Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

LOS Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Members Theodore “Ted” Smith Foreperson

Published: May 24, 2018 359 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 21 findings

F1 Page 26
The availability of forms for making citizen complaints for some police departments could be improved. All twelve police departments met the basic requirement that they establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against their police personnel. As Exhibit 1 shows, only three of the police departments had clear signage showing the location of complaint forms in the police station. None of the police departments had signage in languages other than English. All twelve of the police departments had complaint forms available in their police stations. However, the complaint form was only freely available at five of the police departments. For the other seven police departments, a person wanting to make a complaint would have to request the complaint form. This request may be made to the police personnel at the reception area or may require the person to obtain the form from a police supervisor or the watch commander. This practice may tend to discourage persons from making a complaint. However, the rationale provided by most police departments for this practice was to ensure there was not a simple misunderstanding rather than an actual complaint. Others stated that they encourage persons making complaints to talk with a supervisor or the watch commander, so they can get a complete and intelligible statement, including any evidence such as video or photos. Only four of the police departments had complaint forms available at other public facilities like city hall, libraries, and community centers. One police department stated that forms were also available through the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). 14 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 1 Availability of Citizen Complaint Forms Signage Access to Complaint Form Website Signage in Other Police Clear Police Freely Multiple Multiple Multiple Public English Department Signage Station Available Languages Languages Languages Facilities Bell Gardens No No Yes No No Yes No No Burbank Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Culver City No No Yes No No Yes No No El Monte No No Yes No No Yes No No Glendale No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Inglewood Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Pasadena Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pomona No No Yes No Yes No Yes No San Fernando No No Yes Yes No Yes No No South Gate No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Torrance No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes West Covina No No Yes No No No No No Two of the police departments provide the complaint form in English only. Ten of the police departments provided complaint forms in multiple languages that included English, Spanish, Armenian, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, French and Indonesian. Some departments stated that if a person wants to file a complaint and does not speak English they will provide an interpreter. Five of the police departments did not provide the complaint form on their website. Of the seven that did provide the complaint form on their website, all but one provided the complaint form in multiple languages. B. Convenience of Making Citizen Complaints For a citizen police complaint system to be effective, it should be fairly convenient and straightforward for an individual to make a police complaint. This includes providing multiple ways for a complaint to be filed, including in person, through the mail, by telephone, or completing the complaint form online. It also includes allowing persons to make complaints anonymously.
F2 Page 27
The convenience of making citizen complaints could be improved for some police departments. As Exhibit 2 shows, all the police departments accepted complaints in person. All but one police department (San Fernando) accepts complaints through either the mail or telephone. San Fernando accepts complaints by mail, but does not accept complaints over the telephone. Only two of the police departments (Burbank and Torrance) had a capability on their website to file a complaint. Some people may want to remain anonymous when making a complaint. Anonymous complaints can provide valuable information. As Exhibit 2 shows, all of the police departments 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 15 allow persons making a complaint to remain anonymous, although all encourage them to identify themselves, so they can get statements and information from them and follow up with them. Exhibit 2 Convenience of Making Citizen Complaints Ways of Making Complaints Police Department In Person By Mail By Telephone Online Anonymously Bell Gardens Yes Yes Yes No Yes Burbank Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Culver City Yes Yes Yes No Yes El Monte Yes Yes Yes No Yes Glendale Yes Yes Yes No Yes Inglewood Yes Yes Yes No Yes Pasadena Yes Yes Yes No Yes Pomona Yes Yes Yes No Yes San Fernando Yes Yes No No Yes South Gate Yes Yes Yes No Yes Torrance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes West Covina Yes Yes Yes No Yes C. Admonitions/Warnings on Citizen Complaint Forms Some individuals may be reluctant to file a complaint for fear of reprisal from the officer or officers they are complaining against or the police department itself. Ideally, the complaint form and process should not in any way intimidate or discourage persons from making complaints.
