Gran Jurado del Condado de Los Angeles
2018-2019
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
Based on conversations with police department officials, there are no human trafficking educational programs offered at the middle and high school levels in the Inglewood School system.
F2:
Based on conversations with police department officials, there are no human trafficking educational programs offered at the middle and high school levels in the Gardena School system.
F3:
Based on conversations with police department officials, there are no human trafficking educational programs offered at the middle and high school levels in the Hawthorne School system.
F4:
Although active communications currently exist, according to the police department, there is no Inglewood Police Officer designated as a partner of the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force.
F5:
Although active communications currently exist, according to the police department, there is no Gardena Police Officer designated as a partner of the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN INGLEWOOD AND SURROUNDING CITIES 9 - 10
F6:
Although active communications currently exist, according to the police department, there is no Hawthorne Police Officer designated as a partner of the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force. The LARHTTF is a separate operating unit within the LASD.
F7:
Many patrons have deserted the library because of personal discomfort and the feeling that it is no longer a safe place.
F8:
City and County Library security personnel have identified problematic high priority libraries that experience a large number of calls for service from security personnel for law enforcement or a significant number of incidents.
F9:
Many libraries do not have permanent security personnel assigned on a regular basis.
F10:
Los Angeles County Library and the Los Angeles County Sheriff department have developed a three phased implementation plan for policing the most critical library sites. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE IMPACT OF THE HOMELESS ON PUBIC LIBRARIES 10 - 22
F11:
Los Angeles Police Department implemented fourteen major initiatives during 2015-2018 to reduce crime in city libraries and continues to evaluate their needs on a monthly basis.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
F1:
It is difficult and confusing for the average individual to find out how to report suspected Elder Abuse because no easy-to-locate Internet source for “how to report Elder Abuse” could be located. Additionally published, printed documents are not widely distributed or available. Also, no public service advertising campaigns regarding Elder Abuse awareness came to the attention of the CGJ during the term from July 2018 to May 2019.
F2:
The term “Elder Abuse” is not a term that people are commonly aware of while “Child Abuse” and “Domestic Violence” are recognized, well known terms.
F3:
Where telephone numbers for reporting elder Abuse can be located on websites and in published documents, multiple telephone numbers relating to Elder Abuse are often provided. Encountering multiple numbers and having to determine which number to call, simply put, is unnecessarily confusing.
F4:
Information on Elder Abuse located on Internet searches24 and in County or City of Los Angeles publications is often found to be confusing. Cross referencing several sources, e.g. a website and a printed publication, is found to be confusing as multiple, alternative 24 As websites are subject to being changed, while websites were searched, referencing them will not necessarily provide the same information or layout/appearance that the CGJ encountered during its inquiries. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 9 terms and descriptions are encountered. In particular, it is not easy to locate the correct toll free telephone number for reporting Elder Abuse on the WDACS website.25 There is an array of Elder Abuse topics posted in ‘boxes’ for reporting abuse, of which seven relate to elder abuse but only one of the seven options provides the correct number – (877) 477- 3646 – for the 24-Hour, Adult Protective Services Abuse Hotline. This number is not visible until one clicks on the appropriate option!
F5:
County websites are not always consistent and are difficult to navigate, and at least one broken link led to a “404 Web page not found” error notification on the Workforce Development, Aging & Community Services (WDACS) website26 making the County web site search to be of no help.
F6:
Clicking on the “Report Elder Abuse” button on the WDACS website27 brings up a form intended for use by trained, mandated reporters. This form is not user-friendly to the general public as only those who have received training will understand the purpose of many of the data entry fields. The form is not intuitive.
F7:
Adult Protective Services (APS) is the sole county agency that receives Elder Abuse reports.28 APS receives reports of Elder Abuse from mandated reporters and from the general public. Mandated reporters include Law Enforcement, Social Workers, Healthcare and Medical workers, Fire department employees, the Long Term Care Ombudsman and others.29
F8:
The information published on Los Angeles County websites about Adult Protective Services and how to report Elder Abuse is almost entirely oriented toward mandated reporters making the WDACS and APS websites unhelpful for the general public.
F9:
In County and City publications that we located, Elder Abuse reporting and Adult Protective Services information is just one of many topics included in the document causing Elder Abuse to lack visibility with Adult Protective Services in particular lacking visibility. The CGJ reviewed two near-identical publications that provide extensive information on services for the Elderly and for their families that are available from the Agencies on Aging for the City and County – "Elder Abuse: Prevention through Prosecution" and “Elder Justice: A Resource Guide for Action”. One of these six-page directories, shown on the next page, includes the front cover main headline, "Stop Elder Abuse". 25 https://wdacs.lacounty.gov/programs/aps/whenwhere-to-report-abuse/ 26 https://www.lacounty.gov/report/ the link posted as “I want to report… Elder Abuse (Adult Protective Services)” - verified 5-3-2019. 27 https://wdacs.lacounty.gov/ 28 https://wdacs.lacounty.gov/programs/aps/ 29 “Information For Mandated Reporters”, http://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Adult-Protective-Services 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 10 The following two graphics show the inside page which provides the following information about ‘who to call’ from each of these two brochures: • Dial 911 to report elder abuse or neglect to the Police NOW if the abuse is immediate and life-threatening. • Elder Abuse Hotline at 1-877-477-3646 or 1-800-992-1660 to report allegations of abuse when you are unsure on where to call. • Adult Protective Services, County of Los Angeles, 1-888-202-4248 if you suspect elder abuse in the community. Call 213-351-5401 if you are outside of Los Angeles County. • Long-Term Care Ombudsman, at WISE & Healthy Aging 1-800-334-9473 and report suspected abuse occurring at board and care homes, nursing homes and assisted living facilities in LA County. • Statewide Ombudsman after-hours crisis line: 1-800-231-4024. * The entry referencing ‘Dial 911’ included above does not appear in the on-line version shown on this page but is included in hard copy versions of the brochure. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 11 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 12
F10:
The information line referencing Adult Protective Services in both documents providing multiple telephone numbers is confusing; the 1-877-477-3646 number alone is adequate.
F11:
These excellent documents provide helpful information about the various types of Elder Abuse. However, both have been distributed on a very limited basis because of printing costs, the expenses of mailing and, the CGJ was advised, a limited budget.
F12:
Although it is not at all easy to find them unless one has the URL, on-line versions of these two documents exist and can be located online at: http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/Elder_Abuse_BRO_for_Law_Enforcement_6-5-15.pdf and http://www.wiseandhealthyaging.org/cms/pdf/Elder%20Justice%20Resource%20Guide%202018% 20web.pdf. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 13
F13:
The statistical information provided by APS showed the number of reported incidents of Elder Abuse that warranted an investigation. The number of reported incidents of Elder Abuse that warranted an investigation rose from 41,220 in 2014-2015 to 56,065 in 2017- 2018, a growth of 38.3% over a 4 year period. During this time period APS staffing increased minimally. The average number of new cases per social worker per year has risen from 317 in 2014-15 to 356 in 2017-18. As stated in the earlier section on ‘Suspected Elder Abuse Calls Reported’ (on -8), the average number of new cases per social worker per year has risen by 12%.
Recomendaciones adicionales
27
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Adult Protective Services
R2:
City of Los Angeles, Department of Aging
R3:
Los Angeles County Area Agency on Aging
R4:
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, Bureau of Victim Services
R5:
Los Angeles Police Department, Communications Division, Operations Support Unit
R6:
Long Term Care Ombudsman Program
R7:
Workforce Development, Aging & Community Services COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ronald A. Evans, Co-Chair Judith E. Halloran, Co-Chair Nancy Coleman Eslie James Patricia G. Patrick 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 16 DRUGS IN JAILS THE PERPETUAL SCOURGE Michael Rodrigues, Chair Valencia R. Shelton, Co-Chair Renée Jenkins, Secretary Hector R. Gonzalez* Freida K. King DRUGS IN JAILS The Perpetual Scourge SUMMARY A record number of state prisoners have lost their lives due to accidental drug overdoses - at least 150 in California prisons since 2006.1 These individuals died in custody, while under the care and supervision of prison staff, simply because illicit drugs continue to be smuggled undetected into detention facilities. In a technologically advanced civilized society, there may be alternative methods available to combat this scourge. Despite the reasons behind the incarceration of these individuals, they are still fellow human beings and should be treated as such. The 2018-2019 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) sought to evaluate all current drug screening practices so that it could identify where the current efforts are falling short of their purported desired outcomes and in many instances failing altogether. In doing so, the CGJ hopes to ascertain and recommend reasonable as well as effective measures that will help to prevent illegal drugs from continuing to enter detention facilities undetected. The CGJ reviewed many documented drug smuggling cases which exposed the unfortunate truth that potential offenders extend beyond inmates, trustees, and visiting family and friends. Also included are vendors and employees who provide laundry, mailroom, and food service. Other often overlooked individuals include detention officers, attorneys, and medical personnel who are all allowed unsupervised contact with the inmates. With the wide variety of potential offenders and the unrestricted opportunities for some to smuggle drugs into detention facilities, it is nearly impossible to prevent illegal drugs from entering these institutions.
R8:
conference room area is not large enough to accommodate 23 people
R9:
inadequate rooms or spaces in which the CGJ’s various committees can meet and confer
R10:
lack of privacy needed to make phone calls, interview witnesses, or meet in groups
R11:
restrooms are not sufficient or adequate
R12:
current break area is unacceptable for grand jurors 1 http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/ (accessed 05-07-19) 2 California Penal Code section 908.1 3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synergy (accessed 04-25-19) 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT GRAND JURY FACILITIES AND RETENTION 7 - 1
R13:
inadequate locker space for personal storage during the work day
R14:
lack acceptable temperature control. Other issues hindered the 2018-2019 CGJ’s ability to conduct its investigations. For example:
R15:
the CGJ has not been provided adequate training in conducting investigations, report writing, or County Counsel’s expectations.
R16:
the Information Technology provided is inadequate for collaborative investigations as the CGJ cannot receive electronic files (i.e. from witnesses, agencies, businesses, or other organizations) greater than file sizes limited by the court’s email system.
R17:
inadequate transportation for the CGJ’s needs.
R18:
conference room area is not large enough to accommodate 23 people
R19:
inadequate rooms or spaces in which the CGJ’s various committees can meet and confer
R20:
lack of privacy needed to make phone calls, interview witnesses, or meet in groups
R21:
restrooms are not sufficient or adequate
R22:
current break area is unacceptable for grand jurors 1 http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/ (accessed 05-07-19) 2 California Penal Code section 908.1 3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synergy (accessed 04-25-19) 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT GRAND JURY FACILITIES AND RETENTION 7 - 1
R23:
inadequate locker space for personal storage during the work day
R24:
lack acceptable temperature control. Other issues hindered the 2018-2019 CGJ’s ability to conduct its investigations. For example:
R25:
the CGJ has not been provided adequate training in conducting investigations, report writing, or County Counsel’s expectations.
R26:
the Information Technology provided is inadequate for collaborative investigations as the CGJ cannot receive electronic files (i.e. from witnesses, agencies, businesses, or other organizations) greater than file sizes limited by the court’s email system.
R27:
inadequate transportation for the CGJ’s needs.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
What percentage of youths entering the THP-Plus THP-Plus - Out of 15 youths who entered THP-Plus and THP-FC enter from homelessness? program in the County in 2017-18, 11 had missing data. Among the responding youths, 1 entered THP+FC – not available due to County’s legal position directly from homelessness. Four indicated that they which does not allow providers to enter data experienced homelessness between foster care and regarding youths. THP-Plus. For Questions 2 through 4, among 48 youths who Among the responders, the highest types of housing exited THP-Plus program in 2017-18, 22 had missing entered into THP-Plus from: (i) 10 entered from data. another supportive transitional housing program; (ii) 6 entered from living with a relative or other person in
F2:
Where Are They Coming From and Where Are They Going? A significant number of youth return home after exiting camps. In this section, some of the situations occurring after the youth’s return home are highlighted. Much of the information is based on our interviews with the Centinela Field POs and, as a result, we do not have actual data to support the number of instances described in this section. While the number of incidences for the described types of events may differ when the data are tracked, the Committee members believe that the types of events occur with sufficient regularity. A summary of our discussions is included in this section as a starting point for collecting data. Service distinction also exists based on the youth’s age so that a youth over the age of 18 accessed services differently than the younger youth. DCFS History. Members of this Committee requested two sets of data from Probation: (i) the number of youth who enter directly from DCFS placement to Probation camps and (ii) the number of youth who exit to DCFS placement from Probation camp. Probation was unable to put together the first set of data; instead, Probation provided the total number of youth who had any history with DCFS prior to entering juvenile camps during 2018. Table 4 2018 Information of Camp Youth with DCFS History Total New Camp Orders Youths with DCFS History Percentage of Total New Camp Orders Male 482 312 65% Female 55 40 73% TOTAL 537 352 66% Source: Probation. To be clear, the information provided in the above table does not indicate the number of youths with open DCFS cases at the time of entering camps. Table 4 above should be viewed only to note the level of DCFS involvement among the camp-detained youth in 2018. Home Evaluations and First Residence after Camp Exit. Prior to the youth’s return home after camp release, Field POs visit and evaluate the family home to assess its suitability, including the physical condition and safety of the home. Field POs also conduct criminal background checks on all adult occupants of the home. Despite the history of DCFS involvement with a significant number of the camp population, there is no assessment of the family’s readiness to accept the returning youth. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 20 If after the initial home evaluation, Field POs find the home unsuitable, then if the problems can be remedied, they can schedule a re-evaluation at least 45 days prior to the youth’s release date. Centinela Field POs thought that one out of ten home evaluations required some problems to be remedied prior to the youth’s release. When the residence belongs to a relative or a friend, Field POs will consider the residence as unsuitable. Sometimes, there were multiple families living in a single unit and the residence was too crowded to be determined suitable. In each of these instances, families did not have a place of their own and were homeless themselves. Centinela Field POs recalled two to three such homeless families per month. Centinela Field POs referred such families to other agencies or CBOs to assist the family with housing with the goal of reuniting the family with the youth. In some instances where a family receives Section 8 vouchers, we were informed that families could lose benefits by allowing the Probation youth to rejoin the family. As a result, to protect the residence for the remaining family members, Centinela Field POs recalled that families might state that there is no place for the youth. If the youth is over 18 years of age and the parent or the guardian does not want the youth to return home, Field POs look into providing transitional housing or other housing programs such as the Independent Living Program. Field POs work to ferret out these needs during the Initial MDT so that they can begin to coordinate with other County departments and find housing for the youth. Some youth over the age of 18 are also parents themselves. In such cases, Field POs look to find resources more appropriate for families with infants. Centinela Field POs noted that among youth over 18 years of age, one in five cases involve finding resources for a new family. Some of the available housing programs for youth over 18 are discussed in Section 3. Although efforts are made to find transitional housing for youth over 18, there is simply not enough housing available to place all camp-released youth over 18. Centinela Field POs acknowledged that some camp-released youth do end up in shelters. When needed youth are placed in temporary shelters, some of which provide supportive services, such as employment guidance and independent studies to continue toward high school completion. Some of the temporary shelters also provide mental health services through DMH. Typically, youth remain for 30 to 60 days at such temporary shelters and Centinela Field POs continue to work with the youth to find more stable housing. Fleeing from Initial Residence. After exit from camp and reunited with family, Centinela Field POs found instances where the youth fled from home. This occurred in approximately three out of ten youth under 18 who returned home. Youth over 18 had lower flight instances and the Centinela Field POs estimated approximately two out of ten ran away from home. Once the youth flees, a bench warrant is issued and the Field POs stay in contact with the parent or guardian to have the youth turn himself in with the Field PO or at court. If the youth is over the age of 18, the outstanding bench warrant could place him in County jail, starting a new cycle of criminal justice experience. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 21 Suitable Placement for Youth under 18. For those youth under the age of 18 during camp detention who do not have a family home to return to or if the youth’s home has been deemed unsuitable for return at release, these youth could be sent to “Suitable Placement,” typically at a group home or in Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP), as they are now known. Contracts with such facilities determine whether the facility accepts Probation-involved youth. As a result, Probation is limited in accessing facilities that will accept Probation-involved youth. When a Camp PO makes the recommendation for “Suitable Placement,” others review and clear the recommendation at Probation before presenting it to the Juvenile Delinquency Court for consideration. Once approved at Probation, Camp PO will seek a Suitable Placement Order from Juvenile Delinquency Court for youth under 18 years of age. If the “Suitable Placement” recommendation is accepted by the Juvenile Delinquency Court, then the Camp PO will work on locating appropriate housing for the youth and satisfy the Suitable Placement Order. Some Juvenile Delinquency Court judicial officers issue Suitable Placement Orders routinely for youth not released to home, but this is not a uniform practice. Probation representatives also confirmed this. The youth is held at a juvenile hall after exiting camp until housing is found. Camp PO reports to the judge every 15 days as to the status of the Suitable Placement Order until successful placement of youth. Once a youth receives a Suitable Placement Order, then Probation’s Camp Community Transition Program Field PO’s jurisdiction ends and the Probation’s Placement Unit Probation Officers take over the responsibilities for the youth. Accordingly, Centinela Field POs do not supervise any youth subject to Suitable Placement Order. The following table sets forth the number of youth released from each operating camp to Suitable Placement at STRTPs between 2015 through November 30, 2018. [Remainder of this page intentionally left blank] 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 22 Table 5 Number of Youths Released from Camp to Suitable Placement at STRTP Camp 2015 2016 2017 2018 Afflerbaugh 6 8 7 5 Gonzales 3 3 6 1 Mendenhall 5 5 1 -- Kilpatrick -- -- 2 6 Miller 4 4 -- -- Munz 8 -- -- -- Paige 2 1 2 1 Rockey 18 18 12 6 Scott (girls) 19 9 8 9 Scudder (girls) 9 10 -- -- Jarvis 16 20 9 3 McNair 14 14 3 8 Onizuka 6 5 11 4 Scobee -- -- 4 6 Smith -- 6 1 -- Camps Headquarter 8 10 8 8 Total STRTP 118 113 74 57 Total Number of 1282 1048 798 620 Youth Released Source: Probation. Figures for 2018 reflect number of youths released through November 30, 2018. Other Home Arrangements. In addition to STRTP or group homes where youth may be placed, some youth may also be placed with “Resource Families” which is the new name for foster families with training and other qualifications that have converted to the Resource Family status. Based on a count from October 2017, the County had 550 of the State’s 2,700 total probation foster youth.39 During that time, there were approximately 60,000 children placed in foster care State-wide.40 Probation also successfully placed youth in adoptions. According to Probation, from 2006 to 2015, there have been five adoption cases for Probation-involved youth. For that same time, there were a total of eight adoptions for such youth State-wide, meaning only three other such adoptions occurred outside the County. Adoption procedures typically take two years since the parents are provided with at least 12 months of reunification services before the services are terminated along with legal rights. Jeremy Loudenback, “California Hopes to Place More Probation Youth in Foster Homes Like this,” The Chronicle of Social Change, February 22, 2018, https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/meet-l-a-countys-only-foster-parent-for-probation-youth (accessed on February 5, 2019). Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 23 Distinction in Housing Services Based on Age During our interviews with Probation representatives, a consistent distinction was noted as to the available services based on the age of the youth. If the youth is under 18, there are more options, including seeking placement in STRTP. But for youth over 18, the housing availability appeared to be no more than in the same pool of limited housing inventory for other homeless Transitional Aged Youth (TAY) in the County. There is no priority made for acceptance into housing programs for Probation youth who are released from camps. Programs administered by LAHSA follow the federal requirements. We discuss details of some of these programs in Section 3. The Twelfth Monitoring Report, Paragraph 73-3(c) requires that a transition plan is initiated within 30 days of arrival at camp.41 The transition plan requires determining whether the youth would be released to his/her home or would go from camp to suitable placement.42 If the youth were expected to go to placement, contact with the Placement Unit was [to be] established.43 In the Twelfth Monitoring Report, there is no mention of distinguishing services provided to camp- detained youth based on whether the person is under or over the age of 18. During our interviews, several Probation representatives mentioned that Probation only recommends suitable placement for youth aged 17 or younger. The rationale was that youth over 18 years of age could enter an “AB12 Program” such as THP+FC or Supervised Independent Living Program for which probation youth may participate. Assembly Bill 12 (AB12), the California Fostering Connections to Success Act, was signed into law on September 30, 2010. The legislation recognized the importance of family and permanency for youth and extended various benefits, including youth in foster care. Probation confirms that Probation-involved youth are also covered under AB12. To access services under AB12, one Probation representative stated that the Juvenile Delinquency Court would have to terminate its jurisdiction after the youth’s 18th birthday so that general jurisdiction under the California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 450 could be pursued with a finding that the youth was a non-minor dependent who is eligible for extended benefits under AB12. In an undated document titled “Commonly Asked Questions About AB12 (Extended Foster Care)” printed on Probation’s letterhead (WIC 450 Document), Probation provides additional procedures related to providing services under AB12.44 Selected text from the WIC 450 Document is reproduced below in its entirety, with minor format changes: 41 Graham, et al., 89. Ibid. Ibid. The Committee members received a hard copy of this document during an interview. There is no date for this document but the last page contains the following footer: CAQAB12:FT/JR:031318. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 24 • 5. What is explained to the kids? The youth should be informed about criteria or eligibility, the housing programs and services offered and the education, skill, and employment opportunities. • 6. Which minute orders need to be done? When a case is modified to 450 Status the probation case must be terminated and a Jurisdiction Termination minute order must be generated. An EFC minute order is also necessary for a modification to 450 status and re- entry. • 8. What is the protocol/practice for notifying probation’s Transition Jurisdiction Services unit when a youth walks into court desiring 450WIC? Should a youth walk into court who desires a 450 re-entry, a 450 WIC referral should be completed by an appointed court employee. This referral should then be forwarded to the TJC unit via the universal e-mail address located at the top of the referral. This will notify the unit a potential NMD [Non-Minor Dependent] needs assistance with the re-entry process. • 11. When a youth housed in a camp facility at 17 yrs old desires 450 WIC status what is the process for making that youth eligible? The camp probation officer will submit a referral to the AB12 unit. The camp probation office will explore placement options with the youth and submit applications to THPP-NMD’s. There will be 3 hearings in 1: Probation Grant hearing/602 termination (report); JV-466 petition completed; re-entry hearing (report)[.] The #5 [6][sic] minute order terminating 602WIC jurisdiction is completed and EFC minute order with Sections 2 and 3 completed. Court officer sends copy of MO to TJS SDPO (original goes to Camp DPO)[.] • 13. What is probation doing when placements WON’T take our kids? What pressure can probation put on these placements that reject our kids? The AB12 supervisor will consult with the housing program to ascertain the reason for the denial. If it does not comply with the guidelines of the contract, the SDPO will discuss the denial with the housing program and if the issue cannot be resolved in the youth’s favor, the issue will be elevated to the director level. Item 5 of the WIC 450 Document notes that the youth should be informed about the WIC 450 program. Item 8 contains the following phrase: “When a youth walks into court desiring 450 WIC.” The idea that youths take the lead in determining and choosing the available benefits was consistent during our interviews with several Probation representatives. Essentially, the youth must present himself and demonstrate his readiness for entering many of these housing programs. From our observations of Transitional MDTs, we noted that the youths’ school test results were not at their current age appropriate grade level and, for some, their test results were well below their grade level. A Camp PO simply informing the youth as to the housing program criteria or eligibility, as currently expressed in the WIC 450 Document, is insufficient. Probation’s procedures should 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 25 include guidance from Probation representatives (not the youth) to make the assessment regarding services available under AB12. After receiving guidance from Probation representative, and if determined eligible, then access to services under AB12 should be noted and included during the Initial MDT and carried through to the Transitional MDT to camp exit. Probation needs to assist and guide all youth identified by Probation as potentially eligible for AB12 so that a smooth housing transition is made for TAY exiting camps. The WIC 450 Document assumes that the Juvenile Delinquency Court will agree as to the actions required in the Document. Essentially, if the Juvenile Delinquency Court judicial officer does not issue the noted orders, Probation would be justified in not moving forward with this request from the youth. Interested parties need to discuss these procedures so that that youth who were intended to benefit from AB12 can be served timely and appropriately. As discussed in the next section of this report, there is a limited number of housing beds/units available in the County. Given the limitation in the number of beds/housing units in the County, cumbersome procedures are not needed but, rather, all interested parties need to discuss how to coordinate efficiently to better access the limited supply of housing inventory. As noted above, Probation is limited in its access to STRPTs and only those facilities that agreed to receive Probation-involved youth are available to Probation. Further, as noted in Item 13 of the WIC 450 Document above, it appears that Probation-involved youth do not receive the same priority with placement among peers even in facilities carved out for Probation-involved youth. Probation’s data for 2018 indicates an overwhelming majority of youth entering juvenile camps with DCFS history. The Committee members did not inquire as to the breakdowns of DCFS findings and did not assume that each case resulted in the positive findings by DCFS. Even so, this Civil Grand Jury believes that these data should be kept in mind. With outcomes from studies that indicate several times the likelihood of this group seeking County’s general relief assistance and jail experience, County Board of Supervisors and other departments need to coordinate with Probation so that youth exiting camps are given assistance to secure stable housing to begin their re-entry into community. Current housing resources are limited for all of the County’s homeless population. But when the historical data indicate outcomes that are nearly certain for continued receipt of a wide range of County assistance and highly likely involvement in the criminal justice system, the County Board of Supervisors needs to determine whether an upfront investment should be made to further assist camp youth who have made clear showing of making positive changes in their lives. Without assistance from Probation and other departments now, the probability of some of those youth moving toward a goal of independence is fragile at best. Without assisting these youth at the point of camp exit, the extensive work of many County departments started at juvenile camps and continued by Field POs after camp release might be wasted and not contribute to bringing changes in the youth’s future. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 26 Findings: 2.1 Probation-compiled data indicate a high number of youth entering juvenile camps with a history of DCFS experience. 2.2 When a home evaluation is done by a Field PO, the physical facilities are assessed but there is no assessment of the family’s readiness for reuniting with the youth. 2.3 During home evaluations, the Centinela Field POs have identified families who are essentially homeless and living in other people’s homes. 2.4 Some of the youth exiting camps are sent to temporary shelters, some of which provide supportive services during stay. 2.5 After reunifying with family, there are a number of youth who flee from their initial residence after camp exit. 2.6 Some youth who exit camps and are sent to temporary shelters or those who flee from their initial residence may end up seeking services provided by LAHSA. 2.7 When discussing Suitable Placement, Probation representatives consistently stated that Probation’s jurisdiction ended when the youth turned 18. To the extent that any portion of the DOJ settlement agreement is applicable to support Probation’s current practice of distinguishing services by age, applicable provisions should be noted in this assessment. 2.8 Probation’s own internal AB12 procedures would require that the youth affirmatively request assistance from Probation for accessing services under AB12. Given the testing levels of some of the youth noted during our Transitional MDT observations, this Civil Grand Jury is not sure that such affirmative assistance requests can be effectively made by many of the camp youth. 2.9 Current requirements under Probation’s WIC 450 Document further require that the Juvenile Delinquency Court also take certain steps so that a youth may access services under AB12. 2.10 It is challenging for camp youth to reintegrate into the community. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 27
F3:
Available Housing Programs for Probation Youth Over 18 Years of Age A recent article estimates that 3,306 homeless youth and young adults experience homelessness in the County on any given night.45 Among them, 31% report current or previous involvement in the child welfare system and 62% report previous or current involvement in the juvenile or criminal justice systems.46 The Committee members contacted LAHSA for additional information and the following table provides a summary of system experienced persons accessing LAHSA’s Youth Coordinated Entry System (Youth CES) during calendar year 2018. Table 6 LAHSA’s Youth CES Participant Breakdown for 2018 Category Number Percent Total Youth CES Participants 3,945 100% Identified as Having Probation Officer 939 24 Identified as Having DCFS Social Worker 1,736 44 Source: LAHSA. Despite double the number of persons self-identifying as being homeless in the count, those accessing Youth CES with Probation involvement are significantly less than those with DCFS experience. We requested that LAHSA determine the number of youth self-identifying as having both a Probation Officer and a social worker (though not necessarily at the same time). Instead of that number, LAHSA provided the following data that provide the exit destinations among LAHSA’s Youth CES Participants in 2018 who self-identified as having experience in both systems. William Lehman, Youth Homelessness in Los Angeles County: Innovation with Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice and Coordinated Entry Systems, October 8, 2018, https://www.usich.gov/news/youth-homelessness-in-los-angeles-county-innovation-with-child-welfare-juvenile- justice-and-coordinated-entry-systems/ (accessed February 5, 2019). Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 29 Table 7 2018 Youth CES Participant Exit Destinations – Self-Identified Lifetime Experience with Probation and DCFS Social Worker Type of Service Percentage Permanent Housing 24% Temporary Housing (except Shelter) 24 Shelter 21 Unsheltered 11 Institution 7 Other 13 Source: LAHSA. For Transitional Aged Youth, generally consisting of youth aged between 18 to 26 (or younger for some services), LAHSA, in collaboration with other County agencies, implemented the Youth CES County-wide in September 2016. The intent was to coordinate permanent housing for TAY, including permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and Housing Choice Vouchers, as well as a portion of TAY transitional housing. Probation’s housing program administrators we interviewed stated that the Youth CES required six-month lead time to complete the process. When this timing was discussed with LAHSA representatives, the Committee members were informed that the process can be more flexible with timing, dependent on the priority and needs of the youth. To address the goal of preventing and ending youth homelessness, LAHSA, along with many partners, launched three pilot programs in 2017 to build new linkages between Youth CES and the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Specifically, Pilot #2 worked on integrating Youth CES into discharge planning processes within DCFS and Probation. For Probation-involved youth, collaboration required that a LAHSA representative participate in the MDT process to input the required information under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) priority assessment. We were informed that the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) used by LAHSA could not be accessed by law enforcement agencies, such as Probation, and a LAHSA representative had to be involved in the MDTs. Through this collaboration, Probation youth were able to connect to the Youth CES program. The article cites that 35 youths have been referred to Youth CES and successfully connected to safe and stable housing immediately upon exiting care.47 In addition to Youth CES, we learned of other housing programs available to TAY population. The following table provides a brief summary of some of the housing programs we became aware of during this investigation. Ibid. The Committee Members did not follow-up with LAHSA as to the breakdown between Probation and DCFS from 35 youths noted. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 30 Table 8 Summary of Available Housing Programs Program Name and Outside Special Eligibility Requirements Maximum Allowable Stay or Funding Source Benefit Period ILP (Independent Living Program) -Need to qualify between 16-18 - ILP eligible housing and other - Federal and State funded. Can years of age and benefits are available for those be used for housing outside the -“Suitable Placement Order” from between 18 and the day before 21. County. LAHSA / DCFS court needed. Certain benefits may be provided administered. to age of 24. Los Angeles Continuum of Care -18 to 25 year olds - Federal HUD funded. LAHSA -Can be ILP eligible or not. administered, but does not include certain cities. Rapid Re-housing -18 to 23 year olds (can extend to 2 years maximum stay. - Federal HUD and Measure H 24 year olds if additional Provides limited term rental funded. Community based units requirements are met.) subsidies and supportive services. administered by LAHSA. -Can be ILP eligible or not. THP-Plus (Transitional Housing -18 to 24 year olds (may extend to 2 years maximum stay. If qualified, Program Plus) 25 if qualified) and 1 additional year may apply, and - 82 beds in community based -Those youths who left foster care total of 3 years. apartments. A portion of youth’s or out-of-home placement income is contributed as rent but supervised by Probation on or after LAHSA noted 159 on waiting list in all contributions are returned to the 18th birthday. its December 1, 2017 Report Back. youth at the end. Administered by DCFS. State funded. THP+FC (Transitional Housing -Created for Non-Minor Placement-Plus Foster Care) Dependents who are in foster care, - Providers are licensed as ages 18 to 21. transitional housing placement providers. Administered by DCFS. -Must be in AB12 and comply with Federal funded. additional requirements. SILP (Supervised Independent -Must be approved under SILP MNDs may reside with parent or Living Placement) readiness assessment and youth guardian but is not being placed - Created for Non-Minor must continue to meet all eligibility with the parent. Dependents (NMD) who remain for Extended Foster Care. wards of the juvenile court. Proprietary Housing -Refers to shelter service providers 90 days. such as Dream Center, The Salvation Army or Angels Nest. Source: Based on interviews and review of existing reports. Compiled by the Committee members. During our research, the Committee members learned of the John Burton Advocates for Youth and its Annual Reports. In reviewing the 2017-18 John Burton Advocates for Youth Annual Report (JBAY Annual Report), we realized that eligible youth may be served by more than one of the housing programs listed above. For example, an ILP eligible youth may also access THP-Plus program or exit to another program. Based on the JBAY Annual Report, only 6% of youth that entered a THP-Plus program were ILP-eligible youth supervised by the juvenile probation 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 31 system.48 The same study noted that in 2012-13, there were 15% of ILP-eligible youth supervised by juvenile probation system that entered the THP-Plus program. The following table summarizes some of the facts noted in the JBAY Annual Report showing State-wide figures. Table 9 Summary of State Averages for THP-FC and THP-Plus Participants 2017-18 Annual Report by John Burton advocates for Youth Description THP+FC THP-Plus Percent entering from - 12% from emergency housing - 1 in 5 entered directly from homelessness (p.14). setting homelessness Highest living types exited to (p. - 22% - living with relative / other - 27% - living with relative / other 15). person in stable housing, rent free person in stable housing, rent-free - 18% - THP-Plus Program - 17% - Rent own / shared housing - 50% - Rent own / shared housing (paying rent) (paying rent) Educational Status at Exit (p. 18). 83% earned high school diploma, 84% earned high school diploma, GED or higher GED or higher Employment at Exit (p.20). 44% at exit 57% at exit Full Time (p. 20). 19% 33% Income (p. 20). Federal Poverty $13,296 / year $16,572 / year level for 1 person is $12,140 Source: JBAY Annual Report. Page numbers noted in the Description column refer to the JBAY Annual Report. After reviewing the State-wide data, members of this Committee contacted JBAY for County- specific information related to the THP-Plus and THP+FC programs. We wanted to compare the County-specific data to the State-wide information provided in the JBAY Annual Report. During this process, the Committee members learned that the County Counsel has a strict stance on sharing data regarding youths. As a result, providers in the THP+FC program could not provide data regarding the serviced youth. As to the THP-Plus program, some data were received but the providers in the THP-Plus program have not been consistent when inputting their data. For example, among the 15 youths who entered the THP-Plus program in 2017-18, eleven had missing data. Among the 48 youths who exited the THP-Plus program in 2017-18, no data were provided for 22 of them. As a result of incomplete data given by the County service providers, JBAY information is not accurate and is skewed. This information is provided in Table 10 below so that we can begin to understand who is accessing these services. John Burton Advocates for Youth, THP+FC & THP-Plus Annual Report 2017-18, October 2018, 13. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 32 Table 10 Answers from JBAY Regarding Los Angeles County Data for FY 2017-2018 CGJ Question JBAY Answer
F4:
Educational status at exit. Among the responders, 24 had earned high school diploma, GED or the equivalent or higher.
