Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 1970-1971

County of LOS Angre*

Published: ∼ June 30, 1971 49 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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.

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F4, F5

Findings and Recommendations 9 findings

November, 1969 - Dr. Robert Rocke, County District Health officer, submitted a plan for utilizing the County Health Department for drug-abuse clinics.

Related Recommendations (1)

Family groups (AFDC-FG) a. Unemployed parent (AFDC-UP) b. Old Age Security (OAS)

In 1970 Los Angeles County spent over $150,000 for a comprehensive survey of Community Health Action by the American Public Health Association. Chapter XIV of their report give a specific plan for control of alcoholism and drug abuse.

Related Recommendations (1)

Aid to the Disabled (ATD)

In April, 1971, Dr. Joel Hockman, Department of Mental Health, submitted a proposed drug-abuse plan for Los Angeles County. In the opinion of this committee "The Outline for Development of the Los Angeles County Drug Abuse Plan, 1970-71" is NOT a comprehensive drug-abuse plan. This is a lengthy and detailed description of existing drug-abuse services and of the total drug picture in Los Angeles County. This outline does not provide specifics for organizing and administering a coordinated drug-abuse program. A proposed plan must be submitted to the legislature now. The citizens of this county and the Board of Supervisors must not tolerate any more county personnel delays or internecine department power struggles. DEPARTMENT OF DRUG ABUSE This Grand Jury is very aware of the County freeze and the budget problems of Los Angeles County. Consequently it is with great reluctance that this committee must suggest the need for a new county department, this department to be the Los Angeles County Department of Drug Abuse. The head of this department should be a capable administrator, experienced in management and organization and from outside county government. This new department should be considered an emergency department and evaluated and appraised each year in the light of the existing drug-abuse problem in the county. The administrator should be directly responsible to the Board of Supervisors. This administrator must first expedite legislation for a comprehensive drug-abuse program which will utilize all private and public drug-abuse programs now functioning within each of the five super- visorial districts. This committee also feels that the Los Angeles County Commission on Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs should serve as the liaison between the Board of Supervisors and this new department. In order to aid and advise the supervisors this commission must be redefined and reorganized. The County Counsel should assist in rewriting by-laws under which this commission serves and the areas of responsibility and terms of service should be clearly delineated. Narcotic Information Service, which has been a pioneer in drug-abuse treatments and programs in Los Angeles County and is one of the first agencies to utilize ex addicts as counselors and community workers, must be revitalized by placing it directly under the new Department of Drug Abuse. It could better serve its vital role in disseminating information throughout the County and could com- pile and collect data which would aid in evaluating the total drug-abuse picture in the county. This agency is now functioning under the Department of Community Services which is prohibited by statute from engaging in direct counseling and individual social service. By operating directly under the Department of Drug Abuse, the Narcotics Information Service community workers and ex addicts may continue their highly effective work without violating any rules. The committee feels that Los Angeles County needs and must encourage the establishment of a laboratory which will collect samples of street drugs and analyze the contents, then disseminate this pharmaceutical information to all emergency hospitals, to all health clinics, school nurses, the County Medical Association, and to law enforcement. This information should be available by printed bul- letins and also through a telephone service comparable to Hotline and the Poison Information Service One of the most frightening things about the contemporary street drugs is the continuing presence of LSD mixed with all kinds of contaminants and marketed on the street as organic drugs such as mes- caline and peyote. This follows the current vogue for all natural foods and substances. As an ideal concept and as a measuring device, this committee of laymen has drawn from the Dr. Thomas Ungerleider (of UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute) "Triage Program" within the West Los Angeles-Venice geographic area. This concept attempts to provide all appropriate measures for each drug abuse.

Related Recommendations (1)

Aid to the Blind (AB)

Contract Auditors' Report No. 8 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Social Services Committee is most grateful to those who have so graciously assisted its study and evaluation of certain areas of the Department of Public Social Services. Their views, information and suggestions were vitally important and most helpful. Ph.d., M.d., Head Physician, Outpatient and Family Planning Services, Gerald S. Bernstein Dept. Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Hospital, LAC/USC Medical Center Division of Records & Statistics, Los Angeles County Health Department Frank R. Bollinger Program Chairman, Work Incentive Program Richard Budrewig Professor, Department Social Work, USC Frances Feldman Assistant Field Director, Planned Parenthood/World Population, Los Angeles Norman Fleishman Regional Director, State Department Social Welfare Ralph Goff County Director, Food Stamp Program Richard Havnun Director Bureau of Administrative and Special Services, Department of Howard L. Holtzendorf Public Social Services Professor, Department of Social Work, USC John Milner Director, Department of Public Social Services, County of Los Angeles Ellis P. Murphy Chairman, Social Services Committee, 1970 Grand Jury Anna Priolo Chief, Venereal Diseases Control Division, Los Angeles County Health Walter H. Smartt, M.D. Department The committee members read the past Grand Juries' Reports and followed the progress of legislative bills dealing with welfare reforms at Federal and State level. The committee visited as a group or in teams the following: Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, Triggs Center Los Angeles County Department DPSS Bureau of Adult Services Contract Day Care Centers: Calvary, Enterprise, First United Methodist, Plaza, Second Baptist and Willowbrook Food Stamp Centers: JET Center, Watts Labor Community Action Center, TEKACU Center Los Angeles County Health Centers: Alhambra, Hawaiian Gardens, Hollywood-Wilshire, Imperial Heights, Northeast, North Hollywood, West Valley, El Monte Free Clinics: Foothill, Harbor, Long Beach, Los Angeles, North Hollywood Los Angeles County USC Medical Center Rancho Los Amigos MacLaren Hall Juvenile Hall SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Alyce May Sisson, Chairman Ann Dach, Secretary John E. Hargrove Ruth Juntilla Esther Lewin Anne C. Lingle Marian B. Lloyd Lydia Lopez Approved by the Grand Jury 11/1/71 . × . . . 10.00 . . • . . LITHOGRAPHED BY CENTRAL DUPLICATING BUREAU/COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Related Recommendations (1)

