Los Angeles County Grand Jury
2015-2016
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Continuity Report
Technical assistance 17 1 0 1 14 3 7 7 36 for completing BIF Application 20% 1% 0% 1% 16% 3% 8% 8% 42%
From the consolidated annual report · 60 pages
📑 Continuity Report
20. Continuity Committee
From the consolidated annual report · 24 pages
Individual reports (21)
📋July 08, 2016 — Appointed Commissions: TransparencyWill Maintain the PublicTrust*
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R53-74:
Sheriff Department 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9 A Closer Look at Policing and the Mentally III 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12,
R75-91:
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Los Angeles County Alternatives to Squalor: The Need to House the Homeless 4.2, 4.6
📋July 08, 2016 — Capital Appreciation Bonds and OtherSchool Bond Debt: Consequences ofPoor Financial Practices*
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R53-74:
Sheriff Department 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9 A Closer Look at Policing and the Mentally III 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12,
R75-91:
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Los Angeles County Alternatives to Squalor: The Need to House the Homeless 4.2, 4.6
📋July 08, 2016 — ETO2V0te: EverybodyTurn-Outto Vote*
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R53-74:
Sheriff Department 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9 A Closer Look at Policing and the Mentally III 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12,
R75-91:
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Los Angeles County Alternatives to Squalor: The Need to House the Homeless 4.2, 4.6
📋July 08, 2016 — Readyor Not: Adulthood is Now*
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R53-74:
Sheriff Department 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9 A Closer Look at Policing and the Mentally III 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12,
R75-91:
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Los Angeles County Alternatives to Squalor: The Need to House the Homeless 4.2, 4.6
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
An initial assessment of existing and projected parking supply and ridership data for Metro stations along major existing and planned transit lines.
R2:
A review of Metro’s plans, policies, and procedures with respect to parking at Metro stations, with a particular focus on facilitating increased access and ridership.
R3:
The selection of Metro stations for in-depth analysis of existing or planned parking supply, parking supply history, and related land use developments in local jurisdictions surrounding Metro stations.
R4:
A literature review to identify key sources for understanding the links between parking supply, transit ridership, and transit revenues. This would also include an evaluation of demographic, social, and technological changes that may affect parking needs in the next five, ten, or fifteen years.
R5:
An assessment of the effectiveness of Metro’s planning process for parking, as well as its parking policies and procedures, and identify recommendations for improvement. For an in-depth review of practices and operations at the local level, the audit team selected six existing stations with parking lots, and three planned stations, as noted below: 198 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R18-64:
years 65% 93% Over 65 years 12% 3% Race: White 27% 17% Black 8% 18% American Indian 0.2% <1% Asian/Pacific Islander 15% 12% Latino 48% 47% Other 2% 6% Income: Median Household Income $55,746 $21,980 Average Household Income $83,104 $37,142 Source: 2014 American Community Survey (ACS); Metro
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
The DMEC Workload With more than 10 million residents, Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the nation. It covers 4,752 square miles and, significantly, is congested with nearly 8 million registered vehicles.11 DMEC’s sole facility is located in downtown Los Angeles, although there are three satellite facilities out of which a handful of investigators operate.12 No one is allowed to touch or move a body at an accident or crime scene unless the Coroner gives them permission to do so or until a Coroner’s Investigator arrives.13 The CGJ has been informed that the average time for an investigator to travel through traffic from the downtown headquarters to a death scene in most areas of the county is usually 30 to 90 minutes and sometimes nearly three hours. Thus, distance and population density both affect the effective conduct of DMEC’s work. DMEC processes about 9,000 – 10,000 bodies and performs about 4,000 autopsies per year. While its workload is comparable to that of the medical examiner offices in New York City (all boroughs are organized under one medical examiner) and Cook County (Chicago), which report performing more than 5,000 and about 3,700 autopsies per year, respectively, those other jurisdictions are physically smaller, serve smaller populations, and employ more critical staff per capita than DMEC. California Department of Motor Vehicles Forecasting Unit: total for 2014 was 7,719,360. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/add5eb07-c676-40b4-98b5- 8011b059260a/est_fees_pd_by_county.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 12Two investigators are assigned to a small office in Lancaster, CA, four investigators are assigned to office space in Lomita, CA, and two investigators are assigned to an office in the San Fernando Police Department. In Lancaster there is a small office and non- working refrigerated space that could accommodate six bodies. In some cases, because of lack personnel, DMEC must depend on a local funeral company to transport bodies from Antelope Valley to the Los Angeles office, the only location in the county where autopsies are performed. Neither the Lomita nor the San Fernando offices contain anything other than desks for the investigators who work there. These regional offices allow DMEC to more rapidly respond to a scene of death which mitigates traffic obstructions. Cal.Govt.Code § 27491.2 (b) “For purposes of inquiry, the body of one who is known to be dead from any of the causes or under any of the circumstances described in Section 27491 shall not be disturbed or moved from the position or place of death without permission of the coroner or the coroner's appointed deputy. Any violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 7 Table 1: Population Served Per Critical Staff Member Population Population Area served per served per Population Total Served in Forensic Coroner served per Population Square Pathologist Investigator * Toxicologist Served Miles Los Angeles 434,700 222,200 769,200 10,000,000 4,752 New York 242,800 293,100 386,400 8,500,000 303 (5 Boroughs) Cook County 385,700 337,500 385,700 5,400,000 945 (Chicago) *Put another way, each of the 46 investigators in Los Angeles County can be said to “cover” 103 square miles, while 29 investigators in New York each cover 10.5 square miles and 16 investigators in Cook County each cover 59 square miles. The Medical Examiner-Coroner informed the CGJ that DMEC, despite severe understaffing, is committed to provide a 48-hour turnaround time with regard to preliminary results in cases in which it accepts jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The DMEC Workload With more than 10 million residents, Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the nation. It covers 4,752 square miles and, significantly, is congested with nearly 8 million registered vehicles.11 DMEC’s sole facility is located in downtown Los Angeles, although there are three satellite facilities out of which a handful of investigators operate.12 No one is allowed to touch or move a body at an accident or crime scene unless the Coroner gives them permission to do so or until a Coroner’s Investigator arrives.13 The CGJ has been informed that the average time for an investigator to travel through traffic from the downtown headquarters to a death scene in most areas of the county is usually 30 to 90 minutes and sometimes nearly three hours. Thus, distance and population density both affect the effective conduct of DMEC’s work. DMEC processes about 9,000 – 10,000 bodies and performs about 4,000 autopsies per year. While its workload is comparable to that of the medical examiner offices in New York City (all boroughs are organized under one medical examiner) and Cook County (Chicago), which report performing more than 5,000 and about 3,700 autopsies per year, respectively, those other jurisdictions are physically smaller, serve smaller populations, and employ more critical staff per capita than DMEC. California Department of Motor Vehicles Forecasting Unit: total for 2014 was 7,719,360. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/add5eb07-c676-40b4-98b5- 8011b059260a/est_fees_pd_by_county.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 12Two investigators are assigned to a small office in Lancaster, CA, four investigators are assigned to office space in Lomita, CA, and two investigators are assigned to an office in the San Fernando Police Department. In Lancaster there is a small office and non- working refrigerated space that could accommodate six bodies. In some cases, because of lack personnel, DMEC must depend on a local funeral company to transport bodies from Antelope Valley to the Los Angeles office, the only location in the county where autopsies are performed. Neither the Lomita nor the San Fernando offices contain anything other than desks for the investigators who work there. These regional offices allow DMEC to more rapidly respond to a scene of death which mitigates traffic obstructions. Cal.Govt.Code § 27491.2 (b) “For purposes of inquiry, the body of one who is known to be dead from any of the causes or under any of the circumstances described in Section 27491 shall not be disturbed or moved from the position or place of death without permission of the coroner or the coroner's appointed deputy. Any violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 7 Table 1: Population Served Per Critical Staff Member Population Population Area served per served per Population Total Served in Forensic Coroner served per Population Square Pathologist Investigator * Toxicologist Served Miles Los Angeles 434,700 222,200 769,200 10,000,000 4,752 New York 242,800 293,100 386,400 8,500,000 303 (5 Boroughs) Cook County 385,700 337,500 385,700 5,400,000 945 (Chicago) *Put another way, each of the 46 investigators in Los Angeles County can be said to “cover” 103 square miles, while 29 investigators in New York each cover 10.5 square miles and 16 investigators in Cook County each cover 59 square miles. The Medical Examiner-Coroner informed the CGJ that DMEC, despite severe understaffing, is committed to provide a 48-hour turnaround time with regard to preliminary results in cases in which it accepts jurisdiction.
