9. Sheriff’s Inmate Welfare Fund

There is a lack of public transparency involving the LASD IWF.

The LASD IWF is a “discretionary fund” of the Sheriff and is governed by California Penal Code §4025.

The 11 members of the IWC are appointed by the Sheriff and serve at his pleasure. They do not receive any compensation and meet once a month.

There is no representation of a former inmate who has successfully re-entered society on the IWC or in attendance at IWC meetings, acting in an advisory capacity.

The Sheriff can override any recommendations made by IWC Commissioners.

IWC meetings are not open to the public. Meetings are not governed by the Brown Act.

Minutes from the IWC Meetings are not available to the public.

Annual Financial Statements are prepared by the Los Angeles County Auditor’s Office and submitted to the BOS. LASD website and internet search 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 111

Audits by outside auditing firms are conducted every two to three years. IWC members did not receive copies of the 2011-2014 audit until they inquired, as evidenced in January 29, 2016 Minutes.14

Prior to its repeal in 1998, Section 1043, Title 15, State Correction Standards, recommended that “an annual itemized report of expenditures be submitted to the BOS, posted in each jail facility, and made available to the public,” as reported in the 1999-2000 CGJ report.

This year’s CGJ discovered many valuable and worthwhile programs being funded by the IWF; i.e., Tattoo Removal Program, “Back on Track” Program, Birth Certificate Program, GED Educational and Vocational programs.

In reviewing the Minutes of past IWC meetings, it was found that some members of the Marketing/Branding Committee expressed frustration in not publicizing the programs that are funded by the IWF (i.e. farm program at Pitchess Detention Center; Tattoo Removal Program) and that their suggestions about informing the public about Inmate Welfare funded programs are not being fully addressed.15

In reviewing copies of the LASD (draft) revised IWC Bylaws,16 it appears that the role of the IWC is being diminished; e.g. “Duties of the Commission: Approve funding requests by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for projects benefiting inmates housed in the jail facilities of Los Angeles County, review ongoing projects, and set discuss funding priorities from/for the Inmate Welfare Fund of Los Angeles County, in accordance with Penal Code 4025.” (Emphasis added).

In reviewing the Minutes of IWC meetings, it appears that annual spending plans are not being reviewed or approved in a timely manner, as set forth in the Bylaws.17

The LASD Director of Facilities Bureau has authority to spend up to 49% of the IWF proceeds without official review or approval of the IWC. The Director appears at the IWC meetings as a courtesy and provides updates pertaining to the IWF expenditures on maintenance to LASD jail facilities.18

The CGJ is not aware of any inappropriate usage of IWF. We do, however, question the follow-up and oversight of some of the programs that are in place and whether adequate performance measures are being used to report back to the IWC in recommending continuance or improvements needed in programs.19

The CGJ witnessed a presentation of the Tattoo Removal Program at the March 2017 IWC meeting wherein $250,000 in overtime was requested by staff to continue the program. 14 1/29/16 IWC chairman inquired when last audit was completed. Dir. Joe advised it was completed August 2015 and a copy would be provided to the IWC 15 IWC Minutes: January, February, March, October, November 2016 16 Draft of revised Bylaws obtained 3/2/17 from LASD Inmate Services Bureau senior official 17 Ibid. Meeting with LASD senior staff Facilities Bureau 19 IWC Minutes, 2/26/16 requesting program reports to show value 112 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT When commissioners questioned staff on the funding request, staff was unclear on how many months it would cover. Many questions were raised about the need for overtime instead of straight time. Alternatives or suggestions from the commissioners in efforts to avoid the use of overtime in providing tattoo removal services to inmates was not taken up at that time.

Some senior LASD program managers were unable to readily explain to the CGJ the financial status of various programs, activities and expenditures.

In reviewing IWC Minutes, it does not appear that commissioners are aware of weekly Town Hall meetings with inmates, or getting feedback in soliciting inmates’ comments regarding IWF expenditures and/or programs.20

The term “not needed” as used in §4025 is vague. V