F5:
Employment status at exit. Among the 48 youths who exited THP-Plus program in 2017-18, 20 had missing data. Among the responders, 17 were employed at exit. Among the employed, 6 were full-time employees (35 hrs/wk or more) at exit.
F6:
Income level at exit. Monthly average of $1,008.50 or $12,102 annually (which includes stipends provided under the THP-Plus program). Source: Questions posed by Committee members and answers provided by JBAY. According to the JBAY Annual Report, THP-Plus programs in California were at 94 percent capacity, and there were only 88 vacancies across the 47 counties with THP-Plus programs. In the County, which has 31% of the State’s THP-Plus-eligible population, the County’s annual THP- Plus funding allocation is only six percent of the State’s realigned THP-Plus budget.49 As of June 30, 2018, the total THP-Plus bed capacity for the State was 1,411.50 From the total bed capacity 49 Ibid, 26. Ibid, 9. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 33 in the State, the County’s total bed count as of June 30, 2018 was 81 for the THP-Plus program.51 In its December 1, 2017 Report, LAHSA noted 159 on the waiting list for the THP-Plus program.52 In addition, as of October 1, 2018, the total number of non-minor dependents placed in THP+FC in the State was 1,962, of which 378 were placed in the County.53 Among the County participants in these two housing programs, there could be some Probation-involved youths. Due to time and resource constraints, we did not follow up with JBAY to pursue receiving the actual number of Probation-involved youths included in the data. Probation has housing experts available to assist Camp POs or Field POs who need expert assistance in finding housing for camp youth. Eligibility requirements for these housing programs are complex and not always straight forward. The idea that the Camp POs can inform the camp youth so that he can make an informed decision about his housing destiny within this maze of housing eligibility requirement is not realistic. Any expectation that the Camp POs or Field POs can work toward obtaining housing for eligible youth with assistance from a handful of housing experts within Probation is neither realistic nor an effective use of Probation DPOs’ time and resources. For several days, the Committee members observed Centinela Field POs working as stand-in parents, caseworkers who identify and coordinate services and disciplinarians. To suggest that these Field POs could identify the need for housing types described in this section and maneuver all steps to assist placing youth in these programs is, in this Civil Grand Jury’s view, unrealistic and does not utilize their expertise efficiently. During our interview, Probation’s housing experts were very clear that their services are also available to Probation-involved youth when the youth makes himself available on a voluntary basis seeking housing assistance. Once the Probation-involved youth avails himself demonstrating readiness for these services, then Probation’s housing experts are available to assist placing qualifying youth in qualifying housing programs. We assumed that these youths could include those previously detained at camps as well as others with lesser involvement with Probation. While a youth is given the assistance to qualify and enter these programs, our understanding is that it is up to the youth to follow up with the housing program administrators at Probation to pursue a successful outcome with these housing programs. During our interview with Probation’s housing experts, the Committee members heard that Probation youth also walk in for immediate help off the streets. Housing experts can call around and find a bed at a shelter for the night, if that, and sometimes provide their own money so that the youth can get to the shelter from the Probation office. The Committee members were informed that in the past, free annual transit passes had been given; but these annual passes were traded for goods or other items of value and were subject to misuse and abuse. Despite the past abuses with free passes, the need for providing some form of free Metro passes is greater now than ever. Members of this Committee requested County-specific information from JBAY. JBAY also noted that the actual number of youths served by the THP-Plus program as of June 30, 2018 in the County was 95, noting that a few providers were serving a few more youths than the contracted number of beds. Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Report Back, December 1, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/115116.pdf (accessed February 6, 2019), 24, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, State of Proceedings, Item 26, June 13, 2017, 42. Members of this Committee requested County specific information from JBAY, as well as the updated State-wide figure. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 34 On November 20, 2018, Supervisors Hilda L. Solis and Sheila Kuehl made a motion that instructed DCFS, the Chief Probation Officer and LAHSA “to develop a universal referral process from the DCFS and Probation to the YCES, develop a plan to train DCFS social workers and probation officers on YCES and appropriate referrals, identify resources needed to implement training, and identify representatives at DCFS regional offices and probation camps to serve as primary points of contact to maintain ongoing collaboration with YCES.”54 Citing a report by LAHSA, the Motion noted the underutilization of certain transitional housing beds and noted that 25% of ILP beds were vacant as of June 30, 2017. This Civil Grand Jury hopes that some of the information provided in this section could assist the County departments in forming the referral procedures to be implemented at Probation. Findings: 3.1 Housing programs with direct funding sources, either from federal or State programs, seem to be fully developed with knowledgeable administrators. But when high-risk youth do not satisfy all the requirements or are over 18 and not in foster care or placement, there does not appear to be many options for them. Some programs have such strict eligibility requirements that there are vacancies despite the high demand for housing among the TAY population. 3.2 Currently, when a homeless Probation-involved youth walks into a Probation office for housing assistance, the best that can happen is to find a shelter bed without any means to get to the shelter site.
F7:
Data Collection and Availability Based on our review of publicly available reports and studies related to Probation, the Committee members were made aware of computer system and data extraction difficulties within County departments. During this investigation, the Committee members requested data and information from several County departments. Typically, upon receipt and review of initial set of information, there were follow-up requests and additional questions to clarify the information we received. We had no difficulty receiving general statistical information from our sources. When the Committee members requested general information such as the historical population in Probation camps, this information was provided to us during the interview. Once our requests became more specific, we noted that the data needed to be compiled and it took some time to receive this information. In instances where the data included in this report required an explanation of how the information was compiled by our source, an explanation is provided before or after each table. There is usually a statement to indicate the limitations of the provided information to highlight how the information was derived. During background research, publicly available reports highlighted the difficulties in extracting data from County departments, including Probation. Set forth below is a sample of such statements in studies and reports: • Probation extracted data used to compute outcome measures from its databases. …Data for supplemental outcomes are sometimes more problematic because Probation’s data are only as good as the information obtained from community-based organization service providers, schools, and other county government departments (e.g., Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health). …Data for some programs were relatively complete. In other programs, only a small fraction of program participants had data available for 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 48 supplementary measures, calling into question the appropriateness of any findings based on such a small subsample.66 • Probation uses 46 different data systems to manage clients, staff, contracted providers, and a range of other information. Of these 46 systems, 25 are operated by Probation and 21 are systems operated by other County Departments or vendors, but accessed by Probation. Many of these systems are electronic document systems, not databases from which data can be extracted. Across data systems, there is a limited ability to link data and limited data sharing with other County departments, which reduces data utility and creates a number of challenges across all levels of Probation staff.67 • In some cases, interagency data sharing has been stalled due to extremely restrictive interpretations of the confidentiality provisions within federal statutes and regulations. Other California counties share data much more freely and effectively across agencies.68 • In addition to the lack of extractable data and linked data, the Probation Department’s outdated data systems and insufficient resource for IT staff, staff training, and systems upgrades impede the Department’s ability to make data-driven decisions. In particular, the Department has a limited capacity to track client outcomes. The absence of outcome data prevents the Department from comprehensively evaluating the effectiveness of its programs, making it difficult to ascertain whether or not programs are working.69 • Several stakeholders indicate that a better case management data system (or more consistent use of such systems) is needed, and would enable some automation and save time on reports. Many individuals noted that the current data situation makes it difficult for sharing of data among agencies serving the same population (mental health, child welfare, etc.). There is a general desire to see an increased use of electronic data systems, particularly to track outcomes and to automate reports.70 In addition to County departments, the Committee members also relied on data collected by a State agency, as well as a non-profit organization for some of the information included in this report. While requesting County-specific information from JBAY, we learned that JBAY also uses information compiled by the California Department of Social Services through the California Child Welfare Indicators Project. We learned that JBAY prepares its Annual Reports regarding two transition housing programs with the data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project and JBAY’s information collected through two different tracking systems. Fain, xxvii. LA Probation Governance Study – 120 Day Status Report, 17. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid, 23. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 49 The Committee members made requests to JBAY for County-specific information used in preparing its most recent Annual Report. In that process, we learned that some of the County’s service providers are not fully entering the necessary data into the JBAY’s tracking system for the THP-Plus program. Incomplete data entered into the JBAY’s THP-Plus tracking system causes the entire data to be skewed and not useful. As for the THP+FC program, we were informed by JBAY that the County service providers in the THP+FC program are prohibited from utilizing JBAY’s THP+FC tracking system. We learned that this prohibition is due to the County Counsel’s legal position that the data regarding THP+FC participating youth cannot be entered into the JBAY’s tracking system. As a result of the County Counsel’s legal position, only the incomplete data regarding THP-Plus service providers are available for the County. The County Counsel should reconsider the basis for prohibiting County service providers from sharing data related to these two transition housing programs with JBAY. As part of this report, and to support our argument to allow the provision of data, the data compiled from limited participants in a few of our tables are included in this report and noted these limitations. The County Counsel should review and reconsider if improvements and/or clarifications can be made as to how the data is gathered and provided so that the information for the County youth can be collected and included in the State-wide report. If such movement in the legal position can be done, then there is a need for a procedure to be in place to verify the accuracy of the provided data. The Committee members also received some information from LAHSA in the process of preparing this report. LAHSA uses the HMIS, a technology system required by HUD to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to individuals and families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. HMIS is a platform for managing information about persons experiencing homelessness, which serves as the basis for the Coordinated Entry System (CES).71 LAHSA-funded programs, DMH-funded programs serving persons experiencing homelessness, and DHS-funded providers delivering intensive case management services are mandated to participate in HMIS. A small group of agencies not funded by these sources voluntarily participate in HMIS.72 There is soft participation across DMH, DHS, and public housing authorities.73 Agencies that participate in HMIS enter data on new clients as they access services and update data on existing clients as information, such as their contact information or their housing status, changes over time.74 In a pilot program for improving access to Youth CES for camp youth, we understand that a LAHSA representative participated in MDTs at camps to input the necessary data in the HMIS. Information collection was done by a LAHSA representative since Probation is considered a law enforcement agency that cannot access HMIS. Once the data is collected, we 71 LAHSA, Interim Report Back – Comprehensive Analysis of the 2017 Homeless Count Results, August 25, 2017, 10, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 77A, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114790.pdf (accessed March 19, 2019). Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 50 understand that LAHSA is required to prioritize the housing need and follow HUD procedures and parameters for housing placements. The collection of data for input in the HMIS platform is not the same as one having access into the HMIS system and allowing review of information available from HMIS. This distinction could be noted and further explored as to whether the collec ion of data during MDTs could be had with Probation representatives already familiar with the youth. This discussion needs to be done with County Counsel to determine whether such data collection done by Probation staff could facilitate a more efficient process to connect the camp youth with LAHSA’s Youth CES program for housing at camp exit. If this distinction could be made and the legal distinction be allowed by County Counsel, Probation should work with the Chief Information Officer in the CEO’s Office to implement a process that works for both Probation and LAHSA, consistent with parameters provided by County Counsel. Once such electronic information is transferred to LAHSA, the information could be input into the HMIS system, without access to the HMIS system from Probation. We also learned that the Chief Executive Officer’s Research and Evaluation Services (RES) unit was able to collect data from six County agencies and LAHSA for a recent report. On February 20, 2018, the CEO reported back to the County Board of Supervisors regarding potential ways that the homeless population that is unaccounted for in the Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count could be reflected in the future allocation of funding for the Measure H Strategies.75 RES unit collected administrative records from seven data systems maintained by six County agencies, as well as the HMIS, to produce a different homeless estimate than the LAHSA count.76 The agencies and systems from which data were collected to produce the alternative count are: DCFS (IDSS), DHS (ORCHID and CHAMP), DMH (IBHIS), DPSS (LRS), LASD (AJIS), WCADS (WIOA, LACYJ, and AAA).77 The data reviewed by the CEO yielded 121,812 unique persons identified as homeless in January 2017, doubling the LAHSA’s Point-in-Time count of 57,794.78 RES geocoded the administrative data used to produce the CEO estimate based on facility zip codes in the service records and, for DPSS, the areas served by DPSS’ district offices.79 The Chief Probation Officer should work with bureau chiefs to identify whether a similar geocoding technology should be used for the various data that is being collected and should be collected going forward. The Committee members learned from the Centinela Field POs, that they were able to extract data from several systems to make a point-in-time assessment of criminal justice system involvement of previously supervised youth. A point-in-time review of several County department databases was done to determine the status of randomly selected camp exited 75 Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, 1, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 12, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114788.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). Attachment I to Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, I, attached to the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 12, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114788.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). Footnote 3 of Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, Attachment I, 2. Ibid, i. Ibid, ii. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 51 youth. Centinela Field POs randomly selected youths from 2013 to 2017 and reviewed their current criminal justice status. Each Centinela Field PO is assigned zip code(s) and oversees the youth who resides in the assigned zip code area. The sample pool of youth did not include youth supervised by DPOs working primarily in the 90044 zip code area. Table 13 Point-in-Time Review of Outcomes of Youth Supervised by Centinela Field POs Random Sample of Supervised Youth between 2013 to 2017 Prison or Jail Pending Probation No Pending Total Hearing Case* Total Persons 51 6 30 14 101 Percentage 50.5% 5.9% 29.7% 13.8% 100% Source: Probation. *Includes deceased persons. Centinela Field POs compiled this data from (i) the Probation Case Management System, (ii) the Juvenile Automated Index system of the courts, and (iii) the booking number assigned by the County Sheriff’s Department upon arrest. Centinela Field POs believe that there are a number of persons who have died since Probation jurisdiction ended; however, this information could not be determined and is included in the number of persons noted under the caption “No Pending Case.” Further, the number of persons noted under this column only indicates that there were no pending criminal proceedings at the time of this review and no other inference should be made. In assembling this study group, the youth residing in the zip code area 90044 were deliberately not included. This area is considered to be one of the most crime-ridden areas in the County. As this table demonstrates, existing systems and data input can provide helpful information for review of trends and comparisons. This data collection process could be further refined by Probation representatives for additional point-in-time assessment of status to assess any trends. But the more important review should be to determine the extent to which the camp-released youth continued schooling, as well as recommended mental health services after termination of probation and whether such participation made significant differences in the outcome. Some of the data included in this report already indicate a stark difference in high school completion rate and employment rate. There are existing platforms that collect useful data to understand the behavior and outcomes of Probation-involved youth in broader terms than the camp-exiting youth. To the extent that the collected data are useful, County departments could consider obtaining licenses for these platforms and begin implementation procedures for collecting accurate data. From our perspective, there is no reason why the County data could not be collected by a lead agency from the County. The lead agency should also implement controls to verify initially that the provided information is accurate. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 52 To this end, LAHSA Report Back to the Board of Supervisors, dated December 1, 2017, recommended several data related items, including establishing a set of universal data elements with a mandate for LAHSA, DCFS, Probation, and DMH to regularly track each data element.80 The Report Back also noted that data elements captured by different departments are on multiple systems and incompatible with each other, particularly noting that DCFS data collection system is not linked to HMIS used by LAHSA and DMH and recommends integrating with HMIS.81 On December 18, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors “directed the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Information Officer to develop a Board policy in 90 days, in consultation with County Counsel, that delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Information Officer … as the County’s ‘data steward’ to link common clients and their service records across Departments and anonymize data for the purposes of program evaluation; identify, evaluate, analyze and research County programs that serve vulnerable populations with the ability to engage external evaluators where appropriate….”82 Given the restrictions for law enforcement agencies for accessing HMIS, this Civil Grand Jury is not convinced that this system should be the central platform for data collection. As a starting point, the Chief Information Officer should revisit LAHSA’s comment and determine what hurdles exist from achieving a variable of LAHSA recommendation with the Chief Information Officer acting as “data steward,” as directed by the County Board of Supervisors. Findings: 7.1 In the process of receiving County-specific data from JBAY, this Civil Grand Jury learned that County service providers in the THP+FC program are prohibited from utilizing JBAY’s THP+FC tracking system. This Civil Grand Jury learned that this prohibition is due to the County Counsel’s legal position that the data regarding THP+FC participating youth cannot be entered in the JBAY’s tracking system. As a result of this legal position, only the data from County’s THP-Plus service providers are available on the JBAY tracking system and only to a limited extent. 7.2 This Civil Grand Jury also learned from JBAY that data submitted by County service providers for the THP-Plus program are not always complete or accurate. 7.3 This Civil Grand Jury submits that the collection of data for input into the HMIS platform is not the same as having access into the HMIS system and allowing review of information available from HMIS. LAHSA Report Back, dated December 1, 2017, 23, attached to the County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Item 26, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1025670_061317.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). Ibid, 24. County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Item 14, December 18, 2018, 18 - 19. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 53 7.4 The CGJ understands that the Chief Executive Officer’s RES unit geocoded the administrative data from multiple sources to produce the CEO estimate enhanced homeless population information based on facility zip codes.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
20 hallazgos
F1:
The DCFS surveys from Lancaster and Palmdale gave extensive paperwork as a factor which made their job more difficult.