F2:
The Investigation and Examination Process According to the standard of care applied by medical examiners across the country autopsies are completed within 48 hours of death. The forensic pathologist cannot begin an autopsy or even an external examination, however, until the investigator completes a report detailing the scene at which a body is found, including personal effects gathered there. In each case determined to be within the jurisdiction of DMEC, the deceased is taken to DMEC’s facility and examined by a deputy medical examiner to determine the cause and manner of death. That physician assesses whether an autopsy and/or laboratory tests are required as part of the investigation. At its present rate DMEC takes on average much longer than 90 days to complete final autopsy reports, the minimum standard for completion required by NAME for full accreditation of a forensic death investigation facility. This substantial period of time can be attributed to a lack of sufficient staff, including professional and direct and indirect support personnel. During an autopsy the decedent’s body is examined for external wounds. A detailed internal examination is conducted during which organs are examined and weighed. Bodily fluids are collected. Tissue samples are taken and retained to determine if there 8 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT is a presence of drugs, poison, and/or disease(s) and to preserve DNA. Forensic pathologists work closely with law enforcement but conduct their investigations independently to reach scientific conclusions as to cause of death. Moreover, toxicology samples are very time and temperature sensitive. A body lying on ninety (90) degree asphalt will begin to decompose within an hour. Samples retrieved more than two weeks after death likewise will have degraded and therefore may not be optimally reliable.14 The DMEC toxicology lab currently requires six or seven months to analyze samples taken in routine autopsies,15 jeopardizing accreditation of the entire facility. The Forensic Laboratory standards, which are international standards of analysis, are higher now than were expected even five years ago. They are much more time consuming and labor intensive than previous standards. DMEC continues to have on average more than 400 bodies stored in its crypt and is incapable of meeting, in the vast majority of its cases, the minimum acceptable standard autopsy report completion time of 90 days. Some 160 bodies await external examination and/or autopsy, and more than 250 additional bodies are stored for further testing (about 10 percent of the number), to be identified (delayed because there are not enough coroner investigators to do the statutorily-required work), or have been abandoned by survivors and therefore are left for final disposition by Los Angeles County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Investigation and Examination Process According to the standard of care applied by medical examiners across the country autopsies are completed within 48 hours of death. The forensic pathologist cannot begin an autopsy or even an external examination, however, until the investigator completes a report detailing the scene at which a body is found, including personal effects gathered there. In each case determined to be within the jurisdiction of DMEC, the deceased is taken to DMEC’s facility and examined by a deputy medical examiner to determine the cause and manner of death. That physician assesses whether an autopsy and/or laboratory tests are required as part of the investigation. At its present rate DMEC takes on average much longer than 90 days to complete final autopsy reports, the minimum standard for completion required by NAME for full accreditation of a forensic death investigation facility. This substantial period of time can be attributed to a lack of sufficient staff, including professional and direct and indirect support personnel. During an autopsy the decedent’s body is examined for external wounds. A detailed internal examination is conducted during which organs are examined and weighed. Bodily fluids are collected. Tissue samples are taken and retained to determine if there 8 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT is a presence of drugs, poison, and/or disease(s) and to preserve DNA. Forensic pathologists work closely with law enforcement but conduct their investigations independently to reach scientific conclusions as to cause of death. Moreover, toxicology samples are very time and temperature sensitive. A body lying on ninety (90) degree asphalt will begin to decompose within an hour. Samples retrieved more than two weeks after death likewise will have degraded and therefore may not be optimally reliable.14 The DMEC toxicology lab currently requires six or seven months to analyze samples taken in routine autopsies,15 jeopardizing accreditation of the entire facility. The Forensic Laboratory standards, which are international standards of analysis, are higher now than were expected even five years ago. They are much more time consuming and labor intensive than previous standards. DMEC continues to have on average more than 400 bodies stored in its crypt and is incapable of meeting, in the vast majority of its cases, the minimum acceptable standard autopsy report completion time of 90 days. Some 160 bodies await external examination and/or autopsy, and more than 250 additional bodies are stored for further testing (about 10 percent of the number), to be identified (delayed because there are not enough coroner investigators to do the statutorily-required work), or have been abandoned by survivors and therefore are left for final disposition by Los Angeles County.
F3:
Accreditation DMEC has maintained its accreditation -- a measure of acceptable standards in management, personnel, operations, procedures, instruments, physical site, and safety -- although it currently is so far behind the minimum standards that losing accreditation is a likelihood in 2016.16 Such accreditation has been attained by only 82 medical examiner or coroner offices, including DMEC, out of the more than 2,000 counties across the nation. Los Angeles County DMEC worked hard to attain this elite status among peer facilities. The volume of cases for which DMEC is responsible overwhelms a staff that is significantly smaller than recommended in standards set by NAME. The budget provided to DMEC also has been flat in the past two fiscal years and the CEO’s recent proposed budget reduces the level of funding for FY 2016-2017. 14 “Factors such as delay in autopsy, sampling technique, and specimen preservation contribute more to inaccuracies associated with toxicological testing than do the testing procedures themselves, but procuring and storing toxicology specimens under optimal conditions mitigate these factors.” Dr. G. G. Davis and the National Association of Medical Examiners and American College of Medical toxicology Expert Panel on Evaluating and Reporting Opioid Deaths, “National Association of Medical Examiners Position Paper: Recommendations for the Investigation, Diagnosis, and Certification of Deaths Related to Opioid Drugs,” (March 2013), p.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Accreditation DMEC has maintained its accreditation -- a measure of acceptable standards in management, personnel, operations, procedures, instruments, physical site, and safety -- although it currently is so far behind the minimum standards that losing accreditation is a likelihood in 2016.16 Such accreditation has been attained by only 82 medical examiner or coroner offices, including DMEC, out of the more than 2,000 counties across the nation. Los Angeles County DMEC worked hard to attain this elite status among peer facilities. The volume of cases for which DMEC is responsible overwhelms a staff that is significantly smaller than recommended in standards set by NAME. The budget provided to DMEC also has been flat in the past two fiscal years and the CEO’s recent proposed budget reduces the level of funding for FY 2016-2017. 14 “Factors such as delay in autopsy, sampling technique, and specimen preservation contribute more to inaccuracies associated with toxicological testing than do the testing procedures themselves, but procuring and storing toxicology specimens under optimal conditions mitigate these factors.” Dr. G. G. Davis and the National Association of Medical Examiners and American College of Medical toxicology Expert Panel on Evaluating and Reporting Opioid Deaths, “National Association of Medical Examiners Position Paper: Recommendations for the Investigation, Diagnosis, and Certification of Deaths Related to Opioid Drugs,” (March 2013), p.
F5:
DMEC prioritizes cases in a particular order.
• First, cases involving infants and young children, because their bodies rapidly decompose.
• Second, homicides.
• Third, unidentified individuals.
• Fourth, all others.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
DMEC prioritizes cases in a particular order.
• First, cases involving infants and young children, because their bodies rapidly decompose.
• Second, homicides.
• Third, unidentified individuals.
• Fourth, all others.
F6:
The budget reflects investment in DMEC of about $3.55 per resident of the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The budget reflects investment in DMEC of about $3.55 per resident of the county.
F7:
DMEC strives to provide quality services to all of its customers, including decedent’s families, funeral directors, law enforcement, courts, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, and other justice agencies, foreign consulates, and the news media, in a timely, accurate, efficient, and usable manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
DMEC strives to provide quality services to all of its customers, including decedent’s families, funeral directors, law enforcement, courts, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, and other justice agencies, foreign consulates, and the news media, in a timely, accurate, efficient, and usable manner.
F8:
The workload/caseload of DMEC in Los Angeles County compares with that in other very large urban counties, including New York City (all five boroughs) and Cook County (Chicago). Although their service areas are physically smaller and they serve smaller populations, those jurisdictions employ more critical staff per capita than DMEC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The workload/caseload of DMEC in Los Angeles County compares with that in other very large urban counties, including New York City (all five boroughs) and Cook County (Chicago). Although their service areas are physically smaller and they serve smaller populations, those jurisdictions employ more critical staff per capita than DMEC.
F9:
The professional field of forensic pathology is quite small and very few medical students pursue residencies, and later careers, in the field.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The professional field of forensic pathology is quite small and very few medical students pursue residencies, and later careers, in the field.
F10:
There are numerous job listings for forensic pathologists across the nation that offer starting salaries comparable to those offered in Los Angeles County, but the workload is much less (as is the cost of living).
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
There are numerous job listings for forensic pathologists across the nation that offer starting salaries comparable to those offered in Los Angeles County, but the workload is much less (as is the cost of living).
F11:
There is a vacancy in the most senior budgeted investigator position, Chief of Coroner’s Investigations. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 17 12. There are three vacancies in the most senior positions in the forensic laboratory.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
There is a vacancy in the most senior budgeted investigator position, Chief of Coroner’s Investigations. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 17
F13:
Los Angeles County does not engage in recruitment battles for scarce professionals by offering bonuses or other incentives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
Los Angeles County does not engage in recruitment battles for scarce professionals by offering bonuses or other incentives.
F14:
DMEC will lose its professional accreditation, and expose the County and DMEC to attacks on their credibility in criminal cases, if the workload cannot be handled by staff in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
DMEC will lose its professional accreditation, and expose the County and DMEC to attacks on their credibility in criminal cases, if the workload cannot be handled by staff in a timely manner.
F15:
Los Angeles County might preserve at least a “provisional” accreditation for DMEC if NAME examiners, expected to inspect DMEC in August 2016, are aware that concrete steps have been taken by Los Angeles County and by DMEC to permanently rectify severe staffing deficiencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
Los Angeles County might preserve at least a “provisional” accreditation for DMEC if NAME examiners, expected to inspect DMEC in August 2016, are aware that concrete steps have been taken by Los Angeles County and by DMEC to permanently rectify severe staffing deficiencies.
F16:
Due to traffic congestion and distance from the medical examiner’s facility in downtown Los Angeles, travel times for investigators to the scene of a death can vary widely, but are generally 30 to 90 minutes and sometimes more than three hours. Law enforcement and paramedics must wait for DMEC staff to arrive on scene.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Due to traffic congestion and distance from the medical examiner’s facility in downtown Los Angeles, travel times for investigators to the scene of a death can vary widely, but are generally 30 to 90 minutes and sometimes more than three hours. Law enforcement and paramedics must wait for DMEC staff to arrive on scene.
F17:
Two DMEC investigators are located in the Antelope Valley and work out of a small building (about 4,000 square feet) adjacent to the now closed High Desert Hospital. Bodies are no longer able to be refrigerated prior to transfer to DMEC’s Forensic Science Center in downtown Los Angeles because that equipment is not operating. In the rear of the hospital there is an autopsy suite, out of use for at least 10 years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
Two DMEC investigators are located in the Antelope Valley and work out of a small building (about 4,000 square feet) adjacent to the now closed High Desert Hospital. Bodies are no longer able to be refrigerated prior to transfer to DMEC’s Forensic Science Center in downtown Los Angeles because that equipment is not operating. In the rear of the hospital there is an autopsy suite, out of use for at least 10 years.
F18:
Ambulances are prohibited by law from transporting deceased individuals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
Ambulances are prohibited by law from transporting deceased individuals.
