.82 24 7.54 45 0.8% 70 (2.6%) 36 3.5% 16 8.1% 1 285.1% 74 (78.3%) 14 80.3% 9 85.5% Alhambra 12 3.9% 5 6.0% 52 2.48 52 3.77 6 8.1% 34 14.6% 44 1.5% 51 (2.3%) 13 24.3% 47 (5.2%) 67 4.7% 64 0.7% Arcadia 63 (15.3%) 37 (4.2%) 23 4.31 28 6.92 70 (3.5%) 74 (5.7%) 52 0.0% 58 (5.0%) 34 6.1% 42 (3.5%) 50 19.0% 45 20.3% Artesia 52 (8.4%) 70 (17.1%) 67 1.77 39 5.05 44 0.8% 37 8.8% 20 8.3% 54 (3.5%) 11 25.3% 51 (7.1%) 31 44.9% 32 35.0% Azusa 68 (19.8%) NA 0.0% 71 1.69 NA 0.00 73 (4.8%) NA 0.0% 30 4.7% NA 0.0% 3 68.8% NA 0.0% 83 (15.3%) 67 0.0% Baldwin Park 16 2.2% 33 (2.8%) 56 2.28 48 4.48 28 2.4% 15 39.9% 23 7.1% 35 3.8% 64 (9.7%) 49 (5.8%) 56 15.3% 56 8.1% Bell Gardens 33 (2.4%) 46 (7.3%) 41 2.93 25 7.25 72 (4.5%) 10 63.6% 15 10.0% 40 1.7% 36 5.0% 36 (1.9%) 18 73.2% 67 0.0% Bellflower 25 (.8%) 12 4.1% 36 3.29 46 4.64 5 8.2% 31 15.6% 29 4.7% 44 1.0% 41 2.3% 30 1.5% 20 70.0% 15 63.0% Beverly Hills 6 5.7% 3 8.5% 51 2.55 63 2.83 8 6.6% 38 8.2% 11 11.8% 9 11.1% 44 0.4% 11 9.4% 33 43.7% 24 45.5% Bradbury 82 (108.2%) NA 0.0% 2 49.28 NA 0.00 80 (10.1%) NA 0.0% 83 (59.2%) NA 0.0% 76 (23.9%) NA 0.0% 6 187.6% 67 0.0% Burbank 54 (1.5%) 69 (16.6%) 32 3.52 40 4.98 56 (.6%) 40 7.9% 74 (15.0%) 68 (13.0%) 61 (7.0%) 58 (14.2%) 43 31.1% 67 0.0% Calabasas 39 (4.0%) 22 0.2% 35 3.48 57 3.52 15 5.2% 59 (.0%) 33 4.3% 34 3.9% 52 (3.6%) 20 4.5% 13 86.8% 7 94.1% Carson 58 (11.7%) 74 (24.5%) 48 2.65 74 1.96 78 (9.5%) 73 (4.4%) 24 7.1% 18 7.6% 10 29.3% 4 26.0% 51 18.4% 38 26.4% Cerritos 55 (10.1%) 35 (3.2%) 45 2.83 6 39.19 61 (1.0%) 12 51.7% 72 (14.1%) 76 (44.0%) 53 (4.2%) 61 (16.1%) 9 103.1% 11 77.9% Claremont 5 8.5% 9 4.9% 22 4.45 41 4.93 21 3.1% 60 (.2%) 21 8.0% 14 8.7% 17 15.1% 10 14.4% 44 30.9% 34 31.7% Commerce 61 (12.1%) 31 (2.0%) 72 1.69 76 1.61 74 (5.0%) 42 6.6% 45 1.5% 20 6.6% 47 0.1% 19 5.3% 19 71.8% 12 77.1% Covina 66 (17.8%) 63 (13.7%) 49 2.61 53 3.69 76 (5.8%) 76 (8.2%) 42 1.9% 59 (5.0%) 23 9.4% 56 (9.2%) 39 36.3% 35 31.1% Cudahy 84 (170.3%) 58 (12.0%) 82 1.29 14 15.61 84 (72.8%) 1 260.9% 69 (9.8%) 67 (11.9%) 73 (15.6%) 55 (9.2%) 10 103.0% 8 88.5% Culver City 17 2.1% 68 (15.5%) 69 1.73 38 5.08 34 2.0% 7 80.9% 6 16.4% 53 (3.3%) 9 29.4% 39 (2.6%) 24 61.4% 17 58.4% Diamond Bar 76 (32.0%) 76 (65.8%) 4 24.92 8 25.49 63 (1.3%) 64 (1.3%) 82 (55.5%) 71 (24.1%) 78 (31.1%) 66 (19.4%) 25 60.2% 18 56.7% Downey 65 (17.8%) 62 (13.5%) 30 3.76 44 4.74 75 (5.1%) 44 5.7% 70 (10.9%) 62 (8.5%) 66 (9.9%) 60 (14.4%) 57 14.8% 55 8.8% Duarte 31 (1.6%) 19 1.0% 21 4.46 7 34.15 16 5.1% 22 27.0% 1 42.6% 19 6.7% 4 58.3% 21 3.8% 11 97.4% 6 109.0% El Monte 56 (10.4%) 28 (1.3%) 19 4.77 33 5.44 43 1.0% 49 4.1% 56 (1.9%) 56 (4.9%) 33 6.2% 32 0.8% 55 16.9% 48 16.3% El Segundo 35 (3.1%) 61 (13.5%) 16 5.47 47 4.49 65 (1.5%) 72 (3.4%) 60 (4.1%) 60 (7.0%) 51 (3.1%) 67 (19.5%) 62 9.8% 52 14.6% Gardena 8 4.8% 13 4.1% 42 2.89 62 2.91 55 (.4%) 66 (1.9%) 19 8.5% 31 5.2% 29 7.1% 16 7.5% 70 0.7% 66 0.5% Glendale 53 (9.1%) 56 (11.2%) 27 3.90 42 4.89 50 0.1% 62 (1.0%) 73 (14.8%) 70 (16.7%) 19 11.3% 70 (55.6%) 36 38.7% 40 23.3% Glendora 44 (5.6%) 36 (3.9%) 33 3.50 37 5.08 48 0.3% 47 4.7% 28 5.9% 52 (2.6%) 37 4.2% 57 (9.6%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Hawaiian Gardens 32 (2.3%) NA 0.0% 75 1.52 NA 0.00 52 0.0% NA 0.0% 59 (3.5%) NA 0.0% 54 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 7 120.3% 67 0.0% Hawthorne 20 1.4% 16 3.4% 79 1.38 67 2.51 13 5.7% 5 118.4% 10 14.0% 7 11.3% 15 19.4% 71 (59.0%) 41 33.1% 37 28.8% Hermosa Beach 13 3.7% 2 10.7% 12 7.44 31 5.89 39 1.5% 69 (2.4%) 14 10.6% 5 13.6% 18 11.7% 22 3.5% 49 23.2% 41 23.3% Hidden Hills 70 (23.3%) 8 5.6% 10 10.54 16 12.22 40 1.5% 57 0.2% 79 (32.0%) 21 6.5% 65 (9.8%) 25 2.3% 3 207.2% 2 291.9% Huntington Park 40 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 84 0.62 NA 0.00 83 (13.0%) NA 0.0% 39 2.4% NA 0.0% 38 3.5% NA 0.0% 45 30.7% 67 0.0% Industry 60 (12.0%) 51 (9.6%) 66 1.85 72 2.12 14 5.7% 75 (6.2%) 2 30.0% 41 1.4% 30 6.9% 48 (5.3%) 1 607.2% 1 454.7% Inglewood 9 4.7% NA 0.0% 74 1.60 NA 0.00 67 (2.8%) NA 0.0% 57 (2.7%) NA 0.0% 68 (12.5%) NA 0.0% 52 18.3% 67 0.0% Irwindale 7 5.3% 52 (9.8%) 58 2.25 5 40.08 3 8.5% 14 40.3% 37 3.1% 63 (9.1%) 2 143.7% 63 (17.0%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% La Canada Flintridge 3 11.6% 26 (.8%) 50 2.60 65 2.66 10 6.0% 51 1.9% 5 16.6% 11 10.4% 28 7.3% 38 (2.1%) 8 119.3% 5 116.3% La Habra Heights 1 25.4% NA 0.0% 8 11.75 NA 0.00 60 (1.0%) NA 0.0% 49 0.6% NA 0.0% 48 (.6%) NA 0.0% 5 195.2% 67 0.0% La Mirada 27 (1.0%) 29 (1.3%) 65 1.85 17 11.38 2 11.8% 4 128.7% 16 9.6% 2 23.3% 42 2.0% 15 7.6% 17 73.2% 10 85.1% La Puente 50 (7.7%) 45 (7.0%) 59 2.23 64 2.82 38 1.5% 35 10.4% 63 (5.6%) 6 11.4% 50 (2.8%) 72 (59.6%) 28 54.8% 22 50.6% La Verne 11 4.3% 25 (.6%) 15 5.48 27 6.94 27 2.4% 54 1.3% 67 (7.7%) 50 (2.3%) 35 6.0% 6 19.3% 72 0.0% 67 0.0% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 99 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Lakewood 15 2.4% 21 0.7% 11 8.85 11 17.97 24 2.8% 24 24.5% 27 6.2% 29 5.7% 26 7.6% 17 6.7% 68 3.2% 59 6.5% Lancaster 69 (21.8%) 49 (9.2%) 28 3.88 10 18.04 64 (1.4%) 23 25.2% 76 (23.3%) 47 (.9%) 74 (17.0%) 69 (38.6%) 46 30.2% 43 21.5% Lawndale 77 (39.1%) NA 0.0% 44 2.85 NA 0.00 46 0.5% NA 0.0% 81 (36.5%) NA 0.0% 57 (5.6%) NA 0.0% 16 74.9% 67 0.0% Lomita 42 (5.1%) 48 (7.8%) 17 4.99 34 5.33 66 (1.7%) 65 (1.5%) 40 2.1% 33 4.0% 69 (13.0%) 24 2.5% 64 8.5% 60 5.1% Long Beach 26 (.9%) 75 (25.2%) 57 2.25 69 2.39 11 5.9% 53 1.5% 53 (.2%) 38 2.3% 82 (59.1%) 9 15.1% 71 0.2% 62 1.3% Los Angeles 43 (5.3%) 44 (6.6%) 68 1.74 75 1.77 26 2.7% 48 4.5% 25 6.4% 26 6.1% 16 19.1% 12 9.2% 66 6.5% 58 6.7% Lynwood 57 (11.5%) 40 (4.9%) 53 2.47 58 3.42 35 1.8% 63 (1.2%) 64 (5.7%) 48 (1.0%) 75 (21.2%) 59 (14.3%) 53 18.2% 47 18.5% Malibu 73 (29.2%) 55 (11.1%) 38 3.01 61 2.95 49 0.2% 71 (3.3%) 61 (4.2%) 57 (4.9%) 77 (23.9%) 54 (8.7%) 42 31.2% 28 36.2% Manhattan Beach 10 4.3% 17 3.2% 24 4.12 50 4.07 29 2.4% 45 5.3% 32 4.3% 28 5.7% 24 9.1% 33 (.2%) 37 36.7% 29 35.6% Monrovia 78 (40.3%) 53 (10.0%) 80 1.30 66 2.65 81 (10.8%) 3 163.7% 78 (31.8%) 72 (27.2%) 71 (14.0%) 76 (374.5%) 84 (27.1%) 76 (27.7%) Montebello 34 (2.5%) 27 (.9%) 77 1.51 68 2.43 9 6.3% 18 37.5% 77 (25.4%) 74 (31.8%) 83 (174.5%) 2 43.8% 61 10.5% 49 15.9% Monterey Park 36 (3.2%) 50 (9.4%) 70 1.72 60 3.01 25 2.7% 16 39.6% 58 (3.1%) 45 0.6% 55 (4.5%) 7 18.1% 65 8.3% 57 7.8% Norwalk 47 (6.9%) 10 4.6% 60 2.20 32 5.70 53 (.1%) 19 33.6% 4 17.6% 17 7.8% 8 36.0% 65 (19.0%) 48 25.4% 36 29.9% Palmdale 19 1.4% 41 (5.6%) 31 3.73 26 7.13 51 0.1% 32 15.3% 9 14.4% 39 1.8% 12 24.7% 52 (7.1%) 38 36.5% 33 34.6% Palos Verdes Estates 28 (1.0%) 39 (4.8%) 1 50.47 3 44.98 62 (1.1%) 68 (2.4%) 41 2.1% 32 4.9% 22 9.4% 44 (4.7%) 60 10.7% 50 15.7% Paramount 62 (12.5%) 38 (4.7%) 61 2.13 22 9.94 77 (6.3%) 17 39.5% 51 0.2% 42 1.4% 5 42.6% 29 1.6% 30 49.9% 23 49.6% Pasadena 51 (8.3%) 72 (18.0%) 63 2.01 73 2.04 23 3.0% 26 20.7% 22 7.3% 8 11.2% 67 (12.4%) 14 7.7% 78 (.8%) 75 (23.1%) Pico Rivera 64 (17.1%) 59 (12.4%) 54 2.32 54 3.67 20 3.2% 8 80.9% 68 (8.6%) 49 (1.7%) 60 (6.8%) 31 1.2% 59 11.5% 67 0.0% Pomona 48 (7.0%) 57 (11.2%) 78 1.48 71 2.22 57 (.7%) 13 41.0% 48 0.9% 24 6.2% 70 (13.0%) 73 (62.2%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Rancho Palos Verdes 4 10.4% 1 11.8% 7 12.25 4 41.90 22 3.0% 29 16.4% 3 25.5% 1 26.2% 49 (2.4%) 18 5.6% 22 66.7% 14 71.4% Redondo Beach 23 (.0%) 34 (3.0%) 20 4.57 36 5.13 32 2.2% 36 10.0% 34 4.1% 37 2.4% 6 38.0% 37 (1.9%) 72 0.0% 65 0.6% Rolling Hills 80 (45.6%) 66 (14.3%) 3 36.59 2 45.56 82 (12.9%) 52 1.5% 38 2.6% 69 (16.0%) 39 3.1% 50 (6.4%) 4 206.8% 3 177.0% Rolling Hills Estates 30 (1.6%) 11 4.5% 9 10.57 19 10.72 31 2.4% 39 8.1% 65 (7.3%) 22 6.3% 72 (15.1%) 8 17.0% 47 28.5% 30 35.2% Rosemead 71 (26.4%) 71 (17.3%) 64 1.98 15 15.41 4 8.4% 11 56.2% 66 (7.6%) 46 0.4% 63 (9.6%) 41 (3.3%) 26 57.6% 20 56.0% San Dimas 75 (30.5%) 6 5.9% 25 4.11 20 10.30 33 2.1% 20 33.2% 46 1.3% 36 2.5% 43 1.6% 35 (.9%) 27 55.2% 19 56.1% San Fernando 49 (7.5%) 30 (1.6%) 39 2.98 43 4.81 58 (.7%) 50 3.0% 80 (32.0%) 73 (30.0%) 84 (704.9%) 75 (99.7%) 81 (4.4%) 74 (10.0%) San Gabriel 45 (5.8%) 47 (7.7%) 18 4.81 45 4.70 69 (3.4%) 67 (2.2%) 75 (22.2%) 75 (33.4%) 46 0.2% 68 (25.9%) 79 (2.1%) 61 3.5% San Marino 72 (27.2%) 67 (15.0%) 5 15.44 9 21.50 47 0.4% 58 0.2% 18 9.1% 15 8.7% 62 (8.9%) 64 (18.1%) 15 79.8% 13 72.6% Santa Clarita 67 (19.7%) 32 (2.4%) 14 6.22 21 10.14 36 1.7% 43 6.1% 7 15.5% 61 (8.0%) 25 7.6% 62 (16.4%) 21 69.7% 16 58.4% Santa Fe Springs 24 (.7%) 73 (19.0%) 73 1.66 29 6.27 19 3.7% 9 72.8% 71 (11.4%) 65 (11.4%) 31 6.7% 5 25.4% 40 35.4% 25 43.1% Santa Monica 46 (6.7%) 42 (5.9%) 26 3.98 35 5.28 30 2.4% 30 16.3% 55 (1.7%) 3 23.2% 7 37.0% 3 41.0% 34 40.0% 31 35.1% Sierra Madre 37 (3.3%) 64 (13.7%) 6 12.97 12 16.57 59 (.8%) 61 (.4%) 12 11.3% 10 10.5% 27 7.5% 53 (7.4%) 23 65.2% 54 12.2% Signal Hill 81 (64.0%) 65 (14.2%) 76 1.52 18 11.31 41 1.3% 6 101.5% 31 4.5% 25 6.1% 20 9.8% 23 2.5% 35 39.1% 27 41.7% South El Monte 21 0.2% 15 3.5% 83 1.13 23 9.38 1 100.0% 2 237.1% 50 0.4% 12 9.6% 80 (51.7%) 1 59.7% 69 2.0% 53 13.2% South Gate 14 2.4% 14 3.6% 47 2.68 56 3.56 7 6.8% 33 14.6% 54 (1.0%) 43 1.2% 32 6.5% 26 2.0% 58 13.2% 46 19.5% South Pasadena 38 (3.9%) 4 7.7% 55 2.31 70 2.32 17 4.0% 55 0.9% 13 11.2% 30 5.5% 14 20.8% 13 9.0% 29 53.9% 21 55.6% Temple City 2 12.0% 18 2.2% 13 7.19 13 16.34 12 5.7% 41 7.7% 26 6.3% 27 5.8% 40 2.5% 45 (5.0%) 2 236.1% 42 22.5% Torrance 18 2.0% 7 5.8% 43 2.88 55 3.66 42 1.2% 27 18.6% 43 1.9% 23 6.2% 58 (6.0%) 27 1.9% 63 9.7% 44 21.4% Vernon 83 (110.4%) 77 (83.9%) 81 1.29 77 1.14 79 (9.7%) 77 (51.4%) 84 (100.3%) 77 (108.1%) 81 (58.5%) 77 (455.0%) 82 (8.2%) 77 (47.4%) Walnut 74 (29.3%) 23 (.0%) 34 3.49 1 48.92 54 (.2%) 21 31.7% 35 3.5% 64 (10.3%) 79 (31.7%) 46 (5.2%) 72 0.0% 63 0.7% West Covina 29 (1.2%) 43 (6.3%) 62 2.07 51 4.00 71 (3.9%) 25 21.8% 62 (5.5%) 66 (11.7%) 59 (6.2%) 40 (2.9%) 54 17.0% 39 24.4% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 100 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent West Hollywood 59 (11.8%) 20 1.0% 46 2.78 49 4.23 18 3.9% 46 5.0% 8 14.7% 4 17.4% 21 9.6% 28 1.7% 80 (2.2%) 51 15.6% Westlake Village 41 (4.6%) 54 (10.9%) 37 3.13 59 3.16 68 (3.3%) 56 0.3% 47 1.2% 13 9.4% 56 (5.4%) 34 (.9%) 12 92.7% 4 139.3% Whittier 22 (.0%) 60 (12.6%) 40 2.94 30 6.23 37 1.5% 28 18.2% 17 9.3% 55 (4.3%) 45 0.2% 43 (4.4%) 32 43.7% 26 42.0% Average - All Cities (12.5%) (6.2%) 5.45 8.92 0.8% 24.0% (1.7%) (1.5%) (3.8%) (14.5%) 51.4% 38.3% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 101 CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 102 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Net Revenue Percent – All Funds Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all revenues remaining after all city expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net revenues and percentage would be negative. The net revenue percent is calculated by dividing net revenues by total revenues. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following Exhibit shows, only 21 of the 84 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2010-11 than revenue received. The remaining 61 cities spent more than they received in revenue. Both the cities of Vernon and Bradbury spent more than twice what was received in revenues. On average, cities expended 12.5% more than they received in revenue during FY 2010-11. The exhibit also shows that only 22 of the 77 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2011-12 than revenue received. The remaining 55 cities spent more than they received in revenue. The City of Vernon spent nearly 84% more than it received in revenue. On average, cities expended 6.2% more than they received in revenue during FY 2011-
R13:
Please provide a copy of the action formally establishing the audit committee.
