3. Funding Formula Fails Fosters

Each of the ten school districts reviewed received substantial funds through the supplemental and concentration grant funding to meet the needs of their target student populations. As Exhibit 1 shows, the actual Supplemental and Concentration Grant funding received by each of the ten school districts over the four-year period was substantial. The annual amount allocated ranged from a low of about $23.4 million for Inglewood School District (FY2016-17) to a high of $1.2 billion for the LAUSD (FY2013-14). By any measure, these are substantial amounts of funds to be used to better meet the needs of the targeted student populations, including foster youth. Exhibit 1 Summary of Supplemental Grant and Concentration Grant Allocation of Funds for FY 2013-14 thru FY 2016-17 Fiscal UPP Base Supplemental Concentration Total SG and CG Year % Grant Grant (SG) Grant (CG) (a) (b) (c=b*20%*a) (d=b*50%*(a-55%)) (c+d) Antelope Valley Union High School District 2013-14 65.26% $ 182,459,178 $ 23,814,572 $ 9,360,156 $ 33,174,728 2014-15 65.02% $ 178,721,279 $ 23,240,915 $ 8,953,936 $ 32,194,851 2015-16 66.26% $ 179,677,432 $ 23,810,853 $ 10,115,839 $ 33,926,693 Fiscal UPP Base Supplemental Concentration Total SG and CG Year % Grant Grant (SG) Grant (CG) (a) (b) (c=b*20%*a) (d=b*50%*(a-55%)) (c+d) 2016-17 67.72% $ 177,173,371 $ 23,996,361 $ 11,268,226 $ 35,264,588 Compton Unified School District 2013-14 95.49% $ 180,747,374 $ 34,519,133 $ 36,592,306 $ 71,111,439 2014-15 88.18% $ 179,803,661 $ 31,710,174 $ 29,829,427 $ 61,539,601 2015-16 88.76% $ 177,202,654 $ 31,457,015 $ 29,911,808 $ 61,368,823 2016-17 87.51% $ 169,143,619 $ 29,603,516 $ 27,494,296 $ 57,097,812 Downey Unified School District 2013-14 74.73% $ 173,934,222 $ 25,996,208 $ 17,158,612 $ 43,154,820 2014-15 71.93% $ 175,415,409 $ 25,235,261 $ 14,848,914 $ 40,084,175 2015-16 71.45% $ 175,458,784 $ 25,073,060 $ 14,431,485 $ 39,504,545 2016-17 70.45% $ 174,188,924 $ 24,543,220 $ 13,456,094 $ 37,999,315 Hacienda La Puente Unified School District 2013-14 78.13% $ 152,762,102 $ 23,870,607 $ 17,666,937 $ 41,537,544 2014-15 78.41% $ 151,850,672 $ 23,813,223 $ 17,774,120 $ 41,587,344 2015-16 78.11% $ 150,355,347 $ 23,488,512 $ 17,373,561 $ 40,862,074 2016-17 77.20% $ 147,861,242 $ 22,829,775 $ 16,412,598 $ 39,242,373 Inglewood Unified School District 2013-14 93.62% $ 83,455,397 $ 15,626,189 $ 16,115,237 $ 31,741,426 2014-15 89.00% $ 81,468,574 $ 14,501,407 $ 13,849,657 $ 28,351,064 2015-16 86.92% $ 79,696,612 $ 13,854,458 $ 12,719,579 $ 26,574,037 2016-17 84.48% $ 74,089,712 $ 12,518,198 $ 10,920,824 $ 23,439,021 Long Beach Unified School District 72 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 1 Summary of Supplemental Grant and Concentration Grant Allocation of Funds for FY 2013-14 thru FY 2016-17 2013-14 70.02% $ 606,930,539 $ 84,994,553 $ 45,580,483 $ 130,575,036 2014-15 69.54% $ 607,253,905 $ 84,456,874 $ 44,147,359 $ 128,604,233 2015-16 69.29% $ 603,332,504 $ 83,609,819 $ 43,108,107 $ 126,717,927 2016-17 69.62% $ 588,064,858 $ 81,882,151 $ 42,987,541 $ 124,869,692 Los Angeles Unified School District 2013-14 84.61% $ 3,820,544,414 $ 646,512,525 $ 565,631,601 $ 1,212,144,126 2014-15 83.49% $ 3,780,560,195 $ 631,277,941 $ 538,540,801 $ 1,169,818,742 2015-16 83.82% $ 3,739,293,588 $ 626,855,177 $ 538,832,206 $ 1,165,687,383 2016-17 84.06% $ 3,617,599,499 $ 608,190,827 $ 525,637,207 $ 1,133,828,034 Paramount Unified School District 2013-14 91.06% $ 119,484,031 $ 21,760,433 $ 21,542,971 $ 43,303,404 2014-15 94.35% $ 120,537,150 $ 22,745,361 $ 23,715,685 $ 46,461,046 2015-16 94.16% $ 120,007,582 $ 22,599,828 $ 23,497,484 $ 46,097,311 