Los Angeles County 2015-2016 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Continuity Report

20. Continuity Committee

From the consolidated annual report · 24 pages

Full Details →

Individual reports (18)

📋June 09, 2016 — Ii. Background After initial investigation, the CGJ expressed interest in determining how the Lausd

66 pages 8 findings 20 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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. 164 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT • 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.

Page 184

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. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 165

Page 185

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 Certified Certified Total Low- English Foster / Duplicated Un- Un- Year Migrant Enrollment income Learner Homeless Total Duplicated Duplicated Total 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

Page 186

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. 166 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 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.

Page 186

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 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 167 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.5 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”). 168 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 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: Pr oficiency f or 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: 10 0% 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, Commu nity and St udent 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. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 169 Exhibit 5 Programs Funded with LAUSD LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds Program Title Program Description Goal 1: 100% Graduation 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 Adult and Career Education - Targeted Youth 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 Increase support to sites with high turnover and high concentrations of targeted students. Supports include Teacher Retention and Support (REED) staffing, professional development augmentations and recruitment and retention enhancements. Also includes new teacher support and assistance. 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 School Autonomy 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. 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 Options Program providing an optional educational setting that takes into consideration a number of life needs, the program increases the likelihood of these students graduating. 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 Realigned After-School Program targeted (Low-income, English Learner, and Foster Youth) students are receiving proper academic support and intervention. Focuses on high schools with the highest dropout rates and their feeder middles schools with the most at risk Diploma Program students. Intent is to increase graduation rates at schools with highest dropout rates. Provide additional counseling resources to support academic and college and career counseling for high Academic, College & Career Counseling school students. Resources will be distributed through a prioritization of school sites using the District's Student Equity Based Index. 170 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Provide interventions to improve success in meeting advancement and graduation requirements. Includes A-G Immediate Intervention Plan addressing scheduling constraints for students not making sufficient progress or are behind. Goal 2: Proficiency for All Augmentations to counselors, psychiatric social workers, behavior specialists, pupil services and attendance counselor aides, and pupil services and attendance counselors specifically supporting Foster Youth. Foster Youth Support / Family Source Centers 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. Offer targeted school readiness language development classes at school sites based on the District's Student School Readiness Language Development Equity Based index to prepare youth for transitional and traditional kindergarten. The program is a full day, 180 school day preschool program to prepare children for kindergarten. The Transitional Kindergarten Expansion Plan program follows the same time schedule as other elementary classrooms. 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 Targeted Special Education Supports 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 Services enhanced with resources to address the over referral and identification of students. Recent findings have disproportionately impacted Special Education Over-Referral 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. 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 English Learner Supports 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. Ensure school sites receive the support to enhance and utilize technology available at each site as well as Instructional Technology Support provide professional development to teachers on utilizing tools to enhance instruction. Allocates information technology resources and support to areas 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 171 in the District that have deficits in tech support. Targeted Instructional and administrative supports for library services, instructional material, class size reduction for middle and high school math and English Targeted Instructional Support classes. Resources are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. 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 Arts Program 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 Resources provided to school sites to receive clerical support, counseling/registration time, custodial, nurses, health services and additional support personnel (Pupil Targeted Support - Student Engagement Services and Attendance counselors). Resources are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. 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 Homeless Youth Program 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. 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 District Wide Student Engagement 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 Provide more resources to support parent engagement at the local level: Increase parental engagement. training, and workshops across the district. Resources Targeted Parental Involvement are distributed to school sites through a prioritization methodology utilizing the District’s school equity index. 172 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Goal 5: Ensure School Safety 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 School Climate / Restorative Justice Program 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. Provide support for school police based on allocation of LCFF students. LCFF support for school police was School Police discontinued based on input and feedback received through the Community Engagement process. Targeted maintenance to school sites with greatest On-Going Major Maintenance 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.

Page 187

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). 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 173 Exhibit 6 LAUSD LCFF Investments Made Directly to Schools By Local District Elementary Schools Number of Total Average Total LCFF LCFF Per Local District Schools Students Duplicated % Investment 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. 174 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 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.

Page 193

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. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 175 Exhibit 7 LAUSD LCFF Performance Metrics, Targets and Results By LCAP Goal, With Annual Targets and Actual Performance 100% GRADUATION HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 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 New Goal 8% 5% Available Middle School Cohort Dropout Rate Not Benchmark B - 1% B - 2% Available Percentage of High School Students On-Track for 35% 35% 41% New Goal 45% 50% A-G with a “C” (Grades 9-12) Percentagge of Students Demonstratingg Collegge CST SBAAC Preparedness in ELA as Measured by the 11th 14% 14% 16% 14% Benchmark 15% 16% Grade EAP Percentagge of Students Demonstratingg Collegge CST SBAAC Preparedness in Math as Measured by the 11th 10% 7% 8% 5% Benchmark 6% 7% Grade EAP Percentage of AP Exam Takers with a Qualifying 41% 39% 39% 39% 41% 43% 45% Score of “3” or Higher Percentage of 12th Grade Students Who Have 57% 66% 59% 61% 63% Completed a Free Application for Federal Students Aid (FAFSA) PROFICIENCY FOR ALL HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentagge of Students Who Met or Exceeded CST CST SBAC SBAC SBAC SBAC Standards in 3rd - 8th Grade ELA2 48% 48% 31% Benchmark 32% 33% Percentagge of Students Who Met or Exceeded CST CST SBAC SBAC SBAC SBAC Standards in 3rd - 8th Grade Math 45% 45% 26% Benchmark 27% 28% Percentagge of 2nd Grade Fluent Engglish Students DIBELS (EO, IFEP, RFEP) Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 79% 78% New Goal 84% 89% Percentagge of 2nd Grade Engglish Learners ((ELD DIBELS 1-2) Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 15% 11% New Goal 16% 17% Percentagge of 2nd Grade Engglish Learner ((ELD 3-5)) DIBELS Meeting Early Literacy Benchmarks 53% 53% New Goal 58% 63% Percentage of English Learners Who Reclassify as 16% 13% 14% 17% 16% 18% 20% Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) Percentage of English Learners Who Have Not 29% 27% 24% 24% 26% 24% 22% Reclassified in 5 Years (LTEL) Percentage of English Learners Making Annual 56% 53% 56% 54% New Goal 60% 62% Progress on the CELDT Percentage of Foster Youth with an Annually 66% 65% 85% 100% Updated Comprehensive Academic Assessment Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who Are in 55% 56% 57% 65% New Goal 59% 60% the General Education Program at Least 80% of the School Day Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who 4.9% 4.5% 4.1% 3.5% New Goal 3.6% 3.2% Attended Nonpublic Schools 1 This rate reflects the preliminary graduation rate as of November 2015 and is subject to change. 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% ATTENDANCE HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Students Attending 172-180 Days 65% 68% 71% 71% 70% 71% 72% Each School Year (96% or Higher Attendance Rate) Percentage of Students with Chronic Absence 15% 12% 12% 13% 11% 10% 9% (Missing 16 Days or 91% or Lower Attendance) Percentage of Staff Attending 96% or Above 67% 66% 72% 73% New Goal 76% 78% PARENT, COMMUNITY AND HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 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 81% New Goal 83% 85% School (Question on School Experience Survey) Parent Participation on School Experience Survey 32% 33% 31% 40% 35% 40% 45% Percentage of Schools Training Parents on 67% 35% 45% 55% Academic Initiatives by Providing a Minimum of Four Workshops Annually Percentage of Parents Who State that Their 60% Benchmark 62% 64% Schools’ Parent Centers Provide Useful Resources to Support Their Children’s Education SCHOOL SAFETY HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 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 22% 44% 69% 65% 71% 79% Handling of Student Behavior by Promoting Positive Solutions Through the Reform of Student Discipline Policies (Measured by Implementation of the Discipline Foundation Policy) Percentage of Students Who Feel Safe at School 76% 78% 70% New Goal 82% 84% BASIC SERVICES HHistorical Actual Annnual Targeets 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Percentage of Teachers that are Appropriately 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% Credentialed for the Students They are Assigned to Teach Percentage of Teachers Completing Educator 23% 25% 20% 20% 20% Development and Support: Teachers (EDST) Performance Evaluation Process Percentage of Schools Providing Students with 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Standards-Based Instructional Materials by Meeting Williams Act Requirements Percentage of Facilities that are in Good Repair 99% 97% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% Percentage of Secondary Students with an Annual 58% 76% Not Available 59% 100% 100% Individual Graduation Plan (IGP) 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 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 177 the community and how this consultation contributed to development of the LCAP or annual update.

Page 195

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. 178 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 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. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 179 VI. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all

Page 198

Additional Recommendations 20

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Parking availability at metro stations does not necessarily increase ridership.

Page 191

R2: Jurisdictions have requested modifications to planned parking availability.

Page 191

R3: Jurisdictions have implemented local efforts to supplement Metro ridership.

Page 191

R4: High parking utilization does not necessarily indicate a desire by jurisdictions for increased capacity.

Page 191

R5: In planning for parking needs, parochial rather than regional views dominate the thinking of local jurisdictions.

Page 191

R6: Local jurisdiction reliance that parking facilities elsewhere will “take care of” parking needs may be wishful thinking.

Page 192

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.

Page 192

R8: Many stations are close to current transportation infrastructure (highways and roads) preventing Metro’s ability to increase parking.

Page 192

R9: Local land use, community concerns, strategic goals and visions for growth impact the provision of parking.

Page 192

R10: Financial constraints impact the provision of parking. 192 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Page 192

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.

Page 192

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.

Page 192

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).

Page 192

R14: Parking facilities at Metro stations are owned and operated by a wide range of public agencies, cities, and private parties.

Page 192

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.

Page 192

R16: Although parking garages increase parking capacity on limited available land, there are significant expenses associated with their construction and maintenance.11

Page 192

R17: Metro currently provides over 25,000 parking spaces at its stations and facilities, of which approximately 86% are free.

Page 192

R18: Of that amount, there are 3,588 paid parking spaces, located at 18 different stations, which comprise 14% of total parking.

Page 192

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. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 193 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. 194 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 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 California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses to 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). 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 September 30, 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: Metropolitan Transportation Authority: 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, 10.13. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 195 VII. ACRONYMS BRT Bus Rapid Transit CGJ Civil Grand Jury EIR Environmental Impact Report Metro/MTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bart Benjamins Co-Chair Victor H. Lesley Co-Chair Judy Goossen Davis Edna McDonald Arun Sharan Lorraine Stark 196 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ATTACHMENT A: AUDIT OF PARKING SUPPLY AT METRO STATIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY April 7, 2016 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) provides bus and rail services throughout the County. Despite perceived efforts to increase ridership by providing parking and transit alternatives, there is evidence of a shortage of parking supply relative to the demand for parking spaces at certain Metro stations. To understand the extent of this problem, and Metro’s effectiveness at addressing station parking issues, the scope of this audit included:

Page 192

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 $55,746 $21,980 Income Average Household $83,104 $37,142 Income Source: 2014 American Community Survey (ACS); Metro 186 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Page 207

📋June 09, 2016 — Table 21: Proximity to Station Findings from Ppic & Other Literature Implications & Relevance for Metro 1. Transit

58 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

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.”

Page 291

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 268 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Page 291

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. Alternated Response targets those families identified by members of the community as being at risk, but who do not meet the criteria for an in-person response by the Department. Rather than not responding to the these families, the Department has partnered with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to refer families for intervention.”

Page 292

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.”

Page 292

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. A standard core curriculum focused on achieving independence should be coupled with a strategic plan individually designed for each youth based on 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 269 his/her strengths and needs. With the collaboration of all involved departments the resources, services and supports within each department can be better leveraged on a short-term and long-tear strategic basis.”

Page 292

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.”

Page 293

R8: HCIDLA disseminates information to the public on SCEP and the RSO in the Rent Stabilization Bulletin.

Page 261

R9: Under the RSO, annual rent increases from 3% to 8%, depending on the current CPI, are permitted in rent stabilized units.

Page 262

R10: Landlords may be eligible for reductions in property taxes on their rental properties when Fair Market Values decline due to economic conditions.

Page 262

R11: The annual rent increases permitted under the RSO may result in rent that is higher than fair market rent.