R14:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit committees: Audit Procurement
R15:
Do your city’s audit contracts require auditors of financial statements conform with the independence standard defined in the General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards? o Yes o No
R16:
In selecting independent auditors does your city undertake a full-scale competitive process at the end of the term of each audit contract? o Yes o No
R17:
Years with City 18. Audit Contract Term Current Auditor Agoura Hills 3 3 + 2 one year renewals Alhambra 7 5 Arcadia 2 4 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 144 Exhibit 11: Responses to Questions on Independent Auditor Contract Term
R18:
How long is the term of your current independent audit contract? __________Years
R19:
Does your city have a formal policy requiring that the independent auditor be replaced at the end of the audit contract? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
R20:
Does your city allow the independent auditor to provide nonaudit services to the city? o Yes o No
R21:
If yes, does the Audit Committee review and approve these services? o Yes o No
R22:
Please provide a copy of the formal policies related to audit procurement.
R23:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit procurement: Accounting Policies and Procedures
R24:
Are accounting policies and procedures formally documented in an accounting policies and procedures manual? o Yes o No
R25:
Are accounting policies and procedures reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years on a predetermined schedule? o Yes o No
R26:
Do the accounting policies and procedures specifically define the authority and responsibility of all employees, including the authority to authorize transactions and the responsibility for safekeeping of assets and records? o Yes o No
R27:
Please provide a copy of the accounting policies and procedures manual.
R28:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding accounting policies and procedures: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Reporting of Fraud, Abuse, and Questionable Practices
R29:
Does your city have policies and procedures to encourage and facilitate the reporting of fraud or abuse (whistleblowers) and questionable accounting or auditing practices? o Yes o No
R30:
Does your city have a formally adopted and widely distributed and publicized ethics policy? o Yes o No
R31:
Does your city have a practical mechanism, such as a fraud hot line, to permit the confidential, anonymous reporting of concerns about fraud, abuse, or questionable practices? o Yes o No
R32:
Are concerns received regarding fraud, abuse, or questionable practices reviewed by internal auditors, with documentation reviewed by the Audit Committee. o Yes o No
R33:
Please provide a copy of the ethics policy and information on mechanisms for reporting concerns of fraud, abuse, or questionable practices.
R34:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding reporting of fraud, abuse, and questionable practices: Internal Controls
R35:
Are internal control procedures over financial management formally documented? o Yes o No
R36:
Do internal control procedures include practical means for lower level employees to report instances of management override of controls? o Yes o No
R37:
Are internal control procedures evaluated to determine if those controls are adequately designed to achieve their intended purpose, have actually been implemented, and continue to function as designed? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
R38:
Are potential internal control weaknesses documented in exception reports? o Yes o No
R39:
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
R40:
Please provide a copy of the internal control procedures over financial management.
R41:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal controls: Internal Audit
R42:
Does your city have an internal audit function formally established by enabling resolution or other legal means? o Yes o No
R43:
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
R44:
Are all reports of the Internal Audit function provided to or available to the Audit Committee? o Yes o No
R45:
Please provide a copy of the formal action establishing the internal audit function.
R46:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal audit: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT General Fund Unrestricted Fund Balance
R47:
Does your city have a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund? o Yes o No
R48:
Does this policy require an unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures? o Yes o No
R49:
Please provide a copy of the formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund.
R50:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on general fund unrestricted fund balance: Financial and Public Reporting Practices
R51:
Does your city maintain an accounting system adequate to provide all the data needed for the timely preparation of financial statement in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)? o Yes o No
R52:
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
R53:
Has your city’s financial statements been independently audited in accordance with either generally accepted auditing standards (GAAP) or Government Auditing Standards (GAS)? o Yes o No
R54:
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
R55:
Are city financial management staff members of and participate in the Government Finance Officers Association ? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
R56:
Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on financial and public reporting practices: Please provide the contact information for the individual with primary responsibility for completing this survey: Name: ___________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________ PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
All 9-1-1 calls go to the primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), which is the local police agency (per state regulations), with the fire department being secondary. The primary PSAP must transfer a fire/medical call to the secondary PSAP within thirty seconds (per NFPA guidelines). The primary dispatcher remains on the line to ensure that the call is transferred and that no police involvement is required.
F2:
Language can be a major factor as there are up to one hundred different languages or dialects spoken in LA County. According to all four fire agencies, an interpreter may have to be brought on the line to assist.
F3:
Cell phones, unlike hard-wired home or business phones, do not give an exact address, which is a critical piece of information needed before dispatching a unit. Newer cell phones, equipped with GPS, can now be triangulated to give an approximate location. In the past all cell phone calls went to the California Highway Patrol (CHP); now with more modern tech- nology, 9-1-1 calls go to the nearest 9-1-1 call center. The CHP should still receive calls if the caller is on a freeway, in close proximity to a freeway or the cell phone, for whatever reason, cannot be accurately triangulated.
F4:
The caller’s state of mind, possibly being in a state of hysteria, could hamper getting needed information. The human factor always plays a part, even something as simple as the caller being unsure as to his whereabouts or being able to give an accurate description of the situation.
F5:
A principal factor that produces poor response time is the on-going problem of budget cuts.5 Geography can also affect response time. Calls from hilly communities with narrow roads make it difficult for fire equipment to maneuver. If a caller lives in a relatively isolated loca- tion, response time is certain to be greater. 5 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/04/local/la-me-1205-lafd-chief-20121205 66 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG FINDINGS continued Funding: Of the above factors, the most crucial and the most obvious impediment to adequate response times is the budget issue. Once funding of the LAFD was reduced, based in part on faulty or outdated data, response times began to rise. Additionally, thirteen ambulances were idled. It is a given that fewer resources would lead directly to increased response time. The Grand Jury strongly recommends that previous LAFD budget cuts be fully restored. The Grand Jury recognizes that the LAFD is currently planning a different, yet controversial solution. Civilian Call Handlers: The Grand Jury was impressed with the use by other large agencies in Los Angeles County of civilians to handle incoming 9-1-1 calls. LAFD has for many years used sworn firefighter personnel for such duty. The Grand Jury recommends that this change. Fire- fighters should be fighting fires and responding to medical emergencies, not answering phone calls. Moreover, the skill set needed to obtain information from a 9-1-1 caller is not the same skill set as fighting a fire or giving emergency care. The Grand Jury believes it is a better practice to have trained civilians perform call handling functions. This would eliminate the need to rotate firefighters into the Dispatch Center. Further, call handlers should be given a dispatch protocol to follow so that the necessary information is gathered, but that protocol should not be a handicap. Dispatch call handlers should have flexibility in dealing with callers and should not be subject to discipline for deviating from a dispatch protocol. Technology: Improvements are needed in the technology used by the LAFD. These are mentioned in detail by the Task Force that the LAFD commissioned in June of 2012. The Grand Jury learned from several fire officials that the Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) is thirty years old. Hardware and software must be brought up to current technology levels. This technology could include software like Smart911. The Smart911 system is designed to create a safety profile for the household, such as medical conditions, mobility, etc. This profile would appear on the call handler’s screen, which could expedite response time by avoiding the need to ask certain questions. Response Time Reports: Reports should be easy to read and understand. The Grand Jury was given response times reports in various formats, some of which were confusing. The Grand Jury believes the general public would benefit by having these response times presented in a simplified form, similar to the above chart. Los Angeles Times dated April 17, 2013 LAFD to shift staff to medical calls 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 67 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG Analysis: Notwithstanding the above criticisms and concerns, the area fire departments are doing the job that is expected. Response times, though, can sometimes be a factor in the difference between life and death. There have been cases where a person has died while waiting for the medical personnel to arrive.7 With more funding, idle ambulances can be put back into service and there can be an upgrade of technical equipment with a consequent reduction in response times. The Grand Jury acknowledges with great appreciation the dedication and commitment of all emergency responders in Los Angeles County and hopes that responses to this report will result in an enhancement of their service to all members of our community.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Training of all Custody Personnel As stated before, the Sheriff proposes no significant changes to Academy training.8 This makes sense for many reasons. One, the Academy trains officers for other law enforcement agencies with no Custody responsibility. Further, most of the positions in the Sheriff’s Department are non- custody related. The Sheriff’s Department views the role of the Academy as providing more of a foundation with the probation period being one where the specifics of the job are learned while on the job. Finally, creating a separate Academy will degrade the perception of Custody deputies and Patrol deputies that they are one force. The Grand Jury supports the position of the Sheriff’s Department and does not believe a separate Academy experience needs to happen. That said, more should be and will be done under the Sheriff’s Plan. The Department will in- crease the amount of specific training post Academy from two to four weeks. Those additional two weeks will consist of a “Jail Operation Continuum.” Further, the amount of time spent as- sessing and evaluating deputies will increase from 12 to 16 weeks.