DPSS also provides facilities for special benefits such as medical assistance, food stamps, Economic Opportunity Act programs, and child welfare services. The Department of Public Social Services has experienced many administrative reorganizational changes in recent years based primarily upon revised federal and state welfare regulations. This has resulted in notable improvements but at a rate slower than the increase in its work load and scope of responsibilities. The contract auditor's detailed review of DPSS covered a random sampling of cases in the field, the Department of Data Processing (DDP), and a careful study of issued warrants and duplicate warrants. The problems encountered in this vast organization were many. The lack of a computerized master index was serious in nature and must be coordinated into DDP. The Department of Public Social Services has made a positive approach toward the solution of this problem by soliciting proposals for the development and design of a Welfare Case Management and Information System from qualified outside professional consulting organizations. It also was understandable that many improvements are needed in such a large department. However, the overriding task of DPSS in recent years has been to cope with the rapid growth in the welfare caseload and a wide variety of changes in state and federal legislation and regulations. The contract auditor recognized that any recommendations made in Report No. 8 must be considered in terms of the State Welfare Reform Act of 1971. Another positive step forward in the greater control of effective operation of the Department of Public Social Services involves the probable designation of the District Attorney's office for investi- gation and prosecution of welfare frauds and abuse. This would remove investigative functions from a basic managerial organization and place it under a department with recognized skills in the invest- igatory and prosecution process. PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS One of the drawbacks of a new jury every year is the inability of each jury to follow through on its recommendations. Each jury provides for this continuation by first following up on recommendations of previous juries and then listing suggestions for checks by subsequent juries. Report No. 9 of the Contract Auditor's Report details the results of this year's follow-ups. Report No. 10 lists suggestions for subsequent juries. SUMMARY The general trend of recommendations by the Grand Jury leaned toward more stringent control (safekeeping) of cash receipts and record keeping of vital information as it pertained to the individual departments audited. Each department audited responded to the contract auditor's recommendations. There was a cordial sense of agreement and concurrence. In a number of instances, action has already been taken to implement certain recommendations, while others will require study and/or personnel adjustments prior to full implementation. Other conclusions must await the move to new quarters where the physical relocation will contribute positively to the implementation. The Audit Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the Los Angeles County Board of Super- visors, the department heads and their staffs for the kind and courteous cooperation and assistance afforded the contract auditor in his efforts to comply with the Grand Jury's instructions. The Committee is also most grateful to Mr. Donald R. Rager, his associates and staff, for their patience and skillful guidance through the intricate paths of government operations. The quality of the contract auditor's expertise is reflected in the complimentary comment made by several departmental responses to recommendations. This Committee is of the opinion that the concentration of its efforts on a few objectives has been a greater benefit than if it had endeavored to touch lightly on many areas. From the number and type of recommendations presented, there is no doubt as to the magnitude of improvement required by all County departments to effect reduction in County expenditures and an ultimate saving of taxpayers' dollars. AUDIT COMMITTEE Albert M. Niblo, Chairman Marian B. Lloyd, Secretary Edward S. Adler Diane A. Baerwald Louis L. Colen James S. Dwight Marian Loeb Christian W. Planje Approved by the Grand Jury 11/15/71 CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE The Criminal Complaints Committee of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, comprised of nine members of that Jury, served as a screening and evaluation agency for all criminal matters presented by the Offices of the District Attorney or Attorney General for possible hearing by the Grand Jury. It also received, evaluated and acknowledged individual letters from Los Angeles County residents or civic organizations who for personal reasons chose to present their grievances to the Grand Jury for solution. The normal committee procedures in determining the necessity for a hearing by the Grand Jury involve the intensive interrogation of those Deputy District Attorneys or Deputy Attorneys General who believe that a hearing by the Jury will serve the best interests of victims and defendants. The Criminal Complaints Committee is particularly interested in determining why the Grand Jury hear- ing is desired as opposed to the alternative of a preliminary hearing in the Municipal Court. Usually the choice is based upon lowered cost to the taxpayer, secrecy provided by a Grand Jury hearing, time limitation based upon the applicable statute of limitation or protection of witnesses and con- venience. From a brief outline presented by the Deputy District Attorney and/or Deputy Attorney General the Criminal Complaints Committee seeks to be assured that probable cause exists. After much deliberation without any District Attorney staff present, the Committee votes upon the merits of a Jury presentation. A simple majority rules. In the evaluation of letters received from County residents and civic organizations, all letters which bear return addresses are acknowledged. Weekly action taken by the Criminal Complaints Commit- tee determines the nature of the response to be made to the letter received and when necessary defines the direction of the investigation to be made by the Grand Jury investigator. The Commit- tee makes a genuine and sincere effort to satisfy the complainant but works equally hard to avoid a continuing pattern of correspondence where the grievances are fundamentally personal and non- criminal in nature. To the date of final preparation of this report eighty-three separate and distinct cases were pre- sented to the Grand Jury, involving 220 defendants. As the result of evidence presented, eighty-one indictments were returned for the following felonies: Indictments Filed Crime 1 Arson, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and Unlawful Possession of an explosive 2 Bribery 1 Conspiracy and Assault 1 Dangerous Weapons and Control Law 6 Grand Theft 1 Grand Theft and Burglary 1 Grand Theft, Conflict of Interest, Receiving Stolen Property, and Filing False Evidence 6 Grand Theft, Forgery, and Fraudulent Claims 1 Grand Theft, Procuring and Offering False Instruments and Violation of Business and Professions Code 1 Grand Theft and Violation of Financial Code Grand Theft and Violation of Corporations Code Kidnapping Possession of Dangerous Weapon 2 Receiving Stolen Properties 2 Robbery 2 Violation of Corporations Securities Law 3 To November 1, 1971, the Grand Jury had spent ninety-five days in the hearing of evidence or approximately 63% of full Jury time. Hearings consumed a minimum of a part of a day to a maximum of ten days. During the current year the Grand Jury was asked to hear evidence relative to the mishandling of critical exhibits in a major murder case. Although no indictments were sought or filed, the Jury did inform the County Board of Supervisors that strong evidence of inefficiency and nonconform- ance to logical business procedures did exist in the Office of the County Clerk. A total of 168 communications were received from residents and civic organizations in Los Angeles County. The preponderant volume dealt with individual problems or complaints which did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. Where it was possible the Criminal Complaints Commit- tee referred these correspondents to organizations or agencies for available immediate assistance. In several instances the Committee provided an opportunity for personal discussion, which in every case gave the complainant the attention and counsel he sought. In the balance of the communications received, orderly and prompt disposition included: