⚠️ 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 16 findings
F1
Page 18
There is now a recently implemented cap of $900 on the amount an inmate may have in his or her account, whether deposited by outside third parties, or in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. The $900 maximum on inmate accounts is excessive, and it creates an opportunity for disparity in the jail setting, where there are many rules and regulations in place for the express purpose of maintaining a level playing field among inmates. Inmates who are able to amass such a substantial sum of money, and the amenities that money can buy, have an opportunity to use such money or amenities to barter for extraordinary privileges.
F2
Page 18
Government Code § 26640 does not speak to whether the Sheriff may release money in an inmate’s account to outside third parties at the direction of the inmate, except for that money in the inmate’s possession at the time he or she is booked into custody. There is no legitimate purpose in permitting a jail inmate to function as a cash conduit by directing the release of funds to outside third parties that were initially deposited by persons outside the jail system.
F3
Page 19
The Sheriff does not require identification from outside third parties who make cash deposits to an inmate’s account through the cashier’s office.
F4
Page 78
Cases have been identified by the district attorney wherein care providers are allegedly providing aid under different names and fraudulently collecting benefits. Cases have also been identified wherein aid recipients are allegedly receiving aid under different identities.
F5
Page 78
DPSS administers various federal and state-funded aid programs at the county level, including General Relief (welfare), CalWorks, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and IHSS. The district attorney has identified a number of cases where benefits from one program would reduce or eliminate eligibility for another program, and contends that DPSS computer databases do not “talk to” one another, so inter-program opportunities for fraud abound.
F6
Page 79
Neither the State of California nor the County of Los Angeles conducts a criminal background investigation on the provider of IHSS services. Since the recipient has carte blanche to choose a provider, but cannot conduct a background investigation, the county is in a position to do so on behalf of the recipient.
F7
Page 79
Reassessments of the recipient’s need for continuing IHSS care are not done in a timely and systematic manner.
F8
Page 80
Personnel of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) are not always qualified to assess the kind and intensity of the care required, which is roughly analogous to Medicare’s definition of “custodial care.” Among the chief determining criteria for receiving IHSS is the requirement that but for this program, the recipient would require out-of-home placement. Quoting from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) report entitled In-Home Supportive Services: Past, Present and Future, January 2003: “The IHSS program is based on a social model – one that relies on a social worker assessment rather than assessment based on medical criteria. As such, caregivers are not medical personnel, nor are the social workers and, obviously, the consumer… “Quality of care is dependent on the caregivers qualifications and job satisfaction and how accurately the social worker’s assessment of the consumer’s need comports with the consumer’s actual supportive service needs.” Recipient need assessments have a significant subjective component, influenced by the personal bias of the social worker, personality interactions, and the innate desire to be charitable. DPSS also realizes that the initial assessment home visit, reassessment visits and scheduled visits are sometimes stage-managed in order to draw the maximum benefit of the program. The attempted reassessment via repeated random visits, to a supposedly housebound recipient who is never home, should be a cause for concern.
F9
Page 80
As an alternative to personalized, in-home care, electronic home monitoring could be made available for those recipients who neither want nor require personal contact.
F10
Page 81
Providers of in-home care complain that they are not getting paid by the recipients of in-home care. Conversely, recipients complain that the providers are not providing the level and/or quality of care for which they are being paid from IHSS funds. In some cases, time cards have been forged or altered.
F11
Page 81
Initial fraud referrals are supposed to be sent to DPSS headquarters. However, in some cases, DPSS employees attempting to report suspected IHSS fraud have been met with responses ranging from apathetic to hostile on the part of district office supervisors and managers. Reports of suspected fraud, forwarded to DPSS headquarters, are not followed up on with the employees who initiated the reports; in essence, a lack of feedback. Senate Bill (SB) 1104 grants jurisdiction for IHSS fraud investigations to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), formerly known as the Department of Health Services. Specific provisions contained in SB 1104 created fraud detection and quality assurance protocols, adherence to which is not optional.
F12
Page 81
An Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864, must be submitted by those who are sponsoring foreign nationals under the family- based immigration system. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Support is required in certain employment-based immigration situations. Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 CFRs) creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the foreign national. The Act also creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor(s) and the federal agency or any state agency which may provide means-tested public benefits to the sponsored immigrant. Implemented in 1996 to ensure that foreigners do not become public charges after admittance to the U.S.A., the Affidavit of Support requirement must be satisfied in order for many foreigners to ultimately obtain legal permanent residence. The Affidavit of Support terminates once the sponsored immigrant “naturalizes” or when credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work as defined by the Social Security Act. Form I-864 and I- 864A data may be disclosed to other federal, state and local agencies providing means- tested public benefits for use in any civil action against the sponsor(s) for breach of contract. Social Security numbers may be verified with the Social Security Administration. It may also be disclosed as a matter of routine use to other federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities.
F13
Page 82
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- income working individuals and families. It is not a tax rebate, but rather a federal subsidy. In addition, the EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits; the EITC will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing or most payments of temporary assistance for needy families. The EITC is based on a past and an anticipated calendar year of income. Applicants must file a federal tax return and have a valid Social Security number. Full details are contained in IRS Notice 797 and Form W-5.
F14
Page 83
Although the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot comment upon or review State of California operations, the successful and professional local administration of IHSS is dependent upon state databases. The state’s and Los Angeles County’s Department of Social Services computers and software must handshake and exchange data, primarily with the following: • State Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) • Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) There is no longer a demarcation between county and state functions; we live in a virtual world. Even checking a person’s federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) status requires DPSS to go through the state systems to obtain Social Security Administration data. Obviously, Los Angeles County DPSS is at the mercy, interest and competence of state agencies, particularly the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Providers and recipients of IHSS services sign and submit a biweekly timesheet which is ultimately processed by the state, the payment warrant is issued by the state, and fraud investigation is within the purview of the state. The acceptance of scrawled or absent signatures on the timesheet does not constitute good management of a multi- billion dollar program such as IHSS. Dual endorsement of the payment warrant would definitely be a good business practice.
F15
Page 83
The Advance Pay feature of IHSS is reportedly abused, particularly by the recipient receiving “advance pay” for weeks and months without submitting a time card in support of that pay.
F16
Page 84
A member of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury, a past service provider in the IHSS program, was approached by an IHSS employee to sign up to take other recipients. All the member had to do was give the IHSS employee permission to re-use the member’s provider information, which was already in DPSS files, and periodically sign papers. For this, the member would keep one-half of each check / warrant, and yield the other half to an associate of the DPSS employee. The grand jury member was subsequently approached by someone who was not a county employee, but offering a similar scam. He told the member that “…lots of people are doing it.” Needless to say, the current grand jury member emphatically refused both offers.
Recommendations 16
-
R1Page 18The Sheriff should impose a limit of $500 on the total amount of money an inmate has in his or her account at any given time. If the inmate is booked into custody with a sum greater than $500 in his or her possession, the inmate should be required to draw down on the amount until it falls below $500 before any deposits from outside third parties are accepted.
-
R2Page 19The Sheriff should discontinue and prohibit the practice of allowing an inmate to authorize the release of funds to outside third parties, except for money that was in the inmate’s possession at the time of booking. All money deposited by outside third parties to inmate accounts should only be for use by inmates in purchasing phone cards and items from the jail store.
-
R3Page 19The Sheriff should implement procedures requiring cashier staff to request valid identification from outside third parties making deposits to an inmate’s account, unless the amount is less than a pre-determined nominal sum, such as $100. HELPING PROBATION AND FOSTER CARE YOUTH PREPARE FOR ADULTHOOD AND INDEPENDENCE 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Nicolina Friedman, Chair Ethell Anderson Lucy Hernandez Fred Linderman Dorothy M. Schneider INTRODUCTION Each month approximately 3,000 children enter the Los Angeles County social services and probation systems. This statistic, along with findings by a Select Committee of the California State Legislature that 70% of all state prison inmates were formerly part of the foster care system, a homeless rate and an unemployment rate of 51% within two to four years after emancipation, led the Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) to investigate why these correlations existed. With each interview, site visit, and inquiry to county agencies including the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), the Probation Department (Probation), the Department of Mental Health (DMH), the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), and Juvenile Court personnel, more questions than answers surfaced. Clearly there is a failure in the County to adequately address the needs and issues of young people involved in one or more agencies designed specifically to help them. Well-intentioned people are working diligently to improve the lot of their charges. Yet the system is failing. Lack of adequate funds and personnel are often cited as reasons. Currently there are numerous programs funded through federal, state, and local governments for the benefit of children who are wards of the County. DCFS, DMH, and Probation administer more than 20 programs for Transition Age Youth (TAY) alone. The annual budgets total $95,686,359. With diminishing governmental funding it is likely that less money will be available to social service agencies. Streamlining existing programs and generating innovative ideas that replace traditional thinking and the limitations imposed by bureaucracies are needed. Prevention is the first aspect of three separate yet inter-related steps that should be followed to ensure a higher rate of success. Long-standing research and common sense indicate that the genesis of school and social problems which bring children into the social service/probation systems is in the families. High teen pregnancy rates certainly contribute to the problem. According to reports almost 37% of births in Los Angeles County are to unwed mothers. Of course there are many instances where single family members raise successful and law abiding children. However, there is a high incidence of single parents having issues of their own that prevent them from being effective parents. Often it falls on relatives, friends or other care givers to intercede when parents are incarcerated or incapacitated. When the family fails, the foster care system is the last and least ideal option. Currently, in excess of 8,600 children from ages 14 to 20 receive most of their education and preparation for adulthood and independence in the system. Therefore, prevention is essential if the numbers of young people in need of government intervention are to be reduced. Education is the second step. An appalling number of youth in the system are not graduating from high school or graduating as functional illiterates. The result is a group of young people with little hope of earning a decent living and exceptionally low self esteem. Although many arrive in the foster care/probation system with a staggering array of emotional, physical and behavioral problems, owing in part to ineffective adult modeling, every child has gifts and talents that must be nurtured. Whether academic, athletic, artistic, culinary, or other gifts, they must be cultivated within the educational system itself. Vocational education opportunities are designed to encourage and hone innate skills. However, at the current time, many of the programs are not available in public school programs or in the Probation camps where the educational component is provided by LACOE. Evaluation is the third step. While many programs are available to help students succeed, we found insufficient evaluation components that determine the efficacy of the programs. It is critical to know what works and what does not work in order to develop, improve, or eliminate them. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Grand Jury has made seven major recommendations that address organizational changes to reduce the number of youth entering the system, new and expanded programs to serve TAY, and improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the agencies responsible for their well-being. Some of our recommendations cover services currently being given to TAY. In those instances, our intent is to improve, enhance, evaluate for effectiveness and generally strengthen existing programs. 1) The first recommendation is the development of a new strategic plan by all the key stakeholders to focus the programs on integration, efficiency, and effectiveness. Special attention must be given to the incorporation of life skills into the educational component of their lives with an emphasis on parenting and vocational life skills. 2) The second recommendation is to implement regular and systematic reviews of all TAY programs. Monies and emphasis should be given to effective programs. Ineffective programs should be dropped or redesigned to increase their efficiency. We outline two financing recommendations including aggressive attempts to incorporate additional community partners, foundations, and other funding sources to expand and enrich that which is already in place. 3) The third recommendation addresses ways to reach high-risk families in order to keep children out of the system when at all possible. We outline four ideas for the development of new lines of communication between families, the community, and agency personnel. 4) The fourth recommendation involves organizational changes to improve trust by youth already in the system. Many young people mistrust adults even when they are motivated by the highest ideals. Mentoring has proven successful in many instances especially when the ratio of youth to mentor is low. Continuous training for caregivers and foster parents is imperative in order to provide the best possible role models. Communication skills, early interventions to offset problems, and decision-making skills are crucial if programs are to have the positive impact we strive to achieve. Better and more effective communication is needed between the Probation Officers and schools with students in the probation system. 5) The fifth recommendation involves enhanced educational improvements for TAY. Vocational training, life skills programs, enriched music and art programs, as well as apprenticeship and on-the- job training will do much to support the regular high school curriculum required by State law to ensure that students graduate from high school equipped with the tools needed for successful adulthood. 6) The sixth recommendation calls for improved programs for post-emancipation TAY. 7) The seventh recommendation calls for the development of a comprehensive information system that captures the records on all current wards and continues to collect information through surveys on successes and problems after emancipation. This information is vital as a planning, evaluation, and budgeting tool. Our recommendations are deliberately directional. We hope we have provided enough specificity to make our intent clear while leaving room for creativity. We strongly encourage the many intelligent and dedicated people who are involved in the lives of TAY to set the bar even higher by focusing on the real life results achieved by all TAY. APPROACH TO THE INVESTIGATION During our review of DCFS and Probation’s TAY programs, our data collection consisted of: • Site visits to facilities and discussions with service providers including probation officers and social workers • Interviews with key officials at DCFS, Probation, DMH, LACOE, and the presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court of the Los Angeles Superior Court • An entrance conference with the Los Angeles County Deputy Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Children & Families Well-Being and key officials from DCFS, Probation, DPSS, LACOE, and DMH to solicit their support of the investigation and their ideas for improvement of the TAY system • Research of: − TAY best practices used in other jurisdictions − Analysis of data provided by DCFS, Probation, DMH, and other agencies − A survey of TAY currently in DCFS and Probation as well as those who have left the system − Discussion of data findings and conclusions with DCFS, Probation, and DMH officials OVERVIEW OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Currently over 3000 children enter DCFS and probation each month. In 2007, 2,629 youth exited the system as follows: AGE 17 18 19 20 21+ TOTAL Probation 25 643 65 9 5 747 DCFS 9 1,160 476 175 62 1,882 TOTAL 34 1,803 541 184 67 2,629 These counts should decrease over time as DCFS’s new initiatives to place their wards in permanent placement are successful. As of March 2008 there were 8,676 youth who will likely transition from the system to independence versus returning home: AGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 + TOTAL Probation 86 212 308 363 124 6 27 1,126 DCFS 1,337 1,493 1,586 1,572 1,023 378 121 7,550 TOTAL 1,423 1,705 1,894 1,935 1,147 384 147 8,626 These youth receive training and support both pre- and post-transition in the following areas: • Living skills (including budgeting, banking, and grocery shopping) • Housing assistance (including assistance in signing a lease, arranging utilities, and rental subsidies in some cases) • Education Assistance (including assistance with applications, tuition assistance, and tutoring) • Vocational Training/Employment Assistance (including job skills assessment, referrals to vocational programs, and employment agencies • Living support (including bus passes, clothing allowances, car insurance assistance, and legal referrals) The basic goals of these programs are to help TAY to become self-sufficient adults. The total funding of these programs has been estimated by DCFS/Probation and DMH at $95,686,359. Mental health care services are provided by DMH. RESEARCH 1) BEST PRACTICES Our research into best practices of other jurisdictions found many individual programs that have been sited as best practices throughout the nation. The best practices fell into the following six categories. In most cases the youth must be self-motivated to seek and use these services after the age of 18. LIFE SKILLS TRAINING Many programs incorporate education about daily living skills into their housing programs. In many cases, participation in these additional training programs is required in order to receive housing assistance. • Economic literacy training: Youth are educated on how to budget their income, open and maintain a bank account, and make financial decisions about auto insurance and other expenditures. • Grocery shopping skills: Youth learn how to create a meal plan and successfully shop for food keeping both financial and nutritional goals in mind. • In-home case management: Several programs offer mentors who go to the youth’s apartment and provide guidance on various daily living issues. INDEPENDENT LIVING SUPPORTS Many of the following services are incorporated into housing programs. • Health advocacy: Youth receive assistance in attaining health care and mental health care, including information about whether they can continue receiving state health coverage after age 18. • Transportation assistance: Youth are provided with bus and/or subway passes in order to get to school and work. • Food vouchers: Typically, monthly allowances are provided in the form of grocery store gift cards (which cannot be used on liquor, cigarettes, etc.). • Auto insurance subsidies: A few jurisdictions provide youth with money to pay their auto insurance if a car is necessary to get to school or work. • Clothing allowances: Typically, funds are provided for clothing necessary for interviews and work, including uniforms. • Community resource centers: Many jurisdictions operate local walk-in centers that provide access to various government and private services available to young adults. • Community-building peer groups: Some private organizations have developed either online or in-person support groups designed to help youth build a social network. HOUSING Most jurisdictions offer some type of housing support, ranging from shelters to subsidies to more elaborate training programs. Many of these programs are run by community-based non-profit organizations. • Supervised transitional housing: Youth live in an apartment-style setting for a set period of time to develop and practice life skills in order to achieve long-term self- sufficiency. These facilities have on-site supervision and mandatory life skills training. Some programs start as early as age 16. • Special needs housing: Some jurisdictions offer housing geared towards youth with special needs such as HIV/AIDS, those pregnant or parenting, or those with mental disabilities. • Housing support: Most programs require youth to either be enrolled in school, college, a technical training program, or gainfully employed. Many require participants to contribute a portion of their income towards expenses. Most programs are available to youth age 18-21, although some provide services up to age 25. Typical services and support include: − Assistance in finding housing, signing a lease, and setting up utilities − Financial assistance to pay housing start-up costs like first and last month’s rent, and necessary appliances and furniture − Monthly rental subsidies − Utilities subsidies • Housing development: Some states provide funds to municipalities, non-profits and for-profit developers to build or refurbish old buildings to be used as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. JOB TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE • Corporate-sponsored job training: Job training programs sponsored by corporations or local businesses that train youth aging out of the child welfare system so that they can obtain a well-paying job with opportunity for advancement. • Work/school programs: Some programs combine employment with tuition assistance for two or four year college programs. These programs are generally join ventures between the college and private companies. • Mentoring programs: These types of programs link businesses with students to create work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. • Community-based training programs: Businesses, colleges/trade schools, and nonprofit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. • Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy: This new DWP venture will provide extensive job training and career assistance to high school juniors and seniors through a comprehensive two-year program involving after-school and weekend vocational training as well as summer jobs and internships. Youth are prepared to start work in public utilities upon high school graduation and are assisted in applying for college if they choose. EDUCATION (ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL) • Educational expense subsidies: − The Federal Education and Training Vouchers Program (ETV) provides annual $5000 vouchers for tuition, room, and board, and other costs related to college or vocational training. − Numerous other government and private educational assistance programs provide tuition grants and loans. • Cal State Fullerton: This University provides five years full tuition, funding for textbooks and supplies, year-round on-campus housing, on-campus employment, one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer and faculty mentoring, post- graduation career planning and other services to youth exiting foster care. The program enrolls ten youth per year for a total of 50 in the program. PARENTING CONSTRUCTS • Life experience with a safety net: These programs provide youth with a chance to live in their own place, but with supervision and financial supports. • Incentives for success: These programs allow students to earn cash for good academic performance and school attendance. • Continuity of mentoring: These programs provide youth with one adult to supervise them for years at a time. The sources for this summary of best practices can be found in Appendix A. ) 2) THE EDUCATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE (ECC As part of our fact finding we became aware of the Los Angeles County Education Coordinating Council Blueprint. This report was prepared in 2005 in response to the poor educational outcomes of foster and probation youth. The report first describes the achievement gap between foster/probation youth and the population at large including the fact that “the average reading level of Los Angeles County probation youth in grades nine through twelve is below grade five.”1 “Once they leave the dependency or delinquency systems at about age 18, studies have shown that half of these youth are unemployed, one-third are dependent on public assistance, a quarter are incarcerated, and over a fifth are homeless.”2 1 Los Angeles County Office of Education (2002). Juvenile Court and Community Schools, School Accountability Report Card, 2001-2002. Downey, CA: author. Courtney, M., Dworsky, A., Terao, S., Ruth, G., & Keller, T. (2005). Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago The ECC intends to coordinate the efforts of various County departments, schools, and private and community-based organizations “to expand best practices and fill the gaps in communities where little help or support for families is available, so that none of our children are left behind.”3 Four priority areas are: • Early childhood education • Youth development • Data and information-sharing • School-based support Short-term practical solutions include: • Enrolling higher numbers of children in the care of DCFS, and the children of foster and probation youth, in high-quality early intervention, care, and education programs that are suited to their cultural and language needs • Offering increased support and resources to parents/caregivers to help them be good nurturers and provide positive learning environments that will ensure that their children are ready for school • Enrolling more DCFS/Probation youth in skill-building and enrichment programs that include non-system students and provide opportunities for positive and enduring connections to nurturing adults • Involving youth in designing and implementing the educational and other programs in which they will participate • Requiring departments and caregivers to pay greater attention to transitions for children (i.e.: pre-school to elementary, elementary to high school, and high school to college/employment) • ECC working to promote safer schools • Enhancing the sharing of information between school districts, county departments, and juvenile courts • Developing an electronically-based information system that includes the records of all DCFS and Probation youth • Providing school staff with information about who is responsible for the education of each DCFS/Probation youth • Training school staff about the educational and emotional needs of foster and probation youth This document outlines the roles and responsibilities of the youth, parents, caregivers, holders of the child’s education rights, CSWs, DPOs, school teachers/administrators, attorneys, county departments, school districts, and the judiciary in carrying out the above recommendations. The ECC also recommends that the above participants be cross-trained and held responsible for their respective parts in the system. A Blueprint for Raising the Educational Achievement of Foster and Probation Youth; February 2006. A progress report dated February 14, 2008 detailed implementation of the recommendations thus far. Progress is being made in most categories, but there is still a long way to go. This CGJ strongly endorses this report. Many of the previous CGJ recommendations and our current recommendations echo and reinforce the recommendations of this blueprint. We encourage the Board of Supervisors to continue to support their implementation. 3) THE DEPUTY CEO’S VISION The entrance conference for this investigation was attended by officials representing DCFS, Probation, DPSS, LACOE, DMH and the Los Angeles County Chief Executive office. The Deputy CEO opened the Conference with a presentation of the County’s roles and strategy for improving foster and probation services in the County of Los Angeles. He stated that he is working towards a new structure emphasizing holistic care and integrated systems, rather than the current department centric approach. The Deputy CEO believes, and the CGJ concurs and supports that the areas of attention should include prevention, integration of services, case management, and being proactive rather than reactive. Specifically: • Prevention programs are necessary to provide families with support so that children are able to remain in the home and thrive. Social supports organized through schools, churches, and other community organizations should be further developed. • Services provided by various LA County departments like DPSS, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, etc., should be highly integrated. The child should be at the center of the system and services from various departments should be delivered out of the same facility. • Departments should be proactive in getting services to children and families rather than coming in once a severe problem exists. • Consistent case management is critical to providing continuity for the child. A single case manager should take on the role of a parent in regards to advocating for the child. This person would ensure that the various departments communicate and make sure the child gets everything he needs to succeed. • Changes in internal processes and legal interpretation of State law will enable different departments to more readily share information and communicate about what is best for a given child. The Deputy CEO’s goal is to put this vision together by year end. These themes stress prevention, integration of services, shared information systems and continuity for the children. These mirror our findings. We applaud his commitment to action and his year end timetable. 4) RESULTS OF OUR SURVEY OF TAY TAY were surveyed and asked to rate their level of preparation to live independently in the following areas: • Education • Workforce Readiness • Life Skills • Housing • Transportation • Legal Assistance • Physical Health • Social and Emotional Wellbeing The survey was distributed to a sample of TAY by Probation, DCFS, and Our Friend’s Place (a drop-in center for homeless youth in Los Angeles). A total of 205 TAY participated in the survey. Nearly two-thirds of the survey participants are or were from DCFS and one-third from Probation. Their detailed responses, including the statements they were asked to rank, can be found in Appendix B. Only 54% of the respondents indicated that they had completed a Transitional Independent Living Plan (TILP). The survey participants, for the most part, agree that they have the knowledge and skills necessary to live independently. Three exceptions were: savings to live independently, housing costs, and access to legal advice. Survey participants were asked to provide suggestions or comments concerning TAY services and programs. Forty-seven responses were received. Approximately 20% of the respondents made positive comments about their experiences, many expressing their gratitude, with TAY services and programs. The rest of the respondents commented negatively or gave suggestions for improvements. The respondents’ negative comments or suggestions in order of frequency were about housing, the social worker or the system, jobs/income/budgeting, quality of instruction or support, educational support, and access to health care. The unedited and verbatim comments are: • I need to know how to budget myself. • I wish my social worker was more involved with my needs and concerns and could answer more questions for me that I have asked for. • Well, I know I would living independently or by myself, because it is not difficult. This System helped me a lot, because they give me a good service and I appreciate the services. • You are asking the wrong questions if you are trying to improve the program. None of these things I’ve learned from placement. I was afraid to sleep at night, because my peers were getting reaped and no one believed us. I now never want to have kids, because I am in fear that they will be sent away. I never wanted to die more than I did when I was in placement. Be more careful who you hire. Every placement I’ve been to was supposed to be a great place and instead was unacceptable. • How do I get money for rent? • Have one-on-one instructors that can help the youth to prepare on how to live independently, education, job and career, parenthood, and housing • More caseworkers and probation officers • Housing Status: Street • Need a 2 bedroom for under $1400 for me and my kids • Houseless. • DCFS takes kids away from good families so they can make more money. • Probation sucks. • Homeless – live on Metro • Housing: Transitional Living Program • Court order home stay • Living stable • I’m deaf and help me • Teach more about real life issues like ID Theft, Credit Counseling, How to Deal with Difficult People & Situations, Being a Parent, etc. • Most ILP classes are the same as my High School Life Skills class • Teach us especially how to manage our money. • I think they should give us more time on ILP and transition housing so they know we can stand without falling. And transitional housing staff agree. • Even though I have some motivational problems, I feel that if I hadn’t at least got the good in my life I would be in worse shape and have less to work with, with myself. One thing being my high school diploma. Basically, thank you. My suggestion is to please keep programs like this for the people like me. • Need a part-time job • Access to community college/university • The Independent Living Program was very helpful to me. I am sure the skills that I have learned in ILP will help me in life. • We need more pay per hour, because we don’t make enough money to save up enough to live independently • Do my time and get out and go with my family • My case manager, [name], has been a big help and great supporter during my stay in transitional housing. :) • I would like to say that the only improvement I can see needed is a little more upkeep in the apartment • More housing opportunities and educational programs geared towards long-term results • Emancipation program and caseworker [Name] has helped me to be more knowledgeable of the resources and also helped and taught me how to budget funds • I am not able to emancipate myself right now because of how expensive it is to live in California. But any where else emancipation would be easier for me. • Don’t give up on the kids. • I feel that I am ready to live on my own & handle my business. • More money for school • With everything you people do in the System to make things better, I just would like to say thank you. • Extend medical after the age of 21. • Extend the THP program longer than 1.5 yrs. to those who follow rules & pay rent. • Have a trust fund started/set-up before youth emancipate/ or when they enter the System. • Please make sure that those who request to take ILP classes are entered in them. • I think that the programs should last longer. • I was in both foster and probation and there should be more available resources and it should be known about more publicly because how are youth going to know where to look the resources at • Since legal guardianship was done a month prior to my 16th birthday, I was not eligible for many of these resources. DCSF should tell youth of the possibility of losing these resources if legal guardianship is done prior to their 16th birthday. • Talk about it more. Let teens know what’s out there and what to expect. Help us. • I am in school [school and location]. I have a family that is not supportive at all. They plan on moving and kicking me out soon because there moving. I am in college and it’s already hard for me but my family doesn’t see it. I want a career in the future. My older brother is always telling me to do plumbing with him but I’m not interested. I want to be a cop. I have already taken the necessary steps to become a cop. I want to go to San Diego state in the near future. I’m looking into a 4 year. I want to be independent. I don’t want to be like my 2nd older brother who is 20 and is still living with my older brother and is doing the same this as my older brother. I don’t want to be that. I want to be able to support myself. I’m a currently looking for a job and it is really hard to because [location] not many people are hiring. I can’t get a job to make money to maybe rent a room out here somewhere but I can’t get a job. I have a girlfriend whose dad will allow me to stay there for a couple of weeks but not for long because his daughter is still in school and with me there she wouldn’t be able to concentrate. It’s really hard for me and I need help can you help me get transitional housing. My emancipation coach has already filed something for me to get transitional housing in [location] where I am going to school. My name is [name] and I really appreciate you taking the time to read this. • I think that the information for college should come earlier than senior year. Kids should be made aware in the 10th grade so they can prepare better. • I think you should pay people to do this survey, because it will help kids live independently. 5) THE DMH TAY PROGRAMS DMH provides service to TAY including many who have not been part of the system. The Department outlined seven programs they are currently providing and/or funding. Many of these programs are very new. Some have been approved recently so the evaluation processes are either non-existent or just underway. A detailed description of each program can be found in Appendix C. 5.1 Transition Age Youth Full Service Partnerships This program commenced in December 2006 to serve youth (age 16-25) diagnosed with serious emotional disturbance and severely and persistently mentally ill (SED and SPMI). A comprehensive services plan is developed for each youth and driven by a case manager who is available 24/7. The plan addresses any and all needs of the youth. The funding is from three sources: The Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) and Medi-Cal. The department estimates $7,900,000 is targeted for DCFS and Probation youth. The program is subject to State and County approved Outcome Measures Application evaluation. 5.2 TAY Drop-in Centers Community operated centers provide temporary safety and basic support to youth living on the street or in unstable situations (no age criterion). Effective March 2008, DMH provided funding to allow two centers to extend their evening and weekend hours. The centers are entry points for TAY into the mental health system. The current funding is $500,000 from MHSA. An evaluation process is under development. 5.3 TAY Housing Services As of May 2008, this program began providing emergency shelter care for 300 TAY for 20 days per year, permanent housing through operating subsidies for 83 units (effective in 2009) and eight housing specialists (effective since October 2006) who can support 864 TAY (age 18-25) to obtain/retain housing. The program funding is $1,575,000 from MHSA. Because these programs are just starting no evaluation is in place yet. 5.4 Probation Camp Services This program was implemented in November 2007 to provide mental health services and medications required by all youth in probation camps requiring such services. The program funding is $3,500,000 from MHSA. Because this and the next program are just starting no evaluation is in place yet. 5.5 Juvenile Halls and Community-Based Juvenile Justice Programs This program was recently approved to provide assessment and a full range of mental health services to 100% of youth in Juvenile Halls. The funding is from seven sources: Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) or Schiff-Cardenas $5,032,000 and $606,000 for Multi-systemic Family Therapy (a community-base program); The Supportive Therapeutic Options Program (STOP) $2,100,000 plus a State required 30% County General Fund (CGF) ($900,000) match for a total program of $3,000,000; Department of Justice Settlement Agreement, CGF of $2,201,000; Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Grant (MICOR) funding for Camp Assessment Unit and clinical staff at Camp Rockey of $299,337; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funding of $956,673; CGF funding of $816,802 for Dorothy Kirby Day Treatment Intensive Residential Placement for Probation Youth; CGF funding of $300,000 for Functional Family Therapy (a community-based program); and CGF of $349,583. The Rand Corporation is monitoring this program. No evaluation is available yet. 5.6 DMH TAY Navigators Since September 2006, DMH has employed licensed clinical social workers to connect with TAY (age 16-25) to help link those requiring mental health services to the appropriate support. There are currently 20 Navigators for the entire County. The program funding is $2,000,000 from MHSA. There is data on the number of TAY served but the evaluation process is just underway. 5.7 General Out-Patient Services This program provides assessments and mental health services to DCFS youth (age 16-20). The services are provided by DMH and contracted staff. In fiscal year 2006-07, 4,551 youth were served. The program funding is $46,860,172 from EPSDT paid through Medi-Cal. No evaluation process is in place. A summary of the funding by source is: Source Pre-emancipation Post Emancipation TOTAL DOJ $2,201,000 $2,201,000 MHSA $3,500,000 (1) $7,900,000 (2) $15,475,000 $500,000 (3) $1,575,000 (4) $2,000,000 (5) Schiff- $5,032,000 $606,000 (6) $5,638,000 Cardenas/JJCPA STOP $2,100,000 $2,100,000 County $900,000 (7) $2,366,385 $349,583 (8) $816,802 (9) $300,000 (10) EPSDT $46,860,172 $46,860,172 MICOR $299,337 $299,337 SAMHSA $956,673 $956,673 $63,315,567 $12,581,000 $75,896,567 TOTAL (1) Probation Camp Services (2) Full Service Partnerships (3) Drop-In Centers (4) Housing Services (5) System Navigators (6) Multi-systemic Family Therapy (Juvenile Justice Community-Based Program) (7) CGF Match for STOP (8) CGF for Juvenile Justice (9) CGF for Dorothy Kirby Center (10) Functional Family Therapy (Juvenile Justice Community-Based Program) 6) THE DCFS AND PROBATION TAY PROGRAMS DCFS and Probation provide programs to youth aging out of both foster care and delinquency systems. The Department outlined 13 programs they are currently providing to help youth to live independently. A detailed description of each program can be found in Appendix D. 6.1 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Los Angeles County provides a broad array of activities to help youth age 18-20 prepare for and make the successful transition from adolescence to adulthood as they exit the child welfare system. Some typical services provided directly by DCFS/Probation are financial aid for education, job search assistance, transportation costs, driving lessons, reimbursement for health care costs not funded by Medi-Cal, and youth events. This Federal flexible funding is channeled through the State and is currently $1,354,280 annually. Current funding enables the departments to service only one-third of the youth in this category. The departments will implement required performance measures as new Federal regulations go into effect in April 2010. 6.2 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program – High School Graduation Expenses This program is provided directly by DCFS/Probation. It covers some of the senior year high school year-end costs such as: high school yearbook, senior pictures, prom expenses, class ring, etc. Chafee/ILP provides $320,000 for this program which serves approximately 640 youth per year. High school records and receipts are used to monitor expenses. 6.3 Special Tutoring for ILP Youth This program provides assessments and tutoring to youth age 14-15 who have shown educational deficiencies in particular courses. The County provides $1,415,635 for this program which currently provides assessments for 2,252 youth and tutoring for 452 youth. Contractors are required to provide pre- and post-testing of youth receiving services. 6.4 Youth Development Services Life skills and employability classes are provided by contractors to DCFS/Probation youth age 16-20. They include a broad range of services and information in seven modules: Education, Employment, Daily Living Skills, Survival Skills, Choices & Consequences, Interpersonal Social Skills, and Computer and Internet Skills. Chafee/ILP provides $2,360,877 for this program annually which serves 1489 youth. Current and former DCFS/Probation youth in this age range total 25,432. DCFS’ Youth Development Services contractors began to collect Ansel Casey data in FY 2007-08. The evaluation is pending. 6.5 Foster Youth Demonstration Project This program is designed to prepare youth for employment; it provides assessments, measures educational and occupational skills, and assists youth with employment and career goals. This program is currently limited to 100 youth age 17-21 residing in SPAs 3 and 6. Funding is provided by: Chafee/ILP $200,000; Department of Labor $400,000; and Peyser & Wagner $200,000. Case Family Services is funding the program evaluation of this demonstration project. 6.6 Alternative Services for Youth Program A contractor provides mentoring, life skills workshops, tutoring, GED prep, California high school exit exam prep, field services, and home visits to DCFS youth age 14-18 who are not eligible for comparable ILP services. Los Angeles County provides $1,500,000 for this program which has a capacity of 640 youth. Currently 286 youth are being served in this start-up year. The program will be evaluated on performance-based criteria. 6.7 Runaway Outreach Unit (ROU) This program is designed to locate and stabilize runaway DCFS youth. ROU assists primary Child Social Workers (CSW) in providing stabilization services to AWOL youth who are returned to DCSF care. Child Welfare Service (Case Management System) provides $800,000 for this program. Last year 847 youth were AWOL. Four-hundred and fifty-five were found and returned to foster care. An evaluation in partnership with National Runaway Switchboard (Chicago) is pending. 