⚠️ 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 9 findings
F1
including individual audit approval, tracking, and completion. The Audit Committee, in conjunction with an investigating committee, works closely with the 2. auditor during the process of defining the scope of an investigative topic. Scope changes to the auditor contract are negotiated only by the Audit Committee after 3. discussion with the auditor and concerned chairman and, if substantial, approved by the Grand Jury. Telephone or person-to-person contacts with the auditor should be limited and discussed with 4. at least the Audit Committee chairman. Meetings with the auditor shall be scheduled by the Audit Committee.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
To improve understanding and dialog between the Grand Jury and Board of Supervisors, the Supervisors should meet with the Jury early in the Jury's term and as needed thereafter.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Review of Water Management Policy Alternatives (Environmental Services).
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Review of Court Practices, Citrus Judicial District Model, Judges Training and legislation 5. with Regard to Domestic Violence (Criminal Justice). Review of Resources for Domestic Violence (Criminal Justice).
No recommendations for this finding
F5
When a topic has been approved by the Grand Jury for investigation, the Audit Committee 6. will negotiate the task contract subject to final approval by the Grand Jury. During the course of an audit investigation, regular status/progress reports will be made by 7. the auditor to the Audit Committee and then transmitted to the concerned committee and in summary to the Grand Jury. Direct contacts between the concerned committee members and the auditor are generally 8. limited to the committee chairman or a designated spokesperson. Interactions of substance shall include a representative of the Audit Committee. As the program developed it became evident that status reports on all topics under investigation by the auditor would be required at least every other week. This was agreed to and implemented by the auditor, and written reports followed the next working day by oral presentations. Completed investigation reports were delivered by the auditor in essentially finished form; i.e., in the same processor format used by the Grand Jury and including delivery of a compatible diskette as well as printed copies. For those reports too lengthy to be included in the final report direct, the auditor prepared an executive summary. FINDINGS A total of ten investigations were undertaken with the auditor. One was terminated before completion. Several were expanded from preliminary studies. Full copies of each completed investigation are available for the public in the Grand Jury Office. The investigations and the responsible committees were: Preliminary Analysis of Services Provided by the Sheriff's Department to County 1. Municipalities (Government Operations). Initial Domestic Violence Programs and Service Investigations-Preliminary Study (Criminal 2. Justice). Original Funding Source for the Los Angeles Airport (Government Operations).
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Analysis of Backlog in Hospital Outpatient Clinics (Health Services).
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Review of County Services for the Homeless with Psychiatric Disabilities (Health Services).
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Covina Valley Unified School District Building Safety and Maintenance Practices (Human 9. Services). Review of Los Angeles County Financial Tracking and Management Control-Limited Study 10. (Government Operations).
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Currently obligations or liabilities will be funded in accordance with an actuarial determined schedule of reserves. And, the Grand Jury further recommends: CITIZENS' BUDGET COMMISSION PURPOSE To provide a nonpartisan Blue Ribbon group of citizens to assist in achieving responsible financial management of Los Angeles County. SCOPE Allocation and distribution of public resources is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors. The primary interest of the Citizens' Budget Commission is the financial stability of the County and the prospects for the County's future financial health. RESPONSIBILITIES Review and certify that the annual budget proposed by the CAO is consistent with the 1. financial principles adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1995. Review assumptions, premises and priorities used by the CAO in establishing the budget.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 3
-
CL1The prevalence of domestic violence-related cases in Los Angeles County has increased steadily in the past four years. The courts tend to punish domestic violence-related crimes less severely than comparable crimes which are not domestic violence-related and courts often do not sentence domestic violence offenders in conformance with parameters established by State law. In addition, a lack of communication between criminal and civil courts results in conflicting court orders and allows abusers to continue to harass victims through civil actions. Judicial training and education are not currently mandated by California law. However, the County's Domestic Violence Planning Group recognizes the need and has recommended training for all judges in the area of domestic violence. The Citrus Judicial District Court model, a dedicated domestic violence court, is uniquely successful in that personnel assigned to the court give increased attention to domestic violence cases, the court monitors compliance with court orders and the progress of offenders sentenced to batterers programs, and the Judge, District Attorney, and Public Defender work cooperatively to resolve cases fairly and efficiently. Compliance with court orders is higher in the Citrus Judicial District than in other Districts. Sufficient caseloads in domestic violence exist in many Los Angeles County Court Districts to support the establishment of a dedicated domestic violence court. Establishing such courts would cost little and would result in efficiencies resulting from speedier disposition of cases. However, many judges may object to establishing such dedicated courts. Prosecutorial agencies have instituted effective programs, such as Victim Witness Advocates, to improve handling of domestic violence cases.
-
CL2Los Angeles County has significant resources for domestic violence, in that shelter capacity, police intervention, and education resources have all been increased or improved in recent years. However, the County remains significantly underserved in terms of shelter capacity, particularly in transitional housing beds, in the San Fernando Valley, and in services for minority populations. The County dedicates no discretionary funding at this time to domestic violence, and the only guaranteed funding source for domestic violence shelters is marriage license fees. Dedicated sources of operating funds are needed to insure the continued successful operation of the shelter network and other services. Funding is available for domestic violence shelters and services from Federal and State sources, and from private foundations, corporations and individuals. The LAPD and LASD have experimented with new models of police intervention in domestic violence. None of these models have definitively demonstrated that they affect the overall rate of domestic violence or protect victims, however, they do increase both evidence for prosecution and access to services for victims.
-
CL3The City has advanced more than $20 million to the Department of Airports since 1928. Of these advances, over $5,400,000 has not been repaid. These monies were advanced for operations, employee retirement costs, capital improvements, land acquisitions costs, bond redemption and interest costs, and bond issuance and servicing costs. In addition, the City suffered the loss of significant amounts of investment revenues it would had received if these monies had been repaid on a timely basis. These investment revenue losses amount to more than $152,309,000. Lastly, the 1988 sale of property to the State, which was then thought to be Airport owned property, was primarily (86.41 percent) owned by the City General Fund. Since the Department of Airports recently transferred the entire land sale proceeds from the Airport Revenue Fund to the General Fund of the City, approximately $7,935,570 should be transferred back to the Airport Revenue Fund and the Airport should enter into a repayment agreement with the City to repay the other monies identified in this report. The total benefit to the City of Los Angeles from the repayment of these monies by the Airport would amount to $208,145,865.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.