F2:
Training of Leadership 7 Sheriff’s Plan, p6 8 Sheriff’s Plan p3 6 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Those at the sergeant level and above will continue to receive 24 hours of training over three days. This training has a largely administrative focus specific to the particular facility. The only additional training being proposed is eight hours of training that would revisit the topics proposed in the “Jail Operations Continuum”. These eight hours would most likely be given in two hour chunks of intense format training. The timing is meant to avoid backfilling a position.9 This may not be enough or the right emphasis. First of all, as conveyed to the Grand Jury and also found running through the Commission’s Report were issues of failure of leadership-- specifically as it relates to mentoring, managing, conveying expectation and communication. Running a jail, especially some of the larger facilities, is a complex operation that involves sev- eral skill sets and contingencies. A career as a deputy may provide the necessary education in jail operations but not necessarily in management. Too much seems to rest on the individual’s intuition when a little training coupled with that common sense could go a long way. Much of the focus on leadership training has been on forms and required paperwork. If a ser- geant is not provided any additional training in areas such as staff assessment, evaluation, men- toring or effective leadership, what will an additional four weeks of assessment time of deputies add? Training should be viewed broadly as not just conveying information but conveying expec- tation. Especially now that sergeants will have to command the respect and train both deputies staying in Custody and those going on Patrol, it is more imperative than ever that they have the tools to stress and continuously emphasize the Nobility Policing and Constitutional Jailing that are stated values of the Department. The idea of providing training in two hour portions is a smart one that will allow a position not to have to be backfilled but the Department, for both cost and for other practical reasons needs to be focused on other methods of teaching these key skills. It may, for example need to award merit points that are necessary for promotion to those deputies and those in leadership who seek out educational opportunities on their own time. The Department is starting and needs to devote more efforts to utilizing on line resources so that individual topics can be learned over a few days. C. Custody Division Training Bureau The Sheriff’s Department is proposing a whole new infrastructure called the Custody Division Training Bureau to focus specifically on training that currently assumes staffing with close to 80- 100 officers of all ranks.10 We appreciate the greater focus on training. Particularly, we applaud the fact that the eight large facilities will have staff exclusively focused on training. The remain- der of the staff being proposed will take a more centralized approach with some focused specifi- cally on violence related issues and others will focus on the already mandated STC (Standards and Training for Correctional Officers) training which is required annually by the state. Information provided by interviews with Sheriff’s Department personnel 10 Interview with key Sheriff Department personnel, report of Implementation Monitor to Board of Supervisors, Feb- ruary 12, 2013 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 7 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Coming up with the proposed structure is just the first step. Funding from the Board of Supervi- sors will make or break this step. Assuming funding is available, creating curriculum that is ef- fective is an even bigger challenge. Curriculum that allows deputies to learn at their own pace sometimes is both more beneficial for learning and potentially more cost effective. Making training meaningful for the responsibilities at hand is also critical, which further requires a more individualized approach. For example, STC training requires that certain topics be covered yearly and by the time those mandatory topics like first aid and CPR training are covered, 70% of the time may already be utilized. There should be a way to pre-test people and let them “test out” of topics they already know. These individuals should be able to move on to other topics. It may be more cost effective to offer incentive payment for classes done through the County’s e- learning system. Finally if the Department truly values education for its staff, then it should cre- ate a culture where learning on one’s own time is considered necessary for promotion. This may entail dealing with potential labor issues. The Department should focus then on making material accessible and high quality. IV. Types of Facilities A. Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) The Commission’s Report focuses primarily on issues that arose at MCJ and extrapolated its findings to the Department as a whole. The Grand Jury visited many of the other facilities and is not sure if the problems of MCJ are necessarily the problems of the system. The Commission Report specifically stated that it would not address the adequacy of the architectural issues at MCJ. Instead it echoes other commissions and reports that call for the demolishing and rebuild- ing of the facility. We raise this issue only to say that in times of limited funding, it may be bet- ter to apply money and require change at those sites as opposed to changing the whole system. B. Other Large Jail Facilities From the Commission Report, it is unclear whether other entities like the Pitchess Ranch facili- ties, which house close to 10,000 inmates, require the same shift in organizational structure and staffing. Given that Dual Track is implemented system-wide, it is still relevant to look at staffing and cultural expectations at other facilities and see if all of the requirements should be imple- mented beyond MCJ. Pitchess Ranch (with its 4 facilities) is essentially its own small city com- plete with several industries and even its own power plant. Much of the housing is dormitory style versus at MCJ where inmates are housed in 2-man and 4-man cells. There are also several businesses on site with multiple workers. On our tour it became evident that it was helpful for the custody officers to learn the communities in these dorm settings. This was especially true in seeing potential issues on the yard during recreation when a few deputies would oversee over 150 inmates at a time. Rotation of officers, which the other sections of the Commission Report recommended, may actually do harm at these facilities. The needs and challenges of Court Facilities also contrast with MCJ. Most of these facilities are run down and as of January 2013, often lacked cameras. The challenge here is the transient population and the danger of smuggling contraband and information between inmates while go- ing back and forth to hearings and the home jail facility. Deputy training would ideally include different modules for these settings. 8 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING
F3:
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
F4:
Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F5:
All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F6:
To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:
F8:
LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Several negative articles in various Los Angeles area newspapers regarding poor response time to 9-1-1 medical emergency calls within the City of Los Angeles prompted this investigation1. A committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that response times in the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) began to increase when its budget was decreased. The Grand Jury believes that the Los Angeles City Council may have relied on inaccurate response time data2 in making its budget reduction decision. The Grand Jury also found that LAFD does not utilize its resources to its best advantage. To be specific, the Grand Jury urges that LAFD’s funding be restored, that its engine companies be reinstated, it incorpo- rate civilian call handlers, use a non-proprietary Emergency Medical Dispatch protocol and up- date technical equipment.
Recomendaciones adicionales
8
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.
R2:
The City of Glendale hold a special election and obtain the authorization by two thirds of those voting approving the utility rates charged by Glendale Water & Power and the transfer of funds from Glendale Water & Power to the City’s general fund.
R3:
The City of Glendale consider alternate sources of revenue if it is unable or unwilling to obtain the requisite authorization of the City’s voters as suggested in 2 above.
R4:
All cities should adopt a method and practice of saving into a reserve or “rainy day” fund to supplement operating revenue in years of short fall. See Exhibit 12 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 130 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES The current fiscal health of cities is largely due to the economic downturn that began in 2008 and continues. However, the overall governance and management practices of each city contributed to how well each city was prepared for this downturn, and how effectively each has responded. The following sections of this report present information on best practices for local governments in the areas of governance and financial management. Current practices by the cities are compared to these best practices and recommendations made for improvements. These best practices and recommendations should be useful to the cities in addressing their current financial challenges, and preparing for the future. The Grand Jury identified best practices for local governments in the areas of governance and financial management to be used as a basis for comparison with the practice of cities. A questionnaire was developed and administered to identify the current practice of cities in each of these areas. As part of this questionnaire cities were requested to provide specific documentation in each of these areas and to provide comments or explanations regarding their responses and policies. In the following sections, the Grand Jury provides information on the best practices identified, and compares the current practices of cities with these best practices. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in
R5:
Most cities have adopted a “Conflict of Interest” code.
R6:
Most cities have adopted an “Investment” policy.
R8:
All cities maintained an adequate accounting system. Most issued timely financial statements and a CAFR in compliance with standards, and most made the CAFR readily accessible to the general public on their website. RECOMMENDATIONS – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3
R12:
More information on each of these fiscal health criteria, and the results of the comparison, is contained within the sections following this exhibit. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 98 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Agoura Hills 79 (41.5%) 24 (.3%) 29 3.82 24 7.54 45 0.8% 70 (2.6%) 36 3.5% 16 8.1% 1 285.1% 74 (78.3%) 14 80.3% 9 85.5% Alhambra 12 3.9% 5 6.0% 52 2.48 52 3.77 6 8.1% 34 14.6% 44 1.5% 51 (2.3%) 13 24.3% 47 (5.2%) 67 4.7% 64 0.7% Arcadia 63 (15.3%) 37 (4.2%) 23 4.31 28 6.92 70 (3.5%) 74 (5.7%) 52 0.0% 58 (5.0%) 34 6.1% 42 (3.5%) 50 19.0% 45 20.3% Artesia 52 (8.4%) 70 (17.1%) 67 1.77 39 5.05 44 0.8% 37 8.8% 20 8.3% 54 (3.5%) 11 25.3% 51 (7.1%) 31 44.9% 32 35.0% Azusa 68 (19.8%) NA 0.0% 71 1.69 NA 0.00 73 (4.8%) NA 0.0% 30 4.7% NA 0.0% 3 68.8% NA 0.0% 83 (15.3%) 67 0.0% Baldwin Park 16 2.2% 33 (2.8%) 56 2.28 48 4.48 28 2.4% 15 39.9% 23 7.1% 35 3.8% 64 (9.7%) 49 (5.8%) 56 15.3% 56 8.1% Bell Gardens 33 (2.4%) 46 (7.3%) 41 2.93 25 7.25 72 (4.5%) 10 63.6% 15 10.0% 40 1.7% 36 5.0% 36 (1.9%) 18 73.2% 67 0.0% Bellflower 25 (.8%) 12 4.1% 36 3.29 46 4.64 5 8.2% 31 15.6% 29 4.7% 44 1.0% 41 2.3% 30 1.5% 20 70.0% 15 63.0% Beverly Hills 6 5.7% 3 8.5% 51 2.55 63 2.83 8 6.6% 38 8.2% 11 11.8% 9 11.1% 44 0.4% 11 9.4% 33 43.7% 24 45.5% Bradbury 82 (108.2%) NA 0.0% 2 49.28 NA 0.00 80 (10.1%) NA 0.0% 83 (59.2%) NA 0.0% 76 (23.9%) NA 0.0% 6 187.6% 67 0.0% Burbank 54 (1.5%) 69 (16.6%) 32 3.52 40 4.98 56 (.6%) 40 7.9% 74 (15.0%) 68 (13.0%) 61 (7.0%) 58 (14.2%) 43 31.1% 67 0.0% Calabasas 39 (4.0%) 22 0.2% 35 3.48 57 3.52 15 5.2% 59 (.0%) 33 4.3% 34 3.9% 52 (3.6%) 20 4.5% 13 86.8% 7 94.1% Carson 58 (11.7%) 74 (24.5%) 48 2.65 74 1.96 78 (9.5%) 73 (4.4%) 24 7.1% 18 7.6% 10 29.3% 4 26.0% 51 18.4% 38 26.4% Cerritos 55 (10.1%) 35 (3.2%) 45 2.83 6 39.19 61 (1.0%) 12 51.7% 72 (14.1%) 76 (44.0%) 53 (4.2%) 61 (16.1%) 9 103.1% 11 77.9% Claremont 5 8.5% 9 4.9% 22 4.45 41 4.93 21 3.1% 60 (.2%) 21 8.0% 14 8.7% 17 15.1% 10 14.4% 44 30.9% 34 31.7% Commerce 61 (12.1%) 31 (2.0%) 72 1.69 76 1.61 74 (5.0%) 42 6.6% 45 1.5% 20 6.6% 47 0.1% 19 5.3% 19 71.8% 12 77.1% Covina 66 (17.8%) 63 (13.7%) 49 2.61 53 3.69 76 (5.8%) 76 (8.2%) 42 1.9% 59 (5.0%) 23 9.4% 56 (9.2%) 39 36.3% 35 31.1% Cudahy 84 (170.3%) 58 (12.0%) 82 1.29 14 15.61 84 (72.8%) 1 260.9% 69 (9.8%) 67 (11.9%) 73 (15.6%) 55 (9.2%) 10 103.0% 8 88.5% Culver City 17 2.1% 68 (15.5%) 69 1.73 38 5.08 34 2.0% 7 80.9% 6 16.4% 53 (3.3%) 9 29.4% 39 (2.6%) 24 61.4% 17 58.4% Diamond Bar 76 (32.0%) 76 (65.8%) 4 24.92 8 25.49 63 (1.3%) 64 (1.3%) 82 (55.5%) 71 (24.1%) 78 (31.1%) 66 (19.4%) 25 60.2% 18 56.7% Downey 65 (17.8%) 62 (13.5%) 30 3.76 44 4.74 75 (5.1%) 44 5.7% 70 (10.9%) 62 (8.5%) 66 (9.9%) 60 (14.4%) 57 14.8% 55 8.8% Duarte 31 (1.6%) 19 1.0% 21 4.46 7 34.15 16 5.1% 22 27.0% 1 42.6% 19 6.7% 4 58.3% 21 3.8% 11 97.4% 6 109.0% El Monte 56 (10.4%) 28 (1.3%) 19 4.77 33 5.44 43 1.0% 49 4.1% 56 (1.9%) 56 (4.9%) 33 6.2% 32 0.8% 55 16.9% 48 16.3% El Segundo 35 (3.1%) 61 (13.5%) 16 5.47 47 4.49 65 (1.5%) 72 (3.4%) 60 (4.1%) 60 (7.0%) 51 (3.1%) 67 (19.5%) 62 9.8% 52 14.6% Gardena 8 4.8% 13 4.1% 42 2.89 62 2.91 55 (.4%) 66 (1.9%) 19 8.5% 31 5.2% 29 7.1% 16 7.5% 70 0.7% 66 0.5% Glendale 53 (9.1%) 56 (11.2%) 27 3.90 42 4.89 50 0.1% 62 (1.0%) 73 (14.8%) 70 (16.7%) 19 11.3% 70 (55.6%) 36 38.7% 40 23.3% Glendora 44 (5.6%) 36 (3.9%) 33 3.50 37 5.08 48 0.3% 47 4.7% 28 5.9% 52 (2.6%) 37 4.2% 57 (9.6%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Hawaiian Gardens 32 (2.3%) NA 0.0% 75 1.52 NA 0.00 52 0.0% NA 0.0% 59 (3.5%) NA 0.0% 54 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 7 120.3% 67 0.0% Hawthorne 20 1.4% 16 3.4% 79 1.38 67 2.51 13 5.7% 5 118.4% 10 14.0% 7 11.3% 15 19.4% 71 (59.0%) 41 33.1% 37 28.8% Hermosa Beach 13 3.7% 2 10.7% 12 7.44 31 5.89 39 1.5% 69 (2.4%) 14 10.6% 5 13.6% 18 11.7% 22 3.5% 49 23.2% 41 23.3% Hidden Hills 70 (23.3%) 8 5.6% 10 10.54 16 12.22 40 1.5% 57 0.2% 79 (32.0%) 21 6.5% 65 (9.8%) 25 2.3% 3 207.2% 2 291.9% Huntington Park 40 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 84 0.62 NA 0.00 83 (13.0%) NA 0.0% 39 2.4% NA 0.0% 38 3.5% NA 0.0% 45 30.7% 67 0.0% Industry 60 (12.0%) 51 (9.6%) 66 1.85 72 2.12 14 5.7% 75 (6.2%) 2 30.0% 41 1.4% 30 6.9% 48 (5.3%) 1 607.2% 1 454.7% Inglewood 9 4.7% NA 0.0% 74 1.60 NA 0.00 67 (2.8%) NA 0.0% 57 (2.7%) NA 0.0% 68 (12.5%) NA 0.0% 52 18.3% 67 0.0% Irwindale 7 5.3% 52 (9.8%) 58 2.25 5 40.08 3 8.5% 14 40.3% 37 3.1% 63 (9.1%) 2 143.7% 63 (17.0%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% La Canada Flintridge 3 11.6% 26 (.8%) 50 2.60 65 2.66 10 6.0% 51 1.9% 5 16.6% 11 10.4% 28 7.3% 38 (2.1%) 8 119.3% 5 116.3% La Habra Heights 1 25.4% NA 0.0% 8 11.75 NA 0.00 60 (1.0%) NA 0.0% 49 0.6% NA 0.0% 48 (.6%) NA 0.0% 5 195.2% 67 0.0% La Mirada 27 (1.0%) 29 (1.3%) 65 1.85 17 11.38 2 11.8% 4 128.7% 16 9.6% 2 23.3% 42 2.0% 15 7.6% 17 73.2% 10 85.1% La Puente 50 (7.7%) 45 (7.0%) 59 2.23 64 2.82 38 1.5% 35 10.4% 63 (5.6%) 6 11.4% 50 (2.8%) 72 (59.6%) 28 54.8% 22 50.6% La Verne 11 4.3% 25 (.6%) 15 5.48 27 6.94 27 2.4% 54 1.3% 67 (7.7%) 50 (2.3%) 35 6.0% 6 19.3% 72 0.0% 67 0.0% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 99 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Lakewood 15 2.4% 21 0.7% 11 8.85 11 17.97 24 2.8% 24 24.5% 27 6.2% 29 