F2:
The lack of coordination between multiple county agencies to work across platforms inhibits data sharing of cases which prevents services from being delivered in a timely manner.
F3:
BOS, CEO and OCP are working together to ensure that children and families are given every opportunity to succeed at having a loving, healthy environment to thrive and be safe.
F4:
The CGJ found that DCFS staff are hampered by the lengthy distances travelled daily between home, work and the various client locations. This creates an added stressor to all staff.
F5:
The CGJ found that staff were required to travel out of state due to the ICPC regulations which ensures the safety and stability of placements of children across State lines.
F6:
The CGJ found that all levels of staff from CSW trainee to SCSW were understaffed. This adds to job uncertainty and the inability to complete case paperwork required by judicial statutes in a time laden system. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE: WHAT IS HAPPENING AT DCFS? 1 -
F7:
The CGJ found that the Lancaster and Palmdale offices do not have enough staff with seniority to adequately support the new hires and maintain a competent working organization
F8:
The CGJ found the BOS, CEO and OCP are studying the implementation of extraordinary measures (initial assignment bonuses, transportation allowances, location based pay differentials, etc.) to hire and retain staff at the Antelope Valley offices.
F9:
The CGJ found staff at both area offices of the AV felt unsafe going to home sites and required visits alone.
F10:
The CGJ found that DCFS staff is stymied by the lack of community based resources within the Antelope Valley area for their caseloads.
F11:
The CGJ found that current DCFS staff members feel they need relevant job training and asked for laptops to enter data at the site of home visits to avoid case errors.
F12:
The CGJ found staff should receive a variety of mandatory training in and around the county.
F13:
The CGJ found that the coverage of the vast area of Antelope Valley made hardship demands on staff and their personal vehicles.
F14:
The CGJ found staff uses their personal vehicles for job tasks and requested Department issued gas cards to allow them to travel to required job sites.
F15:
The CGJ found that DCFS staff are paid $.06 per mile for all out-of-state gas expenses when using rental cars.
F16:
Employee job satisfaction is hindered by office prohibitions to transfer out of Antelope Valley.
F17:
The CGJ found that delays in Law Enforcement showing up at abuse scenes left CSWs lacking in knowledge and skills to preserve evidence at the scene.
F18:
The Committee found that the E-SCARS reporting between LASD and DCFS was not coordinated to prevent cross-over underreporting.
F19:
The CGJ found that area police and sheriff personnel were not available at times of critical need for Emergency Response to E-SCARS Child Abuse incidents.
F20:
The CGJ found that the Medical Hub at the High Desert office is in need of supervisory medical staff to ensure that Emergency Response (ER) and Dependency Investigation (DI) cases are seen locally instead of traveling to the Los Angeles Medical Hub at USC. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE: WHAT IS HAPPENING AT DCFS? 1 -
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
The data provided to the CGJ, as summarized in the “LAPD Response Times” chart, showed there have been increases in the response times for Code 2 and Non-code calls from the baseline year of 2010 by 20% and 60% respectively by 2018.
F2:
The shuttering of community station jails requires patrol units to transport arrestees to the regional jails. As shown in the “Distance and Travel times” chart, the distances they are required to travel as the result of the closed jails are greater, resulting in longer travel times; and additional time may be encountered if they encounter traffic congestion. This can be mitigated with the reopening of the shuttered jails.
F3:
As listed in the table “Arrestee Status/Action Matrix”, the wait time for patrol unit officers at the three regional jails for arrestees with medical conditions was reported to the CGJ and observed as often being excessive due to there being only a single line for the dispensary at each regional jail.
F4:
The program known as ‘Drop & Go’ which was implemented on a trial basis demonstrated that delays caused by transporting arrestees to the regional jails could be reduced by transferring control of the arrestee to a detention officer assigned in a dispensary support role.
F5:
The data provided to the CGJ regarding the improvement in booking times complementing the typical wait times listed in the “Arrestee Status/Action Matrix” chart, clearly indicates 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ARREST AND TRANSFER 2 - 8 that the ‘Drop & Go’ program is able to significantly improve booking times and contribute positively to reducing patrol unit ‘out-of-service’ periods.
F6:
Dispensaries at each of the three regional jails have multiple booking windows; however, there is accommodation for only one arrestee at a time to receive a medical assessment at the dispensary causing long lines, which contributes to extended wait times.
F7:
Detention officers are civilian personnel and job openings are advertised in civilian workforce job listings. Recruitment and hiring of detention officers are handled by L.A. City Personnel Department. LAPD recruitment programs on the other hand focus solely on the recruitment of sworn officers. The LAPD does not promote or actively recruit detention officers. Opportunities for detention officers are not promoted on the LAPD website. (See Appendix).
F8:
LAPD officers indicated that long waiting times causes them to become frustrated since they are not performing their regular duties, having a negative effect on officer morale.
F9:
Based on feedback received during interviews, it is the understanding of the CGJ that the Mental Evaluation Unit (MEU) and the System-wide Mental Assessment Response Team (SMART) can help with non-crime arrestees requiring mental evaluations. However, these resources are only available in the metropolitan downtown area.
F10:
The CGJ experienced difficulty reaching an individual at many of the community stations using their non-emergency telephone numbers. While some calls were answered promptly, most were forwarded to voicemail.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
There is inconsistency in the “routine” provision of exculpatory and impeachable information given to defense attorneys. While the District Attorney’s office of Discovery Compliance provides training to new hires, or by courthouse location, or to specialized units and on-going to all DA’s, the provision of “information” is not standardized.
F2:
The Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s do not provide Brady officers to the District Attorney in Los Angeles County.
F3:
AB 1421 was signed by Governor Brown making police officer records of shootings, use of force and some misconduct disclosable to the general public. While policing agencies and their unions have attempted through the courts to say: they may not be disclosed, they may not retroactively be disclosed (prior to the implementation date of January 1, 2019) and that they should be limited to a number of years.
F4:
Some policing agencies including Inglewood and Long Beach began shredding documents in December 2018. The Los Angeles Police Chief announced that he would not release records prior to January 1, 2019 but only records going forward.
F5:
The Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have not routinely turned over Brady officers to the District Attorney. The District Attorney stated that they learn about questionable officers from reports in the news or through other means, but not directly from the policing agencies. In turn, information that the DA’s office receives has inconsistently been shared with defense attorneys.
F6:
Protective Orders requested by the DA, that may limit a defense attorney’s use of information for one case when the same officer may be a witness in another case, often results in a limited ability to provide an adequate defense. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT BRADY INFORMATION, IT IS AVAILABLE? 3-
F7:
The final disposition of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) vs. County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department: Jim McDonnell,28 currently before the California Supreme Court, as well as the litigation around the implementation of AB 1421 will impact the availability of information and personnel files regarding police misconduct.
F2019:
and that they should be limited to a number of years. 4. Some policing agencies including Inglewood and Long Beach began shredding documents in December 2018. The Los Angeles Police Chief announced that he would not release records prior to January 1, 2019 but only records going forward. 5. The Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have not routinely turned over Brady officers to the District Attorney. The District Attorney stated that they learn about questionable officers from reports in the news or through other means, but not directly from the policing agencies. In turn, information that the DA’s office receives has inconsistently been shared with defense attorneys. 6. Protective Orders requested by the DA, that may limit a defense attorney’s use of information for one case when the same officer may be a witness in another case, often results in a limited ability to provide an adequate defense. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT BRADY INFORMATION, IT IS AVAILABLE? 3- 6 7. The final disposition of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) vs. County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department: Jim McDonnell,28 currently before the California Supreme Court, as well as the litigation around the implementation of AB 1421 will impact the availability of information and personnel files regarding police misconduct.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
The staff at the Department of Cannabis Regulation appears to be limited in its ability to handle the multitudes that wish to be interviewed as they attempt to apply for licenses. The City’s Social Equity Program is not meeting the needs of those who would qualify for the program due to the lack of personnel in the Department of Cannabis Regulations to pre-screen these applicants.
F2:
The City’s Social Equity Plan does not appear to offer long term opportunities for its recipients to “OWN” a cannabis related business.
F3:
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office has not provided any information to the CGJ about whether or not it will meet its deadline of July 1, 2020 in the expungement of cannabis convictions or how they will go about doing so.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
F1:
It is difficult and confusing for the average individual to find out how to report suspected Elder Abuse because no easy-to-locate Internet source for “how to report Elder Abuse” could be located. Additionally published, printed documents are not widely distributed or available. Also, no public service advertising campaigns regarding Elder Abuse awareness came to the attention of the CGJ during the term from July 2018 to May 2019.
F2:
The term “Elder Abuse” is not a term that people are commonly aware of while “Child Abuse” and “Domestic Violence” are recognized, well known terms.
F3:
Where telephone numbers for reporting elder Abuse can be located on websites and in published documents, multiple telephone numbers relating to Elder Abuse are often provided. Encountering multiple numbers and having to determine which number to call, simply put, is unnecessarily confusing.
F4:
Information on Elder Abuse located on Internet searches24 and in County or City of Los Angeles publications is often found to be confusing. Cross referencing several sources, e.g. a website and a printed publication, is found to be confusing as multiple, alternative 24 As websites are subject to being changed, while websites were searched, referencing them will not necessarily provide the same information or layout/appearance that the CGJ encountered during its inquiries. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 9 terms and descriptions are encountered. In particular, it is not easy to locate the correct toll free telephone number for reporting Elder Abuse on the WDACS website.25 There is an array of Elder Abuse topics posted in ‘boxes’ for reporting abuse, of which seven relate to elder abuse but only one of the seven options provides the correct number – (877) 477- 3646 – for the 24-Hour, Adult Protective Services Abuse Hotline. This number is not visible until one clicks on the appropriate option!
F5:
County websites are not always consistent and are difficult to navigate, and at least one broken link led to a “404 Web page not found” error notification on the Workforce Development, Aging & Community Services (WDACS) website26 making the County web site search to be of no help.
F6:
Clicking on the “Report Elder Abuse” button on the WDACS website27 brings up a form intended for use by trained, mandated reporters. This form is not user-friendly to the general public as only those who have received training will understand the purpose of many of the data entry fields. The form is not intuitive.
F7:
Adult Protective Services (APS) is the sole county agency that receives Elder Abuse reports.28 APS receives reports of Elder Abuse from mandated reporters and from the general public. Mandated reporters include Law Enforcement, Social Workers, Healthcare and Medical workers, Fire department employees, the Long Term Care Ombudsman and others.29
F8:
The information published on Los Angeles County websites about Adult Protective Services and how to report Elder Abuse is almost entirely oriented toward mandated reporters making the WDACS and APS websites unhelpful for the general public.
F9:
In County and City publications that we located, Elder Abuse reporting and Adult Protective Services information is just one of many topics included in the document causing Elder Abuse to lack visibility with Adult Protective Services in particular lacking visibility. The CGJ reviewed two near-identical publications that provide extensive information on services for the Elderly and for their families that are available from the Agencies on Aging for the City and County – "Elder Abuse: Prevention through Prosecution" and “Elder Justice: A Resource Guide for Action”. One of these six-page directories, shown on the next page, includes the front cover main headline, "Stop Elder Abuse". 25 https://wdacs.lacounty.gov/programs/aps/whenwhere-to-report-abuse/ 26 https://www.lacounty.gov/report/ the link posted as “I want to report… Elder Abuse (Adult Protective Services)” - verified 5-3-2019. 27 https://wdacs.lacounty.gov/ 28 https://wdacs.lacounty.gov/programs/aps/ 29 “Information For Mandated Reporters”, http://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Adult-Protective-Services 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 10 The following two graphics show the inside page which provides the following information about ‘who to call’ from each of these two brochures: • Dial 911 to report elder abuse or neglect to the Police NOW if the abuse is immediate and life-threatening. • Elder Abuse Hotline at 1-877-477-3646 or 1-800-992-1660 to report allegations of abuse when you are unsure on where to call. • Adult Protective Services, County of Los Angeles, 1-888-202-4248 if you suspect elder abuse in the community. Call 213-351-5401 if you are outside of Los Angeles County. • Long-Term Care Ombudsman, at WISE & Healthy Aging 1-800-334-9473 and report suspected abuse occurring at board and care homes, nursing homes and assisted living facilities in LA County. • Statewide Ombudsman after-hours crisis line: 1-800-231-4024. * The entry referencing ‘Dial 911’ included above does not appear in the on-line version shown on this page but is included in hard copy versions of the brochure. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 - 11 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 -
F10:
The information line referencing Adult Protective Services in both documents providing multiple telephone numbers is confusing; the 1-877-477-3646 number alone is adequate.
F11:
These excellent documents provide helpful information about the various types of Elder Abuse. However, both have been distributed on a very limited basis because of printing costs, the expenses of mailing and, the CGJ was advised, a limited budget.
F12:
Although it is not at all easy to find them unless one has the URL, on-line versions of these two documents exist and can be located online at: http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/Elder_Abuse_BRO_for_Law_Enforcement_6-5-15.pdf and http://www.wiseandhealthyaging.org/cms/pdf/Elder%20Justice%20Resource%20Guide%202018% 20web.pdf. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE CHALLENGE OF REPORTING ELDER ABUSE 5 -
F13:
The statistical information provided by APS showed the number of reported incidents of Elder Abuse that warranted an investigation. The number of reported incidents of Elder Abuse that warranted an investigation rose from 41,220 in 2014-2015 to 56,065 in 2017- 2018, a growth of 38.3% over a 4 year period. During this time period APS staffing increased minimally. The average number of new cases per social worker per year has risen from 317 in 2014-15 to 356 in 2017-18. As stated in the earlier section on ‘Suspected Elder Abuse Calls Reported’ (on page 5-8), the average number of new cases per social worker per year has risen by 12%.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
This investigative committee conducted telephonic interviews with former CGJ members who resigned from grand jury service. Every former juror interviewed stated that unsuitable working facilities and conditions and the daily rate of pay were major contributing factors that led to their resignation.
F2:
The Los Angeles County CGJ is not a member of the California Grand Jury Association. The purpose of this association is to “promote, preserve and support the grand jury system through training, education, and outreach”.19
F3:
Currently, the CGJ occupies approximately 1,864 sq. ft. of County space. During an interview between members of this CGJ investigative group and personnel with the L.A. County CEO Real Estate and Leasing Division, it was stated by these experts that the space provided to the CGJ should be approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in order to provide the most productive work environment.20
F4:
The current training provided to the CGJ is inadequate and contributes to the attrition of CGJ members. 18https://officeprinciples.com/planning/space-calculator/(accessed 04-26-19) 19 California Grand Jury Association website https://cgja.org/ (accessed 03-05-19) 20 Meeting with employees of Space Management, Real Estate and Leasing Division, CEO’s Office 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT GRAND JURY FACILITIES AND RETENTION 7 -
F5:
Alternates who join the jury after three months or more of jury activity, are hindered to competently perform their expected duties because they did not participate in the initial jury training, they did not have the opportunity to hear any of the invited speakers, and investigations were already underway.
