Los Angeles County Grand Jury
2016-2017
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (37)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The affordable housing shortage is a crisis that affects all residents in the County of Los Angeles The majority of County residents are negatively affected by the current gross housing shortage. These range from the 47,000 homeless people to wage earners who must spend an unaffordable 60+% of their incomes on housing to the 1.6M people currently without suitable housing to professionals who compromise their spending priorities to work in the County of Los Angeles.
F2:
Existing approaches are expanding housing stock but have proven inadequate. The following approaches to creating new housing have been tried but are not adequate for correcting the County housing shortage: Private housing developments, subsidized housing developments, public housing stock, subsidized rent, and affordable unit set asides.
F3:
Negative repercussions from the affordable housing crisis on the County’s economy are already present and are likely to increase without corrective action.69
F4:
The “housing first” paradigm may be extended and improved by adding a “shelter first/housing next” component. A commitment to humane, safe, and temporary shelter for all those who would otherwise be “homeless” can be an effective and economical precursor to the County’s praiseworthy “housing first” commitment.
F5:
Interests opposed to a housing supply expansion are powerful and are culturally and financially motivated.70 To correct the housing shortage, NIMBY-ism, unrestricted short term housing, real estate investors, established homeowners, etc., all must be addressed. 69 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-growth-nation-20160927-snap-story.html 70 http://uccs.ucdavis.edu/uccs-crre-housing-policy-brief-white-paper 14 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F6:
There are a number of alternative approaches for new housing that promise high quality at lower cost.
F7:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been misused as a tool for NIMBY purposes. CEQA is good and necessary but can probably be improved to provide its intended purpose without some of the unintended uses it has spawned.
F8:
Short-term rentals are increasing the housing shortage.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should formally declare the Los Angeles County housing shortage a crisis.
R2:
The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council, should formally declare that the Los Angeles City housing shortage is a crisis.
R3:
(=> apartments) to R1 (=> single family residences). Mission Impossible: Meeting California’s Housing Challenge, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), October 2016-Foreword-Illustration2. Housing in the Los Angeles Sustainability Plan. Bloomberg Associates, August 13, 2014, p.7-8. Mission Impossible: Meeting California’s Housing Challenge, SCAG, October 2016-Foreword-Illustration2. 11 https://www.lahsa.org/homeless-count/reports 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 3 Current Provisions for Housing in Los Angeles County The Southern California Housing Marketplace
R4:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should adopt a “shelter first/housing next” extension to “housing first” paradigm to speed eliminating street homelessness. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 15
R5:
The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council should adopt a “shelter first/housing next” extension to the “housing first” paradigm to speed eliminating street homelessness.
R6:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to educate/incentivize against “NIMBY – ism.”
R7:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should consider early purchase of land around proposed transport facilities, as defined by METRO, to reserve it for affordable housing.
R8:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should lobby the California State Governor and Legislature to prevent the misuse of CEQA to delay and kill projects beyond its legitimate purpose.
R9:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should restrict, by law, conversion of housing to short term rentals.
R10:
The City of Los Angeles should restrict, by law, conversion of housing to short term rentals. VI
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Unfilled staff positions are fully funded.16 Unlike many County challenges, solving this problem does not rely necessarily on increasing the personnel budget of the DMEC.
F2:
In February 2017, the DMEC requested 56 new positions from the County. Since that time, the DMEC has been able to hire personnel to fill 26 positions. The recruitment and examination process is currently underway to fill all open positions.17
F3:
The DMEC is attempting to build a redundancy of employees because they typically operate with a 10% - 12% labor decrease due to personal leaves. With a small department of 220 employees in addition to the diverse, extensive, and expert-specific work, the net effect of a variable (daily) reduced permanent workforce is problematic.18
F4:
The DMEC has been operating without a permanent Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner for over a year.19
F5:
Backlog Problems: The CGJ committee found, in discussions with County staff and in reviewing media coverage,20 lack of sufficient personnel in the DMEC creates a backlog of investigations and autopsies. This causes potential heartache for families and frustration for staff. In January 2017, when the CGJ toured the DMEC, there were in excess of 450 bodies awaiting disposition. It is the opinion of the CGJ, backlogs may be perceived by the public as the most egregious result of personnel shortages in the DMEC.
F6:
Hiring Issues: The County’s hiring rules and procedures are created to implement a fair and transparent process. However, Civil Service Codes21 and complicated County hiring 16 Senior staff member at DMEC 17 Ibid 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Los Angeles Daily News, Mike Reicher, April 21, 2016http://www.dailynews.com/genral-news/20160421/400- bodies-await-testing-at-backlogged-la-county-morgue 21Civil Service Codes https://www.municode.com/library/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT5PE_APX1CISE RU 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 23 processes22 are particularly time-consuming and cumbersome for a small department of 220 people. Additionally, the hiring process can take up to 18 months. This includes formulating requirements, standards, examinations, interviews, background checks, and vetting.23 Included in this process is “Banding” which is the process whereby an applicant’s name is put in a “band” based on test scores. By County rules, the DMEC must interview and hire from the top “band” (or the banded applicants need to voluntarily withdraw) before candidates from the next “band” can be considered.24 It is the opinion of the CGJ, this is a highly restrictive and inefficient process for such specialized jobs within the DMEC. When these restrictions have caused hiring backlogs in specialty jobs in other County departments, “Alternative Banding” procedures have been instituted to fill critical shortages.25 Alternative Banding opens the levels of banding, resulting in a larger pool of candidates available for consideration.
F7:
Accreditation Issues: “An outside consultant’s report (Strategica, Inc.) completed in November 2016 found that the office was poised to lose its accreditation (with the National Association of Medical Examiners) because of a backlog in the toxicology lab, staffing vacancies, and a shortage of budgeted positions.”26 In part, the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) “promotes the highest practice of medical professional and ethical conduct; acts as a clearinghouse of relevant scientific information and administrative procedures and policy matters; and provides leadership and advocacy.”27 It is considered by many people we interviewed to be the standard-bearer of excellence and for the County to lose its accreditation would be regrettable.
F8:
Data Analysis: The County expressed concern for insufficient data analysis on the part of the DMEC to support the need to fill certain job vacancies.28 Historically, lack of maintaining sufficient data recognized by the County has disadvantaged the DMEC in successfully advancing its justification for more personnel. The outside consultant Strategica, Inc.’s report to the BOS did not agree with the DMEC in its assessment of how many personnel were needed.29 22 County Department of Human Resources http://hr.lacounty.gov/our-organization/ 23 Senior staff member at DMEC 24 Senior staff members at DHR and DMEC 25 Ibid. LA Times Local/LA Now, January 20, 2017, Matt Hamilton, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln- coroner-appointment-20170120-story.html 27 National Association of Medical Examiners Website https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/StartPage.aspx?Site=NAME&WebCode=Home Senior staff member in CEO’s Office 29 Strategica Report to BOS re DMEC, December 1, 2016 “Workload Analysis of the Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner” including DMEC’s response to the recommendations in the report. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1007230_ReporttoCEO-FINAL11-17-16.pdf 24 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F9:
This year’s CGJ was pleased to learn that since the 2015-2016 CGJ Final Report, the BOS and the CEO have committed ongoing time and resources to help ameliorate the personnel shortages in the DMEC through the formation of a Work Group.30
F10:
The Work Group is comprised of staff from the DMEC, the CEO’s office, and the Department of Human Resources (DHR). Issues are reviewed in detail and solutions created where possible. Relevant staff members from other departments are brought into the Work Group when needed, i.e., Civil Service Commission and County Counsel. The Work Group has succeeded in creating an effective open dialogue between the three County departments (CEO’s Office, DHR, and the DMEC).31 Most importantly, the Work Group has the authority to solve problems and implement solutions, as issues are researched and understood.32 In discussions with staff of the three County departments, the following issues were presented to the CGJ committee members:
• Due to “Surging” (the application of extensive temporary overtime) the DMEC is close to eliminating backlogs and attaining the industry standard of 90% of all investigations completed within 90 days from time of autopsy.33 However, this approach has resulted in 20,000 hours of overtime in twelve months.34
• A new labor resource for DMEC has been instituted using students studying for a Masters of Social Work (MSW) degree. Students from the USC School of Social Work are utilized as interns to assist indigent families in crisis and help identify available social service resources. This time-consuming but vital service releases permanent staff to perform other duties.
• A nurse intern program is also being explored by the Work Group which would introduce a new discipline in the DMEC: The nurse intern would work with the investigators’ unit and the doctors’ unit to read through medical records and request reports from hospitals, etc., helping both units. This activity is also time-consuming 30 Senior staff members of DMEC, CEO Office and DHR 31 Ibid. Ibid. National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) “Inspection & Accreditation Checklist” https://netforum.avectra.com/public/temp/ClientImages/NAME/c43b8bca-ad7b-4a40-990b-7f45283a66ab.pdf 34 Pasadena Star News, April 18, 2017 Susan Abram “LA Coroner cuts body backlog, but request for more funding rejected”, http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/government-and-politics/20170417/la-county-coroner-cuts-body- backlog-but-request-for-more-funding-rejected 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 25 and requires certain expertise. If implemented, this nurse intern program also promises to relieve permanent staff to perform other duties.
• Transitional Subsidized Employees (TSEs) from the County’s Department of Public Social Service (DPSS) are being utilized to assist in clerical work. The TSEs work for ten months and those eligible are encouraged to take the County examination for fulltime permanent employment with the DMEC. There have been some successful transitions into fulltime employment.
• Due to the high media profile of the DMEC, the County established a new position of Public Information Officer (PIO) for the DMEC. The PIO will provide vital information to news organizations and the public for the myriad events occurring daily in the nation’s largest coroner’s office.
F11:
There have been promising developments made in relation to hiring issues. “(The Work Group) has been very helpful in facilitating . . . issues with open positions. . . (the Work Group) helped prioritize and moved the process from 18 months to six to eight months.”35 It is the opinion of the CGJ that shortening the timeframe even more would remove unnecessary delays to more quickly bring staffing to required levels. Also, the DMEC created new test criteria, reviews, job analysis, and re-designed the exam process. The following information was learned from CGJ discussions with senior staff with the DMEC, CEO’s Office, and DHR:
• The number of applicants, previously capped at 400, has been increased to 1000, thereby providing a larger pool of candidates.
• Applicants are advised in more detail as to what constitutes an extensive background check, thereby giving applicants the opportunity to withdraw their applications before time and effort is put into an applicant who will not pass the background check.
• A PowerPoint Presentation was designed by the DMEC and is given to prospective applicants, as well as scheduled possible “ride-alongs” and tours. These efforts are established to dispel the popular and misleading impression made by “CSI TV” (Crime Scene Investigation Television Series) that many applicants have of the work. Additionally, a strength and agility test was added so as to emphasize the physical strength and dexterity needed for lifting and moving bodies. Senior staff member at the DMEC 26 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• Applicants can prefill applications enabling them to make submissions as soon as the job opening is posted.
• Although the independent consultant’s report suggested combining different job functions to limit the need for more people, the DMEC was successful in explaining in its response to the report to the BOS, “to suggest that a criminalist could be an expert toxicologist on Mondays and Wednesdays, and then an expert microscopist and tool mark analyst on Tuesdays and Thursdays is not practical or realistic.”36
• Unfortunately, the DMEC has had a “revolving door” of top people in the last few years.37 However, the DMEC just hired a new Chief of Labs who began work on April 17, 2017,38 and a national search for a permanent Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner is underway.
• Each department in the County has a dedicated Human Resources Manager (HRM). Each HRM is classified based on his/her level of experience. The size of the County department determines the classification level of HRM. Currently, the DMEC, being a relatively small department by County standards, is eligible only for the lowest Level I HRM. The complexity and uniqueness of the skill set of the DMEC personnel requires hiring a HRM with more expertise and a higher level rating.
F12:
The current provisional accreditation for the DMEC has been extended and will be reviewed later this year.39 If positions continue to be filled and the 90% / 90 days standard continues to be met, the staff expressed hope that the DMEC will be re-certified, or at the very least, have its certification extended.
F13:
With the support of the Work Group, and the assistance of the CEO’s Office, the DMEC is implementing an Electronic Case Filing System (ECFS) to better gather and disseminate data. Phase I of this system is scheduled to be in place and operational by May 2017, at which time Phase II will commence.
F14:
In the County’s 2017-2018 proposed budget, $57,000 less than the current fiscal year is recommended for the DMEC, which is $5 million less than the DMEC requested. While the new proposed budget is not in the realm of this investigation, the CGJ is concerned that the DMEC receive sufficient funding to resolve longstanding concerns. DMEC Response to Recommendations of the Independent Contractor, Strategica, Inc. December 1, 2016 http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1007230_ReporttoCEO-FINAL11-17-16.pdf 37 LA Times Section Local/LA Now, January 20, 2017, Matt Hamilton 38 Senior staff member CEO’s Office 39 Senior staff member at DMEC 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 27 V
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS should commend the partners of the Work Group formed to ameliorate the myriad issues related to the DMEC. The three partners, DMEC, DHR, and the CEO, use open dialogue and effective problem-solving approaches in identifying issues. The Work Group has made significant progress in obtaining resources for the DMEC.
R2:
The DHR should implement “Alternative Banding” for the DMEC to fill budgeted positions.
R3:
The CEO should implement “Alternative Banding” for the DMEC to fill budgeted positions.
R4:
The DHR should decrease the timeframe of the hiring of DMEC personnel, currently at six to eight months.
R5:
The DHR should assign a Human Resources Manager to the DMEC with a higher classification level. VI
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Flood control is imperative. The importance of absolutely preventing floods from the Los Angeles River persists to this day. Nothing should be done that compromises this function, which is well-served by the current River configuration.
F2:
There have been many disparate plans and planning efforts. Since the idea of Los Angeles River revitalization was launched by Lewis MacAdams and his Friends of the Los Angeles River (FOLAR) Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in 1986, there have been recurrences of planning efforts aimed at making concepts into reality. Some small, disparate projects may have resulted from these plans. However, no plan has reached full implementation. This is due to high cost and competing non-river interests.
F3:
There have been multiple independent actions. Even now River revitalization efforts are fragmented and not well coordinated. This is true for both planning efforts and actual small-scale implementations.
F4:
There is a move to integrated, systematic planning. There are calls for a systematic, integrated approach in River revitalization coming from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the RiverLA Non-Governmental Organization.
F5:
Progress has been limited by the high costs and limited resources. Planning has not been converted to implementation because of the extremely high cost of doing something significant to the River. As usual, high costs are met with limited (public) resources. 140 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F6:
Lewis MacAdams, Founder of Friends of the Los Angeles River (FOLAR), has referred to the Los Angeles River as his “50 year artwork”. Since a comprehensive implementation is too expensive, attention has turned to subsets of the plans which may be opportunistically affordable. Waiting for the pieces to be assembled into the whole greatly slows completion. When MacAdams referenced his “50 year artwork” with respect to river revitalization he seems to have gotten it right. Working on sections of the river at a time also risks not achieving a satisfying unified whole.
F7:
What are the public’s interests in the Los Angeles River? The plans we have reviewed seem to have posited the public interests and their priorities. There may have been efforts that we are unaware of to solicit these from the actual public. The posited public interests may turn out to be the actual public interest. We are not able to assert either of these possibilities as true based on our investigation. V
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should publicly develop and periodically review a catalog of public interests and priorities for the overall (51 mile) Los Angeles River revitalization. These should be widely published. The following are likely to be amongst the most supported interests: Flood Control Public Safety Water Quality Water Conservation Ecological Recovery Recreational Opportunities Impacts on Existing Adjoining Communities Long-term Economic Development
R2:
The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works while collaboratively revising the Master Plan for Los Angeles River Revitalization should include support the catalog of public interests, once it is created. The resulting Master Plan should govern any River sub-developments.
R3:
The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, working with the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group and the City of Los Angeles, should identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
R4:
The Lower Los Angeles River Working Group, working with the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles should identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
R5:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, working with the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group should 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 141 identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
R6:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
R7:
The Lower Los Angeles River Working Group should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
R8:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
R9:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should include a specifically-native flora and fauna riparian experience section within its “Alternative 20” implementation emulating the original Los Angeles River ecology. VI
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Metro system transit has not captured enough riders to reach its sustainability and traffic decongestion goals. First/Last Mile implementations shares in the responsibility for this.
F2:
The so-called “triple-convergence” phenomena (see “A Promising and Difficult Situation” in section II, above) may be contributing to decreasing ridership.
F3:
Metro’s First/Last Mile Strategic Plan and various associated planning documents are of high quality.
F4:
Treatment of some specific site details is missing from First/Last Mile Strategic plan.
F5:
Historically, First/Last Mile implementations have depended upon cooperation of local governmental entities and local funding. This has resulted in some sub-optimum results.
F6:
Metro’s new policy assuming more responsibility for First/Last Mile implementations is a better approach toward high quality First/Last Mile implementations.
F7:
Metro has made a smaller relative investment in First /Last Mile implementations than other comparable systems in other California metropolitan areas.
F8:
Current First/Last Mile implementations show a wide spectrum of quality.
F9:
Existing First/Last Mile implementations have shown improvement based on experience gained from previous implementations.
F10:
Exactly how First/Last Mile designs interact with the prime railway design is unclear.
F11:
Proposed First/Last Mile implementations/improvements are not reviewed by actual users.
F12:
Safety statistics for existing terminals are critical for their refurbishment.
F13:
Pedestrian and bicycle safety has deteriorated recently in the County of Los Angeles; First/Last Mile bears some responsibility for this.
F14:
Policy for bicycle usage to/on/from Metro is not completely developed.
F15:
Automotive interactions with pedestrians and bicyclists within First/Last Mile zones are not well controlled.
F16:
New passenger accessories and assists will affect First/Last Mile planning and implementations.
F17:
Uber/Lyft/autonomous car support is not included in First/Last Mile plans to date. 88 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT V
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Metro should consider strategies that are effective against “triple-convergence” in support of its ridership goals.
R2:
Metro should continue producing high-quality First/Last Mile planning documents.
R3:
Metro should take responsibility for the quality of the resulting (from 2. above) First/Last Mile implementations.
R4:
Metro should deal with more site-specific design problems in their First/Last Mile planning documents.
R5:
Metro should further extend its influence over communities for First/Last Mile implementations with more extensive collaboration and funding.
R6:
Metro should budget more of its funding stream to First/Last Mile implementation (see 5, above).
R7:
Metro should explicitly include First/Last Mile design considerations beginning at the earliest stage of its system expansion designs.
R8:
Metro should formalize actual user reviews for refurbishments and new developments.
R9:
Metro should use safety data from existing terminals as the highest priority consideration for refurbishments.
R10:
Metro should expand and make consistent the pedestrian and bicycle facilities at each terminal.
R11:
Metro should encourage or require First/Last Mile designs that constrain automobile speeds and maximally separate vehicle routes and pedestrian and bicycle paths in terminal footprint areas.
R12:
Metro should further develop bicycle usage policies to/on/from Metro and First/Last Mile support for bicyclists.
R13:
Metro should explicitly provide for the use of accessory items on trains – rolling carts, baby carriages, etc.
R14:
Metro should anticipate the development of potential new accessories and assists within First/Last Mile plans and implementations.
R15:
Metro should plan for Uber/Lyft/A-Car ports at Metro terminal. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 89 VI RESPONSES REQUESTED California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report and 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 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2017, 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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Homelessness is an issue affecting virtually every community within the County. Unfortunately, there is a stigma associated with homelessness. In reality every homeless person has a unique story and set of circumstances associated with their situation. Police departments are aware of this situation and some have dedicated teams devoted to assisting the homeless population.
F2:
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) is a joint powers authority of the City and the County of Los Angeles created to address the problems of homelessness in the County. On February 2, 2016, the County Board of Supervisors approved LAHSA’s County Homeless Initiative’s set of 47 comprehensive strategies to combat homelessness. These include First Responders Training (Strategy E.4) for law enforcement, fire departments, and paramedics throughout the County.
F3:
Some local police departments have specialized units that connect the homeless to local agencies offering supportive services. Examples include: Long Beach Police Department’s Quality of Life Unit; Pasadena Police Department’s Homeless Outreach Psychiatric Evaluation team; and Santa Monica Police Department’s Homeless Liaison Program.
F4:
Police officers are showing compassion for homeless people. They are coordinating with local social service providers and accommodating homeless people who create nuisance crimes in order to get cleaned up and receive a meal. As an example, during a detention visit to one police station, jurors were told of a particular homeless person who would periodically urinate in the lobby in order to get checked into the station. There were officers at other police stations that also stated they had certain homeless people that would check in on a regular basis.
F5:
Some city police departments may be unnecessarily weeding out ex-military personnel during the recruitment process. This is because some cities want to avoid the risk of these individuals being accused of having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and incur undue legal damages. On the other hand, the CGJ was informed by leadership within the Sheriff’s Department their staff is comprised of approximately 25% ex-military personnel. It appears the mental health screening portion of the hiring process may be arbitrarily disqualifying otherwise qualified applicants. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 161 VI
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority should review the specialized care units within the Long Beach, Pasadena, and Santa Monica Police Department to identify best practices to incorporate into first responders training materials as an overall part of the County’s Continuum of Care.
R2:
The Los Angeles Police Department should increase manpower in the Rampart Division. VII
R3:
Lancaster Sheriff’s Station Alice Beener Facilitator Ronnie Dann-Honor
R4:
Los Angeles Police Department, Rampart Community Police Station Dorothy Brown Patrick Lyons
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
In considering videoconferencing, the stakeholders only focused on costs. In addressing the costs/benefit question of videoconferencing, the stakeholder representatives on the PEMC gave only fleeting attention to the issues of safety, cost avoidance, and inmate condition. The PEMC ignored the legacy of prior and ongoing videoconferencing efforts in the County. Clearly the stakeholders were unable to come to an agreement about how to implement an arraignment program, including the oversight to calculate the payback periods for such an investment. In 2009 the CCJCC looked into the possibility of hiring a consulting firm and issued a Request for Proposal but the request failed to attract any bids.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS should retain a competent management and consulting firm to implement the 2009- 2010 CGJ recommendations to develop a county videoconferencing hub system that could be the platform for video arraignments and appearances. (Findings 1, 10, 19, 20, 21, 14, 21, 22)
F2:
Busing is expensive The estimated annual inmate transportation cost for 2016-2017 in the County is estimated to be $63 million. This cost estimate reflects labor, equipment (buses, vans), maintenance, repair, and fuel. The average cost to transport inmates is $89/trip or $29/mile. The estimated annual cost for one bus to move inmates from detention facilities to and from local courts is $1.6 million annually. The average number of inmates transported to local courts is 723,000 annually. The costs for transportation equipment and maintenance will continue to rise while the purchase cost of video systems will remain constant or decrease with relatively stable maintenance. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 263
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
The Sheriff should recommend the location of a courthouse adjacent to the new MCJ to be completed in 2024-2025. (Findings 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 22)
R8:
The BOS should recommend the location of a courthouse adjacent to the new MCJ to be completed in 2024-2025. (Findings 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 22)
F3:
Busing is labor intensive, affecting costs The Sheriff’s Transportation Bureau has a staff of 288 people that manages inmate transportation from local holding and county detention facilities to courts in Los Angeles County. It is part of the Court Services Division with a staff of 2,032 and a budget of $306 million.
F4:
Busing is inefficient, affecting costs
F5:
Scheduling court appearances affects operating costs It takes a day to prepare and deliver inmates to court for a court hearing using expensive equipment and significant manpower, whereas a video arraignment would only take an hour to arrange at any time of the day using regular custody staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff should contract with an experienced and competent management consulting company familiar with Law and Justice practices to review the Sheriff’s data collection and management capabilities and its ability to produce a wide variety of management reports quickly. It should also examine means to improve the interface with the LA City and court systems. The review should recommend upgrades and replacement of existing data management programs as well as indicate the necessary time, material and staff resources to accomplish this improvement. (Findings 5, 6, 14)
F6:
The Sheriff’s data collection and data management systems are substandard for the size and complexity of the organization. A number of times the CGJ requested standard operations reports that had to be created manually. These “one-of” reports take too much time and reflect a substandard data management system.
F7:
Busing of inmates invites violence not seen in secure detention and courthouse settings Holding cell incidents increased by 58% and courtroom incidents increased by 72% during the past five years. 8. “Use of Force” action is extremely rare but may be necessary if an inmate refuses to leave a cell. Occasionally, the action is preempted by using videoconferencing to conduct a court hearing. 9. “Keep-Aways” are bused with other inmates but segregated before, during transport and in court holding cells. A Sheriff’s survey conducted in two different months showed that 29% and 38% of inmates required special handling, including gang members, sexual orientation, high security inmates, mentally ill inmates, and violent inmates. This suggests that about one-third of the inmates may be problematic during transport. 10. “Medical No-Go’s” and physically handicapped inmates are bused to court. During a previous attempt to test the viability of video arraignments, “Medical No-Go’s” were identified as primary candidates for video arraignments. Ironically, “Medical No-Go” patients were one of the first categories of inmates to be deleted from the 2010-2011 pilot 264 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT project. Inmates are transported to court regardless of their physical or mental condition. Medical “No-Go’s” are transported to court by ambulance with the assistance of two emergency medical technicians. The inmate, on a gurney with medical assistants, is kept in the secure inmate holding area, for minutes or hours, awaiting the court appearance. After completion of the court appearance, the inmate is returned to the loading area for the return trip to the hospital or detention facility.
F11:
Busing exacerbates the condition of inmates diagnosed with mental health problems If mentally ill inmates are released by the court, they must return to their detention facility in order to be evaluated by mental health professionals before they can be released. Videoconferencing would eliminate that problem if the inmate had remained at the original detention facility. The number of inmates diagnosed with mental health problems is significant. In discussions with mental health professionals and a senior Sheriff’s official, the estimate is about 33% of the inmate population is diagnosed as mentally ill. Mental health professionals have used videoconferencing for telepsychiatric evaluations and consultations.
F12:
Busing contributes to traffic congestion The fleet of 118 Sheriff’s buses and vehicles exacerbates Los Angeles traffic congestion, which has the worst traffic congestion of any major metropolitan area in the world.
F13:
Busing contributes to air pollution The fleet of 118 vehicles includes 87 buses which use diesel fuel. Although Sheriff’s buses are equipped with emission control devices to mitigate the effect of diesel exhaust, the effects have not been entirely eliminated. Diesel fumes and particulates have been identified as the primary source of nitrogen oxide emissions in Southern California and are a main contributor to air pollution in the County. According to the SCAQMD, air pollution affects our respiratory and cardiovascular health. It is reported that the Los Angeles County area has the worst air pollution condition in the nation.