5.7% 26 7.6% 17 6.7% 68 3.2% 59 6.5% Lancaster 69 (21.8%) 49 (9.2%) 28 3.88 10 18.04 64 (1.4%) 23 25.2% 76 (23.3%) 47 (.9%) 74 (17.0%) 69 (38.6%) 46 30.2% 43 21.5% Lawndale 77 (39.1%) NA 0.0% 44 2.85 NA 0.00 46 0.5% NA 0.0% 81 (36.5%) NA 0.0% 57 (5.6%) NA 0.0% 16 74.9% 67 0.0% Lomita 42 (5.1%) 48 (7.8%) 17 4.99 34 5.33 66 (1.7%) 65 (1.5%) 40 2.1% 33 4.0% 69 (13.0%) 24 2.5% 64 8.5% 60 5.1% Long Beach 26 (.9%) 75 (25.2%) 57 2.25 69 2.39 11 5.9% 53 1.5% 53 (.2%) 38 2.3% 82 (59.1%) 9 15.1% 71 0.2% 62 1.3% Los Angeles 43 (5.3%) 44 (6.6%) 68 1.74 75 1.77 26 2.7% 48 4.5% 25 6.4% 26 6.1% 16 19.1% 12 9.2% 66 6.5% 58 6.7% Lynwood 57 (11.5%) 40 (4.9%) 53 2.47 58 3.42 35 1.8% 63 (1.2%) 64 (5.7%) 48 (1.0%) 75 (21.2%) 59 (14.3%) 53 18.2% 47 18.5% Malibu 73 (29.2%) 55 (11.1%) 38 3.01 61 2.95 49 0.2% 71 (3.3%) 61 (4.2%) 57 (4.9%) 77 (23.9%) 54 (8.7%) 42 31.2% 28 36.2% Manhattan Beach 10 4.3% 17 3.2% 24 4.12 50 4.07 29 2.4% 45 5.3% 32 4.3% 28 5.7% 24 9.1% 33 (.2%) 37 36.7% 29 35.6% Monrovia 78 (40.3%) 53 (10.0%) 80 1.30 66 2.65 81 (10.8%) 3 163.7% 78 (31.8%) 72 (27.2%) 71 (14.0%) 76 (374.5%) 84 (27.1%) 76 (27.7%) Montebello 34 (2.5%) 27 (.9%) 77 1.51 68 2.43 9 6.3% 18 37.5% 77 (25.4%) 74 (31.8%) 83 (174.5%) 2 43.8% 61 10.5% 49 15.9% Monterey Park 36 (3.2%) 50 (9.4%) 70 1.72 60 3.01 25 2.7% 16 39.6% 58 (3.1%) 45 0.6% 55 (4.5%) 7 18.1% 65 8.3% 57 7.8% Norwalk 47 (6.9%) 10 4.6% 60 2.20 32 5.70 53 (.1%) 19 33.6% 4 17.6% 17 7.8% 8 36.0% 65 (19.0%) 48 25.4% 36 29.9% Palmdale 19 1.4% 41 (5.6%) 31 3.73 26 7.13 51 0.1% 32 15.3% 9 14.4% 39 1.8% 12 24.7% 52 (7.1%) 38 36.5% 33 34.6% Palos Verdes Estates 28 (1.0%) 39 (4.8%) 1 50.47 3 44.98 62 (1.1%) 68 (2.4%) 41 2.1% 32 4.9% 22 9.4% 44 (4.7%) 60 10.7% 50 15.7% Paramount 62 (12.5%) 38 (4.7%) 61 2.13 22 9.94 77 (6.3%) 17 39.5% 51 0.2% 42 1.4% 5 42.6% 29 1.6% 30 49.9% 23 49.6% Pasadena 51 (8.3%) 72 (18.0%) 63 2.01 73 2.04 23 3.0% 26 20.7% 22 7.3% 8 11.2% 67 (12.4%) 14 7.7% 78 (.8%) 75 (23.1%) Pico Rivera 64 (17.1%) 59 (12.4%) 54 2.32 54 3.67 20 3.2% 8 80.9% 68 (8.6%) 49 (1.7%) 60 (6.8%) 31 1.2% 59 11.5% 67 0.0% Pomona 48 (7.0%) 57 (11.2%) 78 1.48 71 2.22 57 (.7%) 13 41.0% 48 0.9% 24 6.2% 70 (13.0%) 73 (62.2%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Rancho Palos Verdes 4 10.4% 1 11.8% 7 12.25 4 41.90 22 3.0% 29 16.4% 3 25.5% 1 26.2% 49 (2.4%) 18 5.6% 22 66.7% 14 71.4% Redondo Beach 23 (.0%) 34 (3.0%) 20 4.57 36 5.13 32 2.2% 36 10.0% 34 4.1% 37 2.4% 6 38.0% 37 (1.9%) 72 0.0% 65 0.6% Rolling Hills 80 (45.6%) 66 (14.3%) 3 36.59 2 45.56 82 (12.9%) 52 1.5% 38 2.6% 69 (16.0%) 39 3.1% 50 (6.4%) 4 206.8% 3 177.0% Rolling Hills Estates 30 (1.6%) 11 4.5% 9 10.57 19 10.72 31 2.4% 39 8.1% 65 (7.3%) 22 6.3% 72 (15.1%) 8 17.0% 47 28.5% 30 35.2% Rosemead 71 (26.4%) 71 (17.3%) 64 1.98 15 15.41 4 8.4% 11 56.2% 66 (7.6%) 46 0.4% 63 (9.6%) 41 (3.3%) 26 57.6% 20 56.0% San Dimas 75 (30.5%) 6 5.9% 25 4.11 20 10.30 33 2.1% 20 33.2% 46 1.3% 36 2.5% 43 1.6% 35 (.9%) 27 55.2% 19 56.1% San Fernando 49 (7.5%) 30 (1.6%) 39 2.98 43 4.81 58 (.7%) 50 3.0% 80 (32.0%) 73 (30.0%) 84 (704.9%) 75 (99.7%) 81 (4.4%) 74 (10.0%) San Gabriel 45 (5.8%) 47 (7.7%) 18 4.81 45 4.70 69 (3.4%) 67 (2.2%) 75 (22.2%) 75 (33.4%) 46 0.2% 68 (25.9%) 79 (2.1%) 61 3.5% San Marino 72 (27.2%) 67 (15.0%) 5 15.44 9 21.50 47 0.4% 58 0.2% 18 9.1% 15 8.7% 62 (8.9%) 64 (18.1%) 15 79.8% 13 72.6% Santa Clarita 67 (19.7%) 32 (2.4%) 14 6.22 21 10.14 36 1.7% 43 6.1% 7 15.5% 61 (8.0%) 25 7.6% 62 (16.4%) 21 69.7% 16 58.4% Santa Fe Springs 24 (.7%) 73 (19.0%) 73 1.66 29 6.27 19 3.7% 9 72.8% 71 (11.4%) 65 (11.4%) 31 6.7% 5 25.4% 40 35.4% 25 43.1% Santa Monica 46 (6.7%) 42 (5.9%) 26 3.98 35 5.28 30 2.4% 30 16.3% 55 (1.7%) 3 23.2% 7 37.0% 3 41.0% 34 40.0% 31 35.1% Sierra Madre 37 (3.3%) 64 (13.7%) 6 12.97 12 16.57 59 (.8%) 61 (.4%) 12 11.3% 10 10.5% 27 7.5% 53 (7.4%) 23 65.2% 54 12.2% Signal Hill 81 (64.0%) 65 (14.2%) 76 1.52 18 11.31 41 1.3% 6 101.5% 31 4.5% 25 6.1% 20 9.8% 23 2.5% 35 39.1% 27 41.7% South El Monte 21 0.2% 15 3.5% 83 1.13 23 9.38 1 100.0% 2 237.1% 50 0.4% 12 9.6% 80 (51.7%) 1 59.7% 69 2.0% 53 13.2% South Gate 14 2.4% 14 3.6% 47 2.68 56 3.56 7 6.8% 33 14.6% 54 (1.0%) 43 1.2% 32 6.5% 26 2.0% 58 13.2% 46 19.5% South Pasadena 38 (3.9%) 4 7.7% 55 2.31 70 2.32 17 4.0% 55 0.9% 13 11.2% 30 5.5% 14 20.8% 13 9.0% 29 53.9% 21 55.6% Temple City 2 12.0% 18 2.2% 13 7.19 13 16.34 12 5.7% 41 7.7% 26 6.3% 27 5.8% 40 2.5% 45 (5.0%) 2 236.1% 42 22.5% Torrance 18 2.0% 7 5.8% 43 2.88 55 3.66 42 1.2% 27 18.6% 43 1.9% 23 6.2% 58 (6.0%) 27 1.9% 63 9.7% 44 21.4% Vernon 83 (110.4%) 77 (83.9%) 81 1.29 77 1.14 79 (9.7%) 77 (51.4%) 84 (100.3%) 77 (108.1%) 81 (58.5%) 77 (455.0%) 82 (8.2%) 77 (47.4%) Walnut 74 (29.3%) 23 (.0%) 34 3.49 1 48.92 54 (.2%) 21 31.7% 35 3.5% 64 (10.3%) 79 (31.7%) 46 (5.2%) 72 0.0% 63 0.7% West Covina 29 (1.2%) 43 (6.3%) 62 2.07 51 4.00 71 (3.9%) 25 21.8% 62 (5.5%) 66 (11.7%) 59 (6.2%) 40 (2.9%) 54 17.0% 39 24.4% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 100 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent West Hollywood 59 (11.8%) 20 1.0% 46 2.78 49 4.23 18 3.9% 46 5.0% 8 14.7% 4 17.4% 21 9.6% 28 1.7% 80 (2.2%) 51 15.6% Westlake Village 41 (4.6%) 54 (10.9%) 37 3.13 59 3.16 68 (3.3%) 56 0.3% 47 1.2% 13 9.4% 56 (5.4%) 34 (.9%) 12 92.7% 4 139.3% Whittier 22 (.0%) 60 (12.6%) 40 2.94 30 6.23 37 1.5% 28 18.2% 17 9.3% 55 (4.3%) 45 0.2% 43 (4.4%) 32 43.7% 26 42.0% Average - All Cities (12.5%) (6.2%) 5.45 8.92 0.8% 24.0% (1.7%) (1.5%) (3.8%) (14.5%) 51.4% 38.3% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 101 CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 102 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Net Revenue Percent – All Funds Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all revenues remaining after all city expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net revenues and percentage would be negative. The net revenue percent is calculated by dividing net revenues by total revenues. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following Exhibit shows, only 21 of the 84 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2010-11 than revenue received. The remaining 61 cities spent more than they received in revenue. Both the cities of Vernon and Bradbury spent more than twice what was received in revenues. On average, cities expended 12.5% more than they received in revenue during FY 2010-11. The exhibit also shows that only 22 of the 77 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2011-12 than revenue received. The remaining 55 cities spent more than they received in revenue. The City of Vernon spent nearly 84% more than it received in revenue. On average, cities expended 6.2% more than they received in revenue during FY 2011-
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
Training of all Custody Personnel As stated before, the Sheriff proposes no significant changes to Academy training.8 This makes sense for many reasons. One, the Academy trains officers for other law enforcement agencies with no Custody responsibility. Further, most of the positions in the Sheriff’s Department are non- custody related. The Sheriff’s Department views the role of the Academy as providing more of a foundation with the probation period being one where the specifics of the job are learned while on the job. Finally, creating a separate Academy will degrade the perception of Custody deputies and Patrol deputies that they are one force. The Grand Jury supports the position of the Sheriff’s Department and does not believe a separate Academy experience needs to happen. That said, more should be and will be done under the Sheriff’s Plan. The Department will in- crease the amount of specific training post Academy from two to four weeks. Those additional two weeks will consist of a “Jail Operation Continuum.” Further, the amount of time spent as- sessing and evaluating deputies will increase from 12 to 16 weeks.
F2:
Training of Leadership 7 Sheriff’s Plan, p6 8 Sheriff’s Plan p3 6 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Those at the sergeant level and above will continue to receive 24 hours of training over three days. This training has a largely administrative focus specific to the particular facility. The only additional training being proposed is eight hours of training that would revisit the topics proposed in the “Jail Operations Continuum”. These eight hours would most likely be given in two hour chunks of intense format training. The timing is meant to avoid backfilling a position.9 This may not be enough or the right emphasis. First of all, as conveyed to the Grand Jury and also found running through the Commission’s Report were issues of failure of leadership-- specifically as it relates to mentoring, managing, conveying expectation and communication. Running a jail, especially some of the larger facilities, is a complex operation that involves sev- eral skill sets and contingencies. A career as a deputy may provide the necessary education in jail operations but not necessarily in management. Too much seems to rest on the individual’s intuition when a little training coupled with that common sense could go a long way. Much of the focus on leadership training has been on forms and required paperwork. If a ser- geant is not provided any additional training in areas such as staff assessment, evaluation, men- toring or effective leadership, what will an additional four weeks of assessment time of deputies add? Training should be viewed broadly as not just conveying information but conveying expec- tation. Especially now that sergeants will have to command the respect and train both deputies staying in Custody and those going on Patrol, it is more imperative than ever that they have the tools to stress and continuously emphasize the Nobility Policing and Constitutional Jailing that are stated values of the Department. The idea of providing training in two hour portions is a smart one that will allow a position not to have to be backfilled but the Department, for both cost and for other practical reasons needs to be focused on other methods of teaching these key skills. It may, for example need to award merit points that are necessary for promotion to those deputies and those in leadership who seek out educational opportunities on their own time. The Department is starting and needs to devote more efforts to utilizing on line resources so that individual topics can be learned over a few days. C. Custody Division Training Bureau The Sheriff’s Department is proposing a whole new infrastructure called the Custody Division Training Bureau to focus specifically on training that currently assumes staffing with close to 80- 100 officers of all ranks.10 We appreciate the greater focus on training. Particularly, we applaud the fact that the eight large facilities will have staff exclusively focused on training. The remain- der of the staff being proposed will take a more centralized approach with some focused specifi- cally on violence related issues and others will focus on the already mandated STC (Standards and Training for Correctional Officers) training which is required annually by the state. Information provided by interviews with Sheriff’s Department personnel 10 Interview with key Sheriff Department personnel, report of Implementation Monitor to Board of Supervisors, Feb- ruary 12, 2013 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 7 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Coming up with the proposed structure is just the first step. Funding from the Board of Supervi- sors will make or break this step. Assuming funding is available, creating curriculum that is ef- fective is an even bigger challenge. Curriculum that allows deputies to learn at their own pace sometimes is both more beneficial for learning and potentially more cost effective. Making training meaningful for the responsibilities at hand is also critical, which further requires a more individualized approach. For example, STC training requires that certain topics be covered yearly and by the time those mandatory topics like first aid and CPR training are covered, 70% of the time may already be utilized. There should be a way to pre-test people and let them “test out” of topics they already know. These individuals should be able to move on to other topics. It may be more cost effective to offer incentive payment for classes done through the County’s e- learning system. Finally if the Department truly values education for its staff, then it should cre- ate a culture where learning on one’s own time is considered necessary for promotion. This may entail dealing with potential labor issues. The Department should focus then on making material accessible and high quality. IV. Types of Facilities A. Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) The Commission’s Report focuses primarily on issues that arose at MCJ and extrapolated its findings to the Department as a whole. The Grand Jury visited many of the other facilities and is not sure if the problems of MCJ are necessarily the problems of the system. The Commission Report specifically stated that it would not address the adequacy of the architectural issues at MCJ. Instead it echoes other commissions and reports that call for the demolishing and rebuild- ing of the facility. We raise this issue only to say that in times of limited funding, it may be bet- ter to apply money and require change at those sites as opposed to changing the whole system. B. Other Large Jail Facilities From the Commission Report, it is unclear whether other entities like the Pitchess Ranch facili- ties, which house close to 10,000 inmates, require the same shift in organizational structure and staffing. Given that Dual Track is implemented system-wide, it is still relevant to look at staffing and cultural expectations at other facilities and see if all of the requirements should be imple- mented beyond MCJ. Pitchess Ranch (with its 4 facilities) is essentially its own small city com- plete with several industries and even its own power plant. Much of the housing is dormitory style versus at MCJ where inmates are housed in 2-man and 4-man cells. There are also several businesses on site with multiple workers. On our tour it became evident that it was helpful for the custody officers to learn the communities in these dorm settings. This was especially true in seeing potential issues on the yard during recreation when a few deputies would oversee over 150 inmates at a time. Rotation of officers, which the other sections of the Commission Report recommended, may actually do harm at these facilities. The needs and challenges of Court Facilities also contrast with MCJ. Most of these facilities are run down and as of January 2013, often lacked cameras. The challenge here is the transient population and the danger of smuggling contraband and information between inmates while go- ing back and forth to hearings and the home jail facility. Deputy training would ideally include different modules for these settings. 8 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING
F3:
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
F4:
Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F5:
All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F6:
To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:
F8:
LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Several negative articles in various Los Angeles area newspapers regarding poor response time to 9-1-1 medical emergency calls within the City of Los Angeles prompted this investigation1. A committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that response times in the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) began to increase when its budget was decreased. The Grand Jury believes that the Los Angeles City Council may have relied on inaccurate response time data2 in making its budget reduction decision. The Grand Jury also found that LAFD does not utilize its resources to its best advantage. To be specific, the Grand Jury urges that LAFD’s funding be restored, that its engine companies be reinstated, it incorpo- rate civilian call handlers, use a non-proprietary Emergency Medical Dispatch protocol and up- date technical equipment.
