📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Score: -1 (3/1/4)
Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 2022-2023

Mental Health Evaluation Teams and HOW They Work

85 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 22 findings

F1 Page 166
There are too few Mental Health Evaluation teams to respond to the mental health crisis in the county, in large part due to a shortage of DMH mental health clinicians.
No recommendations for this finding
F2 Page 166
Traditional recruitment procedures have failed to produce sufficient employees to fill even existing vacancies, let alone newly created positions.
No recommendations for this finding
F3 Page 166
The CAD computer system for Mental Health Evaluation Teams dispatch is outdated and insufficient to properly process incoming mental health crisis calls.
No recommendations for this finding
F4 Page 166
Patient navigation systems managed by the County through DMH, DHS, and PHD in connection with others utilized by the County are inadequate and understaffed. This makes it difficult for Mental Health Evaluation Teams and Advanced Psychiatric Response Units to assist patients with follow up contacts for additional services and treatment.
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 166
Assisting mental health patients to reintegrate into productive society by connecting them with the appropriate service would ease the emergency response call load.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 166
There are seven existing sixteen-bed PUCCs and two sobering centers in Los Angeles County. This is clearly insufficient given the hundreds of mental health, alcohol and drug related contacts per day with various first responder agencies.
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 166
Five transport vans (one for each Supervisorial District) dispatched by the LAFD are an insufficient number of vehicles to transport mental health patients within the County. Traffic and the size of supervisorial districts create severe impediments to getting help to those who are in need in a timely manner.
No recommendations for this finding
F8 Page 166
The County lacks sufficient mental health facilities to service patients requiring long-term treatment and care. HAVE WE M.E.T.? MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION TEAMS AND HOW THEY WORK 2022-2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
No recommendations for this finding
F9 Page 167
The Mental Health Evaluation “H (Henry) 918” currently operates as a division of the LASD County-wide Services Bureau, not an independent bureau.
No recommendations for this finding
F10 Page 188
We found that DWP has been heavily, and justly, criticized as slow, inefficient, and difficult to work with.
No recommendations for this finding
F11 Page 188
Project completion schedules are delayed or extended far longer than necessary.
No recommendations for this finding
F12 Page 221
Although FEHA prevents landlords from discriminating against applicants and tenants who plan to pay rent using government provided vouchers, HACLA, and the Los Angeles City Attorney do little to enforce this law, and referrals for enforcement are seldom made. Findings re LACDA
No recommendations for this finding
F13 Page 221
LACDA has difficulty recruiting and retaining employees for working on HCVs and especially the EHV temporary program.
No recommendations for this finding
F14 Page 220
HCV applicants and EHV homeless referrals must complete a “byzantine housing application process” and provide extensive documentation, not only of their income, but also identification and verification of citizenship, typically a birth certificate. HOUSING VOUCHERS FOR LOW INCOME AND HOMELESS ANGELENOS 2022-2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
No recommendations for this finding
F15 Page 222
When LACDA clients reach the point of getting selected to apply for and receive Section 8 vouchers, they are given a very limited period of time in which to complete the complex application and assemble the required documentation.
No recommendations for this finding
F16 Page 221
Holders of HCVs and EHVs navigate a difficult rental market and are given only 180 days to find landlords who will accept their vouchers.
No recommendations for this finding
F17 Page 222
Despite LACDA’s landlord outreach and incentive programs, many landlords remain reluctant to accept tenants using HCVs and EHVs.
No recommendations for this finding
F18 Page 222
Many landlords, tenants, and LACDA employees are unaware that FEHA prevents landlords from discriminating against tenants who plan to pay rent using HCVs or EHVs.
No recommendations for this finding
F19 Page 221
Although FEHA prevents landlords from discriminating against applicants and tenants who plan to pay rent using government provided vouchers, LACDA and the Los Angeles County Counsel do little to enforce this law, and referrals for enforcement are seldom made. Findings related to multiple agencies
No recommendations for this finding
F20 Page 220
Having HACLA and LACDA performing the same tasks is an unnecessary duplication of effort and results in confusion and numerous inefficiencies.
No recommendations for this finding
F21 Page 222
LACDA has had considerably better results than HACLA in issuing vouchers and moving applicants into homes.
No recommendations for this finding
F22 Page 220
HACLA’s and LACDA’s Section 8 HCV and EHV programs could be combined into one agency by agreement among the Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor, HACLA, and LACDA. Already, numerous cities contract with LACDA to manage Section 8 programs. HOUSING VOUCHERS FOR LOW INCOME AND HOMELESS ANGELENOS 2022-2023 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
No recommendations for this finding

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.