F19:
In New York City mortuary services, including autopsy facilities, are located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. The medical examiner there is in the process of reopening similar facilities in the Bronx and Staten Island.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
In New York City mortuary services, including autopsy facilities, are located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. The medical examiner there is in the process of reopening similar facilities in the Bronx and Staten Island.
F20:
DMEC sends hundreds of bodies per year to private facilities for cremation at a net cost of about $350 per body.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
DMEC sends hundreds of bodies per year to private facilities for cremation at a net cost of about $350 per body.
F21:
The ODA morgue staff is overworked in both transport and administrative positions. There are unfilled, budgeted positions available for additional staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
The ODA morgue staff is overworked in both transport and administrative positions. There are unfilled, budgeted positions available for additional staff.
F22:
The Los Angeles County morgue would continue to be located in LAC+USC Medical Center regardless of which department is responsible for its operation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
The Los Angeles County morgue would continue to be located in LAC+USC Medical Center regardless of which department is responsible for its operation.
F23:
Only two of five existing retorts in the county crematory are operational. One of these lacks a functioning thermostat. DHS workers at the crematory are able to process only two bodies per day. 18 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 24. DHS has a policy of contracting with private crematories if the diminished capacity at the county crematory results in a backlog of ten or more bodies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
Only two of five existing retorts in the county crematory are operational. One of these lacks a functioning thermostat. DHS workers at the crematory are able to process only two bodies per day. 18 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT
F77:
https://netforum.avectra.com/public/temp/ClientImages/NAME/a8f3230e-d063-4681-8678-e3d15ce9effb.pdf 15 Interview with DMEC staff. The minimum standard is that 90 percent of toxicology tests will be completed in 90 days. NAME, “Inspection and Accreditation Checklist for Autopsy Services, Adopted February 2013,” p. 16. https://netforum.avectra.com/public/temp/ClientImages/NAME/c43b8bca-ad7b-4a40-990b-7f45283a66ab.pdf 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 9 Table 2: DMEC Budget CEO Proposed FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016 FY 2016-2017 Net County $31,704,000 $31,789,000 $35,656,000(a) $35,515,000 $33,583,000 Cost Budgeted 216 217 244(b) 227 227 Positions (a) The majority of the $3.8 million increase over the 2013-2014 budgeted amount reflects the county-wide salary and benefit increases as a result of a Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and one-time miscellaneous equipment funding. (b) The 27 additional positions over the 2013-2014 budgeted numbers reflect 20 volunteer (non-paid) positions (added in error to the 2014-2015 Adopted Budget ordinance), six positions added at the time of Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner’s appointment, and one position added in exchange of reduced expense funds. Critical staff and the challenges in recruiting and retaining them include:
• Forensic Pathologists: At present there are only about 500 - 600 board-certified forensic pathologists in the United States,17 although NAME estimates, significantly, a need for double that number.18 In 2015 just 43 doctors passed the examination to become board certified forensic pathologists.19 Each year there are 15,000 new medical students, but only 37 of the 131 medical schools provide accredited training programs in forensic pathology. On average, just 47 medical students from all schools go on to become forensic pathology residents.20 Los Angeles County each year offers two residency positions in DMEC but cannot always fill both. The starting salary for forensic pathologists in Los Angeles County was recently set by the CEO. “All new employees would start at an annual salary of $187,728 unless they had outside experience and then they would start at a higher step commensurate with their experience.”21 17 “Between 2007 and 2013, a total of 290 people were trained in forensic pathology, an annual average of 41 per year. . . . Considering an annual creation rate of 21 FPs per year [who attain board certification], and given the current work force of 500 FPs, it would take approximately 25 years to create enough FPs to serve the current U.S. population, assuming no population growth during that time. Compounding this issue, the FP workforce is annually decreasing due to attrition from retirement, death, and other factors, including job dissatisfaction because of the stressful nature of political, legal, and media encounters; poor working conditions; the nature of the work, and/or low salaries.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Commission on Forensic Science, “Increasing the Number, Retention, and Quality of Board-Certified Forensic Pathologists,” p. 3. http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/641646/download 18 Ibid. Denise McNally, Executive Director of NAME, telephone interview February 2, 2016. Scientific Working Group on Medicolegal Death Investigation (SWGMDI), “Increasing Forensic Supply of Forensic Pathologists in the United States,” (December 5, 2012), p. 2. http://www.swgmdi.org/images/si4.fpsupplyreportpublisheddecember2012.pdf National Institute of Justice, Forensic Death Investigation Symposium, June 7-9, 2010, National Academy of Sciences Report, p. 5. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249252.pdf 21 Email from Senior Manager, Benefits and Compensation Policy, Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office, March 17, 2016. 10 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT As a result of this dearth of practicing forensic pathologists it is difficult to fill pathologist positions as senior physicians resign or retire. Los Angeles County employs 23 forensic pathologists. The Medical Examiner-Coroner just resigned and there is a critical need for two additional doctors. NAME statistics suggest a median staffing level of 3.2 forensic pathologists per million of population,22 translating into a staffing level of 32 forensic pathologists at DMEC.
• Coroner investigators are sworn law enforcement officers who lead the crime scene investigation and coordinate all evidence collection at the scene of a death. The investigator takes charge of physical evidence, including the personal belongings and evidentiary samples taken from the deceased, making sure that it is properly cataloged and handled. He or she helps to move the body and may be in attendance at the autopsy as well. Coroner investigators are also involved in disposition or release of the body once DMEC's investigation has been concluded. DMEC has 46 budgeted investigator positions for a total caseload of about 10,000 incidents per year, which does not include the 10,000 - 15,000 additional cases in which a coroner investigator is called to a scene of death but determines there to be no jurisdiction for DMEC. There are four vacancies, including Chief of Coroner Investigations, at this time. Investigations inevitably lag behind the steady flow of cases for which DMEC is statutorily responsible and autopsies are delayed, producing stress and heartache in survivors. NAME statistics suggest a median staffing level of 5.9 investigators per million of population,23 translating into a staffing level of 59 investigators at DMEC.
• Criminalists/forensic toxicologists are extremely critical to DMEC’s operation. They examine tissues, bodily fluids, and blood to determine the cause and manner of death, and frequently provide expert testimony in court proceedings, which requires these staff to be specifically board certified, for example, in opioids, alcohol or some other area. These positions are highly specialized and require several years of experience and training. The American Board of Toxicology requires the following criteria for certification: a doctorate and at least three years full time experience in toxicology; a master’s degree and at least seven years full time experience in toxicology; or a bachelor’s degree and at least ten years full time experience in toxicology. All the degrees must be in a life or chemical science. Drs. M. Weinberg, V. Weedn, S. Weinberg, and D. Fowler, “Characteristics of Medical Examiner/Coroner Offices Accredited by the National Association of Medical Examiners,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 58, No. 5 (September 2013), p. 1196. Ibid. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 11 BOS has budgeted 13 forensic toxicology positions for DMEC. NAME-suggested levels, however, suggest a staff significantly larger. There are six vacancies in the unit, including Chief of Forensic Laboratories, two supervising criminalists, and three senior criminalists. Four additional positions are held by employees on leave so that currently only three toxicologists are handling an overwhelming workload. The inability to fill even the budgeted positions is based largely on the failure of Los Angeles County to offer competitive salaries for the severe workload involved in these positions. NAME statistics suggest a median staffing level of 3.5 toxicologists per million of population,24 translating into a staffing level of 35 toxicologists at DMEC. DMEC is understaffed in forensic pathology, investigator, and criminalist (laboratory) positions, due in part to difficulties recruiting and retaining staff in all of these professional areas in a hyper-competitive market. It is that much more difficult to recruit and retain these specialized personnel in Los Angeles County where the cost of living is very high25 and DMEC has not been able to offer salaries high enough to compete with other locations. Ibid. Experian Data Quality, “The Cost of Living in America,” https://www.edq.com/data-quality-infographics/cost-of-living-in-america/ 12 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT Table 3: Starting Salaries Offered For Forensic Pathologists in Selected Jurisdictions26 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 Low-end of Salary $50,000 Range $0 High-end of Salary A 1 2 L V A A I R N A E T L Range C , s e le g n A s o L L , Y N , k r o Y w e L , Y N , k r o Y w e I , y t n u o C k o o C N , o n e R V , d n o m h c iR C , y t n u o C a t s a , e c n e d iv o r P M , s ilo p a e n n iM C , e s o J n a S D , n w o t e g r o e G U , y t iC e k a L t la F , e lliv n o s k c a J N N h S S Table 4: Workload (Number of Autopsies and External Examinations) For Forensic Pathologists in Selected Jurisdictions 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 No. of Autopsies and External Examinations 1000 0 26 Salaries listed were available as job offerings on-line as of March 7, 2016. New York provided information for two subcategories of “city medical examiners,” level I and level II. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 13 B. Office Of Decedent Affairs The Office of Decedent Affairs (ODA) is a division of the Department of Health Services (DHS) with headquarters located at the LAC+USC Medical Center. It comprises the morgue, the crematory, and the county cemetery. ODA performs a function that is remote from the core mission of the hospital, operating at a distance of three managerial levels from the administration of the hospital (which, in turn, reports to the Director of DHS). Its problems are frequently overlooked. For example the county crematory is barely able to process the remains of the county’s indigent. The CGJ investigation found a disturbing backlog of about 250 bodies stored in “temporary” refrigerated trailers at the county morgue on the LAC+USC Medical Center campus. When our concerns were noted on February 17, 2016, the problem was rectified in fewer than two weeks and no backlog currently exists. A new policy was immediately put in place to keep such a backlog from ever occurring again. The ODA’s remote existence as part of DHS, however, does not add to its oversight and effective provision of services.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
DMEC needs additional staff across the board: investigators, doctors, laboratory professionals, and direct and indirect support personnel. There is insufficient staffing to cover the workload, much less routine illness or accidents and no staffing cushion to absorb additional workload during catastrophic events and extended leaves of absence.
R12:
There are three vacancies in the most senior positions in the forensic laboratory.
