📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
Page 34
Los Angeles County funding for affordable housing expires in 2017.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 34
The Community Development Commission’s 20 percent administration fee for affordable housing projects may not be sufficient to cover long-term monitoring costs of those projects.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 34
A Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 2013 resolution releases county general funds, to the Community Development Commission for affordable housing, over five years.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 34
The Community Development Commission Tracker project management reports in their current format do not provide the Board of Supervisors with sufficient information needed to perform ongoing oversight, particularly original budget vs. actual expenditures and original vs. revised timelines by project.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 34
The Board of Supervisors, sitting as the commissioners of the Community Development Commission, has not taken a sufficiently active role in providing comprehensive oversight of all projects after funding allocations are made.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 34
The Board of Supervisors has not fully adopted the 2012 Affordable Housing and Economic Development Framework and Implementation Strategy and has underfunded the affordable housing development goals by $98,196,500.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 34
Staffing levels may be insufficient if Notices of Funding Availability of a higher value are released.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1Based on observations of the group homes visited, the committee commends the efforts of these group home providers in delivering services and promoting the safety and well-being of the home residents. 11 Information obtained from http://ChronicleofSocialChange.org. 12 Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, March 3, 2015. 106 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The committee also applauds the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ decision to participate in the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program. It will be a tremendous savings for the county and a win-win situation for all parties. ACRONYMS ARC Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program CAP Corrective Action Plan CCL Community Care Licensing Division DCFS Department of Children and Family Services GH Group Home RCL Rate Classification Level PPQA Placement Permanency and Quality Assurance unit COMMITTEE MEMBERS Wesley C. Thompson, chair Larry Lyman, vice chair Earline Parker, secretary Doris K. Reed Joyce Simily Margaret Yasuda 107 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT This page intentionally left blank. 108 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT METRO RIDERSHIP Jim Contreras, chair Simeon Zano, vice chair Shari E. Pearce, secretary METRO RIDERSHIP TOPIC The Los Angeles County 2014–2015 Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) formed the Metro Ridership Committee (committee) to look into increasing the ridership within the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) system and investigate the efforts of Metro to do the same. The committee also looked into whether Metro would receive maximum funding from federal sources based on achieving the farebox recovery goal of 33 percent.1
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office