Page 262

R12: HDICLA does not have a sufficient number of qualified inspectors to perform SCEP inspections at each rental unit in the City every three years as required by LAMC. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department should inspect each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles at least once every three years as required by the Los Angeles City Municipal Code. or 13.2 The City of Los Angeles should, within three months, amend section 163.352 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that states the mandatory interval between Systematic Code Enforcement Program inspections. 13.3 The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department should, within three months, accurately inform the public that inspections of each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles are required at intervals of every three years. 13.4 The City of Los Angeles should, re-evaluate the 3% floor on automatic annual rental increases, when the CPI is lower than 3%. Allowable rent increases 280 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Page 262

📋June 09, 2016 — 7. Eto2v: Everybody Turn-Out To Vote

48 pages 22 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 22

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Social media The CGJ notes that older voters habitually fulfill their civic duty and are among the most reliable voters. The younger generation, however, receives its motivation to vote in a different manner, although a recent report by the Secretary of State highlighted that thousands of young California voters registered to vote online in recent months,11 indicating perhaps that the Presidential General Election itself is inspiring the new registrations. With younger voters in mind, the CGJ discussed the use of social media with RR/CC and is encouraged that several platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are already used to spread registration and election-related information to Los Angeles County voters. The CGJ notes that social media was used quite effectively in Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti’s You Tube video to inform Los Angeles drivers about freeway closures required for the recent demolition of the 6th Street Bridge in downtown Los Angeles. The Mayor used a video format in a very catchy manner -- very smooth, “Barry White style” comments while being backed by the Roosevelt High School Jazz Band – and the video was “shared” by thousands of You Tube viewers in Los Angeles and around the country. This approach could be a cost effective way for RR/CC to promote its election-related information to younger voters. With the limited resources that have been made available to RR/CC to promote the turn-out to vote campaign, it would be prudent to use these resources to promote voting to the young citizens on social media. RR/CC has a budget for FY 2015-2016 of $500,000 and has requested a budget of $750,000 for FY 2016-

Page 145

R2: Public service announcements The promotion of a turn-out to vote marketing campaign through the use of PSAs is most effective when they play to the largest possible segment of the population. 11White, Jeremy B., “Youth Vote Boosted by Online Registration in California,” Sacramento Bee (March 30, 2016) http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article69108612.html 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us-TVg40ExM&sns=em 13 On his website, Mr. Lear expresses his interest in being a person for change in America and he also might be willing to assist with the development of one of these videos to promote the get out to vote campaign. www.normanlear.com 136 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Marketing campaigns for public information purposes, however, as opposed to paid campaign advertising, are diminished by the off-hour times these types of advertisements are aired. PSAs can be self-produced. They must be submitted by Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations or a government entity. For a minimal fee, the medium that will broadcast the PSA will also produce it to be read on the radio or shown on television. This market is limited by the reduced air time given to these unpaid messages whether they are played on the radio or television.14 In Los Angeles County, the prime drive-time advertising slots on the radio – 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. -- are nearly always reserved for paid advertising. In the rare instance when there is air time available during those hours, however, radio stations charge $350 - $400 to read a PSA on the air.15 Consequently, the only times slots routinely available for PSAs are very late at night until 5 a.m. The airing of PSAs on television is even less likely to happen during the prime time hours of 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. because the earlier hours are filled with paid advertising purchased months in advance by local advertisers and the later hours with advertising by national interests. Local television stations quoted prices that started at $20,000 per 30 seconds of advertising for local programs and substantially more for advertisements that air during nationally televised programming.16 Messaging of this type is not likely to be a cost effective way to reach potential voters. C. Vote By Mail In the United States absentee balloting was introduced by President Lincoln. During the Civil War soldiers in the field cast ballots in the 1864 election. During the early part of the 20th Century many states adopted this type of voting to limited segments of the population including railroad workers, government employees out of state, military voters away from home, the sick and elderly included. By World War II almost every state had adopted some form of absentee voting. Until quite recently most states required voters to explain to election officials why they were unable to get to the polls and some voters were requested to sign notarized affidavits. Prior to 1965, just 5% of voters nationwide cast absentee ballots in all elections.17 The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and later amendments, led to a broader interpretation of the right to vote and restrictions on absentee voting no longer exist in most states. In the 1970s a number of states, particularly in the West, began to loosen existing requirements on voters. In 1978, for example, California extended absentee voting to any voter “on request” and in 2001 extended permanent “no-excuse” voting to any voter who simply wished to bypass the polls on Election Day. Interviews with various station managers in the Los Angeles media market. Ibid. Ibid. 17Espejo, Roman, Voter Fraud , Greenhaven Press (2010), p. 60. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 137 By 2012, 51% of all votes cast in California in the Presidential General Election were on VBM Ballots.18 There may be a generational tilt toward their use by older voters. The founding director of the University of California, Davis “California Civic Engagement Project” also concluded that for many young voters “the idea of putting a postage stamp on the envelope is an odd concept.”19 There is no question, however, that VBM presents a convenient way for a majority of voters to cast their ballots. There are approximately 4.8 million registered voters in Los Angeles County, and nearly 1.5 million of them, or 31%, are designated as permanent VBM. In the 2012 General Election 975,828 VBM ballots were returned to the RR/CC.20 A recent change in California law, effective January 1, 2015, allows a three-day grace period for VBM ballots to reach RR/CC and still be counted, if they are postmarked no later than Election Day,21 a reform which is intended to assure that as many votes are counted as possible. Another such reform permits RR/CC to contact voters up to seven days following Election Day to correct a missing or non-matching signature.22 RR/CC is in the process of developing a new vote by mail packet in response to feedback on the usability of the current VBM packet and ballot. This involves a new, larger format allowing voters to mark the ballot directly next to the relevant races, which will be grouped by each local, state and federal contest; judicial contests; ballot measures; and county, school and other district offices. This layout dispenses with the “computer card” ballot entirely and is larger and easier to read. Also involved are upgrades regarding simplicity of instructions, size of the security sleeve, and testing of overall voter success in returning a completed ballot. This process is in the final stages and has been presented to selected interested members of the community for their comments. Three states -- Oregon, Washington and Colorado -- conduct all of their elections by mail. None of them, however, has an electorate that is as large as that in Los Angeles County.23 The RR/CC stated the size and population of Los Angeles County prohibits a 100% VBM election, and he is committed to running “dual elections.” Suggestions to send VBM ballots to all registered voters have been abandoned. 18 http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2012-general/03-voter-participation-stats-by-county.pdf 19 Ibid. Of those, 5,596 ballots, or 0.96%, were challenged. The number of VBM ballots challenged was supplied by RR/CC. Based on these figures the CGJ estimates that the number of disqualified votes in Los Angeles County VBM ballots is very small. RR/CC has said most challenged votes relate to either a lack of signature or a signature which does not match records. Attempts are then made to reach the voter and have the voter file a new affidavit or cast his or her vote in time for Election Day. Cal. Elections Code section 4103. Cal. Elections Code section 3019 “(f)(1) (A) Notwithstanding any other law, if an elections official determines that a voter has failed to sign the identification envelope, the elections official shall not reject the vote by mail ballot if the voter does any of the following: (i) Signs the identification envelope at the office of the elections official during regular business hours before 5 p.m. on the eighth day after the election. (ii) Before 5 p.m. on the eighth day after the election, completes and submits an unsigned ballot statement . . . (iii) Before the close of the polls on election day, completes and submits an unsigned ballot statement, in the form described in clause (ii), to a polling place within the county or a ballot dropoff box.” 23 The most recent update of registered voters in Los Angeles was 4.8 million voters. http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ror/ror- pages/county.pdf Washington has 4.0 million registered voters. http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/ Colorado has 2.9 million registered voters. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/VoterRegNumbers.html Oregon has 2.2 million registered voters. http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/electionsstatistics.aspx 138 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT D. Development of Updated Ballot Marking Devices: New Voting Machines and a New Voting Experience for Voters

Page 147

R3: Beyond “one man, one vote”: random electors Another model imagines that a pre-determined number of voting citizens, selected at random, would become electors with the power to vote in a given election. The government would pay each elector a substantial sum to ensure their voting.29 The exact details are not important here. The important idea is that a small number, but not too small, of registered voters be selected and given the right to vote. They will then be paid to vote. Using voter registration rolls for selecting “electors” could additionally and dramatically increase the number of citizens who register to vote. Many changes to voting laws at all government levels would, of course, be necessary to implement this idea, but if voter turn-out 29 Jason Brennan, Lisa Hill, Compulsory Voting: For and Against, Cambridge University Press (2014), Chapter 2. (“In a voting lottery, all citizens have the same equal fundamental political status. While in universal suffrage, every citizen has one equal vote, in a voting lottery, every citizen has equal eligibility to vote. Elections proceed normally, with candidates working to gain support from voting-lottery eligible citizens. Shortly before the election, the system selects a pre-determined number of citizens at random. These citizens—and these citizens only—become “electors”, imbued with the power to vote. To ensure turnout, the government pays each elector a substantial sum to vote. [footnote omitted] They are not forced to vote. We might perhaps ask them to sign a contract committing them to voting (in exchange for the payment), and then allow them to be punished for breach of contract if they renege. This involves compulsion, but only compulsion to which citizens genuinely consent.”) 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 143 languishes we may as a society need to completely reform how decision making takes place. III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ conferenced on several occasions with the RR/CC and visited that department’s headquarters in Norwalk. Presentations, reports, exemplars, and other documents provided by the department were reviewed. Members read academic research and reviewed studies pertaining to the voting experience in California and other states. Members contacted media companies and inquired about their policies and procedures with regard to public service announcements. IV. FINDINGS

Page 156

R4: The RR/CC has formed a working group to study expanding Early Voting in Los Angeles County before Election Day.

Page 157

R5: A pilot project may be put in place to open one or two “will call” ballot pick up centers in each of the supervisorial districts for the June 2016 primary.

Page 157

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

Page 144

R7: Radio and television stations charge for advertisements depending on the popularity of the show during which the advertisement is to run. Public service announcements are also run, but only when other advertisers have not purchased time slots. 144 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Page 157

R8: The RR/CC’s budget for voter outreach is $500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. The RR/CC is requesting $750,000 for fiscal year 2016-2017. This amount is still not enough to promote the turn-out to vote campaign on television, radio, and other forms of communication mediums.

Page 157

R9: The RR/CC has negotiated package deals with media companies that include placement of turn-out-related “branded” announcements on a range of locations: billboards, kiosks, etc., across a range of businesses in the county.

Page 157

R10: The California Secretary of State has negotiated a deal with Metro to provide coordinated “branded” voter outreach messaging on bus shelters and buses.

Page 157

R11: Vote By Mail (VBM) ballots are most commonly challenged for lack of a voter signature on the return envelope.

Page 157

R12: If a voter’s signature does not compare with the signature affidavit on file (according to the automated signature verification software), the envelope is reviewed manually. Voters in this situation are contacted and provided the opportunity to sign a new affidavit. A new state law, codified in California Elections Code section 3019 (f)(1) (A), permits the RR/CC to request such a new affidavit up to seven (7) days following Election Day.

Page 157

R13: A recent change in California law, codified in California Elections Code section 4103, permits VBM ballots postmarked on Election Day to be counted if they are received no later than three days after Election Day.

Page 158

R14: New VBM ballots are being designed and may be used in the 2018 election cycle.

Page 158

R15: When implemented, the new interactive sample ballot (ISB) is planned to be able to automatically populate a voter’s ballot with his or her choices before the voter enters the vote center. Changes to those choices can be later made by the voter when he or she is using the completely redeveloped ballot marking device (BMD), before the official paper ballot is generated.

Page 158

R16: When implemented, the new voting experience is planned to include the ISB, expanded Early Voting (including weekend voting), Election Day registration, vote centers to replace precinct polling places, and new BMDs.

Page 158

R17: After implementation of the new BMD, Early Voting is planned at numerous locations around the county. For about 10 days before Election Day, there will be many early/weekend vote centers available, the quantity of which will more than double on Election Day.

Page 158

R18: Voting roll books are planned to be replaced by real-time electronic voter rolls to verify voter eligibility. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 145

Page 158

R19: Many special requirements are planned to be accommodated on the new BMD such as a touchscreen interface, language selection, audio input, headphones, a tactile keypad and ports for voters to connect assistive technology devices. The new BMD is planned to be completely accessible and provide a private voting experience for each voter

Page 158

R20: The new BMD is planned to replace the currently-used InkaVote machines. The new machines are being developed using federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds and will employ computer technology that will create a paper ballot that will be the official ballot of record.

Page 158

R21: The $55 million still available is adequate to complete development and testing of the new BMD.

Page 158

R22: The purchase of new BMD will require additional funding. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Los Angeles County should give full financial support to the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk’s efforts to bring the new voting system to fruition. 7.2 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should make all reasonable efforts to develop and test the new BMD so that the new machines are able to be used county wide no later than the 2020 election. 7.3 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should offer the new voting system, which is the most up-to-date technological method for secure voting, to other counties throughout the nation for a reasonable fee. 7.4 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should provide a minimum of five additional, secure Early Voting sites in the county for the 2016 Presidential General Election and also allow VBM ballot drop off at each site. 7.5 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should allocate funding to provide additional personnel to staff any additional, secure Early Voting or “will call” sites established for the 2016 Primary and Presidential General Elections. 7.6 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should institute a “will call” system of Early Voting for the next election after 2016, and determine optimal procedures and voter use. 7.7 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should take advantage of free publicity on individual city websites and city cable channels to 146 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT promote the upcoming changes in the voting system as each one is implemented. 7.8 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should address the public meetings of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and all of the cities in Los Angeles County to discuss opportunities for citizen involvement in voter outreach. 7.9 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should expand its use of social media for voter outreach in future elections, and should consider enlisting the public to help create and disseminate voter outreach messages. 7.10 A Registrar Recorder/County Clerk spokesperson should make appearances on morning and evening televised newscasts to discuss and promote the turn-out to vote campaign. 7.11 A Registrar Recorder/County Clerk spokesperson should schedule interviews on radio to promote the turn-out to vote campaign. 7.12 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should publicize the fact that VBM ballots can be postmarked on Election Day and still be counted. 7.13 Los Angeles County and the Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should initiate a study and complete it by January 1, 2017, to determine methods to increase the use of VBM ballots, including government payment of return postage and voter outreach regarding VBM procedures. 7.14 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should reconsider sending a ballot, using business reply envelopes, to each registered voter. 7.15 The Registrar Recorder/County Clerk should organize a committee, to meet at least once per year, to re-examine the implementation of on-line voting. 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). 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 147 All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 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: 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 7.13 Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk: 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15 VII. ACRONYMS BMD Ballot Marking Device BOS Board of Supervisors CGJ Civil Grand Jury ISB Interactive Sample Ballot PSA Public Service Announcement RR/CC Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk VBM Vote By Mail VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Molly Milligan Chair Bruce A. Berke Francine DeChellis Victor H. Lesley Stephen Press Cynthia Vance George Zekan 148 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ICE IN L.A. ICE IN L.A. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of a new program in the screening of undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles County jails. The primary concern of the CGJ was to ensure that agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) interview, for possible deportation, those undocumented inmates deemed to be a serious public safety threat. The new procedure from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) outlined a shift away from the previous policies and procedures. Under the new policy, federal immigration officials are allowed access to inmates who are being released from jail. ICE agents will only be allowed to interview those inmates who have been convicted of serious crimes and are not protected by the California Trust Act. The Trust Act shields immigrant inmates from ICE agents unless they have been convicted of a serious crime. Inmates are advised of their right to consult counsel before they are turned over to ICE agents. Public posting of information is instituted to promote transparency and accountability. Monthly audits make sure only Trust Act qualified inmates are transferred to ICE, and only during the standard time period it would normally take to release an inmate.1 The new procedures in Los Angeles County stand in contrast to those in San Francisco. The Sheriff in San Francisco and other sanctuary cities have banned all collaboration with federal immigration officials except when federal authorities have a court order or a warrant. II. BACKGROUND Seven days prior to any inmate’s release, LASD provides his or her name to ICE agents. The ICE screening process of inmates to be released at the Inmate Reception Center (IRC) consists of computerized database screening such as fingerprints and is not race-based. The LASD personnel verify that the inmate’s conviction is listed in the California Trust Act. Only after all of the relevant steps are completed can an ICE interview occur, 1 Letter from Sheriff Jim McDonnell to Board of Supervisors. September 22, 2015 (hereafter “McDonnell letter”). 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 149 followed by the possibility of an ICE immigration detainer and advice of their right to consult with legal counsel. Figure 1 illustrates the screening process. Some programs identified in it are described in detail later in this report. Figure 1 – Screening Process Diagram No Is there an ICE Yes detainer issued through PERC? No Does inmate meet PEP and Notify inmate of an ICE Trust Act? detainer. Advise inmate of right to consult counsel Inmate will not be Yes available for transfer to ICE Yes No Potential for ICE Does inmate interview meet PEP and Trust Act? Inmate will not be Notify ICE up to seven Notify ICE up to seven available for transfer (7) days prior to release (7) days prior to release to ICE P otential for ICE transfer Potential for ICE transfer 2 CGJ devised this chart based on information received from LASD. The information contained in this simplified diagram is merely for reference use only and not intended as legal advice or direction. No reliance should be placed upon it for making important decisions. 150 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT A. History In 2005 and again in October 2014 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (BOS) authorized LASD to participate in ICE’s 287(g) program. This section of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows local law enforcement officials to perform some of the duties of immigration officers. Five specially trained custody assistants worked with a dozen federal agents within the Los Angeles County jails, interviewing and investigating inmates to determine their immigration status.3 This kind of in-depth screening helped detect deportable inmates whose fingerprints did not show up in the federal database. On May 12, 2015, BOS voted 3-2 to end the program. The Los Angeles Times reported that this vote was the result of years of pressure from advocates who claimed that it led to racial profiling.4 The same day BOS ended the prior agreement, it voted 4-1 to instruct LASD to continue to cooperate with ICE in identifying deportable immigrants being held in the jails which included a new federal initiative called the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). BOS directed LASD to report back in 90 days on a strategy for implementation while safeguarding the rights of all. Following this action LASD sought input from a variety of community groups, including “ICE out of L.A.,” the Public Defender’s Office, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center and other immigration groups. These policies were finalized on September 22, 2015. B. Key LASD practices and principles 6 • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 151 • ICE agents will be authorized to interview specific inmates who do not have ICE immigration detainers issued through Pacific Enforcement Response Center (PERC). • 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. • 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. Immigration authorities issue immigration detainers based on electronic data after gaining access to fingerprints from jail bookings. This is a result of enhanced law enforcement information-sharing after the 2001 terrorist attacks. D. Priority Enforcement Program 8 On November 20, 2014, the Obama Administration announced the new PEP program regarding immigration enforcement. The new policies took effect on January 5, 2015. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) PEP enables ICE to work with state and local law enforcement to take custody of inmates who pose a danger to public safety before they are released into our communities. PEP was established at the direction of the DHS Secretary and focuses on convicted criminals and others who pose a danger to public safety. PEP begins at the state and local level when an individual is arrested and booked by a law enforcement officer for a criminal violation and his or her fingerprints are submitted to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks. This same biometric data is also sent to ICE so that ICE can determine whether the individual is a priority for removal, consistent with DHS enforcement priorities. Under PEP, ICE will seek the transfer of a removable individual who has (1) been convicted of an offense listed under DHS civil immigration enforcement priorities, (2) intentionally participated in an organized gang to further the illegal activity of the gang, or (3) poses a danger to national security. The policy is primarily about reforms to immigration detainers which will now generally be notification requests, not hold requests for extra detention. Taxin, Amy. “Immigration detainers often issued by California Center.” The Associated Press 19 Sept. 2015. http://home.cableone.net/news/read/category/AP%20Top%20News%20-%20US%20Headlines/article/the_associated_press- immigration_detainers_often_issued_by_california_c-ap 8 Department of Homeland Security Website. https://www.ice.gov/pep 152 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The three civil enforcement PEP priority levels are described below.

Page 158

📋June 09, 2016 — B. History Skid Row is a depressed, low income residential community. Unfortunately, current statistics indicate an

40 pages 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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.

Page 96

R2: Two cities, Bell and Westlake Village, have no commissions.

Page 96

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.

Page 96

R4: Some cities publish agendas for commission meetings but not the minutes.

Page 96

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.

Page 96

R6: Many cities are not current in publishing minutes of commission meetings. Some are many months behind.

Page 97

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. 96 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT multiple commissions simultaneously. This information was provided in responses to our e-mail queries.

Page 97

R8: Of all the cities reporting compensation for service on a commission, only two currently report this on their websites in “Commission Facts.”

Page 97

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.

Page 97

R10: Higher stipends were generally reserved for service on Planning Commissions, whose members are usually required to have more specialized knowledge and experience.

Page 97

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.

Page 97

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.

Page 97

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.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 97 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 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 September 30, 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: THESE WEBSITES WERE JUDGED SATISFACTORY FOR EASE OF USE. Location Web Address Recommendation Agoura Hills www.ci.agoura-hills.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 Artesia www.cityofartesia.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 Avalon www.cityofavalon.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 Bellflower www.bellflower.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 Beverly Hills www.beverlyhills.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 Burbank www.burbankca.gov 5.2 5.4 Carson www.ci.carson.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Cerritos www.cerritos.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 Claremont www.ci.claremont.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 Commerce www.ci.commerce.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Cudahy www.cityofcudahy.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Gardena www.ci.gardena.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Glendale www.ci.glendale.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 Hawaiian Gardens www.hgcity.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 Hermosa Beach www.hermosabch.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 98 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Hidden Hills www.hiddenhillscity.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 Huntington Park www.hpca.gov 5.1 5.2 5.3 City of Industry www.cityofindustry.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 Inglewood www.cityofinglewood.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Irwindale www.ci.irwindale.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 La Canada Flintridge www.lcf.ca.gov 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Lakewood www.lakewoodcity.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 La Mirada www.cityoflamirada.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 La Puente www.lapuente.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Lawndale www.lawndalecity.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 Malibu www.ci.malibu.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 Manhattan Beach www.ci.manhattan-beach.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Maywood www.cityofmaywood.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 Monterey Park www.ci.monterey-park.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 Palos Verdes Estates www.pvestates.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 Paramount www.paramountcity.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Pasadena www.cityofpasadena.net 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Pico Rivera www.pico-rivera.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Pomona www.ci.pomona.ca.us 5.1 5.3 Redondo Beach www.redondo.org 5.1 5.2 Rolling Hills Estates www.ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 San Dimas www.cityofsandimas.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 San Gabriel www.sangabrielcity.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 Santa Clarita www.santa-clarita.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Santa Monica www.smgov.net 5.1 5.3 Sierra Madre www.cityofsierramadre.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Signal Hill www.cityofsignalhill.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 South Gate www.cityofsouthgate.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 South Pasadena www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Torrance www.torranceca.org 5.2 5.3 Vernon www.cityofvernon.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 West Covina www.westcovina.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 West Hollywood www.weho.org 5.1 5.3 Los Angeles County www.bos.co.la.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 THESE WEBSITES WERE JUDGED UNSATISFACTORY FOR EASE OF USE. Location Web Address Recommendations Alhambra www.cityofalhambra.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Arcadia www.ci.arcadia.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Azusa www.ci.azusa.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Baldwin Park www.baldwinpark.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Bell Gardens www.bellgardens.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 99 Bradbury www.cityofbradbury.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Calabasas www.cityofcalabasas.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Compton www.comptoncity.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Covina www.covinaca.gov 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Culver City www.culvercity.org 5.1 5.4 5.5 Diamond Bar www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Downey www.downeyca.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Duarte www.accessduarte.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 El Monte www.ci.el-monte.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 El Segundo www.elsegundo.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Glendora www.ci.glendora.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5 Hawthorne www.cityofhawthorne.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 La Habra Heights www.la-habra-heights.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5 Lancaster www.cityoflancasterca.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5 La Verne www.ci.la-verne.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Lomita www.lomita.com/cityhall 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Long Beach www.longbeach.gov 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Los Angeles www.lacity.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Lynwood www.lynwood.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Monrovia www.cityofmonrovia.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Montebello www.cityofmontebello.com 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Norwalk www.ci.norwalk.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Palmdale www.cityofpalmdale.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5 Rolling Hills www.rolling-hills.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Rosemead www.cityofrosemead.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 San Fernando www.ci.san-fernando.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 San Marino www.ci.san-marino.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5 Santa Fe Springs www.santafesprings.org 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 South El Monte www.ci.south-el-onte.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Temple City www.ci.temple-city.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.5 Walnut www.ci.walnut.ca.us 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Whittier www.cityofwhittier.org 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 VII. ACRONYMS BOS Board of Supervisors CGJ Civil Grand Jury 100 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS George Zekan Chair Lorraine Stark Secretary Edna McDonald Molly Milligan 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 101

Page 97

March 11, 2016 — WHO Cares for the Dead When the Dead Don’t Vote?

24 pages 22 findings 25 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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.

Page 7

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.

Page 8

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.

Page 9

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.

Page 17

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.

Page 17

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.

Page 17

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.

Page 17

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.

Page 17

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).

Page 17

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.

Page 17

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 18

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.

Page 9

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

December 22, 2015 — Inadequate EL Niño Planning for County Homeless Population:

9 pages 1 findings 1 recommendations

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.

Page 5

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.