R24:
DHS has a policy of contracting with private crematories if the diminished capacity at the county crematory results in a backlog of ten or more bodies.
R25:
The crematory floor is overdue for replacement. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05 (a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before July 15, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Board of Supervisors: IR2.1, IR2.2(a), IR2.2(b), IR2.2(c), IR2.3(a), IR2.3(b), IR2.3(c), IR2.4, IR2.5, IR2.6, IR2.7(a), IR2.7(b), and IR2.7(c). Department of Health Services: IR2.6. Department of the Medical Examiner-Coroner: IR2.1, IR2.2(a), IR2.2(b), IR2.2(c), IR2.3(a), IR2.3(b), IR2.3(c), IR2.4, and IR2.5. VII. ACRONYMS BOS Board of Supervisors CEO Chief Executive Officer CGJ Civil Grand Jury DHS Department of Health Services DMEC Department of the Medical Examiner-Coroner ODA Office of Decedent Affairs MOU Memorandum/Memoranda of Understanding NAME National Association of Medical Examiners 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT 19 VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Victor Lesley Co-Chair Molly Milligan Co-Chair Rene Childress Judy Goossen Davis Sandy Orton Heather Preimesberger Stephen Press Arun Sharan Bob Villacarlos 20 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2016:
VI. FINDINGS There are more than 44,000 homeless people in Los Angeles County. There is a severe lack of shelter beds and/or emergency beds available in Los Angeles County. There is very little substantive planning, at least as reported to the CGJ, that has the purpose of keeping large numbers of people dry during severe rainstorms. There are coordinated sweeps of river banks and dry washes, and, presumably, other areas known to present risk of flooding. There is little or no effort to suspend ordinances and regulations to provide additional shelter by government or private entities. Some private entities would provide emergency shelter if permitted to do so. VII. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such recommendations shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). All responses to these interim recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted within ninety (90) days following the release of the report to the public, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: IR1.1, IR1.2, IR1.3, IR1.4, IR1.5, IR1.6, and IR1.7. The 88 cities of Los Angeles County: IR1.1, IR1.2, IR1.3, IR1.4, IR1.5, IR1.6,and IR1.7. Agoura Hills Lancaster Alhambra Lawndale Arcadia Lomita Artesia Long Beach Avalon Los Angeles Azusa Lynwood Baldwin Park Malibu Bell Manhattan Beach 6 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT Bell Gardens Maywood Bellflower Monrovia Beverly Hills Montebello Bradbury Monterey Park Burbank Norwalk Calabasas Palmdale Carson Palos Verdes Estates Cerritos Paramount Claremont Pasadena Commerce Pico Rivera Compton Pomona Covina Rancho Palos Verdes Cudahy Redondo Beach Culver City Rolling Hills Diamond Bar Rolling Hills Estates Downey Rosemead Duarte San Dimas El Monte San Fernando El Segundo San Gabriel Gardena San Marino Glendale Santa Clarita Glendora Santa Fe Springs Hawaiian Gardens Santa Monica Hawthorne Sierra Madre Hermosa Beach Signal Hill Hidden Hills South El Monte Huntington Park South Gate Industry South Pasadena Inglewood Temple City Irwindale Torrance La Cañada Flintridge Vernon La Habra Heights Walnut La Mirada West Covina La Puente West Hollywood La Verne Westlake Village Lakewood Whittier VIII. ACRONYMS CGJ Civil Grand Jury IR Interim Report LAHSA Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority IX. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Heather H. Preimesberger, Co-Chairperson Cynthia T. Vance, Co-Chairperson Edna E. McDonald Stephen Press Molly Milligan Patricia T. Turner Sandy A. Orton Bob P. Villacarlos 8 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT APPENDIX Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Homeless Survey TOPIC: Shelters for Extreme Weather Events and/or Heavy Rain Events As you may be aware, the function of the Civil Grand Jury is to investigate selected aspects of the operations of county and city government. We therefore ask a few questions related to your city’s policy and plans concerning caring for the homeless during periods of extreme weather events such as unusually cold weather and heavy rain, which is often accompanied by flooding, mudflows, and landslides. We ask these questions now because of the impending likelihood of heavy rainstorms during the strong El Niño weather season forecast to soon impact Southern California. Please provide the name, phone number and email contact of person with primary responsibility for dealing with the homeless people in your city and please provide by November 18, 2015 the following questions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2016:
VI. FINDINGS There are more than 44,000 homeless people in Los Angeles County. There is a severe lack of shelter beds and/or emergency beds available in Los Angeles County.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
8, to evaluate and make appropriate recommendations to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and affected school districts about school bond indebtedness. 6.10 Los Angeles County should authorize the committee formed in
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R21:
9 Hire additional jail personnel. 21.10 Add two K-9 dogs to facility. Camp David Gonzales
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
LAUSD follows California Department of Education requirements for counting and reporting LCFF Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. The California Department of Education established specific requirements for counting and reporting LCFF Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. $3,443.4 $3,677.6 $3,897.3 $700.0 $837.1 $1,028.3 $1,427.3 $973.7 $484.1 $- $1,000.0 $2,000.0 $3,000.0 $4,000.0 $5,000.0 $6,000.0 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Remainng Need :Supplemental / Concentration Base Funding 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 165 • Low-income students are primarily identified through their eligibility for the Free or Reduced Price Meals (FRPM) under the National School Lunch Program, but may also be determined to be eligible under certain other programs that support low-income students. • English Learners are identified as students with an English Language Acquisition Status of “English Learner” in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) on the annual census day (first Wednesday in October). • Foster Youth are identified directly through information obtained from the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) or the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). LAUSD followed these requirements for counting and reporting LCFF Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students.
F2:
LAUSD’s annual comprehensive audit includes an audit of the reported student count using California Department of Education audit guidelines. The most recent audit found only one incorrectly classified student. The California Department of Education also developed and provided detailed guidelines for conducting audits of reported student counts. An audit of the reported student count, using these guidelines, is conducted annually as part of the LAUSD Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. For the most recently completed audit (FY 2014-2015), the auditor selected and tested a sample of the Free and Reduced Price Meal (FRPM) and English Learner (EL) eligibility of 2,956 students from 40 schools as reported in the CALPADS. This included examining supporting documentation for the selected students and verifying their respective eligibility. Of the 2,956 students tested, 1,025 students were selected for verification of their English Language Acquisition Status (ELAS) designation of English Learner (EL). One student was noted as incorrectly reported in CALPADS as English Learner as of the census. 166 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F3:
The method for distributing LCFF funds statewide based on the “unduplicated count” of LCFF students underrepresents the needs of students that meet two or all three of the qualifying criteria for LCFF funding, and underfunds the programs and services required to meet the needs of these students. Exhibit 3 shows the certified pupil counts for LAUSD for the three fiscal years. Exhibit 3 LAUSD Certified Pupil Counts LAUSD Under LCFF Year Total Enrollment Low- income English Learner Foster / Homeless Migrant Duplicated Total Certified Un- Duplicated Total Certified Un- Duplicated Percentage FY 2013-14 558,468 428,162 154,110 21,735 1,188 605,195 454,448 84.61% FY 2014-15 545,838 408,898 141,490 6,367 654 557,409 431,236 83.49% FY 2015-16 529,791 415,701 141,243 13,005 681 570,630 429,646 83.49% Source: California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Unduplicated Pupil Count Source File, California Department of Education Note: Low Income students include those eligible for the Free or Reduced Price Meal Program (FRPM) as well as directly certified. As this exhibit shows, there are a significant number of LAUSD students that are Low- income, and either English Learner, Foster Youth, or both. The unduplicated count does not take this overlap in needs, and qualifications, into account. For example, a student may be a Low-income Foster Youth who also needs to learn English. This student would only be counted once when LCFF supplemental and concentration funds are being calculated. However, this student’s needs are much more substantial that a student who is Low-income only. The cost for LAUSD to meet the additional needs of the student with multiple qualifications is also substantially higher. C. Programs And Services Funded With LCFF Supplemental And Concentration Funds
F4:
LCFF supplemental and concentration funds received by LAUSD in FY 2013-2014 were used to continue to fund previously existing programs and services provided to LCFF qualified students. In FY 2013-2014 LAUSD received a total of $700 million in LCFF supplemental and concentration funds. LAUSD has historically invested in programs and services to support Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. The funds received in FY 2013-2014 were used to fund the ongoing operations of these programs and services. The largest amount of these allocated funds ($449.9 million) were used to continue to provide services to LCFF qualified students that were in special education programs. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 167 This amount was determined based on the percentage of LCFF qualified students that were participating in special education programs. LAUSD’s analysis showed that 79% of students participating in special education programs were also LCFF qualified students. The Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) reviewed this analysis and approved the allocation of these LCFF funds to support special education programs. Approximately $103 million of these funds were allocated directly to schools to support specific needs identified by schools. These funds were allocated based on the number and percentage of LCFF qualified students at each school using the LAUSD Student Equity Based Index (SEBI). This index shows the total unduplicated count and percentage of LCFF students for each LAUSD school. Approximately $56 million of these funds were used to support the “Options” program for targeted youth, which provides an optional or alternative educational setting that takes into consideration life needs and increases the likelihood of these students graduating. Approximately $25 million of these funds were allocated to provide adult and career education for targeted students. Another $25 million was used to support English Learners through development of English Learner Master Plan and providing English Learner Instructional Coaches, and the Accelerated Academic Literacy Program Standard English Learner support program. Thirteen million dollars of these funds were allocated to support the LAUSD school police. The use of these funds for school police was discontinued beginning in FY 2015-2016 based on input and feedback received from the community. Additional funds were used to support academic, college and career counseling ($13 million), student engagement ($12 million), and parental engagement ($1.8 million) for targeted youth.