2016-17 94.30% $ 118,444,121 $ 22,338,561 $ 23,274,270 $ 45,612,831 Pasadena Unified School District 2013-14 71.08% $ 133,058,776 $ 18,915,635 $ 10,697,926 $ 29,613,560 2014-15 70.39% $ 131,735,509 $ 18,545,726 $ 10,137,048 $ 28,682,774 2015-16 69.44% $ 130,716,720 $ 18,153,938 $ 9,437,747 $ 27,591,685 2016-17 67.27% $ 129,054,579 $ 17,363,004 $ 7,917,499 $ 25,280,503 Pomona Unified School District 2013-14 84.04% $ 200,860,688 $ 33,760,664 $ 29,164,971 $ 62,925,635 2014-15 84.89% $ 195,026,703 $ 33,111,633 $ 29,146,740 $ 62,258,372 2015-16 85.19% $ 190,082,489 $ 32,386,255 $ 28,692,952 $ 61,079,207 2016-17 85.44% $ 185,846,914 $ 31,757,521 $ 28,285,900 $ 60,043,421 Source: LCFF Funding Snapshot reports for fiscal year 2013-14 to 2016-17 obtained from California Department of Education website. C. Educational Challenges Faced by Foster Youth While each of the student populations targeted by the LCFF face educational challenges, it is important to understand the unique and substantial challenges faced by the foster youth student population.

Foster youth face substantial unique challenges to achieving school success. A study of the challenges faced by foster youth in California identified significant challenges faced by foster youth.2 Some of the key findings from this study include: • Students in foster care were classified with a disability at twice the rate of the comparison groups, and among students with disabilities, students in foster care were about five times more likely to be classified with an emotional disturbance than other students. • Students in foster care experienced much higher rates of school mobility than other students. Only about two thirds of students in foster care attended the same school for the full school year. In contrast, over ninety percent (90%) of the low SES and the statewide student populations attended the same school all year. Furthermore, about 1 in 10 students in foster care attended three or more schools during the school year, a level of 2 Barrat, V. X., & Berliner, B. (2013). The Invisible Achievement Gap, Part 1: Education Outcomes of Students in Foster Care in California’s Public Schools. San Francisco: WestEd 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 73 school mobility experienced by only about one percent (1%) of the low-SES and general student populations. • Students in foster care were also more likely than other students to be enrolled in nontraditional public schools (i.e. continuation high school, alternative school, charters, distant learning, or dependent studies). Enrollment in these schools suggests that students were unsuccessful at traditional schools and, thus, were transferred to other school types that were expected to better meet their needs. • Students in foster care were more likely than all comparison groups to drop out. During FY2009/10, across the high school grades, the single-year dropout rate for students in foster care was eight percent (8%), compared to the statewide dropout rate of three percent (3%) and dropout rates for the other at-risk groups between three and five percent (3%-5%). • The graduation rate for all grade-12 students statewide was eighty-four percent (84%), but for students in foster care, it was just fifty-eight percent (58%)—the lowest rate among the at-risk student groups. D. Services for Foster Youth Funded with LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds Given the substantial and unique challenges foster youth face in achieving school and educational success, it would be reasonable to expect that each school district would use funding received under LCFF to focus on addressing these challenges.

Some school districts reviewed had developed and implemented minimal programs or actions specifically targeted to meet the substantial and unique needs of their foster students. Exhibit 2 provides a description of the programs and services funded specifically targeted to the needs of foster youth using LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds. As this exhibit shows, four of the school districts (Downey, Long Beach, Paramount, Pomona) have developed programs specifically for foster youth, but have allocated relatively small amounts of funding to those programs (approximately $500,000 or less). One school district (Antelope Valley) has implemented a program that includes a Foster Youth Counselor, but has not identified the amount of funding devoted to the program in their LCAP. 74 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 2 Programs Specifically Targeted to the Needs of Foster Youth Funded with LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Funds Fiscal Program Title Funding Year Antelope Valley Union High School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A 2014-15 Foster Youth Counselor $0* 2015-16 Foster Youth Counselor $0* 2016-17 Foster Youth Counselor $0* Compton Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A 2014-15 No LCAP N/A 2015-16 Foster Youth/McKinney Vento $1,283,538 2016-17 Foster Youth/McKinney Vento $1,209,784 Downey Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A 2014-15 Foster Youth Program Specialists $120,000 2015-16 Foster Youth Program Specialists $325,477 2016-17 Foster Youth Program Specialists $395,078 Hacienda La Puente Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A Funded with various funding sources (e.g. 2014-15 Foster Youth Liaison and Support Services LCFF Base, Title I, LCFF S&C, etc.). No specific amount for LCFF S&C funds. Funded with various funding sources (e.g. 2015-16 Foster Youth Liaison and Support Services LCFF Base, Title I, LCFF S&C, etc.). No specific amount for LCFF S&C funds. 2016-17 Foster Youth Liaison and Support Services $5,102,371 Inglewood Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A Additional Counselors/Psychologists and 2014-15 $1,300,000 Transportation for Foster Youth/Low Income Pupils Additional Counselors/Psychologists and 2015-16 $1,300,000 Transportation for Foster Youth/Low Income Pupils Additional Counselors/Psychologists and 2016-17 Transportation for Foster Youth/Low Income Pupils $1,926,000 (Budgeted Expenditure) Long Beach Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A Path to high school graduation and beyond for Foster 2014-15 $50,000 Youth (Budgeted Expenditure) Path to high school graduation and beyond for Foster 2015-16 $194,762 Youth Path to high school graduation and beyond for Foster 2016-17 $223,062 Youth Los Angeles Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A 2014-15 Foster Youth Support Plan and Family Source Centers $8,500,000 2015-16 Foster Youth Support Plan and Family Source Centers $11,762,578 2016-17 Foster Youth Support Plan and Family Source Centers $14,354,666 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 75 Paramount Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A 2014-15 No LCAP N/A 2015-16 Support for Foster Youth Students $95,012 2016-17 Support for Foster Youth Students $151,267 Pasadena Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A 2014-15 Foster Youth Liaison and Support Services $20,000 2015-16 Foster Youth Liaison and Support Services $3,843,536 2016-17 Foster Youth Liaison and Support Services $3,443,498 Pomona Unified School District 2013-14 No LCAP N/A 2014-15 Foster Youth Liaison $500,000 2015-16 Foster Youth Liaison $505,700 2016-17 Foster Youth Liaison $500,000 Source: Review of Local Control and Accountability Plans for each School District for each Fiscal Year Note: Antelope Valley reports: “No additional expenditure required. Work performed within the school day.” Five of the school districts (Compton, Hacienda-La Puente, Inglewood, Los Angeles and Pasadena) have developed significant programs to meet the specific needs of their foster youth student populations and allocated substantial amounts of funding to them. E. Distribution of LCFF Funds Statewide State funding provided under the LCFF is currently based on the unduplicated count of students that meet one or more of the criteria for targeted students which consists of low SES, foster youth, or English learners. Specific funding is not provided to school districts based solely on their foster youth students.

The method for distributing LCFF funds Statewide underrepresents the needs of foster youth students and does not directly fund programs and services required to meet the needs of students in foster care. There are a significant number of students that are foster youth and low SES and may be English learners as well. The unduplicated count does not take this overlap in needs, and qualifications, into account. For example, a student may be a low-income foster youth that also needs to learn English. This student would only be counted once when LCFF supplemental and concentration funds are being calculated. However, these students’ needs are much more substantial that a student that is low SES only or an English learner only. The cost for a school district to meet the additional needs of the student with multiple qualifications is also substantially higher. 76 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