F14:
The Sheriff transports inmates to court without evidence of a completed case filing On many occasions, inmates are bused to court for arraignment with the expectation that charges will be filed by the DA or City Attorney before the 48-hour deadline. In 2016, a Sheriff survey reported that 18% of inmates who had been arrested by LAPD were bused to court for arraignment and were released due to insufficient information to prosecute. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 265
F15:
LAPD’s Inadequate video conferencing facilities
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
LAPD Chief of Police should implement Recommendation #4 of the 2009-2010 CGJ70 in order to facilitate the operation of a videoconferencing program with particular attention to ensuring privacy for defendant and attorney conferences. (Finding 15)
F16:
LAPD requires a long time to complete discoveries in narcotics cases In 2011 the LAPD declined to join a video arraignment program because the time for completing discoveries for narcotics cases was longer than the stakeholders could agree go. As a large arresting agency potentially contributing the largest number of cases, it caused the project to be aborted.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
The Sheriff should renegotiate its contract with LAPD to not transport inmates without proof of a completed case filing with the court. (Findings 16, 17, 18)
R6:
The Los Angeles City Attorney should make sure that a case filing is complete before an arrestee is transported to court. (Findings 16, 17) 69 Orange County Court, Santa Ana, Interview with Bench, 3/13/17 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 267
R10:
LAPD should expedite the discovery process for misdemeanor narcotic cases in order to participate in video arraignments. (Finding 16) VI
F17:
A large percentage of LAPD arrestees have been transported to court without a completed case filing.
F18:
Many cases are filed during the day of court appearance Many cases are filed early each court day, causing a slow morning calendar and crowded afternoon calendar. During several visits to Dept. 30, the CGJ noticed that few cases were disposed of before noon. On one day, 6 cases were disposed by 10:10 am; by 11:30 am the number increased to 17, while the day’s calendar showed a schedule of 108 cases. In the meantime, attorneys were lined up in front of the Court Clerk with completed filings for that day’s calendar. The DA noted that the paperwork for many cases was completed between 8:00 am and 2:00 pm on the day of appearance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The DA should implement a Swing Shift (Noon to 8:00 pm) within the Charge Evaluation Division to process late case filings, thereby avoiding the release of inmates from court for incomplete filings. (Finding 18)
F19:
Nationwide, law and justice stakeholders report favorable results from videoconferencing A wide range of favorable reports by the Judicial Council and The Council of State Courts, and numerous articles, describe a range of legal procedures that warrant video-conferencing, principle among them being arraignments and preliminary hearings. Arraignments were identified as the most favored application for videoconferencing in the 1992 Los Angeles County Strategic Videoconferencing Plan. Another application among the top five options for videoconferencing was a “defendant/defender” application which was implemented by the Public Defender program.
F20:
In September of 2009, at a meeting of the CCJCC, the PD reiterated its longtime support to implement video arraignments. The PD is already actively using video visitation and videoconferencing for inmates.
F21:
Stakeholder reticence is an impediment in changing practices and using new technology A lack of stakeholder commitment has been a problem for establishing and sustaining a video arraignment program, as evidenced in the PEMC pilot program conducted in 2010 as part of a state-wide initiative to test video arraignments. The most recent effort by stakeholders 266 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT concluded that the system “was not broken” and recommended continuing the antiquated and expensive process of transporting inmates to courts.
F22:
Locating a court adjacent to or inside a detention facility With few exceptions, detention facilities and courthouses are in locations remote from one another. It requires extended trips and security measures to transport inmates to court for a hearing that is often short and perfunctory. Co-locating the court and jail captures the advantage of videoconferencing, but makes the administrative process even more efficient and gives more flexibility in scheduling appearances. In 2009, Orange County created an in-custody arraignment court inside its main county jail complex that holds 1,400 male inmates and 400 female inmates.69 This arrangement offers the advantages of videoconferencing, but adds the flexibility for the court to multitask on different hearings simultaneously. V
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
California Assembly Bill AB790 recognized a need for innovative approaches to educational transformation. The Bill seeks innovation to lead to successful outcomes for our students, families, communities, and local and state economies. The Bill also recognizes that economic growth is dependent upon a career-ready workforce, and the need to improve graduation rates, close achievement and opportunity gaps, and prepare students for living- wage careers and/or a variety of postsecondary learning experiences. The Los Angeles County Strategic Plan for Economic Development (2016-2020) outlines objectives to achieve such innovation.
F2:
The Los Angeles County Strategic Plan for Economic Development (2016-2020) calls for the identification of models of high-quality, collaborative, inclusive, engaging, and innovative schools. It also envisions extension of best practices throughout all districts and schools.
F3:
The LBUSD Career Pathways and UCLA Community School programs have enhanced academic training with elements of vocational training and integrated real-world experience through internships and mentoring. The City of Long Beach fully supports The Promise and covers the first year of tuition at Long Beach City College. The UCLA Community School provides UCLA students attending the School of Education with the opportunity to practice new techniques and methods of delivering instruction. These educational programs focus on student “choice” in order to spark each child’s interest and curiosity, and challenge them to grow, learn, and thrive. 48 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F4:
On January 11, 2017, the California State Board of Education approved implementation of the California School Dashboard24 (Dashboard) starting in the 2017-18 school year. This Dashboard is intended to improve accountability within the educational system. The Dashboard consists of a color-coded five-by-five grid intended to assist in identifying strengths, weaknesses, and areas in need of improvement. These state level indicators are based on factors that contribute to a quality education, including high school graduation rates, college/career readiness, student test scores, English learner progress, suspension rates, and absenteeism. One subject matter expert expressed a desire to see this tool used like a Consumer Report. The color coded layout can “highlight the good,” and inform administrators, teachers, and parents where improvement is needed.
F5:
The Dashboard includes local indicators for use by local districts.
F6:
Educators are professionals dedicated to the classroom and to their students. They are also stakeholders who should have a voice and participate in development of local curricula and instructional methods. To attract and retain the best talent, educators need: Career development; Peer-to-peer collaboration; and Professional internships with community and industry partners to gain practical knowledge that will enrich and enable them to deliver a deeper level of instruction.
F7:
The neighborhood school is an institution which acts as an “anchor of society,” and provides the opportunity to integrate parents into the educational process. It should also reach out to local organizations for mentoring and internship opportunities to enrich the learning process and better enable every child to learn and become an engaged and productive member of society. Localization can lead to a better tailoring of curricula based on community priorities and unique needs of students including those who have challenging family and social circumstances. In coordination with local economic development commissions, there could be better alignment between business development and educational/career development.
F8:
While student test scores are an important measure of performance, they do not fully portray a teacher’s level of success or the development of a student’s growth mindset. Factors of teacher effectiveness that are not currently measured include:25 Developing a thirst for knowledge; developing good study habits; achieving high scores in subjects of interest; imparting a tenacity to enroll in and complete a post-secondary education; and imparting a social consciousness and a desire to participate in community affairs. California Dept of Education News Release #17‐5, January 11, 2017, [Online] Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr17/yr17rel05.asp 25 Tracking Indicators of Graduation and Postsecondary Readiness, Ali Korkmaz, Long Beach Unified School District, California, Alison Gros, St. Bernard Parish Public Schools, Louisiana, Mary Lumetta, St. Bernard Parish Public Schools, Louisiana, Ashley Pierson, Education Northwest, Portland, Oregon, Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University, not dated, sdp.cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr‐sdp/files/tracking_ccr_indicators.pdf 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 49
F9:
Parent engagement is a critical element in tailoring local curricula and instructional methods. Parents need to be actively engaged: informing themselves of school activities; becoming involved at school; and participating in the decision-making process to improve the learning environment
F10:
There is inequity within the educational system with respect to student experiences. For instance, fourth graders take California History. Yet, only a small percentage of schools will take their 4th graders to one of the California Missions to experience that part of our history. Replicating this best practice can have a profound impact on a young child.
F11:
Implementing change within the educational system necessitates some degree of flexibility and adaptability. Requirements within the Education Code and other education Acts may present a barrier to traditional public schools taking full advantage of some of the current successes of the programs discussed in this report. Strong leadership and full engagement of all stakeholders (administrators, educators, politicians, unions, local business, parents, and students) is needed to implement change to the current operations and culture. More than one interviewee indicated that transformational change in the educational model may require substantial political and civil will.
F12:
The Department of Consumer & Business Affairs has a program titled Life Smarts, which is a program designed to teach high school consumer skills. The program focuses on five key topic areas; consumer rights and responsibilities, technology, health and safety, personal finance, and the environment.
F13:
Proposition 51 was approved by the California voters in November 2016 and it makes available $9 billion in bonds; $3 billion for the construction of new school facilities, $500 million for providing school facilities for charter schools, $3 billion for the modernization of school facilities, $500 million for providing facilities for career technical education programs, and $2 billion for acquiring, constructing, renovating, and equipping community college facilities. V
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should formally identify the Los Angeles County Office of Education as the lead organization responsible to implement and maintain the California School Dashboard within the County.
R2:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should form a task force to focus on the local indicators to include within the Dashboard. This task force should include representatives from those Unified School Districts (USD’s) known to be implementing leading edge programs and those with exceptional student performance, local educational experts knowledgeable in state and County operations, and educational advocates who are knowledgeable and focused on open communications. 50 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R3:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should develop an ‘Experience Map’ that identifies recommended types of engagement activity, and include performance in the local indicators. For example, all 4th graders study California history. A school would obtain a top rating for 4th grade history if they visit a California mission.
R4:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should actively monitor the Dashboard with the following goals; inform USD’s, educators, and parents of best practices within the County, and implement a community of practice to share successes. This forum should promote the exchange of information and practices and enable each USD to determine those best practices which can be brought into their own district to improve student learning.
R5:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should aid teachers in acquiring real-world experiences by instructing all County departments to make a certain number of compensated internships (summer position or long-term sabbatical) available to teachers within the County. For example: Department of Public Health could offer positions associated with environmental science; Department of Child and Family Services could offer positions associated with sociology and psychology; and Department of Public Works could offer positions in engineering.
R6:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should provide teachers working within the County free access to all County museums to encourage their attendance and enable them to share their experiences with their students, and/or help them arrange potential field trips.
R7:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should foster collaborative relationships with industry partners and County agencies to encourage establishment of internships for students and teachers and announce openings on their website or publish links.
R8:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should, in coordination with the Department of Consumer & Business Affairs, inform the USD’s about Life Smarts program and encourage them to bring the course to their campuses. This is a course that could be offered either after school, on the weekends, or during the summer break.
R9:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should investigate the establishment of a formal community of volunteers who could provide life-skills education (including teaching the Life Smarts program) and mentoring of students, similar to the services offered to small businesses by the Service Corps of Retired Executives.
R10:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should request a prioritized listing of projects under the five categories of funding available under Proposition 51 from the USD’s, with new facilities or any modifications or upgrades focused on enhancing learning.
R11:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should identify various ways to monetize school property to support implementation of changes as described in this report. For example, renting out parking lots and play fields for events like farmers markets or renting auditoriums for local events. Revenues from these rental activities should be specifically earmarked for implementing educational improvement projects. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 51 VI
Findings & Recommendations
20 findings
F1:
There is a lack of public transparency involving the LASD IWF.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10:
The LASD should practice transparency of the Inmate Welfare Fund by posting IWC meeting agendas and minutes. (Findings 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14)
R12:
The BOS should require LASD to implement greater public transparency of the Sheriff’s Inmate Welfare Fund. (Findings 1, 6, 7, 10, 12)
F2:
The LASD IWF is a “discretionary fund” of the Sheriff and is governed by California Penal Code §4025.
F3:
The 11 members of the IWC are appointed by the Sheriff and serve at his pleasure. They do not receive any compensation and meet once a month.
F4:
There is no representation of a former inmate who has successfully re-entered society on the IWC or in attendance at IWC meetings, acting in an advisory capacity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The LASD should appoint an individual to the IWC who has successfully reentered society after incarceration. (Finding 4)
F5:
The Sheriff can override any recommendations made by IWC Commissioners.
F6:
IWC meetings are not open to the public. Meetings are not governed by the Brown Act.
F7:
Minutes from the IWC Meetings are not available to the public.
F8:
Annual Financial Statements are prepared by the Los Angeles County Auditor’s Office and submitted to the BOS. LASD website and internet search 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 111
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The LASD should make a presentation to the IWC on the LASD’s Strategic Plan and related programs in order for the IWC to have sufficient relevant information in setting their priorities. (Findings 8, 9)
F9:
Audits by outside auditing firms are conducted every two to three years. IWC members did not receive copies of the 2011-2014 audit until they inquired, as evidenced in January 29, 2016 Minutes.14
F10:
Prior to its repeal in 1998, Section 1043, Title 15, State Correction Standards, recommended that “an annual itemized report of expenditures be submitted to the BOS, posted in each jail facility, and made available to the public,” as reported in the 1999-2000 CGJ report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The LASD should post an annual itemized report of IWF expenditures in each LASD jail facility and make it available to the public for greater transparency. (Finding 10)
F11:
This year’s CGJ discovered many valuable and worthwhile programs being funded by the IWF; i.e., Tattoo Removal Program, “Back on Track” Program, Birth Certificate Program, GED Educational and Vocational programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
In the event of potential loss of revenue from telephone provider(s), the IWC should review and refrain from committing funds to expensive and long-term programs until the FCC case is resolved and new phone contracts are issued. (Finding 11) 20 Attachment I.1 Highlights of Survey of Inmate Welfare Funds in Other Jurisdictions (Self-Reported Information) BOS Management Audit Division FY 2014-2015 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 113
F12:
In reviewing the Minutes of past IWC meetings, it was found that some members of the Marketing/Branding Committee expressed frustration in not publicizing the programs that are funded by the IWF (i.e. farm program at Pitchess Detention Center; Tattoo Removal Program) and that their suggestions about informing the public about Inmate Welfare funded programs are not being fully addressed.15
F13:
In reviewing copies of the LASD (draft) revised IWC Bylaws,16 it appears that the role of the IWC is being diminished; e.g. “Duties of the Commission: Approve funding requests by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for projects benefiting inmates housed in the jail facilities of Los Angeles County, review ongoing projects, and set discuss funding priorities from/for the Inmate Welfare Fund of Los Angeles County, in accordance with Penal Code 4025.” (Emphasis added).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The LASD should implement IWC program priorities set forth in their annual strategic planning process. (Findings 13, 14, 16)
F14:
In reviewing the Minutes of IWC meetings, it appears that annual spending plans are not being reviewed or approved in a timely manner, as set forth in the Bylaws.17
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The LASD should require the IWC Strategic Planning Committee to adhere to the timeline spelled out in the Commission Bylaws to produce and submit a spending plan by August in order to determine the funding priorities for the coming fiscal year. (Finding 14)
R2:
The LASD should require the IWC to complete an assessment of program performance by March 1 of each year. (Findings 14, 16, 17)
R3:
The LASD should annually receive measurable program and financial objectives from the Strategic Planning Committee of the IWC. (Findings 14, 16, 17, 18)
F15:
The LASD Director of Facilities Bureau has authority to spend up to 49% of the IWF proceeds without official review or approval of the IWC. The Director appears at the IWC meetings as a courtesy and provides updates pertaining to the IWF expenditures on maintenance to LASD jail facilities.18
F16:
The CGJ is not aware of any inappropriate usage of IWF. We do, however, question the follow-up and oversight of some of the programs that are in place and whether adequate performance measures are being used to report back to the IWC in recommending continuance or improvements needed in programs.19
F17:
The CGJ witnessed a presentation of the Tattoo Removal Program at the March 2017 IWC meeting wherein $250,000 in overtime was requested by staff to continue the program. 14 1/29/16 IWC chairman inquired when last audit was completed. Dir. Joe advised it was completed August 2015 and a copy would be provided to the IWC 15 IWC Minutes: January, February, March, October, November 2016 16 Draft of revised Bylaws obtained 3/2/17 from LASD Inmate Services Bureau senior official 17 Ibid. Meeting with LASD senior staff Facilities Bureau 19 IWC Minutes, 2/26/16 requesting program reports to show value 112 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT When commissioners questioned staff on the funding request, staff was unclear on how many months it would cover. Many questions were raised about the need for overtime instead of straight time. Alternatives or suggestions from the commissioners in efforts to avoid the use of overtime in providing tattoo removal services to inmates was not taken up at that time.
F18:
Some senior LASD program managers were unable to readily explain to the CGJ the financial status of various programs, activities and expenditures.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
The LASD should establish such methods and procedures to identify expenditures and enable the respective Fiscal and Facilities program managers to clearly identify which expenditures have been encumbered for their area of responsibility and what is unencumbered to date. (Finding 18)
R9:
The LASD should clarify and implement, after IWC approval, the methods and procedures used to identify expenditures by purpose and the inter-fund transfers between the Program and Facilities funds. (Finding 18)
F19:
In reviewing IWC Minutes, it does not appear that commissioners are aware of weekly Town Hall meetings with inmates, or getting feedback in soliciting inmates’ comments regarding IWF expenditures and/or programs.20
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The LASD staff should report regularly to the IWC on the weekly Town Hall meetings with inmates, in soliciting inmates’ comments regarding IWC expenditures and/or programs. (Finding 19)
F20:
The term “not needed” as used in §4025 is vague. V
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Los Angeles County Counsel should provide LASD with a legal opinion on the definition of “not needed” as stated in §4025. (Finding 20) VI
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Civil Service Commission is the appellate body for County employees who have received disciplinary actions. The CSC is a County Charter-mandated independent commission and serves as a quasi-judicial appellate body for classified employees who received a formal hearing and have been disciplined.8 The disciplined employee may file an objection with the CSC. In 2014 (the last year that figures were available), the CSC sustained 56% of the LACPD’s decisions, sustained in-part 31% of the decisions and did not sustain 13% of the decisions.9
F2:
Disciplined employees of the LACPD have the assistance of an advocate, an attorney who works with AFSCME 685, the union representing the Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officers. This advocate represents LACPD employees in 80% of the disciplinary proceedings.10 The CGJ was interested in the promotional practices within the LACPD. The 6 Los Angeles County Probation Department-News Room-Media Information website, Jan. 10, 2017. County of Los Angeles Probation Department, Juvenile - # of Youth on Active Probation Supervision by Age (Snapshot Data – as of October 3, 2016). County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission 2014 Annual Report. Ibid. Meeting at AFSCME 685, Dec. 12, 2016, 3701 Wilshire Blvd., #501. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 165 advocate confirmed that “all other things being equal, promotions are based primarily on seniority and that this is a long-time understanding with the County.”
F3:
In a meeting with staff from the offices of two members of the Board of Supervisors, the CGJ was told that there was a recent motion passed by the BOS to determine if a formal Probation Oversight Commission should be established. The BOS hired Resource Development Associates (RDA) to conduct an assessment of best practices in criminal and juvenile justice and the optimal organizational structure. This would include a potential split between youth and adults and how to best serve the Transitional Aged Youth (ages 18-24) population. (The RDA report will not be completed prior to the publication of this CGJ Final Report.) 11 Additional findings from this meeting were: a. Diversion programs for youth are a major focus. These programs are to help youth avoid a life of crime and to avoid going to jail when a minor crime is committed. b. It is believed that new progressive leadership is needed in the LACPD and the newly appointed executives are the right people to implement necessary changes. c. The current promotional policy within the LACPD is based on seniority. The BOS are looking into this policy; however, there is a concern about keeping turnover to a minimum. d. The Alternate Public Defender’s Office now represents juveniles in court when there is a conflict of interest with the Public Defender’s Office.12 e. As of May 2016 solitary confinement was eliminated in juvenile detention facilities.13 f. A redesigned juvenile facility, Camp Kilpatrick, is scheduled to be re-opened in April
F4:
In an interview with a senior official at the LACPD the CGJ learned of changes the LACPD feels will benefit the juvenile offenders it serves. This official feels that treating the youth in custody with respect is of the utmost importance.
F5:
As part of the CGJ’s mandate to inspect detention facilities within Los Angeles County each year, members of the CGJ visited all the juvenile camps and halls within the County. These inspections revealed the low number of detainees and empty areas in all the facilities. The CGJ was informed of the change from a philosophy of punishment to one of rehabilitation. Retraining will need to be implemented to bring all employees up to date on these changes. Most camps are in remote areas of the County. It is very important that juvenile offenders be able to keep in contact with their families and vice versa. This will keep the families bonded so there will be mutual support upon the release of the juvenile offender. The CGJ witnessed improvements within these facilities. During the unannounced CGJ visits to these camps and halls, members witnessed many positive activities. While we noted that some of the facilities are old and in need of repair or replacement, the educational programs at the halls and camps were functioning very well with dedicated staffs. Many of the staff members have been on the job for quite a few years and are dedicated to helping these youth succeed. In talking to several officers at the facilities we found that while many are long-term employees, working between 20-30 years, there has been a frequent turnover in LACPD leadership in the last several years. In the last 10 years, there have been five Chief Officers of the LACPD. V
F14:
2 County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors 14.1, 14.2 VII ACRONYMS
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors should insure the LACPD includes a new promotional process that removes the seniority-based promotion system in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the AFSCME Local 685, upon the expiration of the current MOU. Interview at LACPD headquarters, 9150 Imperial Highway, Downey, CA, on Feb. 2, 2017. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 167
R2:
The County Board of Supervisors should task the LACPD to identify excess capacity that may be used to house the homeless.
R3:
The LACPD, in conjunction with the other county partners, such as the Metropolitan Transit Authority, should develop a transportation plan to transport families from central locations within the city to the various halls and camps VI REQUIRED RESPONSES: 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 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2017, to:
R14:
2 County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors 14.1, 14.2 VII ACRONYMS
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Examples of Los Angeles County Sustainability Successes and Need for Coordination There are many examples within Los Angeles County of the successful adoption of the sustainability principle in governance. For this report we examined the plans of four cities. Each has formal plan documents that define the areas of sustainability they address and provide measurable goals. These goals are regularly evaluated to determine progress and allow corrective action. The goals of sustainability plans are applied to other government plans and actions for implementation. The CGJ endorses the current plans of Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Glendale. Other governmental entities may also have plans. Because of the disparate paths to sustainability followed by the cities, there are some inconsistencies in these plans (Appendix 1).
F2:
Sustainability Encouragement from the State The State of California has offered significant support for sustainability.38 Prime examples are in the state’s legislation encouraging the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and increasing renewable energy sources. There are many more specific cases in which the state has acted to facilitate sustainability practices.
F3:
Foundation for Sustainability Principle is Not Firm The CGJ found that the plans are not built upon a strong foundation. We believe this exposes the plans to legal and political challenges that otherwise could be avoided. Lacking a strong foundation limits how enforcement can be performed. An example demonstrating this is that the City of Los Angeles’ pLAn relies on Mayor Garcetti’s intention to include sustainability goal performance in the personnel evaluations of his managers. While this can be effective for the City of Los Angeles and its current mayor, there is no assurance that the next mayor will be as active in favor of sustainability.
F4:
Differences between Federal and California Sustainability Policies The Federal government is in the process of changing its policies regarding sustainability. A recent example is the setting aside of the Clean Power Plan executive order.39 40 The County of Los Angeles’ support for sustainability may be challenged where it depends upon Federal collaboration. 38 https://www.kcet.org/redefine/lots-of-new-environmental-laws-in-california 39 “Will sustainability survive a Trump presidency” - http://www.tgdaily.com/science/will-sustainability-survive- a-trump-presidency 40 https://www.theguardian.com › Environment › Trump administration 178 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F5:
The Climate Change Threat Has Not Caused “Emergency” Action in the County of Los Angeles The warnings on the results of humankind-caused climate change are daunting.41 “Emergency” local programs that deal specifically with reducing greenhouse gases may be appropriate even while complete sustainability plans are in development.
F6:
Successful Drought Response but Needs Follow Up As discussed in Section II, the recent drought in California has caused a set of emergency response programs to reduce water consumption throughout Los Angeles County. This is a positive example of emergency actions taken on a sustainability issue. However, because Southern California has a persistent semi-arid climate, the temporary drought actions taken are appropriate as long-term policies. In addition, because of the large amounts of energy required to import or desalinize water, their extensive use may not be sustainable. V
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly should continue to build upon sustainability success examples by creating and leading a countywide Sustainability Working Group (SWG) including all governing entities of the County.
R2:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should complete the set of governing entity-specific sustainability plans covering the entire County.
R3:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should identify interdependencies between plan elements and working group member entities.
R4:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should use existing plans to create reusable plan templates.
R5:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should create a public awareness campaign demonstrating the practical value of the sustainability principle in governance.
R6:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should fully exploit California state resources supporting sustainability by coordinating their sustainability plans with State guidance. Climate Change: What Everyone Should Know. Joseph Romm, Oxford University Press, 2016 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 179
R7:
The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council should fully exploit California state resources supporting sustainability by coordinating their sustainability plans with State guidance.
R8:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should lobby the State for additional sustainability support.
R9:
The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council should lobby the State for additional sustainability support.
R10:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should strengthen the sustainability principle in governance in law, standards, and policies and with suitable enforcement mechanisms.
R11:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should adopt strategies in combination with the State and other agreeable governing entities to ensure sustainable practices despite uncertainties in sustainability support from the Federal government.
R12:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should pursue policies that reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions in the County given the global climate change risks. For example, specify electric vehicles and renewable-based charging infrastructure whenever feasible and require renewable energy sources for government consumption.
R13:
The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should pursue policies that reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions in the City given the global climate change risks. For example, specify electric vehicles and renewable-based charging infrastructure whenever feasible and require renewable energy sources for government consumption.
R14:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should continue water conservation measures put in place for recent drought as a sustainable long term policy for the semi- arid Southern California climate.
R15:
The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should continue water conservation measures put in place for recent drought as a sustainable long term policy for the semi-arid Southern California climate.
R16:
The County of Los Angeles Board of should minimize dependence on imported and/or desalinized water because of the large amounts of energy they require.
R17:
The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should minimize dependence on imported and/or desalinized water of the large amounts of energy they require. 180 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VI
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Many of HV simply didn’t know how or where to go to seek assistance, other than the Veterans Administration. There is no outreach to veterans in the areas of heavy HV concentration, which is mainly the Skid Row area.
F2:
County benefits are given only for one year of assistance, after which one needs to reapply for extended benefits. This is not enough time to achieve a lifestyle readjustment. There must be a minimum of two years assistance per application period in order to seek and find housing, establish medical support and job training in order to ensure that the HV regains a smooth entry into civilian society.
F3:
Much of the humanitarian assistance to the HV e.g. medical, housing and counseling, is provided by nonprofit organizations, for example Los Angeles Rescue Mission and Union Rescue Mission. Many HV camp in tents or make-shift shelters in places like Skid Row. The CGJ visited several missions and hotels on Skid Row which feed the general homeless population, and found that the majority of HV live within short walking distance of these missions.
F4:
The OMVA is located in Patriotic Hall. They help veterans with the paperwork to obtain their military benefits. Many HV are unaware of or unable to get to Patriotic Hall which is approximately 2.9 miles from the Skid Row area. We discovered through our interviews with HV that they will not travel across the city because they lack the ability of securing their possessions. If HV venture out to Patriotic Hall, all their belongings would be in jeopardy of being confiscated, as they are kept in shopping carts and tents.