F5:
LCFF supplemental and concentration funds received by LAUSD in FY 2014-2015 were used to fund previously existing programs and services provided to LCFF qualified students, as well as to expand some of these programs, and implement additional new programs. For FY 2014-2015 LAUSD received a total of $837.1 million in LCFF supplemental and concentration funds, an increase of $137.1 million over FY 2013-2014. LAUSD used these funds to continue investments in programs and services to support Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. In addition, LAUSD expanded a number of programs and services that previously existed, and developed and implemented new programs and services. Previous funding to support targeted students in special education programs and to provide adult and career education and English Learner supports continued with minor 168 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT increases. Approximately $50 million of the funding provided was allocated directly to schools to support specific needs identified by schools. New programs and services developed included teacher retention and support ($27.6 million) to improve the quality of teachers, Foster Youth Support and Family Source Centers ($9.9 million) to provide services directly to Foster Youth, Instructional Technology Support ($4.3 million), Targeted Instructional Support ($34.7 million), the Arts Program ($2.5 million) and the School Climate / Restorative Justice Program ($4.2 million). Cal and the non-profit organization Communities for Los Angeles Student Success (CLASS) conducted a review of LAUSD’s implementation of LCFF. The review concluded that a relatively small percentage of the total budget was designated to be invested in LCFF qualified and targeted students. The review recommended the entire supplemental and concentration grant funds be considered discretionary, and budgeted and distributed more directly to the target student population. 5 “Implementing the Local Control Funding Formula: Steps Taken by LAUSD in Year Two, 2014-2015,” Research Findings from the University of California, Berkeley for the CLASS Coalition and United Way of Greater Los Angeles (June 2015)(hereafter “Cal/CLASS Findings”). 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 169 Exhibit 4 shows the allocation of LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds to programs and services, including planned future investments, by Fiscal Year. Exhibit 4 LAUSD LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds Allocation of Funds - FY 2013-14 thru FY 2017-18 (In Millions of Dollars) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Goal 1: 100% Graduation Adult and Career Education - Targeted Youth $24.8 $25.0 $24.8 $24.8 $24.8 Teacher Retention and Support (REED) $27.6 $32.4 $32.4 $32.4 School Autonomy $103.3 $154.1 $161.8 $174.8 $178.8 Options Program $56.5 $57.8 $58.5 $59.5 $59.5 Realigned After-School Program $7.3 $7.3 $7.3 Diploma Program $2.0 $2.0 Academic, College & Career Counseling $13.0 $13.0 $14.0 $14.0 A-G Immediate Intervention Plan $15.0 $15.0 $15.0 Goal 2: Proficiency for All Foster Youth Support / Family Source Centers $9.9 $12.9 $13.9 $13.9 School Readiness Language Development $22.0 $22.0 $22.0 Transitional Kindergarten Expansion Plan $7.0 $7.0 $7.0 Targeted Special Education Supports $449.9 $452.6 $449.9 $449.9 $449.9 Special Education Over-Referral $22.4 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 English Learner Supports $25.8 $28.4 $52.6 $52.6 $52.6 Instructional Technology Support $4.3 $9.0 $9.0 $9.0 Targeted Instructional Support $34.7 $47.1 $68.5 $70.5 Arts Program $2.5 $26.4 $33.8 $33.8 Goal 3: 100% Attendance Targeted Support - Student Engagement $12.0 $38.3 $45.3 $47.3 Homeless Youth Program $1.8 $1.8 $1.8 District Wide Student Engagement $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 Goal 4: Parent, Community and Student Engagement Targeted Parental Involvement $1.8 $6.4 $4.6 $5.3 $5.3 Goal 5: Ensure School Safety School Climate / Restorative Justice Program $4.2 $7.2 $9.2 $9.2 School Police $13.0 $13.1 On-Going Major Maintenance $16.5 $16.5 $16.5 Totals $700.0 $865.9 $1,030.6 $1,087.1 $1,095.1 Source: Data received from Los Angeles Unified School District Fiscal Budget by WatsonRice Consultants. Exhibit 5, beginning on the following page, provides a description of the programs and services funded using LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds listed in Exhibit 4. 170 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 5 Programs Funded with LAUSD LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds Program Title Program Description Goal 1: 100% Graduation Adult and Career Education - Targeted Youth Provides access to credit recovery programs for students that have fallen behind in course work for graduation are given access to support programs to get them back on track to graduate. Programs also provide optional programs of study in career technical education or certificate programs through the Regional Occupation Centers/Programs, Career Technical Education, Regional Occupation Centers/Programs, and Credit Recovery Programs Teacher Retention and Support (REED) Increase support to sites with high turnover and high concentrations of targeted students. Supports include staffing, professional development augmentations and recruitment and retention enhancements. Also includes new teacher support and assistance. School Autonomy Provide additional budget autonomy to schools to support the academic plan on each campus. Schools receive an allocation to provide for local decision-making on how to provide supports to targeted students. Funds are distributed using the District’s student equity based index. Enhances school climate, supports academic planning and instructional interventions, campus safety and school maintenance, registration and clerical support. Options Program Support at risk youth with an optional educational setting. A majority of youth that participate in the program are Low-income and English Learners. By providing an optional educational setting that takes into consideration a number of life needs, the program increases the likelihood of these students graduating. Realigned After-School Program Support the realignment of after school services to better serve at risk and targeted youth including a more rigorous and structured learning environment to ensure targeted (Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth) students are receiving proper academic support and intervention. Diploma Program Focuses on high schools with the highest dropout rates and their feeder middles schools with the most at risk students. Intent is to increase graduation rates at schools with highest dropout rates. Academic, College & Career Counseling Provide additional counseling resources to support academic and college and career counseling for high school students. Resources will be distributed through a prioritization of school sites using the District's Student Equity Based Index. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 171 A-G Immediate Intervention Plan Provide interventions to improve success in meeting advancement and graduation requirements. Includes addressing scheduling constraints for students not making sufficient progress or are behind. Goal 2: Proficiency for All Foster Youth Support / Family Source Centers Augmentations to counselors, psychiatric social workers, behavior specialists, pupil services and attendance counselor aides, and pupil services and attendance counselors specifically supporting Foster Youth. Individualized Education Plans for each Foster Youth student. Develop MOUs regarding Foster Youth school transfers, implement data tracking infrastructure, and identify baseline data necessary to minimize Foster Youth transfer rate. School Readiness Language Development Offer targeted school readiness language development classes at school sites based on the District's Student Equity Based index to prepare youth for transitional and traditional kindergarten. Transitional Kindergarten Expansion Plan The program is a full day, 180 school day preschool program to prepare children for kindergarten. The program follows the same time schedule as other elementary classrooms. Targeted Special Education Supports Special education services for targeted students including integration of students in General Education settings, Infant and Preschool Program, Special Day Program, Resource Specialist Program, Extended School Year, Transition Services, Special Education Service Centers, Language and Speech, Occupational Therapy/Physical Therapy, Educationally Related Intensive Counseling Services (ERICS),Transportation, English Learner, Standard English Learner, and Long Term English Learner Supports. Special Education Over-Referral Special Education Services enhanced with resources to address the over referral and identification of students. Recent findings have disproportionately impacted student subgroups with over-referrals to special education programs. The program investment provides additional staff to assist with IEPs and the appropriate special education identification. English Learner Supports Implementation of the English Learner Master Plan supporting English Learner and Standard English Learners. Services provide a multi-tiered system of supports for English Learner, Standard English Learners, and struggling readers, inclusive of reclassified fluent English proficient students (RFEPS). Provide for English Learner Instructional Coaches, Accelerated Academic Literacy Program standard English Learner support program, and support the implementation of the District’s English Learner Master Plan. Instructional Technology Support Ensure school sites receive the support to enhance and utilize technology available at each site as well as provide professional development to teachers on utilizing tools to enhance instruction. Allocates information technology resources and support to areas 172 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT in the District that have deficits in tech support. Targeted Instructional Support Targeted Instructional and administrative supports for library services, instructional material, class size reduction for middle and high school math and English classes. Resources are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. Arts Program Establish a targeted Arts program that utilizes the District’s Arts equity index to determine areas of need. The LCFF targeted populations of Low –income, Foster Youth and English Learner students are used to populate the arts equity index. Specifically, the arts equity index identifies school sites that need greater resources to restore base levels of arts programs. The effort will bring parity to school sites throughout the District. Goal 3: 100% Attendance Targeted Support - Student Engagement Resources provided to school sites to receive clerical support, counseling/registration time, custodial, nurses, health services and additional support personnel (Pupil Services and Attendance counselors). Resources are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. Homeless Youth Program Support 9th Street School because of high numbers of mental health issues and traumatic events (the school is located in Skid Row, and has a high concentration of Homeless students). Provide support in each of the new local districts to serve as district liaisons for Homeless students and families as required by law. Support proper identification of Homeless students in compliance with the federal McKinney-Vento Act. Provide services and support to identified students to ensure timely enrollment, advocate for school stability, and provide supplemental services and resources as needed. Six Pupil Services Attendance aides to support Homeless in each local district. District Wide Student Engagement Support the implementation of a District-wide expansion of best practices and training to develop strong student leadership and voice in the District. Create multiple pathways and opportunities for student engagement, leadership development, and purposeful collaboration to develop a Student Leadership and Engagement Plan to be included in the Single Plan for Student Achievement, ensure that student leaders participate and engage in District-wide student engagement efforts, create a process that allows all students to review and comment on the development and implementation of school plans, budgets, and programs. Goal 4: Parent, Community and Student Engagement Targeted Parental Involvement Provide more resources to support parent engagement at the local level: Increase parental engagement. training, and workshops across the district. Resources are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 173 Goal 5: Ensure School Safety School Climate / Restorative Justice Program Promote School Climate and Student Engagement at campuses of highest need, based on unduplicated student concentrations. An effort to develop and maintain: holistic, safe and healthy school environments, effective positive behavior support and interventions, commitment to a District-wide culture of positive and humanistic approach to working with students, staff and parents. Funds are prioritized utilizing the District’s equity index and through the identification of sites with high incidences of conflict and suspensions. Restorative Justice counselors and teacher advisors will be provided to school sites for purposes of building positive practices and school culture to address student behavior and conflict. School Police Provide support for school police based on allocation of LCFF students. LCFF support for school police was discontinued based on input and feedback received through the Community Engagement process. On-Going Major Maintenance Targeted maintenance to school sites with greatest need. D. LCFF Funds Allocated To Schools It is important that investments in targeted students be made directly to schools to the extent practical, especially since most learning within LAUSD actually occurs at individual schools.