Four municipalities within the County have golf courses in areas determined to have high or very high need for additional park-land. Only limited or no usage and financial information was made available from three of the municipalities. What information that was made available generally shows declining golf rounds, total revenues, and net revenues. Exhibit 22 shows the number of golf rounds played, total revenues and net revenues at the Alhambra Golf Course have declined over the past ten years. Only rounds played for Bell Gardens Golf Course was provided. Activity and financial information for the 10-year review period were not available for the Compton and South Gate golf courses. Exhibit 22 Overview of Other Municipal Golf Courses Change Over 10 Year Period Golf Course in Areas Total Park Need Rounds Total Net with High Park Need Acreage Category Played Revenues Revenues Alhambra 98 High (33%) (19%) (40%) Bell Gardens 24 Very High (41%) NA NA Compton 12 High NA NA NA South Gate 7 High NA NA NA Sources: Alhambra Community Services Department, Bell Gardens Department of Recreation & Community Services, Compton Department of Parks and Recreation, South Gate Department of Parks and Recreation. Note: Information on rounds played, revenues and expenditures over 10-year time period were not available for Compton and South Gate golf courses. 56 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Alhambra Golf Course Exhibit 23 shows the Study Area has just 0.9 acres of park-land per 1,000 people, significantly below the County average of 3.3 acres. Given this, the Study Area is defined as having a high need for additional park-land. The percentage of residents living within ½ mile of a park is 44%, which is below the County average of 49%. The Alhambra Golf Course occupies a total of 98.2 acres. The percentage of land devoted to golf in the Study Area is 62%, with the remaining 38% devoted to park-land. Note: The park acreage calculated for this CGJ investigation does not include Moor Field (17.70 acres). Moor Field is an Alhambra Unified School District facility, not open as a local park to the public.9 In the Countywide Parks Needs Assessment, Study Area 82 – City of Alhambra, Moor Field is incorrectly reported as park-land.10 Exhibit 23 Alhambra Golf Course Park Need Study Area 82 - City of Alhambra Park Need Category: High Study Area Population 84,903 Within ½ Mile of a Park 44% Park Acres / 1,000 0.9 Park Acres 60.1* Park Acres, Golf Acres 98.2 60.1, 38% Golf Acres, 98.2, 62% Source: Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Needs Assessment, May 2016 *Note: The Park Acres calculated for this table excludes Moor Field (17.79 acres). Moor Field is an Alhambra Unified School District facility not open as a local park to the public. In the Countywide Parks Needs Assessment, Study Area 82 – City of Alhambra, Moor Field is incorrectly reported as park-land. See: www.moorfield.org Exhibit 24 shows the number of rounds of golf played has decreased by 33% over the past 10 years. The exhibit also shows total revenues have decreased by 19% over the ten-year time period, while net revenues have decreased 40%. 9 www.moorfield.org 10 lacountyparksneeds.org/final-report appendix a 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 57 Exhibit 24 Alhambra Golf Rounds Played Fiscal Year 2007-08 to 2016-17 Golf Revenue, Expenditure and Net Revenue Trends Fiscal Year 2007-08 to 2016-17 $2,800,000 2,636,209 2,521,952 2,523,077 2,433,146 2,400,430 2,328,628 2,316,070 2,161,701 2,121,649 2,145,707 $2,100,000 1,639,172 1,498,770 1,474,621 1,390,103 1,369,590 1,401,594 $1,400,000 1,197,825 1,138,369 1,116,123 1,161,081 997,037 1,043,043 1,030,840 1,048,456 1,130,803 1,023,182 1,023,332 1,005,526 914,476 984,626 $700,000 Total Revenues Total Expenditures Net Revenues $0 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Fiscal Year Percentage FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Change Total Revenues $2,636,209 $2,521,952 $2,433,146 $2,400,430 $2,523,077 $2,328,628 $2,316,070 $2,161,701 $2,121,649 $2,145,707 -19% Total Expenditures $997,037 $1,498,770 $1,043,043 $1,030,840 $1,048,456 $1,130,803 $1,401,594 $1,138,369 $1,005,526 $1,161,081 16% Net Revenues $1,639,172 $1,023,182 $1,390,103 $1,369,590 $1,474,621 $1,197,825 $914,476 $1,023,332 $1,116,123 $984,626 -40% Source: Alhambra Community Services Department 58 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Bell Gardens Golf Course Exhibit 25 shows the Study Area has just 1.3 acres of park-land per 1,000 people, significantly below the County average of 3.3 acres. The Study Area is defined as having a very high need for additional park-land. The percentage of residents living within ½ mile of a park is 82%, which is above the County average of 49%. The Bell Gardens Golf Course occupies a total of only 24 acres. The percentage of land devoted to golf in the Study area is 30%, with 70% devoted to local park-land. Exhibit 25 Bell Gardens Golf Course Park Need Study Area 114 - City of Bell Gardens Park Need Category: Very High Population 42,276 Within ½ Mile of a Park 82% Park Acres / 1,000 1.3 Golf Acres, Park Acres 56 24, 30% Golf Acres 24 Park Acres, 56, 70% Source: Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Needs Assessment, May 2016 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 59 Exhibit 26 shows the number of rounds of golf played has decreased by 41% over the past 9 years. No other data was available. Exhibit 26 Bell Gardens Golf Rounds Played Fiscal Year 2009-09 to 2016-17 Source: Bell Gardens Recreation & Community Services Department Compton Golf Course Exhibit 27 shows the Study Area has just 0.6 