F5:
Measure HHH was passed by the City of Los Angeles to provide housing for the homeless. The initiative allocated approximately $1.2 billion a year. The CGJ would like to see the City allocate a percentage of these monies specifically to HV in the City of Los Angeles.
F6:
Measure H was passed by the County to provide supportive services for the homeless to include coverage for first and last months’ rent payments. This proposition added a .25% sales tax for the County of Los Angeles, which is expected to bring in approximately $300 million annually. The CGJ would like to see the County allocate a percentage of these monies specifically to HV and their families for supportive services in the County. 100 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F7:
The CGJ found that approximately $5 million in federal grant money was given to the Homeless Initiative for the Home for Heroes and the HACoLA programs. The LASHA and HACoLA programs’ expenditures, reflected in Figures 1, 2, 3, show the breakdowns. Pursuant to interviews with executives in the Homeless Initiative Department of the CEO’s office, 15% was utilized for administrative services by the CEO before it was distributed to the Home for Heroes Program. Once the contracts are awarded, additional administrative fees will incur. Pursuant to California Military & Veterans Code Section 927, this is not allowed.
F8:
A number of County and Los Angeles City offices have a working relationship with the missions throughout the County. These relationships have assisted HV to obtain housing and supportive services. However, as seen in Figure 3, and as described to us during our interviews, successes have not been as plentiful as desired.
F9:
As seen in Figures 1 and 2, the procurement process is very slow. Authorized funding is not reaching those in need in a timely manner. Funding allocated in 2015 was to be distributed over an 18 month period through June 30, 2017. As of this writing, no contracts have been approved or funded. V
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors should increase the time period for services allocated to the HV for dental, medical, and psychiatric evaluation for a period of not less than two years for each application approval.
R2:
The County Department of Military and Veterans Affairs should establish a mobile outreach service and set up operations at the various missions on a regularly scheduled basis.
R3:
The County Board of Supervisors should establish a system of temporary storage facilities for HV to enable them to safeguard their possessions while they conduct their business affairs.
R4:
The County Board of Supervisors should establish a task force with the explicit goal being to identify facilities that are vacant and suitable for use as shelter for homelessness, within the County. Specifically buildings that can be converted and used as transitional and permanent housing for HV. Per interviews with senior management of HACoLA, LAHSA, LA County Department of Military & Veterans’ Affairs. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 101
R5:
The County Chief Executive Office should review and revamp their procurement process, as it relates to the Home for Heroes Program, to enable expedited placement of service contracts for housing and supportive services.
R6:
The County Chief Executive Office should ensure all contracts with service providers under the Home for Heroes Program and the HI Strategies C-5 Program provide transparency on administrative cost expenditures so as to insure that contractors are not in violation of CA Military & Veterans Code 927.
R7:
The County Board of Supervisors should set aside a portion of funds under Measure H for HV and include nontraditional service providers (i.e. Missions) as recipients to effectively deliver permanent housing solutions and supportive services.
R8:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should set aside a certain percentage of funds under Measure HHH strictly for HV and their families to help with their transition, and to accommodate first and last month rent payments.
R9:
The County Board of Supervisors should form an Independent Oversight Commission to oversee the implementation of projects and expenditures of funds under Measure H.
R10:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should form an Independent Oversight Commission to oversee the implement of projects and expenditures of funds under Measure HHH. VI
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The CGJ’s study is only an approximate gauge but the resulting numbers are found to be significant enough to justify a formal audit. Potential County Annual Savings Percent of cellular users who have a desk phone and relinquish it. Annual Savings from relinquishing desk phone 20% relinquishment $ 480,000 33% relinquishment $ 792,000 50% relinquishment $1,200,000 122 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F2:
Given the growth trend in the use of mobile telephone technology, guidelines for managers would be advantageous to help them decide whether there is no longer a need for a landline when an employee has been issued a cellular phone.
F3:
The County employee population is approximately 100,000 and it operates 140,000 landlines. There is a potential for part of the 40,000 hard wired miscellaneous functions to shift to wireless communication.
F4:
Internal Services Department’s (ISD) Expense Management System (EMS) reduces the disarray associated with handling, reviewing and approving monthly paper telephone bills that were previously delivered by telephone service providers. This system can handle both cellular and landline phone bills.
F5:
Subscription to EMS is currently voluntary by each department. By having all departments subscribe to this system the County will possess a centralized inventory for cellular phones. EMS can be modified to track stipend phones.
F6:
ISD is working to convert from legacy PBX and Centrex technology to VoIP where possible to reduce costs. PBX is being phased out as a communication technology in the telecommunication industry.
F7:
The single estimated monthly average landline charge to the County departments is $12.50.
F8:
Implementation of a stipend program can reduce cellular phone costs for the County based on the results of Phase I and II pilot programs. A stipend program allows employees to use a personal cellular device in lieu of a County-issued device as a cost-effective option. The Phase II pilot demonstrated savings of up to 25% when compared to the cost of a cellular phone purchased from a telephone carrier approved by the County.
F9:
Security concerns regarding County Data residing on private devices and the County’s ability to wipe data remotely due to a device being lost or stolen is to be addressed. The storage and retrieval of information subject to the California Public Records Act should be addressed.22,23 Implementation of a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy and associated technical solution is in development and is a prerequisite to rolling out a stipend program.
F10:
The County’s monthly cost for a smartphone is approximately $52.50 for those procured through ISD. These smartphones are the previous years’ models with voicemail service, capped pooled minutes/data/unlimited text. The County pays the sales tax on the retail price of the phone and incurs the cost of loss or breakage. California Government Code, Sec. 6250, et seq. City of San Jose v. Superior Court (Smith), No S218066, March 2017.Re. conduct of public business on personal account may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 123
F11:
The County has established appropriate policies identified in Board Policy 3.16024 and Fiscal Manual Reference 4.725 for managing cellular phones.
F12:
There is no centralized procurement policy for cellular phones. Some departments negotiate their own agreements though this service is available from the County ISD. This is permissible providing they acquire services at rates available through County master agreements negotiated by ISD.
F13:
Based on technology trends26, the County workplace of the future will likely see a continuous growth in use of mobile devices with the expectation that costs will be off-set with measured increase of productivity. V
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Auditor-Controller should conduct an audit to quantify cost savings from eliminating cellular/ landline redundancy, where possible, when these devices are assigned to the same person.
R2:
The Auditor-Controller should recommend guidelines for determining when a landline should be eliminated or shared by two or more employees.
R3:
The Internal Services Department should modify the inventory process for tracking 40,000 landlines dedicated to miscellaneous functions like elevators, alarms and facsimile to flag devices that will be converted to wireless communication.
R4:
The Chief Executive Office should require all departments to use the Internal Service Department Expense Management System (EMS) to ensure all cellphones are tracked, monitored and cost-controlled.
R5:
The Chief Executive Office should seek approval of the Board of Supervisor to implement a County Cellular Phone and Data Stipend Program and associated Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy.
R6:
The Chief Executive Office should require that cyber security and information subject to the California Public Records Act be addressed in a stipend phone policy.
R7:
The Chief Executive Office should initiate a project to determine how to track stipend phones. BOS Policy Manual 25 See County of Los Angeles Fiscal Manual Section 4.7.0 Cellular Telephone and Other Wireless Data Devices Usage Policy: footnote 7 26 Forbes Magazine February 27, 2015 Niall McCarthy 124 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R8:
The Internal Services Department should modify the Expense Management System to track and inventory stipend phones. VI
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Identify and prioritize service objectives for contractors; a. Cities can identify specific performance objectives addressing towing response times, wait times for customer service over the phone and at the counter, customer complaints resolutions, and other objectives.
R2:
Contract Management
▪ Of the twelve surveyed cities, 10 cities used an open and competitive bidding process for selecting towing vendors in their most recent solicitations. Inglewood and Whittier stood out from the common practice of issuing RFPs to select towing vendors.
▪ On average, the surveyed cities offer base contract agreements for four years, but extensions vary greatly. The most notable is West Covina where towing vendors went from serving a three-year contract term to a 10-year extension and could end up with a 13 year or more term if granted the five-year extensions allowed in their contract.
▪ Almost every city requires that their towing vendor maintain a primary storage facility and office within or proximate to the contract city’s limits. In addition, every city measures the response time for tow trucks dispatched to police calls, the average maximum response time being 20 minutes for a tow truck to arrive on scene to a call.
▪ Out of the twelve surveyed cities, seven stipulate in their contracts that their towing vendors must provide periodic reports, usually monthly or quarterly, detailing towing activity, service charges, and franchise fee payments. These more specific requirements put the contracting city in a much better position to monitor their contractors’ and police department’s performance and to better ensure that improper towing and storage activities are not taking place.
▪ Of the twelve cities, nine maintain contract clauses that require some performance reporting. However, six of these cities only required evaluating customer complaints or tow response time performance and two cities only vaguely state that the police chief retains the right to review contractor performance. Glendale stood out from its peers for requiring their vendors track and monitor several performance measures including response time for answering city calls, wait times for customer calls, and implementing a Quality Assurance Plan to meet 93 other performance standards outlined in their contract.
▪ Through more extensive performance-based contracting, cities can identify and prioritize service objectives for contractors; develop a system to collect and analyze performance data; establish contract provisions for meeting, exceeding, or not meeting performance objectives; and link contractor performance to future procurement decisions. This process can help cities hold their towing contractors more accountable to the community. Cities and their Towing Vendor Selection Of the twelve surveyed cities, ten used an open and competitive bidding process for their most recent selection of tow and impound service vendors. As displayed in Exhibit 2.1, the majority of cities surveyed selected their vendors through an open and competitive bidding process. Exhibit 2.1: Last Round of Competitive Bidding for Tow Contractors Year Last Cities Current Towing Vendors Competitively Bid? Baldwin Park Royal Coaches 2014 Beverly Hills Tip Top 2012 El Monte Freddie Mac's 2016 Glendale (1) Gay's, (2) Mid Valley, (3) Crescenta Valley 2016 Glendora Jan's 2006 Huntington Park Mr. C's 2016 Inglewood (1) B&H, (2) Bryant's Not Applicable Irwindale (1) Jan's, (2) Royal Coaches 2016 Montebello Helms & Hill 2009 San Fernando Black & White 2014 West Covina Royal Coaches 2009 Whittier (1) Hadley Tow, (2) Bob & Dave's Not competitively bid Source: Civil Grand Jury survey responses and review of towing contracts Inglewood and Whittier stood out from the common practice of issuing RFPs to select towing vendors. Unlike the majority of its peers, Whittier does not maintain a policy or practice to use an open, competitive bidding process for selecting towing vendors. The City of Inglewood does not award towing franchise agreements, but issues towing business permits to participate in the city’s pool of towing referrals. Towing vendors must apply for a permit, get approved by the Police Department, and are subject to annual reviews to renew their permits. It is important to note that a few of the cities in this study recently changed their towing vendors. These cities are: • Glendale: In October 2015, the City Council directed city staff to conduct a competitive bidding process for reviewing towing services, leading to the recent 2016 contract awards to Gay’s, Mid Valley, and Crescenta Valley. Prior to this bidding process, the last competitive contract awards were in 2006 at which time the city awarded franchise contracts to Gay’s, Crescenta Valley, and Monterey to serve three separate districts, and Sunset was selected for citywide heavy duty towing. Sunset eventually closed its business, and Monterey was not selected in the most recent contract award due to a history of struggling to comply with the city’s performance standards. Crescenta Valley was recently purchased by Hadley Tow, which also serves the City of Whittier. • Huntington Park: Prior to Mr. C’s, Huntington Park had engaged HP Tow as their official towing vendor with a service agreement from 1999 through 2015. HP Tow received numerous contract amendments from 1999 until February 2016 when the city terminated its contract citing HP 11 Tow’s gifts to a city councilmember as a breach of its service agreement prohibiting gifts to city officials. • In 2009, West Covina awarded two towing franchise agreements to Royal Coaches and Bob’s to serve separate regions in the city. The city terminated its contract with Bob’s in July 2016 for undisclosed reasons related to ongoing litigation between the two parties. Royal Coaches currently serves the whole city in the interim. • In September 2014, the Whittier City Council delayed renewing their service agreement with Hadley due to multiple performance issues relating to drivers exceeding speed limits and committing other traffic and parking violations, consuming alcohol and narcotics while on duty, and hard selling customers. The business also had been cited for inappropriately storing police holds and illegally discharging wastewater into the county storm drains. Despite the Police Chief’s recommendation to award the towing contract to Bob’s solely, the City Council renewed Hadley’s service agreement in December 2014, and they started service again in April 2015 after meeting contractual service requirements. Length of Towing Vendor Contract Terms On average, the surveyed cities offer base contract agreements for 3.75 years, but extensions vary greatly. Exhibit 2.2 below presents term information for current tow and impound vendor contracts. Exhibit 2.2: Current Length of Contract Terms for Tow Contractors Years in Maximum Possible, City Towing Vendors Current Term of Contract Base Term with any Extensions Baldwin Park Royal Coaches 2014-2018 4 4 2012-2013; four 1-year 5 Beverly Hills Tip Top extensions 1 El Monte Freddie Mac's 2016-2020 4 4 (1) Gay's, (2) Mid Valley, 2016-2021; two 2-year Glendale (3) Crescenta Valley extensions 5 9 2006-2012; 4-year extension to Glendora Jan's 2016; four 1-year extensions 6 12 Huntington Park Mr. C's 2016-2021 5 5 Inglewood (1) B&H, (2) Bryant's Annual permit renewal 1 1 (1) Jan's, 2017-2020; 6 month extension, Irwindale (2) Royal Coaches month-to-month 3 3.5+ 2009-2014; annual extensions 5+ (no max.) Montebello Helms & Hill without a cap 5 San Fernando Black &White 2014-2019; 5-year extension 5 10 2009-2012; extension from West Covina Royal Coaches 2012-2022; 5 year extensions 3 13+ (1) Hadley Tow, Hadley: 2015-2018 / B&D: 2014- Whittier (2) Bob & Dave's 2017; two 1-year extensions 3 5 Average 3.75 n.a. Source: Civil Grand Jury surveys and review of towing contracts 12 Although the average base contract term is four years, there are notable differences in extension agreements. The most notable is West Covina where towing vendors went from serving a three-year contract term to a 10-year extension and could end up with a 13 year or more term if granted the five year extensions allowed in their contract. While there may be a limited pool of vendors able to bid on these towing and impound contracts, it is still in the cities’ best interests and a best practice to regularly competitively bid these contracts. The impact of doing so is to keep the vendors competitive on price and performance. Competitive bidding every three to five years would be a reasonable standard for the twelve cities. Contract provisions that allow for terms of 9-13 years and more are not in the best interests of the cities or the public. Operational Requirements and Response Times Require a Local Presence Almost every city requires either in their municipal code or service agreements or operating permits that their towing vendor maintain their primary storage facility and office within city limits, or within a few miles of city limits, of the contracting city. In addition, every city measures the response time for tow trucks dispatched to police calls, the average maximum response time being 20 minutes for a tow truck to arrive on scene to a call. Facility location and response time requirements are highlighted below. Exhibit 2.3: Location and Response Time Requirements Storage and Office Location City Requirements Response Time Requirements 25 minute monthly average, 30 minute Baldwin Park Within five miles of city limits maximum Beverly Hills Within seven miles of city limits 15 minute maximum El Monte Within five miles of city limits 15 minute maximum No more than half a mile outside city 15 minute maximum from 7am-7pm; 30 Glendale limits minute maximum from 7pm-7am 20 minute maximum from 7am-6pm; 25 Glendora Within city limits* minute maximum from 6pm-7am Huntington Park Within five miles of city limits 20 minute maximum Inglewood Must be in city limits 15 minute maximum Within five miles of City Hall or six miles 15 minute average; 20 minute maximum; 15 Irwindale from city limits at Chief's discretion minute maximum for critical incidents Montebello Within city limits 15 minute maximum Within five miles from the Police 15 minute maximum; must dispatch within San Fernando Department 10 minutes West Covina No requirement 15 minute maximum 15 minute average; 20 minute maximum; 15 Whittier Within city limits minute critical incident Source: Review of city ordinances and towing service agreements *Glendora’s original contract with Jan’s Towing required their primary storage facility and office to be within city limits; however, the city amended this requirement in their 2012 extension to permit Jan’s primary facility for Glendora’s tows to be in an adjacent city, Azusa. National Institute for Governmental Purchasing Business Council: White Paper 2014. Everybody Wins: Crafting a Solicitation that Fosters Transparency, Best Value, and Collaborative Partnership 13 Reporting Requirements on Towing Vendor Finances and Towing Related Activity are Inconsistent and Often Minimal Although every city requires their contractors to maintain detailed records documenting fees paid to the city and towing activity, only seven cities require that their contractors automatically provide monthly or quarterly reports to city management summarizing their vehicle tow and impound activities. Requiring the towing contractors to keep records on hand for city review is not as effective as a management tool because there is no guarantee that cities will allocate resources to regularly review these records. Besides tow and impound record requirements, most of the surveyed cities lack a structured process to evaluate their tow contractors’ performance. Out of the 12 surveyed cities, seven stipulate in their contracts that their towing vendors must provide periodic reports, usually monthly or quarterly, detailing towing activity, service charges, and franchise fee payments. Although five cities do not include financial reporting requirement clauses in their contracts, every city requires that their towing vendors at least maintain detailed financial records subject to audit. This unfortunately does not guarantee that the tow contractors will maintain the records as required or that the cities will regularly review them and monitor tow contractor performance. Such a review can become an extra non-routine task and requires allocating staff resources to an extra duty. The more effective approach is to require regular tow contractor reporting, as is the case in seven of the surveyed cities, to ensure that the tow contractors are maintaining the proper records and that City management staff will always have the records at their disposal for review and monitoring. Financial reporting requirements for the twelve surveyed cities are summarized below in Exhibit 2.4. Exhibit 2.4: Twelve Surveyed Cities’ Financial Reporting Requirements for Tow Contractors Contractor Required to Regularly Submit Financial Reports City to City? Financial Reporting Contract Requirements YES NO Baldwin Park ✓ Annual and monthly payment reports Beverly Hills ✓ Monthly reports of itemized services and charges ✓ Contractor must maintain detailed records of all transactions subject to inspection by El Monte City. ✓ Monthly reports of itemized charges for all towing activity and quarterly reports Glendale detailing towing activity and the calculation of release fees (VTACR) owed to city Glendora ✓ Monthly report of activity detailing service charges and lien sales Huntington Park ✓ Annual report of all gross receipts earned Inglewood ✓ Contractor must maintain detailed records of all transactions subject to inspection Irwindale ✓ Quarterly reports of gross receipts and lien sales records Montebello ✓ Contractor must maintain detailed records of all transactions subject to inspection San Fernando ✓ Quarterly payment reports itemizing towing activity West Covina ✓ Contractor must maintain detailed records of all transactions subject to inspection Whittier ✓ Contractor must maintain detailed records of all transactions subject to inspection Source: Review of city towing contracts 14 In addition to financial information, eight of the twelve cities surveyed include additional reporting requirements in their towing contracts. Sometimes integrated with the monthly financial payments and reports, the eight cities require that their vendors provide detail on the volume of vehicles being towed, released, or lien sold, along with other descriptive information. As can be seen in Exhibit 2.5, the information requirements vary among the eight cities that require such reporting. The most common requirement is listing all tows, impound and lien sale activity. While this is useful information to have, other cities require specific information that enables them to better assess the performance of their tow contractors and the impact of their towing and impound policies and practices on members of the public. These requirements include vehicle descriptors (make, model, Vehicle Identification Number, owner information), dates of impound and release (which allows for assessing total impound time), and police case numbers (to easily track cases back to individual officers and incidents). The cities of Glendale and Irwindale specifically require that tow location information be reported and the cities of Irwindale and San Fernando require information on the incident that led to the tow. Finally, the City of Glendale alone requires that their contractors report when personal property found in vehicles is inventoried. Exhibit 2.5: Tow Contractor Activity Reporting Required by Surveyed Cities Must Report Must Report Regular Amount Must when Must Report No Activity Activity of Time Report Personal Information Reporting Report Vehicle Tow Property on Tow City Requirements Required Stored Location Inventoried Incident Baldwin Park ✓ Beverly Hills ✓ ✓ El Monte ✓ ✓ Glendale ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Glendora ✓ Huntington Park ✓ Inglewood ✓ Irwindale ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Montebello ✓ San Fernando ✓ ✓ ✓ West Covina ✓ Whittier ✓ TOTAL 5 7 5 2 1 2 Source: Review of city towing contracts These more specific requirements put the contracting city in a much better position to monitor their contractors’ and police department’s performance and to better ensure that improper towing and storage activities are not taking place. Adding these reporting requirements to all contracts and regularly reviewing the information would provide greater assurance to the public that that their city’s towing and impound operations are functioning efficiently and properly. Performance Reporting Requirements are Inconsistent and Often Minimal Although most cities impose important reporting requirements on towing activity and financial disclosure, most contracts lack detail on how the city will assess the performance of their towing vendors and use such evaluations in considering contract awards or extensions. As can be seen in Exhibit 2.6, four cities do not require any performance reporting by their tow contractors. Two additional cities do not mandate reporting of performance metrics but require that the vendors maintain the information available upon request by the cities. Of the cities that do mandate regular performance reporting, tow response times and customer complaints are the most commonly used metrics. Other notable metrics are found in the City of Glendale, which requires that their tow vendors maintain and provide records on phone wait times and a Quality Assurance Plan detailing how the vendor will meet 93 performance standards outlined in their contract. Exhibit 2.6: Performance Metrics in Agreements between Cities and Tow Contractors Performance Metrics Reported or Evaluated by City No Quality Performance Tow Phone Assurance Reporting Response Customer Wait Plan City Required Time Complaints Time Compliance Baldwin Park ✓ Beverly Hills ✓ El Monte ✓ * Glendale * * * * * Glendora ✓ * Huntington Park * ✓ Inglewood ✓ * Irwindale * Montebello * ✓ San Fernando ✓ * West Covina * ✓ Whittier * * Source: Review of city towing contracts and ordinances *This city does not mandate regular reporting but requires that the city have specific records available for inspection in the performance areas shown. Of the 12 cities, nine maintain contract clauses that discuss performance reporting; however, four cities (Huntington Park, Irwindale, Montebello, and West Covina) focus on evaluating customer complaints, and two other cities (Inglewood and Whittier) only vaguely state that the police chief retains the right to review contractor performance. Baldwin Park and Beverly Hills require their contractors to address their response times on a monthly basis. While most cities address contractor performance in one or two areas, Glendale stood out from its peers for requiring their vendors to track and monitor several performance measures including response time for answering city calls, wait times for customer calls, and implementing a Quality Assurance Plan to meet 93 other performance standards outline in their contract. Towing Vendors Can Be Better Managed Through Performance-Based Contracting Since the Vehicle Code details administrative requirements for towing, storing, and auctioning lien vehicles, cities are not required to develop extensive local regulations for administering these local programs. As demonstrated in the results of the Civil Grand Jury survey of twelve cities, only one city had developed a comprehensive contract management plan and integrated it into their towing franchise agreement while five cities failed to incorporate any specific performance reporting requirements. Although the other six agencies mentioned some performance metrics in their contracts, monitoring only customer complaints or response times is not a comprehensive approach to monitoring a towing vendor’s overall service to the public. Compounded by the fact that just about every city requires tow vendors to maintain facilities and offices within or near their city limits, and to swiftly respond to dispatch calls between 15 to 30 minutes, competition for open bids can be minimal or nonexistent. Cities then run the risk of engaging in long term contracts that provide little oversight and accountability. With enhanced performance-based contract management, cities and the public can be more informed about the service being provided by their towing contractors and their impact in the community. Best practices in contract management recommend that governments adopt the following process when entering into contract agreements: 1) Identify and prioritize service objectives for contractors; a. Cities can identify specific performance objectives addressing towing response times, wait times for customer service over the phone and at the counter, customer complaints resolutions, and other objectives. 2) Develop a system to collect and analyze performance data; a. Cities could require periodic reporting of performance statistics to assess the impact of their towing vendors on the community. Data could include activity measures, such as the volume of vehicles towed, stored, impounded, and lien sold, as well as performance measures to assess compliance with service objectives. 3) Establish contract provisions for meeting, exceeding, or not meeting performance objectives; a. In addition to simply stating that the city may terminate its contract at any time due to noncompliance with the terms of a contract, cities could also impose liquidated damages against contractors based on the volume and severity of contract violations, and specify corrective action steps to remedy contract violations. Alternatively, if a contractor meets or exceeds service objectives, the contract should require that this performance be used when approving rate adjustments or providing bonuses. 4) Link contractor performance to future procurement decisions; a. Since most contracts offer term extensions, contracts should require that contractor’s documented performance against defined service objectives be used in determining whether the contractor deserves a contractor renewal or extension. 17 5) Reflect the provisions outlined above, as well as the process for regular performance monitoring, in the final agreement.2 Recommendations 2.1 All cities should adopt performance-based contract management approaches like Glendale to better monitor and evaluate their towing contractors and their impact on the community. 2.2 The City of Whittier should implement a competitive bidding process for their towing services upon the completion of their current contract term to conform to procurement best practices and negate the appearance of impartiality or bias. National Performance Management Advisory Commission. A Performance Management Framework for State and Local Government: From Measurement and Reporting to Management and Improving. 2015. 18
R3:
Fees
▪ Of the twelve surveyed cities, six impose franchise fees on their tow vendors through flat fees charged per vehicle towed, ranging from $45 to $250 in 2015. Another four cities imposed franchise fees as percentages of their vendors’ gross revenue for towing related activities ranging from seven percent to 30 percent. Two cities, Beverly Hills and Whittier, chose not to impose a franchise fee on their towing contractors.
▪ All cities impose a vehicle release fee paid to the cities by vehicle owners before their impounded vehicle can be released. These fees range from $50 to $245 for basic vehicle releases. Seven cities also charge different release fees when vehicles are towed for specific reasons, such as DUI arrests and other police impounds.
▪ The current median tow fee charged by towing and impound contractors for a regular vehicle is $175, ranging from a low of $118.50 in Glendale to a high of $205 in El Monte, a 73 percent difference.
▪ The current median daily storage fee for a regular vehicle is $52, ranging from a low of $33 in Inglewood to a high of $60 in El Monte and Huntington Park.
▪ Of the nine tow vendors that provided this information in the survey, on average, 57 percent of vehicles impounded in 2015 were released within the first three days, but 32 percent remained on the lot for a week or more.
▪ Total fees paid be vehicle owners for vehicles retrieved after one day range from a low of $228 in Glendale to a high of $494, or over twice as much, in Baldwin Park. Median fees after one day of storage in the twelve surveyed cities are $347. Vehicles retrieved after seven days face median fees of $659, ranging from a low of $450 in Glendale to a high of $818 in Baldwin Park, or 82 percent more.