F6:
LAUSD has invested LCFF funds directly in elementary, middle and high schools in a manner that targets those schools with the largest number or percentage of LCFF qualified and targeted students. LAUSD made investments directly in elementary, middle and high schools based on the number and percentage of Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students. LAUSD used a duplicated count to determine these investments. Using this approach, a Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth student would be counted 3 times, once for each category, rather than just once when using the unduplicated count approach. LAUSD’s position is that this is a more equitable approach, given that it is more challenging and costly to provide services to students facing multiple challenges. Exhibit 6, on the following page, shows the LCFF investments made in FY 2015-2016 directly to schools using the duplicated count of LCFF students, referred to as the Student Equity Based Index (SEBI). 174 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 6 LAUSD LCFF Investments Made Directly to Schools By Local District Elementary Schools Local District Number of Schools Total Students Average Duplicated % Total LCFF Investment LCFF Per Student Central 88 45,592 154% $16,518,041 $362.30 East 79 44,800 157% $17,063,177 $380.87 Northeast 66 39,681 137% $13,291,804 $334.97 Northwest 78 41,921 106% $9,827,213 $234.42 South 83 50,740 137% $17,679,262 $348.43 West 95 45,968 103% $11,742,627 $255.45 Totals / Averages 489 268,702 132% $86,122,124 $319.41 Middle Schools Central 16 13,447 143% $8,529,017 $634.27 East 14 16,008 138% $9,592,774 $599.25 Northeast 14 16,887 126% $7,529,790 $445.89 Northwest 14 19,361 96% $5,121,361 $264.52 South 13 15,591 120% $6,925,742 $444.21 West 16 14,323 112% $6,300,779 $439.91 Totals / Average 87 95,617 122% $43,999,463 $471.34 High Schools Central 23 20,444 129% $19,575,346 $957.51 East 26 26,387 123% $20,494,201 $776.68 Northeast 16 21,976 110% $17,557,284 $798.93 Northwest 10 18,176 88% $5,431,605 $298.83 South 18 19,229 107% $11,441,338 $595.00 West 17 19,170 101% $8,914,032 $465.00 Totals / Average 110 125,382 110% $83,413,807 $648.66 Source: LAUSD Student equity - based index and existing and proposed investments for FY 2015-2016 Span, Special Ed, Continuation High, Opportunity, or community day schools not included. As Exhibit 6 shows, schools in the local districts with the highest percentage of LCFF qualified or targeted students received the highest LCFF funding per student. For example, the East Elementary School Local District had a total of 157 percent (duplicated count) of students meeting the LCFF qualifications. The funding per elementary student in the East Local District was $380.87. The West Elementary School Local District had a total of 103 percent (duplicated count) of students meeting the LCFF qualifications. The funding per elementary student in the West Local District was $255.45. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 175 The Cal and CLASS review of LAUSD’s implementation of LCFF concluded funds were distributed to high schools consistently with the SEBI. Those Findings also concluded that this was not the case with distribution of funds to elementary schools. E. Metrics Used To Track And Evaluate The Impact Of LCFF Investments Performance measurement and reporting demonstrates the success or effectiveness of organizational or program activities in addressing a specific need or attaining a specific goal. A meaningful performance measurement framework includes a balanced set of indicators, ensures the collection of sound and reliable indicator data, provides for the analysis and reporting of indicator information and drives service improvement efforts and the testing of new initiatives. Performance measures should generally be quantified, meaning a number, to allow for comparison of performance from year to year.
F7:
LAUSD has developed and uses a comprehensive set of performance metrics or indicators to track, evaluate, and report progress made toward specific goals using LCFF funds. LAUSD developed performance metrics for each of the key goals established. Exhibit 7 shows these metrics, including historical performance and annual targets going forward. For example, performance metrics for the goal of 100% graduation include the graduation rates, dropout rates, and the percentage of students on track for advancement or graduation. The performance metrics also include the percentage metrics demonstrating college preparation, and advanced placement rates. Information on targets, and historical and current performance, is useful in evaluating the progress being made toward each established goal. 176 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 7 LAUSD LCFF Performance Metrics, Targets and Results By LCAP Goal, With Annual Targets and Actual Performance 100% GRADUATION Historical Actual Annual Targets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Four-Year Cohort Graduation Rate (All Schools) 67% 68% 70% 74% 1 68% 70% 71% High School Cohort Dropout Rate 20% 17% 17% Not Available New Goal 8% 5% Middle School Cohort Dropout Rate Not Available Benchmark B - 1% B - 2% Percentage of High School Students On-Track for A-G with a “C” (Grades 9-12) 35% 35% 41% New Goal 45% 50% Percentage of Students Demonstrating College CST SBAC g g g Preparedness in ELA as Measured by the 11th Grade EAP 14% 14% 16% 14% Benchmark 15% 16% Percentage of Students Demonstrating College CST SBAC g g g Preparedness in Math as Measured by the 11th Grade EAP 10% 7% 8% 5% Benchmark 6% 7% Percentage of AP Exam Takers with a Qualifying Score of “3” or Higher 41% 39% 39% 39% 41% 43% 45% Percentage of 12th Grade Students Who Have Completed a Free Application for Federal Students Aid (FAFSA) 57% 66% 59% 61% 63% PROFICIENCY FOR ALL Historical Actual Annual Targets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Students Who Met or Exceeded CST CST SBAC SBAC SBAC SBAC g Standards in 3rd - 8th Grade ELA2 48% 48% 31% Benchmark 32% 33% Percentage of Students Who Met or Exceeded CST CST SBAC SBAC SBAC SBAC g Standards in 3rd - 8th Grade Math 45% 45% 26% Benchmark 27% 28% Percentage of 2nd Grade Fluent English Students DIBELS g g (EO, IFEP, RFEP) Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 79% 78% New Goal 84% 89% Percentage of 2nd Grade English Lear ners (ELD DIBELS g g ( 1-2) Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 15% 11% New Goal 16% 17% Percentage of 2nd Grade English Lear ner (ELD 3-5) DIBELS g g ( ) Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 53% 53% New Goal 58% 63% Percentage of English Learners Who Reclassify as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) 16% 13% 14% 17% 16% 18% 20% Percentage of English Learners Who Have Not Reclassified in 5 Years (LTEL) 29% 27% 24% 24% 26% 24% 22% Percentage of English Learners Making Annual Progress on the CELDT 56% 53% 56% 54% New Goal 60% 62% Percentage of Foster Youth with an Annually Updated Comprehensive Academic Assessment 66% 65% 85% 100% Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who Ar e in the General Education Program at Least 80% of the School Day 55% 56% 57% 65% New Goal 59% 60% Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who Attended Nonpublic Schools 4.9% 4.5% 4.1% 3.5% New Goal 3.6% 3.2% 1 This rate reflects the preliminary graduation rate as of November 2015 and is subject to change. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 177 Exhibit 7 LAUSD LCFF Performance Metrics, Targets and Results By LCAP Goal, With Annual Targets and Actual Performance Source: LAUSD LCAP Scorecard, February 2016 F. LAUSD LCFF Public Input, Transparency And Accountability Efforts The LCFF legislation requires substantial effort to involve and engage parents, pupils, and other stakeholders. It also requires each district to describe the process used to consult with parents, pupils, school personnel, local bargaining units as applicable, and 100% ATTENDANCE Historical Actual Annual Targets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Students Attending 172-180 Days Each School Year (96% or Higher Attendance Rate) 65% 68% 71% 71% 70% 71% 72% Percentage of Students with Chronic Absence (Missing 16 Days or 91% or Lower Attendance) 15% 12% 12% 13% 11% 10% 9% Percentage of Staff Attending 96% or Above 67% 66% 72% 73% New Goal 76% 78% PARENT, COMMUNITY AND Historical Actual Annual Targets STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Students Who Feel a Part of Their School (Question on School Experience Survey) 81% New Goal 83% 85% Parent Participation on School Experience Survey 32% 33% 31% 40% 35% 40% 45% Percentage of Schools Training Parents on Academic Initiatives by Providing a Minimum of Four Workshops Annually 67% 35% 45% 55% Percentage of Parents Who State that Their Schools’ Parent Centers Provide Useful Resources to Support Their Children’s Education 60% Benchmark 62% 64% SCHOOL SAFETY Historical Actual Annual Targets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Single Student Suspension Rate 2.9% 1.2% 0.8% 0.6% New Goal 0.8% 0.7% Instructional Days Lost to Suspension 25,948 12,651 8,841 6,221 8,250 8,100 8,050 Expulsion Rate 0.02% 0.05% 0.05% 0.01% New Goal 0.04% 0.03% Percentage of Schools Ensuring Effective and Fair Handling of Student Behavior by Pr omoting Positive Solutions Through the Reform of Student Discipline Policies (Measured by Implementation of the Discipline Foundation Policy) 22% 44% 69% 65% 71% 79% Percentage of Students Who Feel Safe at School 76% 78% 70% New Goal 82% 84% BASIC SERVICES Historical Actual Annual Targets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Teachers that are Appropriately Credentialed for the Students They ar e Assigned to Teach 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% Percentage of Teachers Completing Educator Development and Support: Teachers (EDST) Performance Evaluation Process 23% 25% 20% 20% 20% Percentage of Schools Providing Students with Standards-Based Instructional Materials by Meeting Williams Act Requirements 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Percentage of Facilities that ar e in Good Repair 99% 97% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% Percentage of Secondary Students with an Annual Individual Graduation Plan (IGP) 58% 76% Not Available 59% 100% 100% 178 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT the community and how this consultation contributed to development of the LCAP or annual update.