acres of park-land per 1,000 people, significantly below the County average of 3.3 acres. The Study Area is defined as having a high need for additional park-land. The percentage of residents living within ½ mile of a park is 58%, which is above the County average of 49%. The Compton Golf Course is a small facility occupying only 12 acres. The percentage of land devoted to golf in the Study Area is 17%, with 83% devoted to park-land. 60 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Exhibit 27 Compton Golf Course Park Need Study Area 142 - City of Compton Park Need Category: High Study Area Population 97,801 Within ½ Mile of a Park 58% Golf Acres, Park Acres / 1,000 0.6 12, 17% Park Acres 56.6 Golf Acres 12 Park Acres, 56.6, 83% Source: Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Needs Assessment, May 2016 South Gate Golf Course Exhibit 28 shows the Study Area has just 1.5 acres of park-land per 1,000 people, significantly below the County average of 3.3 acres. The Study Area is defined as having a very high need for additional park-land. The percentage of residents living within ½ mile of a park is 45%, which is just below the County average of 49%. The South Gate Golf Course is a very small facility occupying only 7 acres. The percentage of land devoted to golf in the Study Area is 5%, with the remaining 95% devoted to park-land. Exhibit 28 South Gate Golf Course Park Need Study Area 88 - City of South Gate Park Need Category: Very High Study Area Population 96,297 Golf Acres, Within ½ Mile of a Park 45% 7, 5% Park Acres / 1,000 1.5 Park Acres 147.8 Golf Acres 7 Park Acres, 147.8, 95% Source: Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Needs Assessment, May 2016 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 61 G. Potential to Expand Use or Repurpose Golf Courses in High or Very High Park Need Areas The potential to expand the use or repurpose golf courses was evaluated based on the need for additional park-land, the amount and percentage of public land devoted to golf in each area, the trends in the number of rounds of golf played at each golf course, and the potential impact of expanded use or repurposing each golf course.

There is high potential to expand the use or repurpose of seven golf courses, and moderate potential to expand the use or repurpose four of the 13 golf courses reviewed. The following Exhibit 29 lists the golf courses reviewed, and the potential to expand the use or repurpose these golf courses. Exhibit 29 Potential to Expand Use or Repurpose Golf Courses for Park and Recreation Use Golf Acre Rounds Expand Use or Golf Course Park Need Percentage Played Trend Repurpose Potential Alhambra High 62% (33%) High Alondra Very High 89% (24%) High Chester Washington Very High 95% (16%) High Los Amigos Very High 50% 3% High Penmar High 59% (10%) High Rancho Park 18 High 67% (12%) High Rancho Park 9 High 67% (21%) High Maggie Hathaway Very High 17% (40%) Moderate Don Knabe High 9% NA Moderate Bell Gardens Very High 30% (41%) Moderate Compton Very High 17% NA Moderate Hansen Dam Very High 73% (23%) Low South Gate High 5% NA Low As this exhibit shows, seven golf courses (Alhambra, Alondra, Chester Washington, Los Amigos, Penmar and Rancho Park 18 and Rancho Park 9) have a high potential for expanded use or repurposing to park and recreational uses. This is based on the fact that the golf acreage percentage in the Study Areas where these seven courses are located ranges from 50% to 95% of the combined park and golf acreage. Also, with the exception of Los Amigos golf course, the trend in rounds of golf play shows a decreasing demand for golf. Because of the low park acres relative to the high number of acres devoted to golf courses, partial or full conversion to park and recreational use could have a significant impact on meeting park need in these areas. The Alhambra Golf Course acreage amount and percentage of public land devoted to golf is relatively high. Partial repurposing of the Alhambra Golf Course by reducing the course from 18 to 9 holes would have a significant positive impact on park need in the Southeastern quadrant of 62 2017-2018 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT the City while continuing to allow for golf in the Study Area. Moor Field, while counted as a local park is, in fact, a School District property not open to the public. The 22-acre Almansor Park located adjacent to the golf course is overcrowded and appears to not meet the park and recreational needs of the City. Four golf courses (Maggie Hathaway, Don Knabe, Bell Gardens and Compton) have a moderate potential for expanded use or repurposing to park and recreational uses because the amount and percentage of public land devoted to golf in the Study Areas where these courses are located is relatively low. These courses are small 9-hole facilities ranging from 10 to 24 acres. Using this land to meet park and recreational need would have an impact, but not as substantial as the larger golf courses. Two golf courses (Hansen Dam and South Gate) have a low potential for expanded use or repurposing to park and recreational uses. Hansen Dam Golf Course is adjacent to the 420-acre Hansen Dam Regional Recreation Park, so expanding the use or repurposing the golf course would have little impact on park need. South Gate Golf course is a small 7 acre, 9-hole golf course which is part of the 96 acre South Gate City Park. Only 5% of the public park-land in this area is devoted to golf, so expanding its use or repurposing would have little impact on improving park need.