▪ Cities have an obligation under State law to ensure that their franchise fees and administrative release fees are recovering no more than the actual and reasonable cost of administering their towing program. At least six cities have not adjusted their franchise fees in several years, indicating that cities may not be regularly assessing the administrative costs of their towing programs. Franchise Fees and Vehicle Release Fees Paid to Cities Vary Significantly Pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, cities can recover the cost of administering towing programs in two ways. First, Vehicle Code Section 12110(b) allows cities to impose franchise fees on towing vendors; however, the fee “may not exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the public entity for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in connection with the towing program.” In addition, Vehicle Code Section 22850.5 allows cities to impose fees on vehicle owners to recover the cities’ administrative costs 19 relating to the removal, impound, storage, or release of their vehicles. This most commonly manifests as a vehicle release fee. Exhibit 3.1 below highlights the franchise fees charged to each city’s towing vendor and the release fees passed onto customers. Exhibit 3.1: City Franchise and Release Fees, 2015 City Release Fee Paid by City Franchise Fee paid by Tow Vendors Vehicle Owners1 $125 per vehicle from police calls; 25% of gross receipts from owner calls, 30-day Baldwin Park impounds, and lien sales (minus lien fees) $245 all releases $117 basic; $162 investigative Beverly Hills None release $120 basic; $240 impound; El Monte $125 per vehicle $500 DUI; $720 prostitution $72 basic; + $35 for DUI; $20 Glendale $250 per vehicle, all vendors for oversized Glendora $75 per vehicle $120 all releases $108.23 basic; $159.16 Huntington Park 14% of gross receipts2 impounds; $318.30 DUI Inglewood 7% of gross receipts, all vendors $150 basic; $150 DUI 30% of impound/storage, 10% of lien $50 basic; $150 impound; $325 Irwindale sales for DUI Montebello $154 per vehicle $180 all releases San Fernando $45 per vehicle $130 impound 30% of gross receipts from Royal Coaches West Covina with a $100,000 annual minimum3 $178 all releases $121 basic; $230 DUI; $200 30- Whittier None day impounds Source: Review of towing contracts, city websites, and Civil Grand Jury survey responses. 1Release fees for “impounds” are referring to vehicles that were towed in accordance with Vehicle Code sections prohibiting driving with a restricted license or without a license, and other police holds. 2Huntington Park terminated a long-standing contract with HP Tow in 2016 that imposed no franchise fee. 3West Covina recently terminated a secondary contractor, Bob’s Tow, in 2016. Their franchise fee equated to 34% of gross receipts minus owner notification fees. Of the twelve surveyed cities, six of them charged franchise fees from their tow vendors in 2015 through flat fees charged per vehicle towed, ranging from $45 to $250. Another four cities’ franchise fees were based on percentages of gross revenue for the vendors’ towing related activities, ranging from seven percent to 30 percent. Two cities, Beverly Hills and Whittier, chose not to impose franchise fees on their towing contractors. As for release fees paid to the cities by vehicle owners in 2015, all cities imposed fees on owners when releasing vehicles, ranging from $50 to $245 for basic vehicle releases. Seven cities also imposed different release fees when the vehicles were towed for specific reasons, such as DUI arrests and other police impounds. Cities Collected a Wide Range of Revenue from Franchise and Vehicle Release Fees Since local jurisdictions manage their towing contracts in different ways, revenue from franchise and release fees depend upon how a city calculates its actual costs for administering its towing program. Exhibit 3.2 provides the surveyed cities’ revenues from tow vendors for 2014 and 2015. Exhibit 3.2: City Franchise and Release Fee Revenues, 2014 and 2015 Total Vehicle Release Total Franchise Fees Total Tow Vendor Fees Total Tow Vendor Fees City Fees Paid by Vehicle and Release Fees Paid Paid to City, 2014 Paid to City, 2015 Owners to City, 2015 to City, 2015 Baldwin Park $314,949 $318,513 $334,070 $652,583 Beverly Hills Not Applicable Not Applicable $176,202 $176,202 El Monte $47,575 $76,145 $176,190 $252,335 Glendale $273,830 $364,379 $33,530 $397,909 Glendora $63,150 $43,275 $28,540 $71,815 Huntington Park Not Reported Not Reported $102,878 $102,878 Inglewood $22,294 $44,503 Not Reported $44,503 Irwindale $51,814 $47,154 $30,250 $77,404 Montebello $201,740 $197,120 $130,462 $327,582 San Fernando Not Applicable $20,753 $23,841 $44,594 West Covina $144,004 $98,059 $47,882 $145,941 Whittier* $8,200 $9,000 $92,453 $101,453 Median $63,150 $61,650 $92,453 $124,410 Minimum $8,200 $9,000 $23,841 $44,503 Maximum $314,949 $364,379 $334,070 $652,583 Source: Review of Civil Grand Jury city surveys Note: Beverly Hills did not provide franchise fee revenues for 2014. Huntington Park changed towing contactors in 2016, its prior contractor, HP Tow, was not required to pay any franchise fee. *City of Whittier vendor fees are for 30 day impounds only. As can be seen in Exhibit 3.2, median franchise fee revenue in the ten cities that required payment from their tow vendors was $61,650 in 2015, ranging from a low of $9,000 in Whittier to a high of $364,379 in Glendale1. Two cities, Beverly Hills and Whitter, did not impose franchise fees on their tow vendors in 2015 and instead covered their administrative costs for their tow and impound program through release fees, or possibly with their own resources. Median release fee revenue paid to the cities by vehicle owners in 2015 for all cities that reported this revenue was $92,453, ranging from a low of $23,841 in San Fernando to a high of $334,070 in Baldwin Park. The broad range of fee revenue collected from tow vendors and vehicle owners whose vehicles are towed and stored by the tow vendors for the surveyed cities indicate that cities take very different approaches to how much of their tow and impound program costs are paid for by vehicle owners, how they identify the allowable costs that can be recovered through these fees and the extent to which these costs are ultimately passed on to the vehicle owners. The City of Whittier charges vendor fees for 30 day impounds only. The Current Median Tow Company Towing Fee for a Regular Vehicle is $175, Ranging from $118.50 to $205 All vehicles towed are subject to a one-time basic tow fee imposed by the towing vendor. All cities regulate tow fees through their service agreements, of which adjustments must be approved by the contracting city. Aside from Inglewood and Irwindale, we found that every city with multiple tow vendors requires that all of their vendors charge the same towing fees. Exhibit 3.3 presents the array of base tow fees. The range of rates presented show that the cost to vehicle owners can vary significantly depending on the jurisdiction in which their vehicle is towed. The lowest tow fee for a regular vehicle is $118.50 in Glendale, while the highest is $205 in El Monte, or 75 percent higher. The median is $175, Exhibit 3.3: Tow Contractor Tow Fees Reported in Survey City Regular Vehicle Motorcycle Medium Heavy Duty Baldwin Park $195 $195 $230 $325 Beverly Hills $160 $80 $250 $350 El Monte $205 $205 $205 $205 Glendale $118.50 $118.50 $118.50 $227.00 Glendora $175.00 $175.00 $235.00 $325.00 Huntington Park $185 $185 $250 $350 Inglewood $121.90 (1)$169.65; (2)$121.90 $183.55 $255.55 Irwindale (1)$175; (2)$195 (1)$175; (2)$195 (1)$235; (2)$230 $325 Montebello $154 $154 $250 $350 San Fernando NA NA NA NA West Covina $195 $195 $230 $325 Whittier $175 $175 $193 $257 Median $175 $175 $230 $325 Minimum $118.50 $80 $118.50 $205 Maximum $205 $205 $250 $350 Source: Review of Civil Grand Jury towing vendor surveys; San Fernando has not provided its fee schedule. Inglewood: (1)=Bryant’s; (2)=B&H Irwindale: (1)=Jan’s; (2)=Royal Coaches Current Median Daily Storage Fee among Survey Cities for a Regular Vehicle is $52, Ranging from $33 to $60 All vehicles towed are subject to daily storage fees imposed by the towing vendor. All cities regulate storage fees through their service agreements with their tow vendors, for which any adjustments must be approved by the contracting city. Aside from Irwindale, every city with multiple vendors requires that they charge the same towing fees. Exhibit 3.4 shows the array of daily storage fees. As with the base towing fees presented above, the variation in fees can result in very different costs for the vehicle owners depending on the city in which 22 their vehicle is impounded. The lowest daily storage fee for a regular vehicle is $33 in Inglewood, while the highest fee is $60 in El Monte and Huntington Park. The median is $52. Exhibit 3.4: Current Tow Contractor Daily Storage Fees City Regular Vehicle Motorcycle Medium Heavy Duty Baldwin Park $54 $54 $57 $60 Beverly Hills $42 $35 $65 $75 El Monte $60 $60 Glendale $37 $10 $41 $52 Glendora $52 $30.00 $57.00 $65.00 Huntington Park $60 $60 $60 $60 Inglewood $33 $15.28 $53.66 $53.66 Irwindale (1)$52; (2)$54 (1)$30; (2)$54 $57.00 (1)$65; (2)$60 Montebello $52 $52 $55 $65 San Fernando NA NA NA NA West Covina $54 $54 $57 $60 Whittier $45 $45 $50 $60 Median $52 $49 $57 $60 Minimum $33 $10 $41 $52 Maximum $60 $60 $65 $75 Source: Review of Civil Grand Jury towing vendor surveys; San Fernando has not provided its fee schedule. Irwindale: (1)=Jan’s; (2)=Royal Coaches Most Vehicles were Released within 72 Hours or Remained for Over a Week in 2015 Of the nine tow vendors that provided this information, on average, 57 percent of vehicles they impounded were released within the first three days in 2015, but 32 percent remained on the lot for seven days or more. Exhibit 3.5: Volume of Vehicles Towed by Days before Release, 2015 Days before Vehicle Release City and Towing Vendor 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days 7+ days Total Baldwin Park: Royal Coaches 931 322 225 109 79 41 27 814 2,548 Beverly Hills: Tip Top 445 35 8 - - - - 2 490 Glendale: Gay's 283 232 115 91 63 37 34 179 1,034 Glendora: Jan’s 65 29 46 35 30 21 20 127 373 Irwindale: Jan’s 48 28 14 7 5 1 5 68 176 Irwindale: Royal Coaches 64 17 8 8 10 4 5 57 173 Montebello: Helms & Hill 240 264 144 4 48 24 48 600 1,372 West Covina: Royal Coaches 173 65 48 34 36 16 14 217 603 Whittier: Hadley 73 82 54 39 36 29 17 13 343 Totals 2,322 1,074 662 327 307 173 170 2,077 7,112 Percentage 33% 15% 9% 5% 4% 2% 2% 29% 100% Grouped Percentages 57% 10% 32% Source: Review of Civil Grand Jury towing vendor surveys Note: The following towing vendors have not completed their surveys: Freddie Mac from El Monte; Gay’s, Monterey, and Crescenta Valley from Glendale; HP Tow from Huntington Park; Black and White from San Fernando; and Bob & Dave’s from Whittier. Bryant’s and B&H from Inglewood completed their surveys, but reported that this information is not tracked. The Civil Grand Jury’s survey to cities included the same question to delineate the volume of tows by the number of days before release, but only three cities (Beverly Hills, Irwindale, Whittier) provided this data while the other nine reported that this information is not tracked. Fees for a Regular Vehicle can Range From $228 to $494 for One Day of Storage Since most towed vehicles are released within the first three days of storage, but nearly a third of vehicles remain in storage for over a week, cost estimates for releasing a regular vehicle are provided in Exhibit 3.6. This exhibit is for informational purposes only as each city may charge additional fees depending on the car size, purposes of tow or impoundment, and if the lien sale process had begun. As can be seen in the illustration in Exhibit 3.6, total fees for vehicles retrieved after one day can range from a low of $228 in Glendale to a high of $494, or over twice as much, in Baldwin Park. Median fees after one day are $347. Vehicles retrieved after seven days would face median fees of $659, ranging from a low of $450 in Glendale to a high of $818 in Baldwin Park, or 82 percent more. Exhibit 3.6: Current Estimated Costs to Release a Regular Vehicle City Tow Daily Cities Release 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 7 Days 15 Days 30 Days Fee2 Storage2 Fee1 Baldwin Park $245.00 $195 $54 $494 $548 $602 $818 $1,250 $2,060 Beverly Hills $117.00 $160 $42 $319 $361 $403 $571 $907 $1,537 El Monte $120.00 $205 $60 $385 $445 $505 $745 $1,225 $2,125 Glendale $72.00 $118.50 $37 $228 $265 $302 $450 $746 $1,301 Glendora $120.00 $175.00 $52.00 $347 $399 $451 $659 $1,075 $1,855 Huntington Park $108.23 $185 $60 $353 $413 $473 $713 $1,193 $2,093 Inglewood $150.00 $121.90 $33.00 $305 $338 $371 $503 $767 $1,262 Irwindale $50.00 $185 $53.00 $288 $341 $394 $606 $1,030 $1,825 Montebello $180.00 $154 $52 $386 $438 $490 $698 $1,114 $1,894 San Fernando $130.00 not provided n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. West Covina $178.00 $195 $54 $427 $481 $535 $751 $1,183 $1,993 Whittier $121.00 $175 $45 $341 $386 $431 $611 $971 $1,646 Median $121 $175 $52 $347 $399 $451 $659 $1,075 $1,855 Minimum $50 $119 $33 $228 $265 $302 $450 $746 $1,262 Maximum $245 $205 $60 $494 $548 $602 $818 $1,250 $2,125 Source: Review of Civil Grand Jury city and towing vendor surveys 1Release fees in this analysis are for basic vehicle storage releases. The City of San Fernando charges a release fee and an administrative fee. 2Vendor tow and daily storage fees are current rates for regular vehicles. Cities with more than one vendor charging different tow and storage rates were averaged out for this cost analysis. Costs presented in Exhibit 3.6 above do not cover the spectrum of possible charges that may significantly increase or decrease the cost of releasing stored or impounded vehicles. Scenarios that may impact total release costs include: • Seven cities charge higher release fees for vehicles that were impounded as police holds, as noted in Exhibit 3.1. • If a lienholder has begun the lien sale process and notified persons of interest, an additional lien processing fee of $70 to $100 can be imposed after the first 72 hours (Vehicle Code 22651.07 and 22851.12). • As displayed in Exhibits 3.2 and 3.3, towing and daily storage fees can fluctuate depending on the size of the vehicle. • Cities and vendors may charge a gate fee up to one-half of the hourly tow rate charged for towing a vehicle if the vehicle is released outside normal business hours (Vehicle Code 22658(n)(2)(B)). • If an impounded vehicle has outstanding traffic or parking violation fees that have not been paid to the local authority, those fees may need to be paid as a condition of release (Vehicle Code 22651). Cities have a Statutory Obligation to Periodically Assess the Cost of Administration Vehicle Code Section 12110(b) allows cities to impose franchise fees on towing vendors that may not exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the public entity for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in connection with the towing program. Vehicle Code Section 22850.5 allows cities to impose fees on vehicle owners to recover administrative costs relating to the removal, impound, storage, or release of vehicles. Since there is no standardized structure for cities to manage and evaluate their towing vendors and towing related programs, cities have varying levels of oversight and involvement with their towing contractors. Consequently, as observed in our survey of twelve cities, the range of franchise and vehicle release fees varies greatly in form and value. Although cities are responsible for not charging franchise and release fees that exceed administrative costs, State law does not dictate how to calculate these fees, or how often the actual cost of administration should be assessed. The cost of administration heavily relies upon the time and cost of personnel involved in the towing program. Since public employee salaries and benefits typically escalate or change on an annual basis, the cost of service changes annually as well. Cities may not be recovering the full-cost of administration, or possibly overcharging towing vendors and towing service users. We highlight the following cities that have not updated their fees in several years and may not be recovering fees to cover the actual cost of service: • Inglewood still has not updated its franchise fee since at least 2010. • Irwindale has not updated its franchise fee since 2012. • Montebello has not updated its franchise see since 2012. • San Fernando has not updated its franchise fee since at least 2009. • West Covina has not updated its franchise fee since at least 2009. Cities should ensure compliance with the Vehicle Code by adopting best practices in establishing charges and fees that call for regular, periodic assessment of the cost of service justifying the fees.2 Recommendations: 3.1 All cities should adopt policies that require the cost of administering their towing programs to be reassessed on a periodic basis to ensure that franchise fee and administrative fees are not exceeding the cost of service. Since personnel costs typically adjust annually, this cost assessment should be conducted at least once every four years, the average base term of towing contracts in the survey. 3.2 All cities should annually review their city and tow contractor fees charged to vehicle owners, including comparisons with other cities in Los Angeles County, to assess and justify the amounts charged, considering the potential hardship on their citizens relative to the policy objectives of 2 Government Finance Officers Association. Best Practice: Establishing Government Charges and Fees. February 2014 26 the fees such as deterring certain types of behavior as well as considering the fairness of the fees being charged relative to other jurisdictions. 27
R4:
Ethics and Transparency
▪ Gifts provided by towing vendors or their employees to designated city officials must be disclosed in those officials’ statements of economic interests. However, gift reporting requirements can be avoided if gifts are provided to city employees who are not designated officials, city departments, or city related organizations, like labor unions, employee associations, or professional associations.
▪ Six of the twelve cities surveyed for this investigation indicated that their towing vendors provided in-kind services and gifts outside of their contract requirements. The vendors’ donations and services typically included free meals at public safety checkpoints and community meetings, sponsorships for luncheons and athletic events, and supporting community events.
▪ Of the surveyed cities, only two cities maintain policies regulating or prohibiting towing vendors from selling auctioned lien vehicles to city officials or city agencies; five cities maintain policies regulating or prohibiting the city from contracting with vendors that are owned by city employees. One city has a policy regulating or prohibiting the city from contracting with vendors who employ relatives of city officials.
▪ Police department personnel are heavily involved in the contracting process as nine of the twelve cities include the police department in making an official recommendation for the towing contract award. Single departments, usually the police departments, were found to be solely responsible for a number of the key stages in the tow vendor procurement processes. In conjunction with the observation that only three cities provided documentation of their towing proposal evaluations, there are opportunities for city employees involved in the procurement process to benefit from gifts and services of interested parties and not be subject to financial disclosure.
▪ There have been several instances of impropriety involving towing vendors providing in-kind services and donations to government officials and employees in Los Angeles County in recent years. Cities have on obligation to mitigate fraud and abuse by adopting and enforcing conflict of interest policies, enhancing the competitive bidding process to include more stakeholders documenting proposal evaluations, and increasing reporting requirements for gifts and services provided by towing vendors. Financial Interest Disclosure Laws California Government Code Sections 87200 – 87210 require that certain public officials at the state and local level disclose their financial interests and abstain from making decisions that result in personal gain and that may be considered conflicts of interest. Public officials include candidates running for office, elected officials, city managers, city attorneys, and other public administrators who manage and make 28 decisions on the use of public resources. Government Code Sections 87300 – 87314 require local governments to adopt local conflict of interest codes that designate officials and employees who must disclose their financial interests. These designated employees must file annual statements of economic interests either with the California Fair Political Practices Commission and/or the local filing officer, usually the City Clerk. Financial interests include income, investments, equity in property and businesses, and gifts. Aggregate gifts from a single source totaling $50 or more in one year must be disclosed in the statement of economic interests, although designated officials cannot accept more than $4701 annually from that source. It is important to note that such gift limitations do not apply to campaign contributions, which have different limitations depending on state or local campaign finance laws. Financial Interest and Gift Disclosure Requirements Can Be Avoided by Providing Gifts to Non Designated Officials Gifts provided by towing vendors or their employees to designated city officials must be disclosed in those officials’ statements of economic interests. However, gift reporting requirements can be avoided if gifts are provided to city employees who are not designated officials, city departments, or city related organizations, like labor unions, employee associations, or professional associations. Of the twelve cities surveyed, six cities indicated that their towing vendors provided services and gifts in addition to support requirements in their contracts. Those cities include: • Baldwin Park: The towing vendor for this city donated $1,750 in 2014, and $2,400 in 2015 to support the police officer’s association in an athletic competition, and for providing bikes and food at community events. • Beverly Hills: The towing vendor spent $1,000 a year in 2014 and 2015 on biannual lunches for the police department. The vendor also provides two wrecked cars for the City’s annual “Every 15 Minutes” campaign to raise awareness about drunk driving. • Huntington Park: The prior towing vendor occasionally provided food for police officers stationed at public safety checkpoints, and coffee and pastries for community meetings. The city does not track, and consequently did not report, the value of these gifts in 2014 and 2015. • Irwindale: The City of Irwindale reported that one of its tow contractors, Royal Coaches, provided the City with donations and contributions in the form of $10,000 in 2014 and $4,860 in 2015 for the Library Foundation, 4th of July Fireworks, Music in the Park, Senior Center Thanksgiving dinner, and targeted tutoring at the Library. • San Fernando: The towing vendor reportedly purchases tables for Police Advisory luncheons; however, the value of these purchases was not reported by the city in 2014 and 2015. • West Covina: The City of West Covina reported that it did not know if its tow vendor, Royal Coaches, had provided any services, materials or donations to the City. However, the tow 1 Gift limits adjust with inflation every odd year, the most recent adjustment increasing from $460 to $470 for January 2, 2017 through December 31, 2018. 29 vendor reported donations and contributions for civic and City activities in the amounts of $6,074.58 and $1,307.54 in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Seven of the twelve cities indicated that the towing vendors provide free support services including towing of city vehicles, lending of lights for road incidents, and road clean up; however, these services are stipulated in each respective city’s towing contract. These six cities are: Baldwin Park, Beverly Hills, Glendora, Huntington Park, Irwindale, San Fernando, and West Covina. These services do not benefit particular individuals and are common contractual agreements. Most Cities Surveyed Do Not Maintain Specific Policies Addressing Potential Conflicts of Interest with Towing Vendors Since State financial disclosure laws apply to specific designated officials, another way for cities to mitigate conflicts of interest is to adopt and enforce local policies that prohibit all city employees from using their position of influence for personal gain. Of the surveyed cities, only two cities, Glendale and West Covina, maintain policies regulating or prohibiting towing vendors from selling auctioned lien vehicles to city officials or city agencies. Only five of the 12 cities maintain policies regulating or prohibiting the city from contracting with vendors that are owned by city employees: Baldwin Park, Beverly Hills, Glendale, Glendora, and Whittier. Finally, only one city, Glendora, has a policy regulating or prohibiting the city from contracting with vendors who employ relatives of city officials. Exhibit 4.1 below provides a summary of policies maintained by each city. Exhibit 4.1: Select Conflict of Interest Policies in the Twelve Surveyed Cities Policies in Place for: Prohibiting City from Auctioning City Contracts Contracting with Vehicles to City with Businesses Businesses Officials/ Owned by City Employing City City Agencies Employees Official Relatives Baldwin Park ✓ Beverly Hills ✓ El Monte Glendale ✓ ✓ Glendora ✓ ✓ Huntington Park Inglewood Irwindale Montebello San Fernando West Covina ✓ Whittier ✓ TOTAL 2 5 1 Source: City responses to the Civil Grand Jury survey In their survey responses, the cities of El Monte, Huntington Park, Irwindale, and Montebello reported that they do not maintain city or departmental policies specifically addressing the three areas above; 30 however, each of their towing contracts contain a brief, general “Conflict of Interest” clause wherein the vendor must acknowledge that no city officials’ or employees’ financial interests will be served by the contract award. Whittier’s towing contract also contains a similar clause in addition to their policies. Procurement of Tow Vendor Services were Controlled by the Police or Single Departments in a Number of Cities, Increasing the Risk of Conflicts of Interest Eleven of the twelve cities surveyed issued Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for towing services in recent years. In those eleven cities, the police department or another individual department, rather than a consortium of city departments and stakeholders, controlled key aspects of those towing vendor procurement processes. In six of the cities, for example, a single department, usually the police department, prepared the RFP. In four cities, a single department evaluated proposals and in nine cities, a single department prepared the recommendation for contract award for approval by the City Council. In six of the nine surveyed cities, the single department preparing the contract award recommendation was the police department. The final contract award decision was made by the City Council in every city. A summary of staff involved in the procurement process is summarized in Exhibit 4.2. Exhibit 4.2: Distribution of Responsibility for Towing Vendor Selection Processes in the Twelve Surveyed Cities Final City RFP Preparation Proposal Evaluation Recommendation Decision Baldwin Park Public Works Public Works Public Works City Council Beverly Hills Police Police Police City Council Committee: Finance, Police, Committee: Finance, Public Works, Police, Public Works, El Monte Administration Administration City Manager City Council Committee: Finance, Committee: Finance, Glendale Police Public Works, Police Public Works, Police City Council Glendora Police Police, City Manager Police, City Manager City Council Huntington Park Police Police Police City Council Purchasing/Dept Purchasing and City Council Inglewood* Staff Departmental Staff Police and Police Irwindale Police City Staff Committee City Staff Committee City Council Purchasing and Departmental Purchasing and Montebello Staff Departmental Staff City Manager City Council Police/Stakeholder San Fernando Police Committee Police City Council Purchasing and Departmental West Covina Staff Police Police City Council Whittier* None None Police City Council Single Dept. 6 4 7 n.a. Source: City responses to the Civil Grand Jury survey * The City of Inglewood does not award towing franchise agreements, but issues towing business permits to participate in the city’s pool of towing referrals. The City of Whittier does not issue an RFP for towing services 31 Having more parties involved in the procurement process reduces the chances of conflicts of interest, particularly in cases where bidding vendors have provided or might provide in-kind services or gifts to a city department, such as the police department. Involving representatives of other departments that would not be conducting business with the vendor would provide more assurance of the procurement process being objective and free of conflict of interest. As highlighted earlier, four cities indicated in their surveys that their towing vendors provided some form of in-kind services or gifts outside their required contractual arrangements. These services were often in the form of meals and sponsorships for police related activities. Since these services and gifts were not directed toward specific designated officials, these gifts have not been prior reported or disclosed. The lack of gift reporting requirements for non-designated officials creates opportunity for towing contractors to curry favor from police and other city personnel involved in the procurement process. For example, staff involved in evaluating proposals may favor contractors who continue to periodically cater meals for their departments. In addition, a police chief or city manager may also favor a contractor who provides meals and sponsorships that support their staff. In either circumstance, gifts delivered in such a manner can continue to be provided without being disclosed in the surveyed cities. Proposal Evaluation Documentation is Scarce As part of the Civil Grand Jury’s survey, the twelve cities were asked to indicate whether 20 different measures or criteria are used during the evaluation of towing vendor proposals, to indicate if other criteria is used, or to provide documentation of their proposal evaluations. The criteria provided in the survey was as follows. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the criteria they included in their tow vendor proposal evaluations. i Management qualifications ii. Company and/or employee safety records iii. Company employee training record and approach iv. Customer service approach and record v. Customer/public complaints filed a. >>Citizen complaint record b. >>Customer/public complaints on social media viii. Damage claim procedures (e.g., arbitration must be used) ix. Civil suits/claims x. Facility assessment (cleanliness, professionalism): a >>Office b >>Vehicle storage area c >>Area for police holds d. >>Area for trucks xv. Prior experience in tow/impound/salvage business 32 xvi. References xvii. Financial stability/viability xviii. Prior violations of current agreement xvix. Prior violations of any agreements with other cities xx. Background check results: Previous felony convictions Other convictions xxi. Other (specify) Exhibit 4.3 presents survey responses indicating which evaluation criteria they used to assess tow vendor proposals received. The exhibit also presents which respondent cities provided documentation of their bidder evaluations. As can be seen, only three cities provided documentation of their scoring process (Beverly Hills, Glendale, Irwindale) and it is therefore assumed that the other cities did not document their evaluation process. Exhibit 4.3: City Responses to Evaluation Criteria City Survey Evaluation Criteria Selected Evaluation Documentation Provided? Other: Storage yard location (other Baldwin Park bidders disqualified due to this) No Facility assessments (office, storage, police hold), references, Beverly Hills financial stability, prior violations. Yes: Provided proposal scoring notes El Monte Used all criteria listed in survey No Yes: 2016 scoring sheets on qualifications of personnel, service requirements, facility and equipment requirements, prior experience, Glendale None - alternate documentation references, and financial viability. Glendora Used all criteria listed in survey No Referenced factors in RFP on firm experience, inventory of equipment and facilities, policies and Huntington protocols, insurance coverage, claims, training, and Park None - alternate documentation financial viability Inglewood Used all criteria listed in survey No Yes: 2011 interview assessments provided with ratings on appearance, community involvement, compliance with city requirements, and motivation Irwindale None - alternate documentation to serve Montebello None No Used all criteria in survey except San Fernando customer complaints, claims/suits No West Covina None No Whittier None No Source: City responses to the Civil Grand Jury survey 33 With only three cities maintaining records of their towing vendor proposal evaluations, there is additional risk that, even when steering committees were created for the tow vendor procurements, employees involved in the procurement process could influence vendor recommendations without empirical evidence demonstrating that a recommended vendor’s proposal and performance exceeds other bidders. All cities should adopt scoring templates for towing vendor bidders and maintain records of these completed forms to ensure that proposal evaluations are conducted in a fair and unbiased manner. Cities are Obliged to Avoid and Reduce the Risk of Abuse in the Contracting Process Internal control best practices recommend that governments respond to risk by accepting, avoiding, reducing, or sharing risk.2 Since each city manages its own towing vendor, and contracting is the predominant method for providing towing services, governments can avoid and reduce the risk of fraud and abuse by establishing, monitoring, and enforcing policies that dissuade or prohibit city officials and employees from using their contract oversight authority or position in the procurement process for personal gain. In recent years, there have been several instances throughout the County of Los Angeles of towing vendors providing gifts, donations, and other financial interest to various government officials and employees, potentially undermining the public’s trust. Examples include: • Vernola’s Towing, a towing vendor for the Los Angeles County Sheriff, sold a stolen, high value vehicle to an Assistant Sheriff for a steeply discounted rate in 2014.3 • Royal Coaches donated $1,000 to the son of Irwindale’s former mayor while in the midst of contract negotiations with the City in 2012. Although the mayor recused himself from the contract award vote, the Fair Political Practices Commission imposed a $2,000 penalty against him after determining he had been inappropriately involved in discussions to break the single vendor service model that led to Royal Coaches being awarded a contract.4 • H.P. Tow was one of many businesses in contract with the City of Huntington Park that donated to a campaign committee for a candidate that did not run for office. This committee subsequently paid a Huntington Park councilwoman for “consulting services” stirring possible conflict of interest violations.5 H.P. Tow’s proprietor had also been involved in an FBI investigation for alleged bribery attempts of another Huntington Park councilmember,6 leading the city to terminate its contract as campaign contributions are prohibited in their service agreement under the clause that the vendor “shall make no payments for this contract and shall 2 Government Accountability Office. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. September 2014. Chang, Cindy. “Top L.A. County sheriff’s official bought stolen Audi.” Los Angeles Times. October 2015. Favot, Sarah. “Former Irwindale mayor agrees to $2,000 fine for Political Reform Act violation.” Pasadena Star- News. August 2014. Elmahrek, Adam. “Huntington Park councilwoman’s consulting business raises questions about conflicts of interest.” Los Angeles Times. February 2017. Rubin, Joel. “The feds had an open-and-shut bribery case against 2 brothers. Then it unraveled.” Los Angeles Times. October 2016. 34 give no gifts to any of city’s officers or employees.” In addition, H.P. Tow may have also been in ongoing violation of this clause as the city reported that the vendor used to provide meals during public safety checkpoints. Recommendations: 4.1 All cities should incorporate a clause in their towing vendor contracts to require that all donations, gifts, and free services provided by the towing vendor outside of their service agreement to any city official or employee, city department, or city affiliated associations or events be documented and reported to the city. 4.2 All cities should adopt policies that prohibit the sale of lien vehicles to city entities or employees. 4.3 All cities should adopt policies that prohibit city employees from participating in the procurement or management of contracts of which employees may possess equity in a vendor or of which the vendor may be employing a relative of the city employee. 4.4 All cities should adopt policies that require more than only the police department or any other single department to be involved in the tow vendor procurement process: developing Requests for Proposals for towing and vendor services, evaluating proposals received, and recommending a contract award to the final decision maker. 4.5 All cities should adopt policies requiring that competitive bidding be employed in the selection of towing and impound services and that the City Council, and not a single employee such as the city manager, make the final decision on awarding contracts for tow and impound services. 4.6 All cities should adopt policies outlining specific criteria to be used for evaluating towing vendor proposals, create templates to be completed by individuals participating in the proposal evaluation, and maintain historical records to ensure fair and unbiased scoring in the evaluation process. 35
R5:
Public Information and Customer Service
▪ Information for the public about surveyed cities tow and impound processes and fees is not well publicized in nearly all of the cities.