F6:
Many misconceptions related to the requirements of jury service result in jury attrition and must be addressed before jurors and alternates are sworn-in. These include the state of the sheriff’s buses, monthly payment requirement, and the state of the working facilities.
F7:
The transportation buses currently provided to the Los Angeles CGJ are subpar and is a contributing factor to why some jurors elected not to participate in all mandated off-site activities.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
Based on conversations with police department officials, there are no human trafficking educational programs offered at the middle and high school levels in the Inglewood School system.
F2:
Based on conversations with police department officials, there are no human trafficking educational programs offered at the middle and high school levels in the Gardena School system.
F3:
Based on conversations with police department officials, there are no human trafficking educational programs offered at the middle and high school levels in the Hawthorne School system.
F4:
Although active communications currently exist, according to the police department, there is no Inglewood Police Officer designated as a partner of the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force.
F5:
Although active communications currently exist, according to the police department, there is no Gardena Police Officer designated as a partner of the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN INGLEWOOD AND SURROUNDING CITIES 9 -
F6:
Although active communications currently exist, according to the police department, there is no Hawthorne Police Officer designated as a partner of the Los Angeles Regional Human Trafficking Task Force. 7 The LARHTTF is a separate operating unit within the LASD.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
Due to the location of North County and other remote libraries, the CGJ observed that there are no options available to facilitate maintenance repairs immediately.
F2:
North County and other remote libraries noted that they have problems with the availability of adequate personnel in order to meet the needs of those who patronize the library.
F3:
Libraries have created a wide range of programs to stimulate and maintain the interests of users.
F4:
Partnerships have also been created with other agencies to provide multiple needed services for patrons who are homelessness and/or suffer from mental illness.
F5:
In many libraries visited by the CGJ, training is primarily being provided for management and administrative staff on “how to handle difficult patrons”.
F6:
Some libraries in the county have established programs that employ social workers or other empathetically trained staff to work directly with the homeless or troubled patrons. This is not common in all libraries.
F7:
Many patrons have deserted the library because of personal discomfort and the feeling that it is no longer a safe place.
F8:
City and County Library security personnel have identified problematic high priority libraries that experience a large number of calls for service from security personnel for law enforcement or a significant number of incidents.
F9:
Many libraries do not have permanent security personnel assigned on a regular basis.
F10:
Los Angeles County Library and the Los Angeles County Sheriff department have developed a three phased implementation plan for policing the most critical library sites. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT THE IMPACT OF THE HOMELESS ON PUBIC LIBRARIES 10 -
F11:
Los Angeles Police Department implemented fourteen major initiatives during 2015-2018 to reduce crime in city libraries and continues to evaluate their needs on a monthly basis.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Administrative fees, penalty assessments, and surcharges, including those charged by Los Angeles County, are extraordinarily burdensome. Individuals exiting the criminal justice system are often charged dozens of administrative fees and surcharges, which total thousands of dollars per person.
F2:
State law authorizes counties to charge criminal justice administrative fees. These financial exactions are intended to generate revenue for rehabilitative programs and to fund their operations. However, the Los Angeles County Probation Department has recovered only 23% of these fees charged over a 25 year period.
F3:
Over 100 probation officers, law enforcement, and numerous other individuals and organizations propose that probation supervision fees be eliminated or significantly curtailed. Instead, they propose preserving most or all of the savings from reducing probation and parole populations and redirect those resources on improving community based services. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT POST RELEASE INMATE FEES 11-
F4:
In 2017, California enacted SB 190 (Mitchell, Lara) which ended the imposition of juvenile administrative fees previously charged by Los Angeles County and other counties in California.
F5:
The Los Angeles County Probation Department states that over the past twenty five years only 23% of the array of administrative fees has been collected. Based on tabular data provided to the CGJ, less than half of the accounts collected under active supervision are restitution related.
F6:
Restitution to victims of crimes is the top priority and payments to other administrative fees can be made only when restitution amounts are satisfied.
F7:
State legislation may be required to change or eliminate various categories of collections of administrative fees, penalty assessments, and surcharges including those charged by Los Angeles County.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
What percentage of youths entering the THP-Plus THP-Plus - Out of 15 youths who entered THP-Plus and THP-FC enter from homelessness? program in the County in 2017-18, 11 had missing data. Among the responding youths, 1 entered THP+FC – not available due to County’s legal position directly from homelessness. Four indicated that they which does not allow providers to enter data experienced homelessness between foster care and regarding youths. THP-Plus. For Questions 2 through 4, among 48 youths who Among the responders, the highest types of housing exited THP-Plus program in 2017-18, 22 had missing entered into THP-Plus from: (i) 10 entered from data. another supportive transitional housing program; (ii) 6 entered from living with a relative or other person in
F2:
Where Are They Coming From and Where Are They Going? A significant number of youth return home after exiting camps. In this section, some of the situations occurring after the youth’s return home are highlighted. Much of the information is based on our interviews with the Centinela Field POs and, as a result, we do not have actual data to support the number of instances described in this section. While the number of incidences for the described types of events may differ when the data are tracked, the Committee members believe that the types of events occur with sufficient regularity. A summary of our discussions is included in this section as a starting point for collecting data. Service distinction also exists based on the youth’s age so that a youth over the age of 18 accessed services differently than the younger youth. DCFS History. Members of this Committee requested two sets of data from Probation: (i) the number of youth who enter directly from DCFS placement to Probation camps and (ii) the number of youth who exit to DCFS placement from Probation camp. Probation was unable to put together the first set of data; instead, Probation provided the total number of youth who had any history with DCFS prior to entering juvenile camps during 2018. Table 4 2018 Information of Camp Youth with DCFS History Total New Camp Orders Youths with DCFS History Percentage of Total New Camp Orders Male 482 312 65% Female 55 40 73% TOTAL 537 352 66% Source: Probation. To be clear, the information provided in the above table does not indicate the number of youths with open DCFS cases at the time of entering camps. Table 4 above should be viewed only to note the level of DCFS involvement among the camp-detained youth in 2018. Home Evaluations and First Residence after Camp Exit. Prior to the youth’s return home after camp release, Field POs visit and evaluate the family home to assess its suitability, including the physical condition and safety of the home. Field POs also conduct criminal background checks on all adult occupants of the home. Despite the history of DCFS involvement with a significant number of the camp population, there is no assessment of the family’s readiness to accept the returning youth. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 20 If after the initial home evaluation, Field POs find the home unsuitable, then if the problems can be remedied, they can schedule a re-evaluation at least 45 days prior to the youth’s release date. Centinela Field POs thought that one out of ten home evaluations required some problems to be remedied prior to the youth’s release. When the residence belongs to a relative or a friend, Field POs will consider the residence as unsuitable. Sometimes, there were multiple families living in a single unit and the residence was too crowded to be determined suitable. In each of these instances, families did not have a place of their own and were homeless themselves. Centinela Field POs recalled two to three such homeless families per month. Centinela Field POs referred such families to other agencies or CBOs to assist the family with housing with the goal of reuniting the family with the youth. In some instances where a family receives Section 8 vouchers, we were informed that families could lose benefits by allowing the Probation youth to rejoin the family. As a result, to protect the residence for the remaining family members, Centinela Field POs recalled that families might state that there is no place for the youth. If the youth is over 18 years of age and the parent or the guardian does not want the youth to return home, Field POs look into providing transitional housing or other housing programs such as the Independent Living Program. Field POs work to ferret out these needs during the Initial MDT so that they can begin to coordinate with other County departments and find housing for the youth. Some youth over the age of 18 are also parents themselves. In such cases, Field POs look to find resources more appropriate for families with infants. Centinela Field POs noted that among youth over 18 years of age, one in five cases involve finding resources for a new family. Some of the available housing programs for youth over 18 are discussed in Section 3. Although efforts are made to find transitional housing for youth over 18, there is simply not enough housing available to place all camp-released youth over 18. Centinela Field POs acknowledged that some camp-released youth do end up in shelters. When needed youth are placed in temporary shelters, some of which provide supportive services, such as employment guidance and independent studies to continue toward high school completion. Some of the temporary shelters also provide mental health services through DMH. Typically, youth remain for 30 to 60 days at such temporary shelters and Centinela Field POs continue to work with the youth to find more stable housing. Fleeing from Initial Residence. After exit from camp and reunited with family, Centinela Field POs found instances where the youth fled from home. This occurred in approximately three out of ten youth under 18 who returned home. Youth over 18 had lower flight instances and the Centinela Field POs estimated approximately two out of ten ran away from home. Once the youth flees, a bench warrant is issued and the Field POs stay in contact with the parent or guardian to have the youth turn himself in with the Field PO or at court. If the youth is over the age of 18, the outstanding bench warrant could place him in County jail, starting a new cycle of criminal justice experience. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 21 Suitable Placement for Youth under 18. For those youth under the age of 18 during camp detention who do not have a family home to return to or if the youth’s home has been deemed unsuitable for return at release, these youth could be sent to “Suitable Placement,” typically at a group home or in Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP), as they are now known. Contracts with such facilities determine whether the facility accepts Probation-involved youth. As a result, Probation is limited in accessing facilities that will accept Probation-involved youth. When a Camp PO makes the recommendation for “Suitable Placement,” others review and clear the recommendation at Probation before presenting it to the Juvenile Delinquency Court for consideration. Once approved at Probation, Camp PO will seek a Suitable Placement Order from Juvenile Delinquency Court for youth under 18 years of age. If the “Suitable Placement” recommendation is accepted by the Juvenile Delinquency Court, then the Camp PO will work on locating appropriate housing for the youth and satisfy the Suitable Placement Order. Some Juvenile Delinquency Court judicial officers issue Suitable Placement Orders routinely for youth not released to home, but this is not a uniform practice. Probation representatives also confirmed this. The youth is held at a juvenile hall after exiting camp until housing is found. Camp PO reports to the judge every 15 days as to the status of the Suitable Placement Order until successful placement of youth. Once a youth receives a Suitable Placement Order, then Probation’s Camp Community Transition Program Field PO’s jurisdiction ends and the Probation’s Placement Unit Probation Officers take over the responsibilities for the youth. Accordingly, Centinela Field POs do not supervise any youth subject to Suitable Placement Order. The following table sets forth the number of youth released from each operating camp to Suitable Placement at STRTPs between 2015 through November 30, 2018. [Remainder of this page intentionally left blank] 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 22 Table 5 Number of Youths Released from Camp to Suitable Placement at STRTP Camp 2015 2016 2017 2018 Afflerbaugh 6 8 7 5 Gonzales 3 3 6 1 Mendenhall 5 5 1 -- Kilpatrick -- -- 2 6 Miller 4 4 -- -- Munz 8 -- -- -- Paige 2 1 2 1 Rockey 18 18 12 6 Scott (girls) 19 9 8 9 Scudder (girls) 9 10 -- -- Jarvis 16 20 9 3 McNair 14 14 3 8 Onizuka 6 5 11 4 Scobee -- -- 4 6 Smith -- 6 1 -- Camps Headquarter 8 10 8 8 Total STRTP 118 113 74 57 Total Number of 1282 1048 798 620 Youth Released Source: Probation. Figures for 2018 reflect number of youths released through November 30, 2018. Other Home Arrangements. In addition to STRTP or group homes where youth may be placed, some youth may also be placed with “Resource Families” which is the new name for foster families with training and other qualifications that have converted to the Resource Family status. Based on a count from October 2017, the County had 550 of the State’s 2,700 total probation foster youth.39 During that time, there were approximately 60,000 children placed in foster care State-wide.40 Probation also successfully placed youth in adoptions. According to Probation, from 2006 to 2015, there have been five adoption cases for Probation-involved youth. For that same time, there were a total of eight adoptions for such youth State-wide, meaning only three other such adoptions occurred outside the County. Adoption procedures typically take two years since the parents are provided with at least 12 months of reunification services before the services are terminated along with legal rights. 39 Jeremy Loudenback, “California Hopes to Place More Probation Youth in Foster Homes Like this,” The Chronicle of Social Change, February 22, 2018, https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/meet-l-a-countys-only-foster-parent-for-probation-youth (accessed on February 5, 2019). 40 Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 23 Distinction in Housing Services Based on Age During our interviews with Probation representatives, a consistent distinction was noted as to the available services based on the age of the youth. If the youth is under 18, there are more options, including seeking placement in STRTP. But for youth over 18, the housing availability appeared to be no more than in the same pool of limited housing inventory for other homeless Transitional Aged Youth (TAY) in the County. There is no priority made for acceptance into housing programs for Probation youth who are released from camps. Programs administered by LAHSA follow the federal requirements. We discuss details of some of these programs in Section 3. The Twelfth Monitoring Report, Paragraph 73-3(c) requires that a transition plan is initiated within 30 days of arrival at camp.41 The transition plan requires determining whether the youth would be released to his/her home or would go from camp to suitable placement.42 If the youth were expected to go to placement, contact with the Placement Unit was [to be] established.43 In the Twelfth Monitoring Report, there is no mention of distinguishing services provided to camp- detained youth based on whether the person is under or over the age of 18. During our interviews, several Probation representatives mentioned that Probation only recommends suitable placement for youth aged 17 or younger. The rationale was that youth over 18 years of age could enter an “AB12 Program” such as THP+FC or Supervised Independent Living Program for which probation youth may participate. Assembly Bill 12 (AB12), the California Fostering Connections to Success Act, was signed into law on September 30, 2010. The legislation recognized the importance of family and permanency for youth and extended various benefits, including youth in foster care. Probation confirms that Probation-involved youth are also covered under AB12. To access services under AB12, one Probation representative stated that the Juvenile Delinquency Court would have to terminate its jurisdiction after the youth’s 18th birthday so that general jurisdiction under the California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 450 could be pursued with a finding that the youth was a non-minor dependent who is eligible for extended benefits under AB12. In an undated document titled “Commonly Asked Questions About AB12 (Extended Foster Care)” printed on Probation’s letterhead (WIC 450 Document), Probation provides additional procedures related to providing services under AB12.44 Selected text from the WIC 450 Document is reproduced below in its entirety, with minor format changes: 41 Graham, et al., 89. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 The Committee members received a hard copy of this document during an interview. There is no date for this document but the last page contains the following footer: CAQAB12:FT/JR:031318. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 24 • 5. What is explained to the kids? The youth should be informed about criteria or eligibility, the housing programs and services offered and the education, skill, and employment opportunities. • 6. Which minute orders need to be done? When a case is modified to 450 Status the probation case must be terminated and a Jurisdiction Termination minute order must be generated. An EFC minute order is also necessary for a modification to 450 status and re- entry. • 8. What is the protocol/practice for notifying probation’s Transition Jurisdiction Services unit when a youth walks into court desiring 450WIC? Should a youth walk into court who desires a 450 re-entry, a 450 WIC referral should be completed by an appointed court employee. This referral should then be forwarded to the TJC unit via the universal e-mail address located at the top of the referral. This will notify the unit a potential NMD [Non-Minor Dependent] needs assistance with the re-entry process. • 11. When a youth housed in a camp facility at 17 yrs old desires 450 WIC status what is the process for making that youth eligible? The camp probation officer will submit a referral to the AB12 unit. The camp probation office will explore placement options with the youth and submit applications to THPP-NMD’s. There will be 3 hearings in 1: Probation Grant hearing/602 termination (report); JV-466 petition completed; re-entry hearing (report)[.] The #5 [6][sic] minute order terminating 602WIC jurisdiction is completed and EFC minute order with Sections 2 and 3 completed. Court officer sends copy of MO to TJS SDPO (original goes to Camp DPO)[.] • 13. What is probation doing when placements WON’T take our kids? What pressure can probation put on these placements that reject our kids? The AB12 supervisor will consult with the housing program to ascertain the reason for the denial. If it does not comply with the guidelines of the contract, the SDPO will discuss the denial with the housing program and if the issue cannot be resolved in the youth’s favor, the issue will be elevated to the director level. Item 5 of the WIC 450 Document notes that the youth should be informed about the WIC 450 program. Item 8 contains the following phrase: “When a youth walks into court desiring 450 WIC.” The idea that youths take the lead in determining and choosing the available benefits was consistent during our interviews with several Probation representatives. Essentially, the youth must present himself and demonstrate his readiness for entering many of these housing programs. From our observations of Transitional MDTs, we noted that the youths’ school test results were not at their current age appropriate grade level and, for some, their test results were well below their grade level. A Camp PO simply informing the youth as to the housing program criteria or eligibility, as currently expressed in the WIC 450 Document, is insufficient. Probation’s procedures should 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 25 include guidance from Probation representatives (not the youth) to make the assessment regarding services available under AB12. After receiving guidance from Probation representative, and if determined eligible, then access to services under AB12 should be noted and included during the Initial MDT and carried through to the Transitional MDT to camp exit. Probation needs to assist and guide all youth identified by Probation as potentially eligible for AB12 so that a smooth housing transition is made for TAY exiting camps. The WIC 450 Document assumes that the Juvenile Delinquency Court will agree as to the actions required in the Document. Essentially, if the Juvenile Delinquency Court judicial officer does not issue the noted orders, Probation would be justified in not moving forward with this request from the youth. Interested parties need to discuss these procedures so that that youth who were intended to benefit from AB12 can be served timely and appropriately. As discussed in the next section of this report, there is a limited number of housing beds/units available in the County. Given the limitation in the number of beds/housing units in the County, cumbersome procedures are not needed but, rather, all interested parties need to discuss how to coordinate efficiently to better access the limited supply of housing inventory. As noted above, Probation is limited in its access to STRPTs and only those facilities that agreed to receive Probation-involved youth are available to Probation. Further, as noted in Item 13 of the WIC 450 Document above, it appears that Probation-involved youth do not receive the same priority with placement among peers even in facilities carved out for Probation-involved youth. Probation’s data for 2018 indicates an overwhelming majority of youth entering juvenile camps with DCFS history. The Committee members did not inquire as to the breakdowns of DCFS findings and did not assume that each case resulted in the positive findings by DCFS. Even so, this Civil Grand Jury believes that these data should be kept in mind. With outcomes from studies that indicate several times the likelihood of this group seeking County’s general relief assistance and jail experience, County Board of Supervisors and other departments need to coordinate with Probation so that youth exiting camps are given assistance to secure stable housing to begin their re-entry into community. Current housing resources are limited for all of the County’s homeless population. But when the historical data indicate outcomes that are nearly certain for continued receipt of a wide range of County assistance and highly likely involvement in the criminal justice system, the County Board of Supervisors needs to determine whether an upfront investment should be made to further assist camp youth who have made clear showing of making positive changes in their lives. Without assistance from Probation and other departments now, the probability of some of those youth moving toward a goal of independence is fragile at best. Without assisting these youth at the point of camp exit, the extensive work of many County departments started at juvenile camps and continued by Field POs after camp release might be wasted and not contribute to bringing changes in the youth’s future. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 26 Findings: 2.1 Probation-compiled data indicate a high number of youth entering juvenile camps with a history of DCFS experience. 2.2 When a home evaluation is done by a Field PO, the physical facilities are assessed but there is no assessment of the family’s readiness for reuniting with the youth. 2.3 During home evaluations, the Centinela Field POs have identified families who are essentially homeless and living in other people’s homes. 2.4 Some of the youth exiting camps are sent to temporary shelters, some of which provide supportive services during stay. 2.5 After reunifying with family, there are a number of youth who flee from their initial residence after camp exit. 2.6 Some youth who exit camps and are sent to temporary shelters or those who flee from their initial residence may end up seeking services provided by LAHSA. 2.7 When discussing Suitable Placement, Probation representatives consistently stated that Probation’s jurisdiction ended when the youth turned 18. To the extent that any portion of the DOJ settlement agreement is applicable to support Probation’s current practice of distinguishing services by age, applicable provisions should be noted in this assessment. 2.8 Probation’s own internal AB12 procedures would require that the youth affirmatively request assistance from Probation for accessing services under AB12. Given the testing levels of some of the youth noted during our Transitional MDT observations, this Civil Grand Jury is not sure that such affirmative assistance requests can be effectively made by many of the camp youth. 2.9 Current requirements under Probation’s WIC 450 Document further require that the Juvenile Delinquency Court also take certain steps so that a youth may access services under AB12. 2.10 It is challenging for camp youth to reintegrate into the community. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 -
F3:
Available Housing Programs for Probation Youth Over 18 Years of Age A recent article estimates that 3,306 homeless youth and young adults experience homelessness in the County on any given night.45 Among them, 31% report current or previous involvement in the child welfare system and 62% report previous or current involvement in the juvenile or criminal justice systems.46 The Committee members contacted LAHSA for additional information and the following table provides a summary of system experienced persons accessing LAHSA’s Youth Coordinated Entry System (Youth CES) during calendar year 2018. Table 6 LAHSA’s Youth CES Participant Breakdown for 2018 Category Number Percent Total Youth CES Participants 3,945 100% Identified as Having Probation Officer 939 24 Identified as Having DCFS Social Worker 1,736 44 Source: LAHSA. Despite double the number of persons self-identifying as being homeless in the count, those accessing Youth CES with Probation involvement are significantly less than those with DCFS experience. We requested that LAHSA determine the number of youth self-identifying as having both a Probation Officer and a social worker (though not necessarily at the same time). Instead of that number, LAHSA provided the following data that provide the exit destinations among LAHSA’s Youth CES Participants in 2018 who self-identified as having experience in both systems. 45 William Lehman, Youth Homelessness in Los Angeles County: Innovation with Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice and Coordinated Entry Systems, October 8, 2018, https://www.usich.gov/news/youth-homelessness-in-los-angeles-county-innovation-with-child-welfare-juvenile- justice-and-coordinated-entry-systems/ (accessed February 5, 2019). 46 Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 29 Table 7 2018 Youth CES Participant Exit Destinations – Self-Identified Lifetime Experience with Probation and DCFS Social Worker Type of Service Percentage Permanent Housing 24% Temporary Housing (except Shelter) 24 Shelter 21 Unsheltered 11 Institution 7 Other 13 Source: LAHSA. For Transitional Aged Youth, generally consisting of youth aged between 18 to 26 (or younger for some services), LAHSA, in collaboration with other County agencies, implemented the Youth CES County-wide in September 2016. The intent was to coordinate permanent housing for TAY, including permanent supportive housing, rapid re-housing, and Housing Choice Vouchers, as well as a portion of TAY transitional housing. Probation’s housing program administrators we interviewed stated that the Youth CES required six-month lead time to complete the process. When this timing was discussed with LAHSA representatives, the Committee members were informed that the process can be more flexible with timing, dependent on the priority and needs of the youth. To address the goal of preventing and ending youth homelessness, LAHSA, along with many partners, launched three pilot programs in 2017 to build new linkages between Youth CES and the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Specifically, Pilot #2 worked on integrating Youth CES into discharge planning processes within DCFS and Probation. For Probation-involved youth, collaboration required that a LAHSA representative participate in the MDT process to input the required information under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) priority assessment. We were informed that the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) used by LAHSA could not be accessed by law enforcement agencies, such as Probation, and a LAHSA representative had to be involved in the MDTs. Through this collaboration, Probation youth were able to connect to the Youth CES program. The article cites that 35 youths have been referred to Youth CES and successfully connected to safe and stable housing immediately upon exiting care.47 In addition to Youth CES, we learned of other housing programs available to TAY population. The following table provides a brief summary of some of the housing programs we became aware of during this investigation. 47 Ibid. The Committee Members did not follow-up with LAHSA as to the breakdown between Probation and DCFS from 35 youths noted. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 30 Table 8 Summary of Available Housing Programs Program Name and Outside Special Eligibility Requirements Maximum Allowable Stay or Funding Source Benefit Period ILP (Independent Living Program) -Need to qualify between 16-18 - ILP eligible housing and other - Federal and State funded. Can years of age and benefits are available for those be used for housing outside the -“Suitable Placement Order” from between 18 and the day before 21. County. LAHSA / DCFS court needed. Certain benefits may be provided administered. to age of 24. Los Angeles Continuum of Care -18 to 25 year olds - Federal HUD funded. LAHSA -Can be ILP eligible or not. administered, but does not include certain cities. Rapid Re-housing -18 to 23 year olds (can extend to 2 years maximum stay. - Federal HUD and Measure H 24 year olds if additional Provides limited term rental funded. Community based units requirements are met.) subsidies and supportive services. administered by LAHSA. -Can be ILP eligible or not. THP-Plus (Transitional Housing -18 to 24 year olds (may extend to 2 years maximum stay. If qualified, Program Plus) 25 if qualified) and 1 additional year may apply, and - 82 beds in community based -Those youths who left foster care total of 3 years. apartments. A portion of youth’s or out-of-home placement income is contributed as rent but supervised by Probation on or after LAHSA noted 159 on waiting list in all contributions are returned to the 18th birthday. its December 1, 2017 Report Back. youth at the end. Administered by DCFS. State funded. THP+FC (Transitional Housing -Created for Non-Minor Placement-Plus Foster Care) Dependents who are in foster care, - Providers are licensed as ages 18 to 21. transitional housing placement providers. Administered by DCFS. -Must be in AB12 and comply with Federal funded. additional requirements. SILP (Supervised Independent -Must be approved under SILP MNDs may reside with parent or Living Placement) readiness assessment and youth guardian but is not being placed - Created for Non-Minor must continue to meet all eligibility with the parent. Dependents (NMD) who remain for Extended Foster Care. wards of the juvenile court. Proprietary Housing -Refers to shelter service providers 90 days. such as Dream Center, The Salvation Army or Angels Nest. Source: Based on interviews and review of existing reports. Compiled by the Committee members. During our research, the Committee members learned of the John Burton Advocates for Youth and its Annual Reports. In reviewing the 2017-18 John Burton Advocates for Youth Annual Report (JBAY Annual Report), we realized that eligible youth may be served by more than one of the housing programs listed above. For example, an ILP eligible youth may also access THP-Plus program or exit to another program. Based on the JBAY Annual Report, only 6% of youth that entered a THP-Plus program were ILP-eligible youth supervised by the juvenile probation 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 31 system.48 The same study noted that in 2012-13, there were 15% of ILP-eligible youth supervised by juvenile probation system that entered the THP-Plus program. The following table summarizes some of the facts noted in the JBAY Annual Report showing State-wide figures. Table 9 Summary of State Averages for THP-FC and THP-Plus Participants 2017-18 Annual Report by John Burton advocates for Youth Description THP+FC THP-Plus Percent entering from - 12% from emergency housing - 1 in 5 entered directly from homelessness (p.14). setting homelessness Highest living types exited to (p. - 22% - living with relative / other - 27% - living with relative / other 15). person in stable housing, rent free person in stable housing, rent-free - 18% - THP-Plus Program - 17% - Rent own / shared housing - 50% - Rent own / shared housing (paying rent) (paying rent) Educational Status at Exit (p. 18). 83% earned high school diploma, 84% earned high school diploma, GED or higher GED or higher Employment at Exit (p.20). 44% at exit 57% at exit Full Time (p. 20). 19% 33% Income (p. 20). Federal Poverty $13,296 / year $16,572 / year level for 1 person is $12,140 Source: JBAY Annual Report. Page numbers noted in the Description column refer to the JBAY Annual Report. After reviewing the State-wide data, members of this Committee contacted JBAY for County- specific information related to the THP-Plus and THP+FC programs. We wanted to compare the County-specific data to the State-wide information provided in the JBAY Annual Report. During this process, the Committee members learned that the County Counsel has a strict stance on sharing data regarding youths. As a result, providers in the THP+FC program could not provide data regarding the serviced youth. As to the THP-Plus program, some data were received but the providers in the THP-Plus program have not been consistent when inputting their data. For example, among the 15 youths who entered the THP-Plus program in 2017-18, eleven had missing data. Among the 48 youths who exited the THP-Plus program in 2017-18, no data were provided for 22 of them. As a result of incomplete data given by the County service providers, JBAY information is not accurate and is skewed. This information is provided in Table 10 below so that we can begin to understand who is accessing these services. 48 John Burton Advocates for Youth, THP+FC & THP-Plus Annual Report 2017-18, October 2018, 13. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 32 Table 10 Answers from JBAY Regarding Los Angeles County Data for FY 2017-2018 CGJ Question JBAY Answer
F4:
Educational status at exit. Among the responders, 24 had earned high school diploma, GED or the equivalent or higher.
F5:
Employment status at exit. Among the 48 youths who exited THP-Plus program in 2017-18, 20 had missing data. Among the responders, 17 were employed at exit. Among the employed, 6 were full-time employees (35 hrs/wk or more) at exit.