F3 Page 28
Some police departments include admonitions/warnings that may intimidate or discourage persons from making complaints on complaint forms or related materials. As Exhibit 3 shows, two police departments (South Gate and Torrance) include the warning, Penal Code 148.6, that a complainant making a false claim against a police officer can be prosecuted for a misdemeanor. As Exhibit 3 shows, only one police department (Torrance) includes the warning from California Civil Code 47.5, which indicates that a peace officer may bring a civil action for defamation against an individual who has filed a complaint with the officers employing agency alleging misconduct, criminal conduct, or incompetence, if the complaint is false, the complaint was made with the knowledge that it was false and that it was made with spite, hatred or ill will. The knowledge that the complaint was false may be proven by a showing that the complainant had no reasonable ground to believe the statement was true and that the complainant exhibited a reckless disregard for ascertaining the truth. 16 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 3 Warnings When Making Citizen Complaints False Claim Defamation Perjury Possible Polygraph Police Department Warning Warning Warning Warning (PC146.8) (CC47.5) Bell Gardens No No No No Burbank No No No No Culver City No No No No El Monte No No No No Glendale No No Yes No Inglewood No No No No Pasadena No No Yes No Pomona No No No No San Fernando No No No No South Gate Yes No No No Torrance Yes Yes No No West Covina No No No Yes Another warning against making a false claim is that requiring the complaint form be signed under “penalty of perjury.” Two police departments (Glendale and Pasadena) include such statements on their complaint forms. The Glendale form states: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements I have made are truthful and accurate to the best of my ability.” The Pasadena Police complaint form states: “I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing information I have provided regarding this complaint is true and correct”. Perjury can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. A final warning that may intimidate or discourage persons from making complaints is the potential to be subjected to a polygraph examination. Only one police department (West Covina) includes this warning. The West Covina Police complaint brochure states: “In certain cases where we can't find the truth any other way, you may be asked to take a polygraph examination. The same is true for our officers.” D. Communication with Complainants A meaningful and effective citizen police complaint system requires clear and thorough communication with those making complaints. A key element of this communication is information on the procedure for receiving and investigating complaints. The California Penal Code Penal Code 832.5(a)(1) requires that every police department establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies and shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public. 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 17
F4 Page 30
The Bell Gardens and San Fernando police department were not in compliance with the requirement that they make a written description of the procedure for investigating complaints available to the public. As shown in Exhibit 4, ten of the police departments had written descriptions of the procedure available to the public as required by the penal code. Two police departments (Bell Gardens and San Fernando) had no written procedures available and are not in compliance with the Penal Code 832.5(a)(1) requirement. Effective communication with complainants also requires that complainants have an opportunity to provide complete information on the incident that generated the complaint. This requires that the complaint form include all the pertinent information, including a description of what occurred to generate the complaint.
F5 Page 30
The El Monte and South Gate police department complaint form do not provide an opportunity for the complaining party to provide a statement or description of what occurred to generate the complaint. As Exhibit 4 shows, ten of the police department’s complaint forms included the appropriate content, including a description of what occurred to generate the complaint. The complaint form for two police departments (El Monte and South Gate) did not provide an opportunity for the complaining party to provide a statement or description of what occurred to generate the complaint. Ideally, persons making a complaint would have the ability to make a complaint without attempts to resolve the complaint prior to it being accepted and logged. As Exhibit 4 shows, ten of the police departments attempt to resolve complaints prior to them being accepted and logged. When asked for the rationale for this practice one police department stated: “When people come into the lobby and say they want to make a complaint about an officer and a watch commander is available, we have face time with them. Often time complaints are about why did they get a ticket or why was my son arrested, and so forth. This face times allows for an explanation and many times the person is satisfied. We don’t like to load our complaint log with items that have nothing to do with policy violations or criminal violations.” Two police departments stated they do not make such attempts to resolve complaints prior to their acceptance and logging. The California Penal Code 832.7(b) requires that each police department receiving a citizen complaint release to the complaining party a copy of their statement, in his or her own words, at the time the complaint is filed. 18 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F6 Page 31