6.8 ILP Rental Assistance/ILP Direct Services This program is designed to provide former DCFS/Probation youth age 18-20 with the opportunity to obtain/maintain existing permanent housing, with the goal of preventing homelessness and stabilizing the youth's housing needs. Youth are encouraged to maintain employment, and/or attend school while participating in the program. Current Chafee/ILP funding of $765,000 provides service to 485 youth. There is no evaluation process in place. 6.9 Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) This placement alternative provides training, support, education, and basic life skills to successful youth age 16-18 currently in foster care. The program contractor provides furnished apartments and includes allowances for food, clothing, and personal expenses. The program also includes housing assistance for youth after exiting care. This is a Federal/State program serving 120 youth per year for $2,108,000. THP is evaluated annually via Supportive Housing Program (SHP). 6.10 Transitional Housing Program (THP) This program is designed to provide former DCFS/Probation youth aged 18-21 with the opportunity to live in supervised ‘permanent’ housing, with the goal of learning the skills to live independently upon completion of the program. Services provided by this program while youth are under the supervision of a social worker include: furnished apartment with paid utilities, food stipend, educational and career guidance, bus passes, life skills classes, and “forced savings”. Funding is provided by ILP/Chafee $3,700,000 and HUD $2,300,000, for a program capacity of 244 youth. THP is evaluated annually via Supportive Housing Program (SHP). 6.11 Transitional Housing Program – Plus (THP+) This program is designed to provide housing for former DCFS/Probation youth age 18- 23 who are at risk for homelessness, who have had a history of multiple placements, substance abuse, no GED or diploma, are pregnant or parenting and/or have had engagement with the Juvenile Justice system. The contractor provides services including: furnished housing, food stipends, bus passes, and educational and employment assistance. A maximum of 24 cumulative months can be spent in the program. Current State funding of $1,200,000 provides 48 beds for this program. An estimated 800 beds are needed. Evaluation of this new program is pending. 6.12 Homeless Prevention Initiative – DCFS This program provides rental subsidies, utility connection fees, and furniture for former foster youth ages 21-25. The County provides $1,750,000 over three years for this program with an annual capacity of 100. The evaluation is a youth survey to determine if they have stable housing. 6.13 Homeless Prevention Initiative – Probation This program provides rental subsidies, utility connection fees, and furniture for former Probation youth ages 21-25. Rental subsidies are limited to ILP youth age 18-21. The County provides $1,750,000 over three years for this program with an annual capacity of 100. Evaluation consists of a youth survey to determine if they have stable housing. Additional services are provided to TAY by the City of Los Angles, Employment Development Department, Los Angles County Office of Education (LACOE), DPSS and other government and private organizations. Based on the numbers of TAY in and out of the system there is limited capacity to address their needs. In addition, while much discussion is taking place there is very limited integration of these services and programs among the providers. Program Federal State County Private Total Chafee $5,000,157 $5,000,157 Dept of Labor $400,000 $200,000 $600,000 Foster Youth Grant Alternative $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Services for Youth Contract Transitional $2,300,000 $6,000,000 (HUD) Housing $3,700,000 Program Homeless $3,500,000 Prevention Over 3 years Initiative (DCFS Or $1,166,000 & Probation) $1,166,000/yr Transitional $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Housing Plus Transitional $1,054,000 $1,054,000 $2,108,000 Housing Placement Program Youth $1,415,635 $1,415,635 Development Services Runaway 672,000 $128,000 $800,000 Outreach Unit Total $13,126,157 $2,382,000 $4,081,635 $200,000 $19,789,792 7) DCFS AND PROBATION’S ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS SINCE 2003 In July 2001 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors instructed the Chief Administrative Office to oversee the improvement of the Emancipation Services/Independent Living Program (ES/ILP). “Dozens of policy and program changes” were made to develop more comprehensive program to prepare youth age 14 to 21 to transition successfully into adulthood. A substantial portion of the report concerns improving housing options for newly emancipated youth and providing emancipation services to a larger portion of the population. Recommendations included, but were not limited to: (cid:131) Developing a coordinated plan across all departments (cid:131) Eliminating the referral process to ILP Coordinators and give the responsibility to line workers (ILP Coordinators should just be used as a resource for CSWs and DPOs) (cid:131) Training CSWs and DPOs to become case managers for ILP program (cid:131) Targeting all eligible youth for ILP services instead of “cherry picking” those most likely to be successful (cid:131) Decentralizing ILP service delivery (cid:131) Creating a youth-oriented emancipation program website with information for youth (cid:131) Designing an Internet-based tracking system to track ILP services a youth receives and outcomes achieved (cid:131) Encouraging longitudinal program evaluation (cid:131) Producing quarterly reports to Board of Supervisors on “total eligible” versus “total served” in regard to ES/ILP services (cid:131) Doubling the number of transitional and permanent housing to at least 1,100 beds (Approximately 50% of anticipated need) (cid:131) Placing emphasis on housing for newly emancipated youth – a wide variety of programs being developed (cid:131) Developing and enhancing the job assistance programs (cid:131) Resurrecting “Bridges to the Future” mentorship program (cid:131) Creating a new Transition Resource Centers (cid:131) Creating a full-time Emancipation Ombudsman (cid:131) Budget: prioritizing housing, employment, education, and life skills It has been seven years since this major review was undertaken. It is normal to update and/or undertake a new strategic planning effort every 3 to 5 years. 8) DCFS YOUTH OMBUDSMAN OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT 2007 In 2007 the Ombudsman received 236 complaints from TAY as follows: DCFS Probation Total Pre-emancipated youth 53 16 69 Emancipated youth 156 11 167 Total 209 27 236 Their top 5 concerns were: Housing (103), ILP issues including Life Skills Classes (45), School Assistance (38), Transportation (13), and Documentation (13). A summary of the report is available in Appendix E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOW IN THE NEXT SECTION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A NEW VISION Much has been done to shift the focus of the system from safety and security in the case of DCFS and detention in the case of Probation, to creating a positive impact on each child’s life during their stay in the system. There is a strong leadership team in place who are committed to implementing evidence-based best practices. The new organizational structure and the leadership of the Deputy CEO are focused on integrated service and prevention. Despite these positives we have concluded from our investigation that there is much more to do. Some of the areas we feel need to be addressed include: - Reaching more high risk families as a prevention measure - The lack of continuity of a significant adult in each child’s life - The general low level of trust the children have of the system - Enhanced educational coordination, support and enrichment - More experiential opportunities in life skills particularly in job training - More housing, job, life skills support post-emancipation - Improved information systems including post-emancipation - More systematic and evidence-based evaluations of programs There is both an opportunity and a responsibility for Los Angeles County to become a national leader in helping our children in the system thrive. It has been over five years since the last major plan was developed. It is time to refocus all the parties that are involved with TAY.
-
R4Page 44DCFS, Probation, and DMH should develop a multi-faceted organizational plan including a comprehensive mentoring program that increases each child’s level of trust of the system. At a minimum, we believe the following changes should be considered: 4a) A suitable overlap of mentors should be built into the program to ease a child’s transition to the new mentor. 4b) The training provided to foster families and group home staff should be increased and should include ongoing evaluation, continuous training, and recertification. 4c) The interagency teams should be trained in team building skills to ensure they can make effective group decisions and are able to connect effectively with each child. 4d) Two-way communication with the children should be the norm and to the extent possible the children should be involved in key decisions affecting them. EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR TAY Youth entering the Probation and Juvenile Hall schools administered by LACOE are given a test to determine their academic level of functioning. During visits to these schools, the CGJ learned from teachers, administrators and observation that students are, on average, one to three years below grade level. In spite of numerous requests, the CGJ could not get data from LACOE substantiating the reported one to three year grade level lag of the students entering their camp and hall classrooms. The State of California requires a core of 140 units for high school graduation leaving the additional coursework to be determined by school districts. Los Angeles Unified School District requires the completion of 230 units for graduation. There program calls for 150 core units leaving 80 units for supplementing core units and electives. Students may request their own transcripts from their schools before scheduling their classes. DCFS, DMH, and Probation acting in loco parentis when parents relinquish or abdicate educational rights, are responsible for guiding the educational choices of their charges. There is latitude within the system to customize high school programs to meet the individual needs of students. We have identified the following specific improvements based on our research, discussion with officials, and feedback from TAY.
-
R5Page 45The directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should design and implement jointly a curriculum that addresses practical educational skills for all children to better prepare them for independence. 5a) All programs should contain an identified minimum level of understanding on the part of the recipients before the program is considered delivered. 5b) Enhanced study skills and courses on practical living skills should be part of the curriculum of juvenile halls and camps. DCFS should include such courses in the schedules of students attending public schools whenever possible. 5c) Foster children should be encouraged to participate in music, art, and other nonacademic programs. Probation should seek volunteers to provide these services in juvenile halls and camps. 5d) Probation camps and halls should provide vocational training for all detainees utilizing ROP services when possible. DCFS should encourage TAY to enroll in experiential, vocational, and ROP courses. 5e) Probation and DCFS should develop additional apprentice, job training and part-time job programs with all levels of government and business to provide more practical work experience for TAY. 5f) Probation and DCFS should invite representatives from organizations such as the Forestry Service and various branches of the U.S. military to make presentations to youth that fully describe their educational opportunities and obligations. 5i) DCFS and Probation should develop significant incentives and rewards to encourage their wards to obtain high school graduation, or a GED, and high scholastic achievement. POST-EMANCIPATION TAY While 18 may be the age of majority, in our view a large percentage of 18 to 25 year olds currently leaving the system do not have the experience, education, maturity or means to thrive without the emotional and financial support of a family. The financial dimension is particularly difficult in Los Angeles where the cost of living is high and accommodation costs are typically double the national average. The following recommendations will help to mitigate the lack of “a safety net” that most families provide to their 18 to 25 year olds:
-
R6Page 46Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, DPSS, and DMH, improved programs should be provided to youth 18 – 25 who have left the system. 6a) Either through the development of affordable housing supply and/or direct subsidy, all post transition youth should have access to good quality housing at a reasonable rate. 6b) A wider range of educational supports should be made available to post transition youth including tuition, room & board, books, and other expenses required when they attend school. 6c) Independent living supports should be provided such as health care insurance, transportation assistance, food vouchers, auto insurance subsidies, clothing allowances, and access to community-based support groups. The cost of these services should be partially borne by the post- transition youth based on an income means criterion to be developed by the departments. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The development of a comprehensive and integrated information system was the most frequently mentioned requirement for improvement by County officials during the Entrance Conference. This requirement, and the need to deal with confidentiality rules to allow information sharing, was raised by last year’s CGJ and the ECC Blueprint. There is no doubt that this will be a costly exercise but the need is as obvious as the need for leadership to ensure the development of a comprehensive system. Our concern is that without comprehensive and integrated information systems, optimal decisions in the best interest of the child are unlikely. During this investigation it was clear that while evidence-based reviews are the mantra, in many programs there were not regular and systematic output-oriented evaluations. According to DCFS and Probation officials, many youth chose not to engage in TAY programs. We understand that teenagers can be difficult but at a minimum the evaluations of each program should include input from all youth to understand why some are not participating. There is evidence that the programs are not getting the results hoped for: - there are high incarceration rates of former system children - there is a high homeless rate - there are high pregnancy rates Conceptually, all of the programs and the resources expended on them are to have a positive impact on this population. Without follow-up data on the children, the evaluation of the real results of a program is not possible. We recognize that once a child leaves the system they are under no legal or other obligation to stay in touch and provide information on how they are doing. The departments need to stop thinking of this as an impassable roadblock and explore ways to obtain high quality follow-up information on former TAY.
-
R7Page 47Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive information system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost estimates to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding, and a timetable for implementation. Progress on development and implementation should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and future programs and policy initiatives: 7a) The new information system should be designed to allow for the tracking of all children once they leave the system. 7b) Appropriate incentives and commitments should be developed to encourage former TAY to remain in contact with the system to facilitate the gathering of information on them. 7c) Until data on former TAY is available routinely, the departments should pursue sampling and other survey methods to gain an understanding of the real results of TAY programs. 7d) Until the new information system is implemented, Probation should have access to all of DCFS’s data systems to help their staff track their youth and improve their services. APPENDIX A: Best Practices We undertook an Internet search to identify best practices and followed up with telephone calls for further information. The National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices was an important starting point for this research. The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago also provided best practices and helpful links to other sources. The following is a summary of our findings. PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE GENERAL SUPPORT 1) Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative Location: Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; Des Moines, IA; Hartford/Bridgeport, CT; Maine; Michigan (Detroit and ten Northern Counties); Nashville, TN; Providence, RI; San Diego, CA; Tampa, FL Contact: www.jimcaseyyouth.org/aboutus.htm; St. Louis, MO; 314-863-7000 Target Population: Foster youth and former foster youth age 14-23 Purpose: “The Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative is a national foundation whose mission is to help youth in foster care make successful transitions to adulthood.” Their philosophy is that, “in order to create better outcomes young people need to be engaged in planning for their futures after leaving foster care.” Features: This organization’s Opportunity Passport works within each community to “organize resources to create financial, educational, vocational, health care, entrepreneurial, and recreational opportunities for youth who are leaving or have recently left foster care. The goal is to help young people leaving foster care become financially literate; gain experience with the banking system; amass assets for education, housing, health care, and a few other specified expenses; and gain streamlined entry to educational, training, and vocational opportunities.” The initiative has also developed Youth Leadership Boards which are run by young adults, and voting membership is limited to young people ages 14 through 23 who are in foster care or who have recently transitioned from foster care. Members of youth leadership boards learn to become “effective leaders and advocates by collaborating with their communities, and by improving their skills and supports.” 2) First Place for Youth Location: East Bay area of San Francisco Contact: Amy Lemley, Executive Director, First Place Fund for Youth, 510-272-0955; http://www.fullcirclefund.org/fpfy.php Target Population: Youth aging out of foster care Purpose: Provide emancipated foster youth with access to safe, affordable housing where they have the opportunity to develop and practice life skills to achieve long-term self-sufficiency. Prepare youth for emancipation and support them after discharge from foster care. Features: “First Place has implemented two programs: the Supported Housing Program (SHP) and the Emancipation Training Center (ETC) to help youth who are transitioning out of foster care. SHP participants live in two-bedroom apartments in the East Bay area of San Francisco and receive a range of services and support, including financial assistance to pay housing start-up costs, monthly rental subsidies, weekly in-home case management, weekly life skills training, economic literacy training, transportation assistance, monthly food vouchers, community- building peer events, and health advocacy. SHP provides safe, affordable housing to 60 youth and 15 children annually. Through the ETC, 500 youth access education, housing, and employment resources annually. Services include therapeutic case management, emancipation planning, housing search assistance, emergency food vouchers, emergency utility assistance, computers, recreational activities, and educational resources.” 3) North Carolina’s Division of Social Services’ LINKS Program ( North Carolina Foster Care Independence Program) Location: State of North Carolina Contact: Joan McAllister, IL Coordinator, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, 919-733-2537, [email protected]. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide support funding for youth aging out of the child welfare system, particularly those in remote locations where services would generally be limited. Features: “North Carolina’s diverse counties, ranging from extremely rural and remote to highly urbanized, led to the creation of the LINKS program. LINKS accommodates the individual needs of young people aging out of the system, regardless of their geographic location. LINKS allows maximum flexibility in eligibility for services and access to additional funds to address youths’ individual needs. To serve youth most efficiently, North Carolina has set aside funding that can be accessed directly to benefit eligible youth to meet their individual needs. Caseworkers evaluate youths’ strengths and resources, explore other resources, and to use these funds to supplement existing resources as needed. The LINKS Special Funds Program is a resource for youth who are willing to participate in planning and implementing solutions to problems. Youth may be eligible for four funds: • The Trust Fund can be used for non-housing costs that might be barriers to a youth’s transition to adulthood. Examples include auto repair, insurance, computers, and furniture. • Transitional Housing Funds. Up to $1,500 per year is available to help with room and board expenses. These funds might also be used to repair homes owned or being purchased by youth. Youth who receive these funds must also retain Transitional Services to ensure all needs are addressed. • Extremely High Risk Funds. Up to $1,500 per year is available to any youth determined to be at high risk. These funds must be spent on services, activities, or purchases that can reduce defined risks. Each county determines risk. • Scholarship/Conference Funds can be used toward conference attendance involving foster youth, or as educational incentives to encourage youth to remain in school or purchase school materials.” 4) Foster Club Location: Online Contact: Celeste Bodner, Executive Director, 503-717-1552, [email protected], www.fosterclub.com. Target Population: Older youth in foster care Purpose: “Foster Club is an online community providing youth a safe place to obtain facts about foster care, read inspirational stories, and find support from their peers.” Features: “Foster Club produces a website, www.FYI3.com, designed specifically for older youth in foster care, which inspires young people to become involved in their case plans, informs them about their rights in foster care, and prepares them for independence after they age out of the system. In addition to providing online communities, Foster Club coordinates conferences for teens in care, runs the Foster Club All Stars youth leadership program, develops youth- friendly publications, and infuses youth voices into the child welfare system.” 5) The Achieving Independence Center Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Contact: Ron Spangler, Manager; 701 Market St., Suite C-18, Philadelphia, PA 19106 Target Population: Youth Purpose: To provide a one-stop center where youth can get assistance with attaining their educational, job training, housing, and life skills goals. Features: “The Achieving Independence (AI) Center is a one-stop self-sufficiency center that helps young people achieve their goals. With nontraditional hours, flexible scheduling, and in- house job training, the state-of-the-art AI Center provides support and real-life tools for youth who want to invest in their future. A project of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services and the Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation, the AI Center uses the programs and services of many Philadelphia-based groups dedicated to providing quality programs for youth in the city: education, hands-on job training, employment, technology, housing, and life skills. Each youth works with AI Center coaches to create a custom service plan that helps them achieve their goals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE HOUSING SUPPORT 1) Orangewood Children’s Foundation, Rising Tide Communities Location: Tustin and Garden Grove, California Contact: Gene Howard, Executive Director, 714-619-0200, www.orangewoodfoundation.org. Target Population: Emancipated foster youth age 18-21 Purpose: This transitional housing program “provides motivated young people with affordable apartment housing and support services to help them transition to independence successfully.” Features: “In a unique effort proving to be a model for nationwide replication, Orangewood Children’s Foundation has partnered with concerned business leaders to implement the innovative Rising Tide Communities, a holistic program that provides a complete range of independent-living services. Motivated young adults can participate in an 18-24 month program that provides subsidized living accommodations, job placement, education opportunities, and a team of helpful volunteers and counselors to help them as they transition to life on their own. Orangewood Children’s Foundation uses two residential apartment complexes for this program, Flanders Pointe in the city of Tustin, and Orange Tree in Garden Grove, both in the Los Angeles area. A number of apartments are set aside from the general public units for use by the youth. An onsite residential counselor provides structured guidance, advice, and counseling sessions on a variety of topics and plays a critical role in crisis intervention. Youth pay rent on a sliding scale, according to their financial ability. By the end of the program, the youth move forward to life on their own with confidence.” 