F2011:
9 B. The County Must Establish a Separate Crisis Line As stated previously, some 80% of calls to the Hotline come from mandated reporters. It is thought that excessive caution drives these calls. If a mandated reporter even suspects child abuse, it is better for that person to call than not to call. No one will get into “on-the-job trouble” for calling, whereas one might have significant liability if the purported abuse is ignored. The solution may lie in San Francisco’s approach. It has a separate crisis line and not every call goes through its equivalent to the Hotline. According to those Hotline employees interviewed, some calls come from foster parents who simply are in the midst of a family crisis or who need information. The Hotline does make referrals to a 211 (information line), but a separate crisis line might be a valuable and cost-effective option based on feedback from the Torrance regional office. The County’s 211 system has a strong reputation for its ability to make appropriate responses so a well-advertised separate information line would be a worthwhile idea.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
Most cities have adopted a “Conflict of Interest” code.
R6:
Most cities have adopted an “Investment” policy.
R8:
All cities maintained an adequate accounting system. Most issued timely financial statements and a CAFR in compliance with standards, and most made the CAFR readily accessible to the general public on their website. RECOMMENDATIONS – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
For the last two years, the Department has engaged in significant efforts to clear the Department of sworn officers who have engaged in criminal conduct. Many of these offi- cers were hired during a period when the sheer volume needed to fill positions resulted in a laxness of screening. Failures of discipline and lack of personnel to investigate and ade- quately defend cases appealed to the Civil Service Commission further hampered the De- partment’s efforts.
F2:
Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), which calls for realignment of inmates from state pris- ons to local communities, has put pressure on the Department once again to hire a large vol- ume of employees to serve as probation officers for inmates released from the County jails. The Department must remain vigilant to ensure that the pressure to hire does not compro- mise the quality of the hires. Further, a balance must be struck so that the experienced pro- bation officers in the camps are not the sole source of hire into these positions. Too much upheaval in camp staffing could seriously undermine the improvements that have been made in the camps.
F3:
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R4:
FOSTER CARE HOTLINE INVESTIGATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) has frequently reviewed the activities of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), an organization that has faced signifi- cant challenges, even crises, over the years. This section focuses on the Child Protection Hotline (Hotline), the public’s ingress into the foster care system, the entry point where suspected child abuse or neglect is first reported. While the Hotline, in most instances, is doing an outstanding job with knowledgeable manage- ment and skilled, dedicated workers, it has drawn intense criticism, most recently in April 2012 from the Board of Supervisors’ Children’s Special Investigation Unit. (The CSIU Report.1) The Grand Jury agrees that there is always room for improvement and, in a few instances, urgent im- provement is needed at the Hotline. DCFS’ responsibilities include the protection of all children in this County from abuse and ne- glect. That work begins at the Hotline, which receives too many noncritical calls, makes too many referrals, and creates too much work for DCFS employees downstream. DCFS must focus senior management and its resources to improve the Hotline by reducing the number of calls that go through the system, by upgrading the personnel and the compensation of those who work there, by reducing the number of policies within DCFS and by engaging the community into its efforts to reduce child abuse within the county. To be specific, community- based services need to be expanded. Utilizing the community involved Point-of-Engagement (POE) approach should be revisited to apply countywide as it appears to be showing significant success in the Compton and Torrance regions. The County must establish a separate crisis hotline and must embrace regionalization of the sys- tem. The Hotline must promote the notion that Hotline employees need special interpersonal probing skills not present in every individual. Further, it must implement better means to reward the employees under intense stress and reward the high performing employees. Clearly, there are excessive policies, procedures and practices throughout DCFS that need to be more effectively accessible and easier to navigate, if not reduced. At a minimum, a search fea- ture needs to be incorporated within the policies, procedures and practices themselves to allow ease of searching for appropriate information within the document. Generating referrals takes significant time and there continues to linger a “culture of fear” throughout the Hotline. Report Regarding DCFS Recurring Systemic Issues, Children’s Special Investigation Unit (CSIU), April 16, 2012, (CSIU Report),
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
Training of all Custody Personnel As stated before, the Sheriff proposes no significant changes to Academy training.8 This makes sense for many reasons. One, the Academy trains officers for other law enforcement agencies with no Custody responsibility. Further, most of the positions in the Sheriff’s Department are non- custody related. The Sheriff’s Department views the role of the Academy as providing more of a foundation with the probation period being one where the specifics of the job are learned while on the job. Finally, creating a separate Academy will degrade the perception of Custody deputies and Patrol deputies that they are one force. The Grand Jury supports the position of the Sheriff’s Department and does not believe a separate Academy experience needs to happen. That said, more should be and will be done under the Sheriff’s Plan. The Department will in- crease the amount of specific training post Academy from two to four weeks. Those additional two weeks will consist of a “Jail Operation Continuum.” Further, the amount of time spent as- sessing and evaluating deputies will increase from 12 to 16 weeks.
F2:
Training of Leadership 7 Sheriff’s Plan, p6 8 Sheriff’s Plan p3 6 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Those at the sergeant level and above will continue to receive 24 hours of training over three days. This training has a largely administrative focus specific to the particular facility. The only additional training being proposed is eight hours of training that would revisit the topics proposed in the “Jail Operations Continuum”. These eight hours would most likely be given in two hour chunks of intense format training. The timing is meant to avoid backfilling a position.9 This may not be enough or the right emphasis. First of all, as conveyed to the Grand Jury and also found running through the Commission’s Report were issues of failure of leadership-- specifically as it relates to mentoring, managing, conveying expectation and communication. Running a jail, especially some of the larger facilities, is a complex operation that involves sev- eral skill sets and contingencies. A career as a deputy may provide the necessary education in jail operations but not necessarily in management. Too much seems to rest on the individual’s intuition when a little training coupled with that common sense could go a long way. Much of the focus on leadership training has been on forms and required paperwork. If a ser- geant is not provided any additional training in areas such as staff assessment, evaluation, men- toring or effective leadership, what will an additional four weeks of assessment time of deputies add? Training should be viewed broadly as not just conveying information but conveying expec- tation. Especially now that sergeants will have to command the respect and train both deputies staying in Custody and those going on Patrol, it is more imperative than ever that they have the tools to stress and continuously emphasize the Nobility Policing and Constitutional Jailing that are stated values of the Department. The idea of providing training in two hour portions is a smart one that will allow a position not to have to be backfilled but the Department, for both cost and for other practical reasons needs to be focused on other methods of teaching these key skills. It may, for example need to award merit points that are necessary for promotion to those deputies and those in leadership who seek out educational opportunities on their own time. The Department is starting and needs to devote more efforts to utilizing on line resources so that individual topics can be learned over a few days. C. Custody Division Training Bureau The Sheriff’s Department is proposing a whole new infrastructure called the Custody Division Training Bureau to focus specifically on training that currently assumes staffing with close to 80- 100 officers of all ranks.10 We appreciate the greater focus on training. Particularly, we applaud the fact that the eight large facilities will have staff exclusively focused on training. The remain- der of the staff being proposed will take a more centralized approach with some focused specifi- cally on violence related issues and others will focus on the already mandated STC (Standards and Training for Correctional Officers) training which is required annually by the state. Information provided by interviews with Sheriff’s Department personnel 10 Interview with key Sheriff Department personnel, report of Implementation Monitor to Board of Supervisors, Feb- ruary 12, 2013 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 7 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Coming up with the proposed structure is just the first step. Funding from the Board of Supervi- sors will make or break this step. Assuming funding is available, creating curriculum that is ef- fective is an even bigger challenge. Curriculum that allows deputies to learn at their own pace sometimes is both more beneficial for learning and potentially more cost effective. Making training meaningful for the responsibilities at hand is also critical, which further requires a more individualized approach. For example, STC training requires that certain topics be covered yearly and by the time those mandatory topics like first aid and CPR training are covered, 70% of the time may already be utilized. There should be a way to pre-test people and let them “test out” of topics they already know. These individuals should be able to move on to other topics. It may be more cost effective to offer incentive payment for classes done through the County’s e- learning system. Finally if the Department truly values education for its staff, then it should cre- ate a culture where learning on one’s own time is considered necessary for promotion. This may entail dealing with potential labor issues. The Department should focus then on making material accessible and high quality. IV. Types of Facilities A. Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) The Commission’s Report focuses primarily on issues that arose at MCJ and extrapolated its findings to the Department as a whole. The Grand Jury visited many of the other facilities and is not sure if the problems of MCJ are necessarily the problems of the system. The Commission Report specifically stated that it would not address the adequacy of the architectural issues at MCJ. Instead it echoes other commissions and reports that call for the demolishing and rebuild- ing of the facility. We raise this issue only to say that in times of limited funding, it may be bet- ter to apply money and require change at those sites as opposed to changing the whole system. B. Other Large Jail Facilities From the Commission Report, it is unclear whether other entities like the Pitchess Ranch facili- ties, which house close to 10,000 inmates, require the same shift in organizational structure and staffing. Given that Dual Track is implemented system-wide, it is still relevant to look at staffing and cultural expectations at other facilities and see if all of the requirements should be imple- mented beyond MCJ. Pitchess Ranch (with its 4 facilities) is essentially its own small city com- plete with several industries and even its own power plant. Much of the housing is dormitory style versus at MCJ where inmates are housed in 2-man and 4-man cells. There are also several businesses on site with multiple workers. On our tour it became evident that it was helpful for the custody officers to learn the communities in these dorm settings. This was especially true in seeing potential issues on the yard during recreation when a few deputies would oversee over 150 inmates at a time. Rotation of officers, which the other sections of the Commission Report recommended, may actually do harm at these facilities. The needs and challenges of Court Facilities also contrast with MCJ. Most of these facilities are run down and as of January 2013, often lacked cameras. The challenge here is the transient population and the danger of smuggling contraband and information between inmates while go- ing back and forth to hearings and the home jail facility. Deputy training would ideally include different modules for these settings. 8 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING
F3:
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
F4:
Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F5:
All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F6:
To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:
F8:
LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Several negative articles in various Los Angeles area newspapers regarding poor response time to 9-1-1 medical emergency calls within the City of Los Angeles prompted this investigation1. A committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that response times in the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) began to increase when its budget was decreased. The Grand Jury believes that the Los Angeles City Council may have relied on inaccurate response time data2 in making its budget reduction decision. The Grand Jury also found that LAFD does not utilize its resources to its best advantage. To be specific, the Grand Jury urges that LAFD’s funding be restored, that its engine companies be reinstated, it incorpo- rate civilian call handlers, use a non-proprietary Emergency Medical Dispatch protocol and up- date technical equipment.
F2011:
9 B. The County Must Establish a Separate Crisis Line As stated previously, some 80% of calls to the Hotline come from mandated reporters. It is thought that excessive caution drives these calls. If a mandated reporter even suspects child abuse, it is better for that person to call than not to call. No one will get into “on-the-job trouble” for calling, whereas one might have significant liability if the purported abuse is ignored. The solution may lie in San Francisco’s approach. It has a separate crisis line and not every call goes through its equivalent to the Hotline. According to those Hotline employees interviewed, some calls come from foster parents who simply are in the midst of a family crisis or who need information. The Hotline does make referrals to a 211 (information line), but a separate crisis line might be a valuable and cost-effective option based on feedback from the Torrance regional office. The County’s 211 system has a strong reputation for its ability to make appropriate re- sponses so a well-advertised separate information line would be a worthwhile idea. 8 Department of Children and Family and Family Services, Executive Committee Reports, Data as of October 9, 2012 (pages IV-D-5) 9 CSIU Report, p.7. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 27 FOSTER CARE HOTLINE C. There is a Need to Eliminate Certain Calls from the Hotline In addition to removing non-crisis or general information calls from the system, an effort should be made to minimize or eliminate calls involving AWOLs or “re-placements.” The AWOLs are children who are unaccounted for, such as runaways. Re-placements are children in the system who are being moved from one foster home to another. These children are already in the system and their situation has to be monitored, but the Hotline is not seen as the best option to do this. Consequently, there should be a separate phone number for foster parents to call instead of the Hotline. For example, a foster parent with a problem foster child may need another foster parent colleague to talk to, but the Hotline surely is not the best place to do so. Again, other lines are needed so as to free up the Hotline for real emergencies. D. Hotline’s Best Employees Must Be Rewarded The Grand Jury believes that there must be a way to provide additional compensation to the very effective, efficient and productive workers at the Hotline. Call handlers who are efficient and effective, and handle a large number of calls should be re- warded for their performance. Ineffective and inefficient employees and those who are placed in the Hotline because they did not perform adequately elsewhere should be removed. The Hotline is too critical to be staffed by the “walking wounded.” Of course, the union that represents the CSWs must be engaged in the process and the civil service rules must be honored The Grand Jury is also aware of this finding from the CSIU’s 2012 report, “DCFS should ex- plore expanding the qualifications for social workers to include a broader range of educational backgrounds and types of experience.”10 This simply means the “what happened?” part of the investigation is of primary importance. Persons with experience and background in soliciting in- formation quickly and accurately, such as those with a police background, must be employed in this specialized area. The gathering of information in the first instance colors the whole process. It must be done by persons with the ability to do the task correctly, efficiently and effectively. E. Senior Managers and Regional Workers Need to Witness Actual Calls As the report from CSIU indicates, the Hotline and its work is probably the most important as- pect of the business of reducing child abuse and neglect.11 The ultimate result of DCFS’ in- volvement with a family cannot be good if its investigation starts off with misinformation or a lack of direction. “Good decisions cannot be made without good information.”12 If this task is as important as the CSIU report indicates, senior management has to be totally in- volved. Put senior management on the line. Having a call supervisor on call duty for a day or two 10 CSIU Report, p.2. 11 Ibid., pp. 9, 12. 12 Ibid., p. 12. 28 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT FOSTER CARE HOTLINE each month would enable them to clearly gauge the current situations. Top management must make the Hotline a priority. Another possibility would be to have CSWs from the field come in for a turn at the Hotline. If the field workers could see exactly how the Hotline actually works, then the CSWs from the field would be able to see the difficulties inherent in the system and, perhaps, allow for referrals that may seem unimportant. F. The County Needs to Reduce the Number of Policies Hotline staff members have informed the Grand Jury that employees at the Hotline must be aware of “everything,” from the federal rules to the latest county policy statements. Does the staff get sufficient training? The Grand Jury understands that eight weeks of training is offered. Consideration should be given to expand training and/or staggered multiple training sessions. Moreover, the number of policies and procedures in place is simply too great. As the CSIU Re- port indicates, there seems to be a policy for everything, including a seven-page dissertation on how to handle non-English speakers. The number of policy pages totals 4364, according to the CSIU report, at pages 24-25. This number has to be decreased as the amount of information is more than any person can handle. If nothing else, DCFS should establish a program by which its “cumbersome and voluminous” policies and procedures may be quickly accessed. This is similar to a recommendation made in the CSIU Report, at pages 24-26. The DCFS Must Reduce Its Number of Referrals And Make Its Work More Efficient A. Referrals Take a Great Deal of Work-Hours Since the Hotline receives too many calls, its problems are compounded by the fact that the sys- tem generates too many referrals. For example, during the 2011-2012 fiscal year reporting peri- od, there were 165,442 referrals in L.A. County equating to about 11,000 to 15,000 per month resulting in about 24,867 case openings per year, equating to 1,600 to 2,200 per month yielding 10,275 removals per year of the child from the home.13 Staff has noted that each referral gener- ates an investigation which takes a minimum of 30 hours of work. Referrals tend to multiply. A call that references the alleged abuse or neglect of one child in a home will often lead to ques- tions about other children in the home, to other adults who live in the home or adults who regu- larly visit the home or family. Nonetheless, as the CSIU report noted at p. 16, approximately one-half of all referrals are deemed to be “unfounded.” Another issue, as noted above, is that most calls come from mandated reporters, amounting to approximately 80% of the calls received. It is understood that a majority of these calls come 13 Department of Children and Family and Family Services, Executive Committee Reports, Data as of October 9, 2012 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 29 FOSTER CARE HOTLINE from schools. Naturally, these types of calls will never be seen as “crank calls.” They have to be investigated, so a referral is generated; therefore, the system builds on itself. Abuse referrals amount to about half of the calls that come in and the other half are for neglect. They must be cross-referenced to the local law enforcement agency. While this has to be done, more strain on the workload and more paperwork is generated. Fear again drives much of the system. For example, it is unlikely any person working the Hot- line will ever get into trouble for making a referral. This may be why some of those interviewed say 80% of all calls lead to a referral. In many counties, the number of referrals is more in the vicinity of 60-70% of all calls, according to information obtained from a former senior official at DCFS. Another possibility would be to use the State guidelines as opposed to the County guidelines. According to staff interviews, the State’s guidelines are more accommodating and would neces- sarily lead to fewer emergency referrals and create less stress on the regional offices. This is be- cause, as the Grand Jury learned from one of its interviews, that the State requires an immediate response to be accomplished within 24 hours as opposed to the County requirement that an im- mediate response be made before the work day is over. It is understood by the Grand Jury that this is not a popular idea with many staff, who prefer the County’s more demanding “immediate response” protocol, but it should be done in order to reduce the stress inherent in the work. B. The SDM tool must be modified DCFS uses a software tool known as “SDM” in its decision and urgency/immediate response process. SDM provides guidance to the CSW taking a call as to how quickly to respond to the information at hand, but it is seen as focusing on or leading to referrals. If one goes through the SDM process, a referral is usually created. The CSW handling the call does have discretion to override the SDM result, but why do so? SDM said to do it. Why take a chance? The answer has to be that a CSW’s common sense, experience, and knowledge regarding the response decision have to be respected. The CSWs are trained and that training has to be more than how to follow a checklist. The CWS/CMS is the statewide system for tracking child abuse and neglect. The County uses all of this information in its effort to deal with this terrible problem, but it is a time-consuming process. According to Hotline employees, other counties (albeit smaller counties) use only a portion of the CWS/CMS to track problems, but Los Angeles, despite its tremendous workload, uses it all. The Grand Jury observed that this entire process involves a climate of fear. Fear of lawsuits, fear of being the one CSW who failed to do a referral in a case that subsequently turned into a horri- ble situation or even a case that surfaces years later. No one wants to be faced with the question, “Why didn’t you do more?” Therefore, the system generates more referrals, based on more calls, leading to greater stress. C. Report-Writing Takes Too Long 30 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT FOSTER CARE HOTLINE Writing the description portion of the CWS/CMS is a problem in that it often takes too long. A 15-minute phone call often generates a report that requires 45 minutes to complete according to a Hotline worker. During that time, the CSW is writing the report and not available to field calls. Even with the best workers and best software tool, the documented referral may not be 100% correct. Employees in the field have pointed out to the Grand Jury that if the Hotline generates a referral that goes out to a regional office, it is difficult to reverse. A supervisor at the local office level has to be willing to make the request and to fight for the reversal. He/she also has to be able to get through to the person at the Hotline who generated the referral to convince that person to make the change. Referrals do tend to multiply, with “follow-ups” and “open” investigations. Interviews with staff indicate that most referrals lead to a minimum of 30-40 hours of work. The initial caller has to be contacted, of course, but the family, neighbors, school officials, etc. will need to be addressed. A referral casts a wide net. The Grand Jury thinks that cases stay open too long and the system is overwhelmed with cases. Nonetheless, the number of actual removals from the home is about six per cent of calls that are received. As noted above, thousands of referrals (180,000 or so per year) are made with approx- imately 10,000 children actually removed from their homes and placed in foster care. The num- ber, of course, is a huge number standing by itself, but stands as a relative few when compared to the total number of calls received. It is clearly desirable to take remedial action to alleviate the situation and allow the child to remain in the home. D. An Effort Must Be Made To Regionalize the System
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
Most cities have adopted a “Conflict of Interest” code.