The Culver City, El Monte, San Fernando and Torrance police departments were not in compliance with the requirement that each police department receiving a citizen complaint release to the complaining party a copy of their own statements at the time the complaint is filed. Exhibit 4 Communication With Complainants Written Appropriate Attempt to Complainant Percent Written Police Department Complaint Complaint Resolve Receives Copy Notification* Procedure* Form Content Prior to Log of Statement* Bell Gardens No Yes Yes Yes 57% Burbank Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Culver City Yes Yes Yes No 59% El Monte Yes No Yes No 82% Glendale Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Inglewood Yes Yes No Yes 95% Pasadena Yes Yes Yes Yes 78% Pomona Yes Yes Yes Yes 51% San Fernando No Yes Yes No 8% South Gate Yes No Yes Yes NA Torrance Yes Yes No No 95% West Covina Yes Yes Yes Yes 91% Average % 74% * Required by the Penal Code (832.5, 832.7) Note: Percentage calculations of written notifications within 30 days excludes complaints with investigations pending, complaints generated from within the police department, and complaints with no mailing address, As Exhibit 4 shows, eight of the police departments routinely provided complainants copies of their statement at the time of the complaint. Several of these police departments had complaint forms that were carbonless in triplicate, making it convenient to provide a copy of the completed form to the complainant. Others routinely made copies of the completed complaint form and provided the copy to the complainant. Four police departments did not routinely provide copies of the complainants’ statement as required by the Penal Code. Some of these departments stated they would provide copies, if requested. A standard practice among law enforcement agencies is to send an acknowledgement letter, including a copy of the complainant’s statement, to each person making a complaint. For example, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department requires an acknowledgement letter be sent to each complaining party with a copy of their statement within three days of the complaint being received. The policy states: “The letter shall be sent regardless of whether the comment was made in person, by telephone, by electronic means, or by mail.”10 This approach ensures that the Penal Code requirement is met regardless of the method used to make the complaint. Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Service Comment Report Handbook: Handling Public Complaints 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 19
F7 Page 32
Most police departments were not in compliance with the requirement to provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition. California Penal Code Penal Code 832.7(e)(1) requires that each department provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition. As shown in Exhibit 4, only two police departments (Burbank and Glendale) were in full compliance with the requirement to provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint. Glendale Police Department uses a software program that includes generating a written letter to the complainant once a disposition is determined. The case cannot be closed until that letter is generated. Other police departments stated they provided verbal notifications, or that there was no written notification made. We found that police departments’ compliance with this requirement averaged 74% for the twelve police departments and ranged from 8% to 100%. South Gate Police Department stated that “a letter is sent to the complainant via United States Postal Service (USPS) and is sent certified mail. When the letter is delivered we keep the USPS copy of the signature tag in the file with the complaint.” However, no other documentation was provided such as the date the letter was sent. E. Investigations of Citizen Complaints The California Penal Code (PC832.5) requires each department that employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments. As Exhibit 5 shows, all twelve police departments reviewed had policies in place for investigating such complaints. These policies assigned responsibility for conducting investigations to police personnel at appropriate levels. Exhibit 5 Investigation of Police Citizen Complaints Policy for Investigated at Complaints Numbered Complaint Police Department Investigations* Appropriate Level and Logged Tracking Program Bell Gardens Yes Yes Yes Yes Burbank Yes Yes Yes Yes Culver City Yes Yes Yes No El Monte Yes Yes Yes No Glendale Yes Yes Yes Yes Inglewood Yes Yes Yes Yes Pasadena Yes Yes Yes Yes Pomona Yes Yes Yes Yes San Fernando Yes Yes No No South Gate Yes Yes Yes Yes Torrance Yes Yes Yes Yes West Covina Yes Yes Yes No * Required by the Penal Code (832.5, 832.7) 20 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Effective management of citizen complaint investigations includes numbering and logging each complaint to ensure complaints do not get lost, and that appropriate timelines for completing the investigation are monitored.
F8 Page 33
Some police departments could improve the management of complaint investigations, including numbering and logging, as well as tracking and monitoring of key requirements and milestones. As Exhibit 5 shows, eleven of the police departments numbered and logged each complaint. One police department (San Fernando) did not number and log complaints as they were received. A software program or application can be helpful in managing investigations of citizen complaints to ensure investigations do not get lost, and to provide automatic tracking and reminders of key requirements and milestones in investigations. As Exhibit 5 shows, eight of the police departments used a software program or application to assist in managing and tracking investigations. F. Review, Disposition and Follow Up of Citizen Complaints An effective complaint process includes a review of investigations of complaints at an appropriate level, and a review process in place with some assurance that investigations are thorough, and conclusions are valid and well supported. As Exhibit 6 shows, all twelve police departments had clearly defined responsibilities for the review and approval of investigations of complaints about police. In all cases, the ultimate responsibility was with the Chief of Police.