2) Larkin Street Youth Services (LSYS) Location: Eight locations in San Francisco Contact: Sherilyn Adams, Chief of Programs, Larkin Street Youth Services, 415-673-0911, ext. 251, [email protected]; www.larkinstreetyouth.org Target Population: Youth 12-23 Purpose: Provide a full-range of housing, health, educational, and employment services to homeless youth. Features: “LSYS responds to the unique needs of homeless and runaway youth by providing a comprehensive continuum of services to encourage permanent exodus from the streets. LSYS serves young people ages of 12-23 with 17 programs operating out of eight locations in San Francisco. The programs are designed to address immediate needs and create long term opportunities for stable housing. LSYS provides four distinct types of services to guide homeless and runaway youth to establishment, including point-of-entry, housing, HIV specialty, and educational and employment services. LSYS has an array of housing services to stabilize young people according to their various circumstances. • The Diamond Youth Shelter provides emergency overnight shelter for young people ages 12- 17. • The LOFT (Larkin Opportunities for Transition) is a licensed transitional-living facility designed to meet the unique needs of underage homeless and runaway youth. • The Ellis Street Apartments supply permanent housing, coupled with an array of support services, including six units specifically reserved for youth diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. • LEASE is a supportive residential program for youth who have emancipated from San Francisco’s foster care system. The program uses scattered-site apartments, and participants are linked to a range of supportive services, including employment, education, and life skills training services. • Larkin Street Youth Services serves more than 3,000 youth and young adults ages 12-23. Approximately 80% of the young people who have completed Larkin Street’s counseling programs have left street life permanently. More than 85% of graduates from Avenues to Independence, a unique transitional-living program for young adults ages 18-23, have secured and retained permanent housing and career-track employment. Of the 84 young people served by the Aftercare Program, which helps young adults ages 18-23 living with HIV/AIDS achieve self-sufficiency, 92% successfully stabilized their lives off the street.” 3) Colorado Department of Human Services, Family Unification Program (FUP) Location: State of Colorado Contact: Valerie Jenkins, Independent-Living Coordinator, Colorado Department of Human Services, 303-866-4539, [email protected]. Target Population: Youth ages 18-21 that left foster care at age 16 or older for housing support program; youth ages 16-21 for mentoring services Purpose: Provide housing assistance and after-care services to former foster youth. Features: Housing vouchers provided to youth through Colorado’s Department of Human Services partnered with Supportive Housing and Homeless Programs. Chafee funding is used to provide aftercare services with Family Tree, Volunteers of America, and Urban Peak – non- profits that provide 18-month aftercare services to young people in this program. “Colorado has also developed a unique partnership with AmeriCorps for youth in transition. AmeriCorps members located at FUP agencies support the development of local partnerships to assist youth ages 16-21 in successfully transitioning to adulthood. Members provide comprehensive mentoring services and help youth obtain employment and educational opportunities.” 4) Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Housing Continuum Location: State of Connecticut Contact: Bill Pinto, Independent-Living Coordinator, Connecticut Department of Children and Families, 860-550-6471, [email protected]. Target Population: Youth up to age 23 Purpose: To assist youth in transitioning to adulthood by providing support to foster youth up to age 23. Features: “Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families provides adolescents in foster care a broad continuum of housing options. Youth move from highly structured, supervised living arrangements to a transitional living program where support is provided while structure and restrictions are decreased. Part of the department’s housing continuum includes a Community Housing Assistance Program, which provides youth with a subsidy to cover living expenses such as rent, food, utilities, telephone, transportation, and clothing. Youth are required to complete the department’s life skills program, be employed and enrolled in an educational or vocational program, and contribute a portion of their income toward expenses and a savings account. The average length of stay in this program is two years. Connecticut allows youth to remain in foster care up to age 23 if enrolled in post-secondary education.” 5) Illinois Dept. of Children and Families, Youth Housing Assistance Program Location: State of Illinois Contact: Ted Ernst, Youth Housing Assistance Coordinator, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, 312-814-5571, [email protected] Target Population: Youth who have aged out or are preparing to age out of the foster care system; youth age 17-20 are eligible for housing advocacy services and youth 18-21 for cash assistance services Purpose: Provide housing assistance to youth at risk of becoming homeless who have aged out or are preparing to exit from the foster care system. Features: “Housing advocacy services include assisting youth in obtaining and maintaining stable housing, providing consumer education and budget counseling, linking youth to community-based resources, and follow-up services for a minimum of three months after youth secure housing. Cash assistance services are available to help newly emancipated foster youth or former foster youth before their 21st birthdays when in crisis. Cash assistance may be used for housing and utility deposits, emergency rental assistance, temporary rental subsidies, and necessary furniture or appliances. Sixteen housing advocates throughout the state help youth locate, secure, and maintain affordable housing. Illinois uses 30% of its Chafee funding for room and board services for youth ages of 18-21.” 6) Lighthouse Youth Services Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Contact: Mark Kroner, Director of Self Sufficiency Services, Lighthouse Youth Services, 513- 487-7130, [email protected]. Target Population: Independent Living Program targets foster youth and juvenile offenders ages 16-19. Transitional Living Program targets homeless youth ages 18-25. Purpose: “Lighthouse is committed to continuously educating public systems about the importance of giving youth opportunities to live on their own and the need for affordable housing at discharge.” Features: “Lighthouse Youth Services prevents youth in child welfare from becoming homeless and prevents young adults in the adult shelter system from remaining homeless through Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs. In 1981, Lighthouse developed a semi- supervised scattered-site apartment model based on the philosophy that young people learn best by doing and that youth should have opportunities to live on their own and develop self- sufficiency skills before discharge from care. The agency has served more than 1,000 youth in its model and averages around 80 youth a day living in their own apartments.” 7) New York City, Section 8 Priority Code Location: New York City Contact: Nancy Martinez, Independent Living Coordinator, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 518-474-9586, [email protected] Target Population: Youth aging out of the foster care system Purpose: Provide housing support for youth aging out of the foster care system, with some housing units set aside for those with mental health needs. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the Office of Housing Policy and Development (HPAD), in cooperation with the New York City Housing Authority provide this program. Features: “This program provides Section 8 vouchers or public housing units to qualified current and former ACS Independent Living clients. As of December 2002, more than 1,700 youth had utilized this program. ACS and HPAD, in conjunction with other private not-for- profit housing developers, continue to support the development of supportive housing for young people aging out of the system. Currently, at least 25 ACS Independent Living clients reside in a permanent supportive housing program by using their Section 8 vouchers, accessed through the Independent Living Priority Code Program. In February 2003, five units of permanent supportive housing were made available to former Independent Living clients with mental health needs.” 8) New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program, Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program Location: State of New Jersey Contact: Bruce Blumenthal, New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency, 609-278-7449, [email protected] Target Population: “Eligible clients include persons with specials needs over age 18 and adolescents who are referred in writing by the New Jersey Department of Human Services or other DHS-approved sponsors.” Purpose: “The program assists persons with special needs to live independently within the communities of their choice by expanding the supply of affordable and quality housing.” Features: “The New Jersey Community Housing Demonstration Program (NJCHDP) is a partnership between the Department of Human Services and the New Jersey Mortgage Finance Agency (NJMFA). The NJCHDP Shared Living Residence Rental Housing Program provides financing to non-profits, for-profit developers, and municipalities for the acquisition of land and buildings, new construction, or the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings as transitional or permanent rental units for persons with special needs. The entire community residence or a portion of the units (as determined by the appropriate division of the New Jersey Department of Human Services) can be set aside for these individuals.” PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL/JOB TRAINING/EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT 1) Education and Training Vouchers Program Location: Federal nationwide program Contact: Dottie Ansell, National Resource Center for Youth Development, University of Oklahoma, College of Continuing Education; 918-660-3700; [email protected]. Target Population: Youth aging out of the child welfare system Purpose: Provide educational assistance to former foster youth in need Features: “Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funds pay for the cost of attending institutions of higher learning. The vouchers cannot exceed $5,000 per year or the actual incurred cost of attendance at the institution. Cost of attendance includes tuition, room and board, and other costs associated with participating in the educational or vocational training program. The ETV Program is federally funded through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendment of 2001, which expanded the John H. Chafee Independence Program to include these funds for educational/vocational assistance. Most vouchers are administered through the state’s Independent Living/Chafee program. Some states have contracted with the Orphan Foundation of America to administer their ETV programs.” 2) Los Angeles Infrastructure Academy Location: Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://www.infrastructureacademy.org/index-1.html Target Population: High school juniors and seniors Purpose: Their mission is “to build a pipeline of diverse, well-qualified, young people to enter the Civil Infrastructure field and place them into careers.” It also helps high school students prepare for a well-paying job that leads to a meaningful career with growth opportunities. In addition, the program should keep kids off the streets and out of gangs. It is scheduled to begin in May 2008. This program was developed by the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the LA Department of Water and Power. Features: “The LA Infrastructure Academy program will consist of a selective, two-year program for young people interested in pursuing a career in civil infrastructure. Students will apply in the second half of their sophomore year of high school and will begin the program in the summer between their sophomore and junior years. The LA Infrastructure Academy will work with students through the employers’ application process and will support them on an ongoing basis during and after the program. Mentoring will be a critical component throughout the entire student-alumni life cycle.” Technical training, hands-on training, leadership training and community services projects are all part of the junior and senior year program. Students participate at least two days per week after school and two Saturdays per month. In addition, paid summer internships, employment assistance, and even college application assistance are made available. 3) Guardian Scholars Program Location: California State University, Fullerton Contact: California State University, Fullerton, Guardian Scholars Program, PO Box 6828 C- 120, Fullerton CA 92834-6828; 714-278-4900; www.fullerton.edu/guardianscholars Target Population: Former foster youth aspiring to attend a 4-year university Purpose: Provide former foster youth the opportunity to attend and graduate from Cal State Fullerton without the fear of running out of money or accumulating sizeable debt. Features: “The innovative Guardian Scholars Program admits several students each semester to California State University. Each scholar receives full tuition and funding for textbooks, supplies, and annual fees. Additionally, the program offers assistance in completing college entrance and financial aid forms; an orientation to university life; year round, on-campus housing and on-campus student employment; one-on-one counseling, academic advising, peer mentoring, and faculty mentoring; a drop-in study center; assistance with off-campus employment in the young person’s career field; and post-graduation career planning.” The program supports 10 new students each year for five years each. Fifty students are in the program at any given time. 4) UPS School-to-Career Partnerships Location: Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; New York, New York; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; Providence, Rhode Island; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California. Contact: Mark Giuffre; 502-329-3060; www.community.ups.com/education/school.html. Target Population: Disadvantaged young adults, with recent emphasis on recruiting former foster youth Purpose: To provide career opportunities to disadvantaged youth. “The long-term goal of the UPS Partnership is to establish a best-practices workforce development system that will be expanded in the current service area and replicated with committed employers in other communities nationwide.” Features: “The United Parcel Service (UPS) School-to-Career Partnership for youth is a community-based initiative engaging disadvantaged young adults in a work and learning experience at UPS, Marriott, Bank of America, and other employers to expand their opportunities for career and academic success. The UPS Partnership is a collaborative effort involving the facilitator and funders, employers, referral agencies, and transportation providers. Through UPS, colleges and non-profit agencies collaborate to create programs tailored to the unique educational and employment needs of each community. Some programs work with four- year colleges, while others work with community colleges and technical assistance and trade schools.” 5) San Diego Workforce Partnership, School-To-Career Intermediary Team Location: San Diego, California Contact: School-to-Career Intermediary System, San Diego Workforce Partnership Inc., 3910 University Avenue, Ste. 400, San Diego CA 92105; 866-YCN-SDWP (926-7397), 619-744- 0318; [email protected], http://sdyouth.sandiegoatwork.com Target Population: Youth Purpose: To provide career support for youth Features: “The Youth Connect Network’s School-to-Career Intermediary System links businesses with students to create rich work-based learning experiences, including job fairs, internships, job shadowing, company tours, and mentoring. This collaboration between local schools and businesses helps create pathways to postsecondary education and career development. The intermediary system is a partnership among the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the San Diego County Office of Education, local school districts, regional community college districts, regional chambers of commerce, business leaders, and other community-based organizations.” APPENDIX B: TAY Survey A survey was developed and distributed to a sample of youth in DCFS and Probation, and My Friend’s Place (a drop-in center for homeless youth in Los Angeles) to get their perspective on the services and programs available to them. They were also encouraged to give comments and suggestions for new, needed programs. A total of 205 TAY participated in the survey. Approximately two-thirds of the survey participants are or were from DCFS and one-third from Probation. The survey participants were asked to rate TAY services and programs by indicating their degree of agreement with a series of statements concerning: • Education • Workforce Readiness • Life Skills • Housing • Transportation • Legal Assistance • Physical Health • Social and Emotional Wellbeing Exhibit D displays the findings for all categories using a rating scale of 1-4 to measure response averages. Exhibit D: TAY Service and Program Ratings AGREE – 4 SOMEWHAT AGREE – 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE – 2 DISAGREE – 1 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older EDUCATION I am receiving the education I want. 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get the assistance I need to succeed in school. 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.4 I get both educational and vocational information and choices. 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 I have received good educational guidance. 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 I am receiving support and advice for educational options beyond high school. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Rating Average Survey Statement 20 or 16-17 18-19 Overall older WORKFORCE READINESS I have the job skills, knowledge and experience to get a good job. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.3 I have a career/employment plan for the next 2 – 5 years. 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.0 I know what services are available to help me get a job. 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.4 LIFE SKILLS I have enough savings to live independently. 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.9 I feel I can manage my money. 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 I know how to budget my money for groceries, etc. 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 I know how to access public assistance programs if I need them. 2.9 3.5 3.6 3.3 I am aware of free public programs (library, recreational centers, etc). 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 I know how to register to vote. 2.5 1.9 3.6 3.2 HOUSING I am aware of rental costs. 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.4 I feel I can cover the housing costs (furniture, equipment, utilities, etc.) of living 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.4 independently. I know how to get rental assistance. 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.8 TRANSPORTATION I can get to work on time. 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.7 I know how to use public transportation. 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 LEGAL ASSISTANCE I know how to get legal help if I need it. 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.2 I have access to a lawyer. 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 I understand my rights if I have a problem with the law. 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 PHYSICAL HEALTH I am in good physical health (dental, vision, hearing etc.). 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 I am strong and in good shape. 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 I know how to access health care (insurance, free clinics, etc.). 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.4 I know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING I have friends and/or family members who are supportive. 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.6 I know how to access community based support groups (church, counselors, etc.). 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 I am able to live independently. 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 I know how/who to ask for help if I have trouble living independently. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Education Survey participants agree to some degree that they are receiving the education that they want (3.4) and are getting the assistance (3.4), information and choices (3.3) guidance (3.5), and support and advice (3.5) necessary for educational success. Workforce Readiness Survey participants agree to some degree that they have the job skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to get a job (3.3), have a 2- to 5-year employment plan (3.0), and know what services are available to help them in their job search (3.4). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds indicated ratings a lower than the older age groups. This difference might be related to the possibility that not as many 16- and 17-year-olds have jobs. Life Skills Survey participants agree to some degree that they are aware of free public programs (3.6), and know how to manage money (3.2), budget (3.4), access public assistance programs (3.3), and register to vote (3.2). Participants who identified themselves as 16- or 17-year-olds are somewhat less self-assure in their life skills. With the lowest rating on the survey, survey participants somewhat disagree that they have enough savings to live independently, emphasizing a disconnect between knowledge of and success in applying life skills. Housing Survey participants agree to some degree that they aware of rental costs and those participants who are 18 and older agree somewhat that they know how to get rental assistance. 16- and 17- year-olds are less aware and participants somewhat disagree that they feel they can afford housing costs, calling attention to the lack of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area and the need for more TAY assistance in this area. Transportation Survey participants agree that they can get to work on time (3.7) and know how to use public transportation (3.8). Legal Assistance Survey participants agree somewhat that they know how to get legal help (3.2) and understand their legal rights (3.2); they are less sure (2.6) that they can access a lawyer. Physical Health Survey participants agree to some degree that they are in good physical shape (3.6), strong (3.5), know how to access health care (3.4) and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy (3.9). Social and Emotional Well-being Survey participants agree to some degree that they have family or friends that are supportive (3.6), know how to access community based groups (3.6), are able to live independently (3.2), and know how and who to ask for help if they are having trouble living independently (3.5). Additional Comments Forty seven additional comments or suggestions were received. Approximately 20% of the respondents made positive comments about their experiences, many expressing their gratitude, with TAY services and programs. The rest of the respondents commented negatively or gave suggestions for improvements. The respondents’ negative comments or suggestions in order of frequency were concerns about housing, the social worker or system, jobs/income/budgeting, quality of instruction or support, educational support and access to health care. APPENDIX C: DMH TAY Programs 5.1) Transition Age Youth Full Service Partnerships (TAY FSP) Program Description: An intensive Mental Health Services and supports program for not served, underserved, and inappropriately served SED/SPMI (Serious Emotional Disturbance/Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill) TAY based on use of effective and innovative approaches focused on achieving recommended outcomes: a) Meaningful use of time and capabilities (employment, vocational, educational, social, and community activities; b) Safe and adequate housing and living environments and reduction in homelessness; c) A network of supportive relationships; d) Timely access to needed help, including in times of crisis; d) Reduction in incarceration in jails and juvenile halls; e) Reduction in involuntary services, reduction in institutionalization, and reduction in out of home placements; f) Maintaining or improving physical health; g) Reduction in early pregnancy; and h) Completion of high school diploma or GED. An individualized comprehensive services and supports plan, in partnership with an FSP team, is developed for each youth focusing on recovery and resiliency/wellness. A case manager is available 24/7 to respond to clients needs (this is a critical service and support component). An array of services and supports are provided including clinical interventions, linkages and referrals, housing assistance (rental subsidies, eviction assistance), benefits establishment, money management, leisure activities and planning, vocational training, job assistance, or anything else the youth or family needs to better function. Misc. Information: This program enrolled the first client in December 2006. DMH states that available MHSA funding is currently not sufficient to provide FSP services to all SED/SPMI TAY who otherwise qualify and might benefit from them. Funding: This program is funded by the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Total funding is $19,668,660 annually and includes EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) funding and Medi-Cal. Of this, approximately 40% ($7.9 million) is targeted towards youth aging out of DCFS and Probation. Target Population/Potential clientele: This program serves 16-25 year olds in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems (system) as well as those outside the system. The $7.9 million targets youth currently in DCFS/Probation, youth aging out of the system, and youth formerly in the system. The balance of funding is for youth who are homeless or currently at risk of homelessness, are aging out of the child mental health system, leaving long-term institutional care (e.g. an Institution of Mental Disease or State Hospitals), and youth experiencing their first psychotic break. Program capacity: This program provides 1122 slots for 16-25 year olds for all of L.A. County ($17,530 per slot). Due to natural “slot-turnover” during the fiscal year, one slot usually serves more than one person. Clients served (since program inception): 1113 have been authorized (slot-turnover); 898 clients currently authorized to receive TAY FSP Services Evaluation Process: Program success is measured through the State and County approved Outcome Measures Application (OMA). Upon enrollment in an FSP program, a baseline assessment is completed by the provider agency. Subsequent updates are completed quarterly (minimally), and when there is a change in a “key event.” The OMA is an electronic-based application. 5.2) TAY Drop-In Centers Program Description: Drop-In Centers are intended as entry points into the mental health system for SED/SPMI TAY who are living on the street or in unstable living situations. Drop-In Centers provide “low-demand, high tolerance” environments in which youth can find temporary safety and basic supports (e.g. showers, meals, clothing, referrals, linkage to services, vouchers, counseling, etc.). TAY accessing Drop-In Centers have an opportunity to build trusting relationships with staff persons who can, as the youth is ready and willing, connect them to the services and supports they need in order to work toward stability and recovery. Existing Drop-In Centers operate during regular daytime hours. MHSA funding is made available to extend hours of operation to evenings and weekends for the primary purpose of ensuring access to these vital services and supports Misc. Information: In March 2008 The Board of Supervisors approved funding for three Drop- In Centers in FY 2007-08, and two in FY 08-09. Funding: Private funding is raised by the centers for the bulk of their operations. MHSA funds are used to extend the hours of operation to evenings and weekends: $250,000 annually for each of two centers. Target Population/Potential clientele: TAY who are diagnosed SED/SPMI and living on the streets or in otherwise unstable living environments. According to DMH many of the youth accessing Drop-In Centers are current or former foster or probation youth. Program capacity: Currently two centers will be fully funded for extended hours of operation in the 2008-09 FY. If additional funding becomes available, DMH would be able to increase support of Drop-In Centers in other areas of the county. Their goal is to provide at least one center in each of the eight SPAs (Service Provider Areas). Clients served: Not available. Note: Youth accessing Drop-In Centers are not required to disclose their legal status to access services. Once trust is established, the youth may decide to disclose that information. This is an example of “low-demand, high tolerance.” Evaluation Process: Information available to DMH indicates that the Drop-In Center programs awarded MHSA funding have established records of providing effective services and successfully engaging, often difficult to reach youth in accessing their available services and supports. DMH TAY Division is developing a Drop-In Center evaluation tool to measure the success of the program in achieving the outcomes for TAY as identified in the CSS Plan. (See 5.1 above) 5.3) TAY Housing Services Program Description: This program provides the following. • Enhanced Emergency Shelter Program for TAY (EESP) $605,000 per year. This program provides temporary shelter for SED/SPMI TAY ages 18-25 in a supportive housing environment for up to 29 nights while pursuing the long-term goal of secure and permanent housing. Program offers semi-private rooms, hygiene facilities, hot meals, case management, referrals and linkage services to SED/SPMI TAY who have no other resources to pay for shelter. There is one shelter that is licensed (6-beds) to serve 16-17 years old. DMH TAY Division is working with DCFS Command Post Unit to develop protocols for access for DCFS clients. • Project-Based Operating Subsidies for Permanent Housing $390,000 per year. This program provides a unit-based housing subsidy (not an individual rental subsidy). This program is currently under development. When implemented it is estimated that approximately 83 units of affordable housing will be available to SED/SPMI TAY who are capable of living independently in the community in their own apartment/unit. • Housing Specialists, one per SPA, Total funding $575,000 per year. Housing specialists assist youth with finding, securing and retaining housing by providing individualized services including accompanying youth on housing search, advocating with landlord, and assistance completing application forms. Misc. Information: The EESP Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2008. Services will be implemented beginning May 2008. The Project-Based Operating Subsidy Program will be implemented in FY 2008-09. Housing Specialists have been serving TAY since October 2006. Funding: Total MHSA funding (3 program total) $1,575,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Youth ages 18-25 who have been diagnosed SED/SPMI and are homeless, in need of housing assistance, and can otherwise living independently in the community with supports and need minimal supervision. Program capacity: EESP Program can fund approximately 300 TAY for 20 days each per FY. Approximately 864 youth can be served by the 8 funded Housing Specialists. DMH’s goal is to provide operating subsidies for at approximately 83 housing units. Clients served: Not available. Evaluation Process: It is too early to determine success of program. 5.4) Probation-Camp Services Program Description: Multi-disciplinary staffs provide an array of services and medication. Misc. Information: This program started in November 2007. Funding: Note: these Navigators are funded under TAY navigators not camps. MHSA $3,500,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: SED/SPMI TAY incarcerated in Probation camps. Program capacity: 400+ Clients served: 100% (All that need to be served are being served.) Evaluation Process: This program has not yet been evaluated. 5.5) Juvenile Halls and Community-Based Juvenile Justice Programs Program Description: This program provides screening and assessment; consultation and education services; psychiatric evaluation and mental health treatment; crisis intervention; aftercare planning and linkage with community-based mental health providers. The Massachusetts Youth Screening Inventory (MAYSI-2) is used to screen all newly admitted youth. CARE and Enhanced Supervision Units provide enhanced services to multi-problem youth in the Juvenile Halls. Five TAY System Navigators work in the camps to provide transitional linkage to community mental health programs and supports in addition to FSP. Funding: The funding is from seven sources: Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) or Schiff-Cardenas $5,032,000 and $606,000 for Multi-systemic Family Therapy (a community- base program), The Supportive Therapeutic Options Program (STOP) $2,100,000 plus a State required 30% County General Fund (CGF) ($900,000) match for a total program of $3,000,000, Department of Justice Settlement Agreement, CGF of $2,201,000, Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Grant (MICOR) funding for Camp Assessment Unit and clinical staff at Camp Rockey of $299,337, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funding of $956,673, CGF funding of $816,802 for Dorothy Kirby Day Treatment Intensive Residential Placement for Probation Youth, CGF funding of $300,000 for Functional Family Therapy (a community-based program) and CGF of $349,583. Target Population/Potential clientele: Children and youth residing in Juvenile Halls Program capacity: 100% of need Clients served: 100% screened and served as necessary Evaluation Process: The RAND Corporation provides a monitoring service. No report is available. 5.6) DMH TAY Navigators Program Description: Navigators are licensed/waiver clinical social workers who provide field- based outreach and engagement (O&E) services, linkage and referrals to not served, underserved SED/SPMI TAY. Navigators deliver O&E in the community to TAY through collaborations with an array of agencies and organizations including jails, probation camps, juvenile halls, Independent Living Programs, schools, health centers, faith-based organizations, ethnic communities, etc. Their primary function is to link TAY to mental health services and supports (including treatment, housing, benefits establishments, and other resources) Misc. Information: TAY Navigators have been delivering services since September 2006 Funding: MHSA $2,000,000 (pays for 20 staff) Target Population/Potential clientele: TAY ages 16-25. Program capacity: 1000+ Clients served: Not available. Evaluation Process: Data collected to be compiled 5.7) General Out-Patient Services Program Description: This program provides mental health screenings, assessments, and development of individualized and specialized mental health services tailored to each youth’s needs. Co-located staffs provide crisis intervention and short-term treatment as needed. Both DMH and contracted staff provide services. Funding: EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) funds are paid through Medi-Cal. $46,860,172 Target Population/Potential clientele: DCFS youth age 16-20 (not all youth necessarily aging out) Program capacity: All needing services are served Clients served: 4,751 clients were served in the 2006-07 fiscal year Evaluation Process: Not available The table outlines funding for the seven programs above, currently or about to be provided by DMH to TAY. Many of these services are new and data on clientele served or evaluation processes are limited. Programs 1, 2, 3 and 7 are primarily focused on TAY who are not in the system. Programs 4, 5, and 6 are services to TAY in the system. The overall funding for these programs is: Source Pre-emancipation Post Emancipation TOTAL DOJ $2,201,000 $2,201,000 MHSA $3,500,000 (1) $7,900,000 (2) $15,475,000 $500,000 (3) $1,575,000 (4) $2,000,000 (5) Schiff- $5,032,000 $606,000 (6) $5,638,000 Cardenas/JJCPA STOP $2,100,000 $2,100,000 County $900,000 (7) $2,366,385 $349,583 (8) $816,802 (9) Source Pre-emancipation Post Emancipation TOTAL $300,000 (10) EPSDT $46,860,172 $46,860,172 MICOR $299,337 $299,337 SAMHSA $956,673 $956,673 $63,315,567 $12,581,000 $75,896,567 TOTAL (1) Probation Camp Services (2) Full Service Partnerships (3) Drop-In Centers (4) Housing Services (5) System Navigators (6) Multi-systemic Family Therapy (Juvenile Justice Community-Based Program) (7) CGF Match for STOP (8) CGF for Juvenile Justice (9) CGF for Dorothy Kirby Center (10) Functional Family Therapy (Juvenile Justice Community-Based Program) APPENDIX D: DCFS/Probation TAY Programs 6.1) Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Program description: Los Angeles County provides a broad array of activities to help youth prepare for and make the successful transition from adolescence to adulthood. The following are typical services provided directly by DCFS/Probation: • Education-related costs, including: tuition, books, supplies, and clothing • Work-related costs including: clothing, tools, professional/union dues, and costs incurred due to the job interview process • Payment for transportation costs (including parking) related to job search, work or school (public or private) • Computer classes, mentoring and youth conferences • Driving lessons • Reimbursement for health services costs (physical and/or mental) that are not funded by Medi-Cal and beyond the financial means of the youth. Included are costs for classes or services related to parenting skills, nutrition, drug/alcohol use, etc. • Scholarships and participation in youth events (Celebration I, II and Success is Our Future) • www.ilponline.org provides information on DCFS resources. Funding: Chafee/ILP $1,354,280 Target Population/Potential clientele: Youth ages 18-20 who have exited DCFS/Probation care estimated to be approximately13,225 youth. Program capacity: Current funding provides services to 4,886 youth. Clients served: 1,330 are attending college. 1,339 are employed full/part-time. Evaluation Process: Current funding limits provide service to about 1/3 of the estimated youth in this category. Federal regulations are scheduled to go into effect in April 2010. The departments will implement the program performance measures required. 6.2) Chafee Foster Care Independence Program – High School Graduation Expenses Program Description: This program is provided directly by DCFS/Probation. It covers some of the senior year high school year-end costs such as: high school yearbook, senior pictures, prom expenses, class ring, etc. This service is provided to youth who request it or who are referred by the DCFS or Probation case workers. Funding: Chafee/ILP $320,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: There are approximately 3,698 potential graduates per year (Youth aged 17-19 in foster care). Program capacity: 640 ($320,000/$500per youth) Clients served: 908 received high school graduation expenses. DCFS/Probation meets all requests by reallocating funding from other line items. Evaluation Process: Requests are confirmed with the high school records and the youth is required, as it is difficult to collect receipts after funds have been provided to supply receipts for all expenses. 6.3) Special Tutoring for ILP Youth (Age 14-15) Program Description: This is a unique program to Los Angeles County to address educational deficiencies in particular courses for these youth. Contract staff provides educational assessments for 2,252 youth and refer those youth who meet specific criteria to tutoring services. The youth may receive the WRAT-R (Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised) or Houghton, Mifflin and Kaplan test. Funding: The County provides $1,415,635 for this program. Target Population/Potential clientele: Youth aged 14-15 in DCFS foster care or Probation. There are 5,186 potential clientele age 14-15 Program capacity: Current funding provides for 2,252 assessments and tutoring for 452 youth. Evaluation Process: The contract requires the contractor to a) undertake pre/post testing of the youth receiving this service and b) provide a list of all youth tested and receiving tutoring. 6.4) Youth Development Services (Age 16-20) Program Description: Life Skills and Employability Classes are provided by contractors. They include a broad range of services and information in seven modules: Education, Employment, Daily Living Skills, Survival Skills, Choices & Consequences, Interpersonal Social Skills, and Computer and Internet Skills. • Education, including, but not limited to: skill development, assistance and referrals to obtain literacy skills, high school diploma/GED, post-secondary education experiential learning and computer skills; • Career development, including, but not limited to: assistance and referral to obtain career exploration, work readiness and responsibility skills, employment development, employment experience, vocational training, apprenticeship opportunities, job placement and retention; • Assistance and referral to promote health (including mental health) and safety skills including, but not limited to: substance abuse prevention, smoking cessation, pregnancy prevention, parenting, and nutrition education; • Referral to available mentors and/or mentoring programs; • Daily living skills, including, but not limited to: information on and experiences and training in financial management and budgeting; credit and identity theft information; personal responsibility skills; self-advocacy; household management; consumer and resource use; survival skills; computer and internet skills; and obtaining vital records; • Financial resources (Financial Aid Workshops), including, but not limited to: information and referrals regarding financial assistance if applicable, including, but not limited to, incentives, stipends, savings and trust fund accounts, educational/vocational grants, CAL-Grants, Employment Development Departments, registered in One-Stop Career Centers, Workforce Investment Act funding and programs, other employment programs and other forms of public assistance including, but not limited to, CalWORKs, Food Stamps, and Medi-Cal; and • Housing information, including, but not limited to: training and referrals about transitional housing programs; federal, state and local housing programs; and landlord/tenant issues. Funding: Chafee/ILP $2,360,877 Target Population/Potential clientele: Program targets youth ages 16-20 in DCFS foster care or Probation. DCFS/Probation 25,432 youth age 16 – 20 both in and out of the system. Program capacity: The current funding allows the contractor to serve 1489 youth. Clients served: 1489 youth were served. Evaluation Process: DCFS’ Youth Development Services contractors began to collect Ansel Casey data in FY 2007-08. The evaluation is pending. 6.5) Foster Youth Demonstration Project Program Description: This program is provided directly to DCFS and Probation youth. It is designed to prepare youth for employment and provides assessments, measuring educational and occupational skills as well as assisting the youth with employment and career goals. Funding: Chafee/ILP $200,000; Department of Labor $400,000; Peyser & Wagner $200,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: The program is targeted to youth aged 17-21 exiting care or have exited DCFS and Probation foster care. The program is currently limited to youth in SPA 3 (17%) and 6 (24%). SPAs 3 and 6 make-up 41% of ILP eligible youth, which is approximately 10,427 youth. Program capacity: Current funding provides for 100 to receive this service. Clients served: .9 % of the youth in these SPAs are being served by this program. Evaluation Process: Casey Family Services is funding the program evaluation of this demonstration project. The evaluation is underway. 6.6) Alternative Services for Youth Program (Age 14 – 18) Program Description: A contractor provides mentoring, life skills workshops, tutoring, GED prep, California high school exit exam prep, field services and home visits to DCFS youth who are not eligible for comparable ILP services. Funding: Los Angeles County $1,500,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Estimated potential clientele is 7,748 youth Program capacity: Current funding provides service to 640 youth Clients served: 286 youth are currently being served Evaluation Process: This is the start up year. The program is subject to performance based criteria. The evaluation is pending. 6.7) Runaway Outreach Unit (ROU) - DCFS Program Description: This program is designed to locate and stabilize runaway DCFS youth. ROU assists CSWs in providing stabilization services to AWOL youth who are returned to DCSF care. The program is designed to assist all DCFS runaways in returning to, stabilizing in and lowering the recidivism rate of each runaway episode. Funding: Child Welfare Service (Case Management System) $800,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Countywide protective services to youth ages 10–17 under Court Jurisdiction who AWOL from care and appear on the monthly Abducted Runaway Kids System. Program capacity: 100% of AWOL youth Clients served: Last year 847 youth were AWOL of which 455 were found and returned to foster care. Evaluation Process: An evaluation in partnership with National Runaway Switchboard (Chicago) is pending. 6.8) ILP Rental Assistance/ILP Direct Services Program Description: This program is designed to provide youth with the opportunity to obtain/maintain existing permanent housing, with the goal of preventing homelessness and stabilizing the youth's housing needs. Youth are encouraged to maintain employment, and/or attend school while participating in the program. Funding: ILP/Chafee $765,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: DCFS/Probation youth, aged 18-20 who have exited care. The potential clientele is estimated to be 13,225. Program capacity: Last fiscal year’s (2006-07) funding provided service to 485 youth. Clients served: 485 are currently being served. Evaluation Process: There is no evaluation process in place. 6.9) Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) Program Description: This placement alternative provides training, support, education and basic life skills to youth in foster care. The program contractor provides paid, furnished apartments and includes allowances for food, clothing and personal expenses. It also includes housing assistance for youth after exiting care. The youth must be on target for high school graduation, doing well in school and current placement and responsible enough to share an apartment with a roommate. Funding: This is a special Federal/State program of $2,108,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Program targets successful foster youth. Potential clientele includes all 11,727 foster youth ages 16-18. Program capacity: Current funding provides services to 120 youth per year Evaluation Process: THP is evaluated annually via Supportive Housing Program (SHP) grant renewals via HUD and Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) 6.10) Transitional Housing Program (THP) Program Description: This program is designed to provide youth with the opportunity to live in supervised ‘permanent’ housing, with the goal of learning the skills to live independently upon completion of the program. The youth are encouraged to maintain employment, and/or attend school while participating in the program. The program also provides a "forced savings" whereby 50% of the youth's employment income is saved in an interest bearing account that is returned to the youth, in full, upon exiting the program. Youth can stay in the program for a maximum of 18 months. Services provided by this program while youth are under the supervision of a social worker include: furnished apartment with paid utilities, food stipend, educational and career guidance, bus passes, and life skills classes. Funding: ILP/Chafee - $3,700,000; HUD - $2,300,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: DCFS/Probation youth, aged 18-21 who have exited care. The potential clientele is estimated to be 13,225 Program capacity: Current funding provides services for 244 youth. Clients served: 298 youth were served and 85 youth who completed the program received permanent housing. Evaluation Process: THP is evaluated annually via Supportive Housing Program (SHP) grant renewals via HUD and Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) 6.11) Transitional Housing Program – Plus (THP+) Program Description: This program is designed to provide housing for youth who are at risk for homelessness, who have had a history of multiple placements, substance abuse, no GED or diploma, are pregnant or parenting and/or have had engagement with the Juvenile Justice system. The contractor provided services include: furnished housing, food stipends, bus passes, and educational and employment assistance. A maximum of 24 cumulative months can be spent in the program. Funding: Special State funding of $1,200,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: DCFS/Probation youth, aged 18-23 who have exited care. The estimated requirement is for 800 beds. Program capacity: Current funding provides 48 beds per fiscal year. Clients served: The program is running at 100% of capacity. Evaluation Process: This is the first year of this program. The evaluation is built into the contract and is pending. 6.12) Homeless Prevention Initiative - DCFS Program Description: This program provides rental subsidies, utility connection fees and furniture for former foster youth age 18-25. Funding: County $1,750,000 for three years ($583,333 per year) Target Population/Potential clientele: 42,386 former foster youth ages 18-25; youth who left care. Program capacity: 100 per year Clients served: The program is operating at 100% capacity. Evaluation Process: The youth are surveyed to determine if they have stable housing. 6.13) Homeless Prevention Initiative - Probation Program Description: This program provides rental subsidies, utility connection fees and furniture for Probation youth age 21-25. Rental subsidies are limited to ILP youth age 18-21. Probation Direct Services Funding: County $1,750,000 for three years ($583,333 per year) Target Population/Potential clientele: 5000 former foster youth age 18-25. Program capacity: 100 per year Clients served: The program is operating at 100% capacity. From September to December 2007 108 youth participated Evaluation Process: The youth are surveyed to determine if they have stable housing. Of the 108 youth surveyed only 7 stated they had challenges with housing stability. Addition services are also provided to youth, including foster youth, by the City of Los Angeles Work Investment Agency (WIA) (educational and occupational skills assessment, training and career guidance - age limit is 14 to 21); LA County WIA (paid and unpaid work experience - age limit is 14 to 21); Employment Development Department (basic skills assessment, tutoring, mentoring, paid and unpaid work experience, and occupational skills training - age limit is 14 to 21); DPSS CAL-Learn (assessment of basic needs, vocational, and educational skills; educational/vocational preparation – age limit is 14-18 or 19 if in high school); GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence) – CalWorks (assessment of basic needs, vocational, and educational skills; educational, vocational, and employment training leading to self-sufficiency – limited to emancipated parenting youth who have completed high school or GED program); ROP (Regional Occupational Program) Los Angeles County Office of Education (a combination of school and on-the-job training for both high school students and adults – must be 16 and a junior in high school). These programs are not integrated with those provided to TAY by DCFS and Probation. The departments indicated that part of the problem of integration is the confidentiality criteria of each organizational entity. From a County perspective a far more detailed study is needed to understand the level of under (or perhaps even over) service to these various subpopulations of TAY. Program Federal State County Private Total Chafee $5,000,157 $5,000,157 Dept of Labor $400,000 $200,000 $600,000 Foster Youth Grant Alternative $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Services for Youth Contract Transitional $2,300,000 $6,000,000 Housing (HUD) Program $3,700,000 Homeless $3,500,000 Prevention Over 3 years Initiative Or $1,166,000 (DCFS & $1,166,000/yr Probation) Program Federal State County Private Total Transitional $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Housing Plus Transitional $1,054,000 $1,054,000 $2,108,000 Housing Placement Program Youth $1,415,635 $1,415,635 Development Services Runaway $672,000 $128,000 $800,000 Outreach Unit Total $13,126,157 $2,382,000 $4,081,635 $200,000 $19,789,792 APPENDIX E: DCFS Youth Ombudsman Office Annual Report 2007 Summary Ombudsman Services include, but are not limited to: • Listening to and investigating complaints from youth • Assisting youth in understanding rights and responsibilities • Tracking ILP service delivery • Mediating through conflict resolution • Facilitating focus groups of youth on how to improve system • Organizing Celebration II and Annual Holiday Party The following table shows the complaint volume from youth for 2007. DCFS Probation Total Pre-emancipated youth 53 16 69 Emancipated youth 156 11 167 Total 209 27 236 The following table illustrates the types of complaints coming in from youth. Type Number of Complaints Transportation 13 Transition worker 9 Counseling/Mental Health 2 Documentation 13 Medical 3 Type Number of Complaints ILP/Life Skills classes 10 Job Assistance 8 ILP Request for funds or update/ILP eligibility 35 Events 4 Housing concern 99 Housing Appeals 4 Graduation Expenses 6 School assistance 38 IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FRAUD: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Nicolina Friedman Lionel S. Martinez Dorothy M. Schneider IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FRAUD: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES INTRODUCTION In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is a well-intentioned aid program for eligible aged, blind or otherwise disabled persons who are in need of personal care and domestic services in their homes, are unable to perform such services for themselves, and cannot safely remain in their homes if such services are not provided. A majority of IHSS referrals are currently received from doctors and hospitals. The IHSS program in L.A. County, which has grown from approximately 83,000 recipients in 1997 to almost 160,000 in 2007, is administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). The maximum allotted time for IHSS recipients is 283 hours per month, and caregivers are paid a flat rate of $9 per hour. The current state budget of $1,600,000,000 is increasing at the rate of approximately 9 % per year. IHSS, as another entitlement program, has fallen victim to the usual abuses. It has grown rapidly, now expending approximately $400 million per year (CY 2008) in Los Angeles County alone. IHSS is also complemented by the federal Medical, Supplemental Security Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the In-Home Supportive Services programs under the Older Americans Act, as well as California’s Department of Aging Community-Based Services programs. In a review of written materials, and in interviews with county personnel, an undertone exists regarding state and federal monies; to wit, state and federal monies are considered “free goods,” because they are not part of the county’s budget. Although a desire to help may be admirable, the careless dispensing of such funds violates the legislated rules, administrative guidelines and the basic standards of professionalism. Also, there is an aversion to “complaints,” be they from potential or actual recipients, professional welfare advocates and/or legislators. The Los Angeles County District Attorney has identified recurring fraudulent schemes, which, if properly exposed and addressed by DPSS, could result in substantial savings of taxpayer dollars. The purpose of the Grand Jury’s study is to highlight the most prevalent forms of fraud in the IHSS program, and recommend possible solutions. SUMMARY The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program is based on trust; trust that the provider will provide some semblance of quality services to the recipient and that the recipient is truly in medical and financial need. The third party to this social contract is the “state,” here referring to all levels of government. Whether supportive services are actually delivered to a person who is truly needy is difficult to assess after intake to the program, without frequent monitoring. This report has no recommendation in this area; the recipient and his or her social worker are the arbiters in this matter. This report does, however, make recommendations which could lead to better management of the IHSS program, particularly geared to the reduction of fraud (intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value; the act of deceiving or deliberately misrepresenting). These recommendations deal with such topics as: • communication with the Social Security Administration regarding SSI • handling of timesheets or time cards • realistic assessment of need and related medical evaluations • unambiguous recipient and provider identification • inter-communication ability of county, state and federal computer databases • periodic reassessments of the recipient’s actual needs • alternatives to personalized, in-home care • attitudes and morale of Department of Social Services personnel • criminal background checks of recipients and providers • providers not being paid by recipients • lack of action or feedback on fraud referrals • non-obvious financial resources of the recipient, such as Affidavits of Support and Earned Income Tax Credit • termination of state payments upon non-receipt of valid timesheets. These recommendations, if implemented by the Department of Social Services, will help to identify and eliminate abuses of the program. Truly needy recipients and competent providers will presumably welcome the recommendations, since none would add any new burdens (e.g., additional paperwork) to the process. A fingerprint on a timesheet or time card is as easy to accomplish as a signature, perhaps even easier for a handicapped person. BACKGROUND In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is a state- and federally-funded social welfare program, whose local administration is paid for and performed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Services (DPSS). A program expenditure report is attached as Appendix I; a four-page summary of the IHSS program, as prepared by DPSS and dated January 2007, is attached as Appendix II. IHSS, a well-intentioned social welfare program, has mixed effectiveness. It helps the truly needy, the thought-to-be needy, and in some cases inadvertently supports criminal behavior. Its broader social impacts are: • It costs California taxpayers approximately $ 1.6 billion per year, as of FY 2007-2008, with prospects for continued, open-ended growth. • It may lessen the need for the exercise of personal responsibility in one’s own lifestyle choices, particularly with regard to health and financial prudence. • It has the potential of breaking the still-strong tradition of familial obligations. The In-Home Supportive Services program is analogous to the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (Cal WORKS) program reported on by the 2005- 2006 Civil Grand Jury. That 05-06 report made recommendations to improve the Cal WORKS program, while stating that the program “…as currently administered…is equivalent to an ATM for thieves.” The 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury report, titled Millions of Tax Dollars Lost to Child Care Fraud should be reviewed again by DPSS. Unfortunately, the findings and recommendations made by this current (2007- 2008) Civil Grand Jury parallel those of the prior Civil Grand Jury and the Auditor- Controller’s July 2003 study of Cal WORKS. What is especially disturbing is that child care providers can be recipients of In-Home Supportive Services and vice versa. The 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury is very concerned that the issue of welfare fraud recurs each and every year. The Grand Jury believes that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Services can reduce welfare fraud, across all the programs that it administers. The mission of DPSS administered aid programs is to ameliorate the plight of the poor and otherwise needy, not to cultivate their situation. It is understandable that an increased “client” base enhances career opportunities and fosters bigger bureaucracy. Government agencies established to deal with social problems are prone to create or maintain those social problems. By establishing goals, applying initiative, management skills and “compool” (common pool of) data processing, welfare fraud can be substantially reduced. The poor and the needy will always be with us, by definition and the skewed distribution curves of statistics, so the jobs and bureaucracy of DPSS will continue to exist. In the instant case of IHSS, the logical extension of its implementation could find one-half of the United States taking care of the other half. Add a little fraud and other chicanery, where providers also become recipients, and recipients become providers, the welfare circle is closed in upon itself. Prior to making the findings and recommendations which follow, a special ad hoc committee of the Grand Jury met with and interviewed IHSS caseworkers and executive managers of the Department of Public Social Services, along with executive management of the Office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney. The Director of DPSS advised the Grand Jury that the department is currently paying over $10 million out of its budget to the D.A. to investigate and prosecute fraud, and that the D.A. will not do so without such payment from DPSS, although DPSS is not legally required to pay the D.A.’s Office from its budget for the D.A.’s efforts in investigating and prosecuting fraud.
-
R8Page 80Continued training is necessary for DPSS employees dealing with IHSS eligibility and fraud detection, based on the best practices recommended by CWDA and the involved state and county agencies. Also, since the need for repeated in-home visits is demoralizing to the social worker, for which no amount of training will compensate, the social worker should be given the authority to “notice” a recipient to schedule an assessment visit on a certain date, under penalty of payment cutoff.
-
R9Page 81DPSS should consider electronic monitoring as an alternative to a human provider for in-home care. The electronic monitoring systems do not provide “care” as such, but do avoid the need of a little-known provider visiting the home or abode. A half dozen such systems are now on the market. In addition, the Center for Aging Services Technologies in Washington, D.C., as well as the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland are excellent sources of further information.
-
R10Page 81Payment vouchers to IHSS service providers should be made payable to both the recipient of the care and the provider, thus requiring an endorsement from each before the check can be cashed. This safeguard would curtail some of the fraud that is occurring.
-
R11Page 81DPSS must follow the fraud reporting protocols required by the language of SB 1104. Also, in the interests of good management and employee morale, DPSS must provide feedback on fraud investigations to the initiating employee. Claims and excuses that the Department of Health Care Services isn’t providing feedback to DPSS are weak; DPSS senior management must insist on this information in a periodic and timely manner.
-
R12Page 82DPSS should review applicants for IHSS as to whether they are a sponsored immigrant under Section 213a of the Act. If so, their sponsor(s) or co-sponsor(s) should be sought to provide the financial support for the applicant. This recommendation has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or illegal immigration.
-
R13Page 82Since the income cap for receiving EITC in CY 2008 approaches $37,000, it is recommended that an applicant for In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) be asked if he or she has received an EITC last calendar year and is receiving one in the immediate calendar year. If so, note should be made, in the application for IHSS, of the amounts received or to be received in each year. A person receiving the EITC should not be denied eligibility for IHSS, but the amounts received in that credit should be factored into the amount of IHSS services paid for by the recipient, by means of a formula which could be changed yearly.
-
R14Page 83As well as capturing the fingerprints of both the recipient and provider during the intake / application process, as recommended elsewhere, DPSS should require a fingerprint of both the recipient and the provider on each time card, perhaps even in lieu of a signature.
-
R15Page 83DPSS should enforce the requirement that bi-weekly/monthly time cards be submitted. If time cards are not received within ten (10) business days of when due, further payment warrants or direct deposits should be terminated. Direct deposit accounts should be checked quarterly to ascertain their balance. If the balance is substantial (>$5,000), it may indicate the need for an eligibility review.
-
R16Page 84The Department of Social Services should implement the recommended security measures in this report. DPSS needs to validate program providers and recipients more aggressively, by knowing who they are to a certainty (photo and fingerprints), their actual and purported participation in the program, and the exposure of bogus providers and recipients. Reference is also made to the 1998-1999 Civil Grand Jury Final Report that recommended methods to detect and prevent attempted employee fraud, particularly the section on Internal Affairs Investigations, pages 141-152. The IHSS program is not supposed to be a cottage industry for scam artists, especially those embedded within the ranks of DPSS itself. EXPENDITURES TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECIPIENTS OF IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) BY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY GOVERNMENT Time Frame No. of Recipients Federal State L.A. County TOTAL 2003-04 FY Actual 140,000 $ 12,000,000 $ 139,000,000 $ 79,000,000 $ 230,000,000 2004-05 FY Actual 145,000 $ 21,000,000 $ 181,000,000 $ 58,000,000 $ 260,000,000 2005-06 FY Actual 152,000 $ 27,000,000 $ 226,000,000 $ 37,000,000 $ 290,000,000 2006-07 FY Actual 160,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 229,000,000 $ 76,000,000 $ 347,000,000 2007-08 FY Budget 380,000* $ 46,000,000† $ 272,000,000† $ 65,000,000† $ 383,000,000† *statewide †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted †budgeted 2008-09 FY 400,000* Projected *statewide Source: DPSS; Legislative Analyst; County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) See Notes which follow regarding this spreadsheet. APPENDIX I EXPENDITURES TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECIPIENTS OF IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) NOTES TO THE SPREADSHEET Expenditures to Los Angeles County Recipients of In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) by Federal, State and Los Angeles County Governments. 1. The expenditures listed include provider wages, payroll taxes, workers’ compensation, CMIPS expenditures, provider health benefits, health benefits administration, and the cost of the Personal Assistance Services Council. 2. CMIPS = Case Management, Information and Payroll System. 3. The expenditures listed do not include the cost to the county of administering the IHSS program. This expense is shared with the state and federal governments. 4. The expenditures listed do not include Section 8 Housing, Food Stamps, Cal- Works, Access for Infants and Mothers Program (AIM), Healthy Families Program, or the Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (MRMIP). 5. IHSS is provided without cost to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or State Supplemental Payment (SSP) consumers. The MediCal Program provides medical coverage for all IHSS consumers / recipients. 6. The number of recipients of IHSS in California numbers about 380,000 as of mid-2007, while the California General Fund allocation has grown from about $1 billion in 2004-2005 to approximately $1.6 billion in 2007-2008. 7. IHSS is supported through a complex array of federal, state and county funding sources. As might be expected, the Civil Grand Jury was unable to identify the total cost of the program. 8. The attached spreadsheet details expenditures for a portion of the IHSS program in L.A. County. These expenditures should not be thought of as the only related tax burden on L.A. County taxpayers, but rather a reflection of what “budget pot” supports the expenditures. Since Los Angeles is a fairly rich county, it is safe to say that the entire $383,000,000 budgeted expenditure for FY 2007-2008 will ultimately be paid by L.A. County taxpayers, both private and corporate. 9. Total (spreadsheet) expenditures for all three levels of government have grown 53% in the last five fiscal years. APPENDIX II IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM SUMMARY JANUARY 2007 AUDIT OF COUNTY-WIDE VEHICLE USE: THE DRAWBACKS OF DECENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee Franki Horne, Co-Chair Brandon Makoroff, Co-Chair Elaine Poydras John E. Smythe EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This audit of the Los Angeles County-Wide Vehicle Use was conducted by an audit firm for the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Civil Grand Jury of Los Angeles County. Key findings and the audit recommendations are as follows: SECTION 1. VEHICLE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (cid:0) Los Angeles County vehicles are managed under a decentralized system, governed by Chapter 5.40 of the County Code, which is intended to provide an overarching framework for departmental vehicle management policies and procedures. A department’s policies and procedures generally designate who has the authority to approve employee vehicle use, the types of vehicles that are available, the process required for an employee to use a department vehicle, and the responsibilities associated with vehicle use. However, the County Code does not provide a clear framework for departmental vehicle fleet management policies and procedures. (cid:0) As a result of the decentralization of vehicle policies and procedures, there are discrepancies in how stringently and comprehensively vehicles are managed across the departments. In particular, there are differences in assigning and reporting take- home vehicle authorizations and use. For example, only the Coroner’s procedures require an employee memo and interview prior to assigning a take-home vehicle, while the Fire Department’s policies list positions that are automatically assigned a take-home vehicle. (cid:0) The County Code should be amended to include a comprehensive County-wide vehicle management framework that will provide clearer guidelines for departmental policies and procedures, while also removing sections that are too specific and more appropriate for departmental policies and procedures. Further, the County should ensure that all vehicle policies and procedures, especially take-home vehicle policies, are consistent County-wide and ensure that sufficient internal controls have been established to identify abuse of the County Code or departmental policies and procedures.
Conclusions 23
-
CL1 Page 127Finding 1: The Los Angeles County Code does not provide a clear framework for departments to develop vehicle fleet management policies and procedures and has sections that are too specific and would be more appropriate as part of department policies and procedures. Finding 2: Los Angeles County Department vehicle use policies and procedures are inconsistent across departments and create disparities for employee use of County vehicles. Finding 3: Department take-home vehicle policies and procedures vary in stringency, are difficult to reconcile with actual take-home vehicles on an ongoing basis, and put the County’s fixed assets at increased risk of abuse.
-
CL2 Page 146Finding 1: The Auditor-Controller’s Office does not verify the accuracy of departmental listings of employees who receive taxable income from County vehicle take-home privileges. Finding 2: The taxable income reported to the IRS by the County is incomplete and does not capture all staff with a County take-home vehicle. Finding 3: The County is not properly reporting taxable income for approximately 9 percent of Fire Department employees who have take-home vehicle privileges. Finding 4: A total of 18 employees in the Coroner’s Office had County take-home vehicles. However, the department did not report taxable income for any of these 18 employees.
-
CL3 Page 155Finding 1: County departments provide County vehicles for take-home use, but these departments do not fully evaluate need based on number of instances when vehicles are required to be used for business related functions. Finding 2: There is no County-wide, systematic evaluation of the justifications for County take-home vehicles assignments, leading to potential inconsistencies between departments. Finding 3: The Sheriff’s Department has not sufficiently reviewed the business need for take-home vehicles in every instance, and may be providing some staff with vehicles who do not consistently use have after-hours duties. FINDING 4: THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES 27 COUNTY VEHICLES FOR TAKE-HOME USE WITHOUT PROPER DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT TRACK THE USE OF THESE VEHICLES AFTER HOURS FOR EMERGENCY BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS, AND THUS CANNOT BE SURE THAT ALL TAKE HOME VEHICLES ARE NECESSARY. FINDING 5: THERE IS NO COUNTY-WIDE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF COUNTY TAKE-HOME VEHICLES TO ENSURE JUSTIFICATION IS CONSISTENT AND WARRANTED, BASED ON BUSINESS NEED. FINDING 6: The County does not systematically analyze the costs related to staff using County vehicles for take-home purposes compared to the cost of using personal vehicles. With a review of business need for vehicles, the County can determine the justification in business need and costs to providing County vehicles or reimbursing staff for using personal vehicles.
-
CL4 Page 163Finding 1: The County has no internal controls in place to ensure County departments do not purchase vehicles that have features that exceed those required for routine County business. Finding 2: There are dozens of vehicles that appear to have features that exceed need based on intended use, resulting in unnecessary costs for the County. Finding 3: Some departments have vehicles that are not expensive, other departments have purchased luxury vehicles for the Department Director or other senior managers. Without clear direction from the Board of Supervisors, departments do not have any clear incentives to purchase vehicles that minimize cost. Finding 4: There are discrepancies between the databases that individual departments, the Internal Services Department and the Auditor-Controller maintain.
-
CL5 Page 276The Hertzberg - Davis Forensic Science Center was touted to the public as a multi-jurisdictional joint laboratory venture with a common focus. Early on in the planning stages, experts concluded that financial support would not be easy to get if the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department each focused only on their separate requirements. The project would gain popularity if both agencies would come together as a single unit under one roof. Consolidation was the best plan for the most efficient, effective and economic model in an expanded venue. Ten years later, consolidation is not in place and both agencies are content to do business as usual, separate and distinctly apart. Our investigation reveals no significant changes in the established separatist policy. This new facility is sensibly styled with a harmonious design There are some oversights that should be fixed such as the decontamination showers in hallways throughout the building, which have no drains to capture toxic runoff. These indoor environmental hazards are an unnecessary liability, especially in a science laboratory setting that demands a clean and safe workplace. There is no apparent plan to recruit and retain additional criminalists to augment the scientific and technical staff that face increasing caseloads and backlogs in processing evidence, DNA samples and forensic material. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 There is a substantial deviation between the original proposal and rationale used to justify the building of the new facility and what was actually realized in the way of cooperation between the LASD and the LAPD. Recommendation 1 The City Controller and the County Audit-Controller should initiate an audit to quantify the promised savings to the taxpayer through the economy and efficiency brought about by unification of their respective labs. The audit should be 268
-
CL6 Page 277completed and the recommendations implemented by 2010. Finding 2 There were rented refrigerated trailers used for the storage of forensic evidence to be processed by the crime lab that are parked at the loading dock of the Scientific Investigation Division facility at Erwin C. Piper Technical Center, despite the fact that there is abundant empty floor space inside the facility. Recommendation 2 The Los Angeles City Department of General Services should request that the refrigerated storage area currently in use by the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department be reconfigured or expanded in the empty area presently assigned to the Scientific Investigation Division at that site, so that the leases of refrigerated trailers can be terminated, and the City of Los Angeles be no longer obligated to rent them or use valuable loading dock space at the Erwin C. Piper Technical Building. Finding 3 The Property Division of the Los Angeles Police Department has a policy of retaining hundreds of thousands of items of evidence for 65 years. Recommendation 3 The Los Angeles Police Department should review their policy of retaining evidence in the property division for sixty-five years, and develop a policy of disposing of all items not needed for current trials or those in which a retrial could be ordered following a post-conviction appeal by a defendant. Finding 4 The laboratory areas have emergency decontamination showers in the hall. We noted that there were no drains in the floor. It was explained that the flooded floor was easier to maintain than drains. Recommendation 4 The Joint Powers Authority of the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center should review why there are no floor drains beneath the decontamination showers located in the hallways of the new crime laboratory This may allow run-off to travel into the various rooms of the building under the doors, some of which do not have adequate 269
-
CL7 Page 278thresholds or weather-stripping at their base The governing authority should direct that appropriate refitting, if any, be done to redirect, capture and dispose of the runoff. Finding 5 In the vehicle inspection areas, the doors do not adequately block outside light, permitting too much ambient light to be present for investigations requiring alternate light sources to reveal latent evidence. Recommendation 5 The Joint Powers Authority of the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center should review why there are light leaks in the vehicle inspection areas that lessen the effectiveness of alternative light sources, the use of which is often necessary to discover evidence that is difficult to detect under traditional light sources. Appropriate refitting, if any, be should be done to eliminate the light leaks. Finding 6 There are only two allocated intern positions for graduate students to obtain work experience in the LAPD and LASD crime laboratories. Recommendation 6 The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the Los Angeles Police Department should hire additional interns from the California State University Los Angeles Department of Criminalistics, or other students in this same specialization at other universities. Finding 7 One of the considerations for the consolidation of the LAPD and LASD crime labs was to add more personnel in expanded quarters to alleviate the backlog of evidence testing, including DNA testing. A recommendation by a medical expert on sexual abuse suggested that analysis of DNA be prioritized in cases of rape, particularly in cases of rape by a perpetrator unknown to the victim. Recommendation 7 It is recommended that the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department should accelerate the analysis of stored DNA samples in rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim. 270
-
CL8 Page 279EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PART 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Octavio “Toby” Chavez Richard Niederberg Dolores Rillos Arnie L. Spears 271
-
CL9 Page 279EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION PART INTRODUCTION The past two Civil Grand Juries have commented upon the County Office of Emergency Management’s (OEM) efforts in the area of emergency communications to the general public, particularly regarding how to prepare and then to endure an emergency. This year’s report will take a different tack, having found that emergency preparedness literature, tapes, films, websites, radio spots and other media are numerous, and adequate for the general public. The situation is analogous to that of the horse being led to water, but refusing to drink. Similarly, the public must inform itself with all the information available, absorb it, then act upon it. The county’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is plugged into the State of California’s Emergency Alert System, utilizing local TV and radio. The state, county and California Highway Patrol (CHP) all have websites which provide emergency information, including road closures and evacuation routes. A reverse 911 notification system is not yet available in Los Angeles County. Under federal statutes, the Red Cross is the lead agency for providing short-term shelter. This is meritorious for those individuals who can reach these shelters if and when they are set up; however, this is not the topic of the following report.
-
CL10 Page 326The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LASD) manages the largest detention system in the county. Responsibilities include providing security services in all Los Angeles County courthouses, performing policing duties for all unincorporated areas in the county, and performing policing duties under contract with individual incorporated cities. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has many detention facilities throughout the county. Most of the detention centers are short term holding areas since most detainees are transported to either Men’s Central Jail or Twin Towers after fingerprinting and processing. In addition, many cities have their own police departments that, in most instances, serve as holding facilities as well. Most detainees are quickly transferred to larger long term jails. The 2007-2008 Civil Grand jury is pleased with the overall condition of the jails and holding facilities. Most meet or exceed standards required by the State of California. In spite of the inordinate number of detainees in the county processed daily, the facilities are well run and well managed.
-
CL11 Page 3272007-2008 CIVIL GRAND JURY ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTIONS (Listed alphabetically by facility name) PD = Police Department LASD = Los Angeles Sheriff Department Facility Name Operat Condition Comments ed by 77th Street Division LAPD PD Satisfactory Needs paint. Alhambra PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Alhambra Superior Court Satisfactory Generally good condition. Minor graffiti and peeling paint. Antelope Valley LASD Satisfactory. No padding on sobering cell. Arcadia PD PD Satisfactory Clean. Avalon LACSD LASD Satisfactory Inmates sent back to Mainland for processing. Azusa PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Baldwin Park PD PD Satisfactory Needs padding in sobering cells. Bell Gardens PD PD No sprinkler system in jail area. No emergency evacuation plan. Bell PD PD Satisfactory Paint/repair of sobering cell. No evacuation plan in jail area. Old facility. Bellflower Court LASD Satisfactory Generally good condition. Minor graffiti and peeling paint. Beverly Hills PD PD Satisfactory Minor repairs being addressed. Beverly Hills Court LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Burbank PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Burbank Superior Court LASD Satisfactory Very clean. Carson LASD LASD Satisfactory Very clean and well run. Central Area LAPD PD Unsatisfactory Staph-infected facility. Personnel need to be better informed on administrative procedures. Central Arraignment Courts LASD Satisfactory Excellent sally port. Elevator light fixtures need repair. Needs paint and graffiti
-
CL12 Page 328removal. Century Regional l Detention Center, LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run facility in spite of Lynwood overcrowding. Need better lighting in food storage area. Compton Courthouse LASD Unsatisfactory More deputies are needed for better security. Too much graffiti in cells. Overcrowded. Covina PD PD Satisfactory In good condition. Crescenta Valley LASD Unsatisfactory Dim lighting. Needs padding in sobering area. Sally port area not secure. Criminal Courts LASD Satisfactory Could use more computers for more efficiency and production. Culver City PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Devonshire PD PD Satisfactory Clean, well run facility. Downey Courts LASD Satisfactory. Food carts should be clutter free, clean at all times. Jail area needs to be kept clean. Downey PD PD Satisfactory Well maintained. East Los Angeles Courts LASD Satisfactory Clean, well run facility. East Los Angeles Sheriff LASD Satisfactory Clean. El Monte Courts LASD Satisfactory Well maintained. El Monte PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Foothill PD LAPD Unsatisfactory Sobering cells are double-decked, thus unsafe. Dim lighting. Fenced area serves as a sally port. Gardena PD PD Satisfactory Old facility in need of repair but clean and well run. Need air conditioning Glendale PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Glendale Superior Court LASD Unsatisfactory Facility needs paint and repair of earthquake damage. Unsafe sally port needs to be made secure. Juvenile area unsecured. Plastic trash bags hanging in cells. Glendora PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Harbor Area PD LAPD Satisfactory Clean facility. Hawthorne PD PD Satisfactory Very clean and well run.
-
CL13 Page 329Hermosa Beach PD PD Satisfactory Old facility very clean. Hollywood PD LAPD Satisfactory New floors needed. Huntington Park PD PD Satisfactory Well kept facility. Fire extinguishers need to be relocated Industry LASD Satisfactory Generally clean. In process of refurbishing station. Jail is last to be done. Inglewood PD PD Satisfactory Well maintained. Irwindale PD PD Satisfactory Facility needs upgrading. La Verne PD PD Satisfactory Very clean facility. LAC/USC Jail Ward LASD Satisfactory Facility in good condition. Moving to a new location. Lakewood LASD Unsatisfactory Manuals need to be updated. Lower level needs to be refurbished. No sally port. LAX Courthouse LASD Satisfactory Very clean facility. Lennox LASD LASD Satisfactory Needs air conditioning. No sally port for unloading and loading of inmates. Excellent system for maintaining policy and procedures manuals. Lomita LASD LASD Satisfactory Better system of control over excess food. Long Beach PD PD Satisfactory Valve to control water pressure and flow installed to prevent flooding in cells and Long Beach PD (continued) showers. Long Beach Superior Courts LASD Unsatisfactory Not a well kept facility. In need of paint and graffiti removal. Lost Hills LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Manhattan Beach PD PD Satisfactory Very clean. Maywood PD PD Satisfactory Facility is currently being updated. Men’s LASD Unsatisfactory Facility should be shut down. Dirty and in disrepair. Central Jail Monrovia PD PD Satisfactory Clean facility. In need of padding in sobering cell. Mira Loma Detention Fed / Satisfactory Well run facility. LASD Montebello PD PD Satisfactory Very good condition.
-
CL14 Page 330Monterey Park PD PD Satisfactory Very clean. No infractions found. North County Correction Center LASD Satisfactory Maximum security facility. Provides laundry for entire jail system. North Hollywood LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well run facility Northeast LAPD LAPD Unsatisfactory Needs to be inspected for contamination caused by prior tenant. Possible cause of high percentage of staff illness. Norwalk Courts LASD Satisfactory Efficiently run. Norwalk LASD LASD Satisfactory Well run. Pacific Area LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Very clean. Well organized procedure manual system. Pacoima LAPD/Foothill Community) LAPD Satisfactory Exceptionally clean facility. Palmdale LASD LASD Satisfactory Very clean and well run. Palos Verdes Estates PD PD Satisfactory Very clean facility. No sobering cell. Parker Center LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well run facility. Building being replaced due to earthquake damage. Staff well informed on procedures. Sally port should be used as an example for other LAPD facilities. Pasadena PD PD Satisfactory New mattresses, proper inspection of fire extinguisher. Fire suppression plan needs to be revamped. Pasadena Superior Court LASD Unsatisfactory Building has earthquake damage. Visible cracks in walls. Elevators aren’t working properly. Not enough holding cells to contain detainees awaiting hearings. Pico Rivera LASD LASD Satisfactory Needs paint and graffiti removal. Pomona Courts North LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Pomona Courts South LASD Satisfactory Clean and well run. Pomona PD PD Satisfactory Good condition. Staff needs to be better informed on CSA reports. Rampart Area LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Fire extinguishers need to be inspected, refilled and date stamped. Redondo Beach PD PD Satisfactory Old, but very clean facility. New flooring and metal storage shelves for dry food storage needed San Dimas LASD LASD Satisfactory More staff needed San Fernando PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run facility San Fernando Superior Court LASD Satisfactory Overcrowded at time of inspection.
-
CL15 Page 331San Gabriel PD PD Satisfactory No fire suppression plan. Some graffiti. San Marino PD PD Satisfactory Manuals need upgrading Santa Clarita Courts LASD Satisfactory Well run facility Santa Clarita LASD LASD Unsatisfactory. In general disrepair and dirty. Santa Monica PD PD Satisfactory Clean facility. Sierra Madre PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. South Gate Courts LASD Satisfactory In need of paint, new lighting and graffiti removal. South Gate PD PD Satisfactory Needs to be painted. Graffiti on walls and floors. South Pasadena PD PD Satisfactory Clean facility. Southwest Area LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Clean facility. Food handling is exemplary. Temple City LASD LASD Satisfactory Needs more staff and better lighting. Torrance PD PD Satisfactory Well run facility. Torrance Superior Court LASD Satisfactory Holding cells need to be painted. Twin Towers (one) LASD LASD Satisfactory Generally well run facility. Well staffed medical facility. However, medication not being properly monitored. Refrigeration out of compliance. Food storage area excellent. Twin Towers (two) LASD LASD Satisfactory Area clean. Medication carts clean. Inmates need to be escorted to clinic in a timely manner. More personnel needed. Van Nuys Courts LASD Satisfactory Clean facility. Staff needs to be informed of location of procedure manuals. Vans Nuys LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well run facility. Vernon PD PD Satisfactory Clean and well run facility. Walnut LASD LASD Satisfactory Facility in very good condition. West Covina PD PD Satisfactory Needs paint & graffiti removal. West Hollywood LASD LASD Satisfactory Needs more staff. West LA LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well run. In need of more staff. West Valley LASD LASD Satisfactory Clean and well maintained. Whittier Courts LASD Satisfactory Vent covers needed. Whittier PD PD Satisfactory Clean facility. Wilshire Area LAPD LAPD Satisfactory Well organized facility. Knowledgeable staff.