▪ State law mandates that city tow and impound contract vendors post all storage fees and a Towing Fee and Access Notice at their facilities but display of this type of information is not statutorily required for the cities that contract with these vendors. Consequently, only three of the twelve surveyed cities report that they post information about their city’s towing and impound processes and practices at their police department or other city facilities which vehicle owners are likely to first visit when attempting to retrieve their vehicles. Similarly, only three cities reported having information available on a telephone hotline.
▪ Seven cities report having a handout with tow and impound information and seven cities report posting information about their towing and impound processes and fees on their city websites. However, review of those websites showed that the information is limited and difficult to find. Rather than stand-alone website pages, partial information about city fees only and or contract tow vendor locations is often posted on police department or other subsidiary Frequently Asked Questions pages. In some cases, tow and impound fees are posted in city master fee schedules that are not associated with web pages with titles related to the police department or towed or impounded vehicles.
▪ In spite of heavy concentrations of Hispanic or Latino residents in the majority of twelve surveyed cities, only three cities reported having Spanish versions of their handout. Only one city reported having Spanish versions of posters at their city facilities and only one city reported a Spanish version of their website.
▪ Of the ten tow companies that provided responses to survey questions about their hours of operation, seven are open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays, making it difficult for individuals to get to the tow facilities to retrieve their vehicles before incurring multiple days’ storage fees and without taking time off from work. Two cities’ tow vendors, in Inglewood and Huntington Park, are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, providing the greatest levels of access for vehicle owners. Seven of the vendors are open at least a least a half day on Saturday and five of the ten respondents are open on Sundays, which is beneficial to those with Monday-Friday daytime jobs. However, weekday evening hours provide the greatest arrangement to help vehicle owners minimize their storage fees. Public Information State law requires that law enforcement agency, cities, other government entities and tow yards, storage facilities, or impounding yards that charge for towing or storage, or both, post, in plain view of the public, a Towing Fees and Access Notice1 and, at all cashier stations, a full fee schedule2. The Towing Fees and Access Notice is to provide information about the towing and impound process, role of the city in establishing and verifying the rates charged, information about the vehicle owners’ rights, what to do in the event of a complaint or problem at the facility, liability issues, and other matters. While State law mandates disclosure of rate and other information by the tow and impound facility operators, it does not include comparable requirements for municipalities. In the case of the twelve cities surveyed for this investigation, the State noticing requirements apply to their tow company contractors, but not to the cities themselves. However, in the interest of providing customer service to the public and transparency in their operations, whether performed directly by the city or under their auspices through contract services, it behooves cities to provide information about the full costs and processes that owners will experience in attempting to retrieve their vehicles. Responses from the twelve surveyed Los Angeles County cities and a review of the cities’ websites found that the cities generally do not provide complete or useful information about the processes and full costs for owners to retrieve their vehicles. Tow and impound services are operated by contract vendors in all of the twelve cities and not the cities. Vehicles are most frequently towed and impounded as a result of actions taken by the cities’ police departments so, for the public, the experience with the tow company contactor is an extension of their experience with the cities. In spite of this, the cities provide scant information to the public on their websites or in posters and materials at police department or other city facilities. Of the twelve cities surveyed, seven reported having handouts available for the public, upon request, with information about the fees and towing and impound processes, but five of the cities do not have such a document available for the public upon request. Only three cities reported having signs or posters at their police departments or other city facilities describing the process and rates. Seven cities reported having pertinent information available on their website and three reported operating towing and impound telephone “hotlines”. Exhibit 5.1 summarizes the survey respondents’ forums for providing information to the public about towing and impound services and costs. California Vehicle Code 22651.07(a) 2 California Civil Code 3070(E) 37 Exhibit 5.1: Reported Vehicle Towing and Impound Information Sources in Twelve Surveyed Cities Posters/ signs at City Telephone City Website Handouts Facilities hotlines Baldwin Park ✓ ✓ Beverly Hills ✓ ✓ ✓ El Monte ✓ Glendale ✓ Glendora ✓ Huntington Park ✓ ✓ Inglewood ✓ ✓ ✓ Irwindale ✓ ✓ Montebello ✓ ✓ ✓ San Fernando West Covina ✓ ✓ Whittier TOTAL 7 7 3 3 Source: Civil Grand Jury survey of twelve Los Angeles County cities A review of the cities’ websites showed that the information is incomplete and would not provide much assistance to a member of the public trying to determine how to retrieve their impounded vehicle and how much retrieval is going to cost. None of the city’s websites provide comprehensive information, particularly in the area of fees for which the city websites only post city vehicle release or administrative fees, but not the contract tow vendor’s towing, storage and other fees. Vehicle owners in ten of the surveyed cities are required to pay city vehicle release or administrative fees in addition to tow, storage and other related fees charged by the tow vendor. Except for one city, Irwindale, only city fees are presented on city websites3. Tow, storage and other tow vendor fees are not presented on six of the seven cities that reported having pertinent information on their websites. Five cities have no information about towing and impound processes and fees whatsoever. Hours of operations In the survey of tow company vendors that contract with the twelve surveyed cities, various practices regarding business hours were reported. As shown in Exhibit 5.2, the most common practice for the contract vendors is to be open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday. The vendors in two cities, Huntington Park and Inglewood, are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and one city, Beverly Hills, is open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days a week. The City of Irwindale reported in their survey response that they did not have tow and impound process and fee information on their website, but a review of the city’s website found such information on a page linked to the Police Department’s home webpage. Weekend hours vary, with two cities’ vendors open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays, one open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. all weekend, one open from 8 a.m. until 12 noon on Saturdays only, three vendors closed on Saturday and five closed on Sundays. For vehicle owners attempting to retrieve their vehicles, vendors open only from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays through Fridays offer the least convenience, particularly for owners that cannot take time off from their jobs during that time or have commutes that make it difficult to get to the tow and impound facility during their hours of operation. The two cities with vendors operating 24 hours per day, Huntington Park and Inglewood, offer the greatest convenience to the public and provide an opportunity for vehicle owners to minimize their storage fees by being able to get to the facility during hours when they are not working. Similarly, the City of Beverly Hills vendor, open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. every day, provides more flexibility to vehicle owners. Weekend closures makes the vehicle retrieval process more burdensome for vehicle owners, particularly in the three cities that are only open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mondays through Fridays: Baldwin Park, Irwindale’s second of two vendors4, and West Covina. Exhibit 5.2: Business Hours Reported by Tow Vendors M-F Saturday Sunday City 24 hrs/day 8-5 7-7 24 hrs/day 8-5 7-7 8-12 Closed 24 hrs/day 8-5 7-7 Closed Baldwin Park ✓ ✓ ✓ Beverly Hills ✓ ✓ ✓ El Monte no response Glendale no response Glendora ✓ ✓ ✓ Huntington Park ✓ ✓ ✓ Inglewood (1) ✓ ✓ ✓ Inglewood (2) ✓ ✓ ✓ Irwindale (1) ✓ ✓ ✓ Irwindale (2) ✓ ✓ ✓ Montebello ✓ ✓ ✓ San Fernando no response West Covina ✓ ✓ ✓ Whittier no response TOTAL 2 7 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 5 Source: Grand Jury survey of tow and impound vendors in twelve Los Angeles County cities It should be noted that nine of the eleven contract tow vendors that responded to this survey question reported that they provide after-hours service, for a fee, if requested by the vehicle owners. The median fee reported for this service is $97. As with many aspects of the contract tow and impound services provided to the twelve surveyed cities, business operating hours vary substantially between the cities, making the same experience of retrieving a towed and impounded vehicle more burdensome in some communities compared to others. The cities do have the ability to improve the situation by requiring certain evening or weekend hours of operations for their vendors in their agreements. Vendors open from only 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days a 4 The City of Irwindale has two contract tow and impound vendors, one of which is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and the other of which is open only from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays. For vehicle owners whose vehicles are towed by the second vendor with more limited hours, the process of retrieval is much less convenient. 39 week are providing the lowest level of convenience to vehicle owners. The majority of respondents to this survey question demonstrated that many communities can and do provide a higher level of service to the public. Recommendations: 5.1 All cities should direct staff to expand the information on their city websites and in other hand out materials and posters available at city facilities to include webpages clearly designated for towed and impounded vehicle information, to include: all fees charged by both the city and the contract tow vendor(s), a description of the process for retrieving one’s vehicle, including obtaining a release from the city before visiting the tow vendor and paying their fees, and information about post storage hearing rights and fees for instances in which a vehicle owner believes their vehicles were improperly towed and/or stored. 5.2 The city councils of all cities should consider amendments to their agreements with their tow vendors to ensure that some hours of service are provided on weekday evenings and/or weekends to enable more vehicle owners to retrieve their vehicles and minimize storage fees incurred due to limited hours of tow and impound vendor operations. 40
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors has taken the first steps to address environmental oversight and monitoring by convening a task force to review oil and gas facilities compliance to regulations and requesting the Chief Executive Officer to prioritize needs in environmental health oversight and monitoring. The County will benefit from a environmental oversight and monitoring strategy that coordinates federal, state and county agencies responsible for environment oversight.
F2:
The CGJ found that environmental experts we interviewed recognize health to be a factor that needs to be included in defining many regulations. Health risk enforcement requires the expanded role and authority for public health analysis in the permitting process of land-use planning, zoning, business license, and building permits. The DPH should participate in recommending health components in compliance regulations and participating in the approval process.
F3:
Enforcement agencies have a need for more and better evidentiary data as described in the section Data and Monitoring.
F4:
The CGJ found that there is a causal relation between the conditions of “bad toxin contamination” and “bad health”. Pollution has had negative health impacts on groups of residents and is likely to have further health impacts on larger groups if it is not corrected.
F5:
The myriad of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies have compartmentalized authority be air, water or soil resulting in a silo approach to enforcement. Enforcement authority within the County is mostly uncoordinated but the DPH is trying to change that. The DPH is piloting a promising model that identifies high health risk areas using CalEnviroScreen data, identifying clusters industrial facilities that use or generate similar toxin materials. It then conducts inspection with the appropriate County, State or Federal partner agencies. A recent example of action taken by the DPH pursuant to Section 11.02.190 of the Los Angeles County Code, they exercised its’ authority to abate operations of an industrial facility that endangered public health by emitting hexavalent chromium in the city of Paramount.
F6:
The CGJ found that communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution are primarily of color, have low incomes and are under-served66, although risk to toxic exposure cuts across all levels of society and income. Overburdened communities sense a lack of environmental justice when they compared the government response times between the Porter Ranch gas leak and the Boyle Heights lead contamination. Professionals that were interviewed by the CGJ say that the public and community groups have lost trust in government agencies. Su, Jason G., etc. all. An Index for Assessing Demographic Inequities in Cumulative Environmental Hazards with Application to Los Angeles, CA. Environmental Science and Technology. 2009:43. 7626-7634 72 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F7:
The CGJ found that citizens needing to report toxic conditions affecting them had to navigate through a maze of government agencies to find the correct department with the right regulatory authority to take action. Because enforcement is fragmented by toxin or jurisdiction there currently is no central place to direct citizens to the proper regulatory authority.
F8:
Environmental justice community based organizations (CBOs) provide a counter balance to industry and government agencies. Through their investigative work and extensive local knowledge, they provide evidentiary environmental data and speak on behalf of people who live and work in high health risk communities. CBOs have views and recommendations and they need to be heard and given the opportunity to be a stakeholder partner with governmental agencies.
F9:
The opportunity to provide environmental justice to the 28 gateway cities is dependent on the outcome of the proposed I-710 Corridor Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR review is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2018. Several alternative plans in the EIR require the use of zero emission trucks. These trucks would be powered by electric motors or will receive electric power while traveling along the freight corridor via an overhead catenary distribution system.
F10:
Residential building permits continue to be issued regardless of scientific data near roadways. Studies show higher incidents of respiratory illness such as asthma and cancer for people living within 300 feet of freeway. A 2012 report from the SCAQMD estimated 1 million people live within 300 feet of a freeway.
F11:
Repeatedly, the CGJ heard from environmental subject experts and received evidence that confirms the SCAQMD environmental assessment of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. “The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the largest in the nation as well as the single largest fixed source of air pollution in Southern California”.
F12:
With regards the goods movement industries, Los Angeles County does not receive tax benefit from 40% of goods transported from the San Pedro Bay ports destined for sale outside of the County. However, the County receives the burden of pollution, costs for road repair and detrimental health risks.
F13:
Scientists and researchers use the Mates and CalEnviroScreen systems at Occidental College Urban and Environmental Policy Institute expressed their need for greater precision and transparency of the data. To the extent that a full capabilities system as described above is not immediately feasible, the system should be designed so that it maximizes capabilities that are currently feasible and is extensible to increased capabilities as they become feasible. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 73 V
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS should adopt the framework described within the document Environmental Oversight and Monitoring: Building Capacity to Address Environmental Health Threats proposed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) in December 2016.
R2:
The CEO should adequately fund the needed improvements to County preparedness, response and recovery efforts outlined in the DPH proposed environmental oversight and monitoring program titled Building Capacity to Address Environmental Health Threats.
R3:
The County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning in collaboration with DPH should revise land-use plans and zoning code as necessary to implement environmental health prevention measures.
R4:
The CEO in collaboration with DPH should review and propose revision of the regulatory authority for the DPH with regard to business licensing and building and safety permitting related to industries or projects handling toxin elements.
R5:
The BOS should implement a system that provides measured pollution data, accesses, records, creates warning alarms, and reports the levels of environmental pollution throughout the County in real time.
R6:
The DPH should conduct a regular occurring forum of County, State, and Federal environmental oversight agencies and other interested parties to include Community-Based Organizations.
R7:
The DPH should create an Environmental Pollution Ombudsman function. This Ombudsman function would provide a single point of contact between any person believing they are experiencing an environmental pollution event and a County entity able to take immediate, informed action to document and investigate the facts of the event and resolve it.
R8:
The DPH should establish the scripting to enable “211 LA County” call center representatives to make referrals to the appropriate group within DPH.
R9:
The DPH should implement a case management system to track case incident reports of suspected hazardous environmental air, ground or water conditions and make the system visible to the public.
R10:
The CEO should assign a County office with the responsibility to prepare and conduct grant writing training to CBO’s focused on environmental justice. Training should enable CBO’s to solicit grants from local, State, or Federal programs for their local environmental pollution research projects. 74 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R11:
The BOS should annually conduct an environmental justice grant competition for each of the supervisors’ district open to community based organizations.
R12:
The BOS should select a zero emission design for the I-710 Corridor Project as the best option to protect people from pollution who live and work in proximity of the I-710 corridor and set a new standard for similar future development. VI
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Supervision of Social Workers In the words of the Blue Ribbon Commission, the DCFS CSWs are “the most visible and accountable frontline practitioners,” and are “primarily responsible for case management services designed to protect children…”11 And the CSWs are in fact on the frontline. They are the ones who respond to calls alleging abuse, and who, after a consultation with their supervisors, make the decision of whether a child should be removed from his or her home. The time they spend with children and families determines the accuracy of their decision; the decision of whether a child who has been abused should stay with the family under a Voluntary Family Maintenance (VFM) plan or be removed and placed with a relative or, if necessary, in foster care. Reducing a CSW’s caseload is one step that can improve his or her performance. Recognizing this need, DCFS has hired approximately 2,100 new social workers since the BRCCP report was published in June, 2014. Important steps have been taken to ensure that the new CSWs are well trained. A DCFS “University” was built in collaboration with seven universities that have social worker programs.12 The University training includes simulation labs in which CSWs are put in situations that they might encounter when they knock at the door of a home when a child has been reported to be in distress. Praising the program, a former senior staff member of DCFS said, “Now I think workers are much better prepared to handle those situations they’re going to deal with on a real time basis.”13 But simulation labs do not replace on-the-job learning, and one critical element for a new social worker is interaction with a supervisor who has had extensive experience dealing with children and families. A DCFS Management Directive issued on 9/28/10 makes clear the importance of the Supervising Social Worker’s (SCSW’s) work in training CSWs. The Directive states that the SCSWs “have an enormous impact” on the CSW’s performance and details their responsibility for training and guidance. One key requirement in providing supervision and training is that the SCSW “accompany CSWs during their investigations or home calls on a periodic basis (no less than two occasions per year/per CSW) to provide guidance and learning opportunities for the CSW in their field work practices.14 On visits to two field offices the jurors were told that in many cases the SCSW does not make two or even one field visits per year with the social workers under their supervision during their investigations or home calls. This and other provisions of the Management Directive are not being followed; a staff member stated that the Management Directive is no longer in place and no new directive regarding the supervision of social workers has yet been issued. Los Angeles County Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protetction, p 20. L.A. Daily News, September 10, 2015. Ibid. Management Directive #MD-09-11, p.7 (f). 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 33 During their visits, the jurors also learned that another important thing is often missing when a CSW responds to a call regarding potential abuse: information about the child and family he/she is assigned to. CSWs are allowed to read the child/family files before they visit but they are not required to do so. A highly placed official at one district office stated that she thought the CSWs did so “often” but not always. The CGJ believes that if the CSWs were required to read the files before a visit they might more often recognize when the “minor” injuries they see are part of a large and terrifying pattern. More children might be spared months or years of abuse and possibly even death.
F2:
Family Finding In many states, including California, a new movement is underway to reduce the number of children being placed in congregate care and to place them instead with relatives or Non-Related Extended Family Members (NREFM). Recent changes in federal law contain strong language requiring social workers to provide documentation of efforts made to obtain a family placement.15 And the State of California has enacted amendments to the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) which provide funding and services to support children in family settings and, perhaps most importantly, establishes that when a child is placed with a relative, the relative will receive the same level of reimbursement paid to foster care providers.16 As documented by Judge Edwards in his article on engaging relatives, finding a relative placement is a time-sensitive and difficult task for a single social worker to carry out.17 Recognizing the difficulty of the task and the importance of relative care, and in response to a motion from the BOS, DCFS prepared a “Countywide Upfront Family Finding Protocol” on September 20, 2016, which includes a plan “to increase relative placements and the overall role of relatives and Non-Related Extended Family Members (NREFMs) …”18 The plan sets forth three steps for identifying relatives and engaging them in the case. The plan also proposed initiating a pilot program to take place in two DCFS regional offices and which was “tentatively scheduled” to begin in November 2016.19 The pilot program did begin in November 2016 and is underway in the district offices in Glendora and Santa Fe Springs. There are six half-time staffers working on the project in Glendora and five in Santa Fe Springs. In the pilot program the search for relatives begins immediately after a child is removed from the home. The staffers interview family members to 15 Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, (H.R. 4980) 16 California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11462. http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/welfare-and-institutions- code/wic-sect-11462.html 17 “Among her other duties she has to provide services that will prevent the need for removal, ensure that the child is safe, explain to the parents what is happening and why, identify and engage relatives and prepare reports for any proceeding which will occur in a day or two.” Leonard Edwards, “How to Improve Outcomes for Abused and Neglected Children: Engaging relatives Early”, The Bench, Summer 2016, p29 18 County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services, Response to the May 31, 2016 Board Motion (Item No. 5) On a Countywide Upfront Family Finding Protocol, September 30, 2016, and attachment 19 Ibid. Attachment, p. 9 34 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT establish a family tree and typically send out 20-30 letters to relatives to notify them about the child who is seeking a home. The letters are sent one or two days after the initial detention. Before the pilot was in place the relative search typically took a year or more, but in the pilot project there is a ninety-day turnaround.20 The (OCP) has been closely involved in the pilot project and meets with the project staff monthly. A senior staff official at the OCP strongly believes that placing a child with a relative (as opposed to foster care) will improve his/her chance for success after leaving the foster care system. The officer is hopeful that the success achieved by the pilot project, which in early months has resulted in close to 80% of placements with relatives in Santa Fe Springs, can be rolled out countywide and increase relative placements by 10 to 20%.