F9 Page 33
Findings resulting from investigations of citizen complaints and the use of complaint information to identify potential problems could be improved for some police departments. Law enforcement standards and common practice among law enforcement agencies is that investigations of complaints and allegations against law enforcement personnel result in findings of fact. Law enforcement standards, as established by the Commission on Accreditation for law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) dictate that these findings be used by the adjudicating officer to reach one of the following determinations:11 Unfounded: Allegation is false or not factual. Exonerated: Incident occurred, but the employee’s actions were lawful, proper and consistent with rules, regulations, policy, or state laws. Not Sustained: Insufficient facts either to prove or disprove the allegation. Sustained: The allegation is found to be substantially true. Generally speaking, the incident occurred and the specifically cited rule(s), regulation(s), or other general or special order(s) were violated by the employee. See appendix #4 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 21 As Exhibit 6 shows, police departments’ compliance with this standard averaged 75% for the twelve police departments and ranged from 22% to 97%. Other dispositions included frivolous, incomplete, none, and other. While some of these may have meaning, they do not preclude reaching one of the determinations outlined in the standards. Exhibit 6 Review, Disposition and Follow Up of Police Citizen Complaints Reviewed at Findings Consistent Used to Identify Maintain Records Police Department Appropriate Level with Standards Potential Problems for Five Years* Bell Gardens Yes 97% Yes Yes Burbank Yes 97% Yes Yes Culver City Yes 94% No Yes El Monte Yes 36% No Yes Glendale Yes 94% No Yes Inglewood Yes 96% Yes Yes Pasadena Yes 89% Yes Yes Pomona Yes 22% Yes Yes San Fernando Yes 45% No No South Gate Yes 78% Yes Yes Torrance Yes 65% Yes Yes West Covina Yes 84% No Yes Average % 75% * Required by the Penal Code (832.5, 832.7) Note: Percentage calculations of complaints with findings consistent with standards excludes complaints with investigations pending, complaints referred to other law enforcement agencies, service complaints, and complaints with no allegations of wrongdoing. 22 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 7 shows the number and percentage of complaints by disposition for each of the twelve police departments over the past five years. Exhibit 7 Number and Percentage of Complaints by Disposition Past Five Years (2013 to 2017) Police Unfounded Exonerated Not Sustained Sustained Other Department Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Bell Gardens 31 86.1% 1 2.8% 2 5.6% 1 2.8% 1 2.8% Burbank 275 38.2% 131 18.2% 79 11.0% 212 29.4% 23 3.2% Culver City 48 31.4% 33 21.6% 22 14.4% 41 26.8% 9 5.9% El Monte 6 10.9% 2 3.6% 9 16.4% 3 5.5% 35 63.6% Glendale 238 63.5% 73 19.5% 10 2.7% 32 8.5% 22 5.9% Inglewood 34 21.1% 21 13.0% 76 47.2% 24 14.9% 6 3.7% Pasadena 41 19.3% 16 7.5% 10 4.7% 121 57.1% 24 11.3% Pomona 18 9.6% 2 1.1% 11 5.9% 10 5.3% 146 78.1% San Fernando 7 35.0% 0 0% 1 5.0% 1 5.0% 11 55.0% South Gate 11 23.9% 15 32.6% 3 6.5% 7 15.2% 10 21.7% Torrance 17 12.1% 43 30.5% 10 7.1% 22 15.6% 49 34.8% West Covina 12 37.5% 1 3.1% 10 31.3% 4 12.5% 5 15.6% Averages 738 34.5% 338 15.8% 243 11.4% 478 22.4% 341 15.9% Note: Numbers and percentages excludes complaints with investigations pending, complaints referred to other law enforcement agencies, service complaints, and complaints with no allegations of wrongdoing. A key purpose for receiving and investigating complaints is to identify law enforcement personnel that frequently or habitually engage in inappropriate behavior. Even if the results of investigations are inconclusive, tracking complaints can provide an “early warning” system to identify and take corrective actions to improve employee conduct. Identifying and mitigating behaviors before they become career limiting or ending for the employee or creating liability for the agency is in the best interest of both the law enforcement agency and its personnel. An “early warning” corrective action program should include two functions – monitoring and corrective action. Part of this program should be an early intervention program designed to enhance an employee’s professional performance through guidance and supervision. Employees are identified as candidates and become part of the program when it is determined that a specific employee may benefit from such a structured intervention plan. As Exhibit 6 shows, seven of the police departments had a formal program to use the complaint information to identify potential problems or as an “early warning” system. Most of these stated that this function was part of the program or software they used to track complaint investigations. Five of the police departments did not have such an “early warning” system. Several of them stated that their police departments were small, and supervisors and managers were able to maintain awareness of potential problems without a formal program or approach. 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 23