F6:
Income level at exit. Monthly average of $1,008.50 or $12,102 annually (which includes stipends provided under the THP-Plus program). Source: Questions posed by Committee members and answers provided by JBAY. According to the JBAY Annual Report, THP-Plus programs in California were at 94 percent capacity, and there were only 88 vacancies across the 47 counties with THP-Plus programs. In the County, which has 31% of the State’s THP-Plus-eligible population, the County’s annual THP- Plus funding allocation is only six percent of the State’s realigned THP-Plus budget.49 As of June 30, 2018, the total THP-Plus bed capacity for the State was 1,411.50 From the total bed capacity 49 Ibid, 26. 50 Ibid, 9. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 33 in the State, the County’s total bed count as of June 30, 2018 was 81 for the THP-Plus program.51 In its December 1, 2017 Report, LAHSA noted 159 on the waiting list for the THP-Plus program.52 In addition, as of October 1, 2018, the total number of non-minor dependents placed in THP+FC in the State was 1,962, of which 378 were placed in the County.53 Among the County participants in these two housing programs, there could be some Probation-involved youths. Due to time and resource constraints, we did not follow up with JBAY to pursue receiving the actual number of Probation-involved youths included in the data. Probation has housing experts available to assist Camp POs or Field POs who need expert assistance in finding housing for camp youth. Eligibility requirements for these housing programs are complex and not always straight forward. The idea that the Camp POs can inform the camp youth so that he can make an informed decision about his housing destiny within this maze of housing eligibility requirement is not realistic. Any expectation that the Camp POs or Field POs can work toward obtaining housing for eligible youth with assistance from a handful of housing experts within Probation is neither realistic nor an effective use of Probation DPOs’ time and resources. For several days, the Committee members observed Centinela Field POs working as stand-in parents, caseworkers who identify and coordinate services and disciplinarians. To suggest that these Field POs could identify the need for housing types described in this section and maneuver all steps to assist placing youth in these programs is, in this Civil Grand Jury’s view, unrealistic and does not utilize their expertise efficiently. During our interview, Probation’s housing experts were very clear that their services are also available to Probation-involved youth when the youth makes himself available on a voluntary basis seeking housing assistance. Once the Probation-involved youth avails himself demonstrating readiness for these services, then Probation’s housing experts are available to assist placing qualifying youth in qualifying housing programs. We assumed that these youths could include those previously detained at camps as well as others with lesser involvement with Probation. While a youth is given the assistance to qualify and enter these programs, our understanding is that it is up to the youth to follow up with the housing program administrators at Probation to pursue a successful outcome with these housing programs. During our interview with Probation’s housing experts, the Committee members heard that Probation youth also walk in for immediate help off the streets. Housing experts can call around and find a bed at a shelter for the night, if that, and sometimes provide their own money so that the youth can get to the shelter from the Probation office. The Committee members were informed that in the past, free annual transit passes had been given; but these annual passes were traded for goods or other items of value and were subject to misuse and abuse. Despite the past abuses with free passes, the need for providing some form of free Metro passes is greater now than ever. 51 Members of this Committee requested County-specific information from JBAY. JBAY also noted that the actual number of youths served by the THP-Plus program as of June 30, 2018 in the County was 95, noting that a few providers were serving a few more youths than the contracted number of beds. 52 Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Report Back, December 1, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/115116.pdf (accessed February 6, 2019), 24, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, State of Proceedings, Item 26, June 13, 2017, 42. 53 Members of this Committee requested County specific information from JBAY, as well as the updated State-wide figure. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 -
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F4:
Extent of Family Counseling Participation During Camp Detention One of the fundamental points of Probation’s LA Model is the inclusion of “families as partners in the treatment and aftercare process.”55 It is not clear as to the types and levels of family involvement assumed or expected in coming up with the LA Model. During this investigation, the Committee members received Probation data indicating that nearly two out of three young men and three out of four young women had history with DCFS prior to entering camp.56 Members of the CGJ learned during our juvenile camp inspections that DMH identified needs and provided family counseling to youth and parent/guardian during detention at camp. During observations of Transitional MDTs, the Committee members noted a DMH representative making referrals in the community to continue family counseling. During one of the Home Visits, a DMH representative joined us and offered family counseling to family members. Members of this Committee requested a DMH representative to provide data to determine the extent of participation in family therapy by the youths and their families as compared to the participation level recommended by DMH clinicians. We needed the total possible number of family therapy sessions as recommended by DMH and the actual number of sessions attended by families. We were unable to receive these data. Instead, a DMH representative reviewed the number of instances of DMH-provided transportation requests for in-person family therapy participation. DMH representative also collected the data from several camps for family members who provided their own transportation to attend family therapy sessions. Based on these two groups, DMH provided the total monthly in-person family therapy participant numbers. We understood that DMH also allowed call-in participation for family therapy sessions but were informed that DMH did not currently track the number of call-in participants. The Committee members were unable to obtain the total possible number of family therapy sessions for the group; however, a DMH representative reviewed a random sample of MDTs from the “East Camps” named in Table 11 below and determined that approximately 38% of the MDTs recommended family therapy after the youth’s exit from camp. We also understand that the number of family sessions recommended also varies for each youth. Since the total number of recommended sessions could not be determined, we could not get an accurate percentage of youth and family counseling participation levels. The following table provides the (i) average monthly population provided by Probation and (ii) the total family sessions attended in person for each month through September provided by DMH, for the three East Camps named below. 55 See footnote 28. 56 See Table 4 above. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 36 Table 11 Average Population and In-Person Family Counseling Sessions for East Camps For January through September 2018 2018 Camp Afflerbaugh Camp Paige Camp Rockey In-Person In-Person In-Person Average Average Average Month Family Family Family Population Population Population Sessions Sessions Sessions January 52 3 38 1 46 23 February 48 5 36 3 46 14 March 38 7 31 4 48 16 April 34 7 34 4 47 17 May 29 3 32 5 44 19 June 27 3 28 2 44 13 July 29 6 27 5 39 8 August 27 4 25 4 39 12 September 26 3 27 9 40 8 Source: Probation and DMH. Number of “In-Person Sessions” includes only sessions with youths whose family members either used the DMH-provided transportation or provided their own transportation for these visits. Since family members could also call in for these sessions, the numbers noted in the preceding table should not be taken as the total number of youths involved in family sessions for the months noted. DMH-recommended frequency for family therapy is based on a number of variables including but not limited to the treatment plan, availability of families, youth desired participation, and the availability of clinicians. Also, note that a small sampling of MDTs found 38% of youth were recommended for family counseling. Even with these missing components for a more accurate comparison basis, the information provided by a DMH representative notes a stark lack of family counseling participation for youth during camp detention. The Committee members also learned that family therapy for camp-detained youth could only be done jointly with the youth and his family member due to billing limitations and insurance requirements. Family members could participate in person or by calling in but DMH did not offer separate counseling sessions with a clinician in the community for family members to be better accommodated for counseling. As we have stated before, juvenile camps are located in the outskirts of the County. Based on the recent population data, approximately 40% of the camp youth are from the Supervisor District 2. We also understand that significant numbers of the youth were released back to parents and guardians. During our Home Visits, we saw that the Centinela Field POs brought bags of food to the families. Simply put, these were not families of much means. The parents had already taken many days off work to attend various required sessions, including MDTs, court hearings, and other required appearances. We cannot imagine how much more time could be taken off to attend family therapy sessions at camp or to call in for these sessions. These difficulties in scheduling and 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 37 limited time for both the family members and the clinicians do not diminish the need for family therapy. To expect attendance for family counseling sessions held at camps from the southern region of the County, particularly for those family members who do not have the flexibility with work for time-off, is not reasonable. Unless the separate family counseling sessions for family members in the community cannot be as clinically effective, DMH should consider allowing these family members to attend separate family counseling sessions in the community to better equip the family for eventual reunification with the youth. Not affording this flexibility undermines the extensive work already being done at juvenile camps. A DMH representative informed us that DMH clinicians typically work a 4/40 work schedule that allows each person to work four days per week to complete a week’s work schedule and these hours need to include group therapy, individual sessions, required MDTs, and family sessions. There was a clinician from DMH participating in each of the Transitional MDTs we observed. DMH clinicians also provide court required counseling sessions, such as substance abuse or anger management counseling, as well as individual sessions. DMH clinicians interviewed stated that they worked at more than one site and split their work week between different facilities. The Committee members learned that the clinicians use their personal cars for transportation without reimbursement for mileage. This Committee focused on DMH work with family counseling for several reasons. A significant portion of youth released from camps are placed back home for reentry and reintegration in the community. Before being released from camp, the parent or the guardian has had numerous days off from work to make various appearances. We suspect that many of these families experienced financial hardship from work absences. Given that many of the youth are also given court mandated counseling for substance abuse and anger management, we also assume that the family life prior to entering camps involved significant tensions, to say the least. During each Home Visit, we noted that there were other siblings in the family. We only observed five families through our Home Visits. But even so, given the background, this Civil Grand Jury believes that it is not unreasonable to assume that many of the parents or guardians need help so that better family dynamics can be introduced in the home after the youth’s exit from camp. In fact, it may not be inaccurate to suggest that some of the families are at a breaking point. This Civil Grand Jury believes that DMH should consider whether separate family counseling in the community can begin and also work through the billing and/or insurance issues as necessary. DMH operates “Juvenile Justice – Transitional Outpatient Treatment Services” (TOTS) clinics in five locations in the County. As for sites to be used for conducting these sessions, DMH should begin with existing sites, such as the TOTS clinics and even the Hub Clinics, where expanding family services could be considered to include enhanced DMH services. County Board of Supervisors has already approved combined service centers. For example, a Family Justice Center at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical Campus has been proposed. DMH, DHS, and Probation should consider if the family members of camp youth could be helped with 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 38 a coordinated family counseling program for families of dual status youth. For the families who reside in Supervisor District 2, such services at this new Family Justice Center could provide combined services to strengthen families. In addition, there is already a Family Support Center in Van Nuys that houses a DMH TOTS clinic, where DMH, DCFS, and other support services are provided in a single building. There is no Hub Clinic at this site but DHS maintains an ambulatory clinic in the adjacent building. This site should also be considered for providing community based intensive coordinated family counseling for family members of dual status youth so as to better prepare family reunification with camp youth after camp exit. Without sufficient preparation to assist these family members to interact positively, the time at camp for the detained youth is merely a break from the negative or toxic family interactions. The data provided in Table 11 are not conclusive but are at least clear enough to begin the discussion to assess whether adequate support is being given to the family to increase the level of family counseling sessions for camp youth and his family. Findings: 4.1 Our data from DMH include only in-person family sessions. Although there may be those calling in to join family sessions with camp youth, this Civil Grand Jury was unable to obtain the data for these call-in sessions. 4.2 Family sessions are done only as joint sessions with the youth and family member (whether in person or by phone). We also understand that the reasons for joint sessions may be due to billing or insurance related requirements. 4.3 DMH camp clinicians work at more than one site, addressing and attending many required meetings and providing court-mandated counseling. Given the time needed to tend to required and mandated work, DMH management needs to assess the adequacy of staffing at camps to provide other services, such as family counseling sessions. 4.4 DMH clinicians use personal vehicles to work at multiple sites each week. 4.5 If separate family counseling sessions are clinically effective, these separate family sessions should be added in locations that already provide family services. 4.6 There is a Family Support Center in Van Nuys that houses a DMH TOTS clinic, along with Probation, DMH, DCFS, and other support services in a single building. Plans for Family Justice Center at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical Campus are under consideration. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 39 4.7 Significant numbers of youth entering camps in 2018 were found to have DCFS history. But the DMH data indicate a low level of participation in family counseling provided at camps. It is not clear to this Civil Grand Jury as to the level of family participation assumed as one of the key elements of the LA Model.
F5:
DMH TOTS Clinics and Medi-Cal Coverage Reinstatement DMH implemented the “Juvenile Justice – Transitional Outpatient Treatment Services” so that youth who have been prescribed psychotropic medication(s) during camp detention can continue to receive care immediately after release from County’s juvenile camps.57 Known as “TOTS,” this began as a pilot program approximately a year ago to continue providing timely professional mental health services to youth exiting camps. Currently, these services have been expanded to all youth exiting juvenile camps and juvenile halls. The TOTS program exists to provide mental healthcare needs so that medication, crisis management, and follow-up psychiatric care can continue immediately after release from juvenile camps. TOTS serves as a bridge between the services received while at camp and to continue the services once back in the community and works to transition the youth until long- term “community linkages” are in place for camp-released youths.58 As a result of TOTS clinics, youth and his parent or guardian are afforded a transition time to reinstate coverage under Medi- Cal before connections with mental health services in the community can start. TOTS services are provided without regard to the youth’s insurance status and are funded with the County’s general fund. According to a TOTS clinician we interviewed, access to TOTS services ranges from no more than once or twice after camp release, to some youth who continue receiving services for up to three or four months. Currently, TOTS services are provided at five Probation Offices. DMH clinicians are available at four sites once a week and one day a month at the fifth site. To continue mental health services in the community, some of the youth have private insurance coverage but many camp youth rely on Medi-Cal benefits. Under existing Medi-Cal eligibility rules, Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) suspends Medi-Cal benefits when a youth enters juvenile camp. The Committee members learned that Probation coordinates camp detention information with DPSS. After more than 12 months stay at a County juvenile camp, DPSS terminates Medi-Cal benefits for the youth. If a youth is released prior to the 12-month period, then the benefits can be reinstated. For camp-released youths under 18 years of age and returning to family, DPSS notifies the parents to contact DPSS to reinstate Medi-Cal benefits. Parents are also reminded during Transitional MDTs to reinstate Medi-Cal benefits for the youth. To reinstate Medi-Cal benefits, the youth must actually be home to receive benefits. For some of the youths who will need to continue counseling or who take psychotropic medicine, timely Medi-Cal reinstatement is critical to continue the needed mental health services in the community. As described above, DMH TOTS clinics provide immediate service after camp exit, but Medi-Cal reinstatement is a necessary step for most camp-released youth to continue mental health services in the community. 57 See information at http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/dmh/1030469_TOTSFinalizedPamphletTOTS-FINALCOPY11_07_17.pdf (accessed February 5, 2019). 58 Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 41 For youth over 18 who are listed as a dependent on the parents’ income tax return, parents’ financial information is used to determine Medi-Cal eligibility. For youths over 18 who are independent and not included on the parents’ income tax return, their Medi-Cal eligibility is based on their own financial situation, and DPSS requires redetermination procedures to be completed. For youths between 12 to 19 years old, DPSS may enroll them in the “Minor-Consent Medi-Cal Program” that allows for month-to-month benefits to be provided for a limited range of benefits, such as mental health services, sexually-transmitted diseases needs or pregnancy related services, without the traditional Medi-Cal identification. This program allows minors to be enrolled without parental involvement. For youths 18 to 26 years old and who were in foster care or group home “placements,” DPSS states that the group is automatically eligible for Medi-Cal benefits. Once released from placement, such “Former Foster Care” youths between 18 and 26 are automatically eligible to continue on Medi-Cal without the need for submitting annual eligibility forms. “Former Foster Care” group includes those released from County juvenile camps. DPSS found that many camp-released youth do not stay in one place, ending up with multiple addresses for contact. For such youth, notices regarding Medi-Cal eligibility can be lost, resulting in lost coverage or delays in benefit reinstatement process. For youth without a stable home address, DPSS allows a “District of Residence” to be set up so that notification and mail can be received at a DPSS District Office for Medi-Cal benefits. In addition, DPSS can issue Medi-Cal emergency cards for prompt medical services. DPSS sends eligibility documents approximately two months before the person turns 26 years old. At that time, if at the age of 26 the former foster youth does not qualify for Medi-Cal, then insurance coverage is accessed under the Affordable Care Act. DPSS allows Medi-Cal applications to be initiated online under the DPSS “Your Benefits Now” portal. Former foster care youths could also be eligible for other benefits provided by DPSS beyond medical coverage under Medi- Cal but these benefits are not described in this report. During our interview with a DPSS representative, the Committee members learned that DPSS works with the Sheriff’s Department and takes Medi-Cal applications at Twin Towers to qualify detainees for benefits. Benefits are held in suspension until the detainee is released from jail. DPSS already suspends youth’s Medi-Cal benefits when he begins camp detention. For the youth whose benefits were suspended, there should be a streamlined process to reinstate Medi-Cal coverage. On each Transitional MDT, there were reminders to the parent to make appointments for Medi-Cal reinstatement. If benefits were suspended based on notification from Probation, this Civil Grand Jury believes that DPSS should develop a streamlined reinstatement process where a notice from Probation, after the youth checks in with his Field PO, could be used to streamline the reinstatement process. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 42 There is a significant population of camp youth who receive DMH services during camp detention. For some of the population, it is critical to be able to continue receiving these services in the community. The Civil Grand Jury also realizes that there may be federal or State requirements that prohibit DPSS from streamlining the reinstatement process. Unless that is the case, DPSS should streamline the Medi-Cal reinstatement procedures through Probation notifying DPSS. Findings: 5.1 Probation coordinates with DPSS and sends information so that camp-detained youth’s Medi-Cal coverage is suspended during detention. To reinstate his Medi-Cal benefits, however, the parent or guardian must make an in-person appointment at DPSS to reinstate Medi-Cal coverage.