F3:
Providing Medical Services There are six Medical Hubs in L.A. County run by the County Department of Health Services (DHS). These Hubs provide medical screening and services to children who might otherwise never be seen by a health care provider. In the last six months of 2016, a total of 15,582 children were referred to a Hub by DCFS and actually came to their appointment. Most of these children received an initial medical examination. Others who appear to have suffered from physical abuse received a forensic examination. Unfortunately, a report for Medical Hub visits for fiscal year 2016/2017 also shows that in a large number of cases the child did not show up for a scheduled appointment.21 The “no show” rate is distressingly high: it ranges from 14.7% at the LAC-USC Hub to 25.9% at Martin Luther King, Jr. and 29.1% at the Hub in the East San Gabriel Valley.22 The Hubs see a large number of children who act out, are unable to cooperate, and have been in multiple placements. The Hubs are working on ways to connect these children with mental health providers, and to arrange for a home visit by a therapist as needed. There is a Community Mental Health Center, run by a private non-profit group that is adjacent to the LAC-USC Hub and is able to provide continuing mental health care to the difficult and hard-to-place children. Another group of children requiring mental health care are those who suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which can result in growth abnormalities and learning disorders. These children are well served at the Community Mental Health Center. The six Hub clinics are stationed around the County of Los Angeles. Unfortunately, not all of the clinics are adequately staffed. The LAC-USC Hub has a staff of nine physicians and 10 nurse practitioners but the clinic in East San Gabriel Valley has only one physician and two nurse practitioners. Senior staff stated that this clinic, along with some others, needs additional staff. Interview with pilot program staff. L.A. County Department of Health Services, 1/09/2017, Medical Hub Visits, Fiscal Year 2016/2017 22 Ibid. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 35
F4:
Finding a Place for “Hard to Place” Children The DCFS is responsible for a large number of “high-risk” children who are difficult to place. Twice a month the OCP convenes a Transitional Shelter Care (TSC) meeting which brings together members of multiple agencies as well as non-profit groups that are dedicated to child welfare.23 The TSC pilot program puts together a team to help prepare a high-risk child for placement. A recent TSC meeting, attended by jurors, profiled a 14-year-old girl, “Jane Doe,” who had been in and out of the court system since the age of six. She had had 17 placements in group homes, foster homes, and relative placements. At the time of the meeting Jane Doe was currently living at one of the six TSC facilities run by the DCFS Division of Shelter Care. Jane Doe is not the only “high risk” child in need of a placement. Staff estimates that at any given time there are approximately 900 children with difficult behavioral and mental health needs who have been removed from their homes. To assist these children (i.e. to find them a home or at least a bed) DCFS established an Accelerated Placement Team (APT) within the Division of Transitional Shelter care.(TSC). The APT team focuses on a number of critical placement issues, including placement for children leaving a hospital and children in “shelter care” (with a limited stay of 72 hours). The APT is currently staffed by nine SCSWs and two Eligibility Social Workers. The number of children referred to the APT varies from day to day— in many cases children who have left placement because the caregiver is unable to deal with their behavior. Of those referred to APT, most will go to a TSC facility to stay for up to 72 hours before being placed. Approximately 12% of these children are very high risk, with a history of sexual exploitation or having been severely molested. Many overstay the 72-hour limit. Every child in a TSC shelter receives a medical screening at the VIP Hub in the LAC+USC medical center, and each child is linked to a mental health field worker. The APT is also part of the pilot program established by the OCP to provide services to the very high risk children, those who have exceeded 72 hours at a TSC facility or 30 days in an Emergency Care shelter. A child who agrees to join the OCP pilot program receives care from a mental health team including a CSW and a SCSW who meet with the child to identify the behaviors that impede the child’s progress and what triggers them. By identifying the “triggers” and working with the ultimate caregiver, the team increases the chance of a final successful placement.24 23 The participants at a TSC meeting on March 20, 2017, attended by civil grand jury members, included staff from the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS), the Department of Mental Health (DMH) the Department of Health Services, Probation, County Counsel, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), Children’s Law Center of California (CLC), Mental Health Advocacy Team (MHAT), and the Alliance for Children’s Rights. Interview with APT staff. 36 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT V
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The DCFS should prepare and implement a new Management Directive for Supervising Social Workers which would require that Supervising Children’s Social Workers have hands- on supervision of their assigned Children’s Social Workers in the field and on home visits, at least twice yearly.
R2:
The DCFS should make finding a relative to care for a child that has been removed from his or her home a first priority, and ensure that a search for relatives is initiated within 30 days following a child’s detention.
R3:
The DCFS should keep records of missed Hub appointments, and when an appointment is missed, require that the Supervising Social Worker ensures that the appointment is rescheduled and that the child is taken to the Hub.
R4:
The DCFS should require that each Children’s Social Worker, prior to his or her first three visits to a child or a child’s home, read the child/family file and sign off that the file has been read. DCFS should track and enforce compliance with this rule.
R5:
The DCFS should develop a plan to ensure that all children in Transitional Shelter Care receive mental health screening, and if appropriate, receive continuing mental health care.
R6:
The OCP should define and adopt measures of success for the performance of DCFS, and require quarterly reports from DCFS on its performance with respect to those measures. VI
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The CGJ’s study is only an approximate gauge but the resulting numbers are found to be significant enough to justify a formal audit. Potential County Annual Savings Percent of cellular users who have a desk phone and relinquish it. Annual Savings from relinquishing desk phone 20% relinquishment $ 480,000 33% relinquishment $ 792,000 50% relinquishment $1,200,000 122 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F2:
Given the growth trend in the use of mobile telephone technology, guidelines for managers would be advantageous to help them decide whether there is no longer a need for a landline when an employee has been issued a cellular phone.
F3:
The County employee population is approximately 100,000 and it operates 140,000 landlines. There is a potential for part of the 40,000 hard wired miscellaneous functions to shift to wireless communication.
F4:
Internal Services Department’s (ISD) Expense Management System (EMS) reduces the disarray associated with handling, reviewing and approving monthly paper telephone bills that were previously delivered by telephone service providers. This system can handle both cellular and landline phone bills.
F5:
Subscription to EMS is currently voluntary by each department. By having all departments subscribe to this system the County will possess a centralized inventory for cellular phones. EMS can be modified to track stipend phones.
F6:
ISD is working to convert from legacy PBX and Centrex technology to VoIP where possible to reduce costs. PBX is being phased out as a communication technology in the telecommunication industry.
F7:
The single estimated monthly average landline charge to the County departments is $12.50.
F8:
Implementation of a stipend program can reduce cellular phone costs for the County based on the results of Phase I and II pilot programs. A stipend program allows employees to use a personal cellular device in lieu of a County-issued device as a cost-effective option. The Phase II pilot demonstrated savings of up to 25% when compared to the cost of a cellular phone purchased from a telephone carrier approved by the County.
F9:
Security concerns regarding County Data residing on private devices and the County’s ability to wipe data remotely due to a device being lost or stolen is to be addressed. The storage and retrieval of information subject to the California Public Records Act should be addressed.22,23 Implementation of a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy and associated technical solution is in development and is a prerequisite to rolling out a stipend program.
F10:
The County’s monthly cost for a smartphone is approximately $52.50 for those procured through ISD. These smartphones are the previous years’ models with voicemail service, capped pooled minutes/data/unlimited text. The County pays the sales tax on the retail price of the phone and incurs the cost of loss or breakage. California Government Code, Sec. 6250, et seq. City of San Jose v. Superior Court (Smith), No S218066, March 2017.Re. conduct of public business on personal account may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 123
F11:
The County has established appropriate policies identified in Board Policy 3.16024 and Fiscal Manual Reference 4.725 for managing cellular phones.
F12:
There is no centralized procurement policy for cellular phones. Some departments negotiate their own agreements though this service is available from the County ISD. This is permissible providing they acquire services at rates available through County master agreements negotiated by ISD.
F13:
Based on technology trends26, the County workplace of the future will likely see a continuous growth in use of mobile devices with the expectation that costs will be off-set with measured increase of productivity. V
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Auditor-Controller should conduct an audit to quantify cost savings from eliminating cellular/ landline redundancy, where possible, when these devices are assigned to the same person.
R2:
The Auditor-Controller should recommend guidelines for determining when a landline should be eliminated or shared by two or more employees.
R3:
The Internal Services Department should modify the inventory process for tracking 40,000 landlines dedicated to miscellaneous functions like elevators, alarms and facsimile to flag devices that will be converted to wireless communication.
R4:
The Chief Executive Office should require all departments to use the Internal Service Department Expense Management System (EMS) to ensure all cellphones are tracked, monitored and cost-controlled.
R5:
The Chief Executive Office should seek approval of the Board of Supervisor to implement a County Cellular Phone and Data Stipend Program and associated Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy.
R6:
The Chief Executive Office should require that cyber security and information subject to the California Public Records Act be addressed in a stipend phone policy.
R7:
The Chief Executive Office should initiate a project to determine how to track stipend phones. BOS Policy Manual 25 See County of Los Angeles Fiscal Manual Section 4.7.0 Cellular Telephone and Other Wireless Data Devices Usage Policy: footnote 7 26 Forbes Magazine February 27, 2015 Niall McCarthy 124 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R8:
The Internal Services Department should modify the Expense Management System to track and inventory stipend phones. VI
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Flood control is imperative. The importance of absolutely preventing floods from the Los Angeles River persists to this day. Nothing should be done that compromises this function, which is well-served by the current River configuration.
F2:
There have been many disparate plans and planning efforts. Since the idea of Los Angeles River revitalization was launched by Lewis MacAdams and his Friends of the Los Angeles River (FOLAR) Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in 1986, there have been recurrences of planning efforts aimed at making concepts into reality. Some small, disparate projects may have resulted from these plans. However, no plan has reached full implementation. This is due to high cost and competing non-river interests.
F3:
There have been multiple independent actions. Even now River revitalization efforts are fragmented and not well coordinated. This is true for both planning efforts and actual small-scale implementations.
F4:
There is a move to integrated, systematic planning. There are calls for a systematic, integrated approach in River revitalization coming from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the RiverLA Non-Governmental Organization.
F5:
Progress has been limited by the high costs and limited resources. Planning has not been converted to implementation because of the extremely high cost of doing something significant to the River. As usual, high costs are met with limited (public) resources. 140 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F6:
Lewis MacAdams, Founder of Friends of the Los Angeles River (FOLAR), has referred to the Los Angeles River as his “50 year artwork”. Since a comprehensive implementation is too expensive, attention has turned to subsets of the plans which may be opportunistically affordable. Waiting for the pieces to be assembled into the whole greatly slows completion. When MacAdams referenced his “50 year artwork” with respect to river revitalization he seems to have gotten it right. Working on sections of the river at a time also risks not achieving a satisfying unified whole.
F7:
What are the public’s interests in the Los Angeles River? The plans we have reviewed seem to have posited the public interests and their priorities. There may have been efforts that we are unaware of to solicit these from the actual public. The posited public interests may turn out to be the actual public interest. We are not able to assert either of these possibilities as true based on our investigation. V
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should publicly develop and periodically review a catalog of public interests and priorities for the overall (51 mile) Los Angeles River revitalization. These should be widely published. The following are likely to be amongst the most supported interests: Flood Control Public Safety Water Quality Water Conservation Ecological Recovery Recreational Opportunities Impacts on Existing Adjoining Communities Long-term Economic Development
R2:
The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works while collaboratively revising the Master Plan for Los Angeles River Revitalization should include support the catalog of public interests, once it is created. The resulting Master Plan should govern any River sub-developments.
R3:
The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, working with the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group and the City of Los Angeles, should identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
R4:
The Lower Los Angeles River Working Group, working with the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles should identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
R5:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, working with the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group should 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 141 identify priorities and funding opportunities for river development for incremental River revitalization within the overall plan developed in 2 above.
R6:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
R7:
The Lower Los Angeles River Working Group should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
R8:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should include the agreed upon public interest catalog as a requirement for revitalization plans.
R9:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should include a specifically-native flora and fauna riparian experience section within its “Alternative 20” implementation emulating the original Los Angeles River ecology. VI
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Homelessness is an issue affecting virtually every community within the County. Unfortunately, there is a stigma associated with homelessness. In reality every homeless person has a unique story and set of circumstances associated with their situation. Police departments are aware of this situation and some have dedicated teams devoted to assisting the homeless population.
F2:
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) is a joint powers authority of the City and the County of Los Angeles created to address the problems of homelessness in the County. On February 2, 2016, the County Board of Supervisors approved LAHSA’s County Homeless Initiative’s set of 47 comprehensive strategies to combat homelessness. These include First Responders Training (Strategy E.4) for law enforcement, fire departments, and paramedics throughout the County.
F3:
Some local police departments have specialized units that connect the homeless to local agencies offering supportive services. Examples include: Long Beach Police Department’s Quality of Life Unit; Pasadena Police Department’s Homeless Outreach Psychiatric Evaluation team; and Santa Monica Police Department’s Homeless Liaison Program.
F4:
Police officers are showing compassion for homeless people. They are coordinating with local social service providers and accommodating homeless people who create nuisance crimes in order to get cleaned up and receive a meal. As an example, during a detention visit to one police station, jurors were told of a particular homeless person who would periodically urinate in the lobby in order to get checked into the station. There were officers at other police stations that also stated they had certain homeless people that would check in on a regular basis.
F5:
Some city police departments may be unnecessarily weeding out ex-military personnel during the recruitment process. This is because some cities want to avoid the risk of these individuals being accused of having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and incur undue legal damages. On the other hand, the CGJ was informed by leadership within the Sheriff’s Department their staff is comprised of approximately 25% ex-military personnel. It appears the mental health screening portion of the hiring process may be arbitrarily disqualifying otherwise qualified applicants. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 161 VI
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority should review the specialized care units within the Long Beach, Pasadena, and Santa Monica Police Department to identify best practices to incorporate into first responders training materials as an overall part of the County’s Continuum of Care.
R2:
The Los Angeles Police Department should increase manpower in the Rampart Division. VII
R3:
Lancaster Sheriff’s Station Alice Beener Facilitator Ronnie Dann-Honor
R4:
Los Angeles Police Department, Rampart Community Police Station Dorothy Brown Patrick Lyons
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Examples of Los Angeles County Sustainability Successes and Need for Coordination There are many examples within Los Angeles County of the successful adoption of the sustainability principle in governance. For this report we examined the plans of four cities. Each has formal plan documents that define the areas of sustainability they address and provide measurable goals. These goals are regularly evaluated to determine progress and allow corrective action. The goals of sustainability plans are applied to other government plans and actions for implementation. The CGJ endorses the current plans of Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Glendale. Other governmental entities may also have plans. Because of the disparate paths to sustainability followed by the cities, there are some inconsistencies in these plans (Appendix 1).
F2:
Sustainability Encouragement from the State The State of California has offered significant support for sustainability.38 Prime examples are in the state’s legislation encouraging the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and increasing renewable energy sources. There are many more specific cases in which the state has acted to facilitate sustainability practices.
F3:
Foundation for Sustainability Principle is Not Firm The CGJ found that the plans are not built upon a strong foundation. We believe this exposes the plans to legal and political challenges that otherwise could be avoided. Lacking a strong foundation limits how enforcement can be performed. An example demonstrating this is that the City of Los Angeles’ pLAn relies on Mayor Garcetti’s intention to include sustainability goal performance in the personnel evaluations of his managers. While this can be effective for the City of Los Angeles and its current mayor, there is no assurance that the next mayor will be as active in favor of sustainability.
F4:
Differences between Federal and California Sustainability Policies The Federal government is in the process of changing its policies regarding sustainability. A recent example is the setting aside of the Clean Power Plan executive order.39 40 The County of Los Angeles’ support for sustainability may be challenged where it depends upon Federal collaboration. 38 https://www.kcet.org/redefine/lots-of-new-environmental-laws-in-california 39 “Will sustainability survive a Trump presidency” - http://www.tgdaily.com/science/will-sustainability-survive- a-trump-presidency 40 https://www.theguardian.com › Environment › Trump administration 178 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F5:
The Climate Change Threat Has Not Caused “Emergency” Action in the County of Los Angeles The warnings on the results of humankind-caused climate change are daunting.41 “Emergency” local programs that deal specifically with reducing greenhouse gases may be appropriate even while complete sustainability plans are in development.
F6:
Successful Drought Response but Needs Follow Up As discussed in Section II, the recent drought in California has caused a set of emergency response programs to reduce water consumption throughout Los Angeles County. This is a positive example of emergency actions taken on a sustainability issue. However, because Southern California has a persistent semi-arid climate, the temporary drought actions taken are appropriate as long-term policies. In addition, because of the large amounts of energy required to import or desalinize water, their extensive use may not be sustainable. V
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly should continue to build upon sustainability success examples by creating and leading a countywide Sustainability Working Group (SWG) including all governing entities of the County.
R2:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should complete the set of governing entity-specific sustainability plans covering the entire County.
R3:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should identify interdependencies between plan elements and working group member entities.
R4:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should use existing plans to create reusable plan templates.
R5:
The City of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer and the County of Los Angeles Chief Sustainability Officer jointly leading the SWG should create a public awareness campaign demonstrating the practical value of the sustainability principle in governance.
R6:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should fully exploit California state resources supporting sustainability by coordinating their sustainability plans with State guidance. Climate Change: What Everyone Should Know. Joseph Romm, Oxford University Press, 2016 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 179
R7:
The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council should fully exploit California state resources supporting sustainability by coordinating their sustainability plans with State guidance.
R8:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should lobby the State for additional sustainability support.
R9:
The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council should lobby the State for additional sustainability support.
R10:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should strengthen the sustainability principle in governance in law, standards, and policies and with suitable enforcement mechanisms.
R11:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should adopt strategies in combination with the State and other agreeable governing entities to ensure sustainable practices despite uncertainties in sustainability support from the Federal government.
R12:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should pursue policies that reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions in the County given the global climate change risks. For example, specify electric vehicles and renewable-based charging infrastructure whenever feasible and require renewable energy sources for government consumption.
R13:
The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should pursue policies that reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions in the City given the global climate change risks. For example, specify electric vehicles and renewable-based charging infrastructure whenever feasible and require renewable energy sources for government consumption.
R14:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should continue water conservation measures put in place for recent drought as a sustainable long term policy for the semi- arid Southern California climate.
R15:
The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should continue water conservation measures put in place for recent drought as a sustainable long term policy for the semi-arid Southern California climate.
R16:
The County of Los Angeles Board of should minimize dependence on imported and/or desalinized water because of the large amounts of energy they require.
R17:
The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power should minimize dependence on imported and/or desalinized water of the large amounts of energy they require. 180 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT VI
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
In considering videoconferencing, the stakeholders only focused on costs. In addressing the costs/benefit question of videoconferencing, the stakeholder representatives on the PEMC gave only fleeting attention to the issues of safety, cost avoidance, and inmate condition. The PEMC ignored the legacy of prior and ongoing videoconferencing efforts in the County. Clearly the stakeholders were unable to come to an agreement about how to implement an arraignment program, including the oversight to calculate the payback periods for such an investment. In 2009 the CCJCC looked into the possibility of hiring a consulting firm and issued a Request for Proposal but the request failed to attract any bids.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS should retain a competent management and consulting firm to implement the 2009- 2010 CGJ recommendations to develop a county videoconferencing hub system that could be the platform for video arraignments and appearances. (Findings 1, 10, 19, 20, 21, 14, 21, 22)
F2:
Busing is expensive The estimated annual inmate transportation cost for 2016-2017 in the County is estimated to be $63 million. This cost estimate reflects labor, equipment (buses, vans), maintenance, repair, and fuel. The average cost to transport inmates is $89/trip or $29/mile. The estimated annual cost for one bus to move inmates from detention facilities to and from local courts is $1.6 million annually. The average number of inmates transported to local courts is 723,000 annually. The costs for transportation equipment and maintenance will continue to rise while the purchase cost of video systems will remain constant or decrease with relatively stable maintenance. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 263
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
The Sheriff should recommend the location of a courthouse adjacent to the new MCJ to be completed in 2024-2025. (Findings 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 22)
R8:
The BOS should recommend the location of a courthouse adjacent to the new MCJ to be completed in 2024-2025. (Findings 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 22)
F3:
Busing is labor intensive, affecting costs The Sheriff’s Transportation Bureau has a staff of 288 people that manages inmate transportation from local holding and county detention facilities to courts in Los Angeles County. It is part of the Court Services Division with a staff of 2,032 and a budget of $306 million.
F4:
Busing is inefficient, affecting costs
F5:
Scheduling court appearances affects operating costs It takes a day to prepare and deliver inmates to court for a court hearing using expensive equipment and significant manpower, whereas a video arraignment would only take an hour to arrange at any time of the day using regular custody staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Sheriff should contract with an experienced and competent management consulting company familiar with Law and Justice practices to review the Sheriff’s data collection and management capabilities and its ability to produce a wide variety of management reports quickly. It should also examine means to improve the interface with the LA City and court systems. The review should recommend upgrades and replacement of existing data management programs as well as indicate the necessary time, material and staff resources to accomplish this improvement. (Findings 5, 6, 14)
F6:
The Sheriff’s data collection and data management systems are substandard for the size and complexity of the organization. A number of times the CGJ requested standard operations reports that had to be created manually. These “one-of” reports take too much time and reflect a substandard data management system.
F7:
Busing of inmates invites violence not seen in secure detention and courthouse settings Holding cell incidents increased by 58% and courtroom incidents increased by 72% during the past five years. 8. “Use of Force” action is extremely rare but may be necessary if an inmate refuses to leave a cell. Occasionally, the action is preempted by using videoconferencing to conduct a court hearing. 9. “Keep-Aways” are bused with other inmates but segregated before, during transport and in court holding cells. A Sheriff’s survey conducted in two different months showed that 29% and 38% of inmates required special handling, including gang members, sexual orientation, high security inmates, mentally ill inmates, and violent inmates. This suggests that about one-third of the inmates may be problematic during transport. 10. “Medical No-Go’s” and physically handicapped inmates are bused to court. During a previous attempt to test the viability of video arraignments, “Medical No-Go’s” were identified as primary candidates for video arraignments. Ironically, “Medical No-Go” patients were one of the first categories of inmates to be deleted from the 2010-2011 pilot 264 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT project. Inmates are transported to court regardless of their physical or mental condition. Medical “No-Go’s” are transported to court by ambulance with the assistance of two emergency medical technicians. The inmate, on a gurney with medical assistants, is kept in the secure inmate holding area, for minutes or hours, awaiting the court appearance. After completion of the court appearance, the inmate is returned to the loading area for the return trip to the hospital or detention facility.
F11:
Busing exacerbates the condition of inmates diagnosed with mental health problems If mentally ill inmates are released by the court, they must return to their detention facility in order to be evaluated by mental health professionals before they can be released. Videoconferencing would eliminate that problem if the inmate had remained at the original detention facility. The number of inmates diagnosed with mental health problems is significant. In discussions with mental health professionals and a senior Sheriff’s official, the estimate is about 33% of the inmate population is diagnosed as mentally ill. Mental health professionals have used videoconferencing for telepsychiatric evaluations and consultations.
F12:
Busing contributes to traffic congestion The fleet of 118 Sheriff’s buses and vehicles exacerbates Los Angeles traffic congestion, which has the worst traffic congestion of any major metropolitan area in the world.
F13:
Busing contributes to air pollution The fleet of 118 vehicles includes 87 buses which use diesel fuel. Although Sheriff’s buses are equipped with emission control devices to mitigate the effect of diesel exhaust, the effects have not been entirely eliminated. Diesel fumes and particulates have been identified as the primary source of nitrogen oxide emissions in Southern California and are a main contributor to air pollution in the County. According to the SCAQMD, air pollution affects our respiratory and cardiovascular health. It is reported that the Los Angeles County area has the worst air pollution condition in the nation.
F14:
The Sheriff transports inmates to court without evidence of a completed case filing On many occasions, inmates are bused to court for arraignment with the expectation that charges will be filed by the DA or City Attorney before the 48-hour deadline. In 2016, a Sheriff survey reported that 18% of inmates who had been arrested by LAPD were bused to court for arraignment and were released due to insufficient information to prosecute. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 265
F15:
LAPD’s Inadequate video conferencing facilities
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
LAPD Chief of Police should implement Recommendation #4 of the 2009-2010 CGJ70 in order to facilitate the operation of a videoconferencing program with particular attention to ensuring privacy for defendant and attorney conferences. (Finding 15)
F16:
LAPD requires a long time to complete discoveries in narcotics cases In 2011 the LAPD declined to join a video arraignment program because the time for completing discoveries for narcotics cases was longer than the stakeholders could agree go. As a large arresting agency potentially contributing the largest number of cases, it caused the project to be aborted.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
The Sheriff should renegotiate its contract with LAPD to not transport inmates without proof of a completed case filing with the court. (Findings 16, 17, 18)
R6:
The Los Angeles City Attorney should make sure that a case filing is complete before an arrestee is transported to court. (Findings 16, 17) 69 Orange County Court, Santa Ana, Interview with Bench, 3/13/17 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 267
R10:
LAPD should expedite the discovery process for misdemeanor narcotic cases in order to participate in video arraignments. (Finding 16) VI
F17:
A large percentage of LAPD arrestees have been transported to court without a completed case filing.
F18:
Many cases are filed during the day of court appearance Many cases are filed early each court day, causing a slow morning calendar and crowded afternoon calendar. During several visits to Dept. 30, the CGJ noticed that few cases were disposed of before noon. On one day, 6 cases were disposed by 10:10 am; by 11:30 am the number increased to 17, while the day’s calendar showed a schedule of 108 cases. In the meantime, attorneys were lined up in front of the Court Clerk with completed filings for that day’s calendar. The DA noted that the paperwork for many cases was completed between 8:00 am and 2:00 pm on the day of appearance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The DA should implement a Swing Shift (Noon to 8:00 pm) within the Charge Evaluation Division to process late case filings, thereby avoiding the release of inmates from court for incomplete filings. (Finding 18)
F19:
Nationwide, law and justice stakeholders report favorable results from videoconferencing A wide range of favorable reports by the Judicial Council and The Council of State Courts, and numerous articles, describe a range of legal procedures that warrant video-conferencing, principle among them being arraignments and preliminary hearings. Arraignments were identified as the most favored application for videoconferencing in the 1992 Los Angeles County Strategic Videoconferencing Plan. Another application among the top five options for videoconferencing was a “defendant/defender” application which was implemented by the Public Defender program.
F20:
In September of 2009, at a meeting of the CCJCC, the PD reiterated its longtime support to implement video arraignments. The PD is already actively using video visitation and videoconferencing for inmates.
F21:
Stakeholder reticence is an impediment in changing practices and using new technology A lack of stakeholder commitment has been a problem for establishing and sustaining a video arraignment program, as evidenced in the PEMC pilot program conducted in 2010 as part of a state-wide initiative to test video arraignments. The most recent effort by stakeholders 266 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT concluded that the system “was not broken” and recommended continuing the antiquated and expensive process of transporting inmates to courts.
F22:
Locating a court adjacent to or inside a detention facility With few exceptions, detention facilities and courthouses are in locations remote from one another. It requires extended trips and security measures to transport inmates to court for a hearing that is often short and perfunctory. Co-locating the court and jail captures the advantage of videoconferencing, but makes the administrative process even more efficient and gives more flexibility in scheduling appearances. In 2009, Orange County created an in-custody arraignment court inside its main county jail complex that holds 1,400 male inmates and 400 female inmates.69 This arrangement offers the advantages of videoconferencing, but adds the flexibility for the court to multitask on different hearings simultaneously. V
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
The County is mandated to “weigh or measure packages, containers, or amounts of commodities sold or in the process of delivery. . .”27 in order to protect our citizenry from unscrupulous packagers of commodities.
F2:
Due to lack of funding, Weights & Measures is unable to adequately perform package inspections, as required by California Business & Professions §12211.
F3:
Extremely small sampling inspections, by Weights & Measures have revealed gross package shortages.
F4:
In order to properly protect our consumers, Weights & Measures needs to perform a one day inspection annually at every business location within the County that packs, imports, warehouses or distributes more than 10,000 packages or containers per year. California Business and Professions Code §12211 276 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F5:
Weights & Measures currently has only two Quantity Control Inspectors. This is inadequate to protect our population of 10 million. The Department needs to add at least 10 more Quantity Control Inspectors.
F6:
All surrounding counties in the State are meeting their mandated obligations under California Business & Professions Code §12211. These counties have ordinances in place which allow them to raise revenue to pay for the cost of their package inspection programs28.
F7:
The County needs to have a Package Inspection Program which will assure that inspections are done on a regular basis so as to protect the consumers of Los Angeles County. A Package Inspection Program needs to be funded in order to have the necessary personnel on staff to carry it out.
F8:
Weights & Measures has previously attempted to have an ordinance created which would allow for a package permit registration and tariff to be required by every “identified location”. County Counsel opined that the County is prohibited from creating such an ordinance per Government Code §54985(c)(4). The CGJ believes that interpretation of §54985(c)(4) needs to be revisited in light of findings 6, 9 and 10.
F9:
Los Angeles County Department of Agriculture and the Department of Weights & Measures were separate departments until they merged in 1984. Each of these departments stands independently as to functions and statutory mandates.
F10:
The Agriculture Commissioner in Los Angeles County wears two hats: (1) “Agriculture Commissioner” and (2) “Director of Weights and Measures” also known as the “County Sealer”. This occurred as a result of the 1984 merger of the two County Departments of Agriculture and Weights & Measures. Although together they are one department today, the two Bureaus stand independently as to functions and statutory mandates.
F11:
Currently Weights & Measures is responsible for their own outreach on packaging shortages. Weights & Measures has the information available on their website. This Department is virtually unknown to the public, hence there are almost no complaints regarding quantity issues or discrepancies. There is no active outreach exposing this issue to consumers. The CGJ believes that with proper exposure to the issue of shortages, public support would skyrocket, hence reining in the abuses that are occurring by packagers.
F12:
Consumer & Business Affairs does not provide outreach or information regarding commodity packaging shortages to the public. Consumer & Business Affairs does provide information on pricing inconsistencies and is mandated by County Ordinance to take the 28 San Bernardino County Code of Ordinances Title 4 Chap 22 §41.2201(a)-§41.2211, and §16.0201(d)(2); Santa Barbara County Code of Ordinances Chapter 34c, Sec 34c-1 to Sec 34c-10; Riverside County Ordinance No. 832 in its entirety; Ventura County Ordinance Art 9.5§6297-1 to 6297-7 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 277 reins during emergencies to provide outreach relative to price gouging. In the opinion of the CGJ the correct department to handle the outreach on commodity packaging shortage issues is Consumer & Business Affairs.
F13:
The County’s Help Line 211 and the City of Los Angeles Information Services 311 do not have information regarding packaging shortages and registering complaints in their databases. The CGJ believes this information needs to be supplied to both services so that residents of the County can be properly directed to the correct department.
F14:
Los Angeles County Code of Ordinance Chapter 8.08 covers “Consumer Commodity Retail Pricing”. Section 8.08.040(B) codifies the remedy an individual has against an establishment due to a violation of item pricing laws. There is no similar ordinance for violations of packaging shortages. Consumers of Los Angeles County have a right to have their remedy for package shortages codified so as to pursue an action on their own.
F15:
Los Angeles County Code of Ordinance Section 8.08.040(B) codifies the remedy an individual has against an establishment due to a violation of item pricing laws, e.g. $50. This ordinance was last updated in 1980 and should currently be brought in line with 2017 dollars, which is $147.82.29
F16:
Jurisdiction for pursuing consumer lawsuits relative to packaging shortages is equally shared by the State, counties and cities. Since the prosecuting agency that chooses to handle a case is solely based on the commitment and dedication of that agency toward consumer protection, the CGJ feels that Weights & Measures should seek all legal avenues in referring out cases. Data Management System
F17:
Weights & Measures does not have a data management system in use by their field inspectors. Approximately 83% of field inspector’s time can be saved writing inspection reports. This would save the County money in labor and allow the Department to hire more field inspectors with the savings. VI
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should establish an ordinance creating a mandatory “Package Permit Registration.” The funds collected will enhance the fiscal strength and long term financing needed to allow Weights & Measures to create a “cost neutral” Package Inspection Program which will allow quantity inspections at regular intervals in order to protect the consumers of Los Angeles County. 29 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl 278 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R2:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should direct Consumer and Business Affairs, after consulting with Weights & Measures, to assume responsibility of oversight for consumer outreach and complaints, relative to quantity control and package shortages.
R3:
Weights & Measures, after consulting with Consumer and Business Affairs, should direct both the County’s Help Line 211 and the City of Los Angeles Information Services 311 to include quantity control and package shortages information as part of their database and referral system and supply supporting information.
R4:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should amend Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances Section 8.08.040(B) to include package shortages in addition to item pricing violations or, in the alternative, create a new ordinance giving consumers a remedy at law to pursue actions on an individual basis for package shortages.
R5:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should amend Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances Section 8.08.040(B) raising the financial remedy an individual has against an establishment due to a violation of item pricing laws from $50 to $150, thereby bringing the 1980 dollar amount in line with 2017 Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Inflation Rate.
R6:
Weights & Measures should refer cases which grossly violate IRQ Statements to all prosecuting agencies within the County, including all City Attorneys. This allows maximum exposure of consumer fraud and misrepresentation.
R7:
Weights & Measures should conduct a cost benefit analysis to ensure and justify the purchase/licensing of a data management system as it relates to their field inspection programs, as this will enhance service delivery and increase efficiency. VII
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The affordable housing shortage is a crisis that affects all residents in the County of Los Angeles The majority of County residents are negatively affected by the current gross housing shortage. These range from the 47,000 homeless people to wage earners who must spend an unaffordable 60+% of their incomes on housing to the 1.6M people currently without suitable housing to professionals who compromise their spending priorities to work in the County of Los Angeles.
F2:
Existing approaches are expanding housing stock but have proven inadequate. The following approaches to creating new housing have been tried but are not adequate for correcting the County housing shortage: Private housing developments, subsidized housing developments, public housing stock, subsidized rent, and affordable unit set asides.
F3:
Negative repercussions from the affordable housing crisis on the County’s economy are already present and are likely to increase without corrective action.69
F4:
The “housing first” paradigm may be extended and improved by adding a “shelter first/housing next” component. A commitment to humane, safe, and temporary shelter for all those who would otherwise be “homeless” can be an effective and economical precursor to the County’s praiseworthy “housing first” commitment.
F5:
Interests opposed to a housing supply expansion are powerful and are culturally and financially motivated.70 To correct the housing shortage, NIMBY-ism, unrestricted short term housing, real estate investors, established homeowners, etc., all must be addressed. 69 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-growth-nation-20160927-snap-story.html 70 http://uccs.ucdavis.edu/uccs-crre-housing-policy-brief-white-paper 14 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F6:
There are a number of alternative approaches for new housing that promise high quality at lower cost.
F7:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been misused as a tool for NIMBY purposes. CEQA is good and necessary but can probably be improved to provide its intended purpose without some of the unintended uses it has spawned.
F8:
Short-term rentals are increasing the housing shortage.
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should formally declare the Los Angeles County housing shortage a crisis.
R2:
The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council, should formally declare that the Los Angeles City housing shortage is a crisis.
R3:
(=> apartments) to R1 (=> single family residences). Mission Impossible: Meeting California’s Housing Challenge, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), October 2016-Foreword-Illustration2. Housing in the Los Angeles Sustainability Plan. Bloomberg Associates, August 13, 2014, p.7-8. Mission Impossible: Meeting California’s Housing Challenge, SCAG, October 2016-Foreword-Illustration2. 11 https://www.lahsa.org/homeless-count/reports 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 3 Current Provisions for Housing in Los Angeles County The Southern California Housing Marketplace
R4:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should adopt a “shelter first/housing next” extension to “housing first” paradigm to speed eliminating street homelessness. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 15
R5:
The City of Los Angeles Mayor and City Council should adopt a “shelter first/housing next” extension to the “housing first” paradigm to speed eliminating street homelessness.
R6:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to educate/incentivize against “NIMBY – ism.”
R7:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should consider early purchase of land around proposed transport facilities, as defined by METRO, to reserve it for affordable housing.
R8:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should lobby the California State Governor and Legislature to prevent the misuse of CEQA to delay and kill projects beyond its legitimate purpose.
R9:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should restrict, by law, conversion of housing to short term rentals.
R10:
The City of Los Angeles should restrict, by law, conversion of housing to short term rentals. VI
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
28 findings
F1:
Pattern of inebriated inmates held in sobering cell beyond 6 hours without approval of watch commander or transfer to hospital
F2:
Jail Log is handwritten, with confusing and unreadable entries
F3:
Pattern of no female jailer(s) or matrons on duty to monitor inebriated female inmates
F4:
Jail Manual out of date
F5:
Plumbing problem in cell sink
F6:
Cameras removed in Cell Gallery and processing room
F7:
Improper and inadequate signage in jail holding area 346 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F8:
No first aid kit in jail
F9:
No evidence of annual environmental inspections
F10:
Strong odor in jail area
F11:
Porcelain toilets in cells
F12:
No privacy curtain in shower area
F13:
No padding in sobering cell
F14:
Visitor Reservation Kiosk in MCJ Main Lobby is frequently out of service
F15:
No defibrillators are in cell blocks. Crash Carts are used, sometimes with added 5-6 minute response delay.
F16:
Courthouse was built in 1954 shows severe deterioration and is in need of replacement
F17:
Numerous deficiencies in access, efficiency, security, overcrowding and ADA compliance
F18:
Insecure movement of juveniles in public hallways to and from courtrooms
F19:
Seriously neglected maintenance and repairs in holding cells. Much graffiti
F20:
Clean and paint walls
F21:
Floors are severely worn
F22:
Many plumbing problems
F23:
Dirty walls in holding cells area
F24:
Plumbing in disrepair
F25:
Ceiling is damaged because of water leaks
F26:
Temporary padding attached to walls in gymnasium, exposing beams and pipes
F27:
Two escapes this year at a perimeter block wall with no razor-wire
F28:
No defibrillators at the facility, even though requested in the past
Additional Recommendations
28
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Individuals who have been arrested but not yet arraigned or tried.
R2:
Those convicted of minor misdemeanor offenses that require less than a year of incarceration.
R3:
Felons who were sentenced to more than a year of incarceration for major offenses. AB109 decreased the population in overcrowded state prisons by sending inmates to serve their sentences in county facilities.
R4:
Detainees who have been judged mentally incompetent to stand trial. With medication, they may become mentally competent and a determination to stand trial is made by mental health professionals. An integral part of the Type II classification is the Sheriff’s Inmate Reception Center (IRC). This facility handles the massive intake/output work processing and classifying all detainees prior to their incarceration in one of the Type II jails within the county, in addition to handling the inmate release process. The IRC:
R5:
Transfers each inmate to the appropriate place of incarceration
R6:
Provides supportive service advice upon intake and release
R7:
Dispenses small supply of medication upon release to medicated inmates. The Type II facilities in the county are Twin Towers Correctional Facility, Men’s Central Jail, Century Regional Detention Facility, North County Correctional Facility, and Pitchess Detention Center, all operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 303 II
R8:
No first aid kit in jail
R9:
No evidence of annual environmental inspections Recommendations:
R10:
Strong odor in jail area Recommendation:
R11:
Porcelain toilets in cells
R12:
No privacy curtain in shower area
R13:
No padding in sobering cell Recommendations:
R14:
Visitor Reservation Kiosk in MCJ Main Lobby is frequently out of service
R15:
No defibrillators are in cell blocks. Crash Carts are used, sometimes with added 5-6 minute response delay. Recommendations:
R16:
Courthouse was built in 1954 shows severe deterioration and is in need of replacement
R17:
Numerous deficiencies in access, efficiency, security, overcrowding and ADA compliance
R18:
Insecure movement of juveniles in public hallways to and from courtrooms Recommendation:
R19:
Seriously neglected maintenance and repairs in holding cells. Much graffiti
R20:
Clean and paint walls
R21:
Floors are severely worn
R22:
Many plumbing problems Recommendations:
R23:
Dirty walls in holding cells area
R24:
Plumbing in disrepair
R25:
Ceiling is damaged because of water leaks Recommendations:
R26:
Temporary padding attached to walls in gymnasium, exposing beams and pipes
R27:
Two escapes this year at a perimeter block wall with no razor-wire Recommendations:
R28:
No defibrillators at the facility, even though requested in the past Recommendation:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
Unfilled staff positions are fully funded.16 Unlike many County challenges, solving this problem does not rely necessarily on increasing the personnel budget of the DMEC.
F2:
In February 2017, the DMEC requested 56 new positions from the County. Since that time, the DMEC has been able to hire personnel to fill 26 positions. The recruitment and examination process is currently underway to fill all open positions.17
F3:
The DMEC is attempting to build a redundancy of employees because they typically operate with a 10% - 12% labor decrease due to personal leaves. With a small department of 220 employees in addition to the diverse, extensive, and expert-specific work, the net effect of a variable (daily) reduced permanent workforce is problematic.18
F4:
The DMEC has been operating without a permanent Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner for over a year.19
F5:
Backlog Problems: The CGJ committee found, in discussions with County staff and in reviewing media coverage,20 lack of sufficient personnel in the DMEC creates a backlog of investigations and autopsies. This causes potential heartache for families and frustration for staff. In January 2017, when the CGJ toured the DMEC, there were in excess of 450 bodies awaiting disposition. It is the opinion of the CGJ, backlogs may be perceived by the public as the most egregious result of personnel shortages in the DMEC.
F6:
Hiring Issues: The County’s hiring rules and procedures are created to implement a fair and transparent process. However, Civil Service Codes21 and complicated County hiring 16 Senior staff member at DMEC 17 Ibid 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Los Angeles Daily News, Mike Reicher, April 21, 2016http://www.dailynews.com/genral-news/20160421/400- bodies-await-testing-at-backlogged-la-county-morgue 21Civil Service Codes https://www.municode.com/library/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT5PE_APX1CISE RU 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 23 processes22 are particularly time-consuming and cumbersome for a small department of 220 people. Additionally, the hiring process can take up to 18 months. This includes formulating requirements, standards, examinations, interviews, background checks, and vetting.23 Included in this process is “Banding” which is the process whereby an applicant’s name is put in a “band” based on test scores. By County rules, the DMEC must interview and hire from the top “band” (or the banded applicants need to voluntarily withdraw) before candidates from the next “band” can be considered.24 It is the opinion of the CGJ, this is a highly restrictive and inefficient process for such specialized jobs within the DMEC. When these restrictions have caused hiring backlogs in specialty jobs in other County departments, “Alternative Banding” procedures have been instituted to fill critical shortages.25 Alternative Banding opens the levels of banding, resulting in a larger pool of candidates available for consideration.
F7:
Accreditation Issues: “An outside consultant’s report (Strategica, Inc.) completed in November 2016 found that the office was poised to lose its accreditation (with the National Association of Medical Examiners) because of a backlog in the toxicology lab, staffing vacancies, and a shortage of budgeted positions.”26 In part, the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) “promotes the highest practice of medical professional and ethical conduct; acts as a clearinghouse of relevant scientific information and administrative procedures and policy matters; and provides leadership and advocacy.”27 It is considered by many people we interviewed to be the standard-bearer of excellence and for the County to lose its accreditation would be regrettable.
F8:
Data Analysis: The County expressed concern for insufficient data analysis on the part of the DMEC to support the need to fill certain job vacancies.28 Historically, lack of maintaining sufficient data recognized by the County has disadvantaged the DMEC in successfully advancing its justification for more personnel. The outside consultant Strategica, Inc.’s report to the BOS did not agree with the DMEC in its assessment of how many personnel were needed.29 22 County Department of Human Resources http://hr.lacounty.gov/our-organization/ 23 Senior staff member at DMEC 24 Senior staff members at DHR and DMEC 25 Ibid. LA Times Local/LA Now, January 20, 2017, Matt Hamilton, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln- coroner-appointment-20170120-story.html 27 National Association of Medical Examiners Website https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/StartPage.aspx?Site=NAME&WebCode=Home Senior staff member in CEO’s Office 29 Strategica Report to BOS re DMEC, December 1, 2016 “Workload Analysis of the Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner” including DMEC’s response to the recommendations in the report. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1007230_ReporttoCEO-FINAL11-17-16.pdf 24 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F9:
This year’s CGJ was pleased to learn that since the 2015-2016 CGJ Final Report, the BOS and the CEO have committed ongoing time and resources to help ameliorate the personnel shortages in the DMEC through the formation of a Work Group.30
F10:
The Work Group is comprised of staff from the DMEC, the CEO’s office, and the Department of Human Resources (DHR). Issues are reviewed in detail and solutions created where possible. Relevant staff members from other departments are brought into the Work Group when needed, i.e., Civil Service Commission and County Counsel. The Work Group has succeeded in creating an effective open dialogue between the three County departments (CEO’s Office, DHR, and the DMEC).31 Most importantly, the Work Group has the authority to solve problems and implement solutions, as issues are researched and understood.32 In discussions with staff of the three County departments, the following issues were presented to the CGJ committee members:
• Due to “Surging” (the application of extensive temporary overtime) the DMEC is close to eliminating backlogs and attaining the industry standard of 90% of all investigations completed within 90 days from time of autopsy.33 However, this approach has resulted in 20,000 hours of overtime in twelve months.34
• A new labor resource for DMEC has been instituted using students studying for a Masters of Social Work (MSW) degree. Students from the USC School of Social Work are utilized as interns to assist indigent families in crisis and help identify available social service resources. This time-consuming but vital service releases permanent staff to perform other duties.
• A nurse intern program is also being explored by the Work Group which would introduce a new discipline in the DMEC: The nurse intern would work with the investigators’ unit and the doctors’ unit to read through medical records and request reports from hospitals, etc., helping both units. This activity is also time-consuming 30 Senior staff members of DMEC, CEO Office and DHR 31 Ibid. Ibid. National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) “Inspection & Accreditation Checklist” https://netforum.avectra.com/public/temp/ClientImages/NAME/c43b8bca-ad7b-4a40-990b-7f45283a66ab.pdf 34 Pasadena Star News, April 18, 2017 Susan Abram “LA Coroner cuts body backlog, but request for more funding rejected”, http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/government-and-politics/20170417/la-county-coroner-cuts-body- backlog-but-request-for-more-funding-rejected 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 25 and requires certain expertise. If implemented, this nurse intern program also promises to relieve permanent staff to perform other duties.
• Transitional Subsidized Employees (TSEs) from the County’s Department of Public Social Service (DPSS) are being utilized to assist in clerical work. The TSEs work for ten months and those eligible are encouraged to take the County examination for fulltime permanent employment with the DMEC. There have been some successful transitions into fulltime employment.
• Due to the high media profile of the DMEC, the County established a new position of Public Information Officer (PIO) for the DMEC. The PIO will provide vital information to news organizations and the public for the myriad events occurring daily in the nation’s largest coroner’s office.
F11:
There have been promising developments made in relation to hiring issues. “(The Work Group) has been very helpful in facilitating . . . issues with open positions. . . (the Work Group) helped prioritize and moved the process from 18 months to six to eight months.”35 It is the opinion of the CGJ that shortening the timeframe even more would remove unnecessary delays to more quickly bring staffing to required levels. Also, the DMEC created new test criteria, reviews, job analysis, and re-designed the exam process. The following information was learned from CGJ discussions with senior staff with the DMEC, CEO’s Office, and DHR:
• The number of applicants, previously capped at 400, has been increased to 1000, thereby providing a larger pool of candidates.
• Applicants are advised in more detail as to what constitutes an extensive background check, thereby giving applicants the opportunity to withdraw their applications before time and effort is put into an applicant who will not pass the background check.
• A PowerPoint Presentation was designed by the DMEC and is given to prospective applicants, as well as scheduled possible “ride-alongs” and tours. These efforts are established to dispel the popular and misleading impression made by “CSI TV” (Crime Scene Investigation Television Series) that many applicants have of the work. Additionally, a strength and agility test was added so as to emphasize the physical strength and dexterity needed for lifting and moving bodies. Senior staff member at the DMEC 26 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• Applicants can prefill applications enabling them to make submissions as soon as the job opening is posted.
• Although the independent consultant’s report suggested combining different job functions to limit the need for more people, the DMEC was successful in explaining in its response to the report to the BOS, “to suggest that a criminalist could be an expert toxicologist on Mondays and Wednesdays, and then an expert microscopist and tool mark analyst on Tuesdays and Thursdays is not practical or realistic.”36
• Unfortunately, the DMEC has had a “revolving door” of top people in the last few years.37 However, the DMEC just hired a new Chief of Labs who began work on April 17, 2017,38 and a national search for a permanent Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner is underway.
• Each department in the County has a dedicated Human Resources Manager (HRM). Each HRM is classified based on his/her level of experience. The size of the County department determines the classification level of HRM. Currently, the DMEC, being a relatively small department by County standards, is eligible only for the lowest Level I HRM. The complexity and uniqueness of the skill set of the DMEC personnel requires hiring a HRM with more expertise and a higher level rating.
F12:
The current provisional accreditation for the DMEC has been extended and will be reviewed later this year.39 If positions continue to be filled and the 90% / 90 days standard continues to be met, the staff expressed hope that the DMEC will be re-certified, or at the very least, have its certification extended.
F13:
With the support of the Work Group, and the assistance of the CEO’s Office, the DMEC is implementing an Electronic Case Filing System (ECFS) to better gather and disseminate data. Phase I of this system is scheduled to be in place and operational by May 2017, at which time Phase II will commence.
F14:
In the County’s 2017-2018 proposed budget, $57,000 less than the current fiscal year is recommended for the DMEC, which is $5 million less than the DMEC requested. While the new proposed budget is not in the realm of this investigation, the CGJ is concerned that the DMEC receive sufficient funding to resolve longstanding concerns. DMEC Response to Recommendations of the Independent Contractor, Strategica, Inc. December 1, 2016 http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1007230_ReporttoCEO-FINAL11-17-16.pdf 37 LA Times Section Local/LA Now, January 20, 2017, Matt Hamilton 38 Senior staff member CEO’s Office 39 Senior staff member at DMEC 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 27 V
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS should commend the partners of the Work Group formed to ameliorate the myriad issues related to the DMEC. The three partners, DMEC, DHR, and the CEO, use open dialogue and effective problem-solving approaches in identifying issues. The Work Group has made significant progress in obtaining resources for the DMEC.
R2:
The DHR should implement “Alternative Banding” for the DMEC to fill budgeted positions.
R3:
The CEO should implement “Alternative Banding” for the DMEC to fill budgeted positions.
R4:
The DHR should decrease the timeframe of the hiring of DMEC personnel, currently at six to eight months.
R5:
The DHR should assign a Human Resources Manager to the DMEC with a higher classification level. VI
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Supervision of Social Workers In the words of the Blue Ribbon Commission, the DCFS CSWs are “the most visible and accountable frontline practitioners,” and are “primarily responsible for case management services designed to protect children…”11 And the CSWs are in fact on the frontline. They are the ones who respond to calls alleging abuse, and who, after a consultation with their supervisors, make the decision of whether a child should be removed from his or her home. The time they spend with children and families determines the accuracy of their decision; the decision of whether a child who has been abused should stay with the family under a Voluntary Family Maintenance (VFM) plan or be removed and placed with a relative or, if necessary, in foster care. Reducing a CSW’s caseload is one step that can improve his or her performance. Recognizing this need, DCFS has hired approximately 2,100 new social workers since the BRCCP report was published in June, 2014. Important steps have been taken to ensure that the new CSWs are well trained. A DCFS “University” was built in collaboration with seven universities that have social worker programs.12 The University training includes simulation labs in which CSWs are put in situations that they might encounter when they knock at the door of a home when a child has been reported to be in distress. Praising the program, a former senior staff member of DCFS said, “Now I think workers are much better prepared to handle those situations they’re going to deal with on a real time basis.”13 But simulation labs do not replace on-the-job learning, and one critical element for a new social worker is interaction with a supervisor who has had extensive experience dealing with children and families. A DCFS Management Directive issued on 9/28/10 makes clear the importance of the Supervising Social Worker’s (SCSW’s) work in training CSWs. The Directive states that the SCSWs “have an enormous impact” on the CSW’s performance and details their responsibility for training and guidance. One key requirement in providing supervision and training is that the SCSW “accompany CSWs during their investigations or home calls on a periodic basis (no less than two occasions per year/per CSW) to provide guidance and learning opportunities for the CSW in their field work practices.14 On visits to two field offices the jurors were told that in many cases the SCSW does not make two or even one field visits per year with the social workers under their supervision during their investigations or home calls. This and other provisions of the Management Directive are not being followed; a staff member stated that the Management Directive is no longer in place and no new directive regarding the supervision of social workers has yet been issued. Los Angeles County Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protetction, p 20. L.A. Daily News, September 10, 2015. Ibid. Management Directive #MD-09-11, p.7 (f). 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 33 During their visits, the jurors also learned that another important thing is often missing when a CSW responds to a call regarding potential abuse: information about the child and family he/she is assigned to. CSWs are allowed to read the child/family files before they visit but they are not required to do so. A highly placed official at one district office stated that she thought the CSWs did so “often” but not always. The CGJ believes that if the CSWs were required to read the files before a visit they might more often recognize when the “minor” injuries they see are part of a large and terrifying pattern. More children might be spared months or years of abuse and possibly even death.
F2:
Family Finding In many states, including California, a new movement is underway to reduce the number of children being placed in congregate care and to place them instead with relatives or Non-Related Extended Family Members (NREFM). Recent changes in federal law contain strong language requiring social workers to provide documentation of efforts made to obtain a family placement.15 And the State of California has enacted amendments to the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) which provide funding and services to support children in family settings and, perhaps most importantly, establishes that when a child is placed with a relative, the relative will receive the same level of reimbursement paid to foster care providers.16 As documented by Judge Edwards in his article on engaging relatives, finding a relative placement is a time-sensitive and difficult task for a single social worker to carry out.17 Recognizing the difficulty of the task and the importance of relative care, and in response to a motion from the BOS, DCFS prepared a “Countywide Upfront Family Finding Protocol” on September 20, 2016, which includes a plan “to increase relative placements and the overall role of relatives and Non-Related Extended Family Members (NREFMs) …”18 The plan sets forth three steps for identifying relatives and engaging them in the case. The plan also proposed initiating a pilot program to take place in two DCFS regional offices and which was “tentatively scheduled” to begin in November 2016.19 The pilot program did begin in November 2016 and is underway in the district offices in Glendora and Santa Fe Springs. There are six half-time staffers working on the project in Glendora and five in Santa Fe Springs. In the pilot program the search for relatives begins immediately after a child is removed from the home. The staffers interview family members to 15 Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, (H.R. 4980) 16 California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11462. http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/welfare-and-institutions- code/wic-sect-11462.html 17 “Among her other duties she has to provide services that will prevent the need for removal, ensure that the child is safe, explain to the parents what is happening and why, identify and engage relatives and prepare reports for any proceeding which will occur in a day or two.” Leonard Edwards, “How to Improve Outcomes for Abused and Neglected Children: Engaging relatives Early”, The Bench, Summer 2016, p29 18 County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services, Response to the May 31, 2016 Board Motion (Item No. 5) On a Countywide Upfront Family Finding Protocol, September 30, 2016, and attachment 19 Ibid. Attachment, p. 9 34 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT establish a family tree and typically send out 20-30 letters to relatives to notify them about the child who is seeking a home. The letters are sent one or two days after the initial detention. Before the pilot was in place the relative search typically took a year or more, but in the pilot project there is a ninety-day turnaround.20 The (OCP) has been closely involved in the pilot project and meets with the project staff monthly. A senior staff official at the OCP strongly believes that placing a child with a relative (as opposed to foster care) will improve his/her chance for success after leaving the foster care system. The officer is hopeful that the success achieved by the pilot project, which in early months has resulted in close to 80% of placements with relatives in Santa Fe Springs, can be rolled out countywide and increase relative placements by 10 to 20%.
