📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
Strategic Planning in the City of LOS Angeles
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ 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: F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12
Findings 12 findings
F1
Page 288
Making Los Angeles the safest big City in America
F2
Ensuring neighborhoods are good places to live 272 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
F3
Page 289
Getting where I want to go safely and reliably
F4
Page 289
Creating quality jobs, developing a competitive workforce, and enhancing Los Angeles’s business climate
F5
Page 289
Improving the quality, quantity, and affordability of housing in Los Angeles
F6
Page 289
Supporting a Los Angeles City government that works better and costs less The City’s budget summary was organized around these priorities, and presented information on City services across organizational lines that supported these priorities. The budget summary also presented a series of strategies for each priority. For example, the strategies to support the priority of making Los Angeles the safest big City in America were: • Reduce crime in Los Angeles by providing proactive crime prevention programs • Provide timely and appropriate emergency response • Save lives by preparing Los Angeles for natural disaster or terrorist incident • Provide a safe and clean neighborhood environment A particular strength of this effort was the use of Neighborhood Councils to identify service priorities for City government. Representatives of the Neighborhood Councils were surveyed regarding the priority of City services. These survey results were used in developing the Mayor’s Office service priorities. Although the Priority Based Budget approach was a step in the right direction, it does not meet the strategic planning needs of the City. Because this is a budget approach, it is by definition short-term and provides only a short-term perspective – tied to the one year budget process. Long-term strategic direction, ranging from 5 to 10 years, is needed. The budget is a powerful tool for implementing strategic direction. The strategic plan should be clearly linked to the budget process. However, the strategic planning process should precede and direct the budget process. