Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 1978-1979 • Agency Response

Final Report 1978-1979*

Published: July 24, 2015 101 pages Consolidated Report

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25, F26, F27, F28, F29, F30, F31, F32, F33, F34, F35, F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41, F42, F43, F44, F45, F46, F47, F48, F49, F50, F51, F52, F53, F54, F55, F56, F57, F58, F59, F60, F61, F62, F63, F64, F65, F66, F67, F68, F69, F70, F71, F72, F73, F74, F75, F76, F77, F78, F79, F80, F81, F82, F83, F84, F85, F86, F87, F88, F89

Findings 14 findings

Increase their efforts, already extensive, to assure that their per- sonnel adhere strictly to the policies established by their respective agencies, particularly the policies on escalation of force.

Expand community relations programs to provide citizens with greater opportunities to meet with law enforcement representatives in order to discuss problems arising from contacts between peace officers and members of the community.

Make known to the public the resources available within their departments for the investigation and resolution of citizens' com- plaints.

Inform citizen complainants not only of the disposition of their complaints, but also of all the facts and circumstances considered by their departments in arriving at a disposition. In addition, the Grand Jury recommends to the Los Angeles City Council and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, respectively, that a study be made to determine if current alleged peace officer misconduct investigative procedures are adequate, or if alternate investigative tech- niques and/or investigatory bodies should be established. And, finally, the Grand Jury urges the citizens of Los Angeles County to:

Noise Pollution and Proximity of Schools to Freeways

Encouraging the community to use school sites at night and on week- ends;

Utilizing the services of the School Attendance and Review Board (SARB), whose function is to help school districts find the best school and community programs to prevent attendance problems;

Training staff in methods of diverting potential violent behavior;

Training student counselors to help deter campus conflict;

F10

Developing rumor control programs;

F11

Requiring students to carry identification cards; and

F12

Requiring teachers to wear identification badges. The Grand Jury commends the high percentage of Los Angeles County School Districts currently implementing programs appropriate to their districts which have reduced violence and vandalism in their schools. The Committee believes that every teacher should expect to be able to teach and every pupil should be able to learn in a school environment as free from violence as possible. School districts already having to stretch every dollar to provide safe facilities in a period of decreasing resources should be spared the unnecessary expense of repairing the destructive acts of vandalism that mark some schools. To say that the scope of violence and vandalism touches all school districts to the same degree would be unfair. Yet, to focus attention on individual schools within a district may lead to the false conclusion that there is really no problem at all—at least not enough of one to need a countywide response. The Education Committee is convinced, after a review of available statistics, extensive interviews with school administrators, superintendents, members of boards of education, law enforcement personnel, and parents, that there is a definite need for consistent reporting procedures to document accurately acts of violence and vandalism. Failure to report incidents limits society's ability to cope with the problem and creates a credibility gap between the community and the school administration. The Committee concluded that every reasonable step must be taken by school administrators, members of the boards of education, concerned parents, teachers and students, to return the classroom to its once calm atmosphere where learn- ing was the first priority. Therefore, believing that all students and teachers deserve a safe envi- ronment in which to learn and teach, the Grand Jury recommends to all Los Angeles County school boards:

F13

2. To raise public awareness of particular health-care problems and some of the systems designed to solve them.

F90

The intent of AB 90 is to provide the counties with the financial resources to develop local programs for youths involved in delinquent conduct. The legisla- tion also mandates the creation of a local Justice System Advisory Group (JSAG) to evaluate applications for funding and make recommendations to the Board. The Juvenile Justice Committee interviewed members of the JSAG Committee, reviewed their criteria in evaluating proposals, and studied their recommen- dations as submitted in their letter of December 8, 1978, to the Board of Super- visors. JSAG members are representatives of the juvenile justice system. The Committee believes that JSAG was thorough and objective in its deliberations and acted impartially in its final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. JSAG used merit and effectiveness of programs as the major considerations for funding. All eligible agencies could not be funded with the limited funds available. The reports of the December 19, 1978, Board of Supervisors meeting contained some startling revelations. It seemed that politics and district boundaries were more important than merit. According to one supervisor, "The bottom line is nobody cares about merit." The Committee sees merit as the only appropriate guideline to use in making decisions that affect the youth of this County. Juve- nile problems and solutions are best served by the most effective and meritorious programs. In fact, none of the agencies recommended would deny access to a juvenile who did not live in a particular district, and many of the agencies serve multiple districts. The Rule of Five, which says funds and programs are to be divided equally to each district, may lend itself to the distribution of some County services; however, it is impractical when limited funds are available for community-based, juvenile-crime-prevention programs within the County. Juvenile delinquency crosses district boundaries, and the only criteria that should be considered are those related to the effectiveness of programs and the reduction of juvenile crime. The Committee concluded that the JSAG recommendations met these criteria, not a "division of five" policy. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the guidelines developed by the JSAG Committee and adopt its recommendations for funding community-based prevention pro- grams under AB 90.

Recommendations 24

R1

Bureau of Child Support Operations
R2

Department of Health Services-Department of Collections
R3

Department of Regional Planning 2
R4

Department of Community Development
R5

County Rental Practices ii.
R6

Develop a systematic approach to employee reporting of poten- tial conflict-of-interest abuses.
R7

Prepare and distribute clear, concise conflict-of-interest guide- lines and require employees to acknowledge their receipt.
R8

Expand conflict-of-interest prohibitions.
R9

Establish a means of monitoring compliance with conflict-of-in- terest procedures.
R10

Develop effective sanctions for abusers.
R11

Implement a system of information feedback from clients.
R12

Establish a central file system.
R13

Establish a file control and audit program.
R14

Institute positive time reporting.
R15

Require grantees to define major anticipated subgrantees or ven- dors.
R16

Require conflict-of-interest reporting in all contracts with sub- grantees.
R17

Require submission by major vendors and subgrantees of rela- tionship with Department personnel.
R18

Require mandatory rotation of approved businesses providing services to the Department.
R19

Revise internal audit techniques.
R20

Recommend to the Board of Supervisors a restructuring of the public-member advisory board system.
R21

Reconsider DCD-Board interactions on funding and defunding decisions.
R22

Determine implications of these findings for other County de- partments.
R23

Consider including in the next legislative action program a re- quest for broader conflict-of-interest controls.
R90

The intent of AB 90 is to provide the counties with the financial resources to develop local programs for youths involved in delinquent conduct. The legisla- tion also mandates the creation of a local Justice System Advisory Group (JSAG) to evaluate applications for funding and make recommendations to the Board. The Juvenile Justice Committee interviewed members of the JSAG Committee, reviewed their criteria in evaluating proposals, and studied their recommen- dations as submitted in their letter of December 8, 1978, to the Board of Super- visors. JSAG members are representatives of the juvenile justice system. The Committee believes that JSAG was thorough and objective in its deliberations and acted impartially in its final recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. JSAG used merit and effectiveness of programs as the major considerations for funding. All eligible agencies could not be funded with the limited funds available. The reports of the December 19, 1978, Board of Supervisors meeting contained some startling revelations. It seemed that politics and district boundaries were more important than merit. According to one supervisor, "The bottom line is nobody cares about merit." The Committee sees merit as the only appropriate guideline to use in making decisions that affect the youth of this County. Juve- nile problems and solutions are best served by the most effective and meritorious programs. In fact, none of the agencies recommended would deny access to a juvenile who did not live in a particular district, and many of the agencies serve multiple districts. The Rule of Five, which says funds and programs are to be divided equally to each district, may lend itself to the distribution of some County services; however, it is impractical when limited funds are available for community-based, juvenile-crime-prevention programs within the County. Juvenile delinquency crosses district boundaries, and the only criteria that should be considered are those related to the effectiveness of programs and the reduction of juvenile crime. The Committee concluded that the JSAG recommendations met these criteria, not a "division of five" policy. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the guidelines developed by the JSAG Committee and adopt its recommendations for funding community-based prevention pro- grams under AB 90.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.