R6:
Most cities have adopted an “Investment” policy.
R8:
All cities maintained an adequate accounting system. Most issued timely financial statements and a CAFR in compliance with standards, and most made the CAFR readily accessible to the general public on their website. RECOMMENDATIONS – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
The office of each Supervisor helps constituents in dealing with Los Angeles County de- partments. The Grand Jury interviewed staff members in each office. Those directly involved with aiding constituents appear to be knowledgeable and dedicated.
F2:
Each supervisorial office enters complaints and requests into the Constituent Relationship Management system (CRM). Routinely, all correspondence regarding the case is recorded in this system. Thus anyone in the office has easy access to the information and can continue processing the case. When a conclusion is reached, that information is entered into the sys- tem. This allows generation of a report listing cases that have been open too long. A disad- vantage of the system is that it can be cumbersome. Requests not requiring follow-up are of- ten not recorded. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 55 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F3:
There are a variety of ways to contact a Supervisor’s office: phone, letter, and email/web. Some of the other methods of making requests or complaints are fax, walk-in, board meeting, and at a community meeting. Letters are the best way to contact the Fourth and Fifth Dis- tricts. For information on the frequency of contacts through each source see Table 1 below. Table 1 Source of Contact by Supervisorial District4 (Oct 2011-Sept 2012) Source District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Total Phone 1106 739 702 384 2931 Letter 76 249 148 *281 858 1612 Email/Web 331 483 133 1170 2117 Other 227 170 25 79 501 Total 1740 1641 1008 *281 2491 7161 *The Fourth District office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. These tables were produced from data furnished by each District using the CRM system. The tables of the submitted data are in Exhibits 1-5. Exhibit 6 contains two tables submitted by the Fourth District. With the exception of actual data for letters received and entered into CRM, all other “data” are estimates which are vastly out of range from the CRM data pro- vided by the other offices. Through communication by a staff member of the Fourth District the Grand Jury learned that only information received by letter was available in CRM.
F4:
Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F5:
All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F6:
To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
All 9-1-1 calls go to the primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), which is the local police agency (per state regulations), with the fire department being secondary. The primary PSAP must transfer a fire/medical call to the secondary PSAP within thirty seconds (per NFPA guidelines). The primary dispatcher remains on the line to ensure that the call is transferred and that no police involvement is required.
F2:
Language can be a major factor as there are up to one hundred different languages or dialects spoken in LA County. According to all four fire agencies, an interpreter may have to be brought on the line to assist.
F3:
Cell phones, unlike hard-wired home or business phones, do not give an exact address, which is a critical piece of information needed before dispatching a unit. Newer cell phones, equipped with GPS, can now be triangulated to give an approximate location. In the past all cell phone calls went to the California Highway Patrol (CHP); now with more modern tech- nology, 9-1-1 calls go to the nearest 9-1-1 call center. The CHP should still receive calls if the caller is on a freeway, in close proximity to a freeway or the cell phone, for whatever reason, cannot be accurately triangulated.
F4:
The caller’s state of mind, possibly being in a state of hysteria, could hamper getting needed information. The human factor always plays a part, even something as simple as the caller being unsure as to his whereabouts or being able to give an accurate description of the situation.
F5:
A principal factor that produces poor response time is the on-going problem of budget cuts.5 Geography can also affect response time. Calls from hilly communities with narrow roads make it difficult for fire equipment to maneuver. If a caller lives in a relatively isolated loca- tion, response time is certain to be greater. 5 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/04/local/la-me-1205-lafd-chief-20121205 66 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG FINDINGS continued Funding: Of the above factors, the most crucial and the most obvious impediment to adequate response times is the budget issue. Once funding of the LAFD was reduced, based in part on faulty or outdated data, response times began to rise. Additionally, thirteen ambulances were idled. It is a given that fewer resources would lead directly to increased response time. The Grand Jury strongly recommends that previous LAFD budget cuts be fully restored. The Grand Jury recognizes that the LAFD is currently planning a different, yet controversial solution. Civilian Call Handlers: The Grand Jury was impressed with the use by other large agencies in Los Angeles County of civilians to handle incoming 9-1-1 calls. LAFD has for many years used sworn firefighter personnel for such duty. The Grand Jury recommends that this change. Fire- fighters should be fighting fires and responding to medical emergencies, not answering phone calls. Moreover, the skill set needed to obtain information from a 9-1-1 caller is not the same skill set as fighting a fire or giving emergency care. The Grand Jury believes it is a better practice to have trained civilians perform call handling functions. This would eliminate the need to rotate firefighters into the Dispatch Center. Further, call handlers should be given a dispatch protocol to follow so that the necessary information is gathered, but that protocol should not be a handicap. Dispatch call handlers should have flexibility in dealing with callers and should not be subject to discipline for deviating from a dispatch protocol. Technology: Improvements are needed in the technology used by the LAFD. These are mentioned in detail by the Task Force that the LAFD commissioned in June of 2012. The Grand Jury learned from several fire officials that the Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) is thirty years old. Hardware and software must be brought up to current technology levels. This technology could include software like Smart911. The Smart911 system is designed to create a safety profile for the household, such as medical conditions, mobility, etc. This profile would appear on the call handler’s screen, which could expedite response time by avoiding the need to ask certain questions. Response Time Reports: Reports should be easy to read and understand. The Grand Jury was given response times reports in various formats, some of which were confusing. The Grand Jury believes the general public would benefit by having these response times presented in a simplified form, similar to the above chart. Los Angeles Times dated April 17, 2013 LAFD to shift staff to medical calls 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 67 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG Analysis: Notwithstanding the above criticisms and concerns, the area fire departments are doing the job that is expected. Response times, though, can sometimes be a factor in the difference between life and death. There have been cases where a person has died while waiting for the medical personnel to arrive.7 With more funding, idle ambulances can be put back into service and there can be an upgrade of technical equipment with a consequent reduction in response times. The Grand Jury acknowledges with great appreciation the dedication and commitment of all emergency responders in Los Angeles County and hopes that responses to this report will result in an enhancement of their service to all members of our community.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.
F2:
The City of Glendale hold a special election and obtain the authorization by two thirds of those voting approving the utility rates charged by Glendale Water & Power and the transfer of funds from Glendale Water & Power to the City's general fund.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The City of Glendale hold a special election and obtain the authorization by two thirds of those voting approving the utility rates charged by Glendale Water & Power and the transfer of funds from Glendale Water & Power to the City's general fund.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
The City of Glendale consider alternate sources of revenue if it is unable or unwilling to obtain the requisite authorization of the City's voters as suggested in 2 above.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Individual officer's attitudes in the Department and internal Department cultural perception are the greatest factors in successfully implementing Dual Track and decreasing violence within the jails. Custody is currently viewed by many in the Department as a lesser position than Patrol.
F2:
Quality leadership, regardless of structure, is the biggest factor in reducing violence. Training is therefore essential to groom leaders. This training needs to start early and build on itself over years so deputies will have internalized the training and be qualified for promotions. Given lim- ited resources, it may be best to focus on the leadership first before training rank and file. The potential for specialized training is a great benefit of Dual Track and without this component it is unlikely the structural change alone will affect violence in the jails.
F3:
There is a difference in operating Men's Central Jail (MCJ) and the other large jail facilities like the Pitchess Ranch Complex or Century Regional Detention Facility (CRDF; the Women's facility). There is an even greater difference in operating a Type I jail facility (initial intake; in- mate held under 96 hours). The Commission's Report is based primarily on findings from MCJ. It may call for changes that are not necessarily appropriate department-wide. If MCJ is the prob- lem, it is better to use resources to fix that versus spreading resources throughout the department. Implementation Monitor Report, February 12, 2013 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING 4. The proliferation of inmates with severe mental issues has turned some of the floors of the Twin Towers Correctional Facility into a de facto mental hospital. This may require a different model of staffing-possibly with more orderlies and civilians being used. Rotation of deputies is not encouraged on these floors. Given the tremendous resources it takes to house these in- mates in jail, the Board of Supervisors needs to focus as soon as possible on alternative hous- ing-either in mental hospitals or another type of housing.
F4:
The Sheriff's Department must increase training for Custody positions (post Academy). But assuming limited resources, leadership should receive increased training before new deputies. The Department must look for ways to break down training into smaller units and possibly en- courage through incentives or promotion consideration, having deputies seek out education on their own time. The Department needs to resolve any labor issues that may hinder this goal.
F5:
The Sheriff's Department needs to mentor and model behavior more effectively. Custody assignment is an opportunity to learn more about gangs, criminal techniques, and criminal net- works outside of the jails and how to cultivate potential informants.
F6:
The Sheriff's Department in conjunction with the Department of Health needs to signifi- cantly increase mental health training Department-wide. The Department needs to work with other entities (Department of Mental Health, the county's e-education system, non-profits and private enterprise) to come up with ways to disseminate this training without causing positions to be backfilled while officers attend the training. Specifically, more needs to be taught relating to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), trauma and the behaviors that may result as well as de- escalation techniques.
