Final Report 2001 - 2002

Recommendations 102

• R1
  – The Inmate services Unit, with the involvement of the IWF Commission, should develop a strategic plan. Sheriff’s response – A two-year strategic plan was developed including a mission statement, objectives and commission strategies.
• R02
  265 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis working to complete Live Scan background check results. Transitional Services costs are reportedly for Wraparound and the new Case Management services at MacLaren. The new General Services overtime category includes facility service, such as laundry and kitchen services. Volunteer Coordination is an additional new category with overtime costs in the current fiscal year. This is a small unit within MacLaren and works overtime when a special event is planned, generally on weekends. ONE-ON-ONE SUPERVISION A major component of Residential Services overtime costs is for One-on-One Supervision. As mentioned earlier, this is when a cottage staff person, either a Children’s Social Worker or a Group Supervisor, is assigned to and stays with only one child for a certain amount of time because the child appears to be a danger to him or herself, others or the facility. One-on-One assignments are primarily determined by cottage staff, though they are occasionally court-ordered and in many cases are originally ordered by mental health staff during intake. Often, the children themselves request it, according to MacLaren staff. The duration of these assignments is also determined by Residential Services staff and usually lasts from one to seven days. This intensive level of supervision represents a significant cost to MacLaren. To illustrate the fiscal impact of extensive One-on-One services, Exhibit 6.6 presents actual overtime costs attributed just to One-on-One supervision for a recent eight day period. DCFS staff developed these approximate estimates of overtime costs for One-on- One Supervision staff at MacLaren during the period from March 3 to March 11, 2002. The data, as shown in Exhibit 6.6, indicates that $92,972.84 was spent during that period on Overtime costs for just One-on-One Supervision, representing 2,418 staff hours. This is slightly more than the equivalent of one position for an entire year. Exhibit 6.6 One-on–One Supervision Overtime Costs March 3, 2002 to March 11, 2002 Overtime Hourly Time and Item Total Hours Paid Rate one Half SCSW 144.5 $31.03 $46.54 $6,725.59 CSW 1,588.0 $27.70 $41.55 $65,984.14 CSW 75.0 $27.70 $41.55 $3,116.38 A/N GS II 221.5 $21.19 $31.79 $7,040.95 GSN 389.0 $17.32 $25.98 $10,105.78 Total 2,418 $92,972.84 Source: Special report; MacLaren Children’s Center 266 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis DCFS SERVICES AND SUPPLIES The area of greatest cost increase within the DCFS budget, Services and Supplies, was approximately $5.1 million in FY 2000-01, up from $3.7 million in FY 1999-00, an increase of $1.4 million or 37.4 percent. Projections for the current fiscal year, 2001-02, are for $6.5 million in expenditures. Details on DCFS’ Services and Supplies expenditures are presented in Exhibit 6.7. It should be noted that the total expenditure amounts shown in Exhibit 6.7 are at slight variance with the totals in Exhibit 6.2 above. The detail was available only from the Chief Administrative Officer’s budget office and did not include all of the same expenditures as the total available from MacLaren budget staff. As the data in Exhibit 6.7 below indicates, the three largest non-personnel costs in FY 2000-01 are Building Maintenance and Improvements, Professional and Special Services and Food. These three cost components accounted for 68.1 percent of DCFS’ total Services and Supplies costs in FY 99-00 and 72.3 percent in FY 00-01. Building Maintenance and Improvements and Professional and Special Services also represent the largest increases between the two years. Building maintenance and improvements increased for repairs due primarily to vandalism according to MacLaren staff. This is expected to increase further in FY 2002-03, though MacLaren has secured a new vendor that is to provide unbreakable chairs in the future so this cost should be expected to go down. Also, a decrease in this cost could be one indicator of the success of One-on-One supervision. Exhibit 6.7 DCFS Services and Supplies Actual Expenditures MacLaren Children’s Center % Expense FY 99-00 FY 00-01 Change Change Building Maint. & Improvement $1,073,465 $1,940,966 $867,501 80.8% Professional & Special Services $789,861 $1,007,516 $217,655 27.6% Food $658,973 $730,169 $71,196 10.8% Utilities $348,187 $541,858 $193,671 55.6% Household Expense $491,353 $525,271 $33,918 6.9% Communications $215,247 $222,726 $7,479 3.5% Special Departmental Expense $53,303 $45,420 ($7,883) -14.8% Clothing & Personal Supplies $57,718 $43,282 ($14,436) -25.0% Administrative and General $4,154 $16,852 $12,698 305.7% Auto Mileage $5,263 $11,361 $6,098 115.9% Auto Service $3,415 $1,108 ($2,307) -67.6% Office Expense – Other $1,300 $906 ($394) -30.3% Rent & Leases – Equipment – $156 - Grand Total $3,702,239 $5,087,591 $1,385,352 37.4% Source: Chief Administrative Office expenditure reports 267 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis Approximately $700,000 of the $1 million expended for Professional and Special Services was for contract as-needed nursing services provided in addition to Department of Health Services staffing at the facility. MacLaren budget staff report that DHS claims they cannot pay for these positions from their revenue sources. Another high Services and Supplies cost at MacLaren is Utilities, which increased $193,671 or 55.6 percent between FY 1999-00 and 2000-01, due primarily to the energy crisis in California. With the consolidation of MacLaren, the cost of utilities will be shared among the various departments. Payment will be broken down based on the percentage of staff at MacLaren. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH EXPENDITURES The Department of Mental Health (DMH) has the second largest expenditures of the four main agencies at MacLaren. Estimated DMH expenditures for FY 2000-01 were approximately $6.3 million. They are projected to decline in the current fiscal year, 2001- 02, to approximately $4.6 million, as shown in Exhibit 6.8. As with all agencies at MacLaren except DCFS, DMH’s budget and expenditure information is not tracked by or reported to MacLaren management. To obtain the expenditure data presented in Exhibit 6.8 DMH management at MacLaren assembled current staffing and salary information and DMH’s central fiscal staff extracted budgeted and actual costs from their financial system. MacLaren’s budget staff reports 110 positions budgeted for DMH services at MacLaren in FY 2000-01. The information from these two sources was discrepant and speaks to the lack of regular monitoring and reporting of budgeted or actual DMH expenditures by either DMH or MacLaren management. Exhibit 6.8 Department of Mental Health Expenditures Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2000-2001 2001-20026 Salary $5,928,487 $4,377,518 and Benefits Services $434,282 $187,870 and Supplies Total $6,362,769 $4,565,388 Source: Salaries & Benefits: DMH Staff at MacLaren Children’s Center Services & Supplies: DMH Fiscal reports A comparison of DMH budgeted and actual expenditures for FY 2000-01, shown in Exhibit 6.9, reveals that the department appears to be over-budgeting for MacLaren Children’s Center as actual expenditures were nearly $2 million less than the adopted 6 Annualized based on actual expenditures of $2,282,684 as of 12/31/01. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis budget amount of $8.3 million. Staffing changes and vacancies could explain salary and benefits under-expenditures but the variation raises the question of whether the budget is overstated or whether all costs are being properly charged in the DMH system. This becomes more of a possibility given the fact that DMH’s MacLaren costs are not routinely reported and reviewed by MacLaren management. Exhibit 6.9 Comparison of DMH Budget and Actual Expenditures Fiscal Year 2000-01 Adopted Actual Difference Budget $7,277,935 Salary and Benefits $5,928,487 ($1,349,448) Services and $1,052,349 $434,282 ($618,067) Supplies Total $8,330,284 $6,362,769 ($1,967,515) Source: Budget: Adopted DMH Budget Actual: DMH staff at MacLaren and DMH fiscal reports As discussed above, a performance measurement system is needed for many of the services and activities at MacLaren. Outcome measures should be developed for mental health services so that management can assess the relative effectiveness of mental health service options for the children at MacLaren. Key indicators should include the number of children admitted to psychiatric hospitals and the number of crisis interventions performed by staff. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES EXPENDITURES Like DMH, Department of Health Services (DHS) expenditures presented in Exhibit 6.10 are not regularly tracked and reported to MacLaren. This cost information was not available from MacLaren staff but was extracted from the DHS financial system by DHS fiscal staff at the request of the auditors. DHS expenditures have increased over the three fiscal years reviewed from approximately $2.4 million in FY 1999-00 to $3.6 million in FY 2001-02, as projected by DHS fiscal staff, an increase of 47.3 percent. Salaries and benefits are projected to increase from approximately $1.8 million in FY 1999-00 to $2.4 million by the end of FY 2001-02, an increase of 39.7 percent. Services and Supplies expenditures are projected to increase by $593,879, or 89.2 percent, between FY 1999-00 and the end of 2001-02. MacLaren’s budget staff reports 24 positions budgeted for DHS services at MacLaren in FY 2000-01. While MacLaren management may have been involved in discussions concerning medical staff resources at MacLaren, information on actual fiscal impacts has not been made available to MacLaren. DHS management continues to control the management structure of the medical services unit even though some MacLaren staff believe that the 269 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis unit does not require both a highly paid Nurse Manager to manage the nursing staff and a highly paid physician with no management responsibility for the unit. If MacLaren management had organizational and fiscal control, it could consider various alternatives to obtain the most cost-effective management structure for the unit and put any resulting savings to other uses. Exhibit 6.10 Department of Health Services Expenditures Category FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-027 Salaries and Benefits $1,787,674 $1,927,947 $2,350,481 Services and Supplies $666,002 $930,160 $1,259,881 Other Charges $0 $23 $4,000 Equipment $0 $0 $0 Total $2,453,676 $2,858,130 $3,614,362 Source: Special report produced by LAC+USC Management DHS records show that most DHS costs are Net County Costs, or not reimbursed by Medi-Cal or other non-County revenue sources. In FY 2000-01, for example, the Department’s Net County Costs for services at MacLaren were approximately $1.7 million, or 58.6 percent of total costs. This is another reason MacLaren management should be actively involved in determining the most cost-effective staffing and service levels for its medical services unit as Net County Cost money could be transferred and used for other purposes within MacLaren. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION EXPENDITURES As shown in Exhibit 6.11, LACOE expenditures, while increasing slightly, have remained stable over the three-year period. Total FY 2000-01 spending of approximately $2.5 million was approximately $214,641, or 9.3 percent, more than the prior fiscal year. LACOE revenues and spending are determined mostly by average daily attendance at school. According to LACOE, the average daily attendance in FY 1999-00 was 101, while that number increased to 110 in FY 00-01. This is a forecast amount made in January 2002 by Department of Health Services staff. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis Exhibit 6.11 Overall LACOE Expenditures Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20028 Certificated Salaries $1,081,491 $1,146,739 $744,638 Classified Salaries $482,393 $571,006 $216,300 Employee Benefits $420,001 $436,270 $203,760 Books and Supplies $39,822 $39,566 $19,802 Contract Services and $26,235 $33,750 $14,236 Operating Costs Capital Outlay $11,369 $7,662 $0.00 Allocated and Documented $127,603 $151,845 $23,260 Direct Support Indirect Support -Unlimited $130,356 $147,072 $0.00 Total $2,319,270 $2,533,910 $1,221,996 Source: Los Angeles County Office of Education Several aspects of LACOE expenditures saw significant increases during the period reviewed. The largest increase in LACOE expenditures were in Classified Salaries, such as para-educators, clerical staff, and sub assistants, where expenses increased by $88,613,or 18.4 percent in FY 00-01. Within Classified Salaries, Sub-Assistant salaries increased by 641.7 percent from $13,264 in FY 99-00 to $98,377 in FY 2000-01. LACOE spending on substitute teachers increased by 256 percent, or $79,130 over the two fiscal years. Comparatively, teachers’ salaries assigned to MacLaren increased by 14.4 percent. However, these increases were offset by reductions in Counselor salaries (- 100 percent or $13,369.80) and teacher special assignments (-63.3 percent or $144,532.45). LACOE revenues are State funds dedicated to school funding. If MacLaren Children’s Center management were able to reduce costs at the school through more control over operations there, the savings would not become available for other purposes at MacLaren. However, MacLaren management should still be involved in reviewing LACOE’s costs to monitor for cost-effectiveness. LACOE management reports that the school is currently operating at a deficit. CAO The CAO charges for MacLaren are estimates based on data from a number of sources. Of the $306,788 CAO charge to MacLaren, $69,730 is a direct charge to MacLaren for services. These charges range from $28,420 in Integration Services to $22,400 in Budgetary Services to $70 in Legi-Tech Services. The additional costs of CAO to 8 As of February 12, 2002. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis MacLaren are from the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium Fiscal Year 2002- 2003 Budget request of three budgeted positions at MacLaren. However, according to CAO staff, the $237,418 cost for the positions at MacLaren is distributed across the departments and agencies within the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium. PROCUREMENT AT MACLAREN CHILDREN’S CENTER The Operational Agreement governing the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium and operations at MacLaren explains the mission of the various departments and agencies, as well as the MacLaren Administrator. The Operational Agreement details the MacLaren Administrator’s role and responsibility regarding procurement. Specifically, the Operational Agreement states that: “The MacLaren Administrator shall also have delegated authority to approve procurement of goods and services related to MacLaren operations.” However, the MacLaren Administrator currently is only involved in the procurement process for the Department of Children and Family Services. Even with the effort to get more cooperation with the various departments at MacLaren, procurement is still handled by the individual departments. This was substantiated through interviews with DCFS MacLaren staff who had no knowledge regarding the procurement policy of other departments at MacLaren. The Department of Health Services has its own procurement process where items are bought subject to the needs of DHS staff. Once the equipment is identified as needed, DHS staff fills out an internal HS-2 form and the form is sent to LAC-USC for proper authorization. Once at LAC-USC, the forms will receive proper authorization and the request will be analyzed against the Services and Supplies budget by DHS finance staff to confirm funds are available in the budget for the purchase request. Once these steps are successfully completed, the product will be ordered and delivered to MacLaren. The MCC Administrator is not involved in the procurement process for DHS. There are exceptions, however, where several departments will work together on procurement of large items. For instance, the dental office for MacLaren is in the process of purchasing a new x-ray machine and a dental chair. According to LAC-USC staff, for large purchases needed for the Center, the Administrator will have more direct involvement in the process but final approval authority remains in DHS. Procurement for the MacLaren school starts with a purchase requisition form from the Principal, Assistant Principal, teachers, or a committee of the principal and teachers. The purchase requisition form is then sent to the Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools Budget Analyst for verification against the budget. According to LACOE staff, the Budget Analyst will confirm that funds are available in the budget or a staff accountant will complete the process. Once verification is approved, the purchase order will go to the LACOE Purchasing Department or a similar department based on the type 272 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis of order. According to LACOE staff, the MacLaren Administrator has no involvement in the LACOE procurement process. In general, it appears the MacLaren Administrator has limited involvement in the procurement process at MacLaren. There are exceptions, however, and these include DCFS procurement, where the MCC Administrator appears to have more involvement than in the other departments. To verify that MacLaren DCFS employees were following the proper procurement authorization policy, random samples of procurement files were evaluated for completeness. The types of purchases examined were for food products ranging from meat, bread, and dairy products to fruits and vegetables. Other purchases in the sample were cleaning products, pest control, pillowcases, and helium. To analyze procurement procedures at MacLaren we verified whether the DCFS Form 250 had proper authorization. Currently, authorization can only come from the MCC Administrator, an Administrative Services Manager III in the Administrative Services Division at MacLaren, or her report, a Children’s Services Administrator. According to MacLaren staff, the procurement process will not continue unless the DCFS 250 form is properly signed. However, DCFS staff indicated that the MCC Administrator rarely signs the DCFS Form 250 but is kept apprised of procurement. The review of procurement showed the following: • 86.7 percent of the files had proper authorization on the DCFS Form 250; • 13.3 percent of the files examined did not contain the DCFS Form 250; • 100 percent of the procurement files contained the Purchase Order; and • 100 percent of the files contained the product invoice. The procurement files were up to date for the current fiscal year. Analysis of procurement files from previous fiscal years was difficult due to the lack of organization and the difficulty in locating earlier files. According to MacLaren staff, this is the direct result of high turnover in the procurement position. STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE Earlier in this report, a change in staffing was recommended that would phase out the extensive use of Children’s Social Workers as the core staffing in the cottages and replace most of them with mental health workers such as Licensed Psychiatric Technicians. These would be more effective classifications for the population at MacLaren and would lower costs as their salaries are lower. Use of effective mental health techniques and approaches should also lower the costs now being incurred for the high cost of One-on-One services. One of the key points of this section is that the MacLaren Administrator does not have control over all costs or service levels at the facility. Contracting for services should be considered as an alternative to the status quo as a means of gaining control over costs and 273 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis service outcomes in the event that this cannot be accomplished with the other County agencies that provide services at MacLaren. Other means of making MacLaren more cost effective would include identifying all new administrative positions and costs related to the consolidation and reducing those costs at the agencies that used to provide those administrative services such as DCFS. Based on the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget request only the Department of Children and Family Services will gain new FTE positions. In particular 39 new positions are proposed for MacLaren within DCFS. Of these 39 new positions, 18 positions will go toward the formation of new administrative functions, as MacLaren becomes administratively independent. The addition of positions should be offset with reductions in positions within the main budgets of DCFS and the other agencies that provide staff at MacLaren. Specifically, the 18 new administrative positions should come from the DCFS Administration budget. However, based on the draft of the proposed changes to the FY 2002-2003 budget from the FY 2001-2002 budget, the 39 new positions are offset by a reduction of only three positions in the DCFS Administration budget. Other options should be considered including revising the management structure to eliminate duplication and create greater equity in responsibilities among managers. Currently there are seven second level managers from DCFS and DMH (Children’s Services Administrators or their equivalent in Mental Health) with a median of 57 total reporting employees. However, three of the positions have well under the median number reporting to them: 12, 23, and 33. To truly consolidate and coordinate services, the barriers between the old agencies should be eliminated and managers should be expected to oversee functions that were previously exclusively under the jurisdiction of one of the agencies. By doing so and making the numbers of staff assigned to managers more comparable, the total number of second level managers could be reduced from seven to at least five. Salaries do not seem excessively high at MacLaren. A majority of staff salaries at MacLaren falls between the $40,000 and $50,000 salary range. A majority of these positions are DCFS Children’s Social Workers. Overall, 91.2 percent of all employees at MacLaren make less than $60,000 a year. The more important issue is the high number of positions, particularly Children’s Social Workers/Group Supervisors, the absence of good financial tracking and reporting systems for all costs at MacLaren and the absence of a system for measuring outcomes related to the costs incurred. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis CONCLUSION Though its total costs are very high, MacLaren Children’s Center management functions without benefit of basic financial tracking information and systems. A consolidated budget does not exist nor are actual facility-wide expenditures reported to management to ensure accountability and to enable analyses of costs compared to outcomes. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has always treated MacLaren Children’s Center as a separate cost center so the budget and actual expenditures for the DCFS portion of MacLaren is readily available. Similarly, the school operated on site by the Los Angeles County Office of Education is a separate cost center for that organization and those costs and expenditures are readily available though not reported to the MacLaren Administrator or financial officer. Budgeted and actual expenditures incurred by the Departments of Mental Health and Health Services at MacLaren are not tracked or reported separately and MacLaren management does not routinely receive this information. Decisions and controls regarding staffing levels, procurement of fixed assets and overtime are decided by the parent agencies, not the MacLaren Administrator. Extraction and compilation of budgeted and actual expenditures for the primary agencies at MacLaren revealed that actual expenditures in FY 2000-01 was an estimated $37,713,970, or $728 per child per day. For FY 2001-02, projected costs per child per day will be $757 or $276,305 per year. With such high costs, it is critical that the MacLaren Administrator and management is informed on all expenditures and has the ability to control costs. In addition, MacLaren management should be responsible for ensuring that any new costs or services are reasonable relative to the services provided. Such systems are not in place at this time though the facility’s Operational Agreement delegates “direct authority and responsibility for all on site multiagency service delivery” to the Administrator. To have this level of authority without the benefit of cost information is a poor management practice. Potential opportunities exist to lower costs without worsening program outcomes through restructuring MacLaren’s management structure, consolidating and controlling procurement, and allocating staff and other resources based on outcomes rather than maintenance of the status quo. All of this requires consolidated financial information and reporting and authority and accountability delegated to the Administrator. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above findings, it is recommended that the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 6.1 Direct staff to develop a cost tracking and reporting system so that all budget and actual expenditures are consolidated, reviewed and approved by the MacLaren Administrator and reported to the Consortium; (Recommendation 125) 6.2 Direct staff to delegate authority over funding and service levels for all services at MacLaren to the Administrator; (Recommendation 126) 275 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis 6.3 Revise procurement policies so that the Administrator is responsible and accountable for all procurement at MacLaren; (Recommendation 127) 6.4 Direct staff to design and implement performance measurement systems for measuring outcomes of existing and any new proposed staffing or services; (Recommendation 128) 6.5 Consider alternative staffing levels and approaches to obtain desired outcomes including eliminating barriers between agencies so that managers can assume responsibility for staff from different agencies and the number of managers can be reduced; (Recommendation 129) 6.6 Consider and obtain comparative cost information for contracting for services now provided by various County agencies if they are unwilling to relinquish control over service and staffing levels to the MacLaren Administrator; (Recommendation 130) 6.7 Establish a policy of reducing costs in the parent agencies when administrative functions are transferred to MacLaren; and, (Recommendation 131) 6.8 Obtain comparative cost information regarding contracting for all services at MacLaren. (Recommendation 132) COSTS AND BENEFITS Greater fiscal responsibility and cost effectiveness should result from the above recommendations. There would be no new direct costs associated with implementation of these recommendations. SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services
• R2
  2 is implemented, and may be reduced to spot-checking Detention Reports thereafter, assuming the incidence of violations is sufficiently low. (Recommendation 138) 2.4 Develop a services handbook for Emergency Response Command Post workers to carry, utilizing information on available service resources that has already been developed by regional offices. (Recommendation 139) SAVINGS AND BENEFITS Implementing the recommendations in this section would ensure that reasonable efforts are provided to families investigated for abuse and neglect allegations, and that those efforts are properly reported to the Superior Court. This would require a slight amount of additional time for Detention Report preparation by Emergency Response social workers. The monitoring of the recommendations by Intake and Detention Control staff would also require some slight additional time in statistical reporting. The recommendations would also ensure that Emergency Response Command Post staff has current information on services available in various areas of the County. These recommendations should have minimal costs, essentially limited to costs of reproducing the services handbook for ERCP staff. Section 3: Use of Assessment Tools and Procedures Section 3: Use of Assessment Tools and Procedures • To assist social workers in assessing allegations of child abuse and neglect, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) requires use of “assessment tools” as a means of analyzing the information collected by Child Abuse Hotline screeners, and by Emergency Response social workers investigating in person. The Department also has an extensive procedures manual. However, a review of 68 case files, and interviews with social workers, found these tools are not always properly used. For example, in only 42.6 percent of the case files reviewed was the Assessment Guide properly filled out by the Emergency Response social worker. Furthermore, the tool used by most Emergency Response workers does not reflect the most current research in the field. Also, while the Department’s procedures manual is extensive, there are gaps in some areas, and the manual is not formatted in a manner that would be easy for ER workers to refer to in the field. • As a result, the Department is not assured that the goals of the assessment tools and procedures, which are to ensure consistency and accuracy in investigations, are met. • By fully implementing the Structured Decision-Making system now in use as a pilot project, and providing social workers with research showing its effectiveness, the Department will have greater assurance that the tools are used as intended, and that their purpose is accomplished. The Department should complete missing portions of its Procedure Guide for social workers and use portions of the Guide to develop a procedural manual specifically for use by Emergency Response and Dependency Investigator social workers, similar to that previously developed for the Child Abuse Hotline, so that these workers can carry with them only the procedures that directly relate to their function. In investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect, social workers gather information from a variety of contacts, and must then draw
• R3
  – IWF should invest in the future by targeting a percent of available annual funding for innovative pilot programs. Sheriff’s response – A portion of the fund was to be set aside for innovative pilot programs, however, no specific percentage was stated. In 2000-2001 budget, $1.5 million was set aside; in 2001-2002 no set-aside was found in the budget.
• R4
  – The Sheriff’s Department should target definable subsets of the inmate population for selection and participation in programs developed specifically for them. Sheriff’s response – There was no specific policy to identify any subset of inmates to be included in pilot programs, new or old.
• R5
  – The IWF should measure and evaluate the success of IWF funded programs. Sheriff’s response – By policy, each new program was to be evaluated for overall effectiveness at the end of the test period. On-going programs were to be assessed annually.
• R6
  – The Inmate Services Unit should initiate project-tracking procedures for all IWF funded projects. Sheriff’s response – A system for reporting from divisions within the department that used IWF monies has been implemented and all programs were to be reviewed annually and presented to the commission.
• R7
  – The IWF Commission should review and approve all expenditures made through the fund. Sheriff’s response – The commission was empowered to review expenditures from the inmate programs portion of the fund only (51% of the fund). Facility maintenance issues addressed by the IWF (49% of the fund) were reviewed by the facility manager, county counsel and the budget authority.
• R8
  – The Inmate services Unit should schedule annual financial audits of the IWF that are performed by or under the guidance of the Auditor-Controller. Sheriff’s response – the IWF was audited in October, 2001 by an outside entity. Changes in the IWF procedures were put in place in March, 2001.
• R9
  – The Sheriff’s Department should proactively pursue a national and international leadership role in inmate program innovations. Sheriff’s response – The IWF manual encouraged commissioners and jail staff to “ . . . attend presentations, conferences and training throughout the country . . . .” to research new inmate programs in other systems. In addition the Large Jail Network and the Internet were to be used as a tool to search for new programs. The Jury found the IWF to be compliant with existing laws and policies. Eight of nine 1999- 2000 Grand Jury recommendations were implemented. It should be noted that the IWF is well run. The administrators of the fund are open to scrutiny, willing to listen, and amenable to adjust procedures in order to make the fund more efficient. The Penal Code and department policies offer the Sheriff wide fiscal latitude in the disbursement of IWF funds, especially on the facility maintenance side. Since the IWF has the designation of Special Fund, the annual budget need not be spent and monies can be carried over. The discretion allowed the Sheriff may appear arbitrary, however, it is necessary to accomplish long- term goals, smooth the ups and downs of a cyclic economy and provide inmates with the most useful services. JAILS COMMITTEE INMATE WELFARE FUND Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department RECOMMENDATIONS 68. The Jails Committee recommends to succeeding grand juries that they monitor the IWF for compliance with the law and its own policies. 69. The Jails Committee recommends that succeeding grand juries scrutinize the IWF expenditures (or lack thereof) to see that the accumulation of monies is not excessive and monies are being prudently applied to meet the Sheriff’s mandate of providing services to the inmates. 70. The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department refine the procedures manual by including a specific percentage of the IWF balance to be set aside in each budget year for new pilot programs. 71. The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department state in the Welfare Commission Fiscal Handbook that not only will 51% of the IWF balance be budgeted, but also spent on inmate programs each year. If any portion of the inmate program money is not spent, it should be carried over to the next fiscal year as funds for inmate programs only. It should not be co-mingled with facility maintenance funds. JAILS COMMITTEE Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Biscailuz Recovery Center Bridges to Recovery Domestic Violence Program Limited Scope Management Audit
• R10
  The Education Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Unified School District establish procedures to monitor the expenditure of lottery monies allocated to charter schools to ensure that such expenditures are in accordance with the restrictions of State law. Respondent – Los Angeles Unified School District
• R11
  The Education Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors along with the Los Angeles Unified School District urge the State Legislature to amend Government Code Section 8880.4 to require local educational agencies to establish special funds for the receipt and expenditure of lottery educational and instructional material monies to ensure the use of such funds in accordance with the intent of State law. Further, a maintenance of effort requirement based on FY 1997-98 expenditure levels per ADA (average daily attendance) should be established and annually adjusted in accordance with annual changes in the consumer price index, to ensure local educational agencies do not supplant existing funding sources. Respondent – Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles Unified School District Government Operations Committee ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES
• R12
  The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should urge the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters to evaluate more extensively the electronic voting machine, during voting, especially as to its acceptability by the voting public, the ease with which it is moved and handled, its vulnerability to functional disruption accidentally or through intentional sabotage, and the accuracy with which it seems to operate.
• R13
  The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should urge the United States Congressmen representing districts in the County of Los Angeles to urge the Federal Government to rescind the mandate preventing the use of punch-card voting techniques, until such time as a suitably constructed and adequately protected electronic voting machine has been satisfactorily tested.
• R14
  The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should request from the Federal Government sufficient financing to cover the additional cost that the County of Los Angeles will incur if forced to adopt a new voting machine system before protection for the system has been provided, especially if the new machine involved must be adopted before the machine itself has been completely tested and proven.
• R15
  The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should direct the County Registrar of Voters not to enlarge the area of voting districts without improving accommodations at and transportation to the new polling places. GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITEE Los Angeles County Commissions
• R16
  The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury should maintain the established library of important Civil Grand Jury reference documents and reports.
• R17
  The Government Operations Committee recommends that subsequent Los Angeles County Civil Grand Juries should place in the permanent library file the list of Los Angeles County Commissions compiled by the Government Operations Committee of the 2001-2002 Civil Grand Jury.
• R18
  The Government Operations Committee recommends that subsequent Los Angeles County Civil Grand Juries should review this list of Los Angeles County Commissions annually and update it as necessary. LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMISSIONS Alphabetical Listing Aging Los Angeles County Commission on Aging Agriculture Agricultural Commissioner, Department of Weights and Measures Alcoholism Commission on Alcoholism Arts Los Angeles County Arts Commission Aviation Aviation Commission, Department of Public Works Beach Los Angeles County Beach Commission Business License Business License Commission Cerritos Regional County Park Cerritos Regional County Park Authority Commission Children and Families Commission for Children and Families Children and Families-First-Proposition 10 Los Angeles County Children and Families First-Proposition 10 Commission Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Los Angeles County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Commission Civil Service Civil Service Commission Community Development Community Development Commission Board of Commissioners Disabilities Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Services Commission Emergency Preparedness Emergency Preparedness Commission for the County and Cities of Los Angeles Employee Relations Employee Relations Commission Fish and Game Fish and Game Commission Health Facility Los Angeles County Health Facilities Authority Commission Highway Safety Los Angeles Highway Safety Commission Historical Landmarks Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission HIV Health Services Commission on HIV Health Services Hospital and Health Care Delivery Hospitals and Health Care Delivery Commission Housing Authority Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Human Relations Commission on Human Relations Information Systems Information Systems Commission Institutional Inspections Sybil Brand Commission for Institutional Inspections Insurance Los Angeles County Commission on Insurance Judicial Procedures Commission on Judicial Procedures Library Library Commission Local Agency Formation Local Agency Formation Commission Local Government Service Los Angeles County Commission on Local Government Services 38 Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Los Angeles County Convention and Exhibition Center Authority Commission Los Angeles County Downey Regional Public Recreational Area Los Angeles County Downey Regional Public Recreation Area Commission Los Angeles County Martin Luther King Jr. General Hospital Los Angeles County Martin Luther King Jr. General Hospital Authority Commission Memorial Coliseum Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission Mental Health Los Angeles County Mental Health Commission Milk Los Angeles County Milk Commission Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Commission Native American Indian Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Commission Probation Probation Commission Public Health Public Health Commission Public Social Services Commission for Public Social Services Quality and Productivity Quality and Productivity Commission Real Estate Management Real Estate Management Commission Regional Planning Regional Planning Commission Small Business Los Angeles County Small Business Commission Solid Waste Authority Los Angeles Solid Waste Authority Commission Sybil Brand Institutional Inspection Sybil Brand Commission for Institutional Inspection Veterans Advisory Los Angeles County Veterans Advisory Commission Women Commission for Women 39 LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMISSIONS Contact Information Agricultural Commission Department of Weights and Measures 12300 Lower Azusa Road Arcadia, 91006 626-575-5471 626-575-5453 Aviation Commission Department of Public Works Aviation Division 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, 91803-1331 626-458-7389 Business License Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 379 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-7691 Cerritos Regional County Park Authority Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1403 Civil Service Commission 222 North Grand Avenue, Room 522 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-2411 Commission for Children and Families 500 West Temple Street, Room B-22 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1558 Commission for Public Social Services 12860 Crossroads Parkway South City of Industry, 91746 562-908-8669 Commission for Women 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1403 40 Commission on Alcoholism 1000 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, 91803-4737 626-298-4106 Commission on HIV Health Services 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, 6th Floor Los Angeles, 90005 213-351-8127 Commission on Human Relations 320 West Temple Street, Room 1184 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-7601 Commission on Judicial Proceedings 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213- 974- 1403 Community Development Commission Board of Commissioners 2 Coral Circle Monterey Park, 91755-7425 213-890-7001 Consumer Affairs Advisory Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room B-96 Los Angeles, 90012 213- 974-9750 Emergency Medical Services Commission 5555 Ferguson Drive, Suite 220 Commerce, 90022 323-890-7545 Emergency Preparedness Commission for the County and Cities of Los Angeles 1275 North Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, 90063 323-980-2266 Employee Relations Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 374 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-2417 41 Fish and Game Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213 974-1403 Hospitals and Health Care Delivery Commission 313 North Figueroa Street, Room 903 Los Angeles, 90012 213-240-7731 Housing Authority Board of Commissioners 2 Coral Circle Monterey Park, 91755-7425 213-890-7001 Information Systems Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1431 Library Commission 7400 East Imperial Highway, Room 201 Downey, 90241 562-940-8400 Local Agency Formation Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1448 Los Angeles City-County Native American Indian Commission 3175 West 6th Street Los Angeles, 90020 213- 351-5308 Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Authority Commission 1201 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, 90015 213-741-1151 Los Angeles County Arts Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 374 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1343 42 Los Angeles County Beach Commission 13837 Fiji Way Marina del Rey, 90292 310-305-9546 Los Angeles County Children and Families First--Proposition 10 Commission 333 South Beaudry, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, 90017 213-482-5902 Los Angeles County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 163 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1491 Los Angeles County Commission on Aging 3333 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, 90010 213-738-2947 Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1403 Los Angeles County Commission on Insurance 500 West Temple Street Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1403 Los Angeles County Commission on Local Government Services 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1403 Los Angeles County Health Facilities Authority Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angles, 90012 213-974-1403 Los Angeles County Highway Safety Commission 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, 91803-1331 626-458-5822 43 Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 383 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1431 Los Angeles County Housing Commission 2 Coral Circle Monterey Park, 91755 323-850-7405 Los Angeles County Mental Health Commission 550 South Vermont Avenue, 12th Floor Los Angeles, 90020 213-738-4772 Los Angeles County Milk Commission 2525 Corporate Place, Room 150 Monterey Park, 91754 323-881-4006 Los Angeles County Small Business Commission 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 27 Los Angeles, 90017 213-430-5340 Los Angeles County Veteran’s Advisory Commission 1816 South Figueroa Street, Suite 100 Los Angeles, 90015 213-744-4827 Los Angeles County Downey Regional Public Recreation Area Commission Post Office Box 7016 Downey, 90241-7016 562-904-7280 Los Angeles County Martin Luther King, Jr., General Hospital Authority Commission 500 West Temple Street, Room 313 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1403 Los Angeles Memorial Museum Commission 3911 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, 90037 213-765-6711 44 Los Angeles Solid Waste Authority Commission 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, 91803 626-458-4014 Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Commission 1000 South Fremont Avenue Building A-9 East, 3rd Fl. Alhambra, 91803-4737 626-299-4105 Parks and Recreation Commission 433 South Vermont Avenue Los Angeles, 90020 213-738-2954 Probation Commission 9150 East Imperial Highway Downey, 90242 562-940-3694 Public Health Commission 241 South Figueroa Street, Room 109 Los Angeles, 90012 213-240-8377 Quality and Productivity Commission Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street, Room 565 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1361 Real Estate Management Commission 222 South Hill Street, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-4300 Regional Planning Commission 320 West Temple Street, Room 1390 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-6409 Small Craft Harbor Commission 13837 Fiji Way Marina del Rey, 90292 310-305-9522 45 Sybil Brand Commission for Industrial Inspection 500 West Temple Street, Room 372 Los Angeles, 90012 213-974-1465 46 LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMITTEES Audit City Selection Clean Fuel Program Community Advisory Countywide Criminal Justice Coordinator Horizon’s Plan Independent Citizen’s Oversight Labor Management Advisory on Productivity Enhancement Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Los Angeles County Street Naming Policy Steering for South Bay Commuter Bus Service Proposition E Special Tax Risk Management Advisory Savings Plan Southern California Board of Trustees Sunshine Canyon Landfill Supervisory District Boundary Review Technical Review Traffic Reduction and Free Flow Inter are not Treasury Oversight 47 HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Stroke Centers
• R19
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of Health Services should establish criteria for stroke centers that are compatible with American Medical Association guidelines.
• R20
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of Health Services should add stroke centers to current trauma centers to address financing and to prevent duplication of personnel.
• R21
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of Health Services should help settle catchment area controversies. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Abandonment of Newborns
• R22
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should encourage the passage of the enabling legislation to release the allocated funds to publicize the provisions of SB 1368 (California Penal Code 271.5).
• R23
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should solicit as many public service announcements as possible from the local media, especially those venues that cater to younger people, to inform the public of this new law.
• R24
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should encourage hospitals, libraries, police and fire stations and sheriff facilities to display signs explaining the law.
• R25
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should encourage the boards of education in Los Angeles County to include information about the basics of SB 1368 in health curricula.
• R26
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should designate a specific day or week to publicize the abandoned baby problem.
• R27
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should designate other appropriate facilities to accept unwanted newborn. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Patient Advocates
• R28
  Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should initiate a study of hospitals with a county contract that have advocacy programs and those that do not. They should compare patient and financial outcomes to determine the value of an advocacy program to the patient and to the hospital.
• R29
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of Health Services should direct their hospitals to start a program of patient advocacy training for volunteers. Conflicts of interest with the hospital would be less likely to arise than if a patient advocate were an employee of the hospital.
• R30
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of Health Services should direct their hospitals to disseminate information on the patient advocacy programs in their hospitals upon patient admission, with emphasis on just what services are available to patients and their families. This information should stress the independent nature of the program as a means of good public and patient relations. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Retail Food Inspection
• R31
  Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Instructors in the Environmental Health Division of the Department of Health Services should include inspector training regarding body mechanics to prevent their having back and joint problems.
• R32
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Environmental Health Division of the Department of Health Services should design and provide a tool belt to hold the equipment that all inspectors must carry.
• R33
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Environmental Health Division of the Department of Health Services should consider a professional work garment that would preserve the inspectors’ clothes and that could either be used in conjunction with a tool belt or have pockets and loops that would obviate the need for a tool belt. The negative impact of this recommendation is that if the garment were distinctive enough, the restaurant personnel would recognize the inspector and that would give them some warning if surprise were to be a factor.
• R34
  The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that if the personnel in the restaurant are not fluent in English, or if language subtleties could present problems, the Department of Health Services should try to match the inspectors who could speak the language with the language spoken at the restaurant. JAILS COMMITTEE Detention Facilities
• R35
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should hire an adequate number of personnel to provide for the safety of the staff and detainees at all camps. If the Probation Department cannot fund staff needs, the Board of Supervisors should address funding shortfalls.
• R36
  Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should require new staff to spend a minimum of two years at the same training facility before rotation to a new facility.
• R37
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should arrange for the immediate repair of all gymnasiums and swimming pools in the camp system.
• R38
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should implement additional and more varied occupational training programs for juvenile detainees.
• R39
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should allow camp directors more discretion to contract with outside vendors for emergency maintenance problems and in some cases, regular maintenance.
• R40
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department directors and Los Angeles County Office of Education principals at each facility should be required to submit priority maintenance lists monthly to Internal Services Division.
• R41
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should require the Internal Services Division to reprioritize maintenance schedules and place more emphasis on the camp’s needs.
• R42
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should expand it’s effort to seek public grants and private partnerships to fill needs throughout the camp system. Sponsorships and corporate “adoption” programs should be considered.
• R43
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should establish a relationship with California National Guard and other military units to procure clothing for the camp detainees.
• R44
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should purchase stand-alone generators to provide power during outages for all juvenile facilities. 76
• R45
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should replace outdated hand-held radios and ensure there are sufficient quantities to provide for the safety of staff and detainees. The Probation Department should make inquiries to other County departments that may be replacing aging but workable hand-held radios.
• R46
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should never allow the installation of adult probation electronic monitoring equipment at any juvenile facility.
• R47
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Probation Department should move candy and soft drink vending machines visible on the camp grounds out of the view of the detainees. ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES Immigration and Naturalization Service Mira Loma Detention Facility (excellent) The Sheriff’s Department operates Mira Loma Detention Facility in Lancaster under contract with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. All Immigration and Naturalization Service standards apply with regard to staffing, health care, etc. in conjunction with California Title 15. At present this facility has over 800 inmates with a rated capacity of 1100 should it ever be needed. There are three federal courts on the grounds. There were few problems with detainees when compared to other inmate populations. The facility was in excellent condition, the grounds were well maintained, the staff morale was high and little could be found to fault. Adult Detention Facilities The same methodology for inspecting juvenile facilities was applied to adult jails and court holding areas. Most of the Superior Court buildings, Los Angeles Police Stations and Sheriff Stations are in excess of 30 years old and are in need of major repairs or replacement. However, rather than concluding that all buildings should simply be replaced, the Committee made an effort to rate the facilities from excellent to substandard. While more assessment would be needed to establish a prioritized replacement list, this simple rating system could be used as a beginning point. Only examples of excellent and substandard rated facilities have short narrative statements following the facility rating. Facilities with other ratings are simply listed. Excellent Facilities La Crescenta Sheriff Station (excellent) The station deputies have established an excellent rapport with the community by hosting such events as a “Haunted Jail” open house. This was an exceptionally well-maintained facility. It had superior quality fire air packs and fire fighting turnout gear. Notched keys match notched door handles in case sightless entry was needed in an emergency. Innovative video booth visitations were used. Juvenile detainees were treated to snacks provided by the deputies before processing. Alhambra Police Department (excellent) The facility was operated by civilian jailers employed by CSI Corporation (private contractor). This facility was one of the best maintained in the county. There was no lack of equipment. Lancaster Sheriff Station (excellent) This facility was another example of a well run and maintained station. There was a lack of some equipment. There was high morale amongst the staff; quite an accomplishment given the 1200 prisoners processed each month. The staff should be commended for the excellent job they perform. Whittier Police Department (excellent) This was another facility run by civilian jailers from CSI. Whittier Police Department employed, from their own budget, two Los Angeles County Probation Department officers and one assistant district attorney full 78 time to provide comprehensive services to juveniles. This facility might normally have been rated average, however, because of this proactive approach to assisting the youth in the community, it was rated as excellent. Carson Sheriff Station (excellent) This was another example of a well maintained efficiently operated station. All the appropriate manuals were up to date. The facility was in superb condition. All personnel were very knowledgeable in every aspect of their profession. Glendora Police Station (excellent) This was a very clean facility. Each squad car carried a defibrillator. Century Regional Detention Facility (excellent) This was an excellent facility with a capacity of 1800 prisoners. Minimal staffing was required due to the central viewing pods much like Twin Towers. All inmates were given complete medical exams. Several large clean kitchens provided food services and there were four arraignment courts. It had the latest in all necessary equipment and did an excellent job with a small staff. LAX Airport Courts (excellent) This facility was two years old and enjoyed all the latest in equipment. It was a very clean and bright facility. This was a well-run facility with excellent supervisory practices in place. The officers were motivated and enjoyed their work and working conditions. Palos Verdes Estates Police Department (excellent) This facility was extremely well organized and clean. The personnel were well informed. Fire and medical personnel were available at the fire station next door. Manhattan Beach Police Department (excellent) A very well organized facility. Personnel were proud of and dedicated to their facility. The jailers were especially proud of innovate ideas they had put into action such as painting game boards on mess tables. Beverly Hills Police Department (excellent) The jail facility was extremely clean and well organized. Personal care amenities such as a change of clothes were available. Water valves were placed outside the cells to curb water damage to the facility if detainees misused sinks or showers. Culver City Police Department (excellent) Despite being an older facility, it was extremely clean and well organized. This facility was painted with anti-graffiti paint. Exceptional separation accommodations were noted. San Fernando Police Department (excellent) This facility was new, light, clean and exceptionally well maintained. Jail and fire manuals were computerized and regularly updated. Inglewood Police Department (excellent) This facility was old but clean with an excellent maintenance program. The management was well informed. Food was catered from an outside vendor. Above Average Facilities Alhambra Court lockup Marina Del Rey Sheriff Station Arcadia Police Department Baldwin Monterey Park Police Depart Park Police Department Northeast LAPD Holding Area Bell Gardens Police Department Malibu Court lockup Bell Police Department Metro Traffic Court lockup Beverly Hills Court lockup Monrovia-Santa Anita Court Burbank Court lockup Montebello Police Department Burbank Police Department Central Pasadena Court lockup Court Services lockup Pasadena Police Department Pomona Claremont Police Department Court lockup Covina Police Department Pomona Police Department Edelman’s Children Court Rio Hondo Court lockup El Monte Police Department, San Dimas Sheriff Station Foothill Division LAPD San Fernando Court lockup Gardena Police Department San Gabriel Police Department San Glendale Court lockup Marino Police Department Santa Glendale Police Department Monica Police Department South Hawthorne Police Department Hill Pasadena Police Dept Street Courthouse Huntington Park Southeast Area LAPD Police Depart Southgate Police Department Industry Hills Sheriff Station Temple City Sheriff Station Torrance Irwindale Police Department Police Department Walnut Sheriff Lakewood Sheriff Station Station La Verne Police Department West Covina Court lockup LAPD Parker Center West Covina Police Department, Lennox Sheriff Station West Hollywood Sheriff Station Lost Hills Sheriff Station West LAPD Whittier Court lockup 80 Average Facilities 77th Street Area LAPD Los Padrinos Juvenile Holding Altadena Sheriff Station Magic Mountain Holding Antelope Valley Sheriff Station Maywood Police Department Azusa Police Department Men’s Central Jail Mental Health Barry Nidorf Court lockup Monrovia Police Department Bellflower Court Lockup Newton Area LAPD Bellflower Sheriff Station North Hollywood Police Department Catalina Sheriff Station Norwalk Court Lockup Central Arraignment Court Norwalk Sheriff Century Sheriff Station Pasadena Juvenile Holding Compton Court Lockup Pasadena Rose Bowl Holding Compton Juvenile Holding Pico Rivera Sheriff Station Compton Sheriff Station Redondo Beach Police Department Criminal Courthouse Lockup San Pedro Court Lockup Devonshire LAPD Santa Anita Court (closed) Dodger Stadium Holding Santa Anita Racetrack (closed) Downey Court Lockup Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Downey Police Department Santa Monica Court Lockup East LA Court Lockup Sheriff Parks Substation East LA Sheriff Station Sierra Madre Police Department Eastlake Juvenile Court Holding Signal Hill Police Department Eastlake Court lockup Southgate Court Lockup El Segundo Police Department Southwest Area LAPD H. R. Moore Juvenile Facility Staples Center Holding Hermosa Beach Police Department Twin Towers Men and Women Hollenbeck LAPD USC Jail Ward Hollywood Court Lockup Valencia Newhall Court Lockup Hollywood LAPD Valencia Teen Court Holding Hollywood Racetrack Holding Van Nuys Court Lockup Huntington Park Court Lockup Van Nuys Police Department, Inglewood Court Lockup Vernon Police Department Inglewood Juvenile Holding West Valley LAPD Juvenile Justice Center Whittier Juvenile Holding Juvenile Justice Court Holding L. A. Coliseum Holding L.A.C. Fairgrounds Holding LAX Airport Holding LAX LAPD Substation Lomita Sheriff Station Long Beach Court Lockup Long Beach Juvenile Holding Long Beach Police Department 81 Substandard Facilities Central Area LAPD (substandard) This facility was only a temporary holding area for adults and juveniles. The staff was uninformed as to importance of following procedures set down in Titles 15 and 24. The facility was overcrowded and short staffed. This facility lacked computers to process paperwork. As a testament to the lack of staff preparedness, the inspectors found a red arrow on the wall that should have pointed to the location of the fire extinguisher. The arrow actually led to a file cabinet. It took five minutes to locate a fire extinguisher. Harbor Area LAPD (substandard) The latest update of Titles 15 and 24 was from 1994. The codes are required to be up-dated every two years. The bathroom and facility sanitation conditions were poor at best. The kitchen in general and refrigerator in particular were obviously dirty and would not meet minimum health standards. There is a need to enforce minimum sanitary and health standards. Pacific Area LAPD (substandard) The station appeared disorganized. The sanitation conditions were only fair. Females, combative detainees, and those with special medical needs, required immediate transportation. This need took officers out of field operations for a minimum of two hours. Rampart Area LAPD (substandard) This was an old and overcrowded facility. The sanitation conditions were fair. The detectives worked off site due to a remodeling project. Juveniles were kept in chairs near officers’ desks allowing them a view of any information left uncovered. Wilshire Area LAPD (substandard) The security cameras were inoperable. There were numerous safety issues. No remote panic button was available for the jailer to use on inspection walks. The sanitation conditions were fair. This was another station where juveniles were not kept in a separate area but rather in chairs at officers’ desks. Compton Sheriff Station (substandard) This facility was dark, dirty, and dingy. There was a constant anticipation of encountering vermin in this building. Torrance Court Holding (substandard) The jailer was not well informed; he relied on his staff to answers questions. The jail cells had an excessive amount of graffiti. Deputies felt inmates acting in pro per were responsible because they were allowed writing materials. The facility was to be painted using anti-graffiti paint. Adult Specialty Facilities Twin Towers Complex (above average) Twin Towers was a dual-housing facility for male (capacity-2460) and female (capacity-2840) inmates. All female inmates in Los Angeles County were housed at this facility. A respectful attitude between staff and inmates appeared to exist. Medical facilities were accessible 24 hours a day. A choice of religious services were offered. Numerous educational programs and self-help programs were available to the female population. The men held at this facility were mostly mentally ill or drug dependent. The male inmates were held here until they were stabilized. They then were moved to other facilities in the jail system. Biscailuz Recovery Center (BRC) (Excellent) This facility had the capacity to house and treat 240 inmates. Only one half of the facility was being utilized due to a budget and staffing shortage. Two programs at the BRC encouraged goal-oriented inmates the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves through the strict regimen offered by the programs. The two programs were The Impact Drug and Alcohol Treatment and the Violence Intervention and Recovery Services. With the tutoring provided by the Hacienda-La Puente School District staff and individuals who had successfully graduated from either program, each inmate at the BRC moves through the programs at a set pace. The inmates recognized why they were selected to participate in the programs at the BRC, what they have done, and expressed very clearly what they intended to do to correct their behavior. There were post-graduation support groups and hot lines for additional help. This was the only facility in the county where gang members, drug dependant inmates, alternate life style inmates, and general population inmates were housed in the same facility. There appeared to be a high level of respect between the inmates and staff, even more so than the attitudes observed at Twin Towers. North County Correctional Facility (a.k.a - Wayside Honor Rancho and Peter Pitchess Detention Center) (above average) This facility was situated on 2600 acres and could house 8400 inmates. Prison population on the day of inspection was 6210. Fire Camp 12 operated from this facility. The 42 members of this fire fighting crew were all serving time for misdemeanors. Programs for the adult detainees ranged from formal education to learning trades. There was a legal library available. The kitchen operated 24 hours a day. Inmates could opt to work in the kitchen and dining rooms. There were also opportunities to learn cooking and baking skills. There was a working print shop, with outside printing obligations, where inmates could learn the trade. There seemed to be a great deal of respect between the inmates and jailers. The water system was outdated and needed daily repair. A new security camera system would assistance in managing this large facility and prisoner population. The shower floors 83 were in poor condition and should be replaced. The law library should be up-dated to include such computer programs as Lexis (computerized law reference library) for those representing themselves. New hot water boilers needed to be installed. Jails Committee ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS
• R48
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department and Los Angeles Police Department should confer and establish a procedure to update all required documents including, Titles 15 and 24, department policy manuals, facility evacuation plans and procedures in their detention facilities. This information should be easily accessible to the jailers.
• R49
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should establish a procedure that requires copies of yearly fire inspections to be kept with the jailer.
• R50
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Department should establish a procedure that requires copies of yearly fire inspections to be kept with the jailer.
• R51
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Department should supply fire fighting turnout gear in any facility that requires fire fighting air packs.
• R52
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should supply fire fighting turnout gear in any facility that requires fire fighting air packs.
• R53
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Department should provide first aid kits in each detention facility (only 15% of the facilities inspected had any form of first aid kit). They should meet minimum standards set by the American Red Cross.
• R54
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should provide first aid kits in each detention facility (only 15% of the facilities inspected had any form of first aid kit). They should meet minimum standards set by the American Red Cross.
• R55
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Department should provide automatic defibrillators in all detention facilities. The paramedic response time to most facilities was greater than five minutes, considered to be the upper limit of survival time for cardiac arrest victims.
• R56
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should provide automatic defibrillators in all detention facilities. The paramedic response time to most facilities was greater than five minutes, considered to be the upper limit of survival time for cardiac arrest victims. 85
• R57
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should enforce policies regarding sanitary conditions in their facilities as mandated in Title 15, Article 14, §1280.
• R58
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Departments should enforce policies regarding sanitary conditions in their facilities as mandated in Title 15, Article 14, §1280.
• R59
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should provide fax and copy machines in each facility that relies on prompt communications between the facility and the courts concerning the disposition of detainees.
• R60
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Department should provide fax and copy machines in each facility that relies on prompt communications between the facility and the courts concerning the disposition of detainees.
• R61
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should maintain an adequate inventory of restraining devices (leg chains) at each facility where transportation of detainees occurs.
• R62
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors should establish a timeline to replace aging custodial facilities. The Sheriff’s Department will have to refurbish or rebuild at least six facilities each year for the next ten years to meet predicted inmate population increases. Consideration should be given to the Inmate Welfare Fund as a funding source.
• R63
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department, in conjunction with the managers at the North County Correctional Facility, should immediately contract to replace the shower floors, re-pipe the prisoner portion of the facility, and replace the hot water boilers. Using the Inmate Welfare Fund as a funding source should be considered.
• R64
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should install a security camera system at the North County Correctional Facility to assist in monitoring the inmate population.
• R65
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department should install a computerized law library program, such as Lexis Reference Library at the North County Correctional Facility for inmates acting in pro per.
• R66
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisor should initiate an assessment of the practices and effectiveness of rehabilitation programs currently in use in the prison system. 86
• R67
  The Jails Committee recommends that based on the outcome of the study, emphasis could be refocused on the programs that offer the greatest potential to enable inmates to achieve success when they return to the community. 87 (Attachment A) Grand Jury Juvenile Camps - Detention Center Inspection Report Form GENERAL INFORMATION SECTION --2001 Date ___________________ Time ____________________ Phone #__________________________________ Facility Name & Type__________________________________________________________________________ Address____________________________________________ City & Zip __________ Directions ___________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Operated By ( city / county / other agency ) ______________________ Facility Built _______________ Commander / Director ______________________________ Escorted by: ______________________________ Facility Capacity ____ Today’s count____ Special Circumstances____ S.H.U. count _____ SHU School_____ % Asian____ %African Am.____ %Hispanic_____ %Caucasian_____ %Other______ Speak to Youth_____ Juvenile comments below______ Repeat offenders_______ Facility Phase 1____ 2_____3_____4____ VAP____ Grand Jurors Visiting___________________________________________________________________________ Sub Committee Reports compiled by: ____________________________________ JUVENILE - HOME – CAMP - DETENTION CENTER SECTION Sign in Log Book____ Fire Inspection Log Book ____ 5 week Food Menu ___ Probation Staff All Shifts _____ Staff Ethnic Mix_____ # Teachers_____ # Classrooms____ 300 Min. Program___ Trade Classes in Place _____ Merit Ladder Program ______Work Exp. Program ______ Youth work on grounds _____ Work in Office ___ Eat a Meal _____ G.J. Sample Food ______ Snacks Available ______ Vending Machines Available _________ Rank Conditions (A-D): Mess Hall ______ Kitchen______ Medical Station_____ Barracks______ Bunks______ Footlocker____ Restroom ____Shower____ Laundry____ Supplies ____ Supply Storeroom ___ Reg. Clothes __ Military Clothes _____ Jail Clothes ____ Books ___ Games ____ Gym _____ Pool _____ Skylights ________ Grounds _____ Paint ____ Graffiti ______ Plumbing ______ Electrical ______ Vitocem paint anti Graffiti ____ Earthquake Drill & Supplies _____ Evacuation Plan Posted _____ Health & Safety____ Fire Clearance ______ Fire Equipment available ____ Nearest Hospital drive time ______ Time for Paramedics ______ Local Police ____ School class conditions_____ Books_____ Computers_____ Discipline______ Rewards_____ H.S. Grads. ______ GED ______ Committee Notations Rated during inspection tour: PLEASE RANK Conditions: A - excellent, B - above average, C – average, D - sub standard, also include student comments. 88 (Attachment B) Grand Jury Jails-Honor Farms-Court Cells Inspection Report Form GENERAL INFORMATION SECTION – 2001 Date___________________ Time____________________ Phone #______________________ Facility Name & Type___________________________________________________________________________ Address______________________________________________ City & Zip__________________________ Directions ____________________________________________________________________________________ Operated By ( city / county / other agency ) _______________________________Facility Built ______________ Commander / Director ________________________________Escorted by: ______________________________ Facility Capacity ______ Today’s count _____ Special 288 _____ k9 _____ k10______ k11________ k12______ LAPD Jails separations Felony _________ Misdemeanor _ ______ Separations within classification _________ Racial % of prisoners at facility today Asian ______ Caucasian _______ African American ____ Hispanic ____ Grand Jurors Visiting______________________ Sub Committee Reports compiled by: ____________________ Jails / Lockup Section Title 15 – 24 Required Info. Bookings Here ____ Other Facility ___ By Jailer ____ Officer / Detective ____ LASD _____ LAPD ___CSI ____ Property Sheets copy to inmate _____ Filed with property____ Hrs. held this facility ___Translators _________ Telephone 1st call recorded? ______ In sallyport ______ In Cell _____ visual checks posted & logged _______ Collect call $ to inmate welfare fund _______ Restraints used _____ Logged ______ Types used _____________ Female jailer ____Male jailer ________ Cell searches by whom _________2nd person attendance ________ Average % Inmates Male ____ Female _____ Juvenile _______ Juveniles printed & logged___ Book/ Form ____ Paying Prisoners _____ Daily _____ Weekends ____ Cost charged ___________ Excess $ to prisoner fund ____ Jails Manuel _____ Location ______ Last updated __________ Visual Inspection _________ Fire Manuel _____ Last Inspection _____Visual Inspection____ To send info. ____ Jailer Certificates posted ____ Where _________ Post certificates 40hr._____80hr.____117hr._____170hr._____STC ____ACA Mail____ LAPD____ LASD______ Type Meals _____Catered ____ Refrigerator ____ Microwave ____ Stove ___Air Packs _____Fire Gear_____ Padded Safety Cells _____ last used _____ logbook _____ Visual inspection of same _____ Vitocem paint_______ Medical on premises_____ Defibrillator____ Paramedics response Time____ logged where____ Noise Levels _____ Evacuation plan posted?________ Sanitation conditions __________ Enough prisoner separation area ________ Reading Materials ______ Staff Ethnic Mix ______ Other committee walk thru notations ____________________ 89 FACILITY ADDRESS CITY Zip + 4 PHONE AREA Lost Hills - LASD 27050 Agoura Rd. Agoura 91301-5336 818-878-1808 North Alhambra Court 150 N Commonwealth Alhambra 91801-3706 626-308-5314 East Alhambra PD 211 South First Street Alhambra 91801-3706 626-570-5168 East Altadena LASD 780 East Altadena Dr Altadena 91001-2351 626-798-1131 East Arcadia PD 250 W Huntington Dr Arcadia 91007-3401 626-574-5150 East Santa Anita Race Track 285 W Huntington Dr Arcadia 91007-3439 626-574-6636 East Avalon / Catalina Island 215 West Summer Ave Avalon 90704 310-510-0174 East Azusa PD 725 N Alameda Ave Azusa 91702-2562 626-812-3277 East Baldwin Park PD 14403 East Pacific Ave Baldwin Park 91706-4226 626-960-1955 East Bell PD 6326 Pine Avenue Bell 90201-1221 323-585-1245 South Bell Gardens PD 7100 S Garfield Ave Bell Gardens 90201-3253 310-806-7600 South Bellflower Courts 10025 E. Flower Street Bellflower 90706-5412 310-288-8001 South Beverly Hills Courts 9355 Burton Way Beverly Hills 90210-3265 310-288-1213 West Beverly Hills PD 464 North Rexford Beverly Hills 90210-4873 310-285-2125 West Burbank Courts 300 East Olive Avenue Burbank 91502-1215 818-557-3490 North Burbank PD 200 North Third Street Burbank 91502-1201 818-238-3010 North Calabasas Courts 5030 N Calabasas Pkwy Calabasas 91364-1303 818-222-1143 North Juvenile Camp Gonzales 1301 N Las Virgenes Rd Calabasas 91302-1905 818-222-1192 North West Valley Courts 21201 Victory Blvd. Canoga Park 91303-2830 818-887-4351 North Carson LASD 21356 S Avalon Blvd Carson 90745-2213 310-830-1123 South North Ctny Correctional 29310 The Old Road Castaic 91384-2905 661-295-7800 North Industry LASD 150 North Hudson Ave City of Industry 91744-4430 626-330-3322 East Claremont PD 570 West Bonita Claremont 91711-4626 909-399-5411 East Compton Courts 200 West Compton Compton 90220-6676 310-603-7386 South Compton Juvenile Ct 200 West Compton Compton 90220-6676 310-603-7386 South Compton LASD 301 S Willowbrook Ave Compton 90220-3135 310-605-6505 South Covina PD 444 North Citrus Covina 91723-2013 626-858-4429 East Culver City Courts 4130 Overland Avenue Culver City 90230-3834 310-202-3120 West Culver City PD 4040 Duquesne Ave Culver City 90232-2804 310-837-1221 West Downey Courts 7500 E Imperial Hgwy Downey 90242-3377 562-803-7149 South Downey PD 10911 Brookshire Ave Downey 90241-3847 562-904-2308 South Los Padrinos Juvenile Ct 7281 Quill Drive Downey 90242-2001 562-940-8823 South Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall 7285 Quill Drive Downey 90242-2001 562-940-8681 South El Monte PD 11333 East Valley Blvd. El Monte 91731-3210 626-580-2110 East Mac Laren Children Ctr 4024 Durfee Avenue El Monte 91732-2510 626-455-4501 East Rio Hondo Courts 11234 East Valley Blvd. El Monte 91731-3241 626-575-4162 East El Segundo PD 348 Main Street El Segundo 90245-3813 310-524-2200 South Gardena PD 1718 West 162nd Street Gardena 90247-3732 310-217-9606 South Glendale Courts 600 East Broadway Ave Glendale 91206-4304 818-500-3527 North Glendale PD 140 North Isabel Street Glendale 91206-4313 818-548-4042 North Glendora PD 150 South Glendora Ave Glendora 91741-3416 626-914-8278 East Hawthorne PD 4440 West 126th street Hawthorne 90250-4402 310-970-7031 South Hermosa Beach PD 540 Pier St. Hermosa Bch 90254-3936 310-318-0360 South Hollywood Courts 5925 Hollywood # 111 Hollywood 90028-5409 213-856-5732 West Huntington Park Courts 6548 Miles Avenue Huntington Pk 90255-4318 310-586-6344 South Huntington Park PD. 6542 Miles Avenue Huntington Pk 90255-4318 310-584-6254 South Hollywood Pk Race Track 1050 South Prairie Ave Inglewood 90301-4120 310-419-1395 West Inglewood Courts 1 Regent Street Inglewood 90302-1261 310-419-5297 West Inglewood Juvenile Hldg 1 Regent Street Inglewood 90302-1261 310-419-5277 West Inglewood PD 1 Manchester Blvd. Inglewood 90301-1750 310-412-5325 West Lennox LASD 4331 Lennox Blvd. Inglewood 90304-2367 310-671-7531 West Irwindale PD 5050 N Irwindale Ave Irwindale 91706-2133 626-430-2244 East Juvenile Camp D. Kirby 1500 S McDonnel Ave Commererce 90022-4823 323-981-4301 East Crescenta Valley LASD 4554 Briggs Avenue La Crescenta 91214-3101 818-248-3464 North Juvenile Camp Afflebaugh 6631 Stephens Ranch Rd La Verne 91750-1146 909-593-4937 East Juvenile Camp Paige 6601 Stephens Ranch Rd La Verne 91750-1146 909-593-4921 East La Verne PD 2061 Third Street La Verne 91750-4404 909-596-1913 East Juvenile Camp Mendenhal42230 Lake Hughes RoadLake Hughes 93532-1012 661-724-1213 North Juvenile Camp Munz 42220 Lake Hughes RoadLake Hughes 93532-1012 661-724-1211 North Lakewood LASD 5130 North Clark Avenue Lakewood 90712-2605 562-866-9061 South Antelope Valley LASD 1010 West Avenue " J " Lancaster 93534-3329 661-948-8466 North Juvenile Camp Jarvis 5300 West Avenue " I " Lancaster 93536-8312 661-940-4145 North Juvenile Camp McNair 5300 West Avenue " I " Lancaster 93536-8312 661-940-4146 North Juvenile Camp Orizuka 5300 West Avenue " I " Lancaster 93536-8312 661-940-4144 North Juvenile Camp Resnick 5300 West Avenue " I " Lancaster 93536-8312 661-940-4044 North Juvenile Camp Scobee 5300 West Avenue " I " Lancaster 93536-8312 661-940-4045 North Juvennile Camp Smith 5300 West Avenue " I " Lancaster 93536-8312 661-940-4046 North Lancaster Courts 1040 West Avenue " J " Lancaster 93534-3329 661-945-6353 North Lancaster LASD 501 W Lancaster Blvd. Lancaster 93534-2515 661-948-8466 North Lancaster Probation Ct 1040 West Avenue " J " Lancaster 93534-3329 661-948-6572 North Mira Loma INS Dentention 45100 N 60th Street West Lancaster 93536-7607 661-949-3801 North Lomita LASD 26123 Narbonne Ave Lomita 90717-2913 310-539-1661 South Long Beach Courts 415 West Ocean Blvd. Long Beach 90802-4412 562-491-5919 South Long Beach Juvenile Prob 415 West Ocean Blvd. Long Beach 90802-4412 562-491-6181 South Long Beach PD 400 West Broadway Long Beach 90802-4401 562-570-7266 South 77th. Street Area LAPD 7600 S Broadway Los Angeles 90030-2040 213-485-4164 South Biscailuz Center 1060 North Eastern Los Angeles 90063-3243 323-881-3636 East Central Area LAPD 251 East 6th Street Los Angeles 90014-2116 213-485-3294 East Central Arraignment Courts429 Bauchet Los Angeles 90012-2936 213-974-6281 East Courthouse Court Services111 N Hill Street # 628 Los Angeles 90012-3117 213-974-4809 East Criminal Courthouse 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles 90012-3012 213-974-4581 East East LA Courts 214 South Fetterly Los Angeles 90022-1644 323-780-2026 East East LA Sheriff 5019 East 3rd Street Los Angeles 90022-1632 323-264-4151 East Eastlake Ctn Juvenile Hall 1605 Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles 90033-1009 323-226-8601 East Eastlake INS Detn Cntr 1605 Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles 90033-1009 CLOSED East Eastlake Juvenile Courts 1601 Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles 90033-1009 323-226-8590 East Eastlake Juvenile Hdg 1601 Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles 90033-1009 323-226-8590 East HR Moore Education 7706 Central Los Angeles 90001-2942 323-586-6055 East Hollenbeck LAPD 2111 East 1st Street Los Angeles 90033-3917 213-485-2942 East Hollywood LAPD 1358 North Wilcox Ave Los Angeles 90028-8134 213-485-4302 West Juvenile Justic center 7625 Central Los Angeles 90001-2952 323-586-6055 South LA Airport Police 6320 West 96th Street Los Angeles 90045-5233 310-646-0200 West LA Coliseum 3939 South Figueroa Los Angeles 90037-1200 213-765-6711 East LACMC - USC Jail Ward 1200 North State Street Los Angeles 90033-1029 213-226-4563 East LAX Airport Courts 11701 South La Cienega Los Angeles 90045 310-727-6188 West LAX Airport Detail 203 World Way Los Angeles 90045-5807 310-215-2360 West LAX Sub Station LAPD 802 World Way Los Angeles 90045-5820 310-646-2255 West LA Dodger Stadium 1000 Elysian Park Ave Los Angeles 90012-1112 323-224-1384 East Men's Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles 90012-3302 213-974-5058 East Mental Health Lockup 1150 N San Fernando Rd Los Angeles 90065-1146 213-974-0146 North Metropolitan Traffic Ct 1945 South Hill Street Los Angeles 90007-1413 213744-4101 East Newton Area LAPD 3400 South Central Los Angeles 90011-2520 323-846-6547 East Noreast LAPD 3353 N San Fernando Rd Los Angeles 90065-1416 213-485-2563 North Pacific Area LAPD 12312 Culver Blvd. Los Angeles 90066-6223 310-202-4501 West Parker Center LAPD 150 N Los Angeles St Los Angeles 90012-3302 213-485-2547 East Rampart Area LAPD 2710 West Temple Street Los Angeles 90026-4724 213-485-2942 West Southeast Area LAPD 145 West 108th Street Los Angeles 90061-2001 213-485-6914 East Southwest Area LAPD 1546 W. M L King Los Angeles 90062-1744 213-485-2582 South Staples Arena LAPD 1111 South Figueroa St Los Angeles 90015-1306 213-742-7444 East Sybril Brand 4500 E City Terrace Dr Los Angeles 90063-1010 CLOSED East Twin Towers Facilities 450 Bauchet Street Los Angeles 90012-2907 213-893-5100 East West L. A. Courts 3000 S Robertson Blvd Los Angeles 90034-3158 310-558-7758 West West Los Angeles LAPD 1663 Butler Los Angeles 90025-3003 310-575-8405 West Wilshire Area LAPD 4861 West Venice Blvd. Los Angeles 90019-5664 213-485-4022 West Century Rgnl Detention 11705 South Alameda Lynwood 90262-4023 323-257-5100 West Century Sheriff Station 11703 South Alameda Lynwood 90262-4023 323-567-8121 West Juvenile Camp Kilpatrick 427 Encinal Canyon Rd Malibu 90265-2404 818-889-1353 West Juvenile Camp Miller 433 Encinal Canyon Rd Malibu 90265-2404 818-889-0260 West Malibu Courts 23525 Civic Center Way Malibu 90265-4804 310-317-1322 West Manhatten Beach PD 420 15th Street Manhatten Bch 90266-4607 310-802-5140 South Harbor Patrol 13851 Fiji Way Marina Del Rey 90292-6910 310-823-7762 West Marina Del Rey LASD 13851 Fiji Way Marina Del Rey 90292-6910 310-823-7762 West Maywood PD 4317 Slauson Maywood 90270-2837 323-562-5005 South Monrovia PD 140 East Lime Avenue Monrovia 91016-2840 626-256-8500 East Santa Ana Courts 300 West Maple Avenue Monrovia 91016-3332 626-301-4066 East Montebello PD 1600 Beverly Blvd. Montebello 90640-3932 323-887-1301 East Edelman Children's Court 201 Centre Plaza Drive Monterey Park 91754-2142 213-526-6030 East Monterey Park PD 320 West Newmark Ave Monterey Park 91754-2818 626-307-1211 East No. Hollywood LAPD 11640 Burbank Blvd. No. Hollywood 91601-2316 818-623-4016 North Devonshire LAPD 10250 Etiwanda Avenue Northridge 91325-1015 818-756-8283 North Norwalk Courts 12720 Norwalk Blvd. Norwalk 90650-3140 562-807-7283 South Norwalk LASD 12335 Civic Center Dr. Norwalk 90650-3172 562-863-8711 South Foothill LAPD 12760 Osborne Pacoima 91331-3331 818-756-8861 North Palmdale LASD 1020 East Palmdale Blvd. Palmdale 93550-4749 661-267-4300 North Palos Verdes Estates PD 340 Palos Verdes Dr WestPalos Verdes 90274 310-378-4211 West Pasadena Courts 200 North Garfield Pasadena 91101-1728 626-356-5266 East Pasadena Courts 300 E Walnut Room # 101Pasadena 91101-1566 626-356-5570 East Pasadena Juvenile Prob. E Walnut - 6th Floor Pasadena 91101-1566 626-356-5458 East Pasadena PD 207 North Garfield Ave Pasadena 91101-1728 626-744-4616 East Pasadena Rose Bowl 1001 Rose Bowl Drive Pasadena 91103-2813 626-577-3159 East Pico Rivera LASD 6631 South Passons Blvd.Pico Rivera 90660-3645 562-949-2421 South LAC Fairgrounds 1011 West McKinley Pomona 91766 909-620-2186 East Pomona Courts 350 West Mission Blvd. Pomona 91766-1607 909-620-3266 East Pomona Juvenile Ct 400 Civic Ctr. Plaza # 705Pomona 91766-3201 909-620-3266 East Pomona Juvenile Prob 400 Civic Ctr. Plaza # 403Pomona 91766-3201 909-620-4272 East Pomona PD 490 West Mission Blvd. Pomona 91766-1608 909-620-2131 East Redondo Beach LASD 117 West Torrance Blvd. Redondo Bch 90277-3633 310-318-8700 South Redondo PD 401 Diamond Street Redondo Bch 90277-2836 310-318-0616 South West Valley LAPD 19020 Van Owen Street Reseda 91335-5114 818-756-8543 North Juvenile Camp Rockey 1900 N Sycamore Cyn RdSan Dimas 91773-2646 909-599-2391 East San Dimas LASD 122 N San Dimas Ave San Dimas 91773-2646 909-599-1261 East Juvenile Camp Holton 12653 N Little Tujunga CySan Fernando 91342-6311 818-896-0571 North San Fernando Courts 908 East Third Street San Fernando 91340-2934 818-898-2401 North San Fernando PD 910 First Street San Fernando 91340-2928 818-898-1255 North San Gabriel PD 625 So. Delmar San Gabriel 91776-2409 626-308-2840 East San Marino PD 2200 Huntington Drive San Marino 91108-2639 626-300-0720 East Harbor Area LAPD 2175 John Gibson Blvd. San Pedro 90731-1501 310-548-7605 South San Pedro Courts 505 South Centre Street San Pedro 90731-3332 310-519-6026 South Santa Monica Courts 1725 Main Street Santa Monica 90401-3261 310-260-3515 West Santa Monica PD 1685 Main Street Santa Monica 90401-3248 310-458-8495 West Juvenile Camp Scott 28700 N Bouquet Cyn Rd Saugus 91350-1220 661-296-8500 North Juvenile Cap Scudder 28750 N Bouquet Cyn Rd Saugus 91350-1220 661-296-8811 North Sierra Madre PD 242 W Sierra Madre Blvd. Sierra Madre 91024-2312 626-355-1414 East Signal Hill PD 1800 East Hill Street Signal Hill 90806-3716 562-989-7200 West South Gate Courts 8640 California Avenue South Gate 90280-3004 323-563-4031 South South Gate PD 8620 California Avenue South Gate 90280-3004 323-563-5457 South South Pasadena PD 1422 Mission Street S Pasadena 91030-3214 626-403-7270 East Barry Nidorf Juvenile Ct 16350 Filbert Street Sylmar 91342-1002 818-364-2111 North Barry Nidorf Court Hldg 16350 Filbert Street Sylmar 91342-1002 818-364-2035 North B. Nidorf Juvenile Hall 16350 Filbert Street Sylmar 91342-1002 818-364-2001 North Temple LASD 8838 E Las Tunas Drive Temple City 91780-1820 626-285-7171 East Torrance Courts 825 Maple Torrance 90503-5018 310-222-3345 South Torrance PD 300 Civic Center Dr. Torrance 90503 310-328-3456 South Juvenile Camp Routh 12500 Big Tujunga Cyn Tujunga 91042-1140 818-352-4407 North Sheriff Parks Sub Sta 1000 Universal Center Dr Universal City 91608-1008 818-622-9546 North Santa Clarita Valley 23740 Magic Mtn Pkwy Valencia 91355-2102 661-255-1121 North Valencia - Newhall Ct 23747 West Valencia BlvdValencia 91355-2105 661-253-7331 North Valencia Magic Mt Hldg 26101 Magic Mtn Pkwy Valencia 91355-1052 818-367-2271 North Valencia Probation Ct 23759 W Valencia Blvd Valencia 91355-2105 661-253-7278 North Van Nuys Courts 144 Erwin St. Mall Van Nuys 91401 818-374-2560 North Van Nuys Courts 6230 Sylvan Van Nuys 91401 818-374-2121 North Van Nuys PD 6240 Sylmar Van Nuys 91401 818-756-8347 North Vernon PD 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon 90058-1714 323-587-5171 South Walnut LASD 21695 East Valley Blvd. Walnut 91789-2019 909-595-2264 East West Covina Courts 1427 W. Covina Parkway West Covina 91790-2728 626-813-3255 East West Covina PD 1444 Garvey Avenue West Covina 91791 626-814-8556 East West Hollywood LASD 720 N San Vincente Blvd Wt Hollywood 90069-5021 310-855-8850 West West Los Angeles Ct 1633 Purdue Avenue West L. A. 90025-3117 310-312-6500 West Whittier Courts 7339 Painter Whittier 90602-1852 562-907-3171 East Whittier Juvenile Prob 7339 Painter Whittier 90602-1852 562-907-3171 East Whittier PD 7315 Painter Whittier 90602-1852 562-945-8262 East F J a u c v i e li n t i i l e e s Sign-in Lo F g ire Log Food Log Facility Capacity Today's Count Special Cas S e . s H & . U I . C C U ou S n . t H / . I U C . U S c C h o % o u o n l A t sian % African A m % . Hispanic % Caucasian % Other Speak with Y R o e u p th eat Offender S s taff Supervision Good Ethnic T M ea ix chers Classroo ms 300 Min. Edu T c r a a t d io e n Class Merit Class L W ad o d rk er Exp. C G la J s s have mea S l nacks Mess Hall Kitchen Medical Stati B o a n rrack, cott B ag u e n , k d s or m Footlockers Restroo ms Sho wers Barry Nidorf Juvenile Courts 35 34 Barry Nidorf Juvenile Hall X X X 626 666 X X 35 35 20 10 40 447 X 40 31 X X X B A B B B A A Eastlake Detention Center X X X 438 641 40 X 2 34 58 5 1 X 60 364 X 39 33 X X X B B C C C D D Eastlake Juvenile Courts ?? 107 Eastlake Juvenile Facility INS 0 0 Juvenile Camp Afflerbaugh X X X 116 124 2 35 60 1 2 X 32 X 11 14 X X X X B B B C C C C D Juvenile Camp Dorothy Kirby X X X 100 96 X 19 1 40 40 19 X X 130 X 9 7 X X X X X B A A C C C B B Juvenile Camp Gonzalez X X X 125 129 X 20 8 2 13 80 5 X X 49 X 8 7 X X X X B+ A A B- C B C- C- Juvenile Camp Holton X X X 135 126 X 20 X 1 28 70 1 X X 36 X 7 6 X X X B B A B C C D D Juvenile Camp Jarvis X X X 120 119 X 2 45 55 6 2 X X 36 X 44 23 X X X X X X NA B+ B+ B B C C C Juvenile Sports Camp Kilpatrick X X X 124 125 X 19 4 2 60 32 3 3 X X 61 X 7 7 X X X X B B+ B C- B B C C Juvenile Camp McNair X X X 120 109 X 2 45 55 6 2 X X 36 X 44 23 X X X X X X NA B+ B+ C C C C C Juvenile Camp Mendenhall X X X 110 108 10 40 40 10 40 47 X 12 6 X X X X B B B C C D D D Juvenile Camp Miller X X X 115 118 X 4 X 28 72 X X 42 X 7 7 X X X X X B B+ B+ B- B- C B- B- Juvenile Camp Munz X X X 110 107 5 15 70 5 5 X 33 X 6 7 X X X X B B+ B C C D D D Juvenile Camp Onizuka X X X 120 98 X 2 45 45 5 3 X X 36 X 44 23 X X X X X X NA B+ B+ B B C B B Juvenile Camp Paige ( fire ) X X X 116 124 2 3 40 55 1 1 X 25 X 11 14 X X X X B A B B C C B C Juvenile Camp Resnick X X X 120 105 X 2 45 55 5 3 X X 36 X 44 23 X X X X X X NA B+ B+ C C C C C Juvenile Camp Rocky X X X 125 134 X 10 X 3 30 63 3 1 X 55 X 8 6 X X X B B B C C C C D Juvenile Camp Routh ( fire ) X X X 96 104 5 20 70 5 X X 38 X 5 2 X X X B B B B B C D D Juvenile Camp Scobee X X X 120 104 X 2 45 55 6 2 X X 36 X 44 23 X X X X X X NA B+ B+ C C C C C Juvenile Camp Scott ( females ) X X X 113 100 3 30 60 3 4 X X 37 X 6 7 X X X X X C C B C C C C C Juvenile Camp Scudder X X X 118 115 8 30 60 2 X 27 X 7 5 X X X X X C C- B C C C C C Juvenile Camp Smith X X X 120 107 X 4 45 45 4 2 X X 36 X 44 23 X X X X X X NA B+ B+ B B C C C Juvenile Courts Juvenile Justice Center Los Padrinos Juvenile Courts Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall X X X 800 672 X 43 X 20 40 40 X 471 X 29 24 X B B A C C D C B MacLaren Children's Shelter Mental Health Courts / Juv. Hold Pomona Juvenile Courts 60 21 10 25 60 5 X X 2 SHU - Special Housing Unit A - Excellent B - Above Average C - Average D - Below Average F - Failure F M o I S F o a u c th il i A tie re s a C a p a cit y T o d a y' s C o u B n o t o ki n g s B D o o o k n i e n H g s B e D r y e o J n a e il e E r l B s e y w O h f e f r i c e e L r A S D L A P D C SI Pr o p ert y W S h i e t h e t P t r o o I p n e H m r o t y a u t r e s H el d T r H a n e s r e l at o R r s e c or d F S ir a s l t l y C p a o ll rt C ell Vi s u al C h C e o c l k l e s ct P R h o e s n t e r a C i n a t l L s l o M U g s o g e n e d d i e s F t e m al e J M ail a e l r e s J ail T er w s o P er s o n P C e e r c ll e S nt e a M r c e h n P er c e nt W o P m er e c n e nt J u v e nil e s 77th Street Area LAPD 180 63 X X X X 48 X X X X X X X 70 20 10 Bell Gardens PD 25 2 X X X X 4 X X X X X X 80 20 Bell PD 16 0 X X X X X 48 X X X X X X 95 5 Bellflower Courts 2 0 X X X X X 4 X X X X X 80 20 Bellflower LASD Sub Station 4 0 X X X X 4 X X X X X X X 80 20 Carson LASD 69 21 X X X X 72 X X X X X X X 85 15 Compton Courts 435 100 X X X X 8 X X X X X X X 110 15 2 Compton Juv. Lockup 30 0 Compton PD - LASD 30 0 24 X X X Downey Courts 253 93 X X X X 8 X X X X X X X 80 20 Downey PD 25 1 X X X X X 24 X X X X X X X X X 70 20 10 El Segundo PD 17 0 X X X X X 48 X X X X X X 70 30 Gardena PD 38 3 X X X X 96 X X X X X X 98 1 1 Harbor Area LAPD 54 5 X X X X 48 X X X X X X 80 3 7 Hawthorne PD 26 18 X X X X 48 X X X X X X X 80 25 5 Hermosa PD 14 1 X X X X 48 X X X X 95 5 Huntington Park Courts 79 18 X X X X 8 X X X X X X X 95 5 Huntington Park PD 32 3 X X X X 72 X X X X X X X 99 1 Lakewood LASD 48 15 X X X X 72 X X X X X X X 90 10 Lomita LASD 28 0 X X X X 72 X X X X X X X 80 10 10 Long Beach Courts 280 112 X X X X 4 X X X X X X X 80 20 Long Beach Juvenile Probation 35 8 X X Long Beach PD 256 6 X X X X X 72 X X X X X X X 75 25 Manhattan Beach PD 26 0 X X X X X 72 X X X X X X X X 90 10 Maywood PD 9 6 X X X X 72 X X X X X X X 90 5 5 Newton Area LAPD 36 1 6 X 85 15 Norwalk Courts 222 81 X X X X 8 X X X X X X X 90 10 Norwalk LASD 55 14 X X X X 120 X X X X X X X 90 10 Pico Rivera LASD 36 9 X X X X 72 X X X X X X X 80 20 San Pedro Courts 57 6 X X X X 6 X X X X X X X 90 10 Southwest Area LAPD - MLK 55 6 X X X X X 48 X X X X X X 100 Southeast Area LAPD-108th St. 50 4 X X X X X 120 X X X X X X 100 Vernon PD 19 2 X X X X X 24 X X X X X X 90 10 10 JAILS COMMITTEE Inmate Welfare Fund Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
• R68
  The Jails Committee recommends to succeeding grand juries that they monitor the IWF for compliance with the law and its own policies.
• R69
  The Jails Committee recommends that succeeding grand juries scrutinize the IWF expenditures (or lack thereof) to see that the accumulation of monies is not excessive and monies are being prudently applied to meet the Sheriff’s mandate of providing services to the inmates.
• R70
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department refine the procedures manual by including a specific percentage of the IWF balance to be set aside in each budget year for new pilot programs.
• R71
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff’s Department state in the Welfare Commission Fiscal Handbook that not only will 51% of the IWF balance be budgeted, but also spent on inmate programs each year. If any portion of the inmate program money is not spent, it should be carried over to the next fiscal year as funds for inmate programs only. It should not be co-mingled with facility maintenance funds. JAILS COMMITTEE Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Biscailuz Recovery Center Bridges to Recovery Domestic Violence Program Limited Scope Management Audit
• R72
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to develop guidelines and procedures for determining (a) how the Bridges to Recovery Center Program goals will be achieved, and (b) how inmates and program staff will identify when those goals have been achieved. Respondent - LASD
• R73
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to develop measurable and reasonable objective criteria for determining program success, and a process to ensure that such criteria are communicated to inmates and staff. Respondent - LASD
• R74
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional services Division managers to develop and implement policies and procedures necessary for maintaining inmates for as close to the 6-week program curriculum as possible. Respondent - LASD 34 3
• R75
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to document a formalized process for screening inmates for program admission that includes all criteria to be used by screening personnel. Respondent - LASD
• R76
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to train additional personnel on eligibility and admission screening procedures. Respondent - LASD
• R77
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to establish a formalized process for documenting eligibility screening results, so that the pool of potential program candidates, and selected and rejected candidates can be identified by reason. Respondent - LASD
• R78
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to limit Bridges to Recovery program participation to inmates with a clear domestic violence criminal history. Respondent - LASD
• R79
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to establish procedures to ensure that adopted screening criteria are consistently applied. Respondent - LASD
• R80
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to work with Hacienda La Puente School District managers to incorporate program assessment criteria into the LASD screening process. Respondent – LASD
• R81
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to establish a formalized inmate orientation process, which includes standard materials and relies upon staff who have been fully trained in aspects of the program. Respondent - LASD
• R82
  The Hacienda La Puente School District Superintendent should direct Correctional Education Division managers to: 1.12 Consider increasing counselor hours to assist inmates with community transition. (Recommendation 83) 135 Section 1: Program Curriculum and Operations 1.13 Establish mechanisms to ensure that the Bridges to Recovery Program classes mirror formalized course descriptions, course goals and objectives. (Recommendation 84) 1.14 Establish systems and procedures to ensure that course instructors are able to determine whether students have successfully met class objectives. (Recommendation
• R83
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Hacienda La Puente School District Superintendent should direct Correctional Education division managers to consider increasing counselor hours to assist inmates with community transition. Respondent – Hacienda La Puente School District Superintendent
• R84
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Hacienda La Puente School District Superintendent should direct Correctional Education Division managers to establish mechanisms to ensure that the Bridges to Recovery Program classes mirror formalized course descriptions, course goals and objectives. Respondent – Hacienda La Puente School District Superintendent
• R85
  1.15 Develop measurable and reasonable course objectives and methods for measuring objectives, including pre and post testing for all course groupings. (Recommendation 86) COSTS AND BENEFITS Increasing HLPSD counselor hours to assist inmates with community transition would cost approximately $40,685, if current service levels were doubled. Although the Sheriff’s Department may have some increased costs to provide training to staff, we believe such costs would be minimal. Program goals and objectives would be more clearly defined, and implementation processes would be more standardized. Program screening data would be enriched and more accurate. Course content would be more closely aligned with program intent. The Sheriff’s Department would be better able to assess Bridges to Recovery Program effectiveness. 136 2. PROFILE OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS • A validated and complete unduplicated count of Bridges to Recovery program participants was not obtained due to the disparate data systems that track participants and the delayed responses to our participant profile data requests. Three samples were conducted to obtain snapshot profiles of the participant population, which found that demographic trends are generally consistent. The typical participant is Hispanic male, aged 35, with multiple offenses, prior arrests and convictions. • The statistical profile should be expanded to include all participants in the program, and the survey methodology should be improved to increase data reliability. Some elements of the survey could be captured more reliably from other sources. Further, a single source of information should be developed to track program participants. The BRC Student Records Database could be expanded to include additional profile data such as the information included in the BRC survey and Correctional Services Division recidivism study. The reasons for data omissions and errors need to be identified and analyzed to limit record inconsistencies. • Of the 229 graduates analyzed for the Correctional Services Division March 2002 recidivism study, there were six graduates who attended the program based on “miscellaneous charges”. A comprehensive review of all charges should be conducted so that the program remains focussed on serving the targeted population. • Based on a sample of BRC Student Records, we found that the average length of stay is quite long for the inmates who were released prior to graduating (78.2 days), or graduated but were released from custody after the graduation date (90.5 days). This demonstrates a need to track “drop” reasons, to develop a process for dealing with inmates who are not progressing through the program, and to define program goals and objectives for dealing with inmates who remain at the facility after successfully completing the program while awaiting release. Because the program is based on a six-week curriculum (42 days), the average length of stay for graduates was twice as long as the length of the curriculum. To the extent program participants spend more time than required at the facility, other potential participants cannot be served. A review of the inmate selection process should be conducted to ensure that only those inmates are selected who have as close to six weeks remaining on their sentence as possible. Section 2: Profile of Program Participants There are nationally validated data that profile domestic violence offenders. The majority of arrested batterers are heterosexual men. According to the 1992 National Crime Victimization Survey, 51 percent of domestic violence victims were attacked by a boyfriend or girlfriend, 34 percent by a spouse, and 15 percent by a former spouse. The backgrounds of incarcerated batterers are similar to those of offenders convicted of assaults against strangers and acquaintances: half grew up living with both parents; 12 percent had lived in a foster home; 22 percent had been physically or sexually abused; 31 percent were the children of substance abusers; and, 35 percent had a family member who had been incarcerated. Less is known about the demographic characteristics of low-risk or “typical” batterers, but program staff and probation officers emphasize the cultural and economic diversity of these offenders. There are no validated data profiling the BRC Bridges domestic violence offenders. A complete profile of BRC Domestic Violence program participants could not be attained from the limited information provided by the BRC program. Numerous delays in our participant profile data requests led to hard copies of record sheets being sent to us quite late in the audit process. Based on the timing, we were only able to develop a sample of profile data. It is estimated that a total of 804 inmates have participated in the Biscailuz Recovery Center Domestic Violence Program since program inception in July 1999. A validated unduplicated count of program participants could not be attained due to the multiple, disparate computer systems used at BRC, including: • The BRC Student Records Database: The HLPSD created this database to track students at the BRC when they enter and leave the program, and to document the certificates that the inmates receive. • The Certificates Database: The HLPSD created this database to track all certificates issued by the Hacienda La Puente Correctional Education Division. • The Paradox Database: This database was developed for BRC purposes only and used by the Sheriff’s Department to track program inmates. • The Quattro Pro spreadsheet: This tracking system was developed based on files and paperwork. Program participants’ data was entered into this spreadsheet, to track all inmates sent to BRC. The accuracy of data in this system could not be validated. None of these four systems are cross-referenced. Therefore the data that resides within each system vary. Further, due to these disparate data systems and the ongoing delays and client confidentiality obstacles that arose in response to our data requests, a complete and validated program profile of all participants could not be completed. Our original project goal was to determine a profile of all BRC Bridges program participants by: 138 Section 2: Profile of Program Participants • General Offense Category (cid:190) Misdemeanor Domestic Violence (cid:190) Felony Domestic Violence (cid:190) Assault • Sentence Type (current conviction only) (cid:190) County jail time only (in-custody time) (cid:190) County jail time with formal probation (in-custody & probation time) (cid:190) County jail time with informal court probation (in-custody and probation time) • Prior Record (cid:190) Total prior arrests and convictions (cid:190) History of domestic violence (arrest and conviction) (cid:190) History of assault (arrest and conviction) • Collateral Services Received (cid:190) Probation supervision (cid:190) Drug and alcohol counseling (cid:190) 52-week domestic violence counseling after release from custody Because we were never able to receive a valid, unduplicated count of program participants with client identifying information, we were unable accomplish our proposed project goals. Although we received a series of hard-copy BRC Student Records in late April 2002, these did not contain consistent client identifying information and were received too late to proceed with creating a new database, identifying data errors and duplicates and then requesting additional data based on our initial analysis of the data set. However, the BRC Domestic Violence Program independently developed the following three distinct and limited program participant profiles: • The BRC Student Database Profile • The Bridges to Recovery Student Profile Survey • The BRC Domestic Violence Graduate Profile 139 Section 2: Profile of Program Participants BRC STUDENT DATABASE PROFILE We could not complete a review of the BRC Student Records database during the timeframe that existed after receiving records from the HLPSD. After numerous delays fulfilling our request for the BRC Student Database, including questionable claims of client confidentiality, we received hard copies of each of the student’s records. HLPSD chose to withhold electronic records because of management concerns regarding data reliability. However, based on the information that was received, we were able to analyze a sample of the records provided. The BRC Student Records Database was developed and is maintained by the HLPSD staff that are involved in the Bridges to Recovery program. According to the HLPSD, the records received represent a comprehensive list of all inmates who have participated in the BRC Bridges to Recovery program since program inception in July 1999. However, our review of the records discovered that they capture a limited amount of data, primarily demographic and program start and end dates. Also, there is a lack of data consistency: there is no consistent pattern of entered dates (e.g., a graduation date may be filled in but the release date is missing). Of the 763 records received, a sample of 100 records demonstrated the following: • The average age of program participants is 34 years old • The ethnicity of the participants are: (cid:190) 62% Hispanic (cid:190) 18% White (cid:190) 16% Black (cid:190) 3% Asian (cid:190) 1% Native American • The overall average length of stay at the BRC Bridges program is 64 days. (cid:190) 41.4 days is the average length of stay for program graduates. (cid:131) This is consistent with the program curriculum, which is 6 weeks in duration (42 days). (cid:190) 44.8 days is the average length of stay for the inmates who were dropped from the program for non-compliance. (cid:131) This is quite a long time for the inmate to remain at BRC and participate in the program, and then to decide to not comply with program rules. For future analysis, BRC should track the reasons for these “drops.” (cid:190) 78.2 days is the average length of stay for inmates who were released prior to graduating. Section 2: Profile of Program Participants (cid:131) This is an exceptionally long duration for inmates to participate in a 6- week program and be released from custody prior to graduating. This demonstrates a need to develop and implement a process for dealing with inmates who are not progressing through the program. Instead of removing the inmate, he remains at the facility for almost twice as long as the program duration and still does not graduate. (cid:190) 90.5 days is the average length of stay for inmates who graduated, but were released from custody after the graduation date (cid:131) This is another instance where inmates are kept on site at BRC long after program completion. The goals of the program need to be defined to determine if a goal is for inmates to remain on-site after successfully completing the program while awaiting his release. (cid:131) On average, those inmates who remained at BRC after they graduated from the program remained at the facility for an extra 38.9 days. BRC RELEASE GROUP SURVEY PROFILE Another program participant profile was developed by the HLPSD from a survey that was completed by the students participating in the Release Group that meet on Monday afternoons, one to two weeks prior to their release. These statistics are representative of students that have enrolled in the program (not just graduates) and do not represent students that have been removed from the program prior to release. The surveys were collected from 145 students between March 2001 through January 2002. As with most surveys, there are significant data reliability issues, due to the respondents’ understanding and the veracity of their answers. Also, the survey was yes/no driven; there are no choices for unknown. For instance, some offenders may not know if they were arrested on a new charge or violation of probation, or if they will be placed on probation after release. Accounting for the limitations of this survey, the profile of the 145 students respondents shows that the typical program participant: • Is a single Hispanic male between the ages of 21 to 25, or 36 to 40 years old, • Is a father with an average of two children, • Is a high school graduate, • Is not a veteran, • Has previously served time in jail, • Was employed at the time of arrest, but does not have a job upon release, • Was under the influence when arrested, • Was arrested on a new charge or probation violation equally, • Will be on probation when released, but may or may not be required to attend domestic violence classes after release, and • Will stay with family members when released. Section 2: Profile of Program Participants • TABLE 1: BRC RELEASE GROUP SURVEY RESULTS SURVEY RESULTS Age at the time of arrest Veterans Under the influence when 18-20: 7% Yes: 6% arrested 21-25: 20% No: 94% Yes: 51% 26-30 : 15% No: 49% 31-35: 15% 36-40: 20% 41-45: 14% 46+ : 9% Ethnicity Served Prior Time in Jail/Prison Probation upon release Hispanic: 69% Yes: 62% Yes: 69% White: 14% No: 38% No: 31% Black: 14% Other: 3% Marital Status Arrested as: Required to do classes upon Married 33% Charge: 50% release Single 38% Violation: 50% Yes: 50% Divorced 6% No: 50% Living Together 9% Separated 6% Engaged 7% Widowed 1% Number of Children Employed at the time of arrest: Upon release, will stay with: 0: 19% Yes: 66% Family: 45% 1: 21% No: 34% Spouse: 27% 2: 23% Significant Other: 7% 3: 17% Alone: 19% 4: 14% Rehabilitation: 2% 5+: 6% Education Level Employed upon release: Diploma: 57% Yes: 33% GED: 6% No: 67% Non-grad: 37% 142 Section 2: Profile of Program Participants PROFILE OF BRC DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM GRADUATES The Sheriff’s Department Correctional Services Division completed a BRC Domestic Violence Program Recidivism study in March 2002. This study captured participant profile and outcome information on the graduates of the BRC Bridges to Recovery Domestic Violence Program from June 1999 through July 2001. Although there were a total of 419 graduates during that timeframe, only 229 subjects were included in the study because 22 cases were duplicates, 72 cases were missing, 7 cases were for individuals in non-graduate status, 1 case contained inconsistent demographic data, and 88 cases fell outside of the study timeframe (i.e., graduating before or after the study timeframe). A total of 102 cases were excluded from the study due to data inconsistencies and database issues. In particular, the 72 missing cases, where the inmate is shown attending BRC, but their attendance and graduation could not be validated, needs to be reviewed and analyzed so that further missing cases are not generated. Of the final sample of 229 graduates, their demographic profile was: • Ages 19 to 58, with the average age of 36 years old; • Age at first arrest ranged between 11 and 51 years of age, with the average age of 25 • 57% Hispanic • 21% African American • 19% Caucasian • 1% Asian • 2% Other The number of prior arrests that occurred prior to the Bridges to Recovery program of the graduates ranged from 0 to 45 with an average of 6 prior arrests. Prior convictions ranged from 0 to 18 with an average of 2.6 prior convictions. The arrest data for the 229 graduates included: • 72% were arrested for domestic violence (273.5 PC), • 13.5% were arrested for battery on person (243 PC), • 5.2% were arrested for battery on person (242 PC), • 4.4% were arrested for violating domestic court order, • 2.4% were arrested for miscellaneous charges, and • 1.7% were arrested for assault with a deadly weapon (245 PC). This statistical profile is consistent with the selection criteria used by the BRC Intake Officer when choosing program participants. The finding of six graduates who attended the program based on “miscellaneous charges” is unusual since the program is subject specific for domestic violence. A review of all charges should be completed in order to ensure that the program is serving the appropriate domestic violence offenders. Section 2: Profile of Program Participants The length of sentence for program graduates ranged from 27 to 378 days with an average stay of 219 days at some LA County Correctional facilities. The average length of custody stay for these graduates is five-times the length of the 6-week program curriculum; however, there was no available data to determine how long these program graduates stayed at BRC during their average 219 custody stay. CONCLUSIONS A validated and complete unduplicated count of Bridges to Recovery program participants was not obtained due to the disparate data systems that track participants and the delayed responses to our participant profile data requests. Three samples were conducted to obtain snapshot profiles of the participant population, which found that demographic trends are generally consistent. The typical participant is Hispanic male, aged 35, with multiple offenses, prior arrests and convictions. The survey profile should be expanded to include all participants in the program, and the survey methodology should be improved to increase data reliability. Some elements of the survey could be captured more reliably from other sources. Further, a single source of information should be developed to track program participants. The BRC Student Records Database could be expanded to include additional profile data such as the information included in the BRC survey and Correctional Services Division recidivism study. The reasons for data omissions and errors need to be identified and analyzed to limit record inconsistencies. Of the 229 graduates analyzed for the Correctional Services Division March 2002 recidivism study, there were six graduates who attended the program based on “miscellaneous charges”. A comprehensive review of all charges should be conducted so that the program remains focussed on serving the targeted population. Based on a sample of BRC Student Records, we found that the average length of stay is quite long for the inmates who were released prior to graduating (78.2 days), or graduated but were released from custody after the graduation date (90.5 days). This demonstrates a need to track “drop” reasons, to develop a process for dealing with inmates who are not progressing through the program, and to define program goals and objectives for dealing with inmates who remain at the facility after successfully completing the program while awaiting his release. Because the program is based on a six-week curriculum (42 days), the average length of stay for graduates was twice as long as the length of the curriculum. To the extent program participants spend more time than required at the facility, other potential participants cannot be served. A review of the inmate selection process should be conducted to ensure that only those inmates are selected who have as close to six weeks remaining on their sentence as possible. The program objective of releasing each graduate directly from BRC and not having them return to general population can still be met if more care is taken at the front end when choosing the inmates for participation based on their length of time remaining in custody. Section 2: Profile of Program Participants RECOMMENDATIONS The Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to: 2.1 Expand future statistical analyses and surveys to include all participants in the program, and to include more data elements (as described in the body of this report). (Recommendation 87) 2.2 With HLPSD, develop a single database of information for tracking inmate participation in the Bridges to Recovery Program. (Recommendation 88) 2.3 Ensure that criminal charge data is accurately recorded so that it can be ascertained that the program focus remains on domestic violence. (Recommendation 89) 2.4 Review the inmate selection process, and establish procedures that will ensure that only those inmates with six weeks left on their sentences (approximate) are enrolled in the program. (Recommendation 90) 2.5 Ensure that reasons for dropping an inmate from the program are consistently and reliably tracked. (Recommendation 91) 2.6 Develop a formalized process for dealing with inmates who are not progressing through the program in an expected timeframe. (Recommendation 92) The Superintendent of the Hacienda La Puente School District should direct Correctional Education Division managers to: 2.7 Work with the Sheriff’s Department to establish a single database of information for tracking inmate participation in the Bridges to Recovery Program. (Recommendation 93) 2.8 Work with the Sheriff’s Department to establish protocols for dealing with inmates who are not meeting program criteria and objectives in a timely manner. (Recommendation 94) COSTS AND BENEFITS There would be no costs to implement these recommendations. A validated and complete unduplicated count of program participants would be developed. Statistical analysis and the evaluation of program results would improve. The capacity of the program would be increased as inmate stay more closely approximates the curriculum duration. The Sheriff’s Department would be better able to assess Bridges to Recovery Program effectiveness. 145 3. PROGRAM COSTS • Analysis conducted for this study indicates that the average cost per inmate day is approximately $105, which is higher than in many of the County’s other jail facilities. Although recent analysis of the average cost in other facilities was not provided by the Sheriff’s Department,
• R86
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Hacienda La Puente School District superintendent should direct Correctional Education Division managers to develop measurable and reasonable course objectives and methods for measuring objectives, including pre and post testing for all course groupings. Respondent – Hacienda La Puente School District Superintendent Jails Committee BISCAILUZ RECOVERY CENTER PROFILE OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
• R87
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to expand future statistical analyses and surveys to include all participants in the program, and to include more data elements (as described in the body of this report). Respondent LASD
• R88
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers, with the help of Hacienda La Puente School District, to develop a single database of information for tracking inmate participation in the Bridges to Recovery Program. Respondent - LASD
• R89
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to ensure that criminal change data is accurately recorded so that it can be ascertained that the program focus remains on domestic violence. Respondent - LASD
• R90
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to review the inmate selection process, and establish procedures that 34 5 will ensure that only those inmates with six weeks left on their sentences (approximate) are enrolled in the program. Respondent - LASD
• R91
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to ensure that reasons for dropping an inmate from the program are consistently and reliably tracked. Respondent - LASD
• R92
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to develop a formalized process for dealing with inmates who are not progressing through the program in an expected timeframe. Respondent - LASD
• R93
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Superintendent of the Hacienda La Puente School District should direct Correctional Education Division managers to work with the Sheriff’s Department to establish a single database of information for tracking inmate participation in the Bridges to Recovery Program. Respondent - LASD
• R94
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Superintendent of the Hacienda La Puente School District should direct Correctional Education Division managers to work with the Sheriff’s Department to establish protocols for dealing with inmates who are not meeting program criteria and objectives in a timely manner. Respondent - LASD Jails Committee BISCAILUZ RECOVERY CENTER PROGRAM COSTS
• R95
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to develop and implement an appropriate model for measuring the average cost per inmate day, the average cost per program participant and the average cost per program graduate for the Bridges to Recovery Program. Respondent - LASD
• R96
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to incorporate the results of the cost model into a comprehensive cost- effectiveness evaluation, as discussed in Section 4. Respondent – LASD 34 6 Jails Committee BISCAILUZ RECOVERY CENTER PROGRAM RESULTS
• R97
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to develop and formalize quantifiable measures of program success, which are directly linked to program goals and objectives. Respondent - LASD
• R98
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to establish consistent methods for capturing performance data. Respondent - LASD
• R99
  The Jails Committee recommends that the Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to work with the Hacienda La Puente School District to develop additional data elements which will assist with future evaluation of the Bridges to Recovery Program, including the reasons individuals do not graduate, release dates, release reasons, etc. Respondent - LASD Public Safety Committee VEHICLE PULLOVERS – RACIAL BIAS/PROFILE TRAINING SEARCH AND SEIZURE TRAINING MEDIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION SKILLS TRAINING
• R100
  The Public Safety Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department should continue their education and training programs in areas of officer’s interaction with the public and treatment of crime suspects and prisoners.
• R26-30
  : 15% No: 49% 31-35: 15% 36-40: 20% 41-45: 14% 46+ : 9% Ethnicity Served Prior Time in Jail/Prison Probation upon release Hispanic: 69% Yes: 62% Yes: 69% White: 14% No: 38% No: 31% Black: 14% Other: 3% Marital Status Arrested as: Required to do classes upon Married 33% Charge: 50% release Single 38% Violation: 50% Yes: 50% Divorced 6% No: 50% Living Together 9% Separated 6% Engaged 7% Widowed 1% Number of Children Employed at the time of arrest: Upon release, will stay with: 0: 19% Yes: 66% Family: 45% 1: 21% No: 34% Spouse: 27% 2: 23% Significant Other: 7% 3: 17% Alone: 19% 4: 14% Rehabilitation: 2% 5+: 6% Education Level Employed upon release: Diploma: 57% Yes: 33% GED: 6% No: 67% Non-grad: 37% 142 Section 2: Profile of Program Participants PROFILE OF BRC DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM GRADUATES The Sheriff’s Department Correctional Services Division completed a BRC Domestic Violence Program Recidivism study in March 2002. This study captured participant profile and outcome information on the graduates of the BRC Bridges to Recovery Domestic Violence Program from June 1999 through July 2001. Although there were a total of 419 graduates during that timeframe, only 229 subjects were included in the study because 22 cases were duplicates, 72 cases were missing, 7 cases were for individuals in non-graduate status, 1 case contained inconsistent demographic data, and 88 cases fell outside of the study timeframe (i.e., graduating before or after the study timeframe). A total of 102 cases were excluded from the study due to data inconsistencies and database issues. In particular, the 72 missing cases, where the inmate is shown attending BRC, but their attendance and graduation could not be validated, needs to be reviewed and analyzed so that further missing cases are not generated. Of the final sample of 229 graduates, their demographic profile was: • Ages 19 to 58, with the average age of 36 years old; • Age at first arrest ranged between 11 and 51 years of age, with the average age of 25 • 57% Hispanic • 21% African American • 19% Caucasian • 1% Asian • 2% Other The number of prior arrests that occurred prior to the Bridges to Recovery program of the graduates ranged from 0 to 45 with an average of 6 prior arrests. Prior convictions ranged from 0 to 18 with an average of 2.6 prior convictions. The arrest data for the 229 graduates included: • 72% were arrested for domestic violence (273.5 PC), • 13.5% were arrested for battery on person (243 PC), • 5.2% were arrested for battery on person (242 PC), • 4.4% were arrested for violating domestic court order, • 2.4% were arrested for miscellaneous charges, and • 1.7% were arrested for assault with a deadly weapon (245 PC). This statistical profile is consistent with the selection criteria used by the BRC Intake Officer when choosing program participants. The finding of six graduates who attended the program based on “miscellaneous charges” is unusual since the program is subject specific for domestic violence. A review of all charges should be completed in order to ensure that the program is serving the appropriate domestic violence offenders. Section 2: Profile of Program Participants The length of sentence for program graduates ranged from 27 to 378 days with an average stay of 219 days at some LA County Correctional facilities. The average length of custody stay for these graduates is five-times the length of the 6-week program curriculum; however, there was no available data to determine how long these program graduates stayed at BRC during their average 219 custody stay. CONCLUSIONS A validated and complete unduplicated count of Bridges to Recovery program participants was not obtained due to the disparate data systems that track participants and the delayed responses to our participant profile data requests. Three samples were conducted to obtain snapshot profiles of the participant population, which found that demographic trends are generally consistent. The typical participant is Hispanic male, aged 35, with multiple offenses, prior arrests and convictions. The survey profile should be expanded to include all participants in the program, and the survey methodology should be improved to increase data reliability. Some elements of the survey could be captured more reliably from other sources. Further, a single source of information should be developed to track program participants. The BRC Student Records Database could be expanded to include additional profile data such as the information included in the BRC survey and Correctional Services Division recidivism study. The reasons for data omissions and errors need to be identified and analyzed to limit record inconsistencies. Of the 229 graduates analyzed for the Correctional Services Division March 2002 recidivism study, there were six graduates who attended the program based on “miscellaneous charges”. A comprehensive review of all charges should be conducted so that the program remains focussed on serving the targeted population. Based on a sample of BRC Student Records, we found that the average length of stay is quite long for the inmates who were released prior to graduating (78.2 days), or graduated but were released from custody after the graduation date (90.5 days). This demonstrates a need to track “drop” reasons, to develop a process for dealing with inmates who are not progressing through the program, and to define program goals and objectives for dealing with inmates who remain at the facility after successfully completing the program while awaiting his release. Because the program is based on a six-week curriculum (42 days), the average length of stay for graduates was twice as long as the length of the curriculum. To the extent program participants spend more time than required at the facility, other potential participants cannot be served. A review of the inmate selection process should be conducted to ensure that only those inmates are selected who have as close to six weeks remaining on their sentence as possible. The program objective of releasing each graduate directly from BRC and not having them return to general population can still be met if more care is taken at the front end when choosing the inmates for participation based on their length of time remaining in custody. Section 2: Profile of Program Participants RECOMMENDATIONS The Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to: 2.1 Expand future statistical analyses and surveys to include all participants in the program, and to include more data elements (as described in the body of this report). (Recommendation 87) 2.2 With HLPSD, develop a single database of information for tracking inmate participation in the Bridges to Recovery Program. (Recommendation 88) 2.3 Ensure that criminal charge data is accurately recorded so that it can be ascertained that the program focus remains on domestic violence. (Recommendation 89) 2.4 Review the inmate selection process, and establish procedures that will ensure that only those inmates with six weeks left on their sentences (approximate) are enrolled in the program. (Recommendation 90) 2.5 Ensure that reasons for dropping an inmate from the program are consistently and reliably tracked. (Recommendation 91) 2.6 Develop a formalized process for dealing with inmates who are not progressing through the program in an expected timeframe. (Recommendation 92) The Superintendent of the Hacienda La Puente School District should direct Correctional Education Division managers to: 2.7 Work with the Sheriff’s Department to establish a single database of information for tracking inmate participation in the Bridges to Recovery Program. (Recommendation 93) 2.8 Work with the Sheriff’s Department to establish protocols for dealing with inmates who are not meeting program criteria and objectives in a timely manner. (Recommendation 94) COSTS AND BENEFITS There would be no costs to implement these recommendations. A validated and complete unduplicated count of program participants would be developed. Statistical analysis and the evaluation of program results would improve. The capacity of the program would be increased as inmate stay more closely approximates the curriculum duration. The Sheriff’s Department would be better able to assess Bridges to Recovery Program effectiveness. 145 3. PROGRAM COSTS • Analysis conducted for this study indicates that the average cost per inmate day is approximately $105, which is higher than in many of the County’s other jail facilities. Although recent analysis of the average cost in other facilities was not provided by the Sheriff’s Department, discussions with administrative managers indicate that it is as low as $50. • The total Sheriff’s Department and Hacienda La Puente School District cost for operating the Biscailuz Recovery Center equals approximately $4.7 million per year for both the Bridges to Recovery and IMPACT programs. Because there is sufficient capacity to house the average daily population of 101 inmates in the County’s other jails, the costs to operate the Biscailuz Recovery Center represent a variable cost which could be nearly eliminated if the facility was closed. • The average cost per inmate participant equals approximately $7,656 since program inception. The average cost per graduate equals approximately $12,985 during the same period. Because these high average costs are nearly all variable, it is incumbent upon the Sheriff to monitor costs closely and incorporate averages as measures of performance in any cost-benefit analysis it conducts of the Biscailuz Recovery Center Bridges to Recovery Program. The Biscailuz Recovery Center is one of ten jail facilities operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, excluding the Inmate Reception Center which is used by the Sheriff to process inmates into the custody system. On any given day, the Sheriff houses approximately 19,000 to 20,000 prisoners in the County’s jails. In FY 2000-01, the Sheriff housed an average of 19,315 prisoners each day, 101 of whom were housed at the Biscailuz Recovery Center (0.5%). Each of the Sheriff’s jail facilities costs a different amount to operate. This variability in costs is determined by a number of factors, including: • The design and configuration of the facility; • The security classifications of the prisoners housed at the facility; • The function of the facility (e.g., pre-sentenced vs. sentenced); • The support functions required at the facility (e.g., medical); and, • The programming provided at the facility. The Biscailuz Recovery Center is one of the smallest jails in the County system. It is an older facility, designed for minimum security inmates who are housed in dormitory style barracks. Food service is provided centrally from a dining hall, and minimum medical services are provided on-site. The Sheriff has renovated several of the barracks to provide classroom space for inmate programming. Section 3: Program Costs Many of these characteristics provide operational efficiencies, and the design and atmosphere at the facility is clearly conducive to the learning and recovery environment. However, because of the small size of the facility, the ratio of custody staff required to manage the inmate population is higher than in other County jail facilities. This directly impacts the average cost of custody services provided to inmates at the BRC, making them higher than in some of the other larger and newer jail facilities in the County. However, the relative cost comparison between the BRC and other County jail facilities is irrelevant for purposes of this analysis. Because the average inmate population at the BRC averages approximately 0.5% of the total population in the County’s jail system, the BRC inmate population could be entirely absorbed within the other jails without any commensurate increase in staffing or costs at the other facilities. In FY 2000-01, the total population in the County’s jail system averaged between 18,916 inmates in January 2001, to 20,121 inmates in October 2000. We believe the entire BRC population of 98 (January) and 107 (October) inmates could have been absorbed within the other County jail facilities without hardly any operational impact. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, we consider the entire custody cost of operating the BRC facility to be variable – that is, if the facility were closed, the County could save nearly $4.4 million in custody operating costs by reducing the requirement for management and direct service personnel.2 There would be no additional custody cost related to moving the prisoners to other County jail facilities. As with the Sheriff’s Department cost of custody services, the educational and counseling services of the Hacienda La Puente School District are variable. If the domestic violence treatment program were discontinued, approximately $370,000 in HLPSD costs could be saved annually.3 We are not recommending that the BRC facility be closed at this time. However, because the total program costs Los Angeles County taxpayers approximately $4.7 million each year, and because these costs are nearly all variable, it is important for that costs be closely tracked, measured and incorporated into future program cost-benefit analyses. At the time of this report, no analysis of costs had been conducted by the Department or shared with our staff, and certainly no integrated cost-benefit analysis had been performed. The Sheriff’s FY 2001-02 budgeted cost for operating BRC is approximately $4.4 million. Of this amount, approximately $40,000 represents the incremental direct costs associated with housing prisoners, including food service, laundry, and other similar services. It is important to note that 100% of the services provided by the HLPSD are funded by the State through the California Jail Education Apportionment Fund, based on average daily attendance of the students (ADA); and, by the Inmate Welfare Fund, which are trust fund monies managed by the County which must be used to support inmate services. In FY 2001-02, the HLPSD estimates that approximately 70% of BRC funding came from the State, with the balance of 30% coming from the Inmate Welfare Fund. Section 3: Program Costs AVERAGE PROGRAM COSTS There are three basic, but key cost measurements which should be tracked by the Sheriff’s Department as it proceeds to refine the program evaluation model it is developing for the Bridges to Recovery Program. These include: • The average cost per inmate day; • The average cost per inmate participant; and, • The average cost per inmate graduate. The cost for each of these components should be segregated by custody cost and treatment cost. They should also be measured since program inception, and on an annual basis, to provide a baseline against which program cost effectiveness can be measured. The table below provides the averages for each of these suggested measurements for the period July 1999 through February 2002. TABLE 2: AVERAGE CUSTODY AND TREATMENT COSTS Sheriff's Hacienda July 1999 through February 2002 Department La Puente Total Gross Program Cost (A) 5,400,519 7 54,552 6 ,155,071 Total Inmate Days 58,400 5 8,400 N/A Number of Bridges Inmates 804 8 04 8 04 Number of Bridges Graduates 474 4 74 4 74 Cost Per Inmate Day 92 13 1 05 Cost Per Bridges Inmate 6,717 938 7 ,656 Cost Per Bridges Graduate 11,393 1,592 1 2,985 Percent of FY 2001-02 Elapsed 67% (A) Represents 50% of BRC operating cost since one half of the facility houses IMPACT program inmates. As shown, the average cost of operating the BRC program equals approximately $105 per inmate day ($92 for custody and $13 for programming). Although the Sheriff’s Department was unable to provide computations of inmate cost per day for the other jail facilities, discussions with administrative management staff at the Department indicate that the costs are as low as $50 per day at these other locations. More importantly, the average cost per inmate who enters the Bridges to Recovery Program equals $7,656, which is significant since a maximum of only 60% of participants actually graduate from the program. The average cost per graduate equals approximately $12,985. The Sheriff’s Department brought numerous studies to our attention which describe the financial and societal cost of crime in the United States, and the costs of alternative out-of-custody 148 Section 3: Program Costs programs in Los Angeles County. While interesting, this information is irrelevant unless the Department is successful at measuring the cost effectiveness of its current program. Unless the Department can show that the BRC program is making an impact in terms of reducing recidivism, reducing injuries and death suffered by the victims of domestic violence, and reducing the other residual costs of violent crime, no claim can be made that the BRC program reduces the financial and societal cost to the community. Until this impact can be demonstrated, the costs of the BRC program must be viewed as an additional cost to the community with no proven results. As demonstrated above, BRC operating costs are significant. It is therefore incumbent on the Sheriff’s Department to conduct a thorough evaluation of program outcomes against program costs, to measure the cost-effectiveness of the program. As will be discussed in Section 4 of this report, the Department has been unable to conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness of the domestic violence treatment program to date. CONCLUSIONS Analysis conducted for this study indicates that the average cost per inmate day is approximately $105, which is higher than in many of the County’s other jail facilities. Although recent analysis of the average cost in other facilities was not provided by the Sheriff’s Department, discussions with administrative managers indicate that it is as low as $50. The total Sheriff’s Department and Hacienda La Puente School District cost for operating the Biscailuz Recovery Center equals approximately $4.7 million per year for both the Bridges to Recovery and IMPACT programs. Because there is sufficient capacity to house the average daily population of 101 inmates in the County’s other jails, the costs to operate the Biscailuz Recovery Center represent a variable cost which could be nearly eliminated if the facility was closed. The average cost per inmate participant equals approximately $7,656 since program inception. The average cost per graduate equals approximately $12,985 during the same period. Because these high average costs are nearly all variable, it is incumbent upon the Sheriff to monitor costs closely and incorporate averages as measures of performance in any cost-benefit analysis it conducts of the Biscailuz Recovery Center Bridges to Recovery Program. RECOMMENDATIONS The Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to: 3.1 Develop and implement an appropriate model for measuring the average cost per inmate day, the average cost per program participant and the average cost per program graduate for the Bridges to Recovery Program. (Recommendation 95) 3.2 Incorporate the results of the cost model into a comprehensive cost-effectiveness evaluation, as discussed in Section 4. (Recommendation 96) 149 Section 3: Program Costs COSTS AND BENEFITS There would be no additional costs to implement these recommendations. The Sheriff’s Department would be better able to assess the effectiveness of the Bridges to Recovery Program against the costs to the taxpayers. 150 4. PROGRAM RESULTS • We were unable to conduct an original analysis of program effectiveness and outcome data due the disparate data source systems and the continuously delayed responses to our data requests. We were unable to get a validated list of program participants and program graduates to track for recidivism analyses. Therefore, the recidivism analysis for this audit is based solely on a secondary review of two studies completed by the Sheriff’s Department Correctional Services Division. • In order to measure program effectiveness and program success with any validity, quantifiable measures must be established based on program goals and objectives. In order for quantifiable measures to be developed, overall program goals and objectives must be determined and must be measurable. The Bridges to Recovery Program lacks measurable and reasonable objectives, methods for measurement, quantifiable performance and outcome indicators, and a consistent method of capturing performance data. • Program effectiveness cannot be determined, even though an estimated 44% to 59% of program participants graduate. An extensive amount of additional data must be consistently captured for all participants in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of program results, such as why others did not graduate, release dates and release reasons. • Based on a sample of 229 graduates, the Correctional Services Division Recidivism study of the BRC Bridges program found a 30 day recidivism re-arrest rate of 4.1% and a 1 year cumulative re-arrest rate of 32.71%. Again, these results are inconclusive since additional data, such as domestic violence re-arrests, must be captured and analyzed to confidently determine whether the program impacts the domestic violence behavior of participants. • A notable pattern evident from analysis of the 229 graduate data is that graduates continue to be arrested and re-arrested at a fairly consistent rate for up to the year after graduation. This suggests that an aftercare program that is coordinated with the Probation Department may be appropriate. Section 4: Program Results BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE TREATMENT The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) states that there are a number of significant barriers to effective batterer treatment programs, most notably, the overall lack of services to meet the needs of convicted domestic violence perpetrators in the United States. Other factors the NIJ has identified that affect batterer treatment success are: • Offenders who are ordered or mandated by a court to attend a treatment program may not be participating on a willing basis and may be resistant to change. (cid:190) BRC is a unique correctional setting program where the inmate has a choice between participating in the BRC program or being housed in the general population. While the inmate is free to choose whether he will participate, it is unclear if the decision to participate results from a desire to change previous behaviors, or a desire to take advantage of the BRC living quarters and facility amenities. • Many batterers programs are short in duration (ten to twelve weeks), leading many domestic violence advocates to observe that if battering is a behavior learned over a lifetime, it may take more than a few weeks to “unlearn” that behavior. (cid:190) The BRC Domestic Violence program is based on an even shorter curriculum of six- weeks with little to no follow-up with the inmates. While the program offers post- release weekly meetings at the BRC site, there is very low attendance. BRC staff do not coordinate services with the LASD Community Transition Unit or with the Probation Department. Therefore, the inmates have just six weeks (some longer) to “unlearn” a lifetime of behavior. • If a batterer is also alcohol/drug dependent, but receives treatment only for the violent behavior, then the correlating factor of substance abuse is not addressed (cid:190) The BRC Domestic Violence Program has recognized the link between substance abuse and domestic violence and includes substance abuse curriculum in its program. • There have been limited sound evaluations of the long-term success of batterers treatment programs BATTERER INTERVENTION EVALUATIONS While numerous evaluations of batterer interventions have been conducted, domestic violence researchers concur that findings from the majority of these studies are inconclusive because of methodological problems, such as small samples, lack of random assignment or control groups, high attrition rates, short or unrepresentative program curriculums, short follow-up periods, or unreliable or inadequate sources of follow-up data (e.g., only arrest data, only self-reported data, or only data from the original victim). Section 4: Program Results Among evaluations considered methodologically sound, the majority have found modest but statistically significant reductions in recidivism among men participating in batterer interventions. A notable exception is a 1991 methodologically rigorous quasi-experimental evaluation of batterer interventions in Baltimore, conducted for the Urban Institute. The study raised particular concern in the field by its unexpected findings that participants in all of the three batterer interventions recidivated at a higher rate than those in the control group. (Harrell, A. Evaluation of Court Ordered Treatment for Domestic Violence Offenders). Preliminary results from a four-site study sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control are inconclusive: at 12 months, re-offense rates for program graduates are similar to those for batterers who dropped out at intake, and no significant variations exist in outcomes for batterers in programs of varied length and curriculum (although a three-month, pretrial, educational program has shown slightly better outcomes when socioeconomic factors are taken into account). (Edward Gondolf, Multi-Site Evaluation of Batterer Intervention Systems). A 1996 study by J.S. Goldkamp, The Role of Drug and Alcohol Abuse in Domestic Violence and Its Treatment, suggests that offenders with prior arrests involving the same victim, prior domestic violence or assault and battery arrests, and drug involvement may be at highest risk for re-offending. Batterers who were drunk once a month re-offended at three times the rate of others in the study. Frustration with the lack of empirical evidence favoring one curriculum or length of treatment has led some researchers to increasingly look at batterers as a diverse group for whom specially tailored interventions may be the only effective approach. It seems likely that even if research identifies the perfect matches between offenders and interventions, criminal justice and community support for the interventions will have a crucial impact on the effort’s success. Andrew Klein, chief probation officer of the Quincy, Massachusetts, District Court Model Domestic Abuse Program, observed, “You can’t separate batterer treatment from its (criminal justice system) context. You can’t study the effectiveness of treatment without studying the quality of force that supports it.” Unfortunately, this audit of the BRC Domestic Violence program was unable to study the “quality of force that supports the program” (the probation data supporting the BRC program). As noted above, the numerous data request delays did not allow time for a probation data request to be met. In addition, the data delays and obstacles prevented our full and original analysis of program effectiveness data such as: • Program Completion Rates of total participants • Recidivism arrests (cid:190) For new misdemeanor and felony offenses generally (cid:190) For new misdemeanor and felony domestic violence offenses • Recidivism convictions (cid:190) For new misdemeanor and felony offenses generally (cid:190) For new misdemeanor and felony domestic violence offenses 153 Section 4: Program Results • Linking the recidivism rates to probation data (cid:190) Formal vs. informal probation (cid:190) Those assigned to 52-week domestic violence aftercare program • Comparison group analysis of the same recidivism data Our program effectiveness analysis is limited to a secondary review of the two recidivism studies completed by the Sheriff’s Department Correctional Services Division. Some additional program completion information was gathered from the Hacienda BRC Student Records Database and the Hacienda Certificates Database. PROGRAM COMPLETION RATES Another gap of available data for the BRC Bridges Program is the documentation of program completion rates. It is unclear exactly how many inmates completed the program successfully or unsuccessfully over time. In fact, the total number of BRC Bridges program participants since inception cannot be validated. The only potential source for determining total inmates who have walked through the BRC Bridges program door was from the BRC Student Records database. The Hacienda School District maintains the BRC Database, but due to system errors in the month of April 2001, HLPSD management was concerned about the accuracy of the database and therefore would not send us the database for our audit. The BRC staff did run a crude and simplified query of the BRC Student Records Database to find a total of 804 inmates that have participated in the program from July 1999 through February 2002. Of the estimated 804 participants: • 59% (474) have graduated, and • 20% (159) have been “rolled up” (dropped from the program) It is unclear from this simplified query what happened to the other 171 inmates. Some potential problems with the data could be duplicate records and/or incomplete records; or, the 171 inmates may not have graduated from the program prior to being released. Of the estimated 804 inmates: • 10% (79) received Drug Education certificates • 39% (317) received Job Readiness certificates • 35% (279) received Parenting certificates • 2% (19) received GED certificates • 0.7% (6) received high school diplomas • 2% (16) re-entered the program (cid:190) 12 were re-arrested and returned; 4 returned after a medical issue In addition to the BRC Student Database query, we sampled 100 BRC Student Records and similarly found that the BRC Bridges program completion rate is high. Based on the sample review of 100 BRC Student Records: 154 Section 4: Program Results An estimated 44% of program participants graduated, of which: (cid:190) 20 graduates did not have a release or drop date completed. (cid:190) 13 had a drop date. (cid:190) 9 had a release reason of “released” but no release date. (cid:190) 2 were “rolled-up” (dismissed due to rule violations) from the program after graduation. • An estimated 44% were released from corrections prior to graduating, of which: (cid:190) 26 had a completed released date. (cid:190) 11 had a release reason of “released” but no release date. (cid:190) 7 were “rolled-up.” • An estimated 12% had no dates completed (potentially still active or release, drop, or graduation dates were unknown). In terms of certificates received: • An estimated 48% of the program participants received at least one certificate. • An estimated 13% received more than one certificate (primarily the Job Readiness Certificate, as well as the Bridges program certificate). It is important to note that these findings are based on data that may be questionable due to data entry errors. The review of records found a number of records with multiple date entries, such as: • No consistency between when the release date is completed versus the drop date. (cid:190) Release date is released from any Sheriff’s facility, and drop date is released from BRC. • Release reason completed with no release date. • Graduation dates completed with no release date or drop dates. • A number of entry dates with no release, drop or graduation dates completed even with two year old entry dates The extent of data errors in the BRC Student Records Database is unclear. A consistent definition of each date entry field, as well as a consistent protocol for data entry must be established in order to attain a full understanding of program completion rates and reasons. Although there are potential data validity issues with the BRC Student Database, the finding that the same number of graduates are released as are non-graduates is cause for an extensive review of the selection criteria process established by the Sheriff’s Department. The reason for these inmates being released prior to graduation must be explored in order to determine if they are being received at BRC with too little time left on their sentence to complete the 6-week curriculum, if there are barriers (such as language issues, illiteracy, etc.) preventing these inmates from completing the program, if the 6-week course is too short in duration for the inmates to complete the requirements, or other reasons. This investigation will assist the Hacienda La Puente staff and Sheriff’s staff in improving the program curriculum and selection criteria. Section 4: Program Results RECIDIVISM As noted above, a primary analysis of recidivism data could not be conducted for this audit due to the lack of consistent and validated program participant and graduation data, lack of key identifying information of program participants and graduates and the delays in receiving responses to the audit data requests. A secondary review of the two recidivism studies conducted by the Correctional Services Division is described below. December 2000 Preliminary Recidivism Data BRC Bridges to Recovery This study is based on a one-day snapshot in December 2000. The Correctional Services Division took the 129 graduates to date, the 107 non-graduates and a 116-comparison group to determine those re-arrested and re-convicted for 273.5 (domestic violence) offenses and non 273.5 (domestic violence) offenses. In the review of criminal histories of 352 inmates, 93 or 26.4% were re-arrested, while 18.6% of program graduates were re-arrested. The table below summarizes the findings of the study, but it is crucial to note that according to the study findings, “statistically significant conclusions cannot be drawn from this data. To generate statistical significance one would need to run statistical analyses and these numbers represent mere percentages of the various study groups who were deemed recidivists.” TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY RECIDIVISM STUDY RESULTS Program Graduates Non-Graduates Comparison Group n=129 n=107 n=116 Re-arrests 18.6% (24) 24.2% (26) 37.1% (43) 273.5 offenses 7% (9) 10.3% (11) 12.1% (14) non-273.5 offenses 11.6% (15) 14% (15) 25% (29) Re-convictions 8.5% (11) 13.1% (14) 26.7% (31) 273.5 offenses 3.9% (5) 5.6% (6) 12.1% (14) non-273.5 offenses 4.6% (6) 7.5% (8) 14.7% (17) Additional limitations of this research include the lack of stratification for the subject data based on the period since release. There were individuals who had been released one year prior to the study period, mixed with those who had been released only three months prior to the study period. Also, after researching the original methodology, the Correctional Services Division discovered that the comparison group was not a “true” comparison group. Approximately, 20% did jail time and of those who did, the conviction was not necessarily 273.5 offenses. Also, the average length of stay for the comparison group was 13 days, which was not the length for the BRC group. The complete recidivism data findings are presented in Attachment 5. Section 4: Program Results MARCH 2002 RECIDIVISM STUDY OF BRC GRADUATES This second Corrections Services Division recidivism report on the Bridges to Recovery Program is a more statistically sound time series analysis of recidivism than the initial December 2000 report above. However, a number of potential data issues may exist in these findings as well, such as data entry errors in the data analysis spreadsheets. There are a number of blank entries for the re-arrest yes or no fields. Although the analysis requires a “2” for no re-arrest, the data summarized below assumed that the blank entries were “no re-arrest” as well. This is only an assumption that has not been validated and therefore, the data below may not be accurate. The Correctional Services Division was unable to respond to our inquiries of these potential data errors in a timely enough manner to include in this report. The study is based on a sample of 229 graduates from June 1999 through July 2001. The re- arrest and re-conviction rates are based statewide California arrest and conviction data for the program graduates. Recidivism within four distinct timeframes The table below demonstrates the March 2002 recidivism study findings of the Bridges to Recovery program. The study is based on a sample of 229 graduates from June 1999 through July 2001. Based on graduation dates, the sample size of graduates decreases as the follow-up period/post release increases because the sample below is not cumulative over time; it is divided into four distinct timeframes. TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF MARCH 2002 RECIDIVISM STUDY RESULTS Recidivism 30-day 30-60 days 60days–6 6 months-1 year for distinct Post release Post-release months Post-release timeframes n=229 n=220 Post release n=107 n=179 Re-arrest 4.8% (11) 4.5% (10) 15.1% (27) 15.9% (17) Violent Offenses 2.2% (5) 2.3% (5) 6.7% (12) 4.7% (5) Drug/Alcohol 0.9% (2) 0.9% (2) 6.7% (12) 7.5% (8) Property Crimes 0.9% (2) n/a 0.6% (1) 2.8% (3) Weapon Offenses n/a 0.9% (2) n/a n/a Probation Violation 0.9% (2) 0.5% (1) 1.1% (2) 0.9% (1) Misdemeanor 3.1% (7) 3.2% (7) 10.1% (18) 11.2% (12) Felony 1.7% (4) 1.4% (3) 5% (9) 4.7% (5) Conviction 3.1% (7) 1.4% (3) 5% (9) 8.4% (9) 157 Section 4: Program Results From the distinct timeframes of 0-30 days; 30-60 days; 60 days-6 months and 6 months to 1 year, the recidivism rates increase significantly (more than double) from the 30-60 day timeframe and the 60-day to 6-month timeframe. The graduate conviction rates also increase with time. However, the percentage of re-arrests that are convicted actually spikes in the first and last timeframes: • 64% of the 30-day post release re-arrests are convicted • 30% of the 30-60 day post-release re-arrests are convicted • 33% of the 60-day to 6 month post release re-arrests are convicted • 53% of the 6-month to 1 year post release re-arrests are convicted Recidivism for graduates who have been released for at least 1 year Another method for determining recidivism rates is to look at the graduates over the span of one cumulative year (not just within each of the four distinct timeframes). This cumulative one-year analysis of the 107 graduates who have been released for at least one year demonstrates a higher rate of re-arrest, a 32.7% cumulative rate of recidivism (35 of the 107 graduates). Six of those 35 participants had been arrested twice. Therefore the cumulative 1-year recidivism rate by actual cases of re-arrest was 38.32% (41 graduates). The majority of the one-year post release recidivists were Hispanic (51%), followed by African American (29%) and Caucasian (20%). Cumulative Recidivism over the span of one-year (regardless of the length of post-release) A third method of analyzing recidivism is to view the entire sample size of 229 graduates, and determine how many were re-arrested in the course of up to one year following release. In this analysis, the graduate does not have to be released for the entire year, but has to be released for some portion (1 day or more) of the follow-up year. This method helps determine a baseline for the lowest recidivism rates for the graduates. From that baseline the recidivism rates can only increase as the graduates continue to add to their post-release days, and potentially recidivate even more as they progress beyond the 1-year follow-up date. Of the total 229 graduate sampling size, there were a total of 57 graduates (24.9%), who may or may not have reached a year of post-release, but were re-arrested at some point during that follow-up year. Eight of the graduates (3.5%) were arrested twice, for a total of 65 re-arrests. On average, there were 0.28 arrests per graduate. Almost half (43%) of the individuals who were re- arrested are convicted. Section 4: Program Results TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF RECIDIVISM FOR BRIDGES TO RECOVERY GRADUATES Average arrests per graduate 0.28 Percent of graduates re-arrested at some point over the course of a year (n=229) 24.9% Cumulative year conviction rate (n=229) 12% Percent of graduates re-arrested more than once (n=229) 3.5% Percent of graduates re-arrested who have been released for at least one year 32.7% (n=107) One-year post release conviction rate (n=107) 16.8% These 65 cumulative re-arrests are distributed evenly among Drug and Alcohol Offenses and Violent Offenses. The offense breakdown is: • 42% are Violent Offenses • 38% are Drug/Alcohol related offenses • 9% are Probation Violations • 9% are Property Crimes • 2% are Weapons Offenses The majority of the offenders, who had multiple re-arrests, were re-arrested for some combination of Violent and Drug Offenses. Unfortunately, the data provided for this study did not distribute these re-arrests by domestic violence related offenses. Given that the primary goal of the Bridges to Recovery Program is to decrease the domestic violence offending of its participants, an analysis of domestic violence re- arrests should be conducted to determine program effectiveness. Although Hispanics represent the majority of the recidivists (54%), they are no more likely to recidivate than African Americans or Caucasians. In fact, Hispanics are less likely to recidivate: • 24% of the 131 Hispanic graduates were re-arrested • 28% of the 43 Caucasian graduates were re-arrested • 29% of the 49 African American graduates were re-arrested The average age of the recidivates is 36.2 years old, but the 30 year-olds are less likely to recidivate than the 50 year-olds, according to the analyzed sample size. • 19% of the graduates in their 30’s were re-arrested • 26% of the graduates in their 40’s were re-arrested • 27% of the graduates in their 50’s were re-arrested • 30% of the graduates in their 20’s were re-arrested 159 Section 4: Program Results Comparisons and Patterns Comparison recidivism rate findings were not available for this study. Due to the delays in obtaining data on BRC Bridges graduates, we were unable to submit a timely data request for to the Probation Department for a comparison group analyses. Evaluating a valid comparison group will be a crucial component for future outcome program evaluations. In order to determine program success, a comparison group must be measured. In addition data on length of sentence was not captured. This information could assist in drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of keeping inmates longer than the program curriculum requires. Nationally, recidivism is utilized by most criminal justice programs as a key measure for determining success. The numbers vary drastically. A review of over 100,000 state prisoners found that 62.5% were re-arrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.8% were re-convicted and 41.4% returned to prison or jail. More recently, the recidivism rate for offenders charged with drug-related crimes was reported to vary from 50% to 80%. The National Institute of Corrections estimates that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 60%. It is difficult to draw any comparisons to these broad and diverse recidivism figures that are defined differently and based on different focus groups and timeframes. The only true way to determine effectiveness is to measure the Bridges to Recovery recidivism rates against a statistically appropriate comparison group within Los Angeles County. A notable pattern throughout the three different analyses of the 229 graduate data is that graduates continue to be arrested and re-arrested at a fairly consistent rate for up to one year after graduation. This suggests that a coordinated aftercare program may be appropriate. Unfortunately, the number of post-release probationers is not tracked for Bridges to Recovery Program participants; and, due to the delays in receiving data, we were unable to submit a data request to Probation to determine the percentage of Bridges to Recovery participants who are on Probation. Currently, the Bridges to Recovery program has no link to the Probation Department. The Probation Department cannot determine who attends the Bridges to Recovery Program, and BRC cannot determine who is on probation. The Los Angeles County Probation Department does have a Domestic Violence Monitoring Unit that approves and monitors the current 146 domestic violent programs that provide the 52-week classes to domestic violent offenders. Those domestic violent offenders, however, can be in any unit or any caseload. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO OUTCOME ANALYSES The development of expected outcomes and measurements must be developed by the BRC Bridges Program in order to determine program effectiveness. The March 2002 Correctional Services Division recidivism study has developed a good starting point for analyzing the program success of Bridges to Recovery. However, a number of additional analyses must take place, including: • A validated comparison group study; • An analysis of the type of re-arrest offense in relation to domestic violence; • An analysis of the length of stay on recidivism and graduation; • An analysis of the impact probation may have on the recidivism rates; and, 160 Section 4: Program Results • An analysis of the impact a 52-week domestic violence program may have on the recidivism rates. In order to measure program effectiveness and program success, quantifiable measures must be established based on program goals and objectives. The first step for the Bridges to Recovery Program is to develop those goals and objectives and align them with measurable performance and outcome indicators. These indicators will need to be captured consistently, ideally in one central system. The Hacienda BRC Student Records Database seems like the most logical system to capture the necessary data. At the very minimum, entry dates, release dates, and release reasons must be captured consistently. CONCLUSIONS This audit was unable to conduct an original analysis of program effectiveness and outcome data due the disparate data source systems and the continuously delayed responses to our data requests. We were unable to get a validated list of program participants and program graduates to track for recidivism analyses. Therefore, the recidivism analysis for this audit is based solely on a secondary review of two studies completed by the Sheriff’s Department Correctional Services Division. The Bridges Program understands the need to track and validate program success. Their first two recidivism studies reflected their understanding of this need. The Correctional Services Division is taking the lead role in beginning to look at program success issues and has reported the need to gather the appropriate data. Some initial steps are being taken in order to track recidivism and other non-quantifiable elements, such as social impacts to success. In order to measure program effectiveness and program success with any validity, however, quantifiable measures must be established based on program goals and objectives. In order for quantifiable measures to be developed, overall program goals and objectives must be determined and must be measurable. The Bridges to Recovery Program lacks measurable and reasonable objectives, methods for measurement, quantifiable performance and outcome indicators, and a consistent method of capturing performance data. Program effectiveness cannot be determined, even though an estimated 44% to 59% of program participants graduate. An extensive amount of additional data must be consistently captured for all participants in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of program results, such as why others did not graduate, release dates and release reasons. Based on a sample of 229 graduates, the Correctional Services Division Recidivism study of the BRC Bridges program found a 30 day recidivism re-arrest rate of 4.1% and a 1 year cumulative re-arrest rate of 32.71%. Again, these results are inconclusive since additional data, particularly re-arrest of specific domestic violence offense data must be captured and analyzed to confidently determine whether the program impacts the domestic violence behavior of participants. A notable pattern evident from analysis of the 229 graduate data is that graduates continue to be arrested and re-arrested at a fairly consistent rate for up to the year after graduation. This 161 Section 4: Program Results suggests that an aftercare program that is coordinated with the Probation Department may be appropriate. RECOMMENDATIONS The Sheriff should direct the Correctional Services Division managers to: 4.1 Develop and formalize quantifiable measures of program success, which are directly linked to program goals and objectives. (Recommendation 97) 4.2 Establish consistent methods for capturing performance data. (Recommendation 98) 4.3 Work with the HLPSD to develop additional data elements which will assist with future evaluation of the Bridges to Recovery Program, including the reasons individuals do not graduate, release dates, release reasons, etc. (Recommendation 99) COSTS AND BENEFITS There would be no costs to implement these recommendations. The Sheriff’s Department would be better able to assess Bridges to Recovery Program effectiveness 162 163 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Application of Law Enforcement BACKGROUND The Public Safety Committee of the - 2002 was to investigate certain aspects regarding selective application of law enforcement in the City and County of Los Angeles. METHODOLOGY The Committee studied the training and practice of law enforcement personnel, procedures in search and seizure actions, the prohibition of racial bias and profiling as probable cause, and police behavior in pullover stops. The Committee attended the LAPD recruit officer training classes in the procedures for vehicle pullovers. Committee members participated in LAPD ride-a-longs to observe the officers’ actions and behavior in the field. The members rode with patrol units in West Los Angeles, Van Nuys and the City of Gardena. Committee members also attended the LASD recruit officer training classes on search and seizure operations. The Consent Decree initiated by the Department of Justice, Board of Inquiry Report initiated by the Los Angeles Police Department, Report of the Rampart Independent Review Panel initiated by the Police Commissioners and Chemerinsky Analysis of Board of Inquiry Report initiated by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, were reports which were utilized as study documents for review. FINDINGS VEHICLE PULLOVERS – RACIAL BIAS/PROFILE TRAINING On June 15, 2001 the Consent Decree was formally approved and signed. The Consent Decree consisted of 132 action mandates for the Los Angeles Police Department, mandating changes in a number of Department functions including but not limited to the following: Community Outreach & Public Information Investigation of Use of Force Training Non-Discrimination Policy and Motor Vehicle & Pedestrian stops Search and Arrest Procedures Additionally, the Consent Decree required the Department to collect specific data on vehicle and pedestrian detentions and called for the development of an enhanced risk management system. To date, it is noted that the LAPD Consent Decree Task Force, which was formed for implementation and compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree, has developed and implemented a Department policy prohibiting racial profiling. The Consent Decree is in effect for five years. The Department must demonstrate substantial compliance with and maintain those compliance efforts for an additional two years. The Public Safety Committee of the To question a driver regarding a current traffic violation; To investigate occupants of a vehicle regarding suspected misdemeanor behavior; and To investigate occupants of a vehicle who are suspected of being “high risk” – which necessitates an officer call for backup. The Public Safety Committee observed the LAPD training class to be a detailed and thorough training in the procedures for vehicle pullovers. Training emphasized the specific criteria used in making pullovers. Due to the charges of “racial bias” and the issue of disparate treatment of minorities by law enforcement officers, techniques in training are increasing and addressing a higher standard for fair and impartial implementation of pullover criteria. All pullovers require new and extensive responsibility and accountability on the part of the officers. Increased data gathering information regarding the profiling of investigatory stops is now required by the LAPD. It was found that a newly implemented policy by the LAPD for the collection of data regarding investigatory stops has been effectuated. However, in order to implement the mandates of the Consent Decree provision regarding the capturing of field data, equipment and technology not yet available to the LAPD is required. This additional equipment and technology must now be considered in an already greatly constrained budget. Financial implications will greatly affect compliance in this area. All the rules, procedures, collection of data, report writing, and implementation of procedures still do nothing to address the fact that subjective human decision making drives the selection of investigatory stops. There must be established, after sound criteria, a placement of the highest trust in the law enforcement officers whose duty it is to protect and serve. In order to award this trust relationship, the highest degree of work ethic must be demonstrated by the department and perceived by the public. It is therefore incumbent on the LAPD to maintain the utmost integrity in hiring practices to attract and retain the best and most qualified candidates possible as police officers for the department. Likewise, it is in the best interest of the department and public to continue inclusive hiring practices of racial/ethnic, gender and sexual orientation to best model the communities in which the department will serve. SEARCH AND SEIZURE TRAINING The Public Safety Committee members also attended continuing education training classes for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department regarding search and seizure. These classes were also found to be equally detailed and thorough in officer training and education. The classes covered the proper legal procedures for having search warrants issued, the procedures for the seizure of personal property, and the proper way to carry out an investigation, including the gathering of evidence. It was emphasized in these classes, that the laws regarding search and seizure are constantly changing and have been reinterpreted by the courts. This has necessitated continuous follow-up retraining for police personnel. The Public Safety Committee, along with the entire Civil Grand Jury, visited and observed both the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department crime laboratories where evidence collected at the scene of a crime is studied, and if necessary, stored. These crime laboratories are not to be confused with the LAPD evidence locker which contains narcotics seized in the commission of crimes. MEDIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION SKILLS It appeared that development and training for department sworn personnel continued to be emphasized by the LAPD in a dual effort to provide continuing education and to realize the mandates of a community policing philosophy as suggested in the Consent Decree, Board of Inquiry Report and other reports. The LAPD recognized the importance of providing employees with educational growth opportunities, and also, the importance of sensitivity of employees to understanding the diverse communities served by the department. Curriculum and training models for the domestic violence training program included an emphasis on the identification of the primary aggressor at the scene of a domestic violence incident. The department proposed legislation in February 1998, that was introduced as Senate Bill 1470 (Thompson) and Assembly Bill 1767 (Havice). These Bills were passed and became effective January 1, 1999. They amended California Penal Code Sections 243 and 836, which authorized a peace officer to arrest, without a warrant, a person who commits assault or battery upon his or her domestic partner. These laws provide additional tools for law enforcement to address the serious problem of domestic violence. During the LAPD ride-a-long in the Van Nuys area, the Public Safety Committee members observed the officers in the course of their field work. Dispute resolution skills were utilized more often than the public’s perception of crime prevention and apprehension. It would seem that a large portion of police work is spent providing and practicing conflict management and mediation as an alternate to the common perception of policing and arresting. Human compassion and understanding, common sense and an adherence to the legal parameters of good citizenship were skills and tools drawn upon by officers answering calls for police response. The police act as family counselors in domestic situations involving couples, or between parents and children. As an example, during the course of the ride-a-long police officers discovered two young children left alone at home that may have been the subject of parental neglect. The children were taken to the local police station. During a Gardena Police Department ride-a-long, the officers answered a domestic violence call concerning a woman and a man whom she wanted removed from the residence. The Public Safety Committee members observed police officers’ interaction with the woman who placed the call requesting police assistance. Upon arrival the man had already left the premise. Social- 194 work intervention skills were required on the part of the police officers to communicate measures and techniques of safety of the woman. Later the Public Safety Committee observed the Gardena police officers arrest a woman for selling drugs while parked at a liquor store parking lot. She had driven there with a child who was left in the car while the woman “conducted her business.” The police officers realized the minor child was not restrained in a proper car seat and called to have a child’s car seat brought to the scene. They proceeded with their investigation and arrest of the woman. The woman’s car was impounded and the child was transported to the police station, where the grandmother of the minor child later took custody of the infant. It was reported to the Public Safety Committee that much of police work was routine policing and a large part of time was spent in writing a report of each incident responded to. A ride-a- long in West Los Angeles, however, was not routine for the Committee members who were returned to the police station so that officers could respond to a bank robbery. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE VEHICLE PULLOVERS – RACIAL BIAS/PROFILE TRAINING SEARCH AND SEIZURE TRAINING MEDIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION SKILLS TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS 100. The Public Safety Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department should continue their education and training programs in areas of officer’s interaction with the public and treatment of crime suspects and prisoners. 101. The Public Safety Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department should continue to provide follow up training as the evolution of case law may dictate, particularly in the area of search and seizure. 102. The Public Safety Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department should continue to emphasize and provide continuing education in the specialized areas of dispute resolution, conflict management and mediation in an effort to seek constantly alternate ways of establishing positive communication while upholding the Vision, Mission and Core Values of the Departments. 103. The Public Safety Committee recommends that the Los Angeles Police Department should continue its attention to implement the terms and conditions of the Department of Justice Consent Decree document which was mutually agreed upon, formally approved and signed on June 15, 2001. RESEARCH AND FOLLOW-UP COMMITTEE BACKGROUND: The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury investigates Los Angeles County agencies and makes recommendations to these agencies designed to improve their performances. All agencies to whom recommendations are made are directed to reply, according to California Penal Code §933(c): “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of, the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.” The responses to the recommendations of the outgoing Civil Grand Jury are received by the incoming Civil Grand Jury usually during the first three months of its term of service. It is the function of the research and Follow-Up Committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury to match the recommendations of the previous grand jury to the responses made by the agencies which were addressed. A match-up of all recommendations in the final report(s) for a given year constitutes a one-year data base of recommendations and responses. Such a database supplies significant information to the Civil Grand Jury and is of help to subsequent Civil Grand Juries in their determination of the line(s) of investigation they might want to follow. This database is to be kept by the grand jury for a minimum of five years. The second year, if this process is repeated, the new database may be added to the first. By the time the first database has been held five years, there would have been developed a five-year database of recommendations and their respective responses. This collected information could be of great value to each incoming Civil Grand Jury. Unfortunately, the Civil Grand Jury is not a continuous body. Under present law, the Civil Grand Jury exists for one year only, from July 1 to the succeeding June 30. Therefore, the Civil Grand Jury cannot keep anything for more than twelve months, and in the case of incoming responses, only nine months, or less, if the delivery of the current responses to the grand jury is delayed. For the grand jury to carry out its mandate regarding the five-year retention of the recommendation/response database, some carry-over in membership from one Civil Grand Jury to the next would be helpful. While it is possible for a few members to be held over for several months by the presiding judge, this option has rarely been exercised. Unless exercised on a regular basis, it would not solve the problem of the Civil Grand Jury’s holding anything for a minimum of five years. Other than through a final report there is no communication from one Civil Grand Jury to the next. A five year data base of recommendations and appropriate responses is too voluminous a document to be included in a final report. The inclusion of only the current year’s one-year database would fail to follow the requirement to “keep five years” for the four years preceding the kept database. Also, since responses are not made anonymously, and since the anonymity of sources of information in the final report is highly desirable, there is the difficult problem of concealing the identity of the people making the responses. While the Foreperson of a Civil Grand Jury addresses his succeeding Civil Grand Jury during the members’ orientation, and while he/she could carry a five year recommendation/response database with him/her to leave with his/her successors, this procedure would be regularly endangered by the possibility of an emergency arising to prevent the Foreperson’s meeting with the new Civil Grand Jury members during their orientation. The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Staff is a continuing organization and is in the process of establishing an area for a library, preferably a place which may be locked, in which important documents may be secured, and which may be made available, when requested, to members of an impaneled Civil Grand Jury. While this Civil Grand Jury would be responsible during its year of service for “maintaining” the database reports in an up-to-date condition, the Grand Jury Staff would be responsible for the “control” (through filing) of these databases on a continuous basis, at least “for a minimum of five years.” In August, 1998, Assembly Bill No. 1907 was passed, amending sections 924.4, 933 and 934 of the Penal Code. Legislative Counsel’s Digest reads: 198 “(1)Existing law authorizes the grand jury to transmit to the succeeding grand jury, any information or evidence acquired during the course of any investigation conducted by it, except any information that relates to a criminal investigation or that could form part or all of the basis for the issuance of an indictment.” Since the recommendations and responses are simply parts of documents which have already been released to the public, they should not be restricted for this reason. The Legislative Counsel’s Digest continues: “This bill would clarify that the grand jury is authorized to provide the succeeding grand jury with any records, information, or evidence acquired by it during its term of service except as stated above. (2)Existing law requires a grand jury to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the presiding judge of the superior court at the end of the fiscal or calendar year, and to file a copy of each report in the office of the county court. This bill would require the grand jury also to file in the office of the county clerk, a copy of the responses to the final report. In addition, the bill would require the county clerk to forward a copy of the report and responses to the State Archivist to retain in perpetuity.” A five-year database of recommendations and their appropriate responses would provide help to the committees of a newly impaneled Civil Grand Jury in determining their own study topics. But to date, such information has not been available (v.i., FINDINGS). OBJECTIVES The Research and Follow-Up Committee of the - 2002 undertook the following objectives: 1. To construct a five-year database of the recommendations written in the Los Angeles County (Civil) Grand Jury Final Reports of the last five years and to attach the appropriate response, when obtained, to each recommendation, 2. To index this file by date and subject as a convenient reference file for succeeding Los Angeles County Civil Grand Juries, 199 3. To transmit a copy of the current five-year database, indexed by date, to the county clerk as requested in Assembly bill No. 1907, (This would serve: a. to comply with Assembly bill 1907 regarding the current year, b. to rectify any omissions by the Civil Grand Jury for the four years preceding, which would back date the responsibility of the grand jury to the date of the Bill, 1998, and c. to provide a source from which future Civil Grand Juries might obtain copies of this information when needing to replace copies under the control of the Grand Jury Staff which had been lost or badly worn by usage.) 4. To supply Grand Jury Staff with two copies of the current five-year database, indexed by date and subject, for keeping under their control in a secure library, for use, as needed, by subsequent Civil Grand Juries and any other appropriate personnel, 5. To supply the Foreperson of the -2003 during the orientation of that jury, 6. To copy this five-year database, indexed by date and subject, on a computer disc for use as a back-up file, if needed, and 7. To offer this material for use on the Los Angeles County Grand Jury Website. METHODOLOGY The Research and Follow-Up Committee annual reports in the Los Angeles County (Civil) Grand Jury Final Reports for the previous five years were studied to understand the problems those committees had had. Throughout these five final reports, the items listed as recommendations, and statements inferred as recommendations, were separated out and indexed by subject and year. Agencies, to whom the recommendations were addressed, were contacted, and responses to the specific recommendations were requested. Each response that was returned was combined with its appropriate recommendation, hence also indexed by subject and date. A copy of the five-year database, indexed by date, i.e., the annual groupings was transmitted to the county clerk. Two copies of the five-year database, indexed by subject and date, were filed with the Civil Grand Jury Staff for Civil Grand Jury use, to comply with the Penal Code requirement to keep this information “for a minimum of five years,” and to provide succeeding Civil Grand Juries with history and information to aid them in choosing their directions of interest. A copy of the five-year database, indexed by date and subject, was provided to the Foreperson of the -2003 during its orientation, as information for the new group concerning the results of previous (Civil) Grand Jury investigations. A computer disc was made of the five-year database and stored with the Grand Jury Staff. The website operator was alerted as to the availability of this material. FINDINGS: Various forms of recommendations were found in the final reports: Recommendations were written, sometimes, intermixed with discussion, and not identified, specifically, as recommendations. Sometimes these recommendations were overlooked by the agency to which they were addressed. Recommendations were written, sometimes, identified as recommendations, but separated by portions of discussion, making it possible to lose the connection from one recommendation to the next. Recommendations which were vague or too long did not always elicit a serious response. Recommendations which did not carefully evaluate large manpower requirements or excessive costs were frequently not considered seriously by the responder. Recommendations, which were perceived by the responder to be outside the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury, frequently received a terse non-committal answer. Most often, the recommendations were clearly written and had merit. The types of responses varied: Some recipients of recommendations simply did not respond. Some recipients of recommendations responded only under pressure. For example, one recipient responded to the recommendations of the -1999 Research and Follow-Up Committee constructed a five-year database ‘after a painfully slow, tedious and largely manual research effort on the part of the members of the committee . . . for key recommendations . . . laboriously cross-checking for responses in central files . . . (with) personal and telephone contact work with appropriate agency staff at the County and City level.” The value of such a database was to the members of the next newly impaneled Los Angeles County Grand Jury. Each new jury would be able, through a study of this five-year- spanning file, avoid repetitive investigations and concentrate its own work more efficiently in unstudied areas. On being impaneled, the -2000 Research and Follow-Up Committee to search again for the responses to each of the recommendations of the grand juries of the previous five years, and, if possible, to collate and computerize the data on the new computer. Los Angeles County had many websites on the internet. One was titled Grand Jury Reports (grandjury.co.la.ca.us/gjreports.html). At the time, however, the impaneled Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury was not authorized to do anything other than read what someone else had placed upon this “Grand Jury Website.” When impaneled, the -2000 was no longer available. The - 2001 reported, “The novel task of reviewing the past grand jury recommendations and pursuing the appropriate responses from the agencies targeted was a long and laborious process . . . the purpose . . . is to examine previously studied areas to eliminate duplication of effort . . . and clearly delineate meaningful areas of inquiry.” It further recommended the “past Grand Jury recommendations and the appropriate agency responses, should be given to committee chairpersons so they can research a facility before their initial field visits.” This year the -2000. If the database formed by one grand jury was not transmitted to its successor, and if the successor wished this information, the successor would have to reconstruct the database that had not been transmitted. Committees of each of the grand juries of 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 constructed databases of the recommendation/response combinations for the five years preceding their term of service. But each year this 203 information disappeared between the ending of one grand jury and the impanelment of the next, making it necessary for the incoming grand juries of 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 to reconstruct the “lost” databases. This reconstruction involved a repetitive task which should have been unnecessary. It left the original work as wasted effort. Omissions of the Penal Code There is no person designated as responsible for seeing that the various agencies respond to Civil Grand Jury recommendations. Request by Grand Jury Staff to the agencies involved for the responses were not always well received. There is no person designated as responsible for transmitting to the Civil Grand Jury a copy of the responses to recommendations, when responses have been made. SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MacLaren Children’s Center Management Audit BACKGROUND The MacLaren Children’s Center has a history of difficulties and controversies with its place in providing social services in Los Angeles County. The Social Services Committee of the Executive Summary Executive Summary The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the FY 2001-02 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury to conduct a management audit of MacLaren Children’s Center. The purpose of the audit was to determine if improvements could be realized in three primary areas of the Center’s operations: 1) human resource management particularly background checks for new and existing employees; 2) costs of operations; and, 3) efficiency of use of staff and other resources. A summary of the findings, recommendations and costs and benefits of the recommendations contained in this audit report are as follows. The recommendations are numbered according to their respective sections in this report. Population Profile Summary of Findings: • The population at MacLaren Children’s Center is increasingly older and psychologically and emotionally troubled. The majority of children are admitted from psychiatric hospitals, failed placements, juvenile hall or probation, or after running away from the facility. Many are medically fragile, some are developmentally disabled and school achievement of the population as a whole is well below grade level. There was an average of over six serious incident reports every day in 2001 such as children assaulting staff or each other. • Average length of stay data show there are two groups in the population. The average length of stay for all children was 47.9 days based on all children at the facility on two sample days in 2001. But for the 86 percent of the population who stayed over 30 days, the average length of stay was 89.9 days. 193 children, or 63.7 percent of the 303 children in the sample, had been admitted more than once to MacLaren. • Core staffing and the approach at MacLaren should be reconsidered given the profile of most of the population residing at the facility. The core staff working with the children now are Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors. Children’s Social Worker training is more geared to case management rather than direct mental health services. A mental health classification such as Licensed Psychiatric Technician would be more appropriate as the core staffing in the cottages who work with MacLaren’s population. Reconfiguring core staffing by replacing most direct service Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors with Licensed Psychiatric Technicians would also lower salary and benefits costs by an estimated $2.6 million per year. • Approaches such as wraparound should continue to be monitored and expanded to the extent they are proven cost effective. Indications so far at MacLaren is that wraparound can help remove children from the ongoing cycle of stays at MacLaren. Executive Summary Recommendations Based on the above findings, it is recommended that Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 2.1 Request that the Director of Mental Health services at MacLaren prepare a proposal for a program to replace Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors with mental health staff in the cottages to provide a more therapeutic approach appropriate to much of the population at MacLaren; (Recommendation 100) 2.2 Request that the Director of Mental Health services prepare measures of effectiveness or outcomes for review and approval by the Consortium to use in measuring the results of the proposed program; (Recommendation 101) 2.3 After review and approval of the proposal, implement on a pilot basis and measure results to ensure that desired results are achieved or, if not, determine what changes are needed; (Recommendation 102) 2.4 Replicate the program throughout the facility once its effectiveness has been established; and, (Recommendation 103) 2.5 Collect evidence to verify the effectiveness of programs such as wraparound and expand to the extent possible. (Recommendation104) Costs and Benefits The benefits of the recommendations above would include a more appropriate mix of staff and approach to dealing with the population as profiled in this report section. Costs would also be lowered as the Psychiatric Technician classification is not paid as highly as Children’s Social Workers or Group Supervisors. Assuming 20 percent of the budgeted Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors were retained and 80 percent replaced with Psychiatric Technicians, salary and benefits costs would be reduced by approximately $2.6 million annually. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren Summary of Findings: • In August 2001 MacLaren Children’s Center became a State licensed facility and subject to California Department of Social Services licensing requirements, including conduct of criminal background checks of all employees working at the facility who have contact with children. The background check includes statewide and national criminal records checks as well as a determination of whether the applicant’s name appears on the Child Abuse Central Index. • In June 2001, in preparation for licensure, MacLaren management began the process of conducting background checks of all employees at the facility. Through this process, MacLaren discovered that 17 employees had previously undisclosed criminal histories considered unacceptable either by CDSS or by a stricter set of standards established by 207 Executive Summary MacLaren management. In addition, four individuals voluntarily resigned or transferred during the background checks process. • The newly instituted background checks process appears to be working well for most existing and new MacLaren employees assigned from the Departments of Children and Family Services, Mental Health and Health Services. Of 63 randomly selected employees, clean results were found for 51. For the majority of the remaining 12 employees there were reasonable explanations as to the reason clean results were not documented. No background check documentation was found for Resource Utilization Management unit staff or some contractors who have contact with children. • The separately administered background check process for Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) employees at the on-site school does not appear to be working as well. Of 30 LACOE employees selected, background checks could be verified for only 10, one of which contained a criminal history with no details available. LACOE was not able to provide background check documentation for any of their contractors working on site. LACOE reports that it has been administering its background check procedures under a different set of regulations than MacLaren and reports that is was not made aware of the new background check policies and procedures implemented at MacLaren until this audit. Recommendations It is recommended that MacLaren Children’s Center: 3.1 Immediately bring all staff and contractors assigned to the facility who have or could have contact with children there in compliance with CDSS and MacLaren policies regarding background checks; (Recommendation 105) 3.2 Seek an agreement with LACOE regarding the background checks of employees assigned to the MacLaren School, in which LACOE agrees to provide MacLaren with legally certified documentation regarding the results of background checks conducted of LACOE staff. Additionally, LACOE should agree to abide by MacLaren policies regarding background checks for those LACOE staff assigned to the facility. Should such an agreement not prove feasible, then MacLaren should review its options relative to alternative providers of educational services at the facility; (Recommendation 106) 3.3 Clarify the California laws and regulations regarding the storage of criminal background checks. Work to ensure that criminal background checks record-keeping is consistent for all employees assigned at MacLaren and that records are auditable; (Recommendation 107) 3.4 Document its policies and procedures relative to background checks and ensure that all County agencies and other parties operating at the facility are aware of these policies and procedures and are in compliance with them; and, (Recommendation 108) 208 Executive Summary 3.5 Document background checks conducted for all contractors and their employees operating at the facility, including those contracted with by DCFS, DMH, DHS and LACOE. (Recommendation 109) It is recommended that LACOE: 3.6 Immediately conduct background checks on those employees assigned to MacLaren who have not undergone a background check, and document the results of all background checks conducted, with a legal certification as to the truth and accuracy of the information. (Recommendation 110) Costs and Benefits The majority of the recommendations above falls under the overall responsibilities of existing staff, and should not generate additional costs for the facility. The one exception is that the cost of some contractor background checks may need to be borne by MacLaren; however, in general this cost is negligible, relative to the benefit of knowing that only the most qualified staff and contractors have access to the children at the facility. Also, future contractors could be required to have their staffs undergo the background checks before being assigned to MacLaren. Investigating Allegations of Abuse By Staff Summary of Findings: • MacLaren has a number of policies and procedures related to reporting incidents that occur at the facility, including allegations of abuse by staff against children. These policies and procedures are not up-to-date and do not accurately reflect how various incidents are handled at the facility. • A backlog going back to 1997 was found for DCFS investigations of allegations of abuse by staff against children. This backlog has increased over the past two years. DCFS staff report that the reason for the backlog is insufficient staffing and an increase in the number of child deaths elsewhere that required investigation. This backlog situation is critical because it could: 1) result in great harm coming to children at the facility; 2) put the County at risk of lawsuits; 3) give staff the impression that there will be little consequence for abusive behavior toward children, and thus increase the likelihood of future abuse; and 4) cause children to become discouraged and believe that there is no point in reporting the abuse. To improve this situation, DCFS recently assigned a dedicated investigator to MacLaren. • MacLaren’s internal staff investigations are conducted by coworkers and have been characterized by staff as perfunctory at best. To ensure the independence and effectiveness of internal investigations, MacLaren needs one individual whose primary responsibility is the investigation of allegations of abuse by staff against children. This position should report directly to the Administrator, and should be required to provide the Administrator with quarterly reports regarding the status and outcomes of investigations. This investigative position should replace the internal investigative responsibilities 209 Executive Summary currently assigned to Children’s Services Administrators (CSAs) at the facility. Policies and procedures regarding special incident investigations should be updated to reflect CDSS regulations and other changes made to improve the process, and staff should be trained regarding these updated policies. Recommendations Based on the findings above, it is recommended that the MacLaren Children’s Center Administrator: 4.1 Relieve the Children’s Services Administrators (CSA’s) currently conducting the preliminary investigations of this duty, as their positions and reporting relationships do not provide the independence necessary to perform this function effectively; (Recommendation 111) 4.2 Assign a manager, preferably one with investigations/auditing skills, to focus primarily on investigations of allegations of abuse by staff against children at the facility. This individual should have complete independence and autonomy from all other managers and staff at the facility and should report directly to the Administrator; (Recommendation 112) 4.3 Direct the new investigator to conduct timely investigations and prepare timely, complete and accurate reports and to produce a quarterly report to be presented to the Administrator regarding the status and outcomes of activities in this area for that quarter; (Recommendation 113) 4.4 Use the quarterly as well as individual investigations reports to ensure that the investigations are being managed in a timely and effective fashion, and problems corrected; and, (Recommendation 114) 4.5 Update MacLaren’s policies and procedures relative to Special Incident reporting, including the timeframes and documentation component, and key personnel involved in the process. The policies also should address the code of silence among staff, and put forth concrete consequences for anyone found to have obstructed an investigation of allegations of abuse by staff against children at the facility. This update should include a training element, during which staff are instructed on the policies and procedures and about the importance of timely and proper documentation. (Recommendation 115) It is recommended that the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 4.6 Direct DCFS to continue to address the investigation backlog and give it the highest priority. DCFS should be instructed to report back to the Consortium as to the status of the backlog. (Recommendation 116) 210 Executive Summary Costs and Benefits The primary additional costs associated with this recommendation are the salary and benefits costs of the Children’s Services Administrator assigned to conduct investigations of allegations of abuse by staff against children. This cost ranges from approximately $70,000 to $115,000 annually1. This cost should be at least partially, if not fully, offset by reductions in CSA staff time now spent on internal investigations. The benefits gained by keeping up to date with such investigations, including preventing harm to children at the facility and decreasing the risk of lawsuits, far outweigh any incremental costs. Existing staff could potentially be reassigned to this function to avoid hiring new staff. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control Summary of Findings: • The decentralized nature of human resources management at MacLaren has led to complications and inefficiencies, and illustrates the difficulty in trying to provide integrated services by various County departments and agencies. Additionally, the Consortium Operational Agreement contains many provisions that limit the Administrator’s authority to the detriment of overall effectiveness in managing the human resources function. • Examples of difficulties experienced as a result of decentralized human resources management include the lack of direct input by the Administrator into hiring decisions of LACOE staff assigned at MacLaren; high turnover in key management positions in the Health Services function; disagreement regarding reporting relationships and roles and responsibilities of key management positions in the Health Services function; disagreement regarding the hiring and management of nursing staff; and a lack of accurate item, or position, control data that would enable management to account for all staff at the facility at any given time. • The MacLaren Administrator needs final decision making authority regarding the staffing types and levels at the facility, as well as disciplinary authority. This would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall operation as it would centralize authority and responsibility for key human resources decisions, the major element driving operations at MacLaren. Recommendations It is recommended that the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 5.1 Increase accountability and overall efficiency and effectiveness at MacLaren by revising the Operational Agreement to include more specific and detailed agreements with all parties assigned to the facility, giving the MacLaren Administrator final decision making 1 These figures are based on salary and benefits ranges for the CSAI through CSAIII classifications, and assume a 30 percent benefits ratio. Executive Summary authority as to staffing types and levels at the facility, including disciplinary actions up to and including dismissal from the facility; (Recommendation 117) 5.2 In areas in which specific expertise is required to make efficient and effective staffing decisions, MacLaren should have its own experts, either on staff or as consultants, who can advise management as to the best configuration; (Recommendation 118) 5.3 Review options for using non-County service providers who are more able or willing to work within the proposed management framework and transfer current County costs to that provider from the department or agency in question should one of the entities be unable or not wish to participate in the recommended amendments to the Operational Agreement; (Recommendation 119) 5.4 Require staff from all agencies to report monthly to the Human Resources Director at MacLaren regarding the total staffing from their department, including new hires, resignations, terminations and transfers. Those agencies not complying with this requirement should be reviewed for suitability to continue their assignment at the facility. (Recommendation 120) Costs and Benefits The primary costs associated with the above recommendations relate to the expertise that might be required to provide MacLaren administration with the appropriate analyses and recommendations regarding staffing at MacLaren. However, it is quite possible that such expertise could actually lead to a net reduction in costs for the County, because of savings associated with different staffing configurations. The key benefit of the recommendations is that they would lead to more accountability at the facility. By giving the Administrator the authority over all personnel decisions at the facility, the County would also be vesting all responsibility for these decisions with the Administrator. This should lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness at MacLaren. Cost/Staffing Analysis Summary of Findings: • MacLaren Children’s Center is a very high cost facility that serves children with great needs. But management does not have control over or complete information about total costs at the facility. Nor are systems in place for measuring the outcomes when new services or staff are added. Without such measurement and without basic financial information, MacLaren management is not accountable for total facility costs nor in a position to assess the effectiveness of services provided relative to costs to ensure that it is providing the most effective services to its residents for the dollars spent. • By extracting information from each agency’s financial system for this management audit, consolidated actual MacLaren expenditures in FY 2000-01 were identified as $37,713,970 or $728 per child per day. For the current fiscal year, 2001-02, total costs are 212 Executive Summary projected to be approximately $41.2 million, or $757 per child per day and $276,305 per child per year. Costs are expected to be even higher in FY 2002-03 based on preliminary budget proposals which call for more new positions and other increases beyond cost of living adjustments. The Department of Children and Family Services’ share of the cost per child per day is approximately $471. In comparison, the same cost for the Children’s Shelter in Santa Clara County which has a similar population mix and size, is approximately $250 per day. • The Interagency Children’s Services Consortium has given the MacLaren Administrator authority over all operations at the facility but this authority has not been accompanied by financial control or basic financial information needed to make management decisions. Expenditure levels for three of the four agencies at MacLaren are decided by the parent agencies themselves, not MacLaren management. None of the three agencies report their actual expenditures to MacLaren management. As a result, decisions regarding staffing, service levels and other aspects of operating the facility such as procurements are made without appropriate fiscal consideration by MacLaren management. Contracting for services should be considered as one means of gaining control over service levels and costs. Recommendations Based on the above findings, it is recommended that the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 6.1 Direct staff to develop a cost tracking and reporting system so that all budget and actual expenditures are consolidated, reviewed and approved by the MacLaren Administrator and reported to the Consortium; (Recommendation 121) 6.2 Direct staff to delegate authority over funding and service levels for all services at MacLaren to the Administrator; (Recommendation 122) 6.3 Revise procurement policies so that the Administrator is responsible and accountable for all procurement at MacLaren; (Recommendation 123) 6.4 Direct staff to design and implement performance measurement systems for measuring outcomes of existing and any new proposed staffing or services; (Recommendation 124) 6.5 Consider alternative staffing levels and approaches to obtain desired outcomes including eliminating barriers between agencies so that managers can assume responsibility for staff from different agencies and the number of managers can be reduced; (Recommendation 125) 6.6 Consider and obtain comparative cost information for contracting for services now provided by various County agencies if they are unwilling to relinquish control over service and staffing levels to the MacLaren Administrator; (Recommendation 126) 213 Executive Summary 6.7 Establish a policy of reducing costs in the parent agencies when administrative functions are transferred to MacLaren; and, (Recommendation 127) 6.8 Obtain comparative cost information regarding contracting for all services at MacLaren. (Recommendation 128) Costs and Benefits Greater fiscal responsibility and cost effectiveness should result from the above recommendations. There would be no new direct costs associated with implementation of these recommendations. Section 1. Introduction 1. Introduction PURPOSE AND NEW STRUCTURE OF MACLAREN CHILDREN’S CENTER MacLaren Children’s Center was originally designed as an emergency or temporary holding facility for children taken from their families in cases of abuse, neglect or abandonment. The role of the Center is to house these children until such time as they can be reunited with their families or move to a more long term placement such as staying with relatives, a foster family or in a group home. Previously a unit of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), the structure of MacLaren was changed in 1998 when it was placed under the jurisdiction of a new County Interagency Children’s Services Consortium. The Consortium is comprised of the County’s Chief Administrative Officer and the heads of the key agencies that provide services to the children who reside at MacLaren: DCFS; the Department of Health Services; the Department of Mental Health; the Probation Department; the Department of Public Social Services, and Los Angeles County Office of Education. Prior to creation of the Consortium, DCFS had primary responsibility for operating MacLaren. The Departments of Health Services and Mental Health were responsible for providing their services to MacLaren residents, although their staff assigned to the facility were organizationally separate from DCFS. Similarly, the Los Angeles County Office of Education operated the on site school at MacLaren but the staff at the school were independent of DCFS. While all of the agencies located at MacLaren had to coordinate their services to some extent, many observers believed that services at the facility and throughout the child welfare system were not well coordinated and that a key problem facing the Center was fragmentation of services. A 1998 evaluation of MacLaren identified the lack of a coordinated approach to serving the children and their families between the various agencies as one of the major hindrances to MacLaren’s effectiveness1. The same report also asserted that MacLaren was operating in two irreconcilable roles, as an emergency shelter and as a treatment facility. To address these problems, the report recommended: 1) removing MacLaren from DCFS and making it a separate inter-agency organization comprised of all agencies involved in providing services to MacLaren children; and, 2) refocusing MacLaren as a short term shelter facility and increasing other community- based resources for the long-term treatment component of the County’s child welfare system. The Consortium was created and codified in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered in to by the agencies listed above in 1998. The MOU gave the Consortium overall authority over MacLaren and established the facility Administrator as their direct report, responsible for insuring coordination and alignment of all MacLaren programs, activities and services. The MOU called for development of a long term intensive care system to 1 “Brief Facility Assessment of MacLaren Children’s Center”, prepared by Robert F. Cole, Ph.D., for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, March 23, 1998. Section 1. Introduction serve MacLaren children and redefined MacLaren’s role as an integrated component of this system, but primarily providing short term shelter. Short term was defined in the MOU as less than 30 days. The MOU called for development of outcome criteria and instruments that are concrete and measurable to allow for assessment of program performance. An Operational Agreement was entered into in 2001 by all members of the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium to confirm and define their roles and responsibilities. The Agreement defines the following roles and responsibilities for the signatory agencies: • Ensure MacLaren Children’s Center provides integrated care and planning for children; • Provide for the successful transition of children from MacLaren to family and/or community living; and • Develop and implement a community-based long-term intensive care system. The Operational Agreement more clearly defined the role of the Administrator at MacLaren as the manager to whom all employees at the facility report. This represented a change from the previous organization structure in which an administrator was assigned to the facility from DCFS but the employees from the other agencies stationed at MacLaren reported to their own department managers. In the 2001 Agreement, the Administrator, who reports to the Consortium, is given authority over all MacLaren personnel and procurement issues except for evaluation and discipline of medical staff and County Office of Education staff. Each Consortium member agency is responsible for preparing a separate budget for their MacLaren related costs. All of these budgets are to be consolidated into a single budget for the enterprise and tracked separately from their full departmental budgets. The intent of the Operational Agreement and the new organization structure is to prevent multiple and extended stays at MacLaren. The goal stated in the document is to transition children out of the facility to a permanent placement of admission. Many of the changes required by the Operational Agreement were being implemented while this audit was in progress. The Consortium was in place and functioning under the direction of the County’s Chief Administrative Officer. A permanent facility Administrator in the new role outlined for that position in the Operational Agreement had not yet been appointed but an Interim Administrator was in place during the audit period2. Most of the administrative changes required by the Agreement had been at least initiated, though few were completed or in compliance with the timelines specified in the Agreement. The specific responsibilities of the different departments outlined in the 2 The Interim Administrator was appointed in September, 2001, on loan from the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). He was subsequently appointed Director of DPSS and assumed that position on March 1, 2002, while the audit field work was still in progress. He was replaced by a second Interim Administrator while the search for a permanent Administrator continued. Section 1. Introduction Agreement had not all been fulfilled while field work was taking place. However the Interim Administrator and most of the Center’s management team were fully committed to the concepts embodied in the Agreement. Many of the details of how to best accomplish those concepts were still to be determined. The impact and some of the results of the new organization structure and creation of the Consortium is discussed further in the findings of this audit report. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AUDIT The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the FY 2001-02 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury to conduct a management audit of MacLaren Children’s Center. The purpose of the audit was to determine if improvements could be realized in three primary areas of the Center’s operations: 1) human resource management particularly background checks for new and existing employees; 2) costs of operations; and, 3) efficiency of use of staff and other resources. The audit scope included the following questions: 1) What are the Center’s procedures and processes for recruitment and hiring including background checks? 2) Are adequate controls against hiring inappropriate individuals in place? 3) What are the Center’s costs including cost per child per day, employee salaries, clothing costs, food and other costs? 4) Are adequate cost controls in place? 5) Is staff operating at optimal efficiency or are there duplications of effort? 6) What are the characteristics of the Center’s population? 7) How is vocational training used? AUDIT METHODS Methods used for this audit included interviews with: the County’s Chief Administrative Officer in his role as the head of the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium; the facility’s Interim Administrator; all of the managers and selected staff at MacLaren from DCFS, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Health Services and the Los Angeles County Office of Education; and, managers and staff from the same agencies who play an administrative role regarding the staff and services provided by their agency at the facility. The facility was toured including the residential cottages, recreation areas, the on-site school and the health services facilities. Budget and actual expenditure data for the current and past two fiscal years were collected and analyzed as were detailed organization charts and staffing rosters. Costs, staffing levels, staff mix and position allocations were assessed relative to services provided and the mission of the organization. It should be noted that because of the changes in organization structure at MacLaren, a consolidated budget does not yet exist for the facility. However, working with fiscal staff from each of the agencies, approximate budgets and expenditure records were assembled. Similarly, the 217 Section 1. Introduction organization chart and staff assignments for the facility were in flux while the audit was underway and several iterations of these documents had to be prepared by the auditors to be able to accurately assess the deployment of staff. Personnel and procurement procedures were reviewed and verified with administrative staff. Data on the MacLaren population was collected and analyzed for the current and last two fiscal years including age and sex distribution, admission and release data, academic achievement, mental health indicators and health status. To further analyze the population and length of stay data, more detailed data regarding average length of stay and number of admissions per child were collected for two randomly selected sample days from 2001 in addition to data collected on these subjects for the full year. Audit field work was conducted between January and March, 2002. A copy of the draft report was provided to the Interim Administrator and an exit conference was held for comments and feedback before the report was finalized. OTHER ISSUES In accordance with Sections 7.45 and 7.46 of the U.S. General Accounting Office Government Auditing Standards, certain issues identified during an audit are worthy of being brought to the attention of management even though a specific finding was not included in the audit report. The issue of vocational training was raised by the Grand Jury and the following was found. In general, the program has been very limited in the past. However, a new expanded program is planned to begin in April 2002. An evaluation of this new program could not be conducted in the time frame of this audit but could be evaluated by a future Grand Jury or MacLaren management. MacLaren currently does not have a formal vocational training program. MacLaren school administration reported that there have been problems in the past in trying to send children out of the facility for vocational training. Children sent out, they report, tend not to succeed for a variety of reasons, including being disoriented with the new environment and not being with other youths they know. MacLaren does provide other independent living services, however, including classes and workshops co-sponsored by the Community College Foundation, such as: • Job Search • Mock Interviews • Planned Parenthood • Educational Goals • Cleaning A House • Dealing With Anger • Meal Planning • Cost To Live On Your Own 218 Section 1. Introduction MacLaren Independent Learning Program staff provided the audit team with statistics regarding attendance at these classes, and they show that attendance per class ranges from 6 to 14 students. MacLaren management reported that additional vocational training is planned for MacLaren, and in fact was scheduled to begin March 1, but got delayed, and is now scheduled for April 1.The planned vocational training is planned through the One-Stop centers, which would provide the training at MacLaren and would pay for it. According to documentation provided by MacLaren, One-Stop Centers “assist with job preparation, vocational assessment, interview techniques and other job training services.” This program could be evaluated by future Grand Juries or the Department to measure its effectiveness. Section 2. Population Profile 2. Population Profile • The population at MacLaren Children’s Center is increasingly older and psychologically and emotionally troubled. The majority of children are admitted from psychiatric hospitals, failed placements, juvenile hall or probation, or after running away from the facility. Many are medically fragile, some are developmentally disabled and school achievement of the population as a whole is well below grade level. There was an average of over six serious incident reports every day in 2001 such as children assaulting staff or each other. • Average length of stay data show there are two groups in the population. The average length of stay for all children was 47.9 days based on all children at the facility on two sample days in 2001. But for the 86 percent of the population who stayed over 30 days, the average length of stay was 89.9 days. 193 children, or 63.7 percent of the 303 children in the sample, had been admitted more than once to MacLaren. • Core staffing and the approach at MacLaren should be reconsidered given the profile of most of the population residing at the facility. The core staff working with the children now are Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors. Children’s Social Worker training is more geared to case management rather than direct mental health services. A mental health classification such as Licensed Psychiatric Technician would be more appropriate as the core staffing in the cottages who work with MacLaren’s population. Reconfiguring core staffing by replacing most direct service Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors with Licensed Psychiatric Technicians would also lower salary and benefits costs by an estimated $2.6 million per year. • Approaches such as wraparound should continue to be monitored and expanded to the extent they are proven cost effective. Indications so far at MacLaren is that wraparound can help remove children from the ongoing cycle of stays at MacLaren. CENTER POPULATION The average daily population for MacLaren Children’s Center has been relatively stable at 144.3 for the two and one half years ending in December 2001. The stability of the population during this time period is demonstrated by separating this 30-month period into its three fiscal years. As shown in Exhibit 2.1, the average daily population was 144.6 for FY 1999-00, 141.9 for FY 2000-01 and 148.5 for the first six months of FY 2001-02. Section 2. Population Profile Exhibit 2.1 Average Daily Population MacLaren Children’s Center FY 1999-00 – FY 2001-02 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 July 133 160 153 August 133 146 159 September 134 135 156 October 132 135 142 November 153 125 134 December 137 130 147 January 128 128 - February 145 147 - March 142 146 - April 158 145 - May 171 151 - June 169 155 - Average 144.6 141.9 148.5 Average all months 144.3 Source: “Daily Population for the Month”; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium In the past a capacity level was not explicitly stated at MacLaren. However, 124 was used as the unofficial capacity. According to the facility’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), for any admission that pushed the population over 124, admission was not granted without the approval of the Department of Children and Family Services Director. When MacLaren became a licensed facility in August 2001, some remodeling took place and the California Community Care Licensing Division established the capacity at 156. Exhibit 2.2 graphically depicts the average daily population figures for each month since July 1999 compared to facility capacity. The monthly average population exceeded 124 consistently since July 1999. However, there were days during the period when capacity was at or below 124. Furthermore, even after the California Community Licensing Division increased the MacLaren capacity to 156, the Center still had days in August and September 2001 that were over capacity. In August, 18 days, or 58.1 percent of all days, were over capacity and 4 days, or 12.9 percent of all days, were at capacity. Therefore, MacLaren was at or exceeded its capacity of 156 a total of 71 percent of the time. The population improved slightly in September when 46.7 percent of all days were either at or over capacity. From October through December 2001 MacLaren consistently remained under the capacity level of 156. While overcrowding seems to be reasonably under control, it 221 Section 2. Population Profile should be pointed out that the only way MacLaren can reduce its admissions is for DCFS to find alternative placements for the children. Reportedly, some success has been reached in this regard. Exhibit 2.2 Monthly Average Population 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 noitalupoP 99-luJ 99-peS 99-voN 00-naJ 00-raM 00-yaM 00-luJ 00-peS 00-voN 10-naJ 10-raM 10-yaM 10-luJ 10-peS 10-voN Montly Average Population Capacity Source: “Daily Population for the Month”; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium One of the apparent impacts of reducing overcrowding at MacLaren is that the remaining children are older and more troubled. The children for whom placements can be more readily found tend to be younger and less plagued with behavioral and other problems. So while the total number of children at MacLaren Children’s Center has remained stable, and under capacity, teenagers, frequently a more difficult population under any circumstances, comprise an increasingly larger portion of the population. The following data illustrate some significant trends in the composition of the MacLaren population. First, the number of children at MacLaren has increased in age over the past three fiscal years. As shown in Exhibit 2.3, children between the ages of 12 and 18 are the largest segment of the population at MacLaren. In Fiscal Year 1999-2000 the 12-18 age group composed 85.9 percent of the population at MacLaren. That number trended upward in the following two fiscal years to 86.9 percent in FY 2000-2001 and 89.2 percent in the first half of FY 2001-2002. Section 2. Population Profile Exhibit 2.3 Age Composition of MacLaren Population Age FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 0 to 2 1.0% 1.3% 1.8% 3 to 4 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 5 to 11 12.2% 10.9% 8.4% 12 to 15 52.9% 52.4% 51.3% 16 to 18 33.0% 34.5% 37.9% Total 100% 100% 100% Source: “Daily Admissions”; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium The data demonstrating the increased age of children is even more dramatic for children aged 16 to 18. This age segment, which represented 33.0 percent of the population in FY 1999-2000, increased to 34.5 percent in FY 2000-2001 and 37.9 percent in the first half of FY 2001-2002. Furthermore, the Shelter’s admission data confirms the trend that the MCC population is increasing in age. In calendar year 1999, 429 children, or 29.9 percent of all admissions, were between the ages of 16 and 18. However, in calendar year 2001 that number increased to 643 children, or 36.9 percent of all admissions. Perhaps equally as telling is the steady decrease in younger children at the Center. Facility data suggests that younger children as a percentage of overall MacLaren Children’s Center population is declining. In Fiscal Year 1999-00 children aged 3 to 11 comprised 13.1 percent of the overall population. However, that population decreased to 11.8 percent in FY 00-01 and is down significantly in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 to 9.0 percent of the population. Moreover, the largest decline was in the 5 to 11 age group, where the loss in population has been the most pronounced, decreasing from 12.2 percent in FY 1999-00 to 8.4 percent in FY 2001-02. The MacLaren population has been evenly divided by gender for the current and two previous fiscal years with males averaging 49.9 percent of the population and females 50.1 percent. During the two and one half year period reviewed, the racial/ethnic backgrounds of children at MacLaren has remained fairly constant with approximately half of the population black, and Hispanic and white children the second and third largest ethnic groups. Together, these three groups made up 95 percent of the population. BACKGROUND OF MACLAREN’S POPULATION Besides an older population, the majority of the population at MacLaren Children’s Center can be characterized as having behavioral problems and emotional disturbances of varying degrees. Admission data for the last two and one half years, presented in Exhibit 2.4, show that 80.1 percent of admissions are from one of the following four sources (in order of magnitude): 1. failed placements (36.6%); 2. psychiatric hospitals (26.6%); 223 Section 2. Population Profile 3. the County Probation Department/Juvenile Hall (10.2%); and, 4. readmission after running away from MacLaren (6.7%). Only 18.5 percent of all admissions were admitted after being removed from their parents, legal guardians or relatives. The majority of admissions are children who have already experienced the trauma of being removed from their homes and have experienced further trauma or behavior/emotional problems associated with an unsuccessful placement, psychiatric hospitalization, being a runaway, or incarceration in Juvenile Hall. As can be seen in Exhibit 2.4, the majority of releases from MacLaren, 48.2 percent, were to placements, primarily group homes but the majority of admissions, 36.6 percent were from placements that had failed. A high percentage, 20.8 percent were released to psychiatric hospitals, reflecting the mental health status of a significant portion of the population, and another 13.3 percent were “released” to runaway status. Exhibit 2.4 MacLaren Children’s Center Admissions and Releases July 2000 – December 2001 By Origin of Admission and Point of Release Admissions Releases From/To: Admissions Releases % Total % Total Group Home 492 804 19.2% 31.3% Foster Home 357 338 14.0% 13.2% Foster Family Agency 86 96 3.4% 3.7% Subtotal: Placements 935 1,238 36.6% 48.2% Psychiatric Hospital 681 534 26.6% 20.8% Parent, Legal Guardian, Relative 474 308 18.5% 12.0% Probation/Juvenile Hall 261 129 10.2% 5.0% Runaway (AWOL) 172 341 6.7% 13.3% Out of State 18 5 0.7% 0.2% Out of County 5 4 0.2% 0.2% Medical Hospital 6 3 0.2% 0.1% Street 2 - 0.1% 0.0% Courtesy Hold 2 - 0.1% 0.0% Misc. 2 4 0.1% 0.2% Total Admissions 2,558 2,566 100.0% 100.0% Source: Population Recap Monthly Reports; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium 224 Section 2. Population Profile THE FAILED PLACEMENT PHENOMENON As one indicator of the behavior and emotional problems associated with the MacLaren Children’s Center population, failed placements are the primary source of admissions to the facility. A placement that has not worked out often means that the child was a behavior problem or somehow did not fit in to the facility.1 Placement families and agencies such as group homes are not legally obligated to keep any child placed with them if the child is disrupting or posing a threat to the other children. A placement could also fail because the child asks to leave. In either case, a failed placement represents another destabilizing disruption in the life of a child who has already had major disruptions in their lives by being removed from their homes and who will probably need extra professional attention when they arrive at MacLaren. As shown in Exhibit 2.4, admissions from group homes, foster homes and foster family agencies comprised 36.6 percent of all admissions during the 18-month period ending in December 2001. While a greater percentage of children were released from the facility to placements during that period than were admitted from failed placements, it is clear that a high percentage of placements do not work out. Some of these admissions are children who were previously admitted to MacLaren, then placed in a group home or other placement and then returned to MacLaren when the placement failed. PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS AND RELEASES At 26.6 percent, admissions from psychiatric hospitals were the largest percentage of admissions to MacLaren during the 18-month period ending December 2001. During the 18 month period reviewed, MacLaren Children’s Center admitted 147 more children from a psychiatric hospital than were released to a psychiatric hospital. Additionally, the percentage of all admissions that come from a psychiatric hospital are 5.8 percent higher on average than the percent of all releases that go to a psychiatric hospital. Thus, the population of MacLaren that has spent time at a psychiatric hospital is increasing. The data does not distinguish admissions of children who were housed at Maclaren prior to their hospital stay as compared to new admittees. In either case, they represent a significant portion of the population that have high needs and impact other children and staff. ADMISSIONS FROM PROBATION DEPARTMENT/JUVENILE HALL For the most part, MacLaren cannot control how many children it admits, or where the children are admitted from. Exhibit 2.5 below shows the number of children whom MacLaren admitted from the Probation Department or Juvenile Hall. While the data indicate several peaks and valleys, such as the low numbers in the final months of 2000, 1 Referencing the Cole Report McLaren management points out that placements fail the child, not the opposite, and that differently structured programs are needed for children with complex needs. We do not disagree but the high rate of admissions from failed placements still results in a greater proportion of the population at MacLaren having high needs. Section 2. Population Profile the overall trend is that the number of admissions of children admitted from Probation or Juvenile Hall is on the rise. Exhibit 2.5 Number of Admissions from Probation Department or Juvenile Hall Probation/ Total Juvenile Hall % Total Admissions Admissions Jul-00 19 148 12.8% Aug-00 13 142 9.2% Sep-00 15 158 9.5% Oct-00 11 140 7.9% Nov-00 5 112 4.5% Dec-00 8 114 7.0% Jan-01 14 122 11.5% Feb-01 15 149 10.1% Mar-01 12 165 7.3% Apr-01 22 153 14.4% May-01 15 168 8.9% Jun-01 10 133 7.5% Jul-01 19 177 10.7% Aug-01 23 169 13.6% Sep-01 12 127 9.4% Oct-01 24 153 15.7% Nov-01 8 110 7.3% Dec-01 11 118 9.3% Total 256 2558 10.0% Source: Population Recap Monthly Reports; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium Further examination of the MacLaren Children’s Center admission and release data show two important trends, as presented in Exhibit 2.6. First, the number of admissions from Probation or Juvenile Hall compared to the number released to Probation has increased steadily over time. In FY 99-00, 61 more children were admitted into MacLaren from Probation or Juvenile Hall than were released. That number increased slightly in FY 00- 01 to 67. However, in the first half of FY 01-02 that number swelled to 60 for only the first half of the fiscal year. On average, since July 2000, 14 children per month enter the MacLaren Children’s Center from Juvenile Hall or after a release from the Probation Department. For many of these children, charges against them have been dropped before admission to MacLaren and they are not classified as delinquent or taken under the authority of the Probation Department. However, their encounters with law enforcement reflect risky and possibly illegal behaviors. Adding children with these behaviors to the MacLaren environment contributes to the overall environment that affects all children at the facility. Section 2. Population Profile Exhibit 2.6 Comparison of Probation/Juvenile Hall Admissions and Releases to Overall Admissions and Releases FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-022 Probation/Juvenile Hall 115 159 97 Admissions Total 1750 1704 854 Admissions % Total 6.6% 9.3% 11.4% Probation/Juvenile Hall 54 92 37 Releases Total 1735 1705 861 Releases % Total/Juvenile Hall 3.1% 5.4% 4.3% Probation Admissions 61 67 60 less Releases Source: Population Recap Monthly Reports; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium The data illustrates that since July 1999, the Center saw a significant population gain from Probation/Juvenile Hall. Specifically, since July 1999, 188 children have been admitted into MacLaren from Juvenile Hall than have been released to Probation or Juvenile Hall. RETURNING RUNAWAYS The numbers of returning runaways at MacLaren represent a moderate segment of the population. The data indicates that the number of returning runaways at MacLaren ranges from a high of 14.4 percent in July 2001 to a low of 1.5 percent in December 2000. Overall, since July 1999, the monthly average of returning runaway admissions was 6.7 percent. Furthermore, the number of runaway releases at MacLaren is much higher than the number of runaways admitted into the Center. Since July 2000 the percentage of all admissions that come from runaways are 6.6 percent lower on average than the percent of all runaway releases. In that time period, there have been 169 more runaway releases than admissions from runaways. The Center is not a secured institution, and staff may not restrain children from leaving. Children can come and go from the Shelter, as often and whenever they want. Exhibit 2.7 below shows the number of runaway incidents by fiscal year and age group. As of 12/31/01. Section 2. Population Profile Exhibit 2.7 Number of Runaway Incidents* FY FY FY Age Total 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02** 0 to 5 0 0 0 0 5 to 11 1 0 1 2 12 to 15 92 86 61 239 16 to 18 131 115 68 324 Total 224 201 130 565 Source: Population Recap Monthly Reports; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium * Note: An “incident” is not the same as a child. An individual child may run away several times and therefore contribute several incidents to the total count. ** Data for first half of FY 2001-02 only The Center’s release data show one important trend. The number of runaway incident at the MacLaren Children’s Center has been steadily increasing over time. Exhibit 2.8 below shows the number of runaway releases compared to all releases at MacLaren Children’s Center. In Fiscal Year 2000-2001, on average, only 8.9 percent of all releases were because of runaways. However, in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 that number has increased to 15.1 percent. This evidence suggests that this steady increase of runaway incidents will continue. Exhibit 2.8 Percent of Runaway Releases 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J ul- S e p- N o v- J a n- M ar- M a y- J ul- S e p- N o v- Percent of Runaway Releases Source: Population Recap Monthly Reports; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium 228 Section 2. Population Profile AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY An evaluation of MacLaren Children’s Center conducted for the County in 1998 reported that a key problem with the facility was the expectation that it would play two irreconcilable roles; that of an emergency shelter and that of a treatment facility. The report recommended that the County agencies responsible for the children at MacLaren jointly create an Emergency Shelter Care and Long Term Intensive Care System, of which the MacLaren Children’s Center would serve primarily as a shelter care facility and not a group home. The report recommended that MacLaren should be only one component of an expanded County-wide protection and stabilization system. A follow up to the 1998 assessment reported that MacLaren had redefined its mission to emphasize its role as a temporary facility assisting children in transition to family and community living. The report goes on to say that this new mission had not been fulfilled, however, because of the continued absence of community based service providers to provide long term care. In addition to collecting average daily population data for the last three years, detailed data were collected for two selected days in 2001 to further analyze the MacLaren population. For these two representative days, March 1 and September 1, 2001, the average length of stay and number of admissions for every child at the facility was collected. A review of this data revealed that a significant number of children continue to reside at MacLaren for extended periods of time with many admitted more than one time. In short, the same problems found in the 1998 assessment and again in the 2001 follow up analysis continue to be true. MacLaren managers indicate that they do not believe this situation has significantly changed as of the writing of this report due to a lack of placement alternatives for many of the children at MacLaren. MacLaren’s Operational Agreement establishes a goal of transitioning children out of the facility to a community or family setting In our sample the average length of stay for all children was 47.9 days. However, as shown below in Exhibit 2.9, the average length of stay increases to 89.9 days for lengths of stay longer than 30 days. For stays under 30 days, the average length of stay was 11.6 days. Exhibit 2.9 Average Length of Stay at MacLaren Days Average Length of Stay 47.9 Average Length of Stay Over 30 Days 89.9 Average Length of Stay Under 30 Days 11.6 n=303 Source: Special Report prepared by MacLaren Children’s Center staff 229 Section 2. Population Profile As shown in Exhibit 2.10, the average length of stay is much longer for the male population than the female population. Based on our sample, we found that the length of stay is over 24 days longer for the male population than that of the female population. On March 1, 2001 the length of stay was 30 days longer on average for males than females. Exhibit 2.10 Length of Stay at MacLaren 03/01/01 9/1/01 Total Male 64.3 60.9 62.6 Female 34.4 45.3 38.3 Total 44.5 52.4 Source: Special Report prepared by MacLaren Children’s Center staff As shown in Exhibit 2.11, of the total number of children in our sample, 86.1 percent or 261 children, had a length of stay over 30 days. Of the 261 children, 125 children, or 41.3 percent, had multiple visits at MacLaren longer than 30 days. Moreover, including repeat admissions in the sample 469 visits were longer than 30 days. Exhibit 2.11 Length of Stay for All MacLaren Residents Two Days in 2001 Length of Number of Children Percent Stay with One Stay More than 261 86.1% 30 Days Less than 42 13.9% 30 Days Total 303 100% Source: Special Report prepared by MacLaren Children’s Center staff With 86.1 percent of the population in the sample staying longer than 30 days, the data demonstrates that a large segment of the MacLaren population can be classified as “Long Term” as this sub-population’s average length of stay was 89.9 days3. The characteristics of this population are that they generally stay at the facility longer, are likely to have been at the Shelter before, and are likely to return. This population is at the facility for many reasons, but primarily because of failed placements. The duration of the lengths of stay at MacLaren become more troubling when factored in with repeat admissions. There is significant increase in the overall length of stay when repeat admissions are included. One child, present at the facility both days of the sample, 3 The auditors defined “Long Term” as any consecutive stay longer than 30 days, which is the official MacLaren goal for each child’s length of stay, as codified in the Operational Agreement. MacLaren representatives point out that transitional shelter regulations allow for stays of up to 90 days. However, stays of 90 days are inconsistent with MacLaren’s program goals and approach. Section 2. Population Profile had been in residence at MacLaren for 728 days over a three-year period. As shown in Exhibit 2.12, which includes repeat admissions, 270 children had an overall length of stay at MacLaren longer than 30 days. Of that number, 12 children had a length of stay over 400 days including repeat admissions. Moreover, by factoring in repeat admissions, 89.1 percent of the children in our sample had an overall combined length of stay of over 30 days. The average was 160 days or more than five full months. Exhibit 2.12 Frequency of Length of Stays at MacLaren All Admissions Length of Stay 1999 – 2001 (days) 700+ 2 600-700 2 500-600 4 400-500 4 300-400 27 200-300 55 100-200 79 30-100 97 Total 270 Source: Special Report prepared by MacLaren Children’s Center staff Based on our sample, after the first admission, children have an average of 2.3 additional admissions into MacLaren. Out of a total population of 303, 193 children, or 63.7 percent, had more than one admission to MacLaren. Furthermore, as shown in Exhibit 2.13, after the first admission, 35.3 percent of the children had one or two additional admissions into MacLaren. However, 16 children had 10 or more admissions into MacLaren after their first admission into MacLaren. Exhibit 2.13 Number of Repeat Admissions by Number of Children Number of Repeat Number of Percent Admissions Children 10+ 16 5.3% 9 4 1.3% 8 5 1.7% 7 3 1.0% 6 8 2.6% 5 9 3.0% 4 17 5.6% 3 24 7.9% 2 43 14.2% 1 64 21.1% 0 110 36.3% 303 100.0% Source: Special Report prepared by MacLaren Children’s Center staff 231 Section 2. Population Profile Additionally, of the 16 children with more than 10 re-admissions into MacLaren, many are well in excess of 10 re-admissions. In our sample we found 4 children with 17 re- admissions, for a total of 18 admissions into MacLaren over a two or three year period. One child had 19 re-admissions after their initial admission to the Center. INCIDENT REPORTS Another indicator of the behavioral problems associated with the MacLaren population is the number of incidents reported. Incidents include allegations of child abuse at the facility, assaults and attempted assaults on children and staff by other children and staff. Reports of such incidents averaged 6.4 per day in calendar year 2001 as shown in Exhibit 2.14. As can be seen, most of the reports concern assaults and attempted assaults on staff by residents. Assaults on residents by other residents also comprise a significant portion of the reported incidents. Exhibit 2.14 Serious Incident Reports at MacLaren Children’s Center 1999 2000 2001 Allegation of Child Abuse 22 35 53 (Staff against Resident) Assault on Child 446 717 575 (Resident against Resident) Attempted Assault on Child 101 286 271 (Resident against Resident) Assault on Staff 445 672 796 (Resident against Staff) Attempted Assault on Staff 306 614 634 (Resident against Staff) Total 1,320 2,324 2,329 Average per Day 3.6 6.4 6.4 Source: Special Report prepared by MacLaren Children’s Center staff The date in Exhibit 2.14 indicates that the numbers of incident reports are increasing only for assaults and attempted assaults on staff by residents. This suggests that the residents of MacLaren are more likely to be aggressive and violent toward staff as they get older. Section 2. Population Profile SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT Under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), the MacLaren Children’s Center offers education to nearly every child at MacLaren. With a population generally in transition and changing, it is very difficult for the children to become acquainted and familiar with the school at MacLaren. According to data provided by LACOE, 70 percent of all children enrolled at the MacLaren Children’s Center School perform below their academic grade level. Furthermore, as the data indicates in Exhibit 2.15, the grade level performance of the students at the MacLaren Children’s Center School is well below average. Exhibit 2.15 2000-2001 Math and Reading Grade Level at MacLaren Children’s Center School Male Male Female Female Grade Reading Math Reading Math 12th 6.0 5.3 4.7 4.3 11th 4.9 4.5 5.5 5.0 10th 5.3 4.3 5.1 4.4 9th 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 8th 3.1 3.8 3.3 3.4 7th 2.1 2.3 2.5 3.5 6th 2.1 2.5 3.2 3.3 5th 1.6 1.8 2.6 2.5 4th 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.5 3rd 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2nd 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1st 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: MacLaren School report; Los Angeles County Office of Education Generally, as stated earlier in this report, MacLaren children are a high need and often maltreated population. Thus, these children often perform significantly poorer on standardized tests and overall academic performance. However, the problem of poor academic achievement is compounded at the Center, by a significant percentage of the population not attending school on a regular basis. As shown in Exhibit 2.16, the number of children not attending school varied significantly during Fiscal Year 2000-2001. However, on average, 12.7 percent of residents at MacLaren did not attend school during Fiscal Year 2000-01. Children not attending are explained by LACOE staff as mostly being at court, being ill, or simply refusing to attend school. Section 2. Population Profile Exhibit 2.16 MacLaren Children’s Center Attending School Average School Residents Not Percent Not MacLaren Enrollment* Attending School Attending School Population* Jul-00 125 160 35 21.9% Aug-00 125 146 21 14.4% Sep-00 127 135 8 5.9% Oct-00 125 135 10 7.4% Nov-00 100 125 25 20.0% Dec-00 90 130 40 30.8% Jan-01 122 128 6 4.7% Feb-01 126 147 21 14.3% Mar-01 146 146 0 0.0% Apr-01 133 145 12 8.3% May-01 142 151 9 6.0% Jun-01 125 155 30 19.4% Total 1486 1703 217 12.7% Source: MacLaren School report; Los Angeles County Office of Education Population: “Daily Population for the Month”, Interagency Children’s Services Consortium * Note: School enrollment based on average daily attendance. Average MacLaren population based on MacLaren population reports. Residents not attending school would vary on a day by day basis from number shown in table since that is based on averages. MEDICALLY FRAGILE POPULATION Currently, the Department of Health Services (DHS) keeps data on the number of children at MacLaren that the Department classifies as medically fragile. The data, as presented in Exhibit 2.17 below, show that for calendar year 2001, there is an upward trend in the percentage of the population at MacLaren that is considered medically fragile. In the first three months for which data is available, the number of medically fragile children ranged between 14.3 percent and 24.5 percent of the total population. However, starting in June 2001 MacLaren saw a prominent increase in reports of medically fragile children. The increase reached its pinnacle in October 2001 when almost 50% of the average population at MacLaren were classified medically fragile. Medically fragile is defined by DHS as those with medical conditions requiring specialized in-home health care with dependency on specialized equipment, specialized procedures, or special medication regimens. Section 2. Population Profile Exhibit 2.17 Number of Medically Fragile Children at MacLaren Calendar Year 2001 Number of Avg. Daily Children Month Percent Population Medically Fragile Jan-01 128 N/A N/A Feb-01 147 21 14.3% Mar-01 146 33 22.6% Apr-01 145 N/A N/A May-01 151 37 24.5% Jun-01 155 65 41.9% Jul-01 153 56 36.6% Aug-01 159 49 30.8% Sep-01 156 55 35.3% Oct-01 142 67 47.2% Nov-01 134 51 38.1% Dec-01 147 49 33.3% Average 147 48.3 32.9% Source: MacLaren Children’s Center Fragile List; LAC+USC Hospital On average, an estimated one third of the average daily population, or 32.9 percent, were classified medically fragile in Calendar Year 2001. This poses significant problems for the staff of DHS. Many of the ailments range from asthma (by far the most common ailment) to more serious diseases such as AIDS. Additionally, many of diagnoses are more mental conditions, such as mental retardation and autism. STAFFING AND APPROACH AT MACLAREN CHILDREN’S CENTER Core staffing at MacLaren is comprised of 135 budgeted Children’s Social Workers and 47 budgeted Group Supervisors. It is these staff positions that provide most of the direct services to the residents such as supervision in the cottages and one-on-one individual supervision. Children’s Social Worker is the core classification at the Department of Children and Family Services, which MacLaren was a part of until the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium was created. The County’s job description for Children’s Social Worker describes the essential job functions as, “…supervision and placement of minors in need of protective services due to physical and/or sexual abuse, neglect or exploitation….Incumbents must possess a knowledge of…resources and casework techniques to resolve child welfare problems” 235 Section 2. Population Profile Minimum requirements include experience providing casework services to children or families. The County’s job description for Psychiatric Technicians describes the essential job functions as: “Provides mental health services to mentally disordered patients as a member of a Psychiatric emergency team, crisis intervention team, or therapeutic team…” Minimum requirements are experience assisting mental health professionals in the delivery of preventive therapeutic and rehabilitative psychiatric services to emotionally disturbed or mentally deficient patients. While a social work background may have been appropriate in the past, the nature of much of the population at MacLaren now requires a classification with a stronger mental health background. The Director of the Mental Health division has proposed a new mix of staffing in the cottages that would be a mix of existing Children’s Social Workers, Group Supervisors and mental health staff including Psychiatric Technicians. This proposal is suggested to address the significant portion of the population in crisis at MacLaren. This proposal makes sense given the profile of the population. However, it is not clear why all the Children’s Social Worker classifications should also remain other than because they have always been there. A stronger mental health orientation would be appropriate for the population and should result in more effective services if combined with an appropriate therapeutic model. Costs should also be lowered as Psychiatric Technicians are not paid as highly as Children’s Social Workers or Group Supervisors. They would need to be supervised by higher paid mental health workers but a mix of cottage staff comprised primarily of Psychiatric Technicians would result in lower costs. By replacing all but 20 percent of the budgeted Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors with Psychiatric Technicians, salary costs could be reduced as follows. Exhibit 2.18 Salary Cost Differences Between Children’s Social Workers, Group Supervisors and Psychiatric Technicians Annual Number Annual Number Annual Savings/ Classification Salary Budgeted Cost Retained Cost (Cost) Children's Social Worker III $57,840 135 $7,808,400 27 $1,561,680 $6,246,720 Group Supervisor II 46,408 47 2,181,176 9 417,672 1,763,504 Psychiatric Technician III 40,644 - - 146 5,934,024 (5,934,024) Total 182 $9,989,576 182 $7,913,376 $2,076,200 Source: MacLaren salary and position report At a rate of approximately 25.8 percent, benefits costs would be reduced by approximately $535,660, resulting in total cost reductions of approximately $2.6 million. Additional savings could potentially be realized if the new staffing in the cottages 236 Section 2. Population Profile reduced the need for as many Psychiatric Social Workers and Clinical Psychologists as currently assigned to the facility. Other approaches such as the wraparound program appear to be proving effective at breaking the cycle of repeated placement failures and returns to MacLaren. This program and others like it should continue to be monitored and reported on to the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium to verify their cost-effectiveness before further expansion. Evaluations conducted by MacLaren in 2000 and 1999 were reviewed and both showed positive results in a number of key areas including school attendance and achievement, behavior and others.4 CONCLUSION As the number of children at the Center has grown older and the number of children needing additional and special services has escalated, staff at MacLaren is faced with many difficult decisions regarding the child’s best interest. The Center handles a very troubled and difficult population that is getting older and is of very high need. A stronger mental health component to the core staffing at MacLaren is appropriate at this time. A proposal prepared by the Mental Health division to reconfigure cottage staffing to add more mental health professionals is a logical proposal for dealing with the population. A more comprehensive replacement of Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors with mental health staff is a preferred approach however because it would allow for introduction of a new more therapeutic approach to residential services and it could be done at lower cost. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above findings, it is recommended that Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 2.1 Request that the Director of Mental Health services at MacLaren prepare a proposal for a program to replace Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors with mental health staff in the cottages to provide a more therapeutic approach appropriate to much of the population at MacLaren; (Recommendation 104) 2.2 Request that the Director of Mental Health services prepare measures of effectiveness or outcomes for review and approval by the Consortium to use in measuring the results of the proposed program; (Recommendation 105) 2.3 After review and approval of the proposal, implement on a pilot basis and measure results to ensure that desired results are achieved or, if not, determine what changes are needed; (Recommendation 106) 4 Note: “The 10 Child Project” Wraparound Evaluation, August 1999 and July 2000. Section 2. Population Profile 2.4 Replicate the program throughout the facility once its effectiveness has been established; and, (Recommendation 107) 2.5 Collect evidence to verify the effectiveness of programs such as Wraparound and expand to the extent possible. (Recommendation 108) COSTS AND BENEFITS The benefits of the recommendations above would include a more appropriate mix of staff and approach to dealing with the population as profiled in this report section. Costs would also be lowered as the Psychiatric Technician classification is not paid as highly as Children’s Social Workers or Group Supervisors. Assuming 20 percent of the budgeted Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors were retained and 80 percent replaced with Psychiatric Technicians, salary and benefits costs would be reduced by approximately $2.6 million annually. Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren • In August 2001 MacLaren Children’s Center became a State licensed facility and subject to California Department of Social Services licensing requirements, including conduct of criminal background checks of all employees working at the facility who have contact with children. The background check includes statewide and national criminal records checks as well as a determination of whether the applicant’s name appears on the Child Abuse Central Index. • In June 2001, in preparation for licensure, MacLaren management began the process of conducting background checks of all employees at the facility. Through this process, MacLaren discovered that 17 employees had previously undisclosed criminal histories considered unacceptable either by CDSS or by a stricter set of standards established by MacLaren management. In addition, four individuals voluntarily resigned or transferred during the background checks process. • The newly instituted background checks process appears to be working well for most existing and new MacLaren employees assigned from the Departments of Children and Family Services, Mental Health and Health Services. Of 63 randomly selected employees, clean results were found for 51. For the majority of the remaining 12 employees there were reasonable explanations as to the reason clean results were not documented. No background check documentation was found for Resource Utilization Management unit staff or some contractors who have contact with children. • The separately administered background check process for Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) employees at the on-site school does not appear to be working as well. Of 30 LACOE employees selected, background checks could be verified for only 10, one of which contained a criminal history with no details available. LACOE was not able to provide background check documentation for any of their contractors working on site. LACOE reports that it has been administering its background check procedures under a different set of regulations than MacLaren and reports that is was not made aware of the new background check policies and procedures implemented at MacLaren until this audit. BACKGROUND In December 2000 a lawsuit filed against the State of California by the nonprofit, San Francisco- based Youth Law Center charged that the State was not enforcing standards of care and exposing thousands of children to overcrowded and dangerous shelters. This lawsuit resulted in a court order in April 2001for all state shelters housing foster children to become licensed. In mid-2001, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to comply with the court order to obtain a state license for MacLaren Children’s Center to operate as a Community Care Facility for children in the County. A provisional state license was granted in August 2001, which is valid for one year, and must be renewed in August 2002. Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren State licensure is administered by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) through its Community Care Licensing Division (CCL). Facilities licensed by CCL are called Community Care Facilities. In its guidance to Community Care Facilities, CDSS requires that “all applicants, licensees, residents, and employees of community care facilities who have contact with clients” undergo background checks. The process of these background checks includes manual fingerprinting or the use of the electronic Livescan system. CDSS transmits this information to the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) who conduct State and national criminal records background checks. DOJ notifies CDSS of the results of the state and national checks, including whether the applicant’s name was found in the Child Abuse Central Index. CDSS then notifies the facility as to whether the applicant has a criminal history. If the criminal record is conviction of a felony, then the individual is excluded from returning to the facility, unless an exemption is granted. Many crimes are not eligible for exemption by CDSS standards; however, exemptions may be granted under the state’s system in some circumstances. Crimes that may qualify for exemption include: • Murder/Voluntary Manslaughter1 • Conviction for attempt to assault with intent to commit mayhem • Prior to 1/1/65 conviction of willfully causing or permitting any child to suffer under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death • Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life but not for an indeterminate sentence.1 • Enhancement for any felony which inflicts great bodily harm. According to CDSS guidelines, the applicant must submit the following information to receive an exemption: • A written description of the crime(s) • A description of how the individual’s life has changed to avoid criminal activities • Certificates or other documentation of training, education or rehabilitation, if completed • Three current letters of character reference (not from family members or facility employees) • Evidence of counseling or therapy, if any In response to a direct inquiry, CDSS indicated that the State background check process can take anywhere from three days to three months, “depending on the type of criminal record information involved.” National FBI background checks could take anywhere from seven days to three months, with the average being about 47 days. The CDSS regulations state that “Exemption may be granted for murder or voluntary manslaughter if [applicant] is rehabilitated pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 1522(g)(1)… and Penal Code Section 4852.01, 4852.03 and 4852.05.” The exemption for “any felony punishable by death or imprisonment” also is granted if applicant is rehabilitated pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 1522(g)(1). Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren CDSS also transmitted information to the auditors indicating that the State has a process of notifying employers regarding subsequent arrests within California of employees who have had background checks, and that notification takes place immediately after DOJ receives information from reporting agencies. There is no process of notification of subsequent arrests at the national level. In preparation for state licensure, MacLaren Children’s Center began conducting background checks on all of its existing employees in June 20012. As a result of this process, the facility discovered that 17 employees had previously undisclosed criminal histories considered unacceptable either by CDSS or by a stricter set of standards established by the newly appointed interim administration3. In addition, four individuals voluntarily resigned their positions during the background checks process. Those employees whose criminal histories were not accepted at MacLaren generally were transferred back to the originating departments, (i.e., the Departments of Children and Family Services, Mental Health, or Health Services). Exhibit 3.1 illustrates activities to date related to individuals who were not allowed to return to MacLaren or who voluntarily resigned or transferred during the process. Exhibit 3.1 Results of MacLaren Background Checks of Existing Employees Who Were Not Allowed to Return to Facility Criminal Record Action Taken 1 Felony DUI Transferred to another department 2 Driving while under the Transferred to another influence; did not disclose department on employment application 3 Misdemeanor petty theft; Transferred to another did not disclose on department employment application 4 Disturbing the peace Transferred to another department 5 Misdemeanor driving w/ Released from probation suspended license; did not and thus from County disclose on employment employment application; was on employment probation 2 Prior to this, staff assigned to MacLaren followed their respective Department’s policies regarding background checks. These policies differed from department to department. Therefore there were inconsistencies as to the type and degree of background checks conducted on employees. We were told that the stricter standards established by MacLaren interim administrators are designed to ensure that only the most qualified candidates are allowed to work and have contact with the children at MacLaren. Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren Criminal Record Action Taken 6 Burglary Not allowed to return to facility 7 Misdemeanor driving while Transferred to another under the influence; department provided false information to police; domestic violence 8 Misdemeanor petty theft— Transferred to another did not disclose on department employment application 9 Felony bookmaking Transferred to another department 10 Driving while under the Transferred to another influence department 11 Embezzlement, forgery, Employee resigned theft 12 Misdemeanor non-sufficient Not allowed to return to funds—checking facility 13 Robbery/receiving stolen Transferred to another property; trespassing with department intent to interfere or injure 14 Disturbing the peace Employee resigned 15 Possession of controlled Transferred to another substance department 16 Petty theft; stolen credit Not allowed to return to the card facility 17 Possession of controlled Not allowed to return to the substance; loaded firearm facility 18 Trafficking controlled Not allowed to return to the substance facility 19 Possession of narcotics; Transferred to another driving while under the department influence; did not disclose on employment application 20 Questionable Livescan Transferred to another results; was scheduled to be department re-Livescanned 21 Questionable Livescan; was Transferred to another scheduled to be re- department Livescanned Source: MacLaren Children’s Center Personnel Office documents 242 Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren According to the MacLaren Children’s Center Interim Personnel Officer, in addition to the above individuals, who will not be returning to MacLaren, 11 individuals were found to have criminal records but were granted exemptions by the facility, and therefore allowed to continue their employment there. Of those who were granted exemptions: • Three had expunged criminal records • Two were arrested only, but not convicted • Three had records of minor welfare fraud • Two had driving while under the influence records • One had a petty theft record, which was disclosed at the time of application Also, 11 other individuals are in a “pending” status, because the results of the Livescans have been delayed. Once the results for these individuals are in, the facility will make decisions using the criteria described above to determine whether they will be allowed to continue work at MacLaren As mentioned above, the interim MacLaren management developed a set of standards designed to ensure that only the most qualified candidates be allowed to work at the facility and have contact with the children there. According to these standards, examples of histories that may be deemed unacceptable at MacLaren include the following: • Conviction within preceding five years • Any felony conviction • Conviction/arrest involving violence, aggression, force, or moral turpitude • Conviction/arrest involving children • Conviction/arrest involving use/possession/sale of illegal substances In determining whether to remove the individual from MacLaren, the Administrator may use one or more of the following considerations: • Whether the crime is non-exemptible based on CDSS guidelines • The nature of the offense • Period of time since the crime and number of offenses • Circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime/offense (e.g., age, demonstration of poor judgment, use of force, injury, use of a weapon, etc.) • Rehabilitation, or • Honesty and truthfulness These guidelines have not yet been documented in the official MacLaren policies, and they will need to be in order to ensure their continued and effective use. Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren HOW THE BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS WORKS NOW As mentioned above, the state licensure process resulted in a new set of procedures for conducting background checks of MacLaren employees. The Interim Personnel Officer at MacLaren and human resources representatives at the Departments of Mental Health and Health Services, (DMH and DHS) report that in addition to the background checks that were done on existing employees, new employees hired to work at MacLaren must now undergo a background check and the results must be received by the MacLaren Personnel Officer prior to their commencing employment. Records of the background checks process are now centralized at MacLaren for all employees and contractors except Los Angeles County Office of Education employees assigned to MacLaren. Department representatives report that the recruitment and hiring processes for DCFS, DMH and DHS employees applying to work at MacLaren is a joint effort between MacLaren and these respective departments. In most cases, MacLaren, DCFS, DMH and DHS human resources staff conduct the initial notifications, testing and screening of applicants, and existing MacLaren managers interview and decide on the final hiring of these staff. There are some exceptions to this with respect to DHS staff, in which case DHS staff at Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Hospital (LAC+USC) have had the primary role in the interviewing and hiring process, in particular with respect to the lead Physician and Nurse Manager. Once the decision to hire is made, then MacLaren, DCFS, DMH and DHS staff process the administrative County forms, while a background check is conducted for staff from these three departments by the MacLaren personnel office. New hires are not brought on board until the clean results are provided or an exemption has been obtained from CDSS and MacLaren. The process for LACOE staff is different. For this group--which includes teachers, administrators and support personnel at the on-site school--the entire recruitment, hiring and background checks process is conducted by LACOE staff. The MacLaren manager responsible for licensing reports that a background check waiver was granted to LACOE because CDSS reviewed LACOE’s process and found it to be similar to that required by CDSS; however, no documentation to this effect has been provided by MacLaren staff. Human Resources representatives at LACOE report that since 1997, all teachers, administrators and support personnel must undergo a background check before being hired. A review of LACOE policies and procedures indicates that State and national searches are supposed to be conducted on these applicants. REVIEW OF BACKGROUND CHECKS OF SAMPLE OF EMPLOYEES As part of this audit random verification of the background checks process was conducted for approximately 15 percent of all employees and contractors at MacLaren. This review required a visit to the LACOE Human Resources office, where background checks documentation is kept for all LACOE employees, including those assigned to MacLaren. The review, which also included a sample of newly hired employees, showed the following: 244 Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren • The process for existing and new employees assigned to MacLaren from DCFS, DMH and DHS appears to generally be working well. Of 63 randomly selected employees, clean results of background checks were found for 51 employees. The majority of the remaining 12 employees had reasonable explanations of why the results were not verifiable, as indicated below: o Two were new employees and background checks were pending o Four were on extended leaves of absence o Two were no longer assigned to MacLaren o The remaining four should have had background checks. Three of the four are from the Resource Utilization Management Unit, which, as discussed below, did not undergo background checks, and should have. • Contractor employee files also generally contained the required documentation regarding background checks, with some key exceptions: landscaping staff and some DHS contractors who have direct contact with children had not undergone background checks. Of 32 contractor names randomly selected, we were able to verify clean results for only 19 employees. Of the remaining 13: o Three did not have any contact with children or performed their work off-site o Livescans had been completed but results were delayed in two cases o One person had very recently been Livescanned, and results were not in yet o The results for one contractor employee could not be verified o Four landscaping contractor employees had not been fingerprinted o One DHS contract dentist and one DHS contract lab worker had not been fingerprinted • The results of background checks conducted for the majority of LACOE employees could not be verified. Of 30 employee files reviewed, background checks could be verified in only ten cases. One file contained a criminal history, but no details were available in the file. In addition, LACOE staff were unable to provide any information regarding its contractors assigned at MacLaren, despite repeated requests for this information. Also, a review of the criteria used to disqualify employment candidates of MacLaren and candidates of LACOE showed differences, with the new MacLaren guidelines being more stringent. LACOE staff provided this audit team with documentation showing that they had undergone an audit by the California Department of Justice in May 2000 that found that LACOE Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) was stored in personnel files, in violation of California law. They also provided documentation showing that DOJ regulations require that CORI information “be destroyed after employment determination has been made…” This, they say, is the reason our audit team was unable to verify the criminal background checks of 20 out of 30 employees. Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren However, it has been reported that prior to 1997, LACOE did not have a policy of conducting background checks on all employees, and several of the employees assigned to MacLaren were hired prior to this date. Additionally, MacLaren record-keeping practices were entirely different than LACOE’s, and we were able to verify that other MacLaren employees from all other departments had undergone background checks. LACOE management reports that they were never informed of MacLaren’s new background check policies and procedures until this audit. Also, the record-keeping practices at LACOE were inconsistent, as we did find evidence of criminal background checks in some cases. • Employees from the Resource Utilization Management Unit (a DCFS unit), who are housed at MacLaren and do have contact with the children at MacLaren, did not undergo background checks. • Policies and procedures related to background checks at MacLaren have not been fully documented, and currently are working based on verbal understandings among the departments who have staff assigned at MacLaren. CONCLUSION In general, the MacLaren administration has done a good job of bringing the facility into compliance with CDSS requirements to conduct background checks on new and existing employees. There are exceptions, however, and these include background checks conducted by LACOE, which are conducted in a different manner than those conducted by MacLaren, resulting in our inability to confirm that background checks were in fact conducted on staff assigned at MacLaren and that clean criminal records were obtained. Other exceptions include the Resource Utilization Management unit staff at MacLaren and some contractors, who do have access to children in the facility, but who did not undergo background checks. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that MacLaren Children’s Center: 3.1 Immediately bring all staff and contractors assigned to the facility who have or could have contact with children there in compliance with CDSS and MacLaren policies regarding background checks; (Recommendation 109) 3.2 Seek an agreement with LACOE regarding the background checks of employees assigned to the MacLaren School, in which LACOE agrees to provide MacLaren with legally certified documentation regarding the results of background checks conducted of LACOE staff. Additionally, LACOE should agree to abide by MacLaren policies regarding background checks for those LACOE staff assigned to the facility. Should such an agreement not prove feasible, then MacLaren should review its options relative to alternative providers of educational services at the facility; (Recommendation 110) 246 Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren 3.3 Clarify the California laws and regulations regarding the storage of criminal background checks. Work to ensure that criminal background checks record-keeping is consistent for all employees assigned at MacLaren and that records are auditable; (Recommendation 111) 3.4 Document its policies and procedures relative to background checks and ensure that all County agencies and other parties operating at the facility are aware of these policies and procedures and are in compliance with them; and, (Recommendation 112) 3.5 Document background checks conducted for all contractors and their employees operating at the facility, including those contracted with by DCFS, DMH, DHS and LACOE. (Recommendation 113) It is recommended that LACOE: 3.6 Immediately conduct background checks on those employees assigned to MacLaren who have not undergone a background check, and document the results of all background checks conducted, with a legal certification as to the truth and accuracy of the information. (Recommendation 114) COSTS AND BENEFITS The majority of the recommendations above falls under the overall responsibilities of existing staff, and should not generate additional costs for the facility. The one exception is that the cost of some contractor background checks may need to be borne by MacLaren; however, in general this cost is negligible, relative to the benefit of knowing that only the most qualified staff and contractors have access to the children at the facility. Also, future contractors could be required to have their staffs undergo the background checks before being assigned to MacLaren. Section 4. Investigating Allegations of Abuse By Staff 4. Investigating Allegations of Abuse By Staff • MacLaren has a number of policies and procedures related to reporting incidents that occur at the facility, including allegations of abuse by staff against children. These policies and procedures are not up-to-date and do not accurately reflect how various incidents are handled at the facility. • A backlog going back to 1997 was found for DCFS investigations of allegations of abuse by staff against children. This backlog has increased over the past two years. DCFS staff report that the reason for the backlog is insufficient staffing and an increase in the number of child deaths elsewhere that required investigation. This backlog situation is critical because it could: 1) result in great harm coming to children at the facility; 2) put the County at risk of lawsuits; 3) give staff the impression that there will be little consequence for abusive behavior toward children, and thus increase the likelihood of future abuse; and 4) cause children to become discouraged and believe that there is no point in reporting the abuse. To improve this situation, DCFS recently assigned a dedicated investigator to MacLaren. • MacLaren’s internal staff investigations are conducted by coworkers and have been characterized by staff as perfunctory at best. To ensure the independence and effectiveness of internal investigations, MacLaren needs one individual whose primary responsibility is the investigation of allegations of abuse by staff against children. This position should report directly to the Administrator, and should be required to provide the Administrator with quarterly reports regarding the status and outcomes of investigations. This investigative position should replace the internal investigative responsibilities currently assigned to Children’s Services Administrators (CSAs) at the facility. Policies and procedures regarding special incident investigations should be updated to reflect CDSS regulations and other changes made to improve the process, and staff should be trained regarding these updated policies. The stated policy at MacLaren Children’s Center regarding allegations of abuse by staff against children is that they must be “assessed” within 2 hours, and if there is “knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse”, then law enforcement is to be notified “immediately or as soon as practically possible.” A verbal report is to be followed by a written report within 36 hours. In addition, the Center’s policies and procedures manual instructs Deputy Children’s Services Administrators (DSCA), an expired classification which is the equivalent of a Division Director at MacLaren, to submit a report to the “Director” (now Administrator) by the beginning of the next working day regarding various incidents, including: • Incidents involving serious injury or critical illness affecting a minor, staff member, or visitor, etc. occurring within the facility’s jurisdiction 248 Section 4. Investigating Allegations of Abuse By Staff • Major disorders such as riots, extensive destruction of property, group assaults, group AWOLs of four or more minors in one incident, etc. • Problem situations in which the press, radio or television are involved • Incidents in which it appears that the Director may be contacted with reference to a complaint or public relations problem The policies and procedures go on to list several other situations in which a report must be filed, including assault on staff, sexual misconduct, and suicide attempts. Managers and staff at MacLaren state that the incidents described above also require that a Special Incident Report (SIR) be written by staff involved or witnessing the incident. One incident may generate multiple Special Incident Reports, (e.g., several staff members and a supervisor may write a report on a single incident). These reports are reviewed by the Division Director and subsequently sent to the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). In cases of allegations of child abuse, the reports are preliminarily investigated by Children’s Services Administrators (CSAs) and then forwarded to DCFS’ centralized Internal Affairs unit. We found the policies and procedures related to this did not reflect the current process as described to us by staff. For example, no MacLaren documentation reviewed made reference to the role of the Children’s Services Administrators relative to child abuse SIR investigations, nor the role of the DCFS Internal Affairs unit in such investigations. State licensing regulations specify reporting requirements regarding various “events” occurring at the licensee’s facility, including client deaths, client injuries, any “unusual incident or client absence which threatens the physical or emotional health or safety” of the client, any suspected physical or psychological abuse of any client, epidemic outbreaks, and several other categories. Reports are to be filed the next working day followed by a written report within seven days. Exhibit 4.2 shows the number of SIRs filed in the past three years. The focus of this section is the first category, i.e., Staff against Resident Abuse Allegations. Section 4. Investigating Allegations of Abuse By Staff Exhibit 4.2 Special Incident Reports By Category for the Past Three Calendar Years Type of Allegation 1999 2000 2001 Total Staff against Resident Abuse Allegations 22 35 53 110 Resident against Resident Assaults 446 717 575 1,738 Resident against Resident Attempted Assault 101 286 271 658 Resident against Staff Assault 445 672 796 1,913 Resident against Staff Attempted Assault 306 614 634 1,554 Total 1,320 2,324 2,329 5,973 Source: MacLaren Staff BACKLOG OF INVESTIGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS According to discussions with MacLaren and DCFS staff, as well as a review of the various MacLaren and CDSS policies, there are three types of investigations that are currently supposed to occur when there is an allegation of abuse by staff against children at the facility: • A police investigation, which is focused primarily on criminal issues • A DCFS investigation, which is focused primarily on child abuse issues • An internal MacLaren investigation, which is focused primarily on MacLaren policies and procedures MacLaren management reports that police reports were completed for all allegations of abuse by staff against children in at least the past year and a half1. None of these reports resulted in substantiated criminal allegations, according to MacLaren management. The internal MacLaren investigations also are up-to-date, according to MacLaren management and some could reportedly result in actions against staff. The reasons that these internal investigations could result in actions against staff, despite the lack of criminal findings by the police, is that staff may have violated internal policies and procedures, such as the timing of bringing children to the clinic for medical care or the timing of actually producing a SIR. This is the period of time that the current Director of the Boys Division has been assigned at MacLaren, and therefore the timeframe with which he was most familiar. Section 4. Investigating Allegations of Abuse By Staff A backlog of up to four years exists in the DCFS investigations of alleged abuse by staff against children in the facility. These investigations are particularly important because they are focused specifically on child abuse issues, and may differ in their findings from the police findings and/or the internal MacLaren reports. The backlog DCFS investigations became larger over the past two years. Exhibit 4.3 below reflects the backlog of these cases. Exhibit 4.3 Backlog of Investigations Alleging Abuse by Staff Against Children at MacLaren Children’s Center Calendar Number of Cases Not Yet Year Investigated 1997 2 1998 7 1999 7 2000 19 As of October 2001 49 Total 84 Source: MacLaren Management In response to inquiries regarding the backlog, DCFS’s centralized Internal Affairs staff indicated that the increase in the backlog of investigations is the result of several factors, including insufficient staffing, and an increase in the number of high priority investigations, such as child deaths2. They also said that they now have assigned two staff members to focus on these investigations, and that it would take at least five months to eliminate the backlog. Several MacLaren and DCFS staff report that the preliminary internal investigations of allegations of child abuse conducted by CSAs at MacLaren are at best perfunctory, and that the CSAs assigned to them tend not to give them due diligence because often the allegations are against employees who happen to be friendly toward them, and who would be alienated and respond negatively to them in the future should they exercise the full extent of their investigatory authority. In addition, DCFS Internal Affairs staff report that an atmosphere of silence pervades many MacLaren staff interviewed for investigations, and that an unwritten agreement seems to prevail, wherein staff understand that if they talk, they will not get the backing of their colleagues, should a major altercation with children take place. Since the DCFS investigations have represented the most comprehensive child abuse investigations at MacLaren to date, the fact that they are backlogged sends a signal to staff that allegations against them by children will be not be vigorously investigated. This could result in reoccurrences of abusive behaviors. Also, children who are victimized may come to believe that little will be done about their complaints, and may become disheartened and endure the abuse without filing complaints. According to documents provided by DCFS, there were 88 child deaths in 2000 that required a departmental investigation. (All deaths of children of whom the Department had prior knowledge must be investigated by the DCFS Internal Affairs group, according to the group’s Senior Manager.) 251 Section 4. Investigating Allegations of Abuse By Staff In addition to potentially causing a great deal of harm to children, this situation also could place the County at risk of lawsuits, such as the class action suit that was filed recently against the County on behalf of six current and former children at MacLaren. CONCLUSIONS Investigations of allegations of abuse by staff against children at MacLaren are not adequately addressed. In addition to potentially causing great harm to children, this also could place the County at risk of lawsuits. The policies and procedures related to other “special incidents” at the facility are not well documented and updated to include relevant regulations from CDSS and other procedures important to the day-to-day management of this component of the operations. The backlog in DCFS investigations adversely impacts MacLaren operations from a number of perspectives, and must be addressed. MacLaren also needs to do a more effective job with its own internal staff investigations that are conducted by coworkers and have been characterized as perfunctory at best. Therefore, while DCFS needs to meet the legal obligation of child abuse investigations, MacLaren should still conduct its own rigorous internal investigation and take corrective action where appropriate. The best reporting relationship for an internal investigative position at MacLaren from an organizational perspective is a direct one to the Administrator. Should the findings of an investigation lead to recommendations of disciplinary actions against the employee, then some coordination between the personnel unit and the Administrator’s office will need to take place. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings above, it is recommended that the MacLaren Children’s Center Administrator: 4.1 Relieve the Children’s Services Administrators (CSAs) currently conducting the preliminary investigations of this duty, as their positions and reporting relationships do not provide the independence necessary to perform this function effectively; (Recommendation 115) 4.2 Assign a manager, preferably one with investigations/auditing skills, to focus primarily on investigations of allegations of abuse by staff against children at the facility. This individual should have complete independence and autonomy from all other managers and staff at the facility and should report directly to the Administrator; (Recommendation 116) 4.3 Direct the new investigator to conduct timely investigations and prepare timely, complete and accurate reports and to produce a quarterly report to be presented to the Administrator regarding the status and outcomes of activities in this area for that quarter; (Recommendation 117) 252 Section 4. Investigating Allegations of Abuse By Staff 4.4 Use the quarterly as well as individual investigations reports to ensure that the investigations are being managed in a timely and effective fashion, and problems corrected; and, (Recommendation 118) 4.5 Update MacLaren’s policies and procedures relative to Special Incident reporting, including the timeframes and documentation component, and key personnel involved in the process. The policies also should address the code of silence among staff, and put forth concrete consequences for anyone found to have obstructed an investigation of allegations of abuse by staff against children at the facility. This update should include a training element, during which staff are instructed on the policies and procedures and about the importance of timely and proper documentation. (Recommendation 119) It is recommended that the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 4.6 Direct DCFS to continue to address the investigation backlog and give it the highest priority. DCFS should be instructed to report back to the Consortium as to the status of the backlog. (Recommendation 120) COSTS AND BENEFITS The primary additional costs associated with this recommendation are the salary and benefits costs of the Children’s Services Administrator assigned to conduct investigations of allegations of abuse by staff against children. This cost ranges from approximately $70,000 to $115,000 annually3. This cost should be at least partially, if not fully, offset by reductions in CSA staff time now spent on internal investigations. The benefits gained by keeping up to date with such investigations, including preventing harm to children at the facility and decreasing the risk of lawsuits, far outweigh any incremental costs. Existing staff could potentially be reassigned to this function to avoid hiring new staff. These figures are based on salary and benefits ranges for the CSAI through CSAIII classifications, and assume a 30 percent benefits ratio. Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control • The decentralized nature of human resources management at MacLaren has led to complications and inefficiencies, and illustrates the difficulty in trying to provide integrated services by various County departments and agencies. Additionally, the Consortium Operational Agreement contains many provisions that limit the Administrator’s authority to the detriment of overall effectiveness in managing the human resources function. • Examples of difficulties experienced as a result of decentralized human resources management include the lack of direct input by the Administrator into hiring decisions of LACOE staff assigned at MacLaren; high turnover in key management positions in the Health Services function; disagreement regarding reporting relationships and roles and responsibilities of key management positions in the Health Services function; disagreement regarding the hiring and management of nursing staff; and a lack of accurate item, or position/control data that would enable management to account for all staff at the facility at any given time. • The MacLaren Administrator needs final decision making authority regarding the staffing types and levels at the facility, as well as disciplinary authority. This would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall operation as it would centralize authority and responsibility for key human resources decisions, the major element driving operations at MacLaren. The Operational Agreement governing the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium and operations at MacLaren spells out the responsibilities of each respective department or agency and the MacLaren Administrator. Given the complex nature of this coordinated effort, the agreement contains many caveats and exceptions as to the Administrator’s roles and responsibilities, making the recruitment, hiring, and management of the human resources function extremely complex and difficult. For example, the Operational Agreement states that: “The Administrator, for purposes of administration of MacLaren, including but not limited to personnel administration, shall be the subordinate of each department head who assigns personnel to MacLaren…” And later: “The MacLaren Administrator…is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations at MacLaren…However, in recognition of medical licensing standards, the MacLaren Administrator shall not administer or oversee the clinical practices of physicians at MacLaren…the MacLaren Administrator …has delegated authority to impose discipline…except with respect to medical staff…and except with respect to LACOE staff…” 254 Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control Then: “Based on this delegated authority, the MacLaren Administrator is responsible for all operations at MacLaren…Responsibility for the DCFS MacLaren Unit and the DCFS Resource Utilization Management Unit which are housed at MacLaren remains with the DCFS Director.” While in practice, we found that the parties generally showed a genuine desire to cooperate with one another, the very complexity of the task often made cooperation difficult and frustrating. Although human resources management is just one part of the overall management of the facility, it does illustrate the difficulties the facility experiences in trying to provide integrated services. Exhibit 5.1 illustrates who is involved in each aspect of the process of recruitment, hiring and background checks at MacLaren: Exhibit 5.1 Recruitment, Hiring and Background Checks At MacLaren Department/ Recruitment Testing/Screening Interviewing Hiring Background Agency Checks DCFS MacLaren/DCFS DCFS/ DCFS/DHR/ DCFS/ MacLaren MacLaren/DHR MacLaren MacLaren DMH DMH/DHR DMH/DHR DMH/ DMH/ MacLaren MacLaren MacLaren DHS DHS DHS DHS1 DHS/ MacLaren MacLaren LACOE LACOE LACOE LACOE LACOE LACOE Contractors Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor MacLaren Source: Interviews with various MacLaren and Consortium staff and file review COMPLICATIONS WITH DECENTRALIZED H.R. FUNCTION Given the decentralized nature of the responsibilities to recruit and hire staff that work at MacLaren, the process can be cumbersome and does not always lead to a group of individuals tailored to the unique needs of the facility. For example, as the table illustrates, the process for hiring and conducting background checks of LACOE staff is performed entirely by LACOE. Given this, the Administrator and his or her staff have at best only indirect input as to who is hired at the facility, via discussions with LACOE administrators at MacLaren. In addition, this situation has led to difficulties in the management of Health Services staff. Health Services at MacLaren falls under the LAC+USC Medical Center, Chief of Pediatrics. The MacLaren Health Services group reports directly to the Medical Director of the Violence 1 We were told by the Interim Personnel Officer that discussions are currently underway to enable the MacLaren Administrator to participate in interviews of DHS management positions assigned to MacLaren. Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control Intervention Program (VIP). The Health Department management responsible for MacLaren has had discussions with the interim MacLaren administration regarding the issues of hiring and management of staff at the facility. The VIP group also developed a proposed staffing plan in September 2001 and submitted it to the previous Administrator of MacLaren at that time. To date, no agreement has been reached regarding this proposed plan. Also, there has been high turnover among the key positions in Health Services at MacLaren, i.e., the lead Physician and Nurse Manager positions. Within the past three years, there have been three lead Physicians and three Nurse Managers assigned at MacLaren, according to human resources staff at LAC+USC. And, at the time we began this review, the Nurse Manager position was vacant, and the lead Physician was working on an “hourly as needed” basis. The “hourly as needed” classification essentially means that the position is technically “temporary” and may be eliminated at any time. In addition, such staff are not eligible for many of the benefits of many other types of classifications, such as paid vacations and holidays. During our review, we found that the current lead physician has worked an average of 235 hours monthly, or approximately 59 hours per week for the past year. Another issue creating difficulties in the management of the Health Services operation at MacLaren is the lead Physician’s status and reporting relationships. There is disagreement and misunderstanding surrounding this position, including whether that person is responsible for ultimate managerial authority over the Nurses and Nurse Manager assigned to MacLaren. DHS managers and staff we spoke with indicated that they believe that the Nurse Manager and lead Physician must report to the Medical Director of the VIP in conjunction with the MacLaren Administrator, so as to ensure that all legal and administrative requirements are met. They indicated that they believe the Nurse Manager should report to the VIP Medical Director but work cooperatively with the Physician. Thus far, it appears that this arrangement has not worked effectively at MacLaren. Also, according to the Chief of Pediatrics and the Medical Director of the VIP, the Operational Agreement signed in September is not workable relative to the hiring and management of nurses. They do not believe that MacLaren staff have the expertise required in the credentialing, quality improvement and other aspects required by law to manage the nursing staff, and this arrangement could lead to lack of compliance with regulatory and legal mandates. Another complication attributable to the decentralizing of recruitment, hiring and management of the human resources component at MacLaren is the inability of MacLaren human resources and budget staff to obtain an accurate, up-to-date and complete count of staff assigned at MacLaren at any given time, what is known at the County as “item control”. One of the issues here is that while MacLaren staff now are notified regarding new hires, particularly for those staff whose background checks are the responsibility of MacLaren, notifications regarding resignations, retirements and other departures are not regularly made. No one at Maclaren has a complete up- to-date listing of all employees working at the facility. Thus, it took the audit team considerable time and effort to determine the approximate number of staff at the facility by area and responsibility. Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control Item control is essential to the efficient and effective management of any organization, and impacts the organization’s ability to ensure the safety and welfare of children and staff there. It affects many issues, including security, shift coverage, medical staff coverage, among many other elements of the operation. Without a complete and accurate item control, the facility cannot be sure it is managing the facility optimally. CONCLUSIONS The decentralized nature of the human resources function at MacLaren has resulted in numerous complications. Among these are: the inability of MacLaren management to control the type and level of staffing at the facility; various problems in the areas of Health Services, including high turnover and disagreements regarding reporting relationships and staffing decisions; inability to keep accurate item control, with the result being no one at the facility able to provide an accurate accounting of the number and types of staff assigned to MacLaren at any given time. These complications have lingered for years because, given the decentralized nature of the operations, no one has been held accountable for the its overall efficiency and effectiveness. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 5.1 Increase accountability and overall efficiency and effectiveness at MacLaren by revising the Operational Agreement to include more specific and detailed agreements with all parties assigned to the facility, giving the MacLaren Administrator final decision making authority as to staffing types and levels at the facility, including disciplinary actions up to and including dismissal from the facility; (Recommendation 121) 5.2 In areas in which specific expertise is required to make efficient and effective staffing decisions, MacLaren should have its own experts, either on staff or as consultants, who can advise management as to the best configuration; (Recommendation 122) 5.3 Review options for using non-County service providers who are more able or willing to work within the proposed management framework and transfer current County costs to that provider from the department or agency in question should one of the entities be unable or not wish to participate in the recommended amendments to the Operational Agreement; (Recommendation 123) 5.4 Require staff from all agencies to report monthly to the Human Resources Director at MacLaren regarding the total staffing from their department, including new hires, resignations, terminations and transfers. Those agencies not complying with this requirement should be reviewed for suitability to continue their assignment at the facility. (Recommendation 124) 257 Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control COSTS AND BENEFITS The primary costs associated with the above recommendations relate to the expertise that might be required to provide MacLaren administration with the appropriate analyses and recommendations regarding staffing at MacLaren. However, it is quite possible that such expertise could actually lead to a net reduction in costs for the County, because of savings associated with different staffing configurations. The key benefit of the recommendations is that they would lead to more accountability at the facility. By giving the Administrator the authority over all personnel decisions at the facility, the County would also be vesting all responsibility for these decisions with the Administrator. This should lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness at MacLaren. Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control • The decentralized nature of human resources management at MacLaren has led to complications and inefficiencies, and illustrates the difficulty in trying to provide integrated services by various County departments and agencies. Additionally, the Consortium Operational Agreement contains many provisions that limit the Administrator’s authority to the detriment of overall effectiveness in managing the human resources function. • Examples of difficulties experienced as a result of decentralized human resources management include the lack of direct input by the Administrator into hiring decisions of LACOE staff assigned at MacLaren; high turnover in key management positions in the Health Services function; disagreement regarding reporting relationships and roles and responsibilities of key management positions in the Health Services function; disagreement regarding the hiring and management of nursing staff; and a lack of accurate item, or position/control data that would enable management to account for all staff at the facility at any given time. • The MacLaren Administrator needs final decision making authority regarding the staffing types and levels at the facility, as well as disciplinary authority. This would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall operation as it would centralize authority and responsibility for key human resources decisions, the major element driving operations at MacLaren. The Operational Agreement governing the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium and operations at MacLaren spells out the responsibilities of each respective department or agency and the MacLaren Administrator. Given the complex nature of this coordinated effort, the agreement contains many caveats and exceptions as to the Administrator’s roles and responsibilities, making the recruitment, hiring, and management of the human resources function extremely complex and difficult. For example, the Operational Agreement states that: “The Administrator, for purposes of administration of MacLaren, including but not limited to personnel administration, shall be the subordinate of each department head who assigns personnel to MacLaren…” And later: “The MacLaren Administrator…is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations at MacLaren…However, in recognition of medical licensing standards, the MacLaren Administrator shall not administer or oversee the clinical practices of physicians at MacLaren…the MacLaren Administrator …has delegated authority to impose discipline…except with respect to medical staff…and except with respect to LACOE staff…” 254 Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control Then: “Based on this delegated authority, the MacLaren Administrator is responsible for all operations at MacLaren…Responsibility for the DCFS MacLaren Unit and the DCFS Resource Utilization Management Unit which are housed at MacLaren remains with the DCFS Director.” While in practice, we found that the parties generally showed a genuine desire to cooperate with one another, the very complexity of the task often made cooperation difficult and frustrating. Although human resources management is just one part of the overall management of the facility, it does illustrate the difficulties the facility experiences in trying to provide integrated services. Exhibit 5.1 illustrates who is involved in each aspect of the process of recruitment, hiring and background checks at MacLaren: Exhibit 5.1 Recruitment, Hiring and Background Checks At MacLaren Department/ Recruitment Testing/Screening Interviewing Hiring Background Agency Checks DCFS MacLaren/DCFS DCFS/ DCFS/DHR/ DCFS/ MacLaren MacLaren/DHR MacLaren MacLaren DMH DMH/DHR DMH/DHR DMH/ DMH/ MacLaren MacLaren MacLaren DHS DHS DHS DHS1 DHS/ MacLaren MacLaren LACOE LACOE LACOE LACOE LACOE LACOE Contractors Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor MacLaren Source: Interviews with various MacLaren and Consortium staff and file review COMPLICATIONS WITH DECENTRALIZED H.R. FUNCTION Given the decentralized nature of the responsibilities to recruit and hire staff that work at MacLaren, the process can be cumbersome and does not always lead to a group of individuals tailored to the unique needs of the facility. For example, as the table illustrates, the process for hiring and conducting background checks of LACOE staff is performed entirely by LACOE. Given this, the Administrator and his or her staff have at best only indirect input as to who is hired at the facility, via discussions with LACOE administrators at MacLaren. In addition, this situation has led to difficulties in the management of Health Services staff. Health Services at MacLaren falls under the LAC+USC Medical Center, Chief of Pediatrics. The MacLaren Health Services group reports directly to the Medical Director of the Violence 1 We were told by the Interim Personnel Officer that discussions are currently underway to enable the MacLaren Administrator to participate in interviews of DHS management positions assigned to MacLaren. Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control Intervention Program (VIP). The Health Department management responsible for MacLaren has had discussions with the interim MacLaren administration regarding the issues of hiring and management of staff at the facility. The VIP group also developed a proposed staffing plan in September 2001 and submitted it to the previous Administrator of MacLaren at that time. To date, no agreement has been reached regarding this proposed plan. Also, there has been high turnover among the key positions in Health Services at MacLaren, i.e., the lead Physician and Nurse Manager positions. Within the past three years, there have been three lead Physicians and three Nurse Managers assigned at MacLaren, according to human resources staff at LAC+USC. And, at the time we began this review, the Nurse Manager position was vacant, and the lead Physician was working on an “hourly as needed” basis. The “hourly as needed” classification essentially means that the position is technically “temporary” and may be eliminated at any time. In addition, such staff are not eligible for many of the benefits of many other types of classifications, such as paid vacations and holidays. During our review, we found that the current lead physician has worked an average of 235 hours monthly, or approximately 59 hours per week for the past year. Another issue creating difficulties in the management of the Health Services operation at MacLaren is the lead Physician’s status and reporting relationships. There is disagreement and misunderstanding surrounding this position, including whether that person is responsible for ultimate managerial authority over the Nurses and Nurse Manager assigned to MacLaren. DHS managers and staff we spoke with indicated that they believe that the Nurse Manager and lead Physician must report to the Medical Director of the VIP in conjunction with the MacLaren Administrator, so as to ensure that all legal and administrative requirements are met. They indicated that they believe the Nurse Manager should report to the VIP Medical Director but work cooperatively with the Physician. Thus far, it appears that this arrangement has not worked effectively at MacLaren. Also, according to the Chief of Pediatrics and the Medical Director of the VIP, the Operational Agreement signed in September is not workable relative to the hiring and management of nurses. They do not believe that MacLaren staff have the expertise required in the credentialing, quality improvement and other aspects required by law to manage the nursing staff, and this arrangement could lead to lack of compliance with regulatory and legal mandates. Another complication attributable to the decentralizing of recruitment, hiring and management of the human resources component at MacLaren is the inability of MacLaren human resources and budget staff to obtain an accurate, up-to-date and complete count of staff assigned at MacLaren at any given time, what is known at the County as “item control”. One of the issues here is that while MacLaren staff now are notified regarding new hires, particularly for those staff whose background checks are the responsibility of MacLaren, notifications regarding resignations, retirements and other departures are not regularly made. No one at Maclaren has a complete up- to-date listing of all employees working at the facility. Thus, it took the audit team considerable time and effort to determine the approximate number of staff at the facility by area and responsibility. Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control Item control is essential to the efficient and effective management of any organization, and impacts the organization’s ability to ensure the safety and welfare of children and staff there. It affects many issues, including security, shift coverage, medical staff coverage, among many other elements of the operation. Without a complete and accurate item control, the facility cannot be sure it is managing the facility optimally. CONCLUSIONS The decentralized nature of the human resources function at MacLaren has resulted in numerous complications. Among these are: the inability of MacLaren management to control the type and level of staffing at the facility; various problems in the areas of Health Services, including high turnover and disagreements regarding reporting relationships and staffing decisions; inability to keep accurate item control, with the result being no one at the facility able to provide an accurate accounting of the number and types of staff assigned to MacLaren at any given time. These complications have lingered for years because, given the decentralized nature of the operations, no one has been held accountable for the its overall efficiency and effectiveness. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 5.1 Increase accountability and overall efficiency and effectiveness at MacLaren by revising the Operational Agreement to include more specific and detailed agreements with all parties assigned to the facility, giving the MacLaren Administrator final decision making authority as to staffing types and levels at the facility, including disciplinary actions up to and including dismissal from the facility; (Recommendation 121) 5.2 In areas in which specific expertise is required to make efficient and effective staffing decisions, MacLaren should have its own experts, either on staff or as consultants, who can advise management as to the best configuration; (Recommendation 122) 5.3 Review options for using non-County service providers who are more able or willing to work within the proposed management framework and transfer current County costs to that provider from the department or agency in question should one of the entities be unable or not wish to participate in the recommended amendments to the Operational Agreement; (Recommendation 123) 5.4 Require staff from all agencies to report monthly to the Human Resources Director at MacLaren regarding the total staffing from their department, including new hires, resignations, terminations and transfers. Those agencies not complying with this requirement should be reviewed for suitability to continue their assignment at the facility. (Recommendation 124) 257 Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control COSTS AND BENEFITS The primary costs associated with the above recommendations relate to the expertise that might be required to provide MacLaren administration with the appropriate analyses and recommendations regarding staffing at MacLaren. However, it is quite possible that such expertise could actually lead to a net reduction in costs for the County, because of savings associated with different staffing configurations. The key benefit of the recommendations is that they would lead to more accountability at the facility. By giving the Administrator the authority over all personnel decisions at the facility, the County would also be vesting all responsibility for these decisions with the Administrator. This should lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness at MacLaren. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis • MacLaren Children’s Center is a very high cost facility that serves children with great needs. But management does not have control over or complete information about total costs at the facility. Nor are systems in place for measuring the outcomes when new services or staff are added. Without such measurement and without basic financial information, MacLaren management is not accountable for total facility costs nor in a position to assess the effectiveness of services provided relative to costs to ensure that it is providing the most effective services to its residents for the dollars spent. • By extracting information from each agency’s financial system for this management audit, consolidated actual MacLaren expenditures in FY 2000- 01 were identified as $37,713,970 or $728 per child per day. For the current fiscal year, 2001-02, total costs are projected to be approximately $41.2 million, or $757 per child per day and $276,305 per child per year. Costs are expected to be even higher in FY 2002-03 based on preliminary budget proposals which call for more new positions and other increases beyond cost of living adjustments. The Department of Children and Family Services’ share of the cost per child per day is approximately $471. In comparison, the same cost for the Children’s Shelter in Santa Clara County which has a similar population mix and size, is approximately $250 per day. • The Interagency Children’s Services Consortium has given the MacLaren Administrator authority over all operations at the facility but this authority has not been accompanied by financial control or basic financial information needed to make management decisions. Expenditure levels for three of the four agencies at MacLaren are decided by the parent agencies themselves, not MacLaren management. None of the three agencies report their actual expenditures to MacLaren management. As a result, decisions regarding staffing, service levels and other aspects of operating the facility such as procurements are made without appropriate fiscal consideration by MacLaren management. Contracting for services should be considered as one means of gaining control over service levels and costs. The 1998 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium delegates “direct authority and responsibility for all on site multiagency service delivery to children at MCC” to the facility Administrator.1 While this concept is consistent with the County’s move toward integrated and coordinated services for MacLaren residents, the Administrator’s ability to be fiscally accountable is limited due to the absence of a complete budget for the facility or a system to track total costs. The Administrator must make decisions about funding, staffing allocations, and adding or changing services without baseline cost information. There is 1 This Memorandum of Understanding was signed in October 1998, or in FY 1998-99. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis no system in place at MacLaren for measuring actual costs of services compared to budgeted, a basic management tool. A new Administrative Services Manager position was added to the MacLaren staff in 2001 and she has attempted to create a consolidated list of all budgeted positions and their salaries for FY 2001-02 and 2002-03. This document is a start but it is not a full facility budget. It is a long way from allowing management to be fully informed of and accountable for total facility costs for the following reasons: • It does not include any Los Angeles County Office of Education positions • It does not include employee benefits costs • It does not include services and supplies (non-personnel) costs for any of the agencies as these are not reported to MacLaren management by the agencies • The accuracy of the roster of employees is disputed by some of the managers at MacLaren for their divisions and units. The absence of a consolidated budget stems from MacLaren’s history as a division of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) with the Departments of Mental Health and Health Services and the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) providing services on site, but not as part of the same organization. MacLaren Children’s Center was a separate budget unit when it was part of DCFS so that agency’s costs are separately identified and tracked. The same is true for the on-site school operated by the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) but LACOE’s costs are not reported to MacLaren fiscal staff for use in a consolidated facility budget or expenditure tracking system. MacLaren Children’s Center is not a separate cost center for the Departments of Mental Health or the Department of Health Services but are subcenters within larger cost centers for both agencies. Neither agency tracks or reports their MacLaren costs to MacLaren management though they can be extracted from their financial systems. DMH and DHS staff at MacLaren can be reassigned by headquarters management of both agencies. Such changes are not systematically reported to MacLaren, making position control and salary cost information difficult to track. With the exception of DCFS, budgeted and actual expenditure information for all agencies had to be collected separately from fiscal staff from each of the major agencies that provide services at MacLaren for this audit. There are some significant inconsistencies from year to year and between budgeted and actual data for some of the agencies as this information was extracted from different sources. Given those limitations, the cost estimates presented below represent the best efforts of the auditors and the agencies to identify their costs for services at MacLaren. Total consolidated expenditures for the major agencies providing services at MacLaren Children’s Center is estimated to have been $37.7 million in FY 2000-01. Total expenditures for the current fiscal year, 2001-02, are estimated to be $41.4 million, representing a 9.8 percent increase over the previous year. For Fiscal Year 2002-03, the 260 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis proposed budget is expected to increase even further. The Department of Children and Family Services component of the budget alone is proposed to increase by approximately $9 million. Without even considering increases in the budgets of the other agencies, costs would increase by at least 21 percent if the budget is adopted as proposed and fully expended in FY 2002-03. Exhibit 6.1 shows estimated actual expenditures for FY 2000- 01 and 2001-02 and the average cost per child per day for each year. Exhibit 6.1 Total Estimated Expenditures for FY 2000-01 and 2001-02 MacLaren Children’s Center Actual Estimated Department FY 00-01 FY 01-02* Children & Family Services $25,652,374 $30,725,033 Mental Health $6,362,769 $4,565,3682 County Office of Education $2,533,909 $1,955,1943 Chief Administrative Officer $306,788 $306,788 Health Services $2,858,130 $3,614,362 Total $37,713,970 $41,166,745 Avg. Number of Children 142 149 Cost per Child per Year $265,591 $276,287 Cost per Child Per Day $728 $757 Source: Expenditures: each department Population: “Daily Population for the Month”; Interagency Children’s Services Consortium As can be seen in Exhibit 6.1, the average cost per child per day was $728 in FY 2000- 01, for which full year data is available. The projected rate for FY 2002-03 is $757, or approximately 4 percent higher. This is less than the $923 per child per day amount published in a local newspaper. The $923 cost was based on an analysis prepared by MacLaren staff using estimated budged costs as opposed to actual expenditures. There are 603.7 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) budgeted for the facility for FY 2001-02, as follows: 2 Annualized based on actual costs of $2,282,684 as of December 31, 2001. Annualized based on actual costs of $1,221,996 as of February 12, 2002. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis Exhibit 6.2 MacLaren Staffing by Division Adopted Percent of Department Budget Total FY 01-02 Chief Administrative Office (CAO) 3.0 0.5% Department of Children and 436.0 72.2% Family Services (DCFS) Department of Health Services (DHS) 24.0 4.0% Department of Mental Health (DMH) 109.7 18.2% Los Angeles County Office 31.0 5.1% of Education (LACOE) TOTAL 603.7 100.0% Source: MacLaren Children’s Center staffing report Of the total $37.7 million in costs, approximately $3.4 million is estimated to be costs related to operating the facility. This is comprised of buildings and grounds maintenance, utilities, and some one time costs such as architectural services. Explanations of the key cost components for each department are now presented. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has the largest total expenditures of all departments at MacLaren as shown above in Exhibit 6.1 The table below, Exhibit 6.3, summarizes DCFS expenditures for the current and previous two fiscal years. The table shows that costs are projected to increase by 33.1 percent by the end of FY 2001-02 compared to two years prior. Increases have occurred in all three budget categories, with the largest increase, 76.5 percent, in Services and Supplies. Exhibit 6.3 DCFS Expenditures FY 1999-00 – 2001-02 % FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02* Change Salaries and Benefits $19,129,591 $20,533,879 $24,087,033 25.9% Services and Supplies $3,702,239 $5,118,495 $6,534,000 76.5% Fixed Assets and Equipment $61,290 $0 $104,000 69.7% Total $23,083,392 $25,652,374 $30,725,033 33.1% Authorized Positions 366 366 436 19.1% * Estimated Source: FY 1999-00 and 2000-01: Chief Administrative Office expenditure reports FY 2001-02 Estimate: Interagency Children’s Services Consortium 2002-03 Budget Request 262 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis SALARIES AND BENEFITS COSTS As in most public agencies, salaries and benefits costs comprise the majority of expenses for DCFS. With 436 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) authorized for FY 2001-02, DCFS also contributes most of the employees at MacLaren. Most of the DFCS positions are Children’s Social Workers or Group Supervisors, the core staff that provides direct services to the facility residents. Besides direct supervision in the cottages, some of these positions are also used for the Wraparound program, admissions, one-on-one supervision4 and the new case management services. With 292 authorized Children’s Social Workers and Group Supervisors, the agency should have the equivalent of an average of 59 of these positions on staff at any time during the year. With an average daily population of 149, this is a very high level of staffing, a ratio of one Children’s Social Worker/Group Supervisor for every 2.5 children. Of course, not all authorized positions are filled, and some of these positions are used for other functions. But the goal of management is to have five Children’s Social Workers and/or Group Supervisors on duty for each shift for each cottage. Since there are nine cottages, this translates into 45 positions on duty at any one time without counting others assigned to other functions. With an average of 16.6 children per cottage, five workers on duty per shift equates to a ratio of one worker for every 3.3 children. This is considered baseline staffing and is not always achieved due to vacations, sickness, and vacant positions. Additional Children’s Social Worker/Group Supervisor staff is used for one- on-one supervision. MacLaren managers report that there are 40-50 children receiving one-on-one supervision at any one time, adding considerably to the demand for positions. Because there usually aren’t enough filled positions to provide baseline staffing and one- one services simultaneously, overtime is used for one-on-one services. While the needs of the children at MacLaren Children’s Center are very great, as discussed in Section 2 in the profile of the population, this is a very high level of staffing. The key question about incurring this cost is whether it is producing desired results. By tracking indicators such as Incident Reports, MacLaren management should be able to report if certain behaviors are decreasing, such as incidents of assault, suicide attempts and destruction of property. The Incident Report data in Section 2 of this report showed that the number of Serious Incident Reports increased between Calendar Year 1999 and 2001. The number of reported incidents in 2001 was 2,329, which was about the same as in 2000, when it was 2,324. However, in the previous year, 1999, the number was only 1,320. The number of child assaults on staff increased over the three year period whereas the number of child assaults on other children decreased. It is not possible to draw a conclusion from these gross numbers about the effectiveness of cottage staffing but this should be a rich source of data in measuring outcomes and the effectiveness of the high level of staffing and one-on-one supervision. One-on-one services are when a Children’s Social Worker is assigned to be with just one child at a time who has threatened or demonstrated violent or harmful behavior. These sessions can last for anywhere from one to several days. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis In addition to a high base level of staffing, the increases shown in Salaries and Benefits costs in Exhibit 6.3 reflects additional positions being added, and increased overtime costs, as well as cost-of-living increases in existing employee salaries. In FY 2000-01, the number of DCFS positions at MacLaren was increased by 70, from 366 in FY 1999-00, to 436. An additional 39 positions were requested as mid-year budget adjustments for FY 2001-02, which will result in a total DCFS authorized position count of 475. Among the reasons for these additional positions are: • Additional Children’s Social Workers and Supervising Children’s Social Workers for increased cottage staffing and to provide one-on-one services • New on-site case managers service for every resident • Additional clerical staff to support line staff • Additional managers to oversee training and other functions • Staff for transferred and expanded administrative functions previously provided centrally by DCFS such as personnel administration, procurement and budgeting As with the need for measurement of the effectiveness of the core staff discussed above, similar measurements are needed for new positions and services being added. For example, seventeen new Children’s Social Worker positions were added in FY 2001-02 to serve as on-site case managers for each child at MacLaren. This is in addition to the regular DCFS Social Worker that all children in the child welfare system are assigned. It is also in addition to DMH case managers already on staff at MacLaren. The concept was to have staff whose primary purpose is making sure that each child obtains the services they need while at MacLaren and after they leave. This is also the role of the DCFS Social Worker though many at MacLaren and at DCFS report that Social Workers are very overworked and cannot put the necessary time in to effectively serve the needy children at MacLaren. In any case, the effectiveness of this new service should be measured to determine if the additional costs are justified. OVERTIME COSTS Besides its high number of positions, DCFS incurs a substantial amount of overtime costs that is included in its Salaries and Benefits expenditures. As shown in Exhibit 6.4, the facility has been incurring high overtime costs ranging from approximately $3.1 million in FY 1999-00 to an estimated $4 million by the end of FY 2001-02 based on actual expenditures through the end of January 2002. Not only is this a significant amount, it is well over the amounts budgeted for each of the three years presented in Exhibit 6.4. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis Exhibit 6.4 Overtime Costs at MacLaren Children’s Center FY 1999-00 – 2001-02 FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-025 Actual Expenditures $3,152,854 $3,270,918 $4,011,461 Budgeted Amount 1,117,000 3,000,000 1,500,000 Difference $2,035,854 $270,918 $2,511,461 Source: Chief Administrative Office expenditure reports The primary use of overtime is for residential services, which means for extra staff providing direct care and supervision to MacLaren’s cottage residents. Prior to FY 2001- 02, DCFS tracked overtime by three categories: residential services; support services; and, administration. The bulk of overtime expenditures fell in to the residential services category. While this is still true, starting in FY 2001-02, MacLaren staff has added some new categories to better track overtime. The result is that the amount in Residential Services appears to be declining in FY 2001-02 but it probably included inappropriately classified expenditures in the prior two fiscal years. Exhibit 6.5 presents detailed expenditures as classified by MacLaren for the three fiscal years. Exhibit 6.5 Breakdown of Overtime Expenditures FY 1999-00 – 2001-02 FY FY FY 2001-2002 FY 2001-02 1999-2000 2000-2001 (7 mos.) (projected) Residential $2,950,007 $3,057,072 $1,315,382 $2,254,941 Administration $27,845 $35,349 $288,057 $493,812 Transitional Services $350,139 $600,238 Training $268,075 $459,557 General Services $59,849 $102,598 Volunteer Coordination $39,745 $68,134 MacLaren Children’s Center $18,613 $31,908 Reserved $159 $273 Support Services $175,002 $178,497 $0 Total $3,152,854 $3,270,918 $2,340,019 $4,011,461 Source: Chief Administrative Office expenditure reports Overtime costs for Training, Administration and Transitional Services are explained by MacLaren staff as the result of obtaining a State license for the facility in 2001 which required increases in staff training. The increase in Administration costs were largely attributed to performing an inventory of items in the MacLaren warehouse and staff 5 Annualized based on $2,340,019 in actual overtime expenditures for the first seven months of FY 2001- 02. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis working to complete Live Scan background check results. Transitional Services costs are reportedly for Wraparound and the new Case Management services at MacLaren. The new General Services overtime category includes facility service, such as laundry and kitchen services. Volunteer Coordination is an additional new category with overtime costs in the current fiscal year. This is a small unit within MacLaren and works overtime when a special event is planned, generally on weekends. ONE-ON-ONE SUPERVISION A major component of Residential Services overtime costs is for One-on-One Supervision. As mentioned earlier, this is when a cottage staff person, either a Children’s Social Worker or a Group Supervisor, is assigned to and stays with only one child for a certain amount of time because the child appears to be a danger to him or herself, others or the facility. One-on-One assignments are primarily determined by cottage staff, though they are occasionally court-ordered and in many cases are originally ordered by mental health staff during intake. Often, the children themselves request it, according to MacLaren staff. The duration of these assignments is also determined by Residential Services staff and usually lasts from one to seven days. This intensive level of supervision represents a significant cost to MacLaren. To illustrate the fiscal impact of extensive One-on-One services, Exhibit 6.6 presents actual overtime costs attributed just to One-on-One supervision for a recent eight day period. DCFS staff developed these approximate estimates of overtime costs for One-on- One Supervision staff at MacLaren during the period from March 3 to March 11, 2002. The data, as shown in Exhibit 6.6, indicates that $92,972.84 was spent during that period on Overtime costs for just One-on-One Supervision, representing 2,418 staff hours. This is slightly more than the equivalent of one position for an entire year. Exhibit 6.6 One-on–One Supervision Overtime Costs March 3, 2002 to March 11, 2002 Overtime Hourly Time and Item Total Hours Paid Rate one Half SCSW 144.5 $31.03 $46.54 $6,725.59 CSW 1,588.0 $27.70 $41.55 $65,984.14 CSW 75.0 $27.70 $41.55 $3,116.38 A/N GS II 221.5 $21.19 $31.79 $7,040.95 GSN 389.0 $17.32 $25.98 $10,105.78 Total 2,418 $92,972.84 Source: Special report; MacLaren Children’s Center 266 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis DCFS SERVICES AND SUPPLIES The area of greatest cost increase within the DCFS budget, Services and Supplies, was approximately $5.1 million in FY 2000-01, up from $3.7 million in FY 1999-00, an increase of $1.4 million or 37.4 percent. Projections for the current fiscal year, 2001-02, are for $6.5 million in expenditures. Details on DCFS’ Services and Supplies expenditures are presented in Exhibit 6.7. It should be noted that the total expenditure amounts shown in Exhibit 6.7 are at slight variance with the totals in Exhibit 6.2 above. The detail was available only from the Chief Administrative Officer’s budget office and did not include all of the same expenditures as the total available from MacLaren budget staff. As the data in Exhibit 6.7 below indicates, the three largest non-personnel costs in FY 2000-01 are Building Maintenance and Improvements, Professional and Special Services and Food. These three cost components accounted for 68.1 percent of DCFS’ total Services and Supplies costs in FY 99-00 and 72.3 percent in FY 00-01. Building Maintenance and Improvements and Professional and Special Services also represent the largest increases between the two years. Building maintenance and improvements increased for repairs due primarily to vandalism according to MacLaren staff. This is expected to increase further in FY 2002-03, though MacLaren has secured a new vendor that is to provide unbreakable chairs in the future so this cost should be expected to go down. Also, a decrease in this cost could be one indicator of the success of One-on-One supervision. Exhibit 6.7 DCFS Services and Supplies Actual Expenditures MacLaren Children’s Center % Expense FY 99-00 FY 00-01 Change Change Building Maint. & Improvement $1,073,465 $1,940,966 $867,501 80.8% Professional & Special Services $789,861 $1,007,516 $217,655 27.6% Food $658,973 $730,169 $71,196 10.8% Utilities $348,187 $541,858 $193,671 55.6% Household Expense $491,353 $525,271 $33,918 6.9% Communications $215,247 $222,726 $7,479 3.5% Special Departmental Expense $53,303 $45,420 ($7,883) -14.8% Clothing & Personal Supplies $57,718 $43,282 ($14,436) -25.0% Administrative and General $4,154 $16,852 $12,698 305.7% Auto Mileage $5,263 $11,361 $6,098 115.9% Auto Service $3,415 $1,108 ($2,307) -67.6% Office Expense – Other $1,300 $906 ($394) -30.3% Rent & Leases – Equipment – $156 - Grand Total $3,702,239 $5,087,591 $1,385,352 37.4% Source: Chief Administrative Office expenditure reports 267 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis Approximately $700,000 of the $1 million expended for Professional and Special Services was for contract as-needed nursing services provided in addition to Department of Health Services staffing at the facility. MacLaren budget staff report that DHS claims they cannot pay for these positions from their revenue sources. Another high Services and Supplies cost at MacLaren is Utilities, which increased $193,671 or 55.6 percent between FY 1999-00 and 2000-01, due primarily to the energy crisis in California. With the consolidation of MacLaren, the cost of utilities will be shared among the various departments. Payment will be broken down based on the percentage of staff at MacLaren. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH EXPENDITURES The Department of Mental Health (DMH) has the second largest expenditures of the four main agencies at MacLaren. Estimated DMH expenditures for FY 2000-01 were approximately $6.3 million. They are projected to decline in the current fiscal year, 2001- 02, to approximately $4.6 million, as shown in Exhibit 6.8. As with all agencies at MacLaren except DCFS, DMH’s budget and expenditure information is not tracked by or reported to MacLaren management. To obtain the expenditure data presented in Exhibit 6.8 DMH management at MacLaren assembled current staffing and salary information and DMH’s central fiscal staff extracted budgeted and actual costs from their financial system. MacLaren’s budget staff reports 110 positions budgeted for DMH services at MacLaren in FY 2000-01. The information from these two sources was discrepant and speaks to the lack of regular monitoring and reporting of budgeted or actual DMH expenditures by either DMH or MacLaren management. Exhibit 6.8 Department of Mental Health Expenditures Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2000-2001 2001-20026 Salary $5,928,487 $4,377,518 and Benefits Services $434,282 $187,870 and Supplies Total $6,362,769 $4,565,388 Source: Salaries & Benefits: DMH Staff at MacLaren Children’s Center Services & Supplies: DMH Fiscal reports A comparison of DMH budgeted and actual expenditures for FY 2000-01, shown in Exhibit 6.9, reveals that the department appears to be over-budgeting for MacLaren Children’s Center as actual expenditures were nearly $2 million less than the adopted 6 Annualized based on actual expenditures of $2,282,684 as of 12/31/01. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis budget amount of $8.3 million. Staffing changes and vacancies could explain salary and benefits under-expenditures but the variation raises the question of whether the budget is overstated or whether all costs are being properly charged in the DMH system. This becomes more of a possibility given the fact that DMH’s MacLaren costs are not routinely reported and reviewed by MacLaren management. Exhibit 6.9 Comparison of DMH Budget and Actual Expenditures Fiscal Year 2000-01 Adopted Actual Difference Budget $7,277,935 Salary and Benefits $5,928,487 ($1,349,448) Services and $1,052,349 $434,282 ($618,067) Supplies Total $8,330,284 $6,362,769 ($1,967,515) Source: Budget: Adopted DMH Budget Actual: DMH staff at MacLaren and DMH fiscal reports As discussed above, a performance measurement system is needed for many of the services and activities at MacLaren. Outcome measures should be developed for mental health services so that management can assess the relative effectiveness of mental health service options for the children at MacLaren. Key indicators should include the number of children admitted to psychiatric hospitals and the number of crisis interventions performed by staff. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES EXPENDITURES Like DMH, Department of Health Services (DHS) expenditures presented in Exhibit 6.10 are not regularly tracked and reported to MacLaren. This cost information was not available from MacLaren staff but was extracted from the DHS financial system by DHS fiscal staff at the request of the auditors. DHS expenditures have increased over the three fiscal years reviewed from approximately $2.4 million in FY 1999-00 to $3.6 million in FY 2001-02, as projected by DHS fiscal staff, an increase of 47.3 percent. Salaries and benefits are projected to increase from approximately $1.8 million in FY 1999-00 to $2.4 million by the end of FY 2001-02, an increase of 39.7 percent. Services and Supplies expenditures are projected to increase by $593,879, or 89.2 percent, between FY 1999-00 and the end of 2001-02. MacLaren’s budget staff reports 24 positions budgeted for DHS services at MacLaren in FY 2000-01. While MacLaren management may have been involved in discussions concerning medical staff resources at MacLaren, information on actual fiscal impacts has not been made available to MacLaren. DHS management continues to control the management structure of the medical services unit even though some MacLaren staff believe that the 269 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis unit does not require both a highly paid Nurse Manager to manage the nursing staff and a highly paid physician with no management responsibility for the unit. If MacLaren management had organizational and fiscal control, it could consider various alternatives to obtain the most cost-effective management structure for the unit and put any resulting savings to other uses. Exhibit 6.10 Department of Health Services Expenditures Category FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-027 Salaries and Benefits $1,787,674 $1,927,947 $2,350,481 Services and Supplies $666,002 $930,160 $1,259,881 Other Charges $0 $23 $4,000 Equipment $0 $0 $0 Total $2,453,676 $2,858,130 $3,614,362 Source: Special report produced by LAC+USC Management DHS records show that most DHS costs are Net County Costs, or not reimbursed by Medi-Cal or other non-County revenue sources. In FY 2000-01, for example, the Department’s Net County Costs for services at MacLaren were approximately $1.7 million, or 58.6 percent of total costs. This is another reason MacLaren management should be actively involved in determining the most cost-effective staffing and service levels for its medical services unit as Net County Cost money could be transferred and used for other purposes within MacLaren. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION EXPENDITURES As shown in Exhibit 6.11, LACOE expenditures, while increasing slightly, have remained stable over the three-year period. Total FY 2000-01 spending of approximately $2.5 million was approximately $214,641, or 9.3 percent, more than the prior fiscal year. LACOE revenues and spending are determined mostly by average daily attendance at school. According to LACOE, the average daily attendance in FY 1999-00 was 101, while that number increased to 110 in FY 00-01. This is a forecast amount made in January 2002 by Department of Health Services staff. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis Exhibit 6.11 Overall LACOE Expenditures Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-20028 Certificated Salaries $1,081,491 $1,146,739 $744,638 Classified Salaries $482,393 $571,006 $216,300 Employee Benefits $420,001 $436,270 $203,760 Books and Supplies $39,822 $39,566 $19,802 Contract Services and $26,235 $33,750 $14,236 Operating Costs Capital Outlay $11,369 $7,662 $0.00 Allocated and Documented $127,603 $151,845 $23,260 Direct Support Indirect Support -Unlimited $130,356 $147,072 $0.00 Total $2,319,270 $2,533,910 $1,221,996 Source: Los Angeles County Office of Education Several aspects of LACOE expenditures saw significant increases during the period reviewed. The largest increase in LACOE expenditures were in Classified Salaries, such as para-educators, clerical staff, and sub assistants, where expenses increased by $88,613,or 18.4 percent in FY 00-01. Within Classified Salaries, Sub-Assistant salaries increased by 641.7 percent from $13,264 in FY 99-00 to $98,377 in FY 2000-01. LACOE spending on substitute teachers increased by 256 percent, or $79,130 over the two fiscal years. Comparatively, teachers’ salaries assigned to MacLaren increased by 14.4 percent. However, these increases were offset by reductions in Counselor salaries (- 100 percent or $13,369.80) and teacher special assignments (-63.3 percent or $144,532.45). LACOE revenues are State funds dedicated to school funding. If MacLaren Children’s Center management were able to reduce costs at the school through more control over operations there, the savings would not become available for other purposes at MacLaren. However, MacLaren management should still be involved in reviewing LACOE’s costs to monitor for cost-effectiveness. LACOE management reports that the school is currently operating at a deficit. CAO The CAO charges for MacLaren are estimates based on data from a number of sources. Of the $306,788 CAO charge to MacLaren, $69,730 is a direct charge to MacLaren for services. These charges range from $28,420 in Integration Services to $22,400 in Budgetary Services to $70 in Legi-Tech Services. The additional costs of CAO to 8 As of February 12, 2002. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis MacLaren are from the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium Fiscal Year 2002- 2003 Budget request of three budgeted positions at MacLaren. However, according to CAO staff, the $237,418 cost for the positions at MacLaren is distributed across the departments and agencies within the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium. PROCUREMENT AT MACLAREN CHILDREN’S CENTER The Operational Agreement governing the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium and operations at MacLaren explains the mission of the various departments and agencies, as well as the MacLaren Administrator. The Operational Agreement details the MacLaren Administrator’s role and responsibility regarding procurement. Specifically, the Operational Agreement states that: “The MacLaren Administrator shall also have delegated authority to approve procurement of goods and services related to MacLaren operations.” However, the MacLaren Administrator currently is only involved in the procurement process for the Department of Children and Family Services. Even with the effort to get more cooperation with the various departments at MacLaren, procurement is still handled by the individual departments. This was substantiated through interviews with DCFS MacLaren staff who had no knowledge regarding the procurement policy of other departments at MacLaren. The Department of Health Services has its own procurement process where items are bought subject to the needs of DHS staff. Once the equipment is identified as needed, DHS staff fills out an internal HS-2 form and the form is sent to LAC-USC for proper authorization. Once at LAC-USC, the forms will receive proper authorization and the request will be analyzed against the Services and Supplies budget by DHS finance staff to confirm funds are available in the budget for the purchase request. Once these steps are successfully completed, the product will be ordered and delivered to MacLaren. The MCC Administrator is not involved in the procurement process for DHS. There are exceptions, however, where several departments will work together on procurement of large items. For instance, the dental office for MacLaren is in the process of purchasing a new x-ray machine and a dental chair. According to LAC-USC staff, for large purchases needed for the Center, the Administrator will have more direct involvement in the process but final approval authority remains in DHS. Procurement for the MacLaren school starts with a purchase requisition form from the Principal, Assistant Principal, teachers, or a committee of the principal and teachers. The purchase requisition form is then sent to the Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools Budget Analyst for verification against the budget. According to LACOE staff, the Budget Analyst will confirm that funds are available in the budget or a staff accountant will complete the process. Once verification is approved, the purchase order will go to the LACOE Purchasing Department or a similar department based on the type 272 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis of order. According to LACOE staff, the MacLaren Administrator has no involvement in the LACOE procurement process. In general, it appears the MacLaren Administrator has limited involvement in the procurement process at MacLaren. There are exceptions, however, and these include DCFS procurement, where the MCC Administrator appears to have more involvement than in the other departments. To verify that MacLaren DCFS employees were following the proper procurement authorization policy, random samples of procurement files were evaluated for completeness. The types of purchases examined were for food products ranging from meat, bread, and dairy products to fruits and vegetables. Other purchases in the sample were cleaning products, pest control, pillowcases, and helium. To analyze procurement procedures at MacLaren we verified whether the DCFS Form 250 had proper authorization. Currently, authorization can only come from the MCC Administrator, an Administrative Services Manager III in the Administrative Services Division at MacLaren, or her report, a Children’s Services Administrator. According to MacLaren staff, the procurement process will not continue unless the DCFS 250 form is properly signed. However, DCFS staff indicated that the MCC Administrator rarely signs the DCFS Form 250 but is kept apprised of procurement. The review of procurement showed the following: • 86.7 percent of the files had proper authorization on the DCFS Form 250; • 13.3 percent of the files examined did not contain the DCFS Form 250; • 100 percent of the procurement files contained the Purchase Order; and • 100 percent of the files contained the product invoice. The procurement files were up to date for the current fiscal year. Analysis of procurement files from previous fiscal years was difficult due to the lack of organization and the difficulty in locating earlier files. According to MacLaren staff, this is the direct result of high turnover in the procurement position. STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE Earlier in this report, a change in staffing was recommended that would phase out the extensive use of Children’s Social Workers as the core staffing in the cottages and replace most of them with mental health workers such as Licensed Psychiatric Technicians. These would be more effective classifications for the population at MacLaren and would lower costs as their salaries are lower. Use of effective mental health techniques and approaches should also lower the costs now being incurred for the high cost of One-on-One services. One of the key points of this section is that the MacLaren Administrator does not have control over all costs or service levels at the facility. Contracting for services should be considered as an alternative to the status quo as a means of gaining control over costs and 273 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis service outcomes in the event that this cannot be accomplished with the other County agencies that provide services at MacLaren. Other means of making MacLaren more cost effective would include identifying all new administrative positions and costs related to the consolidation and reducing those costs at the agencies that used to provide those administrative services such as DCFS. Based on the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget request only the Department of Children and Family Services will gain new FTE positions. In particular 39 new positions are proposed for MacLaren within DCFS. Of these 39 new positions, 18 positions will go toward the formation of new administrative functions, as MacLaren becomes administratively independent. The addition of positions should be offset with reductions in positions within the main budgets of DCFS and the other agencies that provide staff at MacLaren. Specifically, the 18 new administrative positions should come from the DCFS Administration budget. However, based on the draft of the proposed changes to the FY 2002-2003 budget from the FY 2001-2002 budget, the 39 new positions are offset by a reduction of only three positions in the DCFS Administration budget. Other options should be considered including revising the management structure to eliminate duplication and create greater equity in responsibilities among managers. Currently there are seven second level managers from DCFS and DMH (Children’s Services Administrators or their equivalent in Mental Health) with a median of 57 total reporting employees. However, three of the positions have well under the median number reporting to them: 12, 23, and 33. To truly consolidate and coordinate services, the barriers between the old agencies should be eliminated and managers should be expected to oversee functions that were previously exclusively under the jurisdiction of one of the agencies. By doing so and making the numbers of staff assigned to managers more comparable, the total number of second level managers could be reduced from seven to at least five. Salaries do not seem excessively high at MacLaren. A majority of staff salaries at MacLaren falls between the $40,000 and $50,000 salary range. A majority of these positions are DCFS Children’s Social Workers. Overall, 91.2 percent of all employees at MacLaren make less than $60,000 a year. The more important issue is the high number of positions, particularly Children’s Social Workers/Group Supervisors, the absence of good financial tracking and reporting systems for all costs at MacLaren and the absence of a system for measuring outcomes related to the costs incurred. Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis CONCLUSION Though its total costs are very high, MacLaren Children’s Center management functions without benefit of basic financial tracking information and systems. A consolidated budget does not exist nor are actual facility-wide expenditures reported to management to ensure accountability and to enable analyses of costs compared to outcomes. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has always treated MacLaren Children’s Center as a separate cost center so the budget and actual expenditures for the DCFS portion of MacLaren is readily available. Similarly, the school operated on site by the Los Angeles County Office of Education is a separate cost center for that organization and those costs and expenditures are readily available though not reported to the MacLaren Administrator or financial officer. Budgeted and actual expenditures incurred by the Departments of Mental Health and Health Services at MacLaren are not tracked or reported separately and MacLaren management does not routinely receive this information. Decisions and controls regarding staffing levels, procurement of fixed assets and overtime are decided by the parent agencies, not the MacLaren Administrator. Extraction and compilation of budgeted and actual expenditures for the primary agencies at MacLaren revealed that actual expenditures in FY 2000-01 was an estimated $37,713,970, or $728 per child per day. For FY 2001-02, projected costs per child per day will be $757 or $276,305 per year. With such high costs, it is critical that the MacLaren Administrator and management is informed on all expenditures and has the ability to control costs. In addition, MacLaren management should be responsible for ensuring that any new costs or services are reasonable relative to the services provided. Such systems are not in place at this time though the facility’s Operational Agreement delegates “direct authority and responsibility for all on site multiagency service delivery” to the Administrator. To have this level of authority without the benefit of cost information is a poor management practice. Potential opportunities exist to lower costs without worsening program outcomes through restructuring MacLaren’s management structure, consolidating and controlling procurement, and allocating staff and other resources based on outcomes rather than maintenance of the status quo. All of this requires consolidated financial information and reporting and authority and accountability delegated to the Administrator. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above findings, it is recommended that the Interagency Children’s Services Consortium: 6.1 Direct staff to develop a cost tracking and reporting system so that all budget and actual expenditures are consolidated, reviewed and approved by the MacLaren Administrator and reported to the Consortium; (Recommendation 125) 6.2 Direct staff to delegate authority over funding and service levels for all services at MacLaren to the Administrator; (Recommendation 126) 275 Section 6. Cost/Staffing Analysis 6.3 Revise procurement policies so that the Administrator is responsible and accountable for all procurement at MacLaren; (Recommendation 127) 6.4 Direct staff to design and implement performance measurement systems for measuring outcomes of existing and any new proposed staffing or services; (Recommendation 128) 6.5 Consider alternative staffing levels and approaches to obtain desired outcomes including eliminating barriers between agencies so that managers can assume responsibility for staff from different agencies and the number of managers can be reduced; (Recommendation 129) 6.6 Consider and obtain comparative cost information for contracting for services now provided by various County agencies if they are unwilling to relinquish control over service and staffing levels to the MacLaren Administrator; (Recommendation 130) 6.7 Establish a policy of reducing costs in the parent agencies when administrative functions are transferred to MacLaren; and, (Recommendation 131) 6.8 Obtain comparative cost information regarding contracting for all services at MacLaren. (Recommendation 132) COSTS AND BENEFITS Greater fiscal responsibility and cost effectiveness should result from the above recommendations. There would be no new direct costs associated with implementation of these recommendations. SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services BACKGROUND Early in the process of selecting areas of concern for investigation, the Social Services Committee favored a limited scope review of the Department of Children and Family Services; specifically, the removal of children from the family. However, in order to complete the task, the members opted to engage an independent auditor to perform the bulk of the investigation. The following portion of this report represents the independent auditor’s findings. Introduction Introduction The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation is pleased to present this Limited Scope Performance Audit of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: Child Abuse and Neglect Investigation and Protective Custody Practices. This management audit was requested by the Fiscal Year 2001-02 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury to assist its investigation of this topic under the authority granted to it by Section 925 of the California Penal Code. The use of experts to assist in the Grand Jury’s investigation is permitted under Section 926 of the Penal Code. In requesting this management audit, the Grand Jury asked that information be gathered on the process used to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect in Los Angeles County, and to make determinations as to when children should be removed from their custodial parent(s) and taken into protective custody. Among the specific questions asked by the Grand Jury were: How many petitions citing abuse or neglect are dismissed by the Superior Court after children have already been taken out of the home? When petitions are dismissed, how soon are children returned to their homes? Have federal funding requirements impacted the percentage of children removed from their homes? Have time limits on receipt of federal assistance to poor families caused any increase in the number of children being removed from their homes? Study Scope and Methodology To assess these questions, and the general subject of abuse and neglect investigations by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), audit staff conducted an entrance conference with the DCFS director and other selected managers to explain the audit process and to gather background information on the Department’s structure and the organization of the investigation functions. More detailed interviews were conducted with the Acting Bureau Chief of the Department’s Bureau of Child Protection, which is responsible for this function, with selected Bureau administrators and supervisors in various regional offices, and with a random sample focus group of social workers who investigate allegations of abuse and neglect. Audit staff also reviewed the Bureau’s business plan, its policy and procedure manuals, DCFS strategic plans and statistics provided by the Department and by the Superior Court. Because of the limited availability of data on the questions posed by the Grand Jury, audit staff also reviewed case files from 67 cases in October and November 2001 in which children were taken into protective custody, to assess the documentation and analysis gathered by social workers in support of the removal decision. Finally, audit staff also sought data from other California counties in selected areas for comparison to the information provided by DCFS. Introduction Fieldwork on this audit began with an entrance conference on January 9, 2002, and was completed on approximately April 25, 2002. Fieldwork on this project was significantly delayed due to legal requirements imposed by the Superior Court and the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office. First, the Court and County Counsel required a court order be obtained in order to conduct the case file review previously described. The court order was initially requested verbally of the County Counsel for the Grand Jury on January 22, and a written request was made shortly thereafter. The court order was not provided to audit staff until March 4, a delay County Counsel stated was the result of noticing requirements imposed by the Superior Court. Subsequent to the receipt of the court order, audit staff conducted a portion of the file review from March 11-18, using the electronic case information in the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS). However, because key information regarding cases was not maintained in an electronic format, we also requested to review hard copy case files. County Counsel then advised that prior to this review, all case files would have to be copied, and selected information redacted. County Counsel cited the requirements of Evidence Code Section 950 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 2018, regarding confidentiality of attorney-client communications and attorney work products, and the requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 4514 and 5328, regarding confidentiality of information on services provided for mental health or developmentally disabled clients. County Counsel asserted that the code requirements surmounted the authority granted to audit staff by the Juvenile Court’s Presiding Judge to review case file information. Permission to review the paper case files was initially requested on March 21, to review the files on April 2-4. Because of the County Counsel’s redaction requirement, the review could not be conducted until April 16-18, a two-week delay. Following the completion of fieldwork, a draft report was prepared, and provided to the Department and the Grand Jury on May 3, 2002. An exit conference to discuss the draft report was held on May 13, 2002. Revisions were then made, and the final report was issued to the Grand Jury on May 15, 2002. The Bureau of Child Protection and Dependency Investigations The functions assessed in this report are the responsibility of the Bureau of Child Protection, one of four bureaus within the Department of Children and Family Services. The Bureau was created in April 2001 for the purpose of separating the investigation of allegations of child abuse and neglect from other child welfare functions provided by the Department. A Mission Statement developed in July 2001, and included in one of the Department’s manuals, states: 279 Introduction The Bureau of Child Protection will provide thorough investigations and prompt initial assessments that will: • Maximize child safety through improved child abuse investigations • Minimize the number of detentions (these are removals of children from homes) • Minimize the number of disrupted placements • Minimize the amount of time a child remains in the system • Minimize response time • Meet legal sufficiency standard on petitions filed According to the Bureau’s business plan, developed in August 2001, current budgeted staffing is 1,375 positions, including 53 administrative staff, 766 social workers, 118 supervising social workers and 438 clerical or support staff. Budget information solely for the Bureau of Child Protection was not readily available. However, Los Angeles County’s Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Children and Families Budget includes a multiple program overview for the Bureau and other DCFS programs, estimating FY 2001-02 expenditures will total $537.3 million, with approximately 88.6 percent of the funds coming from non-County sources. The investigation of child abuse and neglect allegations is a four-step process. A description of each step in the process follows, and a flow chart of the process is included at the conclusion of the Introduction. Child Protection Hotline Allegations of child abuse and neglect are usually reported initially by telephone to the Child Protection Hotline. This is a centralized answering center where social workers, generally known as call screeners, receive calls reporting the allegations. The calls either come from members of the general public, who may report anonymously, or from mandated reporters, who are required by law to report instances where they suspect abuse and neglect has occurred. Mandated reporters include medical professionals, school staff and youth center or youth recreation workers. The hotline also receives reports from law enforcement officers. By state law, law enforcement agencies and DCFS staff must cross-report allegations of child abuse or neglect they receive to each other, to make sure the allegations are investigated, as necessary, under both criminal law and under the child protection laws guiding DCFS. When the hotline receives a telephone report, the screener answering the call gets as much information as the reporting party can provide. This includes where and when the alleged abuse or neglect occurred, what happened, the names of the alleged perpetrator and victim, and whether the reporting party believes the child victim is still in danger. Introduction Based on the information obtained, the screener then determines whether an in-person investigation is required, and how quickly that investigation needs to occur. Factors the screener is supposed to consider include whether the child victim can be located, the child’s age, whether the incidents described are suggestive of abuse, neglect or exploitation, whether the situation described is one in which imminent danger to the child is likely and other factors. Department procedures list 19 different items to be considered. Under a current pilot program, screeners also complete a decision-tree, which allows them to answer questions based on the information reported regarding the alleged abuse or neglect. The answers to the questions in turn help the screener determine whether an in-person investigation is needed and how quickly. The screener’s options are to require an immediate response, a response within five days, or to “evaluate out” the referral, deciding no additional response is needed. The screener also determines which DCFS office will respond to the referral. For five-day responses and immediate response during regular business hours, response is by one of the Department’s eight regional offices, based on the parents’ or caregivers’ address, or where the victim was found. Responses after 5 p.m. weekdays, and on all weekends and holidays, are provided by the Emergency Response Command Post, which has after-hours staff stationed at hospitals, police stations and other facilities around the County. Emergency Response Investigation Once a report of alleged child abuse or neglect is referred by the Hotline to a regional office, or to the Emergency Response Command Post, an Emergency Response (ER) social worker specializing in investigating such allegations is assigned to the referral. These social workers investigate immediate and five-day referrals, and according to the contract with the County social workers union, have a target of investigating referrals involving no more than about 30 children per month, and a maximum caseload of no more than 37 children per month. According to DCFS management, in practice this means an ER worker should receive about 15 referrals per month to investigate. In the investigative process, the ER worker typically will conduct face-to-face interviews with the victim of abuse or neglect, the victim’s parents and/or caregivers and the alleged perpetrator of the abuse or neglect. During such interviews, the worker may also examine the child for cuts, bruises, the condition of the child’s clothes and personal hygiene as evidence of abuse or neglect. The worker will also observe the child’s living environment for cleanliness, availability of food and other indicators of abuse and neglect, as well as observing the child’s interaction with parents. In addition, the ER worker will conduct in-person or telephone interviews with “collateral” contacts, such as school officials, the child’s doctor, neighbors and anyone else believed to have information about the alleged incident and the child’s family 281 Introduction situation. Workers may also access the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System for information about previous abuse or neglect allegations regarding the family, as well as criminal information databases. In conducting this background research, the investigating worker may be assisted by Triage Units, staff members who specialize in background research and may be called in on particularly difficult or involved cases to gather the historical data. Ultimately, the ER worker must determine whether there is credible evidence to believe the reported allegations of abuse or neglect are true. Each allegation referred to the ER worker must be determined to be either: • unfounded, defined as false, inherently improbable, involving an accidental injury or otherwise not constituting abuse or neglect; • inconclusive, defined as having insufficient evidence to determine whether abuse or neglect has occurred; or, • substantiated, defined as constituting, based on some credible evidence, child abuse or neglect. In addition to determining the truth of the allegations, the ER worker also must assess the present and future risk of child abuse and neglect to the child victim and/or the child’s family, based on the investigation, and determine what services should be offered to reduce that risk. Options range from referring the family to parenting classes and other community services, without future oversight by DCFS, to requesting the family to voluntarily accept oversight by the Department, to requesting Superior Court intervention with the family. Both voluntary and court-ordered oversight of the family by DCFS can be in the form of Family Maintenance, where the family receives services while the children remain in the custodial parent’s home, or Family Reunification services, in which the child is removed from the home into protective custody and the plan must be completed in order for the child to be returned. In order to seek court intervention, the ER worker must determine that the child has been abused or neglected, or is at risk of being abused and neglected, as defined by Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, subsections (a) to (j). When an ER social worker determines that court intervention is necessary with a child and family, and takes the child into protective custody, the worker requests court intervention, which is known as “detaining” the child. The ER worker prepares a detention report, explaining the basis on which the child was detained, the need for continued detention, the available services that could permit the return of the child to the custodial parent or guardian and any services, known as “reasonable efforts,” that were provided to the family in order to avoid having to detain the child. Introduction Based on federal funding requirements, the ER worker, of the first contact with the family, must complete the investigation and determine what services if any should be provided, and whether the child can safely remain in the custodial parent’s home. The services to be provided to the family are typically described in a case plan the ER worker prepares. Following the conclusion of the investigation and preparation of the case plan, the implementation of that plan is overseen by a social worker in the DCFS Bureau of Children and Family Services, to whom the case is transferred. Intake and Detention Control (IDC) Once an ER worker decides to detain a child, the detention is reported to the Intake and Detention Control unit. This unit advises the ER worker, based on when the detention occurred, when a petition must be filed with the Superior Court. The petition is a legal document filed by DCFS in Dependency Court, alleging that a child is described by WIC Section 300, and describing the basis for that belief. State law requires the petition to be filed within 48 judicial hours of when a child was taken into protective custody. Petitions are prepared by the Intake and Detention Control unit, based primarily on the detention report prepared by the ER worker. An IDC social worker receives the detention report and reviews it to determine if the report is sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case, that is, to prove in the absence of contradictory evidence, that abuse or neglect occurred and that a child is at risk. If IDC determines the detention report is insufficient, it may request additional information from the ER worker or conduct additional investigation by telephone. IDC also has the option of rejecting the request for a petition, which would require a child in protective custody to be released. IDC prepares its own report for the court, recommending whether detention should continue, and making other recommendations regarding visitation, services for parents, etc. This report, along with the petition, and the detention report, is considered by a judge at a detention hearing, held the next judicial day after the petition is filed. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if a prima facie case for continued detention of the child exists. If it does not, the judge can order the child released to the parents. Introduction Dependency Investigation Assuming that continued detention is ordered by the Court in the detention hearing, the case is transferred from Intake and Detention Control back to the regional office that originally investigated it. The case is assigned to a Dependency Investigator (DI) social worker, who conducts a more thorough investigation of the allegations in the petition, building on the previous work carried out by the Emergency Response worker. The DI worker’s investigation may include additional interviews with the child, the alleged abuser, the child’s parents or guardians, and additional interviews with new or previous collateral contacts in the case. The purpose of this investigation is to gather sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of the petition, even in the presence of contradicting evidence provided by the child’s parent or guardian. The results of the DI worker’s investigation are presented to the Court as a jurisdictional report, which is considered by the court at a jurisdictional hearing, which is supposed to be held after the detention hearing. At that hearing, the Court must determine, based on the preponderance of the evidence, whether the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, abuse or neglect as described by WIC Section 300. If such a determination is made, the child becomes a dependent of the Court. A subsequent hearing, called a disposition hearing, may be held in conjunction with the jurisdictional hearing, or held within 10 judicial days thereafter. At the disposition hearing, the Court determines, among other things, where the child should be placed, what visitation should be provided to the custodial parent and what services the custodial parent must successfully complete in order for the child to be returned. In making these rulings, the Court may draw on reports prepared by the DI social worker, assessing the ability of other relatives to care temporarily for the child, and on the case plan prepared by the ER worker at the conclusion of the initial investigation of the allegations. Other Issues In accordance with Sections 7.45 and 7.46 of the United States General Accounting Office Government Auditing Standards, certain issues identified during an audit are worthy of being brought to the attention of Department management even though a specific finding was not included in the audit report. The following issues are included in the Introduction either because they are issues where evaluation was requested by the Grand Jury, but no audit findings resulted, or because they are issues that either Department management or future grand juries may want to evaluate. Audit staff considered these issues to be not sufficiently significant to warrant a separate finding, determined that these issues were outside the scope of the present study, or was unable to devote sufficient time to complete the full analysis that was required. The Impact of DCFS Financing on Child Dependency Decisions 284 Introduction As part of this project, audit staff was asked to determine whether there are funding incentives that in some way promote decisions by DCFS staff to remove children from custodial parents. To assess this question, we conducted interviews with Department finance staff and with staff from the California Department of Social Services, as well as reviewing budget and finance documents from the Department, the County Chief Administrative Office, and Federal and State sources. As described earlier in this section, the majority of funding for DCFS, including the abuse and neglect investigation function, comes from Federal and State sources. Federal funds are provided to carry out requirements of various federal laws, including Titles of the Social Security Acts of 1937 and 1960, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Adoption and Safe Families Act and others. State funds, which match the federal money, support carrying out sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code related to child abuse and neglect, as previously described in the Introduction, as well as portions of the Health and Safety Code related to licensing of group homes for foster children, foster parent training and related items outside the scope of this study. The County in turn budgets the funds received in three ways: • An Administrative Budget, which includes employee salaries and benefits, services and supplies. • An Assistance Budget, which includes all payments to caregivers, including foster parents, relative caregivers and adoptive families • A MacLaren Budget for the MacLaren Children’s Center, which under the memorandum of understanding between DCFS and other entities that oversee the Center, is supposed to be separated from other Department activities. Of the three budgets, only the Assistance Budget is dependent on the number of children taken into protective custody. Once a child is detained, DCFS eligibility workers research the child’s history and background to determine the types of State and Federal funding to which the child is entitled, and allocate the funding to that child for purposes of paying the caregiver with whom the child resides. The amount of payment for out-of-home care also depends on the child’s needs. For example, when a child has special medical care or mental health care needs, the eligibility worker would use CWS/CMS to determine the level and types of payment the child is entitled to, and therefore, the level of payment the caregiver will receive. Because this funding goes directly to caregivers, and does not fund DCFS administrative or social worker operations, other than those required to process the caregiver payments, we do not believe this funding provides an incentive for child removal. Furthermore, the likelihood of this funding source providing any incentive for 285 Introduction removal decisions is further reduced by the recent reorganization of the Department into several separate bureaus, including a Bureau of Child Protection and a Bureau of Children and Family Services. The latter bureau is responsible for out-of-home care. Therefore, the staff deciding to take a child into protective custody, and the staff determining the funding for out-of-home care associated with that child, are separate. The focus of our review was the Administrative Budget, which funds staff salaries and benefits and services and supplies, including costs associated with the investigation of child abuse and neglect allegations. The following table shows the amount of that budget for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002, excluding the County match, for which exact figures were not available, but which was estimated by the Department to represent approximately 13 percent of all funding categories, on average. Table I.1 DCFS Administrative Budget Funding Source FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 State Funding $194,512,813 $205,810,000 Federal Funding $345,103,852 $327,553,000 Federal-Other $0 $49,000 Charges for Adoptions Svcs $498,000 $498,000 Misc. Sources $1,360,000 $4,166,000 Total $541,474,665 $538,076,000 The State allocates Federal and State funds to DCFS annually, based on a number of allocation categories. Child Protection Hotline and Emergency Response funding comes from the Child Welfare Services Basic allocation. According to State funding documents and information provided by State officials, this allocation is determined based on projected caseloads. The projections are based on historical information from the CWS/CMS system on Hotline “assessments,” which are the number of referrals alleging abuse and neglect which are evaluated out by Hotline screeners as not requiring an in-person response, and on “dispositions,” which are the number of referrals investigated by Emergency Response social workers and closed of being referred to Emergency Response staff. This historical workload information is then translated into an estimated staffing requirement using ratios developed by the State. Those ratios are in turn multiplied by an estimated annual cost per position, which determines the DCFS funding allocation from the State. Based on historical data for calendar year 2001, we calculated that the Department should have been funded for approximately 766 social workers and 109 supervisors in the Bureau of Child Protection. As described earlier in the Introduction, actual bureau 286 Introduction staffing, according to the August 2001 business plan, was 766 social workers and 118 supervisors, close to the numbers that should have been provided based on the State’s funding method. This funding system thus relies on the number of reports of alleged abuse and neglect made to DCFS, not on the actions DCFS takes regarding the reports. The number of reports received depends on the public’s willingness to take action, and on State law requiring reports to be made by mandated reporters, not on any actions taken by the Department. Once an annual allocation is made for DCFS by the State, funds are actually distributed on a monthly basis. On a quarterly basis, DCFS submits claims to the State justifying expenditures for each quarter completed. These claims are used to make adjustments to succeeding monthly payments. According to DCFS Finance staff, the quarterly claims are based on two information sources: 1) A “time study” system, which contains quarterly summaries of how social workers spend their time, based on various categories established by the state, and 2) The Countywide Accounting and Purchasing system, which contains information on DCFS actual expenditures. Because the time study system uses information provided by social workers who investigate abuse and neglect allegations, we reviewed the time-reporting process to determine if it includes incentives for social workers to take children into protective custody. We determined it does not, for the following reasons: 1. As previously discussed, the initial staff allocations the Department receives from the State are provided based in part on cases disposed of by Emergency Response workers How the case is concluded is not a factor, only that it is concluded within the required time period. In the focus group conducted with Emergency Response social workers as part of this study, workers said they were aware of the need to meet the deadline, and attempted to meet it, but that the deadline itself did not influence how they would conclude a particular case. 2. According to DCFS Finance staff, many social workers do not complete the quarterly time study on a timely basis, and must be reminded repeatedly to do so. Workers in our focus group said they viewed the time study as merely another bureaucratic requirement they had to meet, and were not aware of how its results affect Department funding. 3. The categories in which time is reported do not relate to how a particular case is handled, but how a social worker’s time is spent. The primary categories are “Emergency Response: Case Management-Protective Services,” used for time spent investigating allegations of abuse or neglect, and for providing a family services to avoid taking children into custody; “Emergency Response: Court- Related Activities,” used for time spent to prepare court reports; and, Emergency 287 Introduction Response: Foster Care, used for time spent identifying possible caregiver placements for children. Social workers were unaware if one of these categories represented a greater funding value than the others. We found no evidence of a funding difference between the categories. Therefore, there would be no incentive for a social worker to increase time spent in one category versus the others, and therefore, no incentive to treat cases in a particular manner for funding reasons. 4. As previously described, State allocations for Hotline and Emergency Response funding are based on workload ratios for both functions. Those ratios are different, reflecting the much greater time an in-person investigation requires than a decision by a Hotline screener to evaluate out a telephone report. The decisions that impact the allocations are decisions by screeners as to how many reports require an in-person response. From the perspective of a screener, therefore, the funding incentive would be to evaluate out more calls, thereby showing a higher workload for the Hotline, and generating allocations for additional Hotline staffing the future. However, Fiscal Year 2000-01 statistics obtained from DFCS show that about 86.5 percent of referrals screened by the Hotline resulted in an in-person response, which is about the same percentage as in FY 1999-00. This reflects fairly stringent Department policies on which this determination is based, and does not indicate any effort by screeners to make decisions based on funding. Based on this analysis, we concluded that there is no logical connection that can be made between funding for the Department, and decisions made by social workers whether or not to take children into protective custody. The Impact of Welfare Reform on Child Dependency One of the questions the Grand Jury requested audit staff to address was whether federal welfare reform has had any impact on the numbers of children taken into protective custody by DCFS. Federal welfare reform was enacted via the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, signed into law in August 1996, which converted the former Aid to Families with Dependency Children program into a block grant program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The requirements of that law included: • States must require at least one adult in a family receiving aid for more than two years to participate in work activities, as defined by the State. Introduction • States were required to reduce grants to recipients that refused to engage in work, as defined by the State. • States would be penalized for not meeting specific rates of participation by aid recipients in work-related activities. • A five-year limitation on how long a family can receive federal aid. California implemented the federal requirements through the CalWORKS program, which provided aid recipients with job training, child care, transportation, substance abuse and mental health services, among others, with the goal of getting aid recipients into the workforce. The State implemented CalWORKS through plans individual counties were required to submit. Los Angeles County submitted its plan in January 1998, and began implementation soon thereafter. In November 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved a new program, Long-Term Family Self Sufficiency, which brought together County staff, private service providers, school districts and other stakeholders in the development of 46 programs, most funded with CalWORKS monies, to promote employment among aid recipients, ensure access to healthcare, support stable housing and other objectives. Because the five-year limit on receipt of TANF benefits did not commence until the County’s implementation of the CalWORKS program in January 1998, it is not clear that there have in fact been families who have lost federal assistance due to the time limits. In fact the County’s CalWORKS plan stated that “no family will confront this prospect prior to January 2003.” However, to assess the possible impact of the new laws on DCFS, we looked at several workload measures over time. These included the number of referrals received by the Child Abuse Hotline, the number of referrals referred to in-person investigation, the number of cases assigned to the Intake and Detention Control Unit for preparation of a petition, and the number of petitions actually filed by that unit. We looked at these measures from Fiscal Year 1996-97 through Fiscal Year 2000-01. We found no relation between changes in these measures and the new welfare reform law. For example, the number of referrals received by the Hotline actually fell by about 4 percent from FY 1999-00 to FY 2000-01, while the number of in-person investigations fell even more sharply, nearly 5 percent. An even more dramatic change was observed for cases assigned to Intake and Detention Control, and petitions filed. Cases assigned fell by more than 25 percent from FY 1996-97 to FY 2000-01, from about 21,500 cases to about 16,000, while the number of petitions filed declined by 42 percent, from about 19,000 to only 11,000. Based on these statistics we concluded that no relationship can be shown between the implementation of welfare reform and the activities of DCFS. Introduction DCFS-Probation Department Coordination Issues As part of this study, audit staff conducted a focus group with 10 Emergency Response social workers. During that focus group, workers generally cited a problem with coordination between DCFS and the Los Angeles County Probation Department that, while outside the scope of this study, we believe would merit further study by the Department or by a future Grand Jury. Under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 241.1, a joint determination should be made by DCFS and the Probation Department regarding the most appropriate jurisdictional status for children who could be declared dependents of the court under Section 300, due to abuse or neglect, or wards of the court under Sections 601 or 602. Sections 601 describes so-called status offenses, such as a child’s failure to obey parents, curfew violations or chronic truancy, that would permit a child to be declared delinquent. Section 602 permits criminal violations by a child, in certain circumstances, to be adjudicated in Juvenile Court rather than trying the perpetrator as an adult. According to the social workers interviewed, Probation staff have minimal involvement in the joint assessment that is legally required, tending instead to simply adopt the information prepared by social workers. At the same time, social workers said Probation’s goal is to shift as many juveniles to dependency status as possible, particularly those with Section 601 offenses. The result, according to the social workers, is that DCFS is forced to serve children who are really delinquent, leading to problems with failed placements, runaways and associated problems. The comments by the focus group social workers are buttressed by information regarding one of the 67 case files reviewed as part of this study. The case file indicates that DCFS was fined $100 by the Superior Court because of the Court’s determination that the report prepared by the Dependency Investigator for the Jurisdictional Hearing on this case was insufficient. According to the case file, at the Detention Hearing the judge assigned to the case ordered the Jurisdictional Report to include a joint evaluation under Section 241.1, because the child at issue was not only the subject of abuse or neglect allegations, but was also facing a Juvenile Court delinquency hearing because of alleged criminal activity. Despite receiving a continuance to prepare the report, because the case was newly assigned to the social worker, the Jurisdictional Report did not include the required joint evaluation, nor did it include the results of the minor’s delinquency hearing, resulting in the sanctions. While the case file does not indicate that the report’s shortfall resulted from the Probation Department’s failure to cooperate, such a result seems plausible, based on the social workers’ comments. While this issue of Probation Department-DCFS cooperation was outside the scope of the current study, we believe it would be an appropriate topic for further research by DCFS, or by a future Grand Jury. This research should review existing DCFS and 290 Introduction Probation Department procedures for preparing these joint assessments, determine if these procedures are followed in practice, identify problems with this process, and make recommendations for improving this joint function as necessary. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the staff of the Department of Children and Family Services for their assistance in completing this study, including providing existing reports and other data, participating in interviews, and providing access to the Department’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System. Without their assistance, our work would have been much more difficult. 291 292 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations • Although the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) Bureau of Child Protection includes improving abuse and neglect investigations and reducing the number of children detained in protective custody as key parts of its mission, little analysis of these issues has been developed. Exact numbers of children detained are not available, nor has analysis been conducted of differences in detention rates among different regional offices or different social workers. Even where data are available, they are not being analyzed. For example, data collected by the Intake and Detention Control Unit shows that the percentage of cases in which a petition was requested to be prepared, but was refused by IDC, has fallen by four-fifths in the past 2.5 years, but IDC staff cannot explain why this has occurred. Data available from the Superior Court on petitions that are dismissed also is not analyzed. • Limited analytical capability prevents DCFS from determining whether weaknesses exist in the investigation and risk assessment of child abuse and neglect that could result in children being removed from homes inappropriately, or result in not removing children who are at risk. However, an analysis of 67 cases where contact information was available found that in nearly every case, decisions to take children into custody were based on sufficient collection of evidence, based on the number of contacts made per case. • By conducting similar analyses to that conducted for this study, and by collecting data on case dispositions for regional offices and for individual social workers, DCFS Bureau of Child Protection could identify weaknesses in investigation and risk assessment of child abuse and neglect, biases among social workers, or other problems that result in children being taken into custody inappropriately, or not being removed when they are at risk. Analysis of this data should be assigned to the Quality Assurance Unit in the Bureau, while data collection should be assigned to supervisors and administrators in regional offices and at the Emergency Response Command Post. As described in the Introduction to this report, the Bureau of Child Protection in the Department of Children and Family Services is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect. According to its mission statement, among the Bureau’s goals is “to provide thorough investigations and prompt initial assessments that will maximize child safety through improved child abuse investigations (and to) minimize the number of detentions. . . .” As described in the Introduction, detentions are decisions to take a child into protective custody and to seek to have the child declared a dependent of the Superior Court. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations While the mission is to minimize the number of detentions, currently the Bureau has limited information on whether it is accomplishing that goal. For example, the Department’s Internet site provides information on the number of referrals received by its Child Abuse Hotline, and the number of referrals where an in-person investigation occurred, but no data on the outcome of the investigations. Limited statewide data, gathered by the Center for Social Services Research at the University of California at Berkeley, suggest that DCFS’ handling of abuse and neglect investigations is not outside statewide norms. The Center has since 1998 collected data from the Child Welfare Services/Case Management system regarding the number of referrals reported to each County and the number of those referrals substantiated, as defined in the Introduction to this report. As described in the Introduction, while substantiation of a child abuse or neglect allegation is not the sole factor in determining that a child should be removed from the home, it is a necessary first step to that decision. The following table reports the percentage of referrals substantiated for the past three calendar years for the 10 largest California counties. Table 1.1 Comparison of Percentage of Referrals Substantiated In the 10 Largest California Counties Calendar Year 1998, 1999 and 2000 County 1998 1999 2000 Three-Year Average Orange 46.10% 48.34% 46.72% 47.05% Sacramento 26.61% 25.09% 23.14% 24.95% Riverside 24.30% 24.22% 22.62% 23.71% San Diego 24.34% 25.21% 21.25% 23.60% Los Angeles 20.50% 23.31% 21.56% 21.79% Alameda 19.63% 18.11% 16.21% 17.98% Fresno 18.47% 17.89% 16.22% 17.53% Contra Costa 17.82% 17.65% 16.87% 17.45% San Bernardino 16.87% 17.75% 16.97% 17.20% Santa Clara 17.47% 17.34% 16.71% 17.17% As the table shows, while Los Angeles County is the state’s largest county, it is only fifth highest in the percentage of substantiated abuse and neglect allegations, and contrasts markedly, for example, with Orange County, where the percentage of substantiated allegations is more than twice as high. In terms of Departmental statistics, Department staff reported that data on the number of children taken into protective custody is not specifically tracked. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations What is available is data on the number of cases assigned to the Intake and Detention Control Unit (IDC), and the number of actual petitions filed by the unit. IDC represents a key gate-keeping function for the investigation of abuse and neglect cases, and a key check on the quality of the investigations conducted by Emergency Response social workers, because IDC can determine not to prepare a petition in a particular case, if it determines there is not sufficient evidence to do so. This would require the return of the child to the custodial parent, and in our view, represent a situation where the initial removal may not have been appropriate, and alternative resolutions, such as seeking the family’s voluntary agreement to receive services, should have been pursued. The following table reports, for the last five fiscal years, the number of child referrals, the number of in-person investigations, the number of cases assigned to Intake and Detention Control, and the number of petitions prepared by that unit. Table 1.2 Child Abuse and Neglect Referrals, In-Person Investigations Petition Requests and Petitions Filed, FY 1996-97 to FY 2000-01 In-Person Cases Petitions % Petitions Fiscal Year Referrals Investigations to IDC Filed on IDC Cases 1996-97 195,283 147,255 21,499 19,190 89.26% 1997-98 164,319 140,016 18,681 15,734 84.22% 1998-99 148,531 131,527 17,833 13,529 75.86% 1999-00 152,506 133,102 16,908 12,478 73.80% 2000-01 146,495 126,711 15,951 11,083 69.48% As Table 1.1 shows, numbers of referrals, in-person investigations, cases assigned to IDC and petitions filed have all fallen in recent years. Particularly striking, however, is that the number of petitions filed, as a percentage of the number of cases referred to IDC, has declined significantly, from 89 percent to about 69.5 percent, in the past five fiscal years. In other words, while the number of cases referred to IDC dropped, the number of petitions filed dropped even more, a change that cannot be explained solely by the overall reduction in DCFS workload. The data on cases assigned probably overstates the number of children taken into custody, since some cases may be assigned to IDC for other reasons. On the other hand, data on petitions filed probably slightly overstates the number of children taken into custody, because a petition may be filed regarding a child who is left with their custodial parent, receiving Family Maintenance services under court supervision, as described in the Introduction. However, in a memorandum transmitting data to the Grand Jury on requests for petitions and petitions filed, IDC staff indicated that petition 295 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations requests generally represented situations where children were taken into protective custody. This decline in filing of petitions by IDC is even more stark in statistics kept by IDC itself. These statistics compare only cases assigned for the purpose of preparing a petition to the total petitions filed, and are reported separately for that reason, and because IDC was able to provide only 2.5 years of data. According to this data, the percentage of cases where a petition was requested by a social worker for a child taken into protective custody, but a petition was not filed, was 13.33 percent in Fiscal Year 1999-00, 7.89 percent in FY 2000-01, and only 3.05 percent fir the first six months of FY 2001-02. In other words, the percentage of cases in which IDC determined a petition was not warranted has fallen by more than four-fifths in 2.5 years. Furthermore, IDC reported that of those cases where it declined to prepare a petition, approximately 90 percent in both FY 1999-00 and FY 2000-01 were concluded by returning the child to the custodial parent, with minimal services provided by the ER social worker, or with a referral to community services without further DCFS supervision. We asked IDC staff who prepared these statistics if any analysis had been conducted as to why the number of petitions not filed had fallen. We were advised that no such analysis had been done. Staff familiar with the numbers speculated that because both requests for petitions as well as the number of petitions filed had fallen, the change reflected decisions by Emergency Response social workers not to detain children in some situations where children were detained before. However, staff could not assess what would cause this change in approach, since IDC had never communicated to Emergency Response staff any concern about the volume of petition requests, or the quality of investigations provided. Also, while IDC conducted training on detention report preparation that could partially account for this change, since detention reports are the main data source used by IDC to prepare petitions, IDC staff said the training occurred between July and October 2001, after significant declines in petitions filed had begun to occur. Furthermore, IDC staff reported that no analysis is ever conducted on the performance of different regional offices, or individual social workers, as to how often their requests for petitions are rejected, or other outcome measures. Such as regional analysis would help the Bureau of Child Protection to identify inconsistencies in performance by different offices and different social workers, so they could be corrected. We recommend that the Bureau gather this information on performance by regional offices and individual workers from IDC, as well as analyzing the data already gathered by IDC to determine why the changes discussed here have occurred. During the exit conference for this audit, the Department reported that it is developing a request for proposal, in conjunction with the American Public Welfare Association, for an independent research entity to assess the effect of recently developed training programs for Emergency Response social workers and other changes in investigative practices. The Department stated that the decline in the percentage of petition requests rejected by 296 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations IDC could be included in that study. We concur with this approach, but recommend that this issue be studied in the first phase of what is expected to be a three-phase project, with the first phase starting in the fall of 2002. In addition to IDC, the other key gate-keeping function in the investigation of child abuse and neglect is the Superior Court itself. As described in the Introduction, the Court can dismiss the allegations either at the initial Detention Hearing, by finding that no prima facie evidence of abuse or neglect exists, or at the Jurisdictional Hearing, by determining that there is not a preponderance of evidence supporting the allegations of the petition. Information for these two hearings are provided in reports prepared by Emergency Response social workers and Dependency Investigation social workers, respectively. Superior Court staff provided information for the past three fiscal years on the petitions heard and dismissed in Detention and Jurisdiction hearings, as shown in the following table. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations Table 1.3 WIC Section 300 Petitions Dismissed by the Superior Court During Detention and Jurisdiction Hearings. Calendar Years 1999, 2000 and 2001 Detention Hearings Year Petitions Heard Petitions Dismissed Percent Dismissed 1999 10,700 50 0.47% 2000 9,375 62 0.66% 2001 9,092 52 0.57% Jurisdiction Hearings Year Petitions Heard Petitions Dismissed Percent Dismissed 1999 23,868 572 2.39% 2000 21,181 737 3.48% 2001 18,837 607 3.22% As the table illustrates, over the past three years, the percentage of cases dismissed by the Court at either the Detention or Jurisdiction hearing has been very low, and has remained relatively consistent. Detention Hearing dismissals are particularly rare, reflecting the relatively low legal standard that must be met for the Court to order a child to be detained. In providing this data, Court staff advised us that the computer system used to collect the data also provides a coding system that judges can use to indicate why a petition is being dismissed. Unfortunately, Court staff reported that most cases are either not coded, or are coded to indicate that the petition was dismissed “in the interests of justice,” without additional detail. This prevents DCFS from using information on these dismissals as a means of reviewing the quality of investigations and reports conducted by Emergency Response and Dependency Investigation social workers. Furthermore, as in the case of the IDC data previously described, no effort is made to gather the information for different regional offices, or for different social workers. DCFS should request that the Court begin using the detailed coding system to report the reasons petitions are dismissed, and also determine if it is possible for the Court to provide this information on a regional and individual social worker basis, so the information may be used to assess social worker performance. The Bureau of Child Protect Business Plan, issued in August 2001, proposes the development of a 13-person Quality Assurance Unit in the Bureau. According to the plan, the functions of this bureau include reviewing the quality of referrals prepared by Child Abuse Hotline screeners who decide which cases require in-person investigation, 298 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations the quality of investigations conducted by the Emergency Response and Dependency Investigation social workers, and the quality of Detention and Jurisdictional reports prepared by the social workers. In addition, a December 2001 letter from the Bureau chief outlining quality assurance programs, provided to audit staff, stated that at that time the Quality Assurance Unit had already collected baseline data on the quality of investigation of selected referrals, and on the quality of the reports prepared. However, the Bureau Chief in the Child Protection Bureau advised audit staff that as yet no reports in these areas had been completed by the unit. He said a planned report on the quality reports prepared by investigators had been delayed, because Bureau staff had concluded that the number of reports examined in the study was insufficient to reach definitive conclusions. Case File Review Because data assessing the quality of investigations and the question of whether children are inappropriately taken into protective custody was lacking within the Bureau itself, audit staff conducted an independent analysis. The analysis was based on a review of 67 cases, drawn at random from logs maintained by the Intake and Detention Control Unit (IDC) of all cases in which a petitions was requested to be prepared. The 67 cases were drawn from logs for the months of October and November 2001. Each case represented a request by a social worker in one of the eight regional offices, or in the Emergency Response Command Post, as described in the Introduction to this report, for IDC to prepare a petition on behalf of a child that had been taken into protective custody. Each case also represented a new allegation of abuse or neglect under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300 that was investigated, as opposed to preparation of subsequent or supplemental petitions, as permitted by State law, for new allegations or changed circumstances regarding an existing case. The sample was divided among cases investigated by two of the eight DCFS regions, Region III, which includes the Belvedere and Metro North offices, and Region VI, which includes the Hawthorne, Century and West Los Angeles offices. These two regions were selected in order to look for regional differences in how cases were handled, and were identified as serving somewhat similar areas in terms of socioeconomic characteristics. Electronic records in the CWS/CMS system for each case were examined, as was the paper case file for each case. Among the items reviewed for each case were: • The number of individuals contacted as part of the investigation, and their relation to the family and/or child involved in the allegation. • The use of decision-making tools by social workers to help make conclusions as to whether a child was at risk of abuse or neglect, and should be taken into protective custody as a result. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations • The content of Detention and Jurisdiction reports prepared by social workers. • Whether there were cases in which a child initially taken into custody by an Emergency Response social worker was subsequently returned to the custodial parent, either because IDC determined that insufficient evidence existing to file a petition, or because the allegations of the petition were dismissed by the Superior Court, either during the prima facie Detention Hearing or the Jurisdictional Hearing described in the Introduction to this report. We would view situations in which a child was removed from the home initially, then subsequently returned, as incidents in which the original removal may not have been appropriate, and alternative resolutions, such as offering the family services on a voluntary basis, should have been considered. While selected aspects of the case file review will be discussed in other sections of the report, in this our focus is on the social workers’ use of sufficient contacts in investigating allegations of abuse or neglect, and on the incidence of child removals by Emergency Response social workers that are subsequently reversed, for the reasons described above. Use of Collateral Contacts Contacts are individuals from whom an Emergency Response social worker gathers information to determine whether an abuse or neglect allegation is true, and whether the child that is the subject of the allegation is at risk of further abuse or neglect. In interviews with a focus group of ER social workers, most agree that they would make their initial contact with the person that reported the allegation, if available, followed by the child who was the alleged victim, and then the child’s custodial parent. However, Department policies also emphasize including in the investigation “collateral” contacts, individuals other than those immediately involved in the allegation. Such contacts would include other family relatives, physicians who have treated the child, teachers and other school officials. The importance of such contacts was emphasized in a March 2001 memorandum to social workers, which noted that making such contacts is a requirement of State child welfare regulations. “Information from these interviews can be invaluable when assessing the validity of the reported allegations and determining the disposition of those allegations, as well as in determining if any additional allegations may exist. Information gathered from these interviews may also help the CSW to determine the most appropriate services and case plan goals for the family.” Accordingly, our review included a review, using data from CWS/CMS, of the number of contacts utilized by social workers in our case file sample, excluding the child and the parent. Results of this review are shown in the following table. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations Table 1.3 Collateral Contacts in a Sample of 67 Cases Where Children Were Taken Into Protective Custody Cases With: Number of Cases Percentage Zero Contacts 3 4.5% One Contact 22 32.8% Two Contacts 12 17.9% Three Contacts 14 20.9% Four Contacts 10 14.9% Five Contacts 2 3.0% Six Contacts 2 3.0% Seven Contacts 2 3.0% Total Cases 67 100.0% Average Contacts Per Case 2.4 Types of Contacts Other Relatives 36 Health Care Officials 33 Triage Unit 6 Police 10 School staff 6 Other 14 As the table shows, in only 3 of the 67 cases examined, 4.5 percent, were there no contacts in the investigation beyond the child victim and the custodial parent. The average number of collateral contacts per case was 2.38, with about a third of the cases having one collateral contact, and more than half the cases having two, three or four contacts. There was also little difference between the two regions reviewed, with Region III averaging 2.44 contacts per case, while Region VI average about 2.31. The table also shows that the most common collateral contact was with a family member other than the parent or child, such as a grandparent, an aunt, etc. Also common were contacts with health care officials. This reflects in part the high percentage of abuse and neglect allegations reported to DCFS by hospital officials as a result of instances in which a newborn child, the mother or both are determined to have narcotics in their system as a result of blood tests. Under State law, such positive blood tests require the hospital to conduct its own assessment of whether the child is at a health risk. If a risk is determined to exist, the hospital is then required to report the incident to DCFS for investigation of possible child neglect. However, the case files we reviewed indicated 301 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations that Emergency Response social workers typically obtained information from the mother about drug use, or information about the mother’s intoxication from hospital staff or other collateral contacts in determining that allegations were substantiated. Based on this case file analysis, we believe that social worker investigations of child abuse and neglect allegations are based on sufficient evidence, as reflected by the use of collateral contacts as part of those investigations. Subsequent Child Releases As part of this case file review, we also reviewed the Detention Hearing reports and the court orders reflecting the results of Detention Hearings in each case, as well as the Jurisdiction Reports, and court orders reflecting the results of Jurisdiction Hearings. These items were reviewed to determine how often children taken into protective custody by an ER social worker are subsequently released, either voluntarily by the Department, or as a result of a court’s dismissal of the petition at either the Detention Hearing or Jurisdiction Hearing. As discussed previously, such instances may reflect cases in which the original decision to take a child into protective custody was not proper, and other alternatives should have been considered. Our case file review identified six cases of the 67 reviewed, or 9 percent of the sample, in which a child was taken into protective custody by a social worker, but was subsequently released back to the custodial parent. At face value, this appears to be a high percentage of cases where the initial removal may not have been appropriate. However, the detailed review of these case files also showed that in nearly every case, there were specific appropriate reasons for the initial custody and subsequent release. In four of the six cases, detention was based on allegations of abuse pertaining to only one of two custodial parents. According to the case file data, in these cases, the perpetrator agreed to leave the home, and the children were then released to the other parent. In other words sufficient evidence existed for the original detention. The remaining two cases involved situations where children were taken into protective custody and then released to the parents by Court order. In one case this occurred at the Detention Hearing, while in the other it occurred at the Jurisdiction Hearing. However, in both cases, subsequent investigation, either related to the original referral or to a subsequent referral, resulted in these children being re-detained, and declared dependents of the Court, within a few weeks of being released back to the custodial parent. Based on the information contained in the case files, it appears that the original protective custody decisions were appropriate, and should not have been overturned by the Court. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations Based on this review, we do not believe that any of the 67 cases reviewed for this study represented instances where children were inappropriately removed from their homes. This suggests protective custody decisions generally made by social workers are appropriate. However, we would emphasize that our review represents a small sample of cases, drawn from only two DCFS regions, and limited by the short timeframe required for this study. A larger sample, drawn from all regions, and from the Emergency Response Command Post, may result in different conclusions. The Department should develop a regular program of such case reviews, carried out by the Quality Assurance Unit. During the exit conference, the Department reported that it expects, starting in June 2002, to have the Quality Assurance Unit review a random sample of approximately 400 referrals per month that were investigated by regional offices and the three shifts of the Emergency Response Command Post. The sample would be equally divided among referrals where allegations of abuse or neglect were determined to be unfounded, inconclusive and substantiated, and would assess the quality of the investigation that was conducted and the reports that were prepared. CONCLUSION The Department of Children and Family Services has developed relatively little data assessing the quality of investigations of child abuse and neglect, and whether children are inappropriately removed from their custodial parents. Even where data has been developed, no analysis has occurred. For example, the percentage of cases in which the Intake and Detention Control Unit is requested to prepare a petition for a child that has been detained, but declines to do so because of insufficient evidence, has fallen substantially since FY 1996-97, particularly in the past 2.5 years, but no review has been made as to why this occurred. However, an analysis conducted by audit staff of 67 cases where children were detained in October and November 2001 found no evidence that any of the detentions were improper, and showed that multiple collateral contacts occurred as part of the investigation in most cases. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Department of Children and Family Services: 1.1 Research, as part of the first phase of an upcoming study of the effect of recent investigative training and other changes in investigative practices, why the percentage of petitions not filed for insufficient evidence by the Intake and Detention Control Unit has fallen in recent years, and develop a system to gather data on IDC rejections by regional offices and by individual social workers, in order to identify systematic performance differences that require correction. (Recommendation 133) 303 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations 1.2 Request that the Superior Court, if possible, provide information on a regional office and individual social worker basis on petitions dismissed at Detention Hearings or Jurisdictional Hearings, in order to identify performance differences that require correction. (Recommendation 134) 1.3 Conduct periodic case file reviews, similar to that reported in this section, to assess the quality of investigations conducted by Emergency Response and Dependency Investigation social workers. These reviews should include samples of cases in each region. Such reviews should be conducted by the Department’s Quality Assurance Unit. According to the Department, a monthly system of such reviews will begin in June 2002. (Recommendation 135) SAVINGS AND BENEFITS Implementing the recommendations in this section would provide the Department better information on the adequacy of child abuse and neglect investigations, identifying differences in practices in different regions and among different workers, to help ensure that investigations are conducted properly, and that children are not removed from their homes inappropriately. More detailed reporting by the Intake and Detention Control Unit would probably require expanded data entry time by clerical staff, at an unknown cost. More detailed data reporting by the Superior Court also would have additional costs. The file reviews recommended should be included as part of the workload of the new Quality Assurance Unit, and should not have additional costs. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations • Although the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) Bureau of Child Protection includes improving abuse and neglect investigations and reducing the number of children detained in protective custody as key parts of its mission, little analysis of these issues has been developed. Exact numbers of children detained are not available, nor has analysis been conducted of differences in detention rates among different regional offices or different social workers. Even where data are available, they are not being analyzed. For example, data collected by the Intake and Detention Control Unit shows that the percentage of cases in which a petition was requested to be prepared, but was refused by IDC, has fallen by four-fifths in the past 2.5 years, but IDC staff cannot explain why this has occurred. Data available from the Superior Court on petitions that are dismissed also is not analyzed. • Limited analytical capability prevents DCFS from determining whether weaknesses exist in the investigation and risk assessment of child abuse and neglect that could result in children being removed from homes inappropriately, or result in not removing children who are at risk. However, an analysis of 67 cases where contact information was available found that in nearly every case, decisions to take children into custody were based on sufficient collection of evidence, based on the number of contacts made per case. • By conducting similar analyses to that conducted for this study, and by collecting data on case dispositions for regional offices and for individual social workers, DCFS Bureau of Child Protection could identify weaknesses in investigation and risk assessment of child abuse and neglect, biases among social workers, or other problems that result in children being taken into custody inappropriately, or not being removed when they are at risk. Analysis of this data should be assigned to the Quality Assurance Unit in the Bureau, while data collection should be assigned to supervisors and administrators in regional offices and at the Emergency Response Command Post. As described in the Introduction to this report, the Bureau of Child Protection in the Department of Children and Family Services is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect. According to its mission statement, among the Bureau’s goals is “to provide thorough investigations and prompt initial assessments that will maximize child safety through improved child abuse investigations (and to) minimize the number of detentions. . . .” As described in the Introduction, detentions are decisions to take a child into protective custody and to seek to have the child declared a dependent of the Superior Court. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations While the mission is to minimize the number of detentions, currently the Bureau has limited information on whether it is accomplishing that goal. For example, the Department’s Internet site provides information on the number of referrals received by its Child Abuse Hotline, and the number of referrals where an in-person investigation occurred, but no data on the outcome of the investigations. Limited statewide data, gathered by the Center for Social Services Research at the University of California at Berkeley, suggest that DCFS’ handling of abuse and neglect investigations is not outside statewide norms. The Center has since 1998 collected data from the Child Welfare Services/Case Management system regarding the number of referrals reported to each County and the number of those referrals substantiated, as defined in the Introduction to this report. As described in the Introduction, while substantiation of a child abuse or neglect allegation is not the sole factor in determining that a child should be removed from the home, it is a necessary first step to that decision. The following table reports the percentage of referrals substantiated for the past three calendar years for the 10 largest California counties. Table 1.1 Comparison of Percentage of Referrals Substantiated In the 10 Largest California Counties Calendar Year 1998, 1999 and 2000 County 1998 1999 2000 Three-Year Average Orange 46.10% 48.34% 46.72% 47.05% Sacramento 26.61% 25.09% 23.14% 24.95% Riverside 24.30% 24.22% 22.62% 23.71% San Diego 24.34% 25.21% 21.25% 23.60% Los Angeles 20.50% 23.31% 21.56% 21.79% Alameda 19.63% 18.11% 16.21% 17.98% Fresno 18.47% 17.89% 16.22% 17.53% Contra Costa 17.82% 17.65% 16.87% 17.45% San Bernardino 16.87% 17.75% 16.97% 17.20% Santa Clara 17.47% 17.34% 16.71% 17.17% As the table shows, while Los Angeles County is the state’s largest county, it is only fifth highest in the percentage of substantiated abuse and neglect allegations, and contrasts markedly, for example, with Orange County, where the percentage of substantiated allegations is more than twice as high. In terms of Departmental statistics, Department staff reported that data on the number of children taken into protective custody is not specifically tracked. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations What is available is data on the number of cases assigned to the Intake and Detention Control Unit (IDC), and the number of actual petitions filed by the unit. IDC represents a key gate-keeping function for the investigation of abuse and neglect cases, and a key check on the quality of the investigations conducted by Emergency Response social workers, because IDC can determine not to prepare a petition in a particular case, if it determines there is not sufficient evidence to do so. This would require the return of the child to the custodial parent, and in our view, represent a situation where the initial removal may not have been appropriate, and alternative resolutions, such as seeking the family’s voluntary agreement to receive services, should have been pursued. The following table reports, for the last five fiscal years, the number of child referrals, the number of in-person investigations, the number of cases assigned to Intake and Detention Control, and the number of petitions prepared by that unit. Table 1.2 Child Abuse and Neglect Referrals, In-Person Investigations Petition Requests and Petitions Filed, FY 1996-97 to FY 2000-01 In-Person Cases Petitions % Petitions Fiscal Year Referrals Investigations to IDC Filed on IDC Cases 1996-97 195,283 147,255 21,499 19,190 89.26% 1997-98 164,319 140,016 18,681 15,734 84.22% 1998-99 148,531 131,527 17,833 13,529 75.86% 1999-00 152,506 133,102 16,908 12,478 73.80% 2000-01 146,495 126,711 15,951 11,083 69.48% As Table 1.1 shows, numbers of referrals, in-person investigations, cases assigned to IDC and petitions filed have all fallen in recent years. Particularly striking, however, is that the number of petitions filed, as a percentage of the number of cases referred to IDC, has declined significantly, from 89 percent to about 69.5 percent, in the past five fiscal years. In other words, while the number of cases referred to IDC dropped, the number of petitions filed dropped even more, a change that cannot be explained solely by the overall reduction in DCFS workload. The data on cases assigned probably overstates the number of children taken into custody, since some cases may be assigned to IDC for other reasons. On the other hand, data on petitions filed probably slightly overstates the number of children taken into custody, because a petition may be filed regarding a child who is left with their custodial parent, receiving Family Maintenance services under court supervision, as described in the Introduction. However, in a memorandum transmitting data to the Grand Jury on requests for petitions and petitions filed, IDC staff indicated that petition 295 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations requests generally represented situations where children were taken into protective custody. This decline in filing of petitions by IDC is even more stark in statistics kept by IDC itself. These statistics compare only cases assigned for the purpose of preparing a petition to the total petitions filed, and are reported separately for that reason, and because IDC was able to provide only 2.5 years of data. According to this data, the percentage of cases where a petition was requested by a social worker for a child taken into protective custody, but a petition was not filed, was 13.33 percent in Fiscal Year 1999-00, 7.89 percent in FY 2000-01, and only 3.05 percent fir the first six months of FY 2001-02. In other words, the percentage of cases in which IDC determined a petition was not warranted has fallen by more than four-fifths in 2.5 years. Furthermore, IDC reported that of those cases where it declined to prepare a petition, approximately 90 percent in both FY 1999-00 and FY 2000-01 were concluded by returning the child to the custodial parent, with minimal services provided by the ER social worker, or with a referral to community services without further DCFS supervision. We asked IDC staff who prepared these statistics if any analysis had been conducted as to why the number of petitions not filed had fallen. We were advised that no such analysis had been done. Staff familiar with the numbers speculated that because both requests for petitions as well as the number of petitions filed had fallen, the change reflected decisions by Emergency Response social workers not to detain children in some situations where children were detained before. However, staff could not assess what would cause this change in approach, since IDC had never communicated to Emergency Response staff any concern about the volume of petition requests, or the quality of investigations provided. Also, while IDC conducted training on detention report preparation that could partially account for this change, since detention reports are the main data source used by IDC to prepare petitions, IDC staff said the training occurred between July and October 2001, after significant declines in petitions filed had begun to occur. Furthermore, IDC staff reported that no analysis is ever conducted on the performance of different regional offices, or individual social workers, as to how often their requests for petitions are rejected, or other outcome measures. Such as regional analysis would help the Bureau of Child Protection to identify inconsistencies in performance by different offices and different social workers, so they could be corrected. We recommend that the Bureau gather this information on performance by regional offices and individual workers from IDC, as well as analyzing the data already gathered by IDC to determine why the changes discussed here have occurred. During the exit conference for this audit, the Department reported that it is developing a request for proposal, in conjunction with the American Public Welfare Association, for an independent research entity to assess the effect of recently developed training programs for Emergency Response social workers and other changes in investigative practices. The Department stated that the decline in the percentage of petition requests rejected by 296 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations IDC could be included in that study. We concur with this approach, but recommend that this issue be studied in the first phase of what is expected to be a three-phase project, with the first phase starting in the fall of 2002. In addition to IDC, the other key gate-keeping function in the investigation of child abuse and neglect is the Superior Court itself. As described in the Introduction, the Court can dismiss the allegations either at the initial Detention Hearing, by finding that no prima facie evidence of abuse or neglect exists, or at the Jurisdictional Hearing, by determining that there is not a preponderance of evidence supporting the allegations of the petition. Information for these two hearings are provided in reports prepared by Emergency Response social workers and Dependency Investigation social workers, respectively. Superior Court staff provided information for the past three fiscal years on the petitions heard and dismissed in Detention and Jurisdiction hearings, as shown in the following table. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations Table 1.3 WIC Section 300 Petitions Dismissed by the Superior Court During Detention and Jurisdiction Hearings. Calendar Years 1999, 2000 and 2001 Detention Hearings Year Petitions Heard Petitions Dismissed Percent Dismissed 1999 10,700 50 0.47% 2000 9,375 62 0.66% 2001 9,092 52 0.57% Jurisdiction Hearings Year Petitions Heard Petitions Dismissed Percent Dismissed 1999 23,868 572 2.39% 2000 21,181 737 3.48% 2001 18,837 607 3.22% As the table illustrates, over the past three years, the percentage of cases dismissed by the Court at either the Detention or Jurisdiction hearing has been very low, and has remained relatively consistent. Detention Hearing dismissals are particularly rare, reflecting the relatively low legal standard that must be met for the Court to order a child to be detained. In providing this data, Court staff advised us that the computer system used to collect the data also provides a coding system that judges can use to indicate why a petition is being dismissed. Unfortunately, Court staff reported that most cases are either not coded, or are coded to indicate that the petition was dismissed “in the interests of justice,” without additional detail. This prevents DCFS from using information on these dismissals as a means of reviewing the quality of investigations and reports conducted by Emergency Response and Dependency Investigation social workers. Furthermore, as in the case of the IDC data previously described, no effort is made to gather the information for different regional offices, or for different social workers. DCFS should request that the Court begin using the detailed coding system to report the reasons petitions are dismissed, and also determine if it is possible for the Court to provide this information on a regional and individual social worker basis, so the information may be used to assess social worker performance. The Bureau of Child Protect Business Plan, issued in August 2001, proposes the development of a 13-person Quality Assurance Unit in the Bureau. According to the plan, the functions of this bureau include reviewing the quality of referrals prepared by Child Abuse Hotline screeners who decide which cases require in-person investigation, 298 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations the quality of investigations conducted by the Emergency Response and Dependency Investigation social workers, and the quality of Detention and Jurisdictional reports prepared by the social workers. In addition, a December 2001 letter from the Bureau chief outlining quality assurance programs, provided to audit staff, stated that at that time the Quality Assurance Unit had already collected baseline data on the quality of investigation of selected referrals, and on the quality of the reports prepared. However, the Bureau Chief in the Child Protection Bureau advised audit staff that as yet no reports in these areas had been completed by the unit. He said a planned report on the quality reports prepared by investigators had been delayed, because Bureau staff had concluded that the number of reports examined in the study was insufficient to reach definitive conclusions. Case File Review Because data assessing the quality of investigations and the question of whether children are inappropriately taken into protective custody was lacking within the Bureau itself, audit staff conducted an independent analysis. The analysis was based on a review of 67 cases, drawn at random from logs maintained by the Intake and Detention Control Unit (IDC) of all cases in which a petitions was requested to be prepared. The 67 cases were drawn from logs for the months of October and November 2001. Each case represented a request by a social worker in one of the eight regional offices, or in the Emergency Response Command Post, as described in the Introduction to this report, for IDC to prepare a petition on behalf of a child that had been taken into protective custody. Each case also represented a new allegation of abuse or neglect under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300 that was investigated, as opposed to preparation of subsequent or supplemental petitions, as permitted by State law, for new allegations or changed circumstances regarding an existing case. The sample was divided among cases investigated by two of the eight DCFS regions, Region III, which includes the Belvedere and Metro North offices, and Region VI, which includes the Hawthorne, Century and West Los Angeles offices. These two regions were selected in order to look for regional differences in how cases were handled, and were identified as serving somewhat similar areas in terms of socioeconomic characteristics. Electronic records in the CWS/CMS system for each case were examined, as was the paper case file for each case. Among the items reviewed for each case were: • The number of individuals contacted as part of the investigation, and their relation to the family and/or child involved in the allegation. • The use of decision-making tools by social workers to help make conclusions as to whether a child was at risk of abuse or neglect, and should be taken into protective custody as a result. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations • The content of Detention and Jurisdiction reports prepared by social workers. • Whether there were cases in which a child initially taken into custody by an Emergency Response social worker was subsequently returned to the custodial parent, either because IDC determined that insufficient evidence existing to file a petition, or because the allegations of the petition were dismissed by the Superior Court, either during the prima facie Detention Hearing or the Jurisdictional Hearing described in the Introduction to this report. We would view situations in which a child was removed from the home initially, then subsequently returned, as incidents in which the original removal may not have been appropriate, and alternative resolutions, such as offering the family services on a voluntary basis, should have been considered. While selected aspects of the case file review will be discussed in other sections of the report, in this our focus is on the social workers’ use of sufficient contacts in investigating allegations of abuse or neglect, and on the incidence of child removals by Emergency Response social workers that are subsequently reversed, for the reasons described above. Use of Collateral Contacts Contacts are individuals from whom an Emergency Response social worker gathers information to determine whether an abuse or neglect allegation is true, and whether the child that is the subject of the allegation is at risk of further abuse or neglect. In interviews with a focus group of ER social workers, most agree that they would make their initial contact with the person that reported the allegation, if available, followed by the child who was the alleged victim, and then the child’s custodial parent. However, Department policies also emphasize including in the investigation “collateral” contacts, individuals other than those immediately involved in the allegation. Such contacts would include other family relatives, physicians who have treated the child, teachers and other school officials. The importance of such contacts was emphasized in a March 2001 memorandum to social workers, which noted that making such contacts is a requirement of State child welfare regulations. “Information from these interviews can be invaluable when assessing the validity of the reported allegations and determining the disposition of those allegations, as well as in determining if any additional allegations may exist. Information gathered from these interviews may also help the CSW to determine the most appropriate services and case plan goals for the family.” Accordingly, our review included a review, using data from CWS/CMS, of the number of contacts utilized by social workers in our case file sample, excluding the child and the parent. Results of this review are shown in the following table. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations Table 1.3 Collateral Contacts in a Sample of 67 Cases Where Children Were Taken Into Protective Custody Cases With: Number of Cases Percentage Zero Contacts 3 4.5% One Contact 22 32.8% Two Contacts 12 17.9% Three Contacts 14 20.9% Four Contacts 10 14.9% Five Contacts 2 3.0% Six Contacts 2 3.0% Seven Contacts 2 3.0% Total Cases 67 100.0% Average Contacts Per Case 2.4 Types of Contacts Other Relatives 36 Health Care Officials 33 Triage Unit 6 Police 10 School staff 6 Other 14 As the table shows, in only 3 of the 67 cases examined, 4.5 percent, were there no contacts in the investigation beyond the child victim and the custodial parent. The average number of collateral contacts per case was 2.38, with about a third of the cases having one collateral contact, and more than half the cases having two, three or four contacts. There was also little difference between the two regions reviewed, with Region III averaging 2.44 contacts per case, while Region VI average about 2.31. The table also shows that the most common collateral contact was with a family member other than the parent or child, such as a grandparent, an aunt, etc. Also common were contacts with health care officials. This reflects in part the high percentage of abuse and neglect allegations reported to DCFS by hospital officials as a result of instances in which a newborn child, the mother or both are determined to have narcotics in their system as a result of blood tests. Under State law, such positive blood tests require the hospital to conduct its own assessment of whether the child is at a health risk. If a risk is determined to exist, the hospital is then required to report the incident to DCFS for investigation of possible child neglect. However, the case files we reviewed indicated 301 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations that Emergency Response social workers typically obtained information from the mother about drug use, or information about the mother’s intoxication from hospital staff or other collateral contacts in determining that allegations were substantiated. Based on this case file analysis, we believe that social worker investigations of child abuse and neglect allegations are based on sufficient evidence, as reflected by the use of collateral contacts as part of those investigations. Subsequent Child Releases As part of this case file review, we also reviewed the Detention Hearing reports and the court orders reflecting the results of Detention Hearings in each case, as well as the Jurisdiction Reports, and court orders reflecting the results of Jurisdiction Hearings. These items were reviewed to determine how often children taken into protective custody by an ER social worker are subsequently released, either voluntarily by the Department, or as a result of a court’s dismissal of the petition at either the Detention Hearing or Jurisdiction Hearing. As discussed previously, such instances may reflect cases in which the original decision to take a child into protective custody was not proper, and other alternatives should have been considered. Our case file review identified six cases of the 67 reviewed, or 9 percent of the sample, in which a child was taken into protective custody by a social worker, but was subsequently released back to the custodial parent. At face value, this appears to be a high percentage of cases where the initial removal may not have been appropriate. However, the detailed review of these case files also showed that in nearly every case, there were specific appropriate reasons for the initial custody and subsequent release. In four of the six cases, detention was based on allegations of abuse pertaining to only one of two custodial parents. According to the case file data, in these cases, the perpetrator agreed to leave the home, and the children were then released to the other parent. In other words sufficient evidence existed for the original detention. The remaining two cases involved situations where children were taken into protective custody and then released to the parents by Court order. In one case this occurred at the Detention Hearing, while in the other it occurred at the Jurisdiction Hearing. However, in both cases, subsequent investigation, either related to the original referral or to a subsequent referral, resulted in these children being re-detained, and declared dependents of the Court, within a few weeks of being released back to the custodial parent. Based on the information contained in the case files, it appears that the original protective custody decisions were appropriate, and should not have been overturned by the Court. Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations Based on this review, we do not believe that any of the 67 cases reviewed for this study represented instances where children were inappropriately removed from their homes. This suggests protective custody decisions generally made by social workers are appropriate. However, we would emphasize that our review represents a small sample of cases, drawn from only two DCFS regions, and limited by the short timeframe required for this study. A larger sample, drawn from all regions, and from the Emergency Response Command Post, may result in different conclusions. The Department should develop a regular program of such case reviews, carried out by the Quality Assurance Unit. During the exit conference, the Department reported that it expects, starting in June 2002, to have the Quality Assurance Unit review a random sample of approximately 400 referrals per month that were investigated by regional offices and the three shifts of the Emergency Response Command Post. The sample would be equally divided among referrals where allegations of abuse or neglect were determined to be unfounded, inconclusive and substantiated, and would assess the quality of the investigation that was conducted and the reports that were prepared. CONCLUSION The Department of Children and Family Services has developed relatively little data assessing the quality of investigations of child abuse and neglect, and whether children are inappropriately removed from their custodial parents. Even where data has been developed, no analysis has occurred. For example, the percentage of cases in which the Intake and Detention Control Unit is requested to prepare a petition for a child that has been detained, but declines to do so because of insufficient evidence, has fallen substantially since FY 1996-97, particularly in the past 2.5 years, but no review has been made as to why this occurred. However, an analysis conducted by audit staff of 67 cases where children were detained in October and November 2001 found no evidence that any of the detentions were improper, and showed that multiple collateral contacts occurred as part of the investigation in most cases. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Department of Children and Family Services: 1.1 Research, as part of the first phase of an upcoming study of the effect of recent investigative training and other changes in investigative practices, why the percentage of petitions not filed for insufficient evidence by the Intake and Detention Control Unit has fallen in recent years, and develop a system to gather data on IDC rejections by regional offices and by individual social workers, in order to identify systematic performance differences that require correction. (Recommendation 133) 303 Section 1: Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations 1.2 Request that the Superior Court, if possible, provide information on a regional office and individual social worker basis on petitions dismissed at Detention Hearings or Jurisdictional Hearings, in order to identify performance differences that require correction. (Recommendation 134) 1.3 Conduct periodic case file reviews, similar to that reported in this section, to assess the quality of investigations conducted by Emergency Response and Dependency Investigation social workers. These reviews should include samples of cases in each region. Such reviews should be conducted by the Department’s Quality Assurance Unit. According to the Department, a monthly system of such reviews will begin in June 2002. (Recommendation 135) SAVINGS AND BENEFITS Implementing the recommendations in this section would provide the Department better information on the adequacy of child abuse and neglect investigations, identifying differences in practices in different regions and among different workers, to help ensure that investigations are conducted properly, and that children are not removed from their homes inappropriately. More detailed reporting by the Intake and Detention Control Unit would probably require expanded data entry time by clerical staff, at an unknown cost. More detailed data reporting by the Superior Court also would have additional costs. The file reviews recommended should be included as part of the workload of the new Quality Assurance Unit, and should not have additional costs. Section 2: Documentation of Reasonable Efforts Section 2: Documentation of Reasonable Efforts • State law requires social workers, before taking a child into protective custody, to determine whether there are any reasonable services available that could be provided to eliminate the need to remove the child from the custodial parent, guardian or caretaker. The basis for this determination must be documented, in order for the Superior Court to determine whether such “reasonable efforts,” were provided. A review of 67 case files identified 16, or 23.9 percent in which information on reasonable efforts was not reported. In another 13 cases, the lack of reasonable efforts was explained by the child being detained from an “emergent situation,” an exception to the legal requirement that was available at the time of the case files reviewed, but was eliminated by the State as of January 1, 2002. Even when reasonable efforts were documented, no detail was provided in court reports on the services given, nor did case files generally provide information on pre-detention services. • This lack of detailed reporting does not follow the department’s own reporting procedures regarding preparation of Detention Reports, based on materials from training that occurred during 2001, and does not provide sufficient documentation that reasonable efforts were in fact provided. In addition, interviews with social workers indicated that this problem may reflect limited information available on service resources, particularly to social workers at the Emergency Response Command Post. • By requiring more detailed reporting by social workers on what services were available to eliminate the need to take children into protective custody, the Department will ensure that the requirements to make reasonable efforts, and to document making them, are met. The Department also should develop a field guide to service resources for Emergency Response Command Post (ERCP) social workers, based on service information provided by the various regional offices. This would ensure that ERCP workers make realistic recommendations to services, based on the resources that are actually available. As described in the Introduction, an Emergency Response social worker’s investigation of abuse or neglect allegations must first determine if the allegations are true. Based on that determination, they then determine if the child has suffered, or if there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer abuse or neglect, and what actions should be taken to eliminate that risk. Specifically, Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 306(b) requires that the social worker consider, before taking a child into protective custody, whether the child can remain safely in his or her home. The factors that must be considered in making that determination include: 305 Section 2: Documentation of Reasonable Efforts “Whether there are any reasonable services available to the worker which, if provided to the minor’s parent, guardian, caretaker or to the minor, would eliminate the need to remove the minor from the custody of his or her parent, guardian or caretaker.” In the case of an Emergency Response social worker investigating allegations of abuse and neglect and determining how to address them, these services would be provided during the period between the social worker’s first response to the allegation of abuse and neglect, and the time when the worker decides how the allegations should be disposed of. As described in the Introduction, that period is normally a maximum of 30 days. By that time, the Emergency Response social worker must either refer the case for court action, obtain a voluntary agreement from the parent or guardian to receive services under the Department’s supervision, or close the case with no further DCFS supervision. In order to ensure that the assessment required by Section 306(b) occurs, WIC Section 319 requires a court to “make a determination as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his or her home . . . whether there are available services that would prevent the need for further detention.” This determination is made based on information provided by the social worker as part of the Detention Hearing, described in the Introduction, where a judge determines if there is reasonable evidence, absent contradictory evidence, that removal of the child from the custodial parent or guardian was proper, and should continue. According to Section 319, services to be considered in determining whether reasonable efforts were provided include: • Case management. • Emergency shelter care. • Emergency in-home caretakers. • Out-of-home respite care. • Teaching and demonstrating homemakers. • Parenting training. • Transportation. • Other services authorized by the State Department of Social Services. Section 2: Documentation of Reasonable Efforts • Whether a referral to Medi-Cal, general assistance and emergency medical care, food stamps and CalWORKs programs would have prevented the need for further detention. As part of the review of 67 case files described in the Introduction and in Section 1, audit staff reviewed detention reports to determine whether information on reasonable efforts were provided. We found that in 16 of the 67 files reviewed, 23.9 percent, reasonable efforts were not discussed in the Detention Report. Although the standard report format available on the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System includes a section of the report to describe the services provided, that section was left blank. WIC Section 319 indicates that the court’s assessment of reasonable efforts should be “referencing the social worker’s report or other evidence relied upon.” Since none of the files reviewed indicated a court determination that reasonable efforts were lacking, presumably social worker testimony or some other basis was used for the determination. Nevertheless, the absence of this information in these reports represents poor documentation of a legal requirement. In another 13 of the 67 files reviewed, 19.4 percent, the reasonable efforts section of the Detention Report was completed by indicating that reasonable efforts could not be provided due to the “emergent nature” of the situation. This statement corresponds to WIC Section 319, as it was in effect at the time these Detention Reports were prepared, which requires a judge to determine that the lack of services prior to detention was reasonable, when the first contact with the family was in an emergency situation where the child could not safely remain at home, even with services being provided. Statutes of 2001, Chapter 653 (A.B. 1695) removed this language, effective January 1, 2002, although our review of statutes and case law suggests that a sufficiently dire situation would still permit a social worker to take a child into custody without providing reasonable efforts prior to the removal. In any event, the Detention Reports reviewed here do not provide additional detail tying the statement back to the actual facts of the case, showing the nature of the emergency that the social worker encountered. This detail should be provided, in order to clearly show why steps could not be taken to eliminate the need to take a child into protective custody. During the exit conference for this audit, the Department noted that it had not received specific advice from County Counsel as to whether this change in the law requires a change in the content of Detention Reports. The Department also stated its belief that there is sufficient evidence elsewhere in such reports showing the nature of the emergency so that the additional explanation recommended here in the reasonable efforts section is not necessary. We respectfully disagree, believing that the additional explanation would make the basis for these decisions clearer to parents and their attorneys, and to the Court. We also recommend that the Department consult with County Counsel regarding any change in reporting requirements necessary due to the amendments to WIC Section 319. Section 2: Documentation of Reasonable Efforts Finally, even in the 38 case files where a Detention Report included information on reasonable efforts, the information provided was nearly always cursory in nature. In only one case file was a detailed description made of the services provided. In all other cases, the information on reasonable efforts was simply a recitation of one or more of the categories of services in Section 319, as described earlier in this section. This method of reporting reasonable efforts appears to come from a version of the Detention Report developed in 1998, in which reasonable efforts were described by checking one or more boxes reflecting the various categories reported in Section 319. This report version is still included in Department procedures for writing a Detention Report, even though it was not used for any of the Detention Reports audit staff reviewed. In fact, the cursory description of reasonable efforts reflected in most of the case files audit staff reviewed is much different than the description reflected in materials for training on Detention Reports conducted in 2001. The Intake and Detention Control Unit provided this training to all Bureau of Child Protection staff between July and October 2001. Training materials for that packet include a sample Detention Report. That sample included a detailed description of services provided that would constitute reasonable efforts. Because the sample case for training was one where both custodial parents were absent, the description included efforts to locate them. Based on their absence, the report concluded that it could not be shown that the children could remain safely with one parent, with the other parent leaving the home, nor could it be shown that services could be provided allowing the children to remain with the custodial parents. Because information provided in Detention Reports regarding reasonable efforts was so cursory, we also reviewed the case files for other evidence that services had been provided, separate from the Detention Report. This review found that in 30 of the 67 case files reviewed, 44.8 percent, there was documentation of services being provided prior to a child being taken into protective custody. Usually, this evidence consisted of documentation of services provided through a referral that occurred prior to the incident that caused the current detention. In another 17 cases, 25.4 percent, evidence was provided of services being offered, but only after a child had already been taken into protective custody. This evidence was usually copies of forms signed by custodial parents acknowledging the receipt of lists of service providers for parenting classes, drug and alcohol testing and counseling and other services. Finally, in 20 of the 67 cases, 29.8 percent, there was no evidence of services being provided. In these cases, the case file reflected no activities by the social worker other than those required to investigate the abuse and neglect allegations. As indicated earlier in this section, statute and case law suggests that it is permissible to offer services constituting reasonable efforts to a family after a child has been taken into protective custody, if the circumstances requiring protective custody are sufficiently 308 Section 2: Documentation of Reasonable Efforts serious. However, in order to make such a showing, we believe more detailed information about the reasonable efforts made, or the mitigating factors preventing them, should be provided than was provided in the Detention Reports audit staff reviewed. Furthermore, one of the types of services that constitute reasonable efforts under WIC Section 319, called case management, is not defined in the statute, and is poorly defined in State regulations. Chapter 31-002 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures, Child Welfare Services, defines case management as “a service funded activity performed by the social worker which includes assessing the child’s/family’s needs, developing the case plan, monitoring progress in achieving case plan objectives, and ensuring that all services specified in the space plan are provided.” Portions of this definition referring to the execution of the case plan are not helpful, since the reasonable efforts required by Section 319 would typically occur before or at the same time as a case plan is prepared.