F3:
Providing Medical Services There are six Medical Hubs in L.A. County run by the County Department of Health Services (DHS). These Hubs provide medical screening and services to children who might otherwise never be seen by a health care provider. In the last six months of 2016, a total of 15,582 children were referred to a Hub by DCFS and actually came to their appointment. Most of these children received an initial medical examination. Others who appear to have suffered from physical abuse received a forensic examination. Unfortunately, a report for Medical Hub visits for fiscal year 2016/2017 also shows that in a large number of cases the child did not show up for a scheduled appointment.21 The “no show” rate is distressingly high: it ranges from 14.7% at the LAC-USC Hub to 25.9% at Martin Luther King, Jr. and 29.1% at the Hub in the East San Gabriel Valley.22 The Hubs see a large number of children who act out, are unable to cooperate, and have been in multiple placements. The Hubs are working on ways to connect these children with mental health providers, and to arrange for a home visit by a therapist as needed. There is a Community Mental Health Center, run by a private non-profit group that is adjacent to the LAC-USC Hub and is able to provide continuing mental health care to the difficult and hard-to-place children. Another group of children requiring mental health care are those who suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which can result in growth abnormalities and learning disorders. These children are well served at the Community Mental Health Center. The six Hub clinics are stationed around the County of Los Angeles. Unfortunately, not all of the clinics are adequately staffed. The LAC-USC Hub has a staff of nine physicians and 10 nurse practitioners but the clinic in East San Gabriel Valley has only one physician and two nurse practitioners. Senior staff stated that this clinic, along with some others, needs additional staff. Interview with pilot program staff. L.A. County Department of Health Services, 1/09/2017, Medical Hub Visits, Fiscal Year 2016/2017 22 Ibid. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 35
F4:
Finding a Place for “Hard to Place” Children The DCFS is responsible for a large number of “high-risk” children who are difficult to place. Twice a month the OCP convenes a Transitional Shelter Care (TSC) meeting which brings together members of multiple agencies as well as non-profit groups that are dedicated to child welfare.23 The TSC pilot program puts together a team to help prepare a high-risk child for placement. A recent TSC meeting, attended by jurors, profiled a 14-year-old girl, “Jane Doe,” who had been in and out of the court system since the age of six. She had had 17 placements in group homes, foster homes, and relative placements. At the time of the meeting Jane Doe was currently living at one of the six TSC facilities run by the DCFS Division of Shelter Care. Jane Doe is not the only “high risk” child in need of a placement. Staff estimates that at any given time there are approximately 900 children with difficult behavioral and mental health needs who have been removed from their homes. To assist these children (i.e. to find them a home or at least a bed) DCFS established an Accelerated Placement Team (APT) within the Division of Transitional Shelter care.(TSC). The APT team focuses on a number of critical placement issues, including placement for children leaving a hospital and children in “shelter care” (with a limited stay of 72 hours). The APT is currently staffed by nine SCSWs and two Eligibility Social Workers. The number of children referred to the APT varies from day to day— in many cases children who have left placement because the caregiver is unable to deal with their behavior. Of those referred to APT, most will go to a TSC facility to stay for up to 72 hours before being placed. Approximately 12% of these children are very high risk, with a history of sexual exploitation or having been severely molested. Many overstay the 72-hour limit. Every child in a TSC shelter receives a medical screening at the VIP Hub in the LAC+USC medical center, and each child is linked to a mental health field worker. The APT is also part of the pilot program established by the OCP to provide services to the very high risk children, those who have exceeded 72 hours at a TSC facility or 30 days in an Emergency Care shelter. A child who agrees to join the OCP pilot program receives care from a mental health team including a CSW and a SCSW who meet with the child to identify the behaviors that impede the child’s progress and what triggers them. By identifying the “triggers” and working with the ultimate caregiver, the team increases the chance of a final successful placement.24 23 The participants at a TSC meeting on March 20, 2017, attended by civil grand jury members, included staff from the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS), the Department of Mental Health (DMH) the Department of Health Services, Probation, County Counsel, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), Children’s Law Center of California (CLC), Mental Health Advocacy Team (MHAT), and the Alliance for Children’s Rights. Interview with APT staff. 36 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT V
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The DCFS should prepare and implement a new Management Directive for Supervising Social Workers which would require that Supervising Children’s Social Workers have hands- on supervision of their assigned Children’s Social Workers in the field and on home visits, at least twice yearly.
R2:
The DCFS should make finding a relative to care for a child that has been removed from his or her home a first priority, and ensure that a search for relatives is initiated within 30 days following a child’s detention.
R3:
The DCFS should keep records of missed Hub appointments, and when an appointment is missed, require that the Supervising Social Worker ensures that the appointment is rescheduled and that the child is taken to the Hub.
R4:
The DCFS should require that each Children’s Social Worker, prior to his or her first three visits to a child or a child’s home, read the child/family file and sign off that the file has been read. DCFS should track and enforce compliance with this rule.
R5:
The DCFS should develop a plan to ensure that all children in Transitional Shelter Care receive mental health screening, and if appropriate, receive continuing mental health care.
R6:
The OCP should define and adopt measures of success for the performance of DCFS, and require quarterly reports from DCFS on its performance with respect to those measures. VI
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
California Assembly Bill AB790 recognized a need for innovative approaches to educational transformation. The Bill seeks innovation to lead to successful outcomes for our students, families, communities, and local and state economies. The Bill also recognizes that economic growth is dependent upon a career-ready workforce, and the need to improve graduation rates, close achievement and opportunity gaps, and prepare students for living- wage careers and/or a variety of postsecondary learning experiences. The Los Angeles County Strategic Plan for Economic Development (2016-2020) outlines objectives to achieve such innovation.
F2:
The Los Angeles County Strategic Plan for Economic Development (2016-2020) calls for the identification of models of high-quality, collaborative, inclusive, engaging, and innovative schools. It also envisions extension of best practices throughout all districts and schools.
F3:
The LBUSD Career Pathways and UCLA Community School programs have enhanced academic training with elements of vocational training and integrated real-world experience through internships and mentoring. The City of Long Beach fully supports The Promise and covers the first year of tuition at Long Beach City College. The UCLA Community School provides UCLA students attending the School of Education with the opportunity to practice new techniques and methods of delivering instruction. These educational programs focus on student “choice” in order to spark each child’s interest and curiosity, and challenge them to grow, learn, and thrive. 48 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F4:
On January 11, 2017, the California State Board of Education approved implementation of the California School Dashboard24 (Dashboard) starting in the 2017-18 school year. This Dashboard is intended to improve accountability within the educational system. The Dashboard consists of a color-coded five-by-five grid intended to assist in identifying strengths, weaknesses, and areas in need of improvement. These state level indicators are based on factors that contribute to a quality education, including high school graduation rates, college/career readiness, student test scores, English learner progress, suspension rates, and absenteeism. One subject matter expert expressed a desire to see this tool used like a Consumer Report. The color coded layout can “highlight the good,” and inform administrators, teachers, and parents where improvement is needed.
F5:
The Dashboard includes local indicators for use by local districts.
F6:
Educators are professionals dedicated to the classroom and to their students. They are also stakeholders who should have a voice and participate in development of local curricula and instructional methods. To attract and retain the best talent, educators need: Career development; Peer-to-peer collaboration; and Professional internships with community and industry partners to gain practical knowledge that will enrich and enable them to deliver a deeper level of instruction.
F7:
The neighborhood school is an institution which acts as an “anchor of society,” and provides the opportunity to integrate parents into the educational process. It should also reach out to local organizations for mentoring and internship opportunities to enrich the learning process and better enable every child to learn and become an engaged and productive member of society. Localization can lead to a better tailoring of curricula based on community priorities and unique needs of students including those who have challenging family and social circumstances. In coordination with local economic development commissions, there could be better alignment between business development and educational/career development.
F8:
While student test scores are an important measure of performance, they do not fully portray a teacher’s level of success or the development of a student’s growth mindset. Factors of teacher effectiveness that are not currently measured include:25 Developing a thirst for knowledge; developing good study habits; achieving high scores in subjects of interest; imparting a tenacity to enroll in and complete a post-secondary education; and imparting a social consciousness and a desire to participate in community affairs. California Dept of Education News Release #17‐5, January 11, 2017, [Online] Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr17/yr17rel05.asp 25 Tracking Indicators of Graduation and Postsecondary Readiness, Ali Korkmaz, Long Beach Unified School District, California, Alison Gros, St. Bernard Parish Public Schools, Louisiana, Mary Lumetta, St. Bernard Parish Public Schools, Louisiana, Ashley Pierson, Education Northwest, Portland, Oregon, Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University, not dated, sdp.cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr‐sdp/files/tracking_ccr_indicators.pdf 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 49
F9:
Parent engagement is a critical element in tailoring local curricula and instructional methods. Parents need to be actively engaged: informing themselves of school activities; becoming involved at school; and participating in the decision-making process to improve the learning environment
F10:
There is inequity within the educational system with respect to student experiences. For instance, fourth graders take California History. Yet, only a small percentage of schools will take their 4th graders to one of the California Missions to experience that part of our history. Replicating this best practice can have a profound impact on a young child.
F11:
Implementing change within the educational system necessitates some degree of flexibility and adaptability. Requirements within the Education Code and other education Acts may present a barrier to traditional public schools taking full advantage of some of the current successes of the programs discussed in this report. Strong leadership and full engagement of all stakeholders (administrators, educators, politicians, unions, local business, parents, and students) is needed to implement change to the current operations and culture. More than one interviewee indicated that transformational change in the educational model may require substantial political and civil will.
F12:
The Department of Consumer & Business Affairs has a program titled Life Smarts, which is a program designed to teach high school consumer skills. The program focuses on five key topic areas; consumer rights and responsibilities, technology, health and safety, personal finance, and the environment.
F13:
Proposition 51 was approved by the California voters in November 2016 and it makes available $9 billion in bonds; $3 billion for the construction of new school facilities, $500 million for providing school facilities for charter schools, $3 billion for the modernization of school facilities, $500 million for providing facilities for career technical education programs, and $2 billion for acquiring, constructing, renovating, and equipping community college facilities. V
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should formally identify the Los Angeles County Office of Education as the lead organization responsible to implement and maintain the California School Dashboard within the County.
R2:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should form a task force to focus on the local indicators to include within the Dashboard. This task force should include representatives from those Unified School Districts (USD’s) known to be implementing leading edge programs and those with exceptional student performance, local educational experts knowledgeable in state and County operations, and educational advocates who are knowledgeable and focused on open communications. 50 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R3:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should develop an ‘Experience Map’ that identifies recommended types of engagement activity, and include performance in the local indicators. For example, all 4th graders study California history. A school would obtain a top rating for 4th grade history if they visit a California mission.
R4:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should actively monitor the Dashboard with the following goals; inform USD’s, educators, and parents of best practices within the County, and implement a community of practice to share successes. This forum should promote the exchange of information and practices and enable each USD to determine those best practices which can be brought into their own district to improve student learning.
R5:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should aid teachers in acquiring real-world experiences by instructing all County departments to make a certain number of compensated internships (summer position or long-term sabbatical) available to teachers within the County. For example: Department of Public Health could offer positions associated with environmental science; Department of Child and Family Services could offer positions associated with sociology and psychology; and Department of Public Works could offer positions in engineering.
R6:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should provide teachers working within the County free access to all County museums to encourage their attendance and enable them to share their experiences with their students, and/or help them arrange potential field trips.
R7:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should foster collaborative relationships with industry partners and County agencies to encourage establishment of internships for students and teachers and announce openings on their website or publish links.
R8:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should, in coordination with the Department of Consumer & Business Affairs, inform the USD’s about Life Smarts program and encourage them to bring the course to their campuses. This is a course that could be offered either after school, on the weekends, or during the summer break.
R9:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should investigate the establishment of a formal community of volunteers who could provide life-skills education (including teaching the Life Smarts program) and mentoring of students, similar to the services offered to small businesses by the Service Corps of Retired Executives.
R10:
The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors should request a prioritized listing of projects under the five categories of funding available under Proposition 51 from the USD’s, with new facilities or any modifications or upgrades focused on enhancing learning.
R11:
The Los Angeles County Office of Education should identify various ways to monetize school property to support implementation of changes as described in this report. For example, renting out parking lots and play fields for events like farmers markets or renting auditoriums for local events. Revenues from these rental activities should be specifically earmarked for implementing educational improvement projects. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 51 VI
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Board of Supervisors has taken the first steps to address environmental oversight and monitoring by convening a task force to review oil and gas facilities compliance to regulations and requesting the Chief Executive Officer to prioritize needs in environmental health oversight and monitoring. The County will benefit from a environmental oversight and monitoring strategy that coordinates federal, state and county agencies responsible for environment oversight.
F2:
The CGJ found that environmental experts we interviewed recognize health to be a factor that needs to be included in defining many regulations. Health risk enforcement requires the expanded role and authority for public health analysis in the permitting process of land-use planning, zoning, business license, and building permits. The DPH should participate in recommending health components in compliance regulations and participating in the approval process.
F3:
Enforcement agencies have a need for more and better evidentiary data as described in the section Data and Monitoring.
F4:
The CGJ found that there is a causal relation between the conditions of “bad toxin contamination” and “bad health”. Pollution has had negative health impacts on groups of residents and is likely to have further health impacts on larger groups if it is not corrected.
F5:
The myriad of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies have compartmentalized authority be air, water or soil resulting in a silo approach to enforcement. Enforcement authority within the County is mostly uncoordinated but the DPH is trying to change that. The DPH is piloting a promising model that identifies high health risk areas using CalEnviroScreen data, identifying clusters industrial facilities that use or generate similar toxin materials. It then conducts inspection with the appropriate County, State or Federal partner agencies. A recent example of action taken by the DPH pursuant to Section 11.02.190 of the Los Angeles County Code, they exercised its’ authority to abate operations of an industrial facility that endangered public health by emitting hexavalent chromium in the city of Paramount.
F6:
The CGJ found that communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution are primarily of color, have low incomes and are under-served66, although risk to toxic exposure cuts across all levels of society and income. Overburdened communities sense a lack of environmental justice when they compared the government response times between the Porter Ranch gas leak and the Boyle Heights lead contamination. Professionals that were interviewed by the CGJ say that the public and community groups have lost trust in government agencies. Su, Jason G., etc. all. An Index for Assessing Demographic Inequities in Cumulative Environmental Hazards with Application to Los Angeles, CA. Environmental Science and Technology. 2009:43. 7626-7634 72 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F7:
The CGJ found that citizens needing to report toxic conditions affecting them had to navigate through a maze of government agencies to find the correct department with the right regulatory authority to take action. Because enforcement is fragmented by toxin or jurisdiction there currently is no central place to direct citizens to the proper regulatory authority.
F8:
Environmental justice community based organizations (CBOs) provide a counter balance to industry and government agencies. Through their investigative work and extensive local knowledge, they provide evidentiary environmental data and speak on behalf of people who live and work in high health risk communities. CBOs have views and recommendations and they need to be heard and given the opportunity to be a stakeholder partner with governmental agencies.
F9:
The opportunity to provide environmental justice to the 28 gateway cities is dependent on the outcome of the proposed I-710 Corridor Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR review is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2018. Several alternative plans in the EIR require the use of zero emission trucks. These trucks would be powered by electric motors or will receive electric power while traveling along the freight corridor via an overhead catenary distribution system.
F10:
Residential building permits continue to be issued regardless of scientific data near roadways. Studies show higher incidents of respiratory illness such as asthma and cancer for people living within 300 feet of freeway. A 2012 report from the SCAQMD estimated 1 million people live within 300 feet of a freeway.
F11:
Repeatedly, the CGJ heard from environmental subject experts and received evidence that confirms the SCAQMD environmental assessment of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. “The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the largest in the nation as well as the single largest fixed source of air pollution in Southern California”.
F12:
With regards the goods movement industries, Los Angeles County does not receive tax benefit from 40% of goods transported from the San Pedro Bay ports destined for sale outside of the County. However, the County receives the burden of pollution, costs for road repair and detrimental health risks.
F13:
Scientists and researchers use the Mates and CalEnviroScreen systems at Occidental College Urban and Environmental Policy Institute expressed their need for greater precision and transparency of the data. To the extent that a full capabilities system as described above is not immediately feasible, the system should be designed so that it maximizes capabilities that are currently feasible and is extensible to increased capabilities as they become feasible. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 73 V
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The BOS should adopt the framework described within the document Environmental Oversight and Monitoring: Building Capacity to Address Environmental Health Threats proposed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) in December 2016.
R2:
The CEO should adequately fund the needed improvements to County preparedness, response and recovery efforts outlined in the DPH proposed environmental oversight and monitoring program titled Building Capacity to Address Environmental Health Threats.
R3:
The County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning in collaboration with DPH should revise land-use plans and zoning code as necessary to implement environmental health prevention measures.
R4:
The CEO in collaboration with DPH should review and propose revision of the regulatory authority for the DPH with regard to business licensing and building and safety permitting related to industries or projects handling toxin elements.
R5:
The BOS should implement a system that provides measured pollution data, accesses, records, creates warning alarms, and reports the levels of environmental pollution throughout the County in real time.
R6:
The DPH should conduct a regular occurring forum of County, State, and Federal environmental oversight agencies and other interested parties to include Community-Based Organizations.
R7:
The DPH should create an Environmental Pollution Ombudsman function. This Ombudsman function would provide a single point of contact between any person believing they are experiencing an environmental pollution event and a County entity able to take immediate, informed action to document and investigate the facts of the event and resolve it.
R8:
The DPH should establish the scripting to enable “211 LA County” call center representatives to make referrals to the appropriate group within DPH.
R9:
The DPH should implement a case management system to track case incident reports of suspected hazardous environmental air, ground or water conditions and make the system visible to the public.
R10:
The CEO should assign a County office with the responsibility to prepare and conduct grant writing training to CBO’s focused on environmental justice. Training should enable CBO’s to solicit grants from local, State, or Federal programs for their local environmental pollution research projects. 74 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
R11:
The BOS should annually conduct an environmental justice grant competition for each of the supervisors’ district open to community based organizations.
R12:
The BOS should select a zero emission design for the I-710 Corridor Project as the best option to protect people from pollution who live and work in proximity of the I-710 corridor and set a new standard for similar future development. VI
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Metro system transit has not captured enough riders to reach its sustainability and traffic decongestion goals. First/Last Mile implementations shares in the responsibility for this.
F2:
The so-called “triple-convergence” phenomena (see “A Promising and Difficult Situation” in section II, above) may be contributing to decreasing ridership.
F3:
Metro’s First/Last Mile Strategic Plan and various associated planning documents are of high quality.
F4:
Treatment of some specific site details is missing from First/Last Mile Strategic plan.
F5:
Historically, First/Last Mile implementations have depended upon cooperation of local governmental entities and local funding. This has resulted in some sub-optimum results.
F6:
Metro’s new policy assuming more responsibility for First/Last Mile implementations is a better approach toward high quality First/Last Mile implementations.
F7:
Metro has made a smaller relative investment in First /Last Mile implementations than other comparable systems in other California metropolitan areas.
F8:
Current First/Last Mile implementations show a wide spectrum of quality.
F9:
Existing First/Last Mile implementations have shown improvement based on experience gained from previous implementations.
F10:
Exactly how First/Last Mile designs interact with the prime railway design is unclear.
F11:
Proposed First/Last Mile implementations/improvements are not reviewed by actual users.
F12:
Safety statistics for existing terminals are critical for their refurbishment.
F13:
Pedestrian and bicycle safety has deteriorated recently in the County of Los Angeles; First/Last Mile bears some responsibility for this.
F14:
Policy for bicycle usage to/on/from Metro is not completely developed.
F15:
Automotive interactions with pedestrians and bicyclists within First/Last Mile zones are not well controlled.
F16:
New passenger accessories and assists will affect First/Last Mile planning and implementations.
F17:
Uber/Lyft/autonomous car support is not included in First/Last Mile plans to date. 88 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT V
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Metro should consider strategies that are effective against “triple-convergence” in support of its ridership goals.
R2:
Metro should continue producing high-quality First/Last Mile planning documents.
R3:
Metro should take responsibility for the quality of the resulting (from 2. above) First/Last Mile implementations.
R4:
Metro should deal with more site-specific design problems in their First/Last Mile planning documents.
R5:
Metro should further extend its influence over communities for First/Last Mile implementations with more extensive collaboration and funding.
R6:
Metro should budget more of its funding stream to First/Last Mile implementation (see 5, above).
R7:
Metro should explicitly include First/Last Mile design considerations beginning at the earliest stage of its system expansion designs.
R8:
Metro should formalize actual user reviews for refurbishments and new developments.
R9:
Metro should use safety data from existing terminals as the highest priority consideration for refurbishments.
R10:
Metro should expand and make consistent the pedestrian and bicycle facilities at each terminal.
R11:
Metro should encourage or require First/Last Mile designs that constrain automobile speeds and maximally separate vehicle routes and pedestrian and bicycle paths in terminal footprint areas.
R12:
Metro should further develop bicycle usage policies to/on/from Metro and First/Last Mile support for bicyclists.
R13:
Metro should explicitly provide for the use of accessory items on trains – rolling carts, baby carriages, etc.
R14:
Metro should anticipate the development of potential new accessories and assists within First/Last Mile plans and implementations.
R15:
Metro should plan for Uber/Lyft/A-Car ports at Metro terminal. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 89 VI RESPONSES REQUESTED California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report and 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 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2017, 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
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Many of HV simply didn’t know how or where to go to seek assistance, other than the Veterans Administration. There is no outreach to veterans in the areas of heavy HV concentration, which is mainly the Skid Row area.
F2:
County benefits are given only for one year of assistance, after which one needs to reapply for extended benefits. This is not enough time to achieve a lifestyle readjustment. There must be a minimum of two years assistance per application period in order to seek and find housing, establish medical support and job training in order to ensure that the HV regains a smooth entry into civilian society.
F3:
Much of the humanitarian assistance to the HV e.g. medical, housing and counseling, is provided by nonprofit organizations, for example Los Angeles Rescue Mission and Union Rescue Mission. Many HV camp in tents or make-shift shelters in places like Skid Row. The CGJ visited several missions and hotels on Skid Row which feed the general homeless population, and found that the majority of HV live within short walking distance of these missions.
F4:
The OMVA is located in Patriotic Hall. They help veterans with the paperwork to obtain their military benefits. Many HV are unaware of or unable to get to Patriotic Hall which is approximately 2.9 miles from the Skid Row area. We discovered through our interviews with HV that they will not travel across the city because they lack the ability of securing their possessions. If HV venture out to Patriotic Hall, all their belongings would be in jeopardy of being confiscated, as they are kept in shopping carts and tents.
F5:
Measure HHH was passed by the City of Los Angeles to provide housing for the homeless. The initiative allocated approximately $1.2 billion a year. The CGJ would like to see the City allocate a percentage of these monies specifically to HV in the City of Los Angeles.
F6:
Measure H was passed by the County to provide supportive services for the homeless to include coverage for first and last months’ rent payments. This proposition added a .25% sales tax for the County of Los Angeles, which is expected to bring in approximately $300 million annually. The CGJ would like to see the County allocate a percentage of these monies specifically to HV and their families for supportive services in the County. 100 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F7:
The CGJ found that approximately $5 million in federal grant money was given to the Homeless Initiative for the Home for Heroes and the HACoLA programs. The LASHA and HACoLA programs’ expenditures, reflected in Figures 1, 2, 3, show the breakdowns. Pursuant to interviews with executives in the Homeless Initiative Department of the CEO’s office, 15% was utilized for administrative services by the CEO before it was distributed to the Home for Heroes Program. Once the contracts are awarded, additional administrative fees will incur. Pursuant to California Military & Veterans Code Section 927, this is not allowed.
F8:
A number of County and Los Angeles City offices have a working relationship with the missions throughout the County. These relationships have assisted HV to obtain housing and supportive services. However, as seen in Figure 3, and as described to us during our interviews, successes have not been as plentiful as desired.
F9:
As seen in Figures 1 and 2, the procurement process is very slow. Authorized funding is not reaching those in need in a timely manner. Funding allocated in 2015 was to be distributed over an 18 month period through June 30, 2017. As of this writing, no contracts have been approved or funded. V
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The County Board of Supervisors should increase the time period for services allocated to the HV for dental, medical, and psychiatric evaluation for a period of not less than two years for each application approval.
R2:
The County Department of Military and Veterans Affairs should establish a mobile outreach service and set up operations at the various missions on a regularly scheduled basis.
R3:
The County Board of Supervisors should establish a system of temporary storage facilities for HV to enable them to safeguard their possessions while they conduct their business affairs.
R4:
The County Board of Supervisors should establish a task force with the explicit goal being to identify facilities that are vacant and suitable for use as shelter for homelessness, within the County. Specifically buildings that can be converted and used as transitional and permanent housing for HV. Per interviews with senior management of HACoLA, LAHSA, LA County Department of Military & Veterans’ Affairs. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 101
R5:
The County Chief Executive Office should review and revamp their procurement process, as it relates to the Home for Heroes Program, to enable expedited placement of service contracts for housing and supportive services.
R6:
The County Chief Executive Office should ensure all contracts with service providers under the Home for Heroes Program and the HI Strategies C-5 Program provide transparency on administrative cost expenditures so as to insure that contractors are not in violation of CA Military & Veterans Code 927.
R7:
The County Board of Supervisors should set aside a portion of funds under Measure H for HV and include nontraditional service providers (i.e. Missions) as recipients to effectively deliver permanent housing solutions and supportive services.
R8:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should set aside a certain percentage of funds under Measure HHH strictly for HV and their families to help with their transition, and to accommodate first and last month rent payments.
R9:
The County Board of Supervisors should form an Independent Oversight Commission to oversee the implementation of projects and expenditures of funds under Measure H.
R10:
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles should form an Independent Oversight Commission to oversee the implement of projects and expenditures of funds under Measure HHH. VI
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.