F10 Page 36
The San Fernando Police Department was not in compliance with the requirement that records related to citizen complaints be maintained by the police department for a period of five years. The California Penal Code 832.5(b) requires that records related to citizen complaints regarding police be maintained by the police department for a period of five years. As Exhibit 6 shows, eleven of the police departments had records covering the past five years and were able to provide information on complaints for that period. One police department (San Fernando) was only able to provide information on citizen complaints for the past three years. 24 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
F11 Page 152
The City believes that less than 30% of dogs and significantly fewer cats are currently licensed. Rabies Vaccination Reporting The Los Angeles County code, specifically Title 10.20.25034, mandates veterinarians to report rabies vaccinations to the proper jurisdictional agency’s Director. The City of Los Angeles has a similar statute in Los Angeles Municipal Code 53.53.35
F12 Page 152
The Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County veterinary industry is required to forward notice of all rabies vaccinations to the Director of local Animal Control Services and the Director of DACC respectively; this is not being done. A Disconnect The initially stated reason for non-compliance by vets and their staff was ignorance of the law. We were told by the veterinary offices we surveyed that they were required to report only instances of dog bites or communicable diseases and that rabies vaccination information and certificates were given only to the pet owner, who would then be responsible for obtaining the pet’s license. One veterinarian told us that many owners would protest any reporting of rabies vaccination information to the appropriate agency, mainly to avoid “being on the books” and thus being responsible for the cost of a license and yearly renewals. If a veterinarian insisted on 31 Los Angeles County Auditor- Controller, Animal License Fee Collection Review, 2003 32 Meeting with senior official at DACC 33 Memo from Brenda Barnette to City Council, c/o Office of the City Clerk, dated 8/13/14. Council File: 14-0600-S7 34 Los Angeles County Code §10.20.250 covering the unincorporated territory, plus 47 contracted cities minus those cities that may have their own regulations. Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter 5, Article 3, Section 53.53 136 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT reporting, the client might move on to a veterinarian who would be less willing to comply with the law and therefore, a customer would be lost.
F13 Page 153
A random sampling of 5 private veterinarians in downtown Los Angeles, 2 in the Los Angeles County Area, and a phone conversation with a California veterinary advocacy organization found that the percentage of veterinarians complying with this mandate was zero. Benefits of Compliance with Rabies Vaccination Reporting The CGJ found both DAS and DACC services such as licensing, rabies vaccination reporting, revenue collection, policy implementation and compliance with regulations need improvement. This would address two constraints against better animal service operations: lack of funding and understaffing. Compliance would allow for easy follow up of services: licensing, micro-chipping, spay and neutering of animals four months or older, and even allowing veterinarians to complete license applications. In fact, a city ordinance authorizes veterinarians to sell licenses.37 The issue of jurisdictions between City and County animal services can easily be resolved by contacting the enforcement agency. If the DACC and DAS identified unlicensed dogs and their owners by cross-checking the data on the canine vaccination reports, this would be an opportunity for increased revenue. The County would now have a record of these owners. The statistics being reported now appear to be coming mostly from veterinarians employed by or contracted to shelters.