-
CL16 Page 3322007-2008 CIVIL GRAND JURY JUVENILE DETENTION PROBATION FACILITIES INSPECTIONS (Listed alphabetically by facility name) Facility Name Condition Comments Camp Afferbaugh Satisfactory Refrigerator/freezer has been broken for three months. An outdoor freezer is currently being used. Need more outdoor lighting. Maintenance department needs to be decentralized. Facility lacks automatic sprinkler system since it was not required at the time the building was constructed. There is a need for more intramural/after school programs. Current manuals dated 1990 and are under revision. Basketball court needs to be resurfaced. Fire extinguisher certification is not current. Camp Dorothy Kirby M.H. Satisfactory Well run special needs facility. Male and female. No automatic sprinkler (Treatment Facility) system throughout facility. Laundry room floors need repair. Kitchen clean and orderly. Impressive educational operation. Camp Gonzales Satisfactory Cracks in walk-in refrigerator & freezer floors needs major repair, freezer door needs repair, rusting metal window frames in dining hall, peeling paint on overhang in some buildings. Special handling building is mostly unused & empty. Camp Holton Satisfactory Well run. Needs paint in dormitories
-
CL17 Page 333Camp Kilpatrick Satisfactory Food preparation services shared with Camp Miller. Gym has been red tagged since 1993. Needs to be replaced. Special unit ward needs refurbishing. Needs paint and graffiti removal. Staff must keep a log of times oxygen administered in order to monitor capacity. Mold observed in restrooms and shower area. Laundry facility needs to be updated or contracted out. Transportation of youth to medical facilities requires an inordinate amount of staff time. Camp Mendenhall Satisfactory Gym door needs repair or replacement. Dorm fire extinguishers certification must be updated. Nursing services should be 16 hours per day. Emergency generator needs to be replaced. Student computers need to be upgraded. Staff resides on site. Camp Miller Satisfactory Food preparation facilities shared with Kilpatrick. Droppings observed in food storage areas. Need better laundry facilities and fire sprinkler system in office area. Camp Munz Satisfactory. Well run facility. Need to replace very old emergency generator. Camp Paige Satisfactory Excellent conditions in kitchen and dining area. Forestry camp used on a limited basis for older detainees (18 years). As a safety precaution, a fence should be built on hillside next to the dining area above the recreation field. Camp Rocky Unsatisfactory Need fire extinguishers in dormitories. Increase staffing related to high risk and safety of everyone. Ensure that all food that is prepared be dated and stamped. 24/7 nursing staff in 12 hour shifts. Remove
-
CL18 Page 334cleaning solution from outside to a locked safe area. Needs paint. Camp Routh Satisfactory Fire camp serving males 17 years old and older. Well run minimum security facility. Camp Scott (female) Satisfactory Clean and well run. Minor graffiti. Camp Scudder (female) Satisfactory Clean and well run. Track in dire need of repair. Need improved laundry equipment. Mental Health professionals counsel minors being processed out of the system. Challenger Camp Satisfactory Well run facility with coordinated interagency staff. Kitchen run by contractors currently being Included: Camp Jarvis, remodeled. Nurses available 24/7. Camp McNair, [Camp MD on duty five days a week. Staff Onizuka-closed], Camp resides on site. Resnick, Camp Scobee, and Camp Smith Eastlake Detention Center Satisfactory Well maintained. Kitchen well organized. Repair tiles in medical building. Need new medical facility. Eastlake Juvenile Courts Satisfactory Well run. Need additional mental health court facilities. Eastlake Juvenile Facility. Satisfactory Overcrowded conditions. Edelman Children’s Court Satisfactory Very well kept facility. Holding cells for detained adults awaiting appearance in Children’s Court. Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall Satisfactory Well run facility with adequate medical staffing. Out of compliance with labeling and dating of medication. No crash cart or defibrillator. Currently undergoing defibrillator training. Sylmar Juvenile Satisfactory Clean facility serving males and Courts/Barry Nidorf females in separate quarters. No Juvenile Hall sprinklers in dorms.
-
CL19 Page 335JAIL / DETENTION FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: The Sheriff’s Department, Probation Department and police agencies should utilize non-sworn personnel to perform clerical and routine duties. Recommendation 2: Crescenta Valley LASD, Glendale Courthouse, Lakewood LASD, Lennox LASD. There is a need to construct secure facilities to transport inmates to or from buses to holding areas in order to protect staff, inmates and the public. Recommendation 3: All LASD and LAPD detention facilities should be well lit. Recommendation 4: Pasadena and Glendale Courthouses with LASD holding facilities need earthquake repair and retrofitting. Recommendation 5: LASD and LAPD policy and procedure manuals need to be kept in a central location and reviewed annually and updated as necessary. These manuals should be available to the public on demand. Recommendation 6: It is strongly recommended that the number of deputies at the Compton Courthouse be increased and that an additional high security floor be added. Escorting inmates from detention to courtroom lock ups with too few escorts endangers the safety of the public, court employees and Sheriff’s deputies. Recommendation 7: Boxed / dry and refrigerated foods in LASD jails and detention facilities must observe first in first out rotation of products. Food containers must be labeled to indicate contents and expiration date. All food products must be disposed of by the expiration date. Recommendation 8: All medications in LASD jails and detention facilities must be adequately secured and dispensed only by licensed personnel or trained non-licensed personnel. Inmates receiving medication should be properly identified by wrist bands.
-
CL20 Page 336Recommendation 9: An inspection by EPA and/or Cal OSHA to ensure staff safety and determine if the LAPD Northeast facility should remain in use. CAMP RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: Kitchen equipment should be repaired or replaced in most camps. Recommendation 2: All camps should be retrofitted with adequate fire suppression systems. Recommendation 3: Refurbish outdoor recreation areas in poor or unsafe condition so that intramural sports could be instituted at male and female camps. Recommendation 4: In lieu of Probation Officers, more Detention Service Officers should be hired to perform clerical and routine duties in camps. Recommendation 5: Maintenance concerns in Probation Camps should be performed in a more efficient and timely manner. Recommendation 6: All camps should have 12 hour licensed nursing coverage 7 days a week. Recommendation 7: Non-functioning generators should be repaired or replaced in a timely manner. Recommendation 8: All camp staff should have current CPR and First Aid certification. Recommendation 9: The gym at Camp Kilpatrick needs to be replaced. Recommendation 10: All medication must be adequately secured and dispensed only by licensed personnel or trained non-licensed personnel. Juveniles receiving medication should be properly identified by wrist bands.
-
CL21 Page 337REPORT OF THE CONTINUITY COMMITTEE 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Standing Committee Nicolina Friedman, Chair John Gleiter Lionel S. Martinez Ernest Oestreich
-
CL22 Page 339REPORT OF THE CONTINUITY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The Continuity Committee is a standing committee which serves as a bridge between all Civil Grand Juries, prior, current and future. It is responsible for informing the current jury of investigations done by its predecessors and maintaining a record of those investigations as well as studies by other agencies i.e. the County Auditor/Controller. It reinforces the role of the Civil Grand Jury by ensuring that last year’s recommendations made to governmental entities are responded to properly. To fulfill its responsibility, the 2007-2008 Continuity Committee reviewed prior reports, looked at areas of duplication, reviewed responses to recommendations, communicated with non-responders, and updated the summary of investigations. The committee also maintained a list of topics with background materials that represented issues of interest to the current jury but were not investigated due to budget and time constraints. This list will be passed on to the foreperson of the 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury for possible consideration. METHOD According to the Penal Code 933 (c), the Civil Grand Jury may investigate and make findings and recommendations to Los Angeles County governing bodies, elective officers, or agency heads. The governing body of the public agency addressed shall comment to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under its control. Every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the Superior Court. The code specifically states that elected county officers or agency heads must respond to the presiding judge within 60 days and governing bodies are required to respond within 90 days. Section 933.5 states: “a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is
-
CL23 Page 340disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.” For each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) “The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) “The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendations require further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame from the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (3) “The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.” Written responses to Civil Grand Jury Final Report recommendations should be sent to: Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 111 North Hill Street, Room 204 Los Angeles, California 90012 It is the responsibility of the Continuity Committee to follow up on all recommendations made to cities, county department heads, redevelopment agencies, and the Board of Supervisors. This means to verify that responses were received from the appropriate agencies in accord with the statutes. The process began as soon as the committee was established by identifying all recommendations made by the 2006- 2007 Civil Grand Jury. We developed methods for reporting the existence of all responses made to those recommendations. It is essential that the recommendations made by the jury be clear, concise, and have actual merit. It is also necessary that responses made to
Comments 36
-
CO1 Page 60Enhanced Emergency Shelter Program for TAY (EESP) $605,000 per year. This program provides temporary shelter for SED/SPMI TAY ages 18-25 in a supportive housing environment for up to 29 nights while pursuing the long-term goal of secure and permanent housing. Program offers semi-private rooms, hygiene facilities, hot meals, case management, referrals and linkage services to SED/SPMI TAY who have no other resources to pay for shelter. There is one shelter that is licensed (6-beds) to serve 16-17 years old. DMH TAY Division is working with DCFS Command Post Unit to develop protocols for access for DCFS clients.
-
CO2 Page 60Project-Based Operating Subsidies for Permanent Housing $390,000 per year. This program provides a unit-based housing subsidy (not an individual rental subsidy). This program is currently under development. When implemented it is estimated that approximately 83 units of affordable housing will be available to SED/SPMI TAY who are capable of living independently in the community in their own apartment/unit.
-
CO3 Page 60Housing Specialists, one per SPA, Total funding $575,000 per year. Housing specialists assist youth with finding, securing and retaining housing by providing individualized services including accompanying youth on housing search, advocating with landlord, and assistance completing application forms. Misc. Information: The EESP Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 2008. Services will be implemented beginning May 2008. The Project-Based Operating
-
CO4 Page 63Education-related costs, including: tuition, books, supplies, and clothing
-
CO5 Page 63Work-related costs including: clothing, tools, professional/union dues, and costs incurred due to the job interview process
-
CO6 Page 63Payment for transportation costs (including parking) related to job search, work or school (public or private)
-
CO7 Page 63Computer classes, mentoring and youth conferences
-
CO8 Page 63Reimbursement for health services costs (physical and/or mental) that are not funded by Medi-Cal and beyond the financial means of the youth. Included are costs for classes or services related to parenting skills, nutrition, drug/alcohol use, etc.
-
CO9 Page 63Scholarships and participation in youth events (Celebration I, II and Success is Our Future)
-
CO10 Page 63www.ilponline.org provides information on DCFS resources. Funding: Chafee/ILP $1,354,280
-
CO11 Page 64Education, including, but not limited to: skill development, assistance and referrals to obtain literacy skills, high school diploma/GED, post-secondary education experiential learning and computer skills;
-
CO12 Page 64Career development, including, but not limited to: assistance and referral to obtain career exploration, work readiness and responsibility skills, employment development, employment experience, vocational training, apprenticeship opportunities, job placement and retention;
-
CO13 Page 65Assistance and referral to promote health (including mental health) and safety skills including, but not limited to: substance abuse prevention, smoking cessation, pregnancy prevention, parenting, and nutrition education;
-
CO14 Page 65Referral to available mentors and/or mentoring programs;
-
CO15 Page 65Daily living skills, including, but not limited to: information on and experiences and training in financial management and budgeting; credit and identity theft information; personal responsibility skills; self-advocacy; household management; consumer and resource use; survival skills; computer and internet skills; and obtaining vital records;
-
CO16 Page 65Financial resources (Financial Aid Workshops), including, but not limited to: information and referrals regarding financial assistance if applicable, including, but not limited to, incentives, stipends, savings and trust fund accounts, educational/vocational grants, CAL-Grants, Employment Development Departments, registered in One-Stop Career Centers, Workforce Investment Act funding and programs, other employment programs and other forms of public assistance including, but not limited to, CalWORKs, Food Stamps, and Medi-Cal; and
-
CO17 Page 65Housing information, including, but not limited to: training and referrals about transitional housing programs; federal, state and local housing programs; and landlord/tenant issues. Funding: Chafee/ILP $2,360,877 Target Population/Potential clientele: Program targets youth ages 16-20 in DCFS foster care or Probation. DCFS/Probation 25,432 youth age 16 – 20 both in and out of the system. Program capacity: The current funding allows the contractor to serve 1489 youth. Clients served: 1489 youth were served. Evaluation Process: DCFS’ Youth Development Services contractors began to collect Ansel Casey data in FY 2007-08. The evaluation is pending. 6.5) Foster Youth Demonstration Project Program Description: This program is provided directly to DCFS and Probation youth. It is designed to prepare youth for employment and provides assessments, measuring educational and occupational skills as well as assisting the youth with employment and career goals. Funding: Chafee/ILP $200,000; Department of Labor $400,000; Peyser & Wagner $200,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: The program is targeted to youth aged 17-21 exiting care or have exited DCFS and Probation foster care. The program is currently limited to youth in SPA 3 (17%) and 6 (24%). SPAs 3 and 6 make-up 41% of ILP eligible youth, which is approximately 10,427 youth. Program capacity: Current funding provides for 100 to receive this service. Clients served: .9 % of the youth in these SPAs are being served by this program. Evaluation Process: Casey Family Services is funding the program evaluation of this demonstration project. The evaluation is underway. 6.6) Alternative Services for Youth Program (Age 14 – 18) Program Description: A contractor provides mentoring, life skills workshops, tutoring, GED prep, California high school exit exam prep, field services and home visits to DCFS youth who are not eligible for comparable ILP services. Funding: Los Angeles County $1,500,000 Target Population/Potential clientele: Estimated potential clientele is 7,748 youth Program capacity: Current funding provides service to 640 youth
-
CO18 Page 69Listening to and investigating complaints from youth
-
CO19 Page 69Assisting youth in understanding rights and responsibilities
-
CO20 Page 69Tracking ILP service delivery
-
CO21 Page 69Mediating through conflict resolution
-
CO22 Page 69Facilitating focus groups of youth on how to improve system
-
CO23 Page 69Organizing Celebration II and Annual Holiday Party The following table shows the complaint volume from youth for 2007. DCFS Probation Total Pre-emancipated youth 53 16 69 Emancipated youth 156 11 167 Total 209 27 236 The following table illustrates the types of complaints coming in from youth. Type Number of Complaints Transportation 13 Transition worker 9 Counseling/Mental Health 2 Documentation 13 Medical 3 Type Number of Complaints ILP/Life Skills classes 10 Job Assistance 8 ILP Request for funds or update/ILP eligibility 35 Events 4 Housing concern 99 Housing Appeals 4 Graduation Expenses 6 School assistance 38 IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FRAUD: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 2007-2008 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Investigative Committee John Gleiter, Chair Nicolina Friedman Lionel S. Martinez Dorothy M. Schneider IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FRAUD: PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES INTRODUCTION In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is a well-intentioned aid program for eligible aged, blind or otherwise disabled persons who are in need of personal care and domestic services in their homes, are unable to perform such services for themselves, and cannot safely remain in their homes if such services are not provided. A majority of IHSS referrals are currently received from doctors and hospitals. The IHSS program in L.A. County, which has grown from approximately 83,000 recipients in 1997 to almost 160,000 in 2007, is administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). The maximum allotted time for IHSS recipients is 283 hours per month, and caregivers are paid a flat rate of $9 per hour. The current state budget of $1,600,000,000 is increasing at the rate of approximately 9 % per year. IHSS, as another entitlement program, has fallen victim to the usual abuses. It has grown rapidly, now expending approximately $400 million per year (CY 2008) in Los Angeles County alone. IHSS is also complemented by the federal Medical, Supplemental Security Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and the In-Home Supportive Services programs under the Older Americans Act, as well as California’s Department of Aging Community-Based Services programs. In a review of written materials, and in interviews with county personnel, an undertone exists regarding state and federal monies; to wit, state and federal monies are considered “free goods,” because they are not part of the county’s budget. Although a desire to help may be admirable, the careless dispensing of such funds violates the legislated rules, administrative guidelines and the basic standards of professionalism. Also, there is an aversion to “complaints,” be they from potential or actual recipients, professional welfare advocates and/or legislators. The Los Angeles County District Attorney has identified recurring fraudulent schemes, which, if properly exposed and addressed by DPSS, could result in substantial savings of taxpayer dollars. The purpose of the Grand Jury’s study is to highlight the most prevalent forms of fraud in the IHSS program, and recommend possible solutions.
-
CO24 Page 74communication with the Social Security Administration regarding SSI
-
CO25 Page 74handling of timesheets or time cards
-
CO26 Page 74realistic assessment of need and related medical evaluations
-
CO27 Page 74unambiguous recipient and provider identification
-
CO28 Page 74inter-communication ability of county, state and federal computer databases
-
CO29 Page 74periodic reassessments of the recipient’s actual needs
-
CO30 Page 74alternatives to personalized, in-home care
-
CO31 Page 74attitudes and morale of Department of Social Services personnel
-
CO32 Page 74criminal background checks of recipients and providers
-
CO33 Page 74providers not being paid by recipients
-
CO34 Page 74lack of action or feedback on fraud referrals
-
CO35 Page 74non-obvious financial resources of the recipient, such as Affidavits of Support and Earned Income Tax Credit
-
CO36 Page 74termination of state payments upon non-receipt of valid timesheets. These recommendations, if implemented by the Department of Social Services, will help to identify and eliminate abuses of the program. Truly needy recipients and competent providers will presumably welcome the recommendations, since none would add any new burdens (e.g., additional paperwork) to the process. A fingerprint on a timesheet or time card is as easy to accomplish as a signature, perhaps even easier for a handicapped person.