📋
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.

Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 2012-2013

Board of Supervisors Request and Complaint Procedures Web Contact Form – It is available on the Ask Don page at the

Published: June 06, 2013 303 pages Consolidated Report
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F7

Findings 7 findings

F1
Training of all Custody Personnel As stated before, the Sheriff proposes no significant changes to Academy training.8 This makes sense for many reasons. One, the Academy trains officers for other law enforcement agencies with no Custody responsibility. Further, most of the positions in the Sheriff’s Department are non- custody related. The Sheriff’s Department views the role of the Academy as providing more of a foundation with the probation period being one where the specifics of the job are learned while on the job. Finally, creating a separate Academy will degrade the perception of Custody deputies and Patrol deputies that they are one force. The Grand Jury supports the position of the Sheriff’s Department and does not believe a separate Academy experience needs to happen. That said, more should be and will be done under the Sheriff’s Plan. The Department will in- crease the amount of specific training post Academy from two to four weeks. Those additional two weeks will consist of a “Jail Operation Continuum.” Further, the amount of time spent as- sessing and evaluating deputies will increase from 12 to 16 weeks.
F2
Training of Leadership 7 Sheriff’s Plan, p6 8 Sheriff’s Plan p3 6 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Those at the sergeant level and above will continue to receive 24 hours of training over three days. This training has a largely administrative focus specific to the particular facility. The only additional training being proposed is eight hours of training that would revisit the topics proposed in the “Jail Operations Continuum”. These eight hours would most likely be given in two hour chunks of intense format training. The timing is meant to avoid backfilling a position.9 This may not be enough or the right emphasis. First of all, as conveyed to the Grand Jury and also found running through the Commission’s Report were issues of failure of leadership-- specifically as it relates to mentoring, managing, conveying expectation and communication. Running a jail, especially some of the larger facilities, is a complex operation that involves sev- eral skill sets and contingencies. A career as a deputy may provide the necessary education in jail operations but not necessarily in management. Too much seems to rest on the individual’s intuition when a little training coupled with that common sense could go a long way. Much of the focus on leadership training has been on forms and required paperwork. If a ser- geant is not provided any additional training in areas such as staff assessment, evaluation, men- toring or effective leadership, what will an additional four weeks of assessment time of deputies add? Training should be viewed broadly as not just conveying information but conveying expec- tation. Especially now that sergeants will have to command the respect and train both deputies staying in Custody and those going on Patrol, it is more imperative than ever that they have the tools to stress and continuously emphasize the Nobility Policing and Constitutional Jailing that are stated values of the Department. The idea of providing training in two hour portions is a smart one that will allow a position not to have to be backfilled but the Department, for both cost and for other practical reasons needs to be focused on other methods of teaching these key skills. It may, for example need to award merit points that are necessary for promotion to those deputies and those in leadership who seek out educational opportunities on their own time. The Department is starting and needs to devote more efforts to utilizing on line resources so that individual topics can be learned over a few days. C. Custody Division Training Bureau The Sheriff’s Department is proposing a whole new infrastructure called the Custody Division Training Bureau to focus specifically on training that currently assumes staffing with close to 80- 100 officers of all ranks.10 We appreciate the greater focus on training. Particularly, we applaud the fact that the eight large facilities will have staff exclusively focused on training. The remain- der of the staff being proposed will take a more centralized approach with some focused specifi- cally on violence related issues and others will focus on the already mandated STC (Standards and Training for Correctional Officers) training which is required annually by the state. Information provided by interviews with Sheriff’s Department personnel 10 Interview with key Sheriff Department personnel, report of Implementation Monitor to Board of Supervisors, Feb- ruary 12, 2013 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 7 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Coming up with the proposed structure is just the first step. Funding from the Board of Supervi- sors will make or break this step. Assuming funding is available, creating curriculum that is ef- fective is an even bigger challenge. Curriculum that allows deputies to learn at their own pace sometimes is both more beneficial for learning and potentially more cost effective. Making training meaningful for the responsibilities at hand is also critical, which further requires a more individualized approach. For example, STC training requires that certain topics be covered yearly and by the time those mandatory topics like first aid and CPR training are covered, 70% of the time may already be utilized. There should be a way to pre-test people and let them “test out” of topics they already know. These individuals should be able to move on to other topics. It may be more cost effective to offer incentive payment for classes done through the County’s e- learning system. Finally if the Department truly values education for its staff, then it should cre- ate a culture where learning on one’s own time is considered necessary for promotion. This may entail dealing with potential labor issues. The Department should focus then on making material accessible and high quality. IV. Types of Facilities A. Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) The Commission’s Report focuses primarily on issues that arose at MCJ and extrapolated its findings to the Department as a whole. The Grand Jury visited many of the other facilities and is not sure if the problems of MCJ are necessarily the problems of the system. The Commission Report specifically stated that it would not address the adequacy of the architectural issues at MCJ. Instead it echoes other commissions and reports that call for the demolishing and rebuild- ing of the facility. We raise this issue only to say that in times of limited funding, it may be bet- ter to apply money and require change at those sites as opposed to changing the whole system. B. Other Large Jail Facilities From the Commission Report, it is unclear whether other entities like the Pitchess Ranch facili- ties, which house close to 10,000 inmates, require the same shift in organizational structure and staffing. Given that Dual Track is implemented system-wide, it is still relevant to look at staffing and cultural expectations at other facilities and see if all of the requirements should be imple- mented beyond MCJ. Pitchess Ranch (with its 4 facilities) is essentially its own small city com- plete with several industries and even its own power plant. Much of the housing is dormitory style versus at MCJ where inmates are housed in 2-man and 4-man cells. There are also several businesses on site with multiple workers. On our tour it became evident that it was helpful for the custody officers to learn the communities in these dorm settings. This was especially true in seeing potential issues on the yard during recreation when a few deputies would oversee over 150 inmates at a time. Rotation of officers, which the other sections of the Commission Report recommended, may actually do harm at these facilities. The needs and challenges of Court Facilities also contrast with MCJ. Most of these facilities are run down and as of January 2013, often lacked cameras. The challenge here is the transient population and the danger of smuggling contraband and information between inmates while go- ing back and forth to hearings and the home jail facility. Deputy training would ideally include different modules for these settings. 8 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING
F3
PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Probation Department (Department) has faced many well publicized challenges over the last five years dealing with its operation of juvenile halls and camps. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) learned that many of these challenges come back to issues of staffing and personnel. After discussions with the leadership of the Department, the Grand Jury has chosen to focus on two areas.
F4
Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F5
All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
F6
To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:
F8
LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME LAG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Several negative articles in various Los Angeles area newspapers regarding poor response time to 9-1-1 medical emergency calls within the City of Los Angeles prompted this investigation1. A committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) found that response times in the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) began to increase when its budget was decreased. The Grand Jury believes that the Los Angeles City Council may have relied on inaccurate response time data2 in making its budget reduction decision. The Grand Jury also found that LAFD does not utilize its resources to its best advantage. To be specific, the Grand Jury urges that LAFD’s funding be restored, that its engine companies be reinstated, it incorpo- rate civilian call handlers, use a non-proprietary Emergency Medical Dispatch protocol and up- date technical equipment.

Recommendations 56