📋December 16, 2015 — Consequences Of Poor Financial Practices

370 pages 8 findings 24 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

Page 184

Page 185

Page 186

Page 187

Page 193

Page 195

Page 198

Additional Recommendations 24

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 291

Page 292

Page 144

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.” 270 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 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: 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 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 271 Responses are required from: Los Angeles County: 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 Department of Children and Family Services: 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 VII. ACRONYMS BOS Board of Supervisors CGJ Civil Grand Jury DCFS Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services DHS Los Angeles County Department of Health Services DMH Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health LACOE Los Angeles County Office of Education LAUSD Los Angeles Unified School District TAY Transitional Age Youth VIII. COMMITTEE Rene Childress Co-Chair Rita Hall Co-Chair Heather Preimesberger Secretary Francine DeChellis Edna McDonald Patricia Turner 272 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT RENTER OR LANDLORD: WHO BENEFITS? RENTER OR LANDLORD: WHO BENEFITS? I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Los Angeles (City) has an ambitious program that requires a building code inspection of every residential rental unit in the City at least once every three years.1 The Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP) is administered by the Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department (HCIDLA). Since inception of SCEP in 1998, the inspection of each unit has not been completed as frequently as the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) requires. An annual fee to fund SCEP is assessed to the owner of each residential rental property in the City.2 Landlords are permitted to pass on 100% of the fee to their tenants, whether or not a rental unit is inspected on schedule, according to the LAMC.3 Residential rental units in the City that were constructed before 1978 are generally subject to rent control under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO).4 The LAMC allows automatic annual increases in rental rates by 3% and up to 8% annually depending on economic conditions.5 The percentage increase amount generally correlates with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). There is a 3% floor on annual rent increases because the RSO permits a 3% increase in annual rent even if the CPI is below 3%.6 II. BACKGROUND The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) reviewed the SCEP.7 The focus of the investigation was on the frequency of SCEP inspections. Additionally, the CGJ reviewed the RSO, in particular the provision that defines the amount of annual rent increases that a landlord may charge a tenant in a rent stabilized unit.8 1 LAMC §§161.301 and 161.353. LAMC § 161.352. LAMC § 151.05.1. LAMC §§ 151.00 through 151.30. LAMC § 151.06 (Automatic Adjustments); based on the CPI based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area (hereafter “RSO allowable rent increases”). See RSO allowable rent increases. LAMC §§ 161.201 through 161.604. See RSO allowable rent increases. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 273 A. Systematic Code Enforcement Program Before SCEP was initiated in 1998, rental units were not required to be routinely inspected by the City for critical habitability problems that violated state and local building codes.9 The City’s stated goal in enacting SCEP was, “…to eliminate substandard housing conditions in rental units.”10 HCIDLA is responsible for administering SCEP. The aspirations of SCEP were recognized in 2005, when it earned the City the Innovations in American Government Award.11 Problems such as defective water heaters, poor plumbing and mold are addressed during inspections. CGJ witnessed habitability deficiencies first hand when they accompanied a HCIDLA building inspector on inspections in various locations throughout the City. CGJ noted that many units passed inspection because they were well-maintained by conscientious landlords and tenants. If the SCEP inspector discovers deficiencies, the owner will receive a Notice to Comply with City and state codes. If the violations are not corrected in a timely manner,12 the city will place the property into the Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP).13 When a property is in REAP there may be reductions in the rent that the landlord may collect from a tenant.14 Additionally, a REAP notice is recorded against the property title, and administrative fees are charged to the landlord. The most serious consequence is referral to the Los Angeles City Attorney.15 1. SCEP inspections are behind schedule An inspection of each rental unit is required “...at least once every three years.” 16 There is no authority for longer intervals between inspections. However, according to HCIDLA, after a rental unit is inspected, it takes more than three years to perform a subsequent inspection. HCIDLA has informed the CGJ that SCEP inspections are behind schedule because the department does not have a sufficient number of staff qualified to perform such inspections. California Civil Code § 1941.1.1 et seq. LAMC § 161.353 et seq. (Added by Ordinance No. 172,108, Effective July 15,1998). Presented by the Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center for Democratic Governance. Rent Stabilization Bulletin-THE SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN, p. 3 (“The Owner will be allowed up to 30 days to make the repairs (depending on severity of the deficiencies).” 13 LAMC §§ 162.00-162.12. LAMC § 162.05. LAMC § 162.04. Ibid. 274 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Example: A building passed a SCEP inspection in 2006, the next mandatory inspection was completed in 2011, more than 2 years late. Moreover, the next inspection, due in 2014, was not performed until 2015, according to the LAMC. See Figure 1. Figure 1. FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS OF AN ACTUAL SAN FERNANDO VALLEY APARTMENT PROPERTY Cycle Inspection Date Time Since Last Inspection I No data - II 2/19/06 - III 6/13/11 5 years and 4 months IV 3/06/15 3 years and 9 months Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA. HCIDLA publishes a Rent Stabilization Bulletin (Bulletin) to inform the public about various provisions of the program. However, the Bulletin does not inform the public about the three year deadline, “Under SCEP, HCIDLA thoroughly inspects the City’s residential rental properties once every four years.”17 (The Bulletin should accurately inform the public that inspections of each rental unit are required in intervals of every three years.) Alternately, the city should amend the section of the LAMC that defines the mandatory frequency of intervals between SCEP inspections. See LAMC, section 163.353. 2. Accelerated schedule Inspections may also be complaint-based.18 Complaint-based inspections are put on an accelerated schedule, when there are serious risks to health and/or safety such as no heat, gas or water.19 The CGJ witnessed complaint-based inspections first hand and found certain tenant’s living conditions to be deplorable. According to information provided by HCIDLA to the CGJ, once a complaint inspection has confirmed violations, the unit is placed on an accelerated SCEP inspection cycle. 3. 100% of inspection fees may be “passed-through” to tenants The annual SCEP fee for each residential rental unit in the city is $43.32. The fee is assessed to the landlord. However, the LAMC allows a landlord to “pass-through” 100% of the fee to the tenant as a charge of $3.61 per month, in addition to rental payments.20 Information provided to the CGJ by HCIDLA, indicates that a total of 17 Rent Stabilization Bulletin-THE SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (SCEP), p.1. hcidla.lacity.org/system/files_force/documents/SCEP_English.pdf? 18 LAMC § 161.351. LAMC § 161.353. See also HCIDLA Rent Stabilization Bulletin # 52-3.25.2015; Telephone number for complaints is 866-577- 7368; online complaints may be filed at the HCIDLA website at: http://hcidla.lacity.org in-person at HCIDLA Public Information Counter. Rent Adjustment Commission Regulations § 370.00; Fee allowed provided landlord is not delinquent in the payment of annual fee to HCIDLA; landlord must serve the tenant a 30-day written notice. http://161.149.40.43/hcidla- library?field_document_category_tid=145&combine=RAC+&date_filter%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=01%2F01%2F1999&date_filter _1%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F20%2F2015 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 275 approximately $42.5 million in SCEP fees and nearly $500,000 in delinquent fees were collected in the first 4 months of 2016. Property owners are charged the $43.32 fee annually for each rental unit, whether or not the units are inspected in the current year of payment.21 For example, if a unit is inspected once every three years, $129.96 will have been collected. (Calculation: 3 yrs. x $43.32= $129.96.) If the inspection is once every four years, $173.28 in fees will have been collected for each unit. According to HCIDLA the SCEP Trust Fund has not been audited in years. The CGJ interviewed key staff members of the Los Angeles City Controller (Controller), who stated that due to budget constraints and limited staffing of auditors, periodic audits have not been conducted. The CGJ recommends that the City either allocate sufficient funds so that the Controller may begin to perform periodic audits of the SCEP Trust Fund; or amend section 161.352 of the LAMC which sets the frequency of SCEP inspections. B. Rent Control In Los Angeles Rent rate increases in residential rental units in the City built before 1978 are subject to rent control under RSO. Rental units constructed after 1978 are not subject to rent control. Approximately 641,000 units in the city are under rent control.22 1. Allowable automatic rent increase Landlords may increase the rent under RSO by 3% annually, even when there is a downturn in certain economic conditions. When the economy is very strong the annual rent increase percentage may be up to 8%.23 The annual rent increase adjustment normally mirrors the CPI,24 however, there are exceptions. For example, in years when the CPI is below 3%, or even negative, a tenant still may receive a 3% rent increase, at the landlord’s discretion. For example, a tenant with a $2,500 monthly rent may still be subject to a $75 per month increase when the CPI is less than 3% even when it is in negative territory. See Figure 2. LAMC § 161.353. According to data provided to the CGJ by HCIDLA. LAMC § 151.06 (Automatic Adjustments). LAMC § 151.07 A.6. The CPI average for the twelve (12) month period ending September 30 of each year. 276 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Figure 2. ANNUAL RENT INCREASES ALLOWED UNDER THE RSO Beginning % Increased Rent Allowed Rent (July CPI 1 each yr.) 8% $ 2,500 8% $ 2,700 7% $ 2,500 7% $ 2,675 6% $ 2,500 6% $ 2,650 5% $ 2,500 5% $ 2,625 4% $ 2,500 4% $ 2,600 3% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 CPI less than 3% 2% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 1% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 0% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 -1% $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 $ 2,500 3% $ 2,575 Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA It is not uncommon for the CPI to be below 3%. It has been lower than 3% every year since 2010. For example, in 2010 when the CPI was -.062%, the LAMC authorized a 3% increase in annual rents in rent stabilized units. See Figure 3. Figure 3. ALLOWABLE RENT INCREASES SINCE 2006 YEAR CPI INCREASE ALLOWED 2006 4.45% 4% 2007 4.79% 5% 2008 2.97% 3% 2009 4.14% 4% 2010 -0.62% 3% 2011 1.17% 3% 2012 2.24% 3% 2013 2.10% 3% 2014 1.55% 3% 2015 1.19% 3% 2016 0.80% 3% Source: CGJ with data provided by HCIDLA In the CGJ’s opinion, the 3% automatic increase is unfair to low to moderate income tenants when the CPI is below 3%. 2. Property tax break for landlords for declines in market value Property owners may receive property tax reductions on their real estate when the Fair Market Value (FMV) of their property declines. When the FMV is lower than the 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 277 factored base year value (Proposition 13 value), the Assessor is required to enroll the FMV.25 California assessors refer to this as “Decline in Value.” Example: An 18 unit apartment building in the City of Los Angeles that is under rent control received Decline in Value property tax reductions. For example, in 2014 and 2015, the FMV of the property was lower than the Proposition 13 value. Since property taxes are based on the lower of the two values, the property owner received substantial reductions. In 2014 his property tax bill was reduced by an estimated amount of $5,263.69; in 2015 the savings was approximately $5,560.06. See Figure 4. Figure 4. ACTUAL PROPERTY TAX REDUCTIONS FOR A BOYLE HEIGHTS APARTMENT OWNER (RSO PROPERTY)* Proposition 13 Fair Market Enrolled Value Est. Tax Year Value Value (FMV) (lower of FMV or Prop. 13) Savings 2014 $ 1,727,928 $ 1,296,000 $ 1,296,000 $ 5,263.69 2015 $ 1,762,451 $ 1,296,000 $ 1,296,000 $ 5,560.06 APPROXIMATE SAVINGS IN PROPERTY TAXES IN 2014 AND 2015: $10,823.75 *Note: The amounts in Figure 4 include publicly-available information provided to the CGJ by the Los Angeles County Assessor. According to public records in the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office, in 2014 owners of RSO properties received over $9 million in property tax reductions. In 2015, the reductions were over $6 million. In the same year that a landlord may receive a substantial reduction in property taxes, the tenant may receive an increase in rent. There are no provisions in RSO to reduce a tenant’s rent if the current rent level is higher than current fair market rent. Example: A tenant lives in a large apartment complex of rent stabilized units and the rent has been increased each year under the provisions of the RSO. The rent for his current unit is higher than fair market rent. The choice the property management gives the tenant is to move to another unit in the complex in order to pay fair market rent, or to stay in the unit subject to a 3% increase in the rate, or leave the complex. In this case the tenant had to move within the complex so he would pay fair market rent. California Revenue and Taxation Code § 51(a). 278 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ accomplished the following: • interviewed Housing + Community Investment Department General Manager, senior management and the Director of Code Enforcement, • interviewed senior staff of the Los Angeles City Controller’s Office, • accompanied a Housing Inspector during SCEP inspections, • observed a General Manager’s Meeting, • attended a Rent Escrow Account Program Code Enforcement and Billing Information Workshop, • interviewed property managers and tenants, • reviewed system generated Rent Stabilization Cycle Reports, • reviewed various system generated Inspection Reports, • reviewed Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office public data on the assessed values of properties under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, • reviewed certain HCIDLA procedures, • analyzed Systematic Code Enforcement Program Inspector staffing statistics, • reviewed HCIDLA’s SCEP financial report, • interviewed a Los Angeles City Councilmember, and • reviewed certain sections of the LAMC. IV. FINDINGS 1. SCEP inspections of all rental unit properties in the City of Los Angeles are required at least once every three years per the LAMC. 2. SCEP inspections of each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles have not been performed at least once every three years as required by the LAMC. 3. HCIDLA is responsible for administering the SCEP. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 279 4. The SCEP Trust Fund has not been audited by the Controller in years. 5. The Rent Stabilization Bulletins omit informing the public that SCEP inspections are required at least once every three years, per the LAMC. 6. The SCEP fees are collected annually from the landlord for each rental unit in the City; 100% of the fees may be passed on to the tenant. 7. HCIDLA does not have sufficient staff to perform timely SCEP inspections. 8. HCIDLA disseminates information to the public on SCEP and the RSO in the Rent Stabilization Bulletin. 9. Under the RSO, annual rent increases from 3% to 8%, depending on the current CPI, are permitted in rent stabilized units. 10. Landlords may be eligible for reductions in property taxes on their rental properties when Fair Market Values decline due to economic conditions. 11. The annual rent increases permitted under the RSO may result in rent that is higher than fair market rent. 12. HDICLA does not have a sufficient number of qualified inspectors to perform SCEP inspections at each rental unit in the City every three years as required by LAMC. V. RECOMMENDATIONS 13.1 The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department should inspect each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles at least once every three years as required by the Los Angeles City Municipal Code. or 13.2 The City of Los Angeles should, within three months, amend section 163.352 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that states the mandatory interval between Systematic Code Enforcement Program inspections. 13.3 The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department should, within three months, accurately inform the public that inspections of each rental unit in the City of Los Angeles are required at intervals of every three years. 13.4 The City of Los Angeles should, re-evaluate the 3% floor on automatic annual rental increases, when the CPI is lower than 3%. Allowable rent increases 280 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT should equal the Consumer Price Index when it is lower than 3% but not below 0%. 13.5 The City of Los Angeles should, within three months, provide sufficient funding to the Los Angeles City Controller so that there will be sufficient audit staff to perform periodic audits of the System Code Enforcement Program Trust Fund. 13.6 The Los Angeles City Controller should audit the System Code Enforcement Program Trust Fund within three months. 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 to recommendations shall be made no later than (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 September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles. CA 90012 Responses are required from: City of Los Angeles: 13.2, 13.4, 13.5 Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department: 13.1, 13.3 Los Angeles City Controller 13.6 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 281 VII. ACRONYMS CGJ Civil Grand Jury CPI Consumer Price Index FMV Fair Market Value HCIDLA Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department LAMC Los Angeles Municipal Code REAP Rent Escrow Account Program RSO Rent Stabilization Ordinance SCEP System Code Enforcement Program VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Debra Cohen Chair Francine DeChellis Patricia Turner 282 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT S O S AVE UR ENIORS: NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS SAVE OUR SENIORS: NURSING HOME INSPECTIONS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In all counties of California, except Los Angeles County, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) conducts inspections of Nursing Home Facilities (NHF) and investigates nursing home complaints. Most of the people in nursing homes are seniors. In Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) through its Health Facilities Inspection Division (HFID) carries out NHF inspections and complaint investigations in the 396 NHFs located in the county. HFID and Los Angeles County are contracted with the State of California to enforce state and federal laws as they relate to nursing homes. In 2014, two audits were conducted by the State of California and the County of Los Angeles relating to the operations of HFID.1 Both audits made several recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of HFID operations. The audits uncovered a large backlog of complaints that were not investigated, some of which went back several years. In June 2015, a new contract was entered into between the State of California and Los Angeles County.2 This contract attempted to address many of the deficiencies found in the audits. In 2015, incremental funding of $14 million was provided to HFID to hire more personnel. The new contract attempted to reduce, by thirty percent, the workload of Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses (HFEN), also called surveyors. Additional hires would substantially increase HFID’s ability to reduce the backlog of complaints and complete certification and recertification surveys in a timely manner. It is hoped that when the new hires are assigned to various district offices the backlog of complaints will be reduced. The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) reviewed the HFID’s inspection of nursing homes. Our review showed that the number of complaints against the NHFs was larger in 2015 than in 2014. Despite an increase in the number of complaints being investigated, the backlog continues to be high. The data provided by CDPH shows a backlog of 6,514 pending complaints, with some going back to 2011.3 The CGJ feels that significant time savings can be gained by standardizing and systematizing the surveys and complaints investigating process, fully utilizing laptops and setting up a single point for entry of complaints. The use of laptops by surveyors is sporadic, and some senior surveyors are not fully utilizing this technology. The CGJ also finds that efforts need to be made for improving the communication between senior 1 California State Auditor, Sacramento, CA, October 2014, and County of Los Angeles, Department of Auditor-Controller, April 4 and August 27, 2014. Agreement Number 15-00003, July 2, 2015 (hereafter “Contract”). Email to CGJ from HFID, February 29, 2016, “Data Request.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 283 management and the rest of the workforce. Further steps need to be taken to improve the morale of the employees. II. BACKGROUND Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF), NHFs, and Long Term Care Facilities are all titles used to describe the facilities that have been under review by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), CDPH, and DPH. In California, Medicaid is called Medi-Cal. As a result of the 2014 audit, HFID was transferred to the Environmental Health Division, reporting ultimately to the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS).4 A. Staffing 1. Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse (HFEN) HFENs perform a valuable public service by overseeing the quality of healthcare provided to Californians. HFENs conduct complaint investigations and in-depth surveys of health facilities to determine compliance with state and federal laws, and certification requirements of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Their primary responsibility is enforcement of state and federal laws and rules pertaining to areas affecting total patient care such as nursing, physician care, physical therapy, pharmacy, social services, dental care and related services.5 The HFENs may act as team leaders on surveys and complaint investigations and assist in the training of new staff. They conduct surveys by visiting nursing home facilities, interviewing patients, evaluating the adequacy of patient care through direct observation, inspecting the facility, and reviewing patient and staff personnel records. They evaluate reports prepared by state or county level experts. Survey data is analyzed and recommendations are made to approve or disapprove the certification of nursing homes in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. They issue citations in accordance with deficiencies found.6 2. Registered Environmental Health Specialist (REHS) REHSs work to improve the quality of life and health at nursing homes through environmental and physical inspection of the facility. In accordance with the new contract the REHS cannot now independently conduct surveys.7 4 CDPH website. http//:www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/LNC/pages 5 County of Los Angeles, “Class Specification Bulletin, Heath Facilities Evaluator, Nursing, Class Code 5707,” April 1, 2007. https://agency.governmentjobs./lacounty/default.cfm?action=specbulletin+ClassSpec,1c 6 CGJ interviews with HFID staff. CGJ interviews with HFID supervisors and assistant supervisors. 284 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 3. Health Facilities Supervisors A supervisor is a manager of at least four HFENs at district offices. They engage in supervising surveys for health facility licenses,8 issuing citations and levying civil penalties. Supervisors are involved in determining program flexibility and decisions and reviewing health facilities for participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. They perform more difficult and complex surveys of nursing homes.9 Supervisors and assistant supervisors are required to review the surveyors’ findings and draft reports to confirm the accuracy of the findings and determine if the evidence supports the findings. Supervisors and surveyors must come to a consensus on the recommended deficiencies found and recommended citations. Surveyors are called to testify when litigation or appeals are made: therefore, it is critical that they are included in all discussions regarding their investigations, especially if their conclusions are changed.10 4. Program Manager Program managers are responsible for overseeing HFID district offices. They may manage individual departments or district offices. B. Complaints Processing 1. Complaints made by the public CDPH has contracted with DPH and HFID to investigate complaints relating to nursing home facilities located within Los Angeles County.11 Complaints are submitted by the general public, family members of residents, staff and residents. In Los Angeles County such complaints are filed with HFID. Complaints made to HFID can be made telephonically, by computer, smart phone, fax and mail. Complaints made electronically to HFID all go to the Information Technology (IT) Center at HFID headquarters in Norwalk, California. At the IT Center, the complaints are entered into the Aspen Complaint Tracking System (ACTS). Complaints made telephonically or by fax, are entered onto an “intake form” and directed to the appropriate district office by the support staff.12 The number of complaints received by HFID in 2014 was 1,527 and increased to 1,866 in 2015. The data shows HFID completed 1,506 complaint investigations in 2014, which increased to 2,235 in 2015.13 See Chart 2. Ibid. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. Contract, paragraph A.5.H. CGJ interview with HFID supervisors. Email to CGJ from HFID, February 19, 2016, “Number of Complaints made Each Month, January 1, 2014 – December 31, 2015.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 285 2. Entity Reported Incident (ERI) Under State law and regulations, NHFs must self-report events such as epidemic outbreaks, poisonings, fires, major accidents or other catastrophes, or unusual occurrences which threaten the welfare, safety, or health of residents, staff or visitors.14 Alleged or suspected patient abuses are also to be reported. These self-reported complaints are known as ERIs. HFID investigations of ERIs increased from 1,067 in 2014 to 1,343 in 2015.15 ERIs and complaints made by the public are combined to analyze trends and backlog of complaints.16 HFID classifies and prioritizes complaints based on the severity of the event. Complaints are classified as Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) if a facility’s non-compliance has caused or may cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to the resident. Complaints classified as non-IJ are situations in which the facility’s noncompliance caused or may cause harm that has limited consequence and does not significantly impair the resident.17 California law provides that IJs will be investigated by HFID within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint. Investigation of all other complaints must be started within 10 days of receipt.18 14 CDPH, Health Consumer Information System, “Health Information General Questions.” http://hfcis.cdph.ca.gov/faq/General.aspx 15 Email to CGJ from HFID, February 26, 2016, “The number of complaints January 1, 2014, 2014-February 22, 2014.” 16 Ibid. California State Operations Manual, Appendix Q, “Guidelines for Determining Immediate Jeopardy,” paragraph II, February 14, 2014, as well as CGJ interviews with HFID staff. California State Auditor Report 2014-111, October 2014, p. 14. 286 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Chart 1 Monthly Trend of Incoming Complaints (2014-2015) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 complaints received 162 110 112 113 122 125 155 137 127 144 113 107 2015 complaints received 163 149 145 134 157 167 181 161 175 151 146 137 Source: Prepared by CGJ based upon data provided in HFID email dated February 26, 2016. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 287 stnialpmoc fo rebmun 3. Complaints backlogs Despite the increasing number of complaints being investigated, the backlog of complaints continues to be high. The total number of backlogged complaints at the end of 2015 was 6,514 including • 52 complaints from 2011, • 363 complaints from 2012, • 1,146 complaints from 2013, • 2,143 complaints from 2014, and • 2,760 complaints from 2015. Chart 2 is a pictorial representation of the backlog of complaints, created by CGJ based upon information provided by HFID.19 Chart 2 Backlog of Complaints 3000 2500 2000 1500 Backlog of univestigated 1000 complaints 500 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 19 Email to CGJ from HFID, February 22, 2016, “Backlog Pending Investigations.” 288 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT C. Certification And Recertification Surveys In 1986, at the request of Congress, a study was conducted by the federal Institute of Medicine and it found that residents of nursing homes were being abused, neglected and given inadequate care. The Institute proposed reforms be made and subsequently the Nursing Home Reform Act was passed.20 The provisions of the Act were contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.21 The Act requires that states and the federal government inspect nursing homes to ensure that residents receive quality care and services. The law requires that the states and federal government complete inspections of Skilled Nursing Home Facilities (SNF) and NHFs to certify their compliance. The inspections of SNF and NHF are called surveys and are conducted by HFID.22 Survey teams consist of two or more HFENs and may include REHS, physicians, dieticians and other personnel as needed.23 The initial certification survey of nursing homes focuses on residents and structural requirements.24 The state has contracted with DPH to conduct surveys for recertification and relicensing.25 Recertification surveys are to be completed no later than 15.9 months from the exit date of the previous survey. Over the course of the contract the elapsed time between surveys of each NHF will be reduced so as not to exceed 12.9 months.26 HFID staff is expected to complete two surveys per month.27 D. Citations Under the 2015 contract entered into between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles, DPH and HFID are called upon to issue citations to NHFs when deficiencies are found during inspection (surveys) and complaint investigations.28 The contract also requires HFID to revisit facilities that have received citations to make sure the nursing home has corrected the deficiencies noted.29 Citations are issued by HFID for violations of state or federal law. There are several classes of citations: Class AA – issued when a resident death has occurred and the cause is found to be the responsibility of the nursing home; Class A – issued when a violation presents imminent danger or a substantial probability of death or serious harm; 20 42 CFR § 483.25, “Quality of Care.” 21 Public Law 100-203, December 22, 1987. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. Ibid. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.A. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 6.D.(1)b. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.D. Ibid. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 289 Class B – issued for all other violations. Citations issued by HFID personnel are given to the Citation Desk Supervisor, located at the El Monte district office, within five days after they are issued. The supervisor then enters the citation on the computer into the Electronic Licensing Management System (ELMS) which provides information to state officials.30 All A or AA citations go up the chain of command at HFID and DPH legal for approval. The NHF owner is given a copy. Within 24 hours after being given a citation the nursing home owner must prepare a plan of correction for the deficiencies noted in the citation.31 In 2014, HFID issued 25 Class A citations and four Class AA citations. In 2015, the number of citations issued almost doubled, with 49 Class A and seven Class AA citations issued.32 Citations carry monetary penalties, which are collected by the State of California. Class AA violations draw fines of $25,000 to $100,000. Class A and Class B violations fines range from $2,000 to $20,000. Also, any willful material falsification or willful material omission in the health care record of a patient can result in a fine of $2,000 to $20,000 for each violation.33 Appeals from the issuance of a citation are handled by the State of California, Department of Public Health (CDPH). • To uphold a Class AA citation, HFID must prove that: (1) the violation was a direct proximate cause of the death of a patient; (2) the death resulted from an occurrence the regulation was designed to prevent; and (3) the deceased was among the group intended to be protected by the regulation.34 • In order to uphold a Class A citation on appeal, HFID must prove imminent danger from a deficiency that could cause death or serious harm to a patient or a substantial probability of death or serious harm caused to a patient by the deficiency.35 • Class B citations are upheld on appeal if the violation is found to have a direct relationship to the health, safety or security of a patient.36 30 Interview with HFID Citation Desk staff. Ibid. Information provided by HFID, “List of A and AA citations issued 2014-2015.” 33 California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, “CA Nursing Homes: Violations Key, October 22, 2015.” http://www.canhr.org/NH_Data/List_Key/ViolationsKey.html 34 Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 8.D. Ibid. Ibid. 290 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The Citation Desk has one supervisor and two support staff members. The desk should use more staff members to process citations.37 E. Hiring Los Angeles County, in 2015, received $14 million to hire additional staff as a result of the new contract.38 Inadequate staffing had been identified in the audits as a primary cause of the backlog. Los Angeles County has hired 57 new registered nurses for surveyor positions.39 At present, there are 27 HFENs who are ready to be certified by the federal exam to work in the field independently. Management needs to secure supervision and support staff for these new hires. HFID is on track to meet its hiring target. F. Training Proper training is imperative for the HFID staff to be efficient. This will lead to better morale and efficiency. As a result of our interviews it became clearly evident that the department is not properly training its employees. This makes for very low morale within the department. However, the most disturbing result of this failure to train properly is the well-being of residents of NHF that HFID is hired to protect. The voices of the elderly and ill who reside in the nursing homes are silent and clearly their needs are in jeopardy. New hires go through county orientation and learn what it means to be a county employee. They do this by viewing six weeks of webinars before starting the state training. Several state run academies offer state training and usually have a class size of 30. Reservations must be made for the date and location which is most convenient. The training lasts for three weeks and during this time the new hire learns the state regulations that a surveyor will be enforcing.40 Federal training consists of one week of classes given in Los Angeles County to acquaint the surveyor with the federal regulations (Medicare and Medicaid) he or she will be enforcing. Federal training must be completed before the new hire can take the Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test (SMQT). The federal test is only scheduled a few times a year. New hires may conduct complaint investigations with additional supervision, and may accompany qualified nurses on regular inspections. This on-the- job-training continues until federal training is completed and the SMQT test is passed.41 In order for an employee to do their job there are certain factors that the employer must provide. Among these are proper training and mentoring. From discussions with surveyors and supervisors, the CGJ feels that the training provided is not adequate. Interview with HFID Citation Desk staff. Contract, Exhibit B, paragraph 6.A. 41; Contract between California Department of Public Health and County of Los Angeles dated June 15, 2012, Agreement Number 12-10082, Exhibit B, paragraph 5.A. Comparing the information in these documents, the difference is approximately $14 million. Email to CGJ from CDPH, April 14, 2016, “RE: HFID Surveyor’s Count.” 40 Interview with HFID training staff. Ibid. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 291 CGJ interviews with HFID personnel lead to the conclusion that HFID staff feels that their training is grossly inadequate. This leads to the question of how HFID is failing to understand and appreciate this situation. This problem should be immediately corrected. The implementation of the use of laptops for investigations has created additional problems. Laptop training at HFID consists of webinars and about 4 hours of classroom work. The new hires have adapted to the integration of these, but the older employees are still writing reports manually and then entering these reports into the laptop when returning to the office. This is not time efficient. Based upon interviews of senior surveyors, laptop training is not adequate. Since the new contract, one trainer has been added to the staff bringing the total to three. These three trainers support all five district offices in Los Angeles County. With the 57 new hires and the 80 existing surveyors, who need to be kept informed of new and changed procedures, the training department is severely understaffed. Other counties in the state have one trainer for each district office.42 HFID should add a trainer to each district office. With this addition, it is hoped that trainers will have sufficient time to gain feedback from surveyors as to the adequacy of training given. A Quality Assurance Committee has been created, consisting of surveyors, supervisors, and senior management. It meets weekly, if possible, to discuss ways to improve methodology of the activities of HFID.43 Emphasis should be given to the work of this committee and senior management should listen and act upon its suggestions. G. Systems CMS maintains a National Database (ND) in Baltimore, Maryland which is the end repository for, among other information, all data pertaining to nursing homes throughout the country. California’s NHF data is maintained in the State Agency (SA) database in Sacramento which is synchronized with ND on a nightly basis.44 ASPEN is a suite of applications used to input and process local data and to interact with the SA database. Within ASPEN, the Aspen Complaint Tracking System (ACTS) is the entry point for complaint and ERI data which is referred to as an ACTS “intake”. Another application is Aspen Central Office (ACO) which manages licensing and certification and is the main collection point for facility information.45 HFCIS is the software used by HFID to track consumer complaints and ERIs. CMS provides qualified users the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports 42 Ibid. Ibid. Interview with HFID Staff. Ibid. 292 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT (CASPER) for extracting data from ND and for printing reports.46 ACTS Reports Menu provides the same service for the SA database but is not as functional as CASPER. Other tools are available but their use requires significant technical knowledge. During interviews with nurse surveyors, CGJ noted that they were supplied with new laptops. Further discussion unveiled the fact that the laptops were not being used during investigations due to unfamiliarity with the equipment. Questions to the IT department revealed that the new laptops were HP Revolve 810 Tablet PCs and were loaded with a standard California Department of Public Health System which runs on Microsoft Windows 7. This is a solid platform which has eliminated any software bugs found since its introduction. To use this equipment to its full potential, it should be user friendly, and include a new improved template especially developed for surveyors to use during complaints investigation and surveys. Such a template should be developed with major input supplied by the nurse surveyor end user. This template would be downloaded with data for the site being investigated and would ease the input of boilerplate data with most entries being yes/no or other short responses. Additional data can be entered on screen using the One-Note function of Microsoft Office. This change from pen and paper to electronic data entry could dramatically reduce the workload for entering investigative data, but adequate training must be provided. H. Communication There is a communication disconnect between the managers and the line personnel at HFID. The breakdown in communication is contributing to low morale. Several of the surveyors expressed their frustration with the lack of communication when interviewed by the CGJ. When queried as to policies that could be utilized to enhance communication, they readily responded. The staff felt that it would be extremely beneficial for the department head, managers and supervisors to have an open door policy. Additionally, regularly scheduled meetings should be held to ensure that communication is fluid. Information should travel vertically up and down so that all persons are informed and kept in the information loop. Another form of communication they felt was critical to the success of HFID was that the headquarters’ senior management should visit area offices on a regular basis. This would provide them with a ground level perspective to know which policies are working, which ones need improving and which ones are not working and need to be modified or replaced. Surveyors also felt that headquarters’ senior management should accompany a surveyor to observe the details of the job. It was felt that if the upper echelon had firsthand experience doing surveys, they would understand exactly the complexities of 46 Email to CGJ from CDPH, February 4, 2016, “Federal System Support.” 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 293 the job and have a more realistic view of the process. Equipped with this knowledge, the headquarters’ senior management would be able to affect policies to assist the surveyors to effectively and expeditiously do their job. All levels of supervision need to seek the input of surveyors when developing any new policies and or procedures regarding the investigation of complaints. And lastly, the headquarters’ senior management needs to ask the surveyors what tools they need to be more proficient in doing their job. I. Morale It does appear to the CGJ that morale and cooperation at HFID is in need of improvement. This situation seems to relate to a backlog of complaints/workload, surveyors RN/REHS hostility and upper management not being promoted from within. Complaint backlog is at approximately 6,500 complaints, some stemming from 2011.47 This, coupled with the survey schedule has put a great deal of pressure on surveyors. It is hoped that the new hires, once they complete their training, will reduce the work hours and pressure REHS were the majority of surveyors in the past, but, especially with the new contract, all new hires for surveyors are registered nurses (RN) licensed to practice in California.48 RNs starting salaries are greater than for REHS surveyors and that is a problem area for REHS individuals.49 Also, only RNs can lead a survey, although a REHS surveyor on the team may have more experience. In addition, the work of REHS surveyors has been cut back to its present level, even though, before RNs were hired exclusively, the REHS surveyors performed the same duties as RNs do now.50 Based upon interviews and discussions with HFID staff it appears to the CGJ that there is a prevailing view among middle to lower level employees at HFID that, since the headquarters’ senior management came from a different division, they have little or no knowledge of what surveyors or supervisors do on a regular basis. It is also apparent to the CGJ that the fact that headquarters’ senior management does not regularly visit district offices, and does not consult with surveyors and supervisors on policies relating to the conduct of surveys, does not help this feeling. Until each of these issues is dealt with and management recognizes the issue, morale will remain a drain on worker cooperation and pride in accomplishment. See footnote 3, supra . Contract, Exhibit A, paragraph 5.E. CGJ interviews with HFID staff. Ibid. 294 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ conducted numerous interviews with senior staff, program managers, HFENs and REHS as well as supervisors and assistant supervisors. CGJ also spoke to staff at the IT, Citation Desk, hiring and training areas. The CGJ obtained reports detailing number and backlog of complaints, the number of “AA” and “A” citations as well as the aging of complaints. The requested information was provided by CDPH. Documents relating to audits were obtained and reviewed including quarterly inspection reports with level “AA” and/or “A” deficiencies since January 2014. Nursing home inspection reports conducted by HFID for the last three quarters were reviewed. IV. FINDINGS 1. Complaints submitted electronically are logged in electronically by the IT staff at the Norwalk location. Complaints submitted via telephone, fax or mail, are sent to the appropriate district office and, after review, it is then entered into ACTS by the district staff. 2. There has been no improvement in the time taken for completing surveys for certification or recertification. It still takes two weeks to complete and report on the surveys. 3. Laptops are not being fully utilized by all surveyors. Some surveyors are first writing the report on paper and then entering it into their laptop. This is a duplication of work. 4. Complaint workload is too high. The target of two surveys a month takes 20 plus days to complete. This leaves only regular and weekend overtime to work on complaints and leads to delays and inefficiencies. 5. Some program managers, supervisors and assistant supervisors lack the proper skills to retrieve timely and pertinent data and reports from SA and ND. 6. New hires are not receiving adequate training to competently complete an investigation in a timely and efficient manner. 7. A disparity exists between HFEN and REHS in terms of wages and responsibilities. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 295 8. HFID headquarters’ senior management has a background in environmental health while surveyors are RN’s. Surveyors feel that decisions are made without taking their views into account. 9. HFID top management has not made an effort to let the surveyors know that it cares about the job they want the surveyors to do and to succeed. V. RECOMMENDATIONS During the course of the current contract the following recommendations should be implemented: 14.1. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should develop a process to route all complaints including ERI’s to the IT department in Norwalk to be entered in the ACTS system as they are received. 14.2. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should form a team to develop a new electronic template to be used by surveyors to input complaints information into ACTS. 14.3. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should enhance training of surveyors in the use of laptops. 14.4. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make it mandatory for surveyors, assistant supervisors and supervisors to use laptops during the conduct of surveys by December 31, 2016. 14.5. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should ensure that program managers, supervisors, and assistant supervisors should receive adequate training in ASPEN and access to and training on CASPER to enable them to produce timely and informative reports. 14.6. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should develop a system to monitor new hire post training needs including compliance with mandatory training requirements and competencies. A post training review process that enables 296 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT HFID managers and supervisors to identify when competencies have not been established and refresher training is needed. 14.7. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should require a senior Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse to accompany a new hire until the new hire feels comfortable completing surveys competently. 14.8. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should hold weekly staff meetings to discuss investigation problems occurring in the field, potential morale issues and any overall concerns that may affect a well-run efficient organization. 14.9. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should initiate a study to determine how to reduce the hostilities between Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses and Registered Environmental Health Specialists due to differential in wages and responsibilities. 14.10. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make sure a schedule exists for the Chief and Assistant chief of the Health Facilities Inspection Division to visit each district office at least once a month to determine the immediate needs of that office. 14.11. The Department of Health Services, the Department of Public Health, and the Health Facilities Inspection Division should make sure that during each visit of the headquarters’ senior management in the Health Facilities Inspection Division to district offices time is set aside for them to discuss with surveyors, on a one-to-one basis, issues regarding the surveyor job. 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 September 30, 2016, to: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 297 Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Health Facilities Inspection Division: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services: 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10, 14.11 VII. ACRONYMS ACO ASPEN Central Office ACTS Aspen Complaints Tracking System ASPEN Automated Survey and Processing Environment CASPER Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting CDPH California Department of Public Health CGJ Civil Grand Jury CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DHS Department of Health Services DPH Los Angeles County Department of Public Health ELMS Electronic Licensing Management System ERI Entity Reported Incident HFCIS Health Facilities Consumer Information System HFEN Health Facilities Evaluator Nurses HFID Health Facilities Inspection Division IJ Immediate Jeopardy IT Information Technology NHF Nursing Home Facility ND National Database REHS Registered Environment Health Specialist RN Registered Nurse SA State Agency SMQT Surveyor Minimum Qualification Test SNF Skilled Nursing Facility 298 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Marina LaGarde Co-chair Arun Sharan Co-chair George Zekan Co-chair Judy Goossen Davis Secretary John Anthony Rita Hall Edna McDonald Heather Preimesberger Stephen Press 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 299 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 300 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND TECHNOLOGY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT AND TECHNOLOGY I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California state statutes passed in the last five years resulted in the number of probationers supervised by the Los Angeles County Probation Department (LACPD) to increase significantly. The population of probationers also continues to increase at about 400 to 500 per month. The department has hired new probation officers to deal with the increase in caseload. This report deals with the status of technology used by the department and seeks to determine if it is sufficient to help the department do its job. Computer hardware is adequate at present, but software is old and will need to be updated and reworked in the next few years. Although a goal of the department is to have a paperless office, without a change in software 70% of all work will continue to be done on paper. At this time, the department should issue laptops or tablets, and also smart phones, to probation officers to take to the field with them. This would increase their efficiency and provide a safer environment. II.