F6:
Residential Vocational Training Programs with Priority for Probation Youth On December 4, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved Probation’s request to begin a residential vocational training program at a former juvenile camp.59 The Camp David Gonzales Residential Vocational Training Facility Pilot Project (Gonzales Program) for Transitional Aged Youth is for young men between the ages of 18 and 25 with an educational experience that prepares them for gainful employment and independent living.60 During training, full board and housing will be provided to participants. Current budget includes funding for a three-year program with estimated 330 participants in five successive six-month phases. The program is to offer a multi-core craft curriculum that will lead to an apprenticeship prep certificate required by building trades to enter the major joint apprenticeship opportunities. The program will allow the participants to complete the OSHA 30 certificate, hand tools training, building-trades awareness for the 14 trades, as well as preparing the participants with background training to assist them in oral interviews for open positions.61 The program is also “anchored with support to address participants’ housing challenges, as well as increased access to other pro-social support such as 59 County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 37, December 4, 2018, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1048506_120418.pdf, 36. 60 Letter from Chief Probation Officer, dated October 2, 2018, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/122965.pdf (accessed February 6, 2019), 11, and cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 7, May 15, 2018. 61 County Board of Supervisors, Meeting Transcript from December 4, 2018, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/transcripts/1048429_120418.pdf (accessed February 6, 2019), 102. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 43 restorative justice learning, conflict management, family reunification, parenting, and mentoring for sustained behavioral change and personal growth.”62 Upon completion of this program, the County is expected to employ some of the graduates of this program.63 Probation coordinated the implementation of this program through multiple funding sources, including philanthropic, academic, and non-profit sector participants. During one of the Home Visits, the Field PO shared that he was looking forward to enrolling his supervised youth in the Gonzales Program. There was a question as to whether successful completion guaranteed a job for the youth. Probation needs to continue its great work so that successful completion of the Gonzales Program leads to guaranteed job placements. On February 19, 2019, the County Board of Supervisors considered and authorized the Chief Executive Officer to enter into development agreements to fund the operation of a 400 student public charter college-preparatory boarding school in the 8400 and 8500 blocks of South Vermont Avenue, City of Los Angeles (South Vermont Avenue Project). The South Vermont Avenue Project is to prepare youth “for college and careers within the transportation infrastructure and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics fields.”64 The operation of this charter school is to be jointly funded by the County and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. While prioritizing foster and probation youth, the program is to prepare the County youth for “careers and college pathways in the transportation and infrastructure industry by teaching them transferrable industry skills.”65 This project is still in the planning and budgeting phase but the current expectation is for the project to begin operating in 2021-2022. In addition to these two residential vocational training programs, this Civil Grand Jury believes that Probation should consider restarting the fire-camp program previously operated at Camp Paige and Camp Rockey. Members of Detention Committee inspected the facility and learned of the fire camp programs previously operated at the two camps. When discussing this program with Probation representatives, the Committee members learned that the program required three days of fire training and two days of schooling and violated the school hour requirements for participants. In light of increasing forest fires in recent years, Probation should consider re- starting this as a residential vocational program for young men over the age of 18 with priority enrollment for Probation youth. As part of the program, those who have not completed high school should be given the opportunity to earn their high school diploma or its equivalent on site. 62 Attachment I to the Letter from the Chief Probation Officer, dated October 2, 2018, 1, available from the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 7, May 15, 2018. 63 County Board of Supervisors, Meeting Transcript from December 4, 2018, 97. 64 County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 20, February 19, 2019, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1052232_021919.pdf (accessed March 7, 2019), 27. 65 Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 44 When members of the Detention Committee inspected Camp Scott, we were impressed with the work of the Camp POs and others but we noted the lack of vocational training programs for the young women. At least in 2018, the young women entering camps had higher DCFS history than the young men. As part of the initial assessment at juvenile halls, young women are screened for signs of commercial sexual exploitation. Speaking with Camp POs, the Committee members learned that they were on alert for signs of recruiting that could occur even during camp detention. Given these risks for young women in camp detention, Probation needs to identify and implement a similar residential vocational training program for young women in the County. During our observation of Centinela Field POs in MDTs and Home Visits, the Committee members noted that certain CBO names came up consistently. One such CBO was Playa Vista Job Opportunities and Business Service (PVJOBS), a non-profit organization founded in 1998 to fulfill a Los Angeles City Council mandate to provide construction job training opportunities for the heavily disadvantaged residents in the City of Los Angeles. PVJOBS coordinated the hiring of the at-risk construction workforce for the development of the Playa Vista area of the City of Los Angeles. PVJOBS’ jobs coordinator experience has expanded and its strategic workforce development plan brings together employers, training providers, community-based organizations, and labor unions to provide on-the-job training opportunities for local at-risk residents in the City of Los Angeles. To date, PVJOBS made over 8,000 placements in the construction trades and related fields. In 2011, a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor established PVJOBS Right Turn to improve the long-term labor market prospects of juvenile and young adult offenders from high poverty and high crime communities in Central and Eastern Los Angeles. PVJOBS initially worked with LACOE to reach the camp youth in this program. PVJOBS outreach has expanded to working with Field POs, including the Centinela Field POs. PVJOBS focuses on the idea of restorative justice and technical training for the youth, as well as providing mentoring for the participants. Each participant is enrolled for two years in the Right Turn program. PVJOBS shares its site with an Independent Study Charter School so that the participants of the Right Turn program can finish high school with a flexible schedule. Current funding phase will allow 120 participants to enroll and participate in the program for two years. Based on available information from California Child Welfare Indicators Project’s website for 2016-17 through the third quarter of 2018-19, members of this Committee prepared the following summary of employment information for Probation and child welfare/DCFS youth noted for the County. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 45 Table 12 Outcomes of Youth Exiting Probation and DCFS Placement at Age 18 or Older PROBATION DCFS Quarter Known Completed Obtained Known Completed Obtained Whereabouts High School Employment Whereabouts High School Employment During or Equivalent During of Equivalent Quarter Quarter 2018-Q3 29 14 3 116 76 60 2018-Q2 43 17 5 163 113 92 2018-Q1 47 16 7 205 152 123 2017-Q4 45 25 5 210 168 129 2017-Q3 37 18 5 224 158 126 2017-Q2 48 26 20 253 181 132 2017-Q1 21 10 8 270 182 145 2016-Q4 4 1 1 255 177 148 2016-Q3* 34 7 4 228 153 108 2016-Q2* 34 7 4 219 159 122 2016-Q1 35 7 2 210 150 88 Source: California Child Welfare Indicators Project. http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/CDSS_8A.aspx. *We note that the same data appeared for the two months and considered that they may not be accurate. But the information is included as we found them in the source. We did not follow up on the parameters of this data collection. As a result, we assumed that the Probation youth is broader than only accounting for camp-detained youth. We also assume that the data is based on self-identification by youth. Since the information is based on youth with known whereabouts, the data do not provide an accurate or complete picture of the youths involved with Probation or DCFS. Even with these limiting factors, the results are stark. We have prepared the above information for Probation and DCFS youth to show the significant difference in the high school graduation or equivalent levels and the employment data for these two groups. We prepared this summary to demonstrate that data collection platforms already exist and that County departments should identify these existing data collection platforms and gain access to the collected data. Given the stark reality of employment status for Probation-involved youth, Probation should continue to lead and implement vocational programs that lead to guaranteed jobs upon successful program completion. As part of the program requirement, this Civil Grand Jury believes that each participant should be required to finish high school. In addition, each vocational training program should include an initial job guarantee as an incentive to complete the program and move toward employment and successful reentry back to community. Finally, each participant should be given a stipend so that upon completion, sufficient funds are available so that he can pay the necessary security deposit and first month’s rent to start on the new path. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 46 Findings: 6.1 It was not clear if the successful completion of the Gonzales Program would lead to job placement for the participants. 6.2 Probation has not stated whether it will track the outcome of participants who successfully complete the Gonzales Program. 6.3 The South Vermont Avenue Project is one of the recently approved vocational training programs appropriate for Probation-involved youth. 6.4 The County Board of Supervisors recently approved or considered two residential vocational programs for Probation youth. A fire camp was operated by Probation at Camp Paige and Camp Rockey in the past. Those fire-camp programs offered a 48- week program, consisting of three days of training and two days of schooling each week. 6.5 Camp Scott is the only camp in the County for young women and does not provide any vocational training onsite. They enter the camp with high levels of DCFS history and we learned that they are at high risk for becoming involved in commercial sexual exploitation. 6.6 The data provided in Table 12 noted a low completion rate of high school education among Probation youth. 6.7 The Gonzales Program will provide room and board during the vocational training period. There is no stipend provided for this training. If funding for this stipend can be found, a process should be implemented so that at the very least any Probation youth can access these funds at the end of the program to assist him transitioning back to community.
F7:
Data Collection and Availability Based on our review of publicly available reports and studies related to Probation, the Committee members were made aware of computer system and data extraction difficulties within County departments. During this investigation, the Committee members requested data and information from several County departments. Typically, upon receipt and review of initial set of information, there were follow-up requests and additional questions to clarify the information we received. We had no difficulty receiving general statistical information from our sources. When the Committee members requested general information such as the historical population in Probation camps, this information was provided to us during the interview. Once our requests became more specific, we noted that the data needed to be compiled and it took some time to receive this information. In instances where the data included in this report required an explanation of how the information was compiled by our source, an explanation is provided before or after each table. There is usually a statement to indicate the limitations of the provided information to highlight how the information was derived. During background research, publicly available reports highlighted the difficulties in extracting data from County departments, including Probation. Set forth below is a sample of such statements in studies and reports: • Probation extracted data used to compute outcome measures from its databases. …Data for supplemental outcomes are sometimes more problematic because Probation’s data are only as good as the information obtained from community-based organization service providers, schools, and other county government departments (e.g., Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health). …Data for some programs were relatively complete. In other programs, only a small fraction of program participants had data available for 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 48 supplementary measures, calling into question the appropriateness of any findings based on such a small subsample.66 • Probation uses 46 different data systems to manage clients, staff, contracted providers, and a range of other information. Of these 46 systems, 25 are operated by Probation and 21 are systems operated by other County Departments or vendors, but accessed by Probation. Many of these systems are electronic document systems, not databases from which data can be extracted. Across data systems, there is a limited ability to link data and limited data sharing with other County departments, which reduces data utility and creates a number of challenges across all levels of Probation staff.67 • In some cases, interagency data sharing has been stalled due to extremely restrictive interpretations of the confidentiality provisions within federal statutes and regulations. Other California counties share data much more freely and effectively across agencies.68 • In addition to the lack of extractable data and linked data, the Probation Department’s outdated data systems and insufficient resource for IT staff, staff training, and systems upgrades impede the Department’s ability to make data-driven decisions. In particular, the Department has a limited capacity to track client outcomes. The absence of outcome data prevents the Department from comprehensively evaluating the effectiveness of its programs, making it difficult to ascertain whether or not programs are working.69 • Several stakeholders indicate that a better case management data system (or more consistent use of such systems) is needed, and would enable some automation and save time on reports. Many individuals noted that the current data situation makes it difficult for sharing of data among agencies serving the same population (mental health, child welfare, etc.). There is a general desire to see an increased use of electronic data systems, particularly to track outcomes and to automate reports.70 In addition to County departments, the Committee members also relied on data collected by a State agency, as well as a non-profit organization for some of the information included in this report. While requesting County-specific information from JBAY, we learned that JBAY also uses information compiled by the California Department of Social Services through the California Child Welfare Indicators Project. We learned that JBAY prepares its Annual Reports regarding two transition housing programs with the data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project and JBAY’s information collected through two different tracking systems. 66 Fain, xxvii. 67 LA Probation Governance Study – 120 Day Status Report, 17. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid, 23. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 49 The Committee members made requests to JBAY for County-specific information used in preparing its most recent Annual Report. In that process, we learned that some of the County’s service providers are not fully entering the necessary data into the JBAY’s tracking system for the THP-Plus program. Incomplete data entered into the JBAY’s THP-Plus tracking system causes the entire data to be skewed and not useful. As for the THP+FC program, we were informed by JBAY that the County service providers in the THP+FC program are prohibited from utilizing JBAY’s THP+FC tracking system. We learned that this prohibition is due to the County Counsel’s legal position that the data regarding THP+FC participating youth cannot be entered into the JBAY’s tracking system. As a result of the County Counsel’s legal position, only the incomplete data regarding THP-Plus service providers are available for the County. The County Counsel should reconsider the basis for prohibiting County service providers from sharing data related to these two transition housing programs with JBAY. As part of this report, and to support our argument to allow the provision of data, the data compiled from limited participants in a few of our tables are included in this report and noted these limitations. The County Counsel should review and reconsider if improvements and/or clarifications can be made as to how the data is gathered and provided so that the information for the County youth can be collected and included in the State-wide report. If such movement in the legal position can be done, then there is a need for a procedure to be in place to verify the accuracy of the provided data. The Committee members also received some information from LAHSA in the process of preparing this report. LAHSA uses the HMIS, a technology system required by HUD to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to individuals and families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. HMIS is a platform for managing information about persons experiencing homelessness, which serves as the basis for the Coordinated Entry System (CES).71 LAHSA-funded programs, DMH-funded programs serving persons experiencing homelessness, and DHS-funded providers delivering intensive case management services are mandated to participate in HMIS. A small group of agencies not funded by these sources voluntarily participate in HMIS.72 There is soft participation across DMH, DHS, and public housing authorities.73 Agencies that participate in HMIS enter data on new clients as they access services and update data on existing clients as information, such as their contact information or their housing status, changes over time.74 In a pilot program for improving access to Youth CES for camp youth, we understand that a LAHSA representative participated in MDTs at camps to input the necessary data in the HMIS. Information collection was done by a LAHSA representative since Probation is considered a law enforcement agency that cannot access HMIS. Once the data is collected, we 71 LAHSA, Interim Report Back – Comprehensive Analysis of the 2017 Homeless Count Results, August 25, 2017, 10, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 77A, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114790.pdf (accessed March 19, 2019). 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 50 understand that LAHSA is required to prioritize the housing need and follow HUD procedures and parameters for housing placements. The collection of data for input in the HMIS platform is not the same as one having access into the HMIS system and allowing review of information available from HMIS. This distinction could be noted and further explored as to whether the collec ion of data during MDTs could be had with Probation representatives already familiar with the youth. This discussion needs to be done with County Counsel to determine whether such data collection done by Probation staff could facilitate a more efficient process to connect the camp youth with LAHSA’s Youth CES program for housing at camp exit. If this distinction could be made and the legal distinction be allowed by County Counsel, Probation should work with the Chief Information Officer in the CEO’s Office to implement a process that works for both Probation and LAHSA, consistent with parameters provided by County Counsel. Once such electronic information is transferred to LAHSA, the information could be input into the HMIS system, without access to the HMIS system from Probation. We also learned that the Chief Executive Officer’s Research and Evaluation Services (RES) unit was able to collect data from six County agencies and LAHSA for a recent report. On February 20, 2018, the CEO reported back to the County Board of Supervisors regarding potential ways that the homeless population that is unaccounted for in the Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count could be reflected in the future allocation of funding for the Measure H Strategies.75 RES unit collected administrative records from seven data systems maintained by six County agencies, as well as the HMIS, to produce a different homeless estimate than the LAHSA count.76 The agencies and systems from which data were collected to produce the alternative count are: DCFS (IDSS), DHS (ORCHID and CHAMP), DMH (IBHIS), DPSS (LRS), LASD (AJIS), WCADS (WIOA, LACYJ, and AAA).77 The data reviewed by the CEO yielded 121,812 unique persons identified as homeless in January 2017, doubling the LAHSA’s Point-in-Time count of 57,794.78 RES geocoded the administrative data used to produce the CEO estimate based on facility zip codes in the service records and, for DPSS, the areas served by DPSS’ district offices.79 The Chief Probation Officer should work with bureau chiefs to identify whether a similar geocoding technology should be used for the various data that is being collected and should be collected going forward. The Committee members learned from the Centinela Field POs, that they were able to extract data from several systems to make a point-in-time assessment of criminal justice system involvement of previously supervised youth. A point-in-time review of several County department databases was done to determine the status of randomly selected camp exited 75 Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, 1, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 12, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114788.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). 76 Attachment I to Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, I, attached to the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 12, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114788.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). 77 Footnote 3 of Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, Attachment I, 2. 78 Ibid, i. 79 Ibid, ii. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 51 youth. Centinela Field POs randomly selected youths from 2013 to 2017 and reviewed their current criminal justice status. Each Centinela Field PO is assigned zip code(s) and oversees the youth who resides in the assigned zip code area. The sample pool of youth did not include youth supervised by DPOs working primarily in the 90044 zip code area. Table 13 Point-in-Time Review of Outcomes of Youth Supervised by Centinela Field POs Random Sample of Supervised Youth between 2013 to 2017 Prison or Jail Pending Probation No Pending Total Hearing Case* Total Persons 51 6 30 14 101 Percentage 50.5% 5.9% 29.7% 13.8% 100% Source: Probation. *Includes deceased persons. Centinela Field POs compiled this data from (i) the Probation Case Management System, (ii) the Juvenile Automated Index system of the courts, and (iii) the booking number assigned by the County Sheriff’s Department upon arrest. Centinela Field POs believe that there are a number of persons who have died since Probation jurisdiction ended; however, this information could not be determined and is included in the number of persons noted under the caption “No Pending Case.” Further, the number of persons noted under this column only indicates that there were no pending criminal proceedings at the time of this review and no other inference should be made. In assembling this study group, the youth residing in the zip code area 90044 were deliberately not included. This area is considered to be one of the most crime-ridden areas in the County. As this table demonstrates, existing systems and data input can provide helpful information for review of trends and comparisons. This data collection process could be further refined by Probation representatives for additional point-in-time assessment of status to assess any trends. But the more important review should be to determine the extent to which the camp-released youth continued schooling, as well as recommended mental health services after termination of probation and whether such participation made significant differences in the outcome. Some of the data included in this report already indicate a stark difference in high school completion rate and employment rate. There are existing platforms that collect useful data to understand the behavior and outcomes of Probation-involved youth in broader terms than the camp-exiting youth. To the extent that the collected data are useful, County departments could consider obtaining licenses for these platforms and begin implementation procedures for collecting accurate data. From our perspective, there is no reason why the County data could not be collected by a lead agency from the County. The lead agency should also implement controls to verify initially that the provided information is accurate. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 52 To this end, LAHSA Report Back to the Board of Supervisors, dated December 1, 2017, recommended several data related items, including establishing a set of universal data elements with a mandate for LAHSA, DCFS, Probation, and DMH to regularly track each data element.80 The Report Back also noted that data elements captured by different departments are on multiple systems and incompatible with each other, particularly noting that DCFS data collection system is not linked to HMIS used by LAHSA and DMH and recommends integrating with HMIS.81 On December 18, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors “directed the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Information Officer to develop a Board policy in 90 days, in consultation with County Counsel, that delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Information Officer … as the County’s ‘data steward’ to link common clients and their service records across Departments and anonymize data for the purposes of program evaluation; identify, evaluate, analyze and research County programs that serve vulnerable populations with the ability to engage external evaluators where appropriate….”82 Given the restrictions for law enforcement agencies for accessing HMIS, this Civil Grand Jury is not convinced that this system should be the central platform for data collection. As a starting point, the Chief Information Officer should revisit LAHSA’s comment and determine what hurdles exist from achieving a variable of LAHSA recommendation with the Chief Information Officer acting as “data steward,” as directed by the County Board of Supervisors. Findings: 7.1 In the process of receiving County-specific data from JBAY, this Civil Grand Jury learned that County service providers in the THP+FC program are prohibited from utilizing JBAY’s THP+FC tracking system. This Civil Grand Jury learned that this prohibition is due to the County Counsel’s legal position that the data regarding THP+FC participating youth cannot be entered in the JBAY’s tracking system. As a result of this legal position, only the data from County’s THP-Plus service providers are available on the JBAY tracking system and only to a limited extent. 7.2 This Civil Grand Jury also learned from JBAY that data submitted by County service providers for the THP-Plus program are not always complete or accurate. 7.3 This Civil Grand Jury submits that the collection of data for input into the HMIS platform is not the same as having access into the HMIS system and allowing review of information available from HMIS. 80 LAHSA Report Back, dated December 1, 2017, 23, attached to the County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Item 26, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1025670_061317.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). 81 Ibid, 24. 82 County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Item 14, December 18, 2018, 18 - 19. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 53 7.4 The CGJ understands that the Chief Executive Officer’s RES unit geocoded the administrative data from multiple sources to produce the CEO estimate enhanced homeless population information based on facility zip codes.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.