F7:
The Sheriff's Department must provide deputies who work directly with the mentally ill ex- This training should emphasize recognizing, reacting to, de- tensive, specialized training. escalating and preventing aggressive and hostile behavior that can occur in these settings. 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING 8. The Sheriff's Department needs to use more Custody Assistants and investigate possibly contracting with private security forces for Type I facilities. It should also investigate using or- derlies and specialized health care workers when dealing with mentally ill inmates. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed the Commission's Report and the Sheriff's Dual Track Career Path Plan (Sheriff's Plan), as issued and approved January 2013. We also conducted on-line research into approaches of other jurisdictions related to training. Statistical information is based on Janu- ary 2013 Custody Division accounting reports prepared by the Sheriff's Department. The Grand Jury attended multiple hearings of the Board of Supervisors and heard the reports of the Com- mission Report monitor. We also interviewed key upper level personnel in the Sheriff's De- partment with direct responsibility for the Dual Track system, training and mental health. But the biggest factor in reaching these conclusions has been the Grand Jury's visits to jail facili- ties in LA County and interviews with dozens of members of the Sheriff's Department. We had frank conversations with officers fresh out of the Academy as well as those with over 25 years of experience--both in Custody and in Patrol. Penal Code Section 919(b) requires the Grand Jury to "inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county." Grand Jury members have visited over 70 jail facilities including those run by different police depart- ments as well as those run by the Sheriff's Department. The Grand Jury also visited state mental health facilities to compare the staffing and housing of inmates with mental health issues. FINDINGS I. Dual Track Defined2 As of February 1, 2013, the Sheriff's Department implemented Commission Report recommen- dation 6.6, the Dual Track.3 Dual Track separates the department into a Custody track and a Pa- trol track and allows for deputies to have a career in Custody--which includes promotion-- without having to go on Patrol. The Commission is advocating for a long term solution in which Deputy Sheriffs are specifically recruited, hired and trained within the Academy for Custody as- signments. (Commission's Report p. 138) This differs from both the current arrangement and the Sheriff's Plan. The Sheriff's Plan assumes minor changes in the Academy experience. Custody- specific training occurs following Academy graduation. Further, for the foreseeable future, new deputies will continue to be placed in Custody straight out of the Academy. Deputies waiting to go on Patrol will remain in their Custody positions for a period of time until positions within Pa- trol open. A. The current staffing situation in Custody 2 All statistical data in this section comes from the January 2013 Sheriff's Department Custody division accounting reports. Information on the structure and roles of officers within the department are from interviews with key Sher- iff's Department personnel. Implementation Monitor Report, February 12, 2013 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING As of January 2013, 2949 sworn officers were assigned to Custody out of a total force of 9197 officers. This means that almost one third of all positions within the force are in Custody. There are 1302 Custody Assistants working in the jails. The Sheriff's Department has conducted sev- eral surveys in the last few months to assess this issue and in one survey, 42 % said they would like to remain in Custody. Even if this number rises to 50%, that still means that approximately 1500 positions need to open up in the Patrol division. This also means that 1500 Custody posi- tions need to be filled, either by new recruits or deputies already on Patrol. The County cannot nor should it increase Patrol positions within the force this much in a short time span. Also, given the ratio of positions, the assumption also has to be that the number of new Academy re- cruits has to consist of at least two-thirds who are ultimately interested in Patrol positions. Before a deputy can leave a Custody position to go to the field, several things need to happen. First, a Patrol position has to open at one of the three stations requested by the deputy. Second, no other deputy higher on the Patrol list or already in the field takes the position. And third, a new deputy either fresh from the Academy or from the field needs to fill the Custody position. Typically, most of the positions have been filled by new graduates. So the reality is that Custody positions will need to be filled and will need to stay filled by deputies coming out of the Acade- my for a period of time until attrition and staffing needs on Patrol can increase. B. Dual Track is Beneficial for the Department There are still benefits to creating a Custody track. Without question, at least short term, many deputies who are willing to stay in Custody will get off the waiting lists and those seeking to go on Patrol will move up. This will hopefully significantly shorten the wait time to go to Patrol from the current wait of anywhere from five years or more. Based on conversations with dozens of sworn officers at all levels, most felt that a period of up to two years in Custody was actually a benefit. Most felt their Patrol skills remained intact for this period. Further, observant deputies learned a great deal about gangs, criminal methodology and gained confidence in dealing with many of the kinds of criminals they would encounter on the job. Anecdotal evidence from ser- geants and captains included stories of encountering many of the same people on the streets that they had met in the jails who then were more likely to be informants and to give the officer re- spect. All this assumes of course the following: The deputy conducted him/herself in a way to earn the respect of the inmate within the facility. Either through their own initiative or through the men- torship of supervising personnel, deputies were actively encouraged to observe and learn and view their time as a learning experience. Having appropriate mentoring and supervision, and having a defined expectation of the length of time one will spend in Custody will go a long way to eliminating the bad attitudes of those officers who want to be on Patrol. Framing Custody as a positive experience and way to gather knowledge is essential. It is fine to think of time in Cus- tody as paying your dues; it should not be viewed as a waste of time until your real job can begin. II. Internal Perception Affects Dual Track's Effectiveness 4 2013 Sheriff's Department Dual Track Career Path Plan (Sheriff's Plan), p3 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING One of the common threads running throughout every conversation with members of the Sher- iff's Department--from the newest deputy up to the Commander level--is the role of internal per- ception and pride. How one deputy perceives another or whether one officer respects another is critically important to the Department as an institution. The first step in creating a sense of equal- ity and shared experience is the Academy experience. The second step for several years now has been the experience of Custody and the third step has been the desire, and ultimately, the experi- ence of going out on Patrol. Dual Track takes away this third step. For many officers, in particular, many of the current su- pervising officers, this is a threat to the equality in the Department. The Sheriff's Department is stereotypically considered a macho5 culture as expressed by both male and female deputies. In our discussions with Sheriff's personnel, we heard variations of the following statements from all ranks: Patrol is the ultimate goal of every deputy. Patrol is harder but more rewarding. Those who choose to stay in Custody are not as hard working, afraid to face the challenges of Patrol, forced to consider Patrol because of personal hardship or family pressures and other excuses. One of the potential benefits of Dual Track that could feed into this negative perception is the fact that Custody, with its set schedule shifts, will be particularly attractive for females with fam- ilies. While it is positive that women will be able to stay longer with the Department, given the macho mindset stated above, Custody can be viewed as a negative position if it is filled with too many females. This is a sad reality and one the Department cannot ignore. This is not an attitude that will disappear overnight, especially since our observation has been that those in leadership ranks were more likely to have this attitude. The attitude will go away more quickly amongst the rank and file if the leadership from the top down really values Custody and conveys this through action and words on a regular basis. As more leaders are promoted from within Custody, pride in position will increase too. III. Assignment and Training of Leadership is Key to Dual Track Success A. Assignments of Leadership to Custody The reason for the Commission's Report was not efficiency or morale, but rather ways of de- creasing violence. When asked, "How do you think Dual Track will impact violence levels in the jails?" almost none of the dozens of officers we spoke to saw a clear connection. Almost consistently, when asked to state the biggest factor, the answer was leadership. In the words of one high ranking officer, issues related to unnecessary violence happened because, "supervisors lacked the courage to manage personnel." Over and over, we heard from sergeants and captains currently in Custody assignments state that sergeants were more focused on going back to Patrol than really leading in the custody assignment. The fact that sergeants only had to remain in the position for one year did not help. Many of the larger jails are complex environments with mul- 5 The Grand Jury uses the word macho as shorthand for qualities expressed as being part of the self-image of depu- ties such as toughness, assertiveness, bravery, strength, dominance and being in control. Sheriff's Plan, p9 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING tiple shifts of employees. There is a large learning curve. By the time the sergeants learned the position and the characteristics of their staff, they were on to the new post. We applaud the Sheriff's Department for changing this situation in two ways: First, promotion will now occur directly through the Custody track and a pathway has been put into place for this. One area of concern here is that these sergeants still need to view their role as being mentors and preparing deputies for Patrol as well. Sergeants have to have the proper train- ing and support, not only to train these deputies but also to have their respect. The Department should help these sergeants, perhaps by allowing rotations through Patrol positions or by requir- ing a certain number of ride-alongs a year for Custody leadership who have not been on Patrol. Second, sergeants who are now assigned to Custody from Patrol or other divisions will be re- quired to stay for five years.7 This requirement will require careful watch and attention given the attitude issues mentioned above. Many of the sergeants who came in from outside of Custody did not view it as a first choice and were eager to leave after one year. Will they now come to custody with a new attitude given they have to stay for five years? Will they be disgruntled? Investing in training and development of these officers will help morale and allow them to see themselves as valued specialists. B. Training In the area of training for Custody Supervisors, we believe the Sheriff's Department has not gone far enough. The focus of pending improvement is on deputies. This is commendable but more needs to occur.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
wards those officers assigned to custody. This will also be critical if large numbers of women stay in custody positions.
R2:
The Sheriff's Department in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors must come to a decision about MCJ. Many of MCJ's issues are unique to this facility. If problems at MCJ have to do with the architectural shortcomings, then funding needs to be provided to either rebuild or renovate the facility in accordance with current best practices. Different solutions may be need- ed for other large scale facilities like Pitchess Ranch or CRDF, as well as Court House Facilities.
R3:
The Sheriff's Department should focus on keeping time spent in custody assignments to ide- ally no more than two years (for those wishing to go on Patrol) while increasing the learning op- portunities while on custody assignment.
R4:
The Sheriff's Department must increase training for Custody positions (post Academy). But assuming limited resources, leadership should receive increased training before new deputies. The Department must look for ways to break down training into smaller units and possibly en- courage through incentives or promotion consideration, having deputies seek out education on their own time. The Department needs to resolve any labor issues that may hinder this goal.
R5:
The Sheriff's Department needs to mentor and model behavior more effectively. Custody assignment is an opportunity to learn more about gangs, criminal techniques, and criminal net- works outside of the jails and how to cultivate potential informants.
R6:
The Sheriff's Department in conjunction with the Department of Health needs to signifi- cantly increase mental health training Department-wide. The Department needs to work with other entities (Department of Mental Health, the county's e-education system, non-profits and private enterprise) to come up with ways to disseminate this training without causing positions to be backfilled while officers attend the training. Specifically, more needs to be taught relating to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), trauma and the behaviors that may result as well as de- escalation techniques.
R7:
The Sheriff's Department must provide deputies who work directly with the mentally ill ex- This training should emphasize recognizing, reacting to, de- tensive, specialized training. escalating and preventing aggressive and hostile behavior that can occur in these settings. 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
For the last two years, the Department has engaged in significant efforts to clear the Department of sworn officers who have engaged in criminal conduct. Many of these offi- cers were hired during a period when the sheer volume needed to fill positions resulted in a laxness of screening. Failures of discipline and lack of personnel to investigate and ade- quately defend cases appealed to the Civil Service Commission further hampered the De- partment’s efforts.
F2:
Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), which calls for realignment of inmates from state pris- ons to local communities, has put pressure on the Department once again to hire a large vol- ume of employees to serve as probation officers for inmates released from the County jails. The Department must remain vigilant to ensure that the pressure to hire does not compro- mise the quality of the hires. Further, a balance must be struck so that the experienced pro- bation officers in the camps are not the sole source of hire into these positions. Too much upheaval in camp staffing could seriously undermine the improvements that have been made in the camps.
F3:
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R4:
FOSTER CARE HOTLINE INVESTIGATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) has frequently reviewed the activities of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), an organization that has faced signifi- cant challenges, even crises, over the years. This section focuses on the Child Protection Hotline (Hotline), the public’s ingress into the foster care system, the entry point where suspected child abuse or neglect is first reported. While the Hotline, in most instances, is doing an outstanding job with knowledgeable manage- ment and skilled, dedicated workers, it has drawn intense criticism, most recently in April 2012 from the Board of Supervisors’ Children’s Special Investigation Unit. (The CSIU Report.1) The Grand Jury agrees that there is always room for improvement and, in a few instances, urgent im- provement is needed at the Hotline. DCFS’ responsibilities include the protection of all children in this County from abuse and ne- glect. That work begins at the Hotline, which receives too many noncritical calls, makes too many referrals, and creates too much work for DCFS employees downstream. DCFS must focus senior management and its resources to improve the Hotline by reducing the number of calls that go through the system, by upgrading the personnel and the compensation of those who work there, by reducing the number of policies within DCFS and by engaging the community into its efforts to reduce child abuse within the county. To be specific, community- based services need to be expanded. Utilizing the community involved Point-of-Engagement (POE) approach should be revisited to apply countywide as it appears to be showing significant success in the Compton and Torrance regions. The County must establish a separate crisis hotline and must embrace regionalization of the sys- tem. The Hotline must promote the notion that Hotline employees need special interpersonal probing skills not present in every individual. Further, it must implement better means to reward the employees under intense stress and reward the high performing employees. Clearly, there are excessive policies, procedures and practices throughout DCFS that need to be more effectively accessible and easier to navigate, if not reduced. At a minimum, a search fea- ture needs to be incorporated within the policies, procedures and practices themselves to allow ease of searching for appropriate information within the document. Generating referrals takes significant time and there continues to linger a “culture of fear” throughout the Hotline. Report Regarding DCFS Recurring Systemic Issues, Children’s Special Investigation Unit (CSIU), April 16, 2012, (CSIU Report),
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
All 9-1-1 calls go to the primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), which is the local police agency (per state regulations), with the fire department being secondary. The primary PSAP must transfer a fire/medical call to the secondary PSAP within thirty seconds (per NFPA guidelines). The primary dispatcher remains on the line to ensure that the call is transferred and that no police involvement is required.
F2:
Language can be a major factor as there are up to one hundred different languages or dialects spoken in LA County. According to all four fire agencies, an interpreter may have to be brought on the line to assist.
F3:
Cell phones, unlike hard-wired home or business phones, do not give an exact address, which is a critical piece of information needed before dispatching a unit. Newer cell phones, equipped with GPS, can now be triangulated to give an approximate location. In the past all cell phone calls went to the California Highway Patrol (CHP); now with more modern tech- nology, 9-1-1 calls go to the nearest 9-1-1 call center. The CHP should still receive calls if the caller is on a freeway, in close proximity to a freeway or the cell phone, for whatever reason, cannot be accurately triangulated.
F4:
The caller’s state of mind, possibly being in a state of hysteria, could hamper getting needed information. The human factor always plays a part, even something as simple as the caller being unsure as to his whereabouts or being able to give an accurate description of the situation.
F5:
A principal factor that produces poor response time is the on-going problem of budget cuts.5 Geography can also affect response time. Calls from hilly communities with narrow roads make it difficult for fire equipment to maneuver. If a caller lives in a relatively isolated loca- tion, response time is certain to be greater. 5 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/04/local/la-me-1205-lafd-chief-20121205 66 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG FINDINGS continued Funding: Of the above factors, the most crucial and the most obvious impediment to adequate response times is the budget issue. Once funding of the LAFD was reduced, based in part on faulty or outdated data, response times began to rise. Additionally, thirteen ambulances were idled. It is a given that fewer resources would lead directly to increased response time. The Grand Jury strongly recommends that previous LAFD budget cuts be fully restored. The Grand Jury recognizes that the LAFD is currently planning a different, yet controversial solution. Civilian Call Handlers: The Grand Jury was impressed with the use by other large agencies in Los Angeles County of civilians to handle incoming 9-1-1 calls. LAFD has for many years used sworn firefighter personnel for such duty. The Grand Jury recommends that this change. Fire- fighters should be fighting fires and responding to medical emergencies, not answering phone calls. Moreover, the skill set needed to obtain information from a 9-1-1 caller is not the same skill set as fighting a fire or giving emergency care. The Grand Jury believes it is a better practice to have trained civilians perform call handling functions. This would eliminate the need to rotate firefighters into the Dispatch Center. Further, call handlers should be given a dispatch protocol to follow so that the necessary information is gathered, but that protocol should not be a handicap. Dispatch call handlers should have flexibility in dealing with callers and should not be subject to discipline for deviating from a dispatch protocol. Technology: Improvements are needed in the technology used by the LAFD. These are mentioned in detail by the Task Force that the LAFD commissioned in June of 2012. The Grand Jury learned from several fire officials that the Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) is thirty years old. Hardware and software must be brought up to current technology levels. This technology could include software like Smart911. The Smart911 system is designed to create a safety profile for the household, such as medical conditions, mobility, etc. This profile would appear on the call handler’s screen, which could expedite response time by avoiding the need to ask certain questions. Response Time Reports: Reports should be easy to read and understand. The Grand Jury was given response times reports in various formats, some of which were confusing. The Grand Jury believes the general public would benefit by having these response times presented in a simplified form, similar to the above chart. Los Angeles Times dated April 17, 2013 LAFD to shift staff to medical calls 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 67 LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG Analysis: Notwithstanding the above criticisms and concerns, the area fire departments are doing the job that is expected. Response times, though, can sometimes be a factor in the difference between life and death. There have been cases where a person has died while waiting for the medical personnel to arrive.7 With more funding, idle ambulances can be put back into service and there can be an upgrade of technical equipment with a consequent reduction in response times. The Grand Jury acknowledges with great appreciation the dedication and commitment of all emergency responders in Los Angeles County and hopes that responses to this report will result in an enhancement of their service to all members of our community.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Who: Your Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip, Code: _______________________________________________________________ Telephone: ( ) Extension: ______________
R2:
What: Subject of Complaint. Briefly state the nature of complaint and the action of what Los Angeles County department, section, agency, or official(s) that you believe was illegal or improper. Use additional sheets if necessary. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________
R3:
When: Date(s) of incident: _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________
R4:
Where: Names and addresses of other departments, agencies or officials involved in this com- plaint. Include dates and types of contact, i.e. phone, letter, personal. Use additional sheets if necessary. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________
R5:
Why/How: Attach pertinent documents and correspondence with dates. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Rev 01/17/2013 162 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE Complaint Guidelines Communications from the public can provide valuable information to the Grand Jury. Any private citizen, government employee, or officer may submit a completed complaint form to request that the Grand Jury conduct an investigation. This complaint must be in writing and is treated as confidential. Prior to submitting the Complaint Form to the Grand Jury office, please retain a copy for your records if needed. Receipt of all complaints will be acknowledged. If the Civil Grand Jury determines that a matter is within the legally permissible scope of its investigative powers and would warrant further inquiry, additional information may be requested. If a matter does not fall within the Grand Jury's investigative authority or the Jury determines not to investigate a complaint, no action will be taken and there will be no further contact from the Civil Grand Jury. The findings of any investigation conducted by the Grand Jury can be communicated only in a formal final report published at the conclusion of the Grand Jury's term, June 30th. Some complaints are not suitable for civil grand jury action. For example, the Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over judicial performance, actions of the court, or cases that are pending in the courts. Grievances of this nature must be resolved through the established judicial appeal system. The Civil Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate federal or state agencies. Only causes of action occurring within the County of Los Angeles are eligible for review. The jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury includes the following: Consideration of evidence of misconduct against public officials within Los Angeles County. Inquiry into the condition and management of the jails within the county. Investigation and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts. Investigation of the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. Mail complaint form to: Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 163 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE 164 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT CONTINUITY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Jeff Clements-Chair Mel Widawski Thomas Scheerer Gil Zeal Jerry Strofs
R13:
REPORT OF THE CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE In accordance with established practice, the 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) established a Citizens Complaint Committee (Committee) to review and consider written communications addressed to it by members of the public. During its term, the Committee reviewed 72 letters from citizens, many of which contained accompanying documents. Twenty-three letters requested Grand Jury review of criminal proceedings, convictions or alleged police or prosecutorial misconduct which were beyond the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. In four instances, citizens requested that the Grand Jury take action in matters involving State Hospitals or the Workers Compensation Appeals Board which are also beyond the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. In nine instances, the Grand Jury was asked to intercede in private contractual issues or employment relations issues which were beyond the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. In two instances, after consideration by the entire Grand Jury, citizens were referred to other Los Angeles County or City agencies to pursue the issues raised. In many other cases, the Grand Jury determined that no action was appropriate. In one instance, a letter received from a citizen regarding the transfer of funds by the City of Glendale from Glendale Water & Power to the City’s general fund prompted a formal investigation by the Grand Jury. As a result, the Grand Jury issued an interim report on March 22, 2013 expressing its concerns regarding Glendale’s compliance with Propositions 218 and 26. The Grand Jury also received several letters regarding housing in the City of Los Angeles. These letters were received well into the Committee’s term. The Grand Jury then informed the citizens who wrote letters to the Grand Jury and encouraged them to communicate their concerns to the 2013-2014 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury. Citizens who wish to submit complaints to the Grand Jury should do so by using the following complaint form and guidelines which may also be found at the Civil Grand Jury website, www.http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/jury/pdf/investigation.pdf. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 161 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM Please Review Attached Complaint Guidelines Before Completing this Form PLEASE PRINT DATE: _____________________________
R14:
CONTINUITY COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Continuity Committee serves as a bridge connecting the work of previous Los Angeles County Grand Juries (Grand Jury) to the current Grand Jury. The Continuity Committee main- tained complete records of responses to the recommendations by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. Fur- ther, the 2012-2013 Continuity Committee created a list of current recommendations issued in
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
For the last two years, the Department has engaged in significant efforts to clear the Department of sworn officers who have engaged in criminal conduct. Many of these offi- cers were hired during a period when the sheer volume needed to fill positions resulted in a laxness of screening. Failures of discipline and lack of personnel to investigate and ade- quately defend cases appealed to the Civil Service Commission further hampered the De- partment’s efforts.
