📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 2014-2015
Los Angeles County Information Systems Report
⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 15 findings
F1
Page 88
Production systems are fragmented over 64 Los Angeles County data centers plus three private out-of-state data centers.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 88
Development and hosting are going out of Los Angeles County hands. This means jobs and county funds are moving out of the county.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 88
Software development industrywide has such a high failure rate that extra oversight is warranted.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 88
Los Angeles County has no method to determine to what degree completed software development programs have been a success, and there is no permanent record of lessons learned from the experience of developing new systems.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 88
There appears to be no standard system development methodology for Los Angeles County.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 88
There appears to be no standard project management methodology for Los Angeles County.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 88
Data security is constantly being challenged, so the Los Angeles County chief information officer has been working to upgrade and standardize security.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 88
Data are not standardized within Los Angeles County chief information officer–defined clusters of departments, except within the justice (ISAB) group.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 88
Some departments worry about Information Technology Services (ITS) responsiveness and ITS’s ability provide a high level of service.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 88
Some Los Angeles County data centers inadequately conduct backup. The most- comprehensive backup operation appears to be that of the ITS Data Center at Downey. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 89
Many Los Angeles County departments worry about the disaster survivability of the ITS Data Center and the Orange County backup site. Three departments worry so much that they run their mission critical systems on private data centers outside of the county, in fact, even outside of California.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Page 89
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is moving toward consolidating most of Los Angeles County data centers into one disaster-resistant facility.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Page 89
Los Angeles County information systems use many different programming languages. The county has no standard or guideline on how to select a programming language for use on its development projects.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Page 89
There are no enterprise-wide programming standards for the languages that are used. There is no central guide to good programming practices.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Page 89
In Los Angeles County, there is a countywide tendency to replace existing systems rather than modernize them, in part because COBOL is unjustifiably considered obsolete, and lack of expertise in COBOL contributes to this tendency.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1Based on observations of the group homes visited, the committee commends the efforts of these group home providers in delivering services and promoting the safety and well-being of the home residents. 11 Information obtained from http://ChronicleofSocialChange.org. 12 Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, March 3, 2015. 106 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The committee also applauds the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ decision to participate in the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program. It will be a tremendous savings for the county and a win-win situation for all parties. ACRONYMS ARC Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program CAP Corrective Action Plan CCL Community Care Licensing Division DCFS Department of Children and Family Services GH Group Home RCL Rate Classification Level PPQA Placement Permanency and Quality Assurance unit COMMITTEE MEMBERS Wesley C. Thompson, chair Larry Lyman, vice chair Earline Parker, secretary Doris K. Reed Joyce Simily Margaret Yasuda 107 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT This page intentionally left blank. 108 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT METRO RIDERSHIP Jim Contreras, chair Simeon Zano, vice chair Shari E. Pearce, secretary METRO RIDERSHIP TOPIC The Los Angeles County 2014–2015 Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) formed the Metro Ridership Committee (committee) to look into increasing the ridership within the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) system and investigate the efforts of Metro to do the same. The committee also looked into whether Metro would receive maximum funding from federal sources based on achieving the farebox recovery goal of 33 percent.1
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office