F14 Page 153
If the existing Chameleon data system, which the County launched 15 years ago and the City 20 years ago, was able to process the data from private Los Angeles veterinarians, the licensing and oversight of animal care and control would be considerably improved. It would also enable necessary follow-up for issues of population control with spay and neuter programs and increase the Return to Owner (RTO) statistics of pets because more pets would be micro-chipped. Cat Euthanasia “From our perspective, the cat has everything figured out. Our role really is managing their ability to reproduce.” - John Cicirelli, Director of San Jose Animal Care and Services The life of the feral cat is full of risks that impact their lives and their euthanasia rate has remained high. In Los Angeles County, it approaches 60%.38 These numbers are on the rise and require active participation from all community partners; government, non-profit coalitions, and the public. A program for licensing cats may present an opportunity to help control the 36Phone survey taken by CGJ, March, 2018 37 Los Angeles Municipal Code 53.15.4 (Title and Section Amended by Ord. No. 18.882, Eff. 10/31/11) 38 “End of Year Message”, Los Angeles Department of Animal Control, informational booklet 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 137 increasing number of cats being euthanized. The City of Los Angeles licenses cats only on a voluntary basis. An overwhelming animal control burden has fallen on local governments to implement measures to control free roaming cat populations. This has a significant impact on public and animal health, due to the various diseases which are transmittable between animals and from animals to people.
F15 Page 154
There is a higher euthanasia rate among cats compared with dogs. Only Los Angeles County has begun the mandatory process of licensing cats.39 TNR is Halted in the City of Los Angeles Trap Neuter Release (TNR) is a program advocated by those seeking to reduce cat populations through the neutering and spaying of feral or community cats. “In 2008 … a lawsuit was filed against the City of Los Angeles demanding that it refrain from implementing TNR until a review of environmental implications could be completed.”40 This was followed in 2010 by an injunction filed against the City over its TNR program. This injunction has tied the hands of DAS and many other organizations from the practice to release spayed and neutered cats back to their prior environment. Our interviews with shelter personnel seem to indicate that all other shelters are waiting for the resolution of the injunction. Feral and Community Cats Area - Shelters have few options other than euthanasia in dealing with feral, stray or unsocialized cats. The TNR conflict arises over the issues of animal welfare, public health and the impact on the indigenous species (birds, reptiles, other mammals, etc.). This injunctive climate has limited all 39 Los Angeles County Code §10.20.030 40 The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, et al 138 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT animal control agencies from efforts to reduce the feral and community cat population for fear of legal action. City and County shelters are given no effective option other than to euthanize the increasing “stray” cat population in the community. It is essential to resolve this issue and allow for the gradual reduction of this portion of the feline population thru the Trap Neuter “Return” Program and help eliminate the need to kill otherwise healthy cats. Although a controversial issue, veterinarian Dr. Julie Levy was optimistic of its success in a city like Los Angeles. Her 2003 study “found that a long-term TNR program, coupled with aggressive adoption, can help reduce stray and feral cat populations. However, TNR can fail as people begin abandoning unsterilized cats in the colonies.”41 Though her study took place at the University of Florida, she noted, “Southern California is a lot like Florida in that both share a mild climate that facilitates successful cat reproduction, sensitive wildlife areas, rapid human population growth and development and a growing public commitment to environmental protection and animal welfare.”42 Community cats may be cared for by an individual who licenses and accepts responsibility for the cats and acts as a caretaker for the colony. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has suggested establishing a Return program that would require a cat habitat which would contain the cat population and provide for routine immunization, care and feeding. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) needs to be more involved in addressing this and other public health issues.