F8:
LAUSD has put substantial effort into public input, transparency and accountability as part of the LCAP and budgeting process as required by the LCFF legislation. Exhibit 8 provides an overview of LAUSD’s public input, transparency and accountability efforts conducted as part of developing the two required LCAPs under LCFF. Exhibit 8 Overview of LAUSD LCAP Public Input, Transparency and Accountability Efforts Input / Feedback Method FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 Community Input Meetings About 100 32 Community Members Participating Not Available 1,783 Partner Organization Meetings 12 29 Community Survey Responses 10,483 16,673 As this exhibit shows, for the current LCAP, 32 meetings were held by LAUSD to engage community stakeholders and obtain preliminary input for the development of the current LCAP, with 1,783 community members attending. Twenty-nine additional input sessions were held with partner organizations and offices to gather feedback from stakeholders on the goals, targets, and investments of the LCAP and to identify desired revisions to the LCAP. A survey was also developed to solicit additional feedback from the community on the priorities of the LCAP and the District’s goals. The survey was administered both in- person and online. A total of 16,673 individual responses were received. LAUSD published a Community Feedback Report, which summarized the responses, including a ranking of LCAP goals, obstacles to achieving the goals, and suggested strategies. The Cal and CLASS Findings of LAUSD’s implementation of LCFF concluded, despite LAUSD’s efforts, many school personnel, parents and students felt uninformed about LCFF goals and strategies. The review further found that “teachers would appreciate more transparency around how budgets are made at both the District and school level. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 179 Teachers and students believe that they could contribute insight regarding how to best support learning and well-being in their school communities.” 6 V. RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 The Los Angeles Unified School District should follow California Department of Education requirements for counting and reporting, according to the Local Control Funding Formula, Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth students 9.2 The Los Angeles Unified School District’s annual comprehensive financial audit should include an audit of the reported student count using the California Department of Education’s audit guidelines 9.3 The Los Angeles Unified School District should lobby the California Legislature to consider revising the method for distributing Local Control Funding Formula funds statewide based on the new “unduplicated count” to an approach that considers the needs of students that meet two or all three of the qualifying criteria for Local Control Funding Formula funding. 9.4 The Los Angeles Unified School District should expand its investment of Local Control Funding Formula funds directly in elementary, middle and high schools in a manner that targets those schools with the largest number or percentage of Local Control Funding Formula qualified and targeted students. 9.5 The Los Angeles Unified School District should use a comprehensive set of performance metrics or indicators to track, evaluate, and report progress made toward specific goals using Local Control Funding Formula funds, and make adjustments as new information is obtained and new lessons learned. 9.6 The Los Angeles Unified School District should expand its public input and feedback efforts as part of the Local Control Accountability Plan development process to increase transparency and involvement with students, parents, and school personnel. Cal/CLASS Findings, p. 13. 180 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all
Additional Recommendations
20
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Parking availability at metro stations does not necessarily increase ridership.
R2:
Jurisdictions have requested modifications to planned parking availability.
R3:
Jurisdictions have implemented local efforts to supplement Metro ridership.
R4:
High parking utilization does not necessarily indicate a desire by jurisdictions for increased capacity.
R5:
In planning for parking needs, parochial rather than regional views dominate the thinking of local jurisdictions.
R6:
Local jurisdiction reliance that parking facilities elsewhere will “take care of” parking needs may be wishful thinking.
R7:
The lack of available land for parking expansion and the general high cost associated with constructing parking structures may inhibit provision of such facilities.
R8:
Many stations are close to current transportation infrastructure (highways and roads) preventing Metro’s ability to increase parking.
R9:
Local land use, community concerns, strategic goals and visions for growth impact the provision of parking.
R10:
Financial constraints impact the provision of parking. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 193
R11:
It is unrealistic for local jurisdictions to attempt social re-engineering by means of the reduction of traffic lanes, increase of bicycling lanes, and reliance on alternative transportation (e.g., Über, Lyft), while ignoring the estimated 7.8 million registered vehicles currently on roads in Los Angeles County, with its vast geographic area and lack of easily accessible, reliable public transportation.
R12:
Currently there are 60 different Metro stations that offer parking with a total of 90 Park-and-Ride facilities. Of the 90 facilities, 15 are parking garages or structures, and 75 are parking lots.
R13:
In general, parking is provided at “origin” stations (where riders board at the start of their transit journeys to go to work, such as Culver City or Norwalk), and not provided at “destination” stations (where most riders disembark, such as downtown Los Angeles or Hollywood).
R14:
Parking facilities at Metro stations are owned and operated by a wide range of public agencies, cities, and private parties.
R15:
The 90 different parking facilities have 16 different owners, and 11 different operators. The divided ownership of these facilities can lead to conflicting mandates, different enforcement, or lack of resources.
R16:
Although parking garages increase parking capacity on limited available land, there are significant expenses associated with their construction and maintenance.11
R17:
Metro currently provides over 25,000 parking spaces at its stations and facilities, of which approximately 86% are free.
R18:
Of that amount, there are 3,588 paid parking spaces, located at 18 different stations, which comprise 14% of total parking.
R19:
Nearly 70% of paid parking spaces are located at North Hollywood, Union Station, and Universal City.12 11 Audit, pp. 208-209. Audit, p. 210. 194 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT V. RECOMMENDATIONS The CGJ makes the following recommendations which should be read along with the details provided in the attached Audit. 10.1 The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) should focus on monitoring and evaluation of supply/demand at nine stations: North Hollywood, Universal City, Norwalk, Culver City, Sierra Madre, Aviation, Del Amo, Lakewood and Atlantic. These stations currently have high utilization and high ridership, which might warrant the usage of additional parking management tools. 10.2 Metro should monitor, specifically to track ridership increases that may warrant the usage of additional parking management tools, utilization at six stations: Union Station, Willow, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Artesia and Harbor Freeway. 10.3 Metro should identify tools to better inform park-and-riders of supply constraints and alternative parking opportunities. 10.4 Metro should, in collaboration with local and regional partners, consider how to expand policy and planning goals to incorporate increased employment density around transit stations. 10.5 Metro should evaluate and take advantage of opportunities for re-striping at high utilization parking lots in order to expand existing capacity, and negotiate to do so with local and regional partners where required. 10.6 Metro should explore opportunities to supplement parking for Metro riders at those stations with high parking utilization. 10.7 Metro should ensure that adequate and visible signage is available at parking lots, especially those with low utilization. 10.8 Metro should reevaluate, specifically to determine whether the leases need to be modified or renegotiated, parking at two shared parking stations: Expo/Crenshaw and Pierce College. 10.9 Metro should evaluate the benefit of including in the Preferred Parking Program the following stations: Culver City, Aviation/LAX, Lakewood, Long Beach, Willowbrook, Harbor Freeway, and Union Station. 10.10 Metro should explore ownership/transfer opportunities or alternative management arrangements of Caltrans properties at Norwalk, Lakewood, and Aviation/LAX. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 195 10.11 Metro should ensure that the tools, models, data, and recommendations of its master planning process for parking are incorporated throughout Metro’s Countywide Planning Department. 10.12 Metro should continue exploring relationships with ride-sharing companies upon the expiration of its agreement with Lyft, including evaluating whether more comprehensive data-sharing and institutional partnerships might be appropriate. 10.13 Metro should incorporate into its future planning all findings from the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study with regard to the impact of technological and demographic trends on parking. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
R18-64:
years 65% 93% Over 65 years 12% 3% Race: White 27% 17% Black 8% 18% American Indian 0.2% <1% Asian/Pacific Islander 15% 12% Latino 48% 47% Other 2% 6% Income: Median Household Income $55,746 $21,980 Average Household Income $83,104 $37,142 Source: 2014 American Community Survey (ACS); Metro
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A county leadership team under the direction of the Deputy CEO and including DCFS, DPSS, Probation, DMH and LACOE should develop a new strategic plan to refocus TAY programs on integration, efficiency and effectiveness. “The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) supports this recommendation and is currently working in partnership with the other agencies. DCSF co-chairs the partnership meeting. In addition, there are community stakeholders that attend the monthly partnership meeting.”
R2:
The Deputy CEO should develop and implement a regular and systematic process of program review and evaluation for TAY programs which include a goal of periodic streamlining of operations in DCFS, Probation and DMH. “The Department supports this recommendation and recommends that TAY programs be reviewed and evaluated via a systematic process to be developed by the Deputy CEO in collaboration with DCSF, Probation, and DMH.” 6 www.blueribboncommissionla.com 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 269
R3:
DCFS, Probation, DMH and DPSS should develop and implement innovative programs to target high risk families and high risk children for proactive early intervention. “The Department has committed to targeting high-risk families and high-risk children for early intervention as part of our prevention strategy by devoting Title IV-E funds for the purpose of Alternate Response, Upfront Assessment and Point of Engagement.
R4:
DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multifaceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. “The Department supports this recommendation and is working with Probation and DMH in collaborative efforts to provide care for the children under out supervision and improve the level of trust of the system.” “FY 2007-08 the Department and Probation issued a Request for Proposals for Community-Based Mentoring Programs intended to serve both the Department and Probation youth, in recognition of the need for and importance of a continuous, positive relationship with an adult. In addition, to support the commitment to provide needed services to youth in care, DMH entered into agreements with our Department and Probation, co-locating staff in the Department’s regional offices and at Juvenile Hall to provide assessments for youth and to assist staff.”
R5:
The Directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills to better prepare them for independence. “The Department supports this recommendation. The Department will meet with Probation, DMH, and LACOE in order to formulate comprehensive strategies for better meeting the educational needs of TAY youth with the goal of designing a process whereby the departments work together to formulate joint curriculum plans for each youth after assessing his/her to be independent.
R6:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS. Probation, DPSS and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 to 25 who have left the system. “The Department supports this recommendation. We recommend that the involved agencies collaborate to develop an individual plan for each TAY prior to and/or after termination of jurisdiction. In addition, a seamless process enabling both pre and post TAY to access services should be enhanced to ensure improve outcomes for the population being served. Additional employment opportunities should also be considered with this recommendation.”