F2:
Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109), which calls for realignment of inmates from state pris- ons to local communities, has put pressure on the Department once again to hire a large vol- ume of employees to serve as probation officers for inmates released from the County jails. The Department must remain vigilant to ensure that the pressure to hire does not compro- mise the quality of the hires. Further, a balance must be struck so that the experienced pro- bation officers in the camps are not the sole source of hire into these positions. Too much upheaval in camp staffing could seriously undermine the improvements that have been made in the camps.
F3:
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
F2011:
9 B. The County Must Establish a Separate Crisis Line As stated previously, some 80% of calls to the Hotline come from mandated reporters. It is thought that excessive caution drives these calls. If a mandated reporter even suspects child abuse, it is better for that person to call than not to call. No one will get into “on-the-job trouble” for calling, whereas one might have significant liability if the purported abuse is ignored. The solution may lie in San Francisco’s approach. It has a separate crisis line and not every call goes through its equivalent to the Hotline. According to those Hotline employees interviewed, some calls come from foster parents who simply are in the midst of a family crisis or who need information. The Hotline does make referrals to a 211 (information line), but a separate crisis line might be a valuable and cost-effective option based on feedback from the Torrance regional office. The County’s 211 system has a strong reputation for its ability to make appropriate re- sponses so a well-advertised separate information line would be a worthwhile idea. 8 Department of Children and Family and Family Services, Executive Committee Reports, Data as of October 9, 2012 (pages IV-D-5) 9 CSIU Report, p.7. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 27 FOSTER CARE HOTLINE C. There is a Need to Eliminate Certain Calls from the Hotline In addition to removing non-crisis or general information calls from the system, an effort should be made to minimize or eliminate calls involving AWOLs or “re-placements.” The AWOLs are children who are unaccounted for, such as runaways. Re-placements are children in the system who are being moved from one foster home to another. These children are already in the system and their situation has to be monitored, but the Hotline is not seen as the best option to do this. Consequently, there should be a separate phone number for foster parents to call instead of the Hotline. For example, a foster parent with a problem foster child may need another foster parent colleague to talk to, but the Hotline surely is not the best place to do so. Again, other lines are needed so as to free up the Hotline for real emergencies. D. Hotline’s Best Employees Must Be Rewarded The Grand Jury believes that there must be a way to provide additional compensation to the very effective, efficient and productive workers at the Hotline. Call handlers who are efficient and effective, and handle a large number of calls should be re- warded for their performance. Ineffective and inefficient employees and those who are placed in the Hotline because they did not perform adequately elsewhere should be removed. The Hotline is too critical to be staffed by the “walking wounded.” Of course, the union that represents the CSWs must be engaged in the process and the civil service rules must be honored The Grand Jury is also aware of this finding from the CSIU’s 2012 report, “DCFS should ex- plore expanding the qualifications for social workers to include a broader range of educational backgrounds and types of experience.”10 This simply means the “what happened?” part of the investigation is of primary importance. Persons with experience and background in soliciting in- formation quickly and accurately, such as those with a police background, must be employed in this specialized area. The gathering of information in the first instance colors the whole process. It must be done by persons with the ability to do the task correctly, efficiently and effectively. E. Senior Managers and Regional Workers Need to Witness Actual Calls As the report from CSIU indicates, the Hotline and its work is probably the most important as- pect of the business of reducing child abuse and neglect.11 The ultimate result of DCFS’ in- volvement with a family cannot be good if its investigation starts off with misinformation or a lack of direction. “Good decisions cannot be made without good information.”12 If this task is as important as the CSIU report indicates, senior management has to be totally in- volved. Put senior management on the line. Having a call supervisor on call duty for a day or two 10 CSIU Report, p.2. 11 Ibid., pp. 9, 12. 12 Ibid., p. 12. 28 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT FOSTER CARE HOTLINE each month would enable them to clearly gauge the current situations. Top management must make the Hotline a priority. Another possibility would be to have CSWs from the field come in for a turn at the Hotline. If the field workers could see exactly how the Hotline actually works, then the CSWs from the field would be able to see the difficulties inherent in the system and, perhaps, allow for referrals that may seem unimportant. F. The County Needs to Reduce the Number of Policies Hotline staff members have informed the Grand Jury that employees at the Hotline must be aware of “everything,” from the federal rules to the latest county policy statements. Does the staff get sufficient training? The Grand Jury understands that eight weeks of training is offered. Consideration should be given to expand training and/or staggered multiple training sessions. Moreover, the number of policies and procedures in place is simply too great. As the CSIU Re- port indicates, there seems to be a policy for everything, including a seven-page dissertation on how to handle non-English speakers. The number of policy pages totals 4364, according to the CSIU report, at pages 24-25. This number has to be decreased as the amount of information is more than any person can handle. If nothing else, DCFS should establish a program by which its “cumbersome and voluminous” policies and procedures may be quickly accessed. This is similar to a recommendation made in the CSIU Report, at pages 24-26. The DCFS Must Reduce Its Number of Referrals And Make Its Work More Efficient A. Referrals Take a Great Deal of Work-Hours Since the Hotline receives too many calls, its problems are compounded by the fact that the sys- tem generates too many referrals. For example, during the 2011-2012 fiscal year reporting peri- od, there were 165,442 referrals in L.A. County equating to about 11,000 to 15,000 per month resulting in about 24,867 case openings per year, equating to 1,600 to 2,200 per month yielding 10,275 removals per year of the child from the home.13 Staff has noted that each referral gener- ates an investigation which takes a minimum of 30 hours of work. Referrals tend to multiply. A call that references the alleged abuse or neglect of one child in a home will often lead to ques- tions about other children in the home, to other adults who live in the home or adults who regu- larly visit the home or family. Nonetheless, as the CSIU report noted at p. 16, approximately one-half of all referrals are deemed to be “unfounded.” Another issue, as noted above, is that most calls come from mandated reporters, amounting to approximately 80% of the calls received. It is understood that a majority of these calls come 13 Department of Children and Family and Family Services, Executive Committee Reports, Data as of October 9, 2012 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 29 FOSTER CARE HOTLINE from schools. Naturally, these types of calls will never be seen as “crank calls.” They have to be investigated, so a referral is generated; therefore, the system builds on itself. Abuse referrals amount to about half of the calls that come in and the other half are for neglect. They must be cross-referenced to the local law enforcement agency. While this has to be done, more strain on the workload and more paperwork is generated. Fear again drives much of the system. For example, it is unlikely any person working the Hot- line will ever get into trouble for making a referral. This may be why some of those interviewed say 80% of all calls lead to a referral. In many counties, the number of referrals is more in the vicinity of 60-70% of all calls, according to information obtained from a former senior official at DCFS. Another possibility would be to use the State guidelines as opposed to the County guidelines. According to staff interviews, the State’s guidelines are more accommodating and would neces- sarily lead to fewer emergency referrals and create less stress on the regional offices. This is be- cause, as the Grand Jury learned from one of its interviews, that the State requires an immediate response to be accomplished within 24 hours as opposed to the County requirement that an im- mediate response be made before the work day is over. It is understood by the Grand Jury that this is not a popular idea with many staff, who prefer the County’s more demanding “immediate response” protocol, but it should be done in order to reduce the stress inherent in the work. B. The SDM tool must be modified DCFS uses a software tool known as “SDM” in its decision and urgency/immediate response process. SDM provides guidance to the CSW taking a call as to how quickly to respond to the information at hand, but it is seen as focusing on or leading to referrals. If one goes through the SDM process, a referral is usually created. The CSW handling the call does have discretion to override the SDM result, but why do so? SDM said to do it. Why take a chance? The answer has to be that a CSW’s common sense, experience, and knowledge regarding the response decision have to be respected. The CSWs are trained and that training has to be more than how to follow a checklist. The CWS/CMS is the statewide system for tracking child abuse and neglect. The County uses all of this information in its effort to deal with this terrible problem, but it is a time-consuming process. According to Hotline employees, other counties (albeit smaller counties) use only a portion of the CWS/CMS to track problems, but Los Angeles, despite its tremendous workload, uses it all. The Grand Jury observed that this entire process involves a climate of fear. Fear of lawsuits, fear of being the one CSW who failed to do a referral in a case that subsequently turned into a horri- ble situation or even a case that surfaces years later. No one wants to be faced with the question, “Why didn’t you do more?” Therefore, the system generates more referrals, based on more calls, leading to greater stress. C. Report-Writing Takes Too Long 30 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT FOSTER CARE HOTLINE Writing the description portion of the CWS/CMS is a problem in that it often takes too long. A 15-minute phone call often generates a report that requires 45 minutes to complete according to a Hotline worker. During that time, the CSW is writing the report and not available to field calls. Even with the best workers and best software tool, the documented referral may not be 100% correct. Employees in the field have pointed out to the Grand Jury that if the Hotline generates a referral that goes out to a regional office, it is difficult to reverse. A supervisor at the local office level has to be willing to make the request and to fight for the reversal. He/she also has to be able to get through to the person at the Hotline who generated the referral to convince that person to make the change. Referrals do tend to multiply, with “follow-ups” and “open” investigations. Interviews with staff indicate that most referrals lead to a minimum of 30-40 hours of work. The initial caller has to be contacted, of course, but the family, neighbors, school officials, etc. will need to be addressed. A referral casts a wide net. The Grand Jury thinks that cases stay open too long and the system is overwhelmed with cases. Nonetheless, the number of actual removals from the home is about six per cent of calls that are received. As noted above, thousands of referrals (180,000 or so per year) are made with approx- imately 10,000 children actually removed from their homes and placed in foster care. The num- ber, of course, is a huge number standing by itself, but stands as a relative few when compared to the total number of calls received. It is clearly desirable to take remedial action to alleviate the situation and allow the child to remain in the home. D. An Effort Must Be Made To Regionalize the System
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
The office of each Supervisor helps constituents in dealing with Los Angeles County de- partments. The Grand Jury interviewed staff members in each office. Those directly involved with aiding constituents appear to be knowledgeable and dedicated.
F2:
Each supervisorial office enters complaints and requests into the Constituent Relationship Management system (CRM). Routinely, all correspondence regarding the case is recorded in this system. Thus anyone in the office has easy access to the information and can continue processing the case. When a conclusion is reached, that information is entered into the sys- tem. This allows generation of a report listing cases that have been open too long. A disad- vantage of the system is that it can be cumbersome. Requests not requiring follow-up are of- ten not recorded. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 55 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F3:
There are a variety of ways to contact a Supervisor’s office: phone, letter, and email/web. Some of the other methods of making requests or complaints are fax, walk-in, board meeting, and at a community meeting. Letters are the best way to contact the Fourth and Fifth Dis- tricts. For information on the frequency of contacts through each source see Table 1 below. Table 1 Source of Contact by Supervisorial District4 (Oct 2011-Sept 2012) Source District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Total Phone 1106 739 702 384 2931 Letter 76 249 148 *281 858 1612 Email/Web 331 483 133 1170 2117 Other 227 170 25 79 501 Total 1740 1641 1008 *281 2491 7161 *The Fourth District office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. These tables were produced from data furnished by each District using the CRM system. The tables of the submitted data are in Exhibits 1-5. Exhibit 6 contains two tables submitted by the Fourth District. With the exception of actual data for letters received and entered into CRM, all other “data” are estimates which are vastly out of range from the CRM data pro- vided by the other offices. Through communication by a staff member of the Fourth District the Grand Jury learned that only information received by letter was available in CRM.
F4:
Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F5:
All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F6:
To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R15:
DETENTION: ADULT FACILITIES INTRODUCTION The Los Angeles County Jail System houses over 19,000 inmates, making it the largest county jail complex in the country.1 In addition to the county system operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, many cities throughout the county operate jails. This report discusses several issues affecting jail and detention facilities generally and the condition of individual adult detention facilities specifically. There are a total of 115 active adult jail and detention facilities in Los Angeles County. The 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) inspected 74. By definition, a jail is typically a local detention facility designed for either temporary housing of a detainee or for a misdemeanant sentenced for up to one year of confinement. A prison typically refers to confinement facilities operated by the state or federal government for felons sentenced to more than one year of confinement. The Grand Jury also visited all Juvenile Halls and Camps operated by the Los Angeles County Probation Department. A
R16:
DETENTION: JUVENILE FACILITIES INTRODUCTION Each year, the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) is charged with the task of inspecting Los Angeles County juvenile probation halls (Halls) and juvenile probation camps (Camps), all of which are operated by the County Probation Department (Probation).1 Few County departments have faced the same level of scrutiny or the re-organization that Probation has within the past few years. The Grand Jury learned of changes in overall department leader- ship, Camp supervisory personnel, therapeutic approaches, youth-staff interactions, educational programs and training of personnel. On a fundamental level, there has been a shift in attitude for many in the Department. Probation has had to question the role of incarceration as it applies to juveniles. As a result, many juveniles are now being diverted from Camps and treated instead within communities, as evidenced by the significant population drop in both Camps and Halls. Overall, the Grand Jury was witness to a shift from a focus on punishment to rehabilitation. This report outlines some of the broader issues observed as well as its findings of conditions at indvidual Halls and Camps.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.