F16 Page 155
An existing injunction against DAS’ Trap, Neuter, and Release program would require an expensive ($1,300,000) Environmental Impact Report be completed by the City of Los Angeles, $400,000 of which still remains to be funded before the injunction can be lifted.43 41 Fox, Hayley, “Cat Fight”, LA Weekly, April 3-9, 2015, 42 Ibid. p.14 43 Interview with City senior manager 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 139 The Euthanasia Room with disposal barrel for cats at a County shelter - In every shelter there is a euthanasia room, the final stop for animals that are not claimed, adopted, or fostered. Hiring and Staffing “We are committed to the belief that no one organization…can achieve the goal of saving the lives of healthy and treatable animals alone, that we need one another, and that the only solution is to work together.” -“Guiding Principles”, The Asilomar Accords County shelters are understaffed and the problem seems to be exacerbated by the long hiring process, sometimes as long as six months. Sworn field officers are vetted almost as comprehensively as police officers and there appears to be no consistent process of certification. This hiring delay is consistent with most County Departments and there does not appear to be any plan to initiate a fast-track system to fill vacancies when they occur. This CGJ were told a training module is in development in the County.44 City shelters fare no better as they are losing 2-3 employees each month due to termination, transfers or retirement. They would need 20-30 new hires per year just to maintain current levels of operation with more hires needed for optimum operation.45
F17 Page 156
The County’s hiring process needs to be addressed. It is typically slow in filling vacancies and seems unable to streamline the process, to maintain a continuous flow of needed trained employees. Interview with senior County manager 45 Interview with City Animal Services middle manager 140 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Shelter Animals and Juvenile Probation Camps A popular and effective program at the Challenger Probation Camp allowed the youth there to “intern” at the adjacent County animal shelter in Lancaster. Juveniles worked with animals which helped to improve the behavior of both. The probationers learned the responsibilities of caring for a dependent animal and the animals became socialized and better prepared for adoption. Unfortunately, the program was abruptly canceled for reasons unclear. However, the CGJ found that management at the Camp Scott facility for girls indicated they might be open to a similar program.46
F18 Page 157
It is important that there be opportunities for initial and ongoing training and the development of internships. Contract Cities – “The Past” “DACC’s operating Budget is not fully offset by contract city revenue and general fund allocation.”47 DACC provides various animal control services for its 47 contract cities. The contracts with each city note the specific types of services that DACC will provide, the rates to be charged, and at the end of each month, DACC sends an invoice. The Auditor-Controller Review of 2014 noted that in the majority of cases (84%), services to the cities were rendered before contracts were signed and in 16% of contracts, signatures were not dated causing an inability to determine “if the contracts were fully executed timely” (sic). The review also noted problems with billing errors, no documentation of supervisory review, and “insufficient supporting documentation in calculating the quantities of services provided to the contract cities based on Chameleon reports.”
F19 Page 157
The County has indicated that there is a deficit in the amount collected from contract cities and the cost for providing services. Phone interview with camp manager 47 Interview with Senior DACC official 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 141 Contract Cities – “The Future” Although now apparently corrected, there were no initial charges for medical services (including intake evaluations) and DACC anticipated an average holding period of five days, later determined to be ten days, thereby doubling that cost. A reevaluation by DACC of Los Angeles County’s current contracts with contract cities identified the problem and they are now more realistically allocating costs for services. DACC’s expected result will be an additional $10 million/per year, after a gradual yearly increase during the next six years. Although this benefits the contract cities, it prolongs a significant deficit for the County. CGJ’s investigation noted that there are still problems in the County receiving the optimum amount of revenue from some of these contract cities for services rendered. This matter is to be addressed by the County in the near future. These contracts are pending renewal for 2018.
F20 Page 158
As a result of prior miscalculation of costs, there will be an increase to the Contract over the next 6 years. Communication Breakdown The CGJ tried unsuccessfully to access low cost spaying and neutering services for the public, specifically the County contracted service, SPAY4LA. This is a fully equipped mobile spay and neuter clinic that serves certain areas of LA County, e.g., Bell, Cudahy, Inglewood and 44 other contracted cities. In March, the CGJ attempted to call their listed phone number (1-888-772- 9452), and a recording led us to another number (1-800-772-9452) which was called and which led back to the first number. We reported this problem to County senior management and the phone tree system has since been changed. Unfortunately, the system now leads residents to City animal services or to County animal services in Long Beach. The latter number may be a costly call for the low-income residents for whom this service was intended. A message was left at the Long Beach number but so far, there has been no response. The concern is that even when the public is prepared to do the right thing, like spaying and neutering their pets to help decrease the euthanasia rate, they cannot rely on a system which goes “round and round” in an endless loop. Furthermore, even when the matter is supposedly corrected, there is no timely response to a resident’s message. This may be a single instance of a “glitch”, however, we fear the inefficiency of communications between governments, non-profit coalitions, and the public may be more symptomatic. We asked City and County if they share information and meet regularly to compare best practices. They do not seem to communicate enough for the benefit of both agencies and the public.
F21 Page 158
The public wants to talk with a person, or be able to leave a message and have timely follow up. If a telephone number fails to connect with the services desired, people will hang up and not take needed action. 142 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Recommendations 1

Comments 1