R7:
Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation and DMH in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost elements to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. “The Department agrees with the above recommendation and recommends that school records be made easily accessible to DCSF and Probation. The Department currently has our own system that tracks the educational assessment, referrals to life skills classes and completion, any financial assistance, including transportation to college, even out of state, and appliances CIO/CEO regarding time frames for such automated system.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 271 V. RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 County of Los Angeles and the Department of Children and Family Services should establish more non-Department of Health Services Transitional Age Youth drop in centers which provide showers, meals, internet access, peer support groups, linkage to educational services, employment assistance, medical treatment information and transportation. This should be completed within 24 months. 12.2 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should create financially driven incentive programs which are tied to the academic performance of foster youth. For example, the Department of Children and Family Services should reward foster care providers whose wards graduate from each level including elementary, middle and high school with a “B” average or better. This should be accomplished within 12 months. 12.3 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should create a mobile app which will allow Transitional Age Youth to access the multitude of services available to them. This should be completed within 12 months. 12.4 Los Angeles County and the Department of Children and Family Services should immediately start to reanalyze and implement the recommendations made by the Civil Grand Jury of 2007-2008 pertaining to foster care youth. These recommendations are still valuable. Implementation of these recommendations will ensure greater success for Transitional Age Youth. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report (files it with the Clerk of the Court). Responses shall be made in accordance with Penal Code Sections 933.05 (a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2016, to:
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Nine subject questions/areas of interest
F2:
Current practices and comparable business loss mitigation programs
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Probation officers who go out in the field to supervise probationers are not normally provided laptop computers or tablets to take with them. Notes are handwritten and entered into a computer later in the office. Also, without a laptop or tablet the probation officer going into the field cannot check for other probationers and any potential criminal activity in the area.
R2:
A probation officer dealing with Realignment Act probationers may share an office computer with another probation officer.
R3:
The cell phones issued by the Probation Department require a ten digit code to be entered before use, even to dial 911.
R4:
Sufficient office space and desks are not available for probation officers dealing with Realignment Act probationers. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 15.1. Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County Probation Department should ensure that laptop computers or tablets are available to probation officers going into the field. 15.2. Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County Probation Department should ensure that probation officers dealing with California Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 probationers not have to share an office computer with another officer. 15.3. Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County Probation Department should issue cell phones to probation officers should allow dialing 911 without a ten digit code being entered first. 304 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 15.4. Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County Probation Department should initiate as study to determine the cost and availability of software that is available or could be developed that would allow probation officers to access both juvenile and adult probationers as well as communicate with other county and state agencies. VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R21:
9 Hire additional jail personnel. 21.10 Add two K-9 dogs to facility. Camp David Gonzales
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
8, to evaluate and make appropriate recommendations to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and affected school districts about school bond indebtedness. 6.10 Los Angeles County should authorize the committee formed in
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
24
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
LASD will provide ICE with notification up to seven (7) days prior to an inmate’s release. Full access into the County’s jails and databases will also be authorized in order for ICE to conduct thorough investigations, ensuring timeframes and procedures are met. During this period of time, ICE will have the opportunity to interview inmates who have ICE immigration detainers and certain other inmates who meet PEP and Trust Act criteria.
R2:
LASD will implement a system for notifying inmates when an ICE detainer is issued. In addition to the notification, inmates will be advised of their opportunity to consult legal counsel.
R3:
ICE agents will be allowed to review the status of all inmates who are being released. This effort helps to identify any and all individuals who may pose a danger and who are within the criteria of both PEP and the Trust Act.
R4:
LASD will validate an inmate’s qualification under the Trust Act, prior to in- custody transfer to ICE. All crimes allowable by the Trust Act will be eligible for in-custody transfer. The Times Editorial Board. “No Ice in L.A. County jails.” Los Angeles Times 19 May 2015 http://www.lstimes.com/nation/la-ed-ice- agents-in-county-jailos-20150519-story.html 4 Linthicum, Kate. “Immigration agents allowed back in L.A. County jails, with limits.” Los Angeles Times 23 Sept. 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ice-los-angeles-jails-20150922-story.html 5 Linthicum, Kate. “Immigration agents allowed back in L.A. County jails, with limits.” Los Angeles Times 23 Sept. 2015. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ice-los-angeles-jails-20150922-story.html 6 McDonnell letter. 152 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R5:
ICE agents will be authorized to interview specific inmates who do not have ICE immigration detainers issued through Pacific Enforcement Response Center (PERC).
R6:
Trust Act/PEP qualified inmates will be transferred to the custody of ICE only during the standard amount of time it would normally take to release an inmate. No inmate will be held beyond the release date based solely on an ICE request.
R7:
To promote transparency and accountability, monitoring and public posting of information will be instituted. C. Pacific Enforcement Response Center The Pacific Enforcement Response Center (PERC) is the agency through which ICE issues immigration detainers for immigrants arrested by local law enforcement who are suspected of being in the country illegally.7 The center is a key part of the federal government’s efforts to identify and deport immigrants convicted of serious crimes.
R8:
developed and submitted a series of written questions to LASD regarding the screening policy of undocumented immigrants,
R9:
interviewed staff at IRC,
R10:
reviewed and analyzed data provided to LASD by ICE,
R11:
reviewed literature found in the Department of Homeland Security website,
R12:
listened to the interview given by the Sheriff to KNBC-TV Los Angeles, CA,11 and
R13:
requested interviews with ICE personnel. The CGJ’s requests were denied. IV. FINDINGS
R14:
Inmates who are the subject of a request for notification of immigration detainer from PERC are advised by LASD staff of the existence of the immigration detainer and are advised of their right to consult with legal counsel.
R15:
ICE agents have full access to LASD databases to assist in their computerized screening process to ensure conformance with LASD’s release timeframes.
R16:
LASD abides by PEP guidelines as they apply to the county’s jails as long as PEP’s guidelines do not conflict with the California Trust Act or applicable case law.
R17:
Inmates that fall under PEP but fail to meet the standards established under the California Trust Act will not be available to ICE for transfer.
R18:
Inmates who are subject to a detainer by ICE, and also meet the criteria in the California Trust Act, will be available for potential ICE transfer.
R19:
Only crimes committed while the individual is an adult will be considered as a qualifying crime under the California Trust Act for transfer to ICE.
R20:
LASD notifies ICE up to seven days prior to all inmates’ release, which allows ICE to do its vetting ahead of release.
R21:
Inmates will only be transferred to the custody of ICE during the normal period of time it takes for LASD to release an inmate, regardless of any ICE request. Nolan, Conan, KNBC-TV, October 4, 2015 www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...LA-County-Sheriff-Defends_ICE-policy 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 155
R22:
The CGJ discovered that no inmate will be detained beyond their date of release regardless of whether or not there is a valid ICE detainer.
R23:
LASD facilitated community meetings seeking input from a variety of stakeholders presenting both sides of the immigration debate.
R24:
Monthly statistical reports from ICE are posted on the LASD website.12
Additional Recommendations
13
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
CGJ queries to the 88 cities in the county elicited 86 responses with only Compton, and Monterey Park failing to respond.
R2:
Two cities, Bell and Westlake Village, have no commissions.
R3:
The Los Angeles County website lists 174 commissions and compensation amounts that range from $0 to $300, with the higher amounts paid for serving on commissions requiring special expertise. “Commission Facts” provided on the county website document the history for each of its commissions, including the establishing ordinance, purpose, membership, duties, compensation, and minutes of all meetings. The data appears to be updated in a timely manner and can be displayed to any interested party.
R4:
Some cities publish agendas for commission meetings but not the minutes.
R5:
In lieu of publishing minutes, many cities post video recordings of commission meetings on their web site. This is acceptable and after the initial cost of the video equipment is absorbed, the process is relatively free.
R6:
Many cities are not current in publishing minutes of commission meetings. Some are many months behind.
R7:
The websites of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County most commonly omitted information pertaining to compensation. Other common omissions were whether elected officials are allowed to serve and whether a commissioner can serve on 4 The questionnaire is attached. See Appendix. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 97 multiple commissions simultaneously. This information was provided in responses to our e-mail queries.
R8:
Of all the cities reporting compensation for service on a commission, only two currently report this on their websites in “Commission Facts.”
R9:
Stipends are not always provided for commission service. While the CGJ applauds the 34 cities whose commissioners serve without pay, it notes that stipends provided to commissioners in 50 cities, which ranged from $10 to $250, is not a major concern.
R10:
Higher stipends were generally reserved for service on Planning Commissions, whose members are usually required to have more specialized knowledge and experience.
R11:
Only the City of Industry exceeded the $250 upper threshold and pays members on two of its commissions $680 per meeting. Attendance is not mandatory for compensation.
R12:
Many cities’ “Commission Facts” mentioned the Brown Act and/or the Maddy Act and appeared to follow the rules outlined in them, but Government Code section 36516, which authorizes a maximum compensation of $150, was conspicuous by its absence.
R13:
It was impossible to reach the Lomita website, even as we tried many variations of the web address. V. RECOMMENDATIONS The CGJ recommends that local government websites be improved in the five following ways: 5.1. Los Angeles County and each listed city in Section VI should add to the “Commission Facts” for each existing commission whether compensation is paid and in what amount, including whether attendance is mandatory for payment. If there is no compensation, state that none is provided. 5.2. Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to “Commission Facts” for each existing commission whether or not elected officials may serve on it. 5.3. Los Angeles County and each listed city should add to “Commission Facts” for each existing commission whether or not commissioners are allowed to serve on more than one commission at the same time.” 98 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 5.4. Each listed city should publish or provide a link to the current agenda and timely meeting minutes for each meeting of each existing commission on the website. 5.5. Each listed city should add a conspicuous link to “Commissions” on the home page or as a menu option under “Departments,” “Government,” or “Services.” VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
* 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.