Page 293

Page 151

R10: The California Secretary of State has negotiated a deal with Metro to provide coordinated “branded” voter outreach messaging on bus shelters and buses.

Page 151

R11: Vote By Mail (VBM) ballots are most commonly challenged for lack of a voter signature on the return envelope.

Page 152

R14: New VBM ballots are being designed and may be used in the 2018 election cycle.

Page 152

R18: Voting roll books are planned to be replaced by real-time electronic voter rolls to verify voter eligibility. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 145

Page 152

R21: The $55 million still available is adequate to complete development and testing of the new BMD.

Page 152

Page 207

R20-30: Properties are declared surplus to individual department needs: then canvassed to other departments. If no department finds a need for them, it is declared surplus to the City needs via a City Council action. Then we try and sell the property through either a direct sale or hire a broker to list & market the property.

📋December 16, 2015 — Responses Received To Recommendations Of Ir1

481 pages 8 findings 26 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

Page 184

Page 185

Page 186

Page 187

Page 193

Page 195

Page 198

Additional Recommendations 26

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 291

Page 292

Page 144

Page 293

Page 43

R9: The professional field of forensic pathology is quite small and very few medical students pursue residencies, and later careers, in the field.

Page 43

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 45

Page 43

R12: There are three vacancies in the most senior positions in the forensic laboratory.

Page 43

R13: Los Angeles County does not engage in recruitment battles for scarce professionals by offering bonuses or other incentives.

Page 43

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.

Page 44

R18: Ambulances are prohibited by law from transporting deceased individuals.

Page 44

R20: DMEC sends hundreds of bodies per year to private facilities for cremation at a net cost of about $350 per body.

Page 44

R21: The ODA morgue staff is overworked in both transport and administrative positions. There are unfilled, budgeted positions available for additional staff.

Page 44

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.

Page 44

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. 46 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT

Page 44

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.

Page 44

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 47 VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Victor Lesley Co-Chair Molly Milligan Co-Chair Rene Childress Judy Goossen Davis Francine DeChellis Sandy Orton Heather Preimesberger Stephen Press Arun Sharan Bob Villacarlos 48 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT

Page 44

Page 207

📋August 21, 2015 — 150 S. Glendora Avenue Satisfactory

47 pages 1 recommendations

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

Page 443

📋August 07, 2015 — Technical assistance 17 1 0 1 14 3 7 7 36 for completing BIF Application 20% 1% 0% 1% 16% 3% 8% 8% 42%

60 pages 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Qualifications of GSD appraisers According to the City of Los Angeles Class Specification Bulletin(s), the Real Estate Officer and the Senior Real Estate Officer staff are each required to possess either a “State of California Certificate Appraisal License” or an International Right of Way Association (IRWA) Relocation Certificate.17 The California Certified Appraisal License has two levels, the residential and general license. It is not clear which “Certified” license is being referred to in the City specifications and there are significant differences.18 • A Certified Residential Appraiser license allows an appraiser to value “Any non-complex 1-4 unit family property with a value up to $1 million, and non-residential property with a value up to $250,000.”19 • The Certified General Appraiser license allows an appraiser to appraise all real estate without regard to value or complexity.”20 The Certified General license requires more strenuous education and experience. The City should clarify the level required in the “Class Specification Bulletins” for the Real Estate Officer and the Senior Real Estate Officer to specify which State of California Certificate Appraisal License is required. The CGJ believes if either one will suffice, it should be so stated. Additionally, equal to or higher designations such as an MAI (Member of the Appraisal Institute) should be allowed in lieu of a State of California Certified or the Certified General License. The CGJ believes that GSD staff assigned to estimate the value of excess City real estate should be required to possess an appropriate current State of California Certified 17 City of Los Angeles-Class Specifications Bulletin; Class Code: 1961; 1960. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect 18 California Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers, 2015 Licensing Handbook, Summary of Each Licensing Level, p. 4. http://www.orea.ca.gov/html/Lic_Hdbk.html 19 Ibid. Ibid. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 363 General License, and/or an appropriate designation for the property appraisal assignment, such as an MAI from the Appraisal Institute.

Page 388

R2: Class “C” Estimates of value The Class “C” Estimates of value that the CGJ has reviewed were used for “budgetary and/or information purposes” and included limited information. See Chart 2. Chart 2 Information in Class “C” Estimates YES NO Value Conclusion X Address and parcel number X Current property use X Building area X Lot area X Zoning X Topography X Highest and best use X Land value and improvement value conclusion X Total value conclusion X Data used to arrive at the value conclusion X Analysis used to arrive at value conclusion X Unusual or detrimental conditions X Approach to value-i.e. comparative sales, income, cost X Source: Betts, Richard M., and Ely, Silas, Basic Real Estate Appraisal, South-Western Educational Publishing (2005). The CGJ acknowledges that Class “C” Estimates are meant to be a shorter procedure to evaluate real estate. The CGJ requested attachments, if any exist, for the Class “C” Estimates. However, no response to the request was received, so attachments may not exist. The CGJ believes the estimates should include concise statements with the following information: the appraisal approach used to value the property, a list of data that supports the value conclusion, other relevant data affecting value, and an explanation of the analysis to arrive at the value conclusion. If another document has the supporting information it should be attached to the Class “C” Estimates. According to GSD, the Class “C” Estimates have never been audited. The Class “C” Estimates should be audited periodically. E. Real Estate Sales And Councilmembers “Discretionary Funds” The LAAC Section 5.500 states in sum that each Council District (CD) shall have a fund into which monies from City sales of surplus property will be deposited. “Fifty percent (50%) of all net proceeds collected from each sale (of surplus City real property) is deposited into the fund for the CD in which the property is located (Discretionary 364 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Funds or Council District Real Property Fund).”21 The Council District Real Property Fund (CDRPF) may be used by a Councilmember exclusively for his or her district for a variety of purposes including funding programs within the district or the construction or maintenance of improvements. Certain types of City property such as unused fire stations and animal shelters are exempt from this rule.22 In the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, Los Angeles City Ordinances, 180,206 and 180,764, respectively, amended this provision of the Administrative Code so that 100% of the net proceeds from the sale of surplus properties would instead be placed in the General Fund. These monies helped the City meet obligations in the slowing economy.23 An audit by the City Controller in 2010 indicated that from July 1, 1997, through September 30, 2009, $25 million had been deposited into the CDRPF that could have been used in the General Fund. It was suggested at that time that the ordinance suspending the 50/50 split be continued, but it was never acted upon.24 There have been many instances where properties were purchased in one Council District, and due to re-districting, the net proceeds from the property being sold were credited to a different district. Other instances show that property was purchased with monies 100% from the General Fund, but only 50% is returned to that Fund when the property was sold. Variances in property values, as well as the number of properties available and sold, in the different Council Districts affect the monies that are deposited into the CDRPF. There is, in fact, a huge discrepancy in funds received by the different districts from the sale of surplus land. LAAC § 5.500(a). http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect 22 November 7, 2014, CAO File No. 0150-08814-0001. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect 23 Ordinances 180,206 and 180,764. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect 24 “Follow up audit of GSD’s Asset Management Division, March 5, 2008. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 365 Chart 3 shows the proceeds that have been applied to CDRPF for the years 1998 through 2010. This information is the most up to date that the Los Angeles City Controller’s office can offer. Chart 3 Source: “Audit of Real Property Trust Fund Revenues,” reprinted from report of the Office of the Controller to the Chief Administrative Officer, City of Los Angeles, dated February 10, 2010.The CGJ was informed by the Los Angeles City Controller that the $48,750 entry to CD 13 in 2010 adjusted an incorrect entry from 2006. The Los Angeles City Council District Map (on the opposite page) corresponds with Chart 3.25 25 Source for the Los Angeles City Council District Map on is: http://navigatela.lacity.org/common/mapgallery/cd.cfm 366 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 367 F. Comparisons With Nine Other Cities Source: created by the CGJ using information collected in telephone calls with officials in the listed jurisdictions. Do you have a city Do you have/maintain a How many How do you dispose of real properties? surplus R.E. ordinance? complete/up to date real surplus/unneeded property database? properties are on Cities the list? We follow our Dallas City Currently we keep our records 8 By way of sealed bid or public auction. The Code (Section 2.26.4) in an access database. We will Texas Local Government Code list some Dallas along with the Texas local soon migrate to a web-based exceptions that allow direct sales for government code module that will house all city- affordable housing, economic development (Section 272). When owned property and their projects, entities with the power of eminent declaring a property characteristics. This module is domain and a few others. surplus, we do so by being created by our GIS resolution. department, and we are hopeful to go live in the next few months. Yes Yes, both surplus and managed Approximately Philadelphia city properties. 6500 The department of Public Property disposes of property through a process that uses the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PDIC) as an intermediary (required by the City Charter to use an authority for these transactions). Yes There are three separate real 20-30 Properties are declared surplus to individual estate groups within the City department needs: then canvassed to other Houston that maintain a surplus list, departments. If no department finds a need Airport, Public Works & for them, it is declared surplus to the City Engineering Department & needs via a City Council action. Then we try General Services. and sell the property through either a direct sale or hire a broker to list & market the property. Yes Did not respond 13,000 Competitive bidding, appraised value, reduced price in return for public benefit, Chicago reduced price to adjacent or neighboring homeowners. Yes Yes Did not respond After providing appropriate notice to local, state, and federal agencies, (affording them San Francisco the opportunity to acquire), then most sales are by either sealed bid or public auction process. Yes Yes, all surplus properties are 6 Market with our real estate staff. Website, on our city real estate website. listing websites, Costar, LoopNet, etc. Oakland No Yes 200 Direct to adjacent property owner, through market listing with a broker, through a Long Beach request for proposal solicitation. No, we go to ordinance Not at this time. Over 500 Given direction to dispose of property, for each property to be background information is gathered on the declared surplus. property, determination is made. Direct sale or competitive sealed bid, canvass property, order survey and appraisal, advertise property for competitive sealed bid, develop San Antonio marketing plan, bids are submitted and bidder is selected, notified, 10 days to sign & close. Yes Partial list, not a complete list. Over 1000 After declared surplus, auction or direct sale. Los Angeles Did not respond Did not respond Did not respond Did not respond New York 368 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Who makes the decision How many of these properties What was the Is any percentage of the sales price applied to sell these properties? have been sold in the past five total dollar for use by the City Councilmember in whose Cities years? amount sold? district the property was sold? Ultimately the Dallas City 43 $15 million No, any proceeds received will be credited to Council. the original purchasing department or find Dallas account. A request to purchase Department of Public Property $14,221,549 Philadelphia property comes from has sold 103 properties. This No, the proceeds are deposited into the either PIDC marketing does not include properties City’s general fund. efforts, City Council or sold through the Vacant interested parties Property Review Committee. contacting our Department. The Administration, in conjunction with the respective Council person, makes the decision to move forward with the sale. The director of the 26 $851,000,000 No, the funds generally go back into the General Services or the General Fund which is used for a variety of Houston Mayor’s Office (Chief purposes. Development Officer). The City Council Approximately 550 tax parcels $28,000,000 No, the funds go back to the account which was used to purchase the property. Chicago Did not respond Did not respond $50,000,000 in the No, proceeds go to affordable housing past 10 years. projects led by the mayor’s office of Housing San Francisco & Community Development. Administration after Did not respond Did not respond It depends if the revenues has already been following surplus lands budgeted/allocated it. If not Council as a Oakland act. whole can appropriate funds how they see fit. The Long Beach City 11 $5,040,000 No, except for the sale of the former Council, acting on behalf Redevelopment Agency parcels, 75% of the Long Beach of the City of the City’s shares of the proceeds of the sale Successor Agency of the (which are 21% of the net proceeds) are City of Long Beach reserved for use in the Project Area from which the properties are sold. Many project areas are within specific Councilmember’s Districts. Did not respond Did not respond Did not respond Did not respond San Antonio City Council 44 $36,179,575 50% Los Angeles Did not respond Did not respond Did not respond Did not respond New York 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 369 lll. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ reviewed Council Ordinances and decisions concerning surplus property disposition. Several newspaper articles detailing how the City handled real estate transactions were researched by CGJ. One particular article regarding the sale of one property that was sold without bid or auction appeared to be especially egregious and formed the beginning of this investigation. As the CGJ progressed, several other areas of concern began to appear, and we widened our scope of investigation to include those other areas as well. To understand this complex process, the CGJ interviewed the Chief Deputy Auditor Controller, met with a City Council member, GSD personnel, and the City and County RES staff. The CGJ also reviewed building and safety records, Municipal Ordinances, California law, court documents, City web sites, Los Angeles County Assessor’s Public Records, the “C” appraisal process and Class “C” Estimates, as well as Class “A” appraisals. The CGJ conducted a survey that compared how other municipalities used proceeds from the sale of surplus property. IV. FINDINGS

Page 389

R3: Fifty percent of most surplus real estate funds pass into Councilmembers’ Discretionary Funds.

Page 394

R4: Eleven properties were sold in 2014-2015 for a total value of $3,883,800.

Page 394

R5: Forty four properties were sold in the last five years for a total of $36,179,575.

Page 394

R6: Class” C” appraisals have never been audited.

Page 394

R7: The Surplus Property Procedure can take up to 2.5 years, or more.

Page 394

R8: The City Council makes the decision to declare property surplus and to offer it for sale.

Page 395

R9: Oakland lists surplus properties on its city website.

Page 396

R10: Of the nine other largest cities surveyed, no other city applies any funds from the sale of surplus property into City Council members’ discretionary funds. 370 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT V. RECOMMENDATIONS 17.1 The Los Angeles City Controller should implement a full and comprehensive audit of General Services Division/Real Estate Services and their operations relating to the sale of surplus city land within the next 12 months. 17.2 The City of Los Angeles should install an up-to-date computer inventory program to provide a comprehensive inventory of all real estate holdings in the City within the next 12 months. 17.3 The Los Angeles City Council should within 90 days, enact an ordinance stating that all proceeds from surplus real estate sales be deposited into the General Fund. 17.4 The City of Los Angeles should list all surplus property available on its General Services Division/Real Estate Services website within two years. 17.5 The City of Los Angeles should update the Surplus Property Procedure to lessen the time needed to complete a sale within six months. 17.6 The City of Los Angeles should instruct the Los Angeles City Controller to conduct an audit of the Class “C” Estimates every two years. 17.7 The City of Los Angeles should clarify the class specifications for the Real Estate Officer and the Senior Real Estate Officer so that the specific type(s) of California Certified Appraisal Licenses are stated. If both are sufficient, the specifications should be modified within six months. 17.8 The City of Los Angeles should appoint a dedicated manager to direct General Services Division/Real Estate Services whose focus is to implement a plan to reasonably sell surplus real estate at or above appraised value. 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 the Penal Code Section 933.05(a) and (b). 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 371 All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 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: Los Angeles City Controller: 17.1 The City of Los Angeles: 17.2, 17.3, 17.4, 17.5, 17.6, 17.7, 17.8 VII. ACRONYMS AMD Asset Management Division BOS Board of Supervisors CD Council District CDRPF Council District Real Property Fund CGJ Civil Grand Jury City City of Los Angeles GSD General Services Division IRWA International Right of Way Association LAAC Los Angeles Administrative Code LAMC Los Angeles Municipal Code RES Real Estate Services VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Sandy A. Orton Chair Rene Childress Debra Cohen Judy Goossen Davis 372 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS AUDIT COMMITTEE AUDIT COMMITTEE I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Audit Committee of the Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) is to oversee contracting with outside auditors and to assist investigative committees examine issues that require an audit. II. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY The selection of auditors was based on each firm’s schedule, budget proposal, subject matter expertise and prior experience dealing with the CGJ. The CGJ requested audits of:

Page 396

📋10. Park And Ride: a Los Angeles Illusion

66 pages 8 findings 20 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

Page 184

Page 185

Page 186

Page 187

Page 193

Page 195

Page 198

Additional Recommendations 20

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Parking availability at metro stations does not necessarily increase ridership.

Page 191

R2: Jurisdictions have requested modifications to planned parking availability.

Page 191

R3: Jurisdictions have implemented local efforts to supplement Metro ridership.

Page 191

R4: High parking utilization does not necessarily indicate a desire by jurisdictions for increased capacity.

Page 191

R5: In planning for parking needs, parochial rather than regional views dominate the thinking of local jurisdictions.

Page 191

R6: Local jurisdiction reliance that parking facilities elsewhere will “take care of” parking needs may be wishful thinking.

Page 192

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.

Page 192

R8: Many stations are close to current transportation infrastructure (highways and roads) preventing Metro’s ability to increase parking.

Page 192

R9: Local land use, community concerns, strategic goals and visions for growth impact the provision of parking.

Page 192

R10: Financial constraints impact the provision of parking. 192 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Page 192

R14: Parking facilities at Metro stations are owned and operated by a wide range of public agencies, cities, and private parties.

Page 192

R16: Although parking garages increase parking capacity on limited available land, there are significant expenses associated with their construction and maintenance.11

Page 192

R17: Metro currently provides over 25,000 parking spaces at its stations and facilities, of which approximately 86% are free.

Page 192

R18: Of that amount, there are 3,588 paid parking spaces, located at 18 different stations, which comprise 14% of total parking.

Page 192

Page 207

📋11. Politics 101: Observations On Los Angeles County Governance

18 pages 1 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

F2: The remaining five stations are all owned by Caltrans, however, and are prohibited from charging for parking. Three of these stations are currently at high levels of parking utilization including Norwalk (85 percent), Lakewood (98 percent), and Aviation/LAX (103 percent). Metro should continue exploring ownership transfer opportunities or alternative management arrangements of these lots, as well as continued opportunities to implement paid parking or other effective demand management techniques at these high utilization lots. New Measures & Initiatives As previously noted, there are currently several parking-related initiatives occurring at Metro. These include the recent passage of the agency’s first parking ordinance and parking rate resolution, the initiation of a parking master planning process to culminate in the agency’s first Strategic Plan for parking, the impending start of a paid parking pilot program, and a recently issued request-for-proposal for the development of a parking guidance system, which will facilitate improved signage, data collection, and public information. Parking Ordinance and Parking Rate & Permit Fee Resolution Metro’s Parking Ordinance, Parking Rate Resolution, and Permit Fee Resolution were adopted in September 2015 to facilitate the agency’s impending master planning process. Metro had previously been operating without a parking ordinance, parking rate resolution, or permit fee resolution, which created enforcement challenges. The ordinance did not contain significant changes from previous law, policy, or practices, but instead served as a compilation of existing rules and regulations. The purpose was to enable Metro transit security to provide more effective enforcement at Metro’s parking facilities. The parking rate and permit fee resolution standardized existing parking fees on a station-by-station basis. 238 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The new ordinance is expected to be leveraged as a tool to implement future enforcement strategies and operations. Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan In fall 2015 Metro’s Board of Directors approved a contract to conduct the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan Study on behalf of Metro’s Parking Management Unit. The purpose of the master plan is to serve as a system-wide comprehensive parking study, with two major objectives: (1) to present findings to Metro’s Board that will inform the Board’s decision to continue Metro’s existing parking program as is, or to increase the use of technology, incorporate more demand-management tools, and expand paid parking; and (2) produce a Strategic Plan to be adopted by Metro’s Board, which will include a 5-10 year parking implementation plan, the adoption of an updated parking policy, and the identification of capital and technology projects. The major components of the first phase of this study will include surveys and data collection, an assessment of the current program, public outreach and stakeholder meetings, and a range of analysis. Below are excerpts from the master plan statement of work, to highlight key activities that will take place over the course of the study, which is currently in progress and is expected to be completed later this year:  An assessment of all parking facilities. Identify locations with high demand and evaluate re-design potential. o Identify locations with low utilization and explore opportunities. o Evaluate pricing and its potential policy impacts. o Identify locations for preferred parking for car share and van pools. o Improve pedestrian and bike access plus facilities. o Enhance way finding and parking guidance. o  A ridership and parking demand model. The consultant will build a model to estimate parking demand under o different scenarios, enabling calculation of revenue projections and parking fee

Page 259

📋14. Save Our Seniors: Nursing Home Inspections

18 pages 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 291

Page 292

Page 293

📋16. Trying To Keep “Mom And Pop” Afloat

52 pages 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 6

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.

Page 311

R2: A probation officer dealing with Realignment Act probationers may share an office computer with another probation officer.

Page 312

R3: The cell phones issued by the Probation Department require a ten digit code to be entered before use, even to dial 911.

Page 312

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. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 303 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 California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Such responses to 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). Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code, Sections 933.05(a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2015-2016 CGJ must be submitted on or before September 30, 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: 15.1 thru 15.4 Los Angeles County Probation Department: 15.1 thru 15.4 VII. ACRONYMS CGJ Civil Grand Jury LACPD Los Angeles County Probation Department VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBER Stephen Press Co-chair Lorraine Stark Co-chair 304 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT TRYING TO KEEP “MOM AND POP” AFLOAT TRYING TO KEEP “MOM AND POP” AFLOAT I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “Employer Firms” with twenty or fewer employees make up 89.9% of all businesses in the United States. From 2009 to 2013 small businesses accounted for 60% of all new jobs.1 This means that small businesses are a significant resource to promote and maintain. In line with small businesses being a progenitor of economic energy, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has established a Business Interruption Fund (BIF) to reduce the effects of light rail construction on small “Mom and Pop” businesses along the light rail corridors.2 The 2015-2016 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) commissioned G-Cap Services Audit firm to review the efficacy of the Metro BIF program as applied to the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor and to review other similar programs to determine ways to improve the BIF program. The review and assessment examined the processes and practices undertaken to notify local merchants, possibly impacted by the Crenshaw/LAX transit line construction, about available grants, eligibility requirements to receive such grants, and the administration of the program. The work performed included the following elements: • collection and review of existing BIF related documents, • development of a merchant survey instrument, • conducting the survey using door-to-door, email, and mail approaches, • evaluating the survey results, • assessing and comparing other programs with the Crenshaw/LAX BIF, and • developing findings and recommendations. Survey results draw attention to the fact that most merchants believe the Crenshaw/LAX transit line construction has greatly impacted their businesses. Almost 40% of merchants surveyed have not applied for grant assistance despite outreach and marketing efforts conducted by the BIF administrator. Further survey results found that although grant assistance is the overwhelming element merchants found to be most helpful (84%), merchants also support supplementing the program to add more signage, 1 “Small Business Facts and Data,” Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (January 2012). www.sbecouncil.org/facts and data 2 http://www.metrobsc.net/business_interruption_fund (generally, the Buisiness Interruption Fund)(hereafter “BIF Project Information”). https://www.metro.net/projects/crenshaw_corridor/ (specifically, the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project). 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 305 to increase marketing to notify the public that businesses are open, and to provide alternate parking options. Many merchants believe the eligibility requirement that a business must be adjacent to construction should be expanded to allow merchants in the immediate construction area to also qualify for grants. Most merchants (58%) were unaware of the Business Solutions Center (BSC) and over three quarters of the merchants surveyed had not used the BSC. The BSC is a separate program implemented to provide technical and business assistance to merchants in the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor area. The report evaluates the survey results and provides a comparison of this program with other similar transit projects and concludes that the Crenshaw/LAX BIF is an innovative way that provides needed funds to small businesses financially impacted by transit line construction. The program has been effectively administered, but, according to most survey respondents and comparable agency analysis, some refinements to BIF should be considered to further improve its offerings. Key recommendations are as follows. • The program should expand its marketing and collaboration with the BSC to provide services that directly relate to assisting merchants complete grant applications. One area that should specifically be addressed is the ability for merchants to prepare financial records that satisfy grant eligibility criteria. • Additional measures should be considered to address traffic and parking impacts such as expanding the discounts provided to prospective customers, providing free bus rides to business locations, subsidizing discounts, and providing alternate customer parking with complimentary shuttle bus services. • Revisions to the program’s eligibility requirements should allow for businesses that have less than two years residency in the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor to participate in the program. • The program should be revised to include businesses not directly adjacent to the construction area. • Some relocation costs should be reimbursed by the program to offset merchant expenses resulting from the construction impact. 306 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT II. BACKGROUND BIF is a pilot program designed by Metro to provide financial assistance to small “Mom and Pop” businesses that are being impacted by light rail construction of the Crenshaw/LAX transit line, as well as two other Metro light rail projects. A. Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project Construction of the $2.058 billion Crenshaw/LAX transit project began on January 21, 2014, and is expected to end in 2019. The Crenshaw/LAX transit project will extend 8.5 miles of light rail from the existing Metro Exposition Line at Crenshaw and Exposition Boulevards to the Metro Green Line near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). By the end of the project, there will be eight new Metro stations throughout the Crenshaw/LAX corridor. Map on is taken from the Metro website with permission. The eight new stations will be located at:

Page 313

R5: Fairview Heights (Florence/West) Construction consists of the following aerial, at-grade, and below-grade segments: Aerial Segments: • Across La Brea Ave • Across Century Blvd • Across La Cienega Blvd/405 • Across 111th St/Imperial Hwy Freeway • Across Manchester Ave Below-grade Segments: • From Exposition Blvd to Brynhurst • Adjacent to the Los Angeles Ave International Airport South Runways • From 59th Pl. to 67th St. 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 307 At-grade Segments: • From Leimert Park station to Hyde Park station • From Fairview Heights station to Downtown Inglewood station • Along Florence from Beach to the 405 Freeway • Along Aviation between Hillcrest and Arbor Vitae 308 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 309 B. Overview Of BIF Metro launched BIF on February 15, 2015, as a pilot program designed to provide financial assistance to small “Mom and Pop” businesses located along the Crenshaw/LAX transit line, the Little Tokyo area along the Regional Connector and Phase I of the Purple Line Extension that are impacted by transit rail construction. Metro’s BIF program outreach materials defined “Mom and Pop” businesses as for- profit, or non-profit non-religious businesses that have 25 or fewer employees. This review only focused on the merchants along the Crenshaw/LAX transit line.3

Page 316

R7: Westchester/Veterans

Page 316

📋26. Speakers & Tours Committee

45 pages 1 recommendations

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

Page 445

📋7. Eto2v: Everybody Turn-Out To Vote

16 pages 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

Page 144

📋9. Lausd: Follow The Money

22 pages 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Priority one Priority one focuses on people who are threats to national security, border security, and public safety. This includes: persons suspected of having involvement with gangs, spies, or terrorists; persons convicted of a felony (as defined under state law) or an aggravated felony; and persons apprehended at the borders while attempting to enter unlawfully.

Page 165

R2: Priority two Priority two focuses on people who are “misdemeanants and new immigration violators.” This includes persons convicted of three or more misdemeanors, not including minor traffic offenses, state convictions where immigration status is an element, and persons with convictions for a significant misdemeanor. A significant misdemeanor is defined as an offense of domestic violence, sexual violence or exploitation, burglary, unlawful possession or use of a firearm, drug distribution or trafficking, driving under the influence, or any misdemeanor for which the person was sentenced to serve 90 days or more in jail. Individuals in this category are not a priority for removal.

Page 165

R3: Priority three Priority three focuses on people who have other immigration violations. This priority only names those who have been issued a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014.9 Individuals in this category are not a priority for removal. E. California Trust Act 10 Assembly Bill No. 4, otherwise known as the California Trust Act, went into effect January 1, 2014. It prohibits local governments from turning over immigrants who have committed petty crimes to federal immigration officials. It also prevents California law enforcement officials from detaining an individual on the basis of an ICE hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody. The Trust Act sets the minimum standard across the state to limit immigration holds in local jails. These optional holds are often caused by the controversial federally authorized Secure Communities Program which can hold undocumented immigrants, and even citizens, for an unspecified time, at local expense. The Trust Act ensures that people with most low-level, non-violent offenses are not needlessly held for deportation purposes. At the same time, it allows holds for most felony convictions and those accused of felonies under certain circumstances. Immigrant Legal Resource Center and National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. 10 http://www.catrustact.org/about.html 2015-2016 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 153 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ gathered the information in this report by undertaking the following tasks: • developed and submitted a series of written questions to LASD regarding the screening policy of undocumented immigrants, • interviewed staff at IRC, • reviewed and analyzed data provided to LASD by ICE, • reviewed literature found in the Department of Homeland Security website, • listened to the interview given by the Sheriff to KNBC-TV Los Angeles, CA,11 and • requested interviews with ICE personnel. The CGJ’s requests were denied. IV.

Page 166

📋Consequences Of Poor Financial Practices

30 pages 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

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.

Page 111

R2: Two cities, Bell and Westlake Village, have no commissions.

Page 111

R4: Some cities publish agendas for commission meetings but not the minutes.

Page 111

R6: Many cities are not current in publishing minutes of commission meetings. Some are many months behind.

Page 111

R8: Of all the cities reporting compensation for service on a commission, only two currently report this on their websites in “Commission Facts.”

Page 111

R10: Higher stipends were generally reserved for service on Planning Commissions, whose members are usually required to have more specialized knowledge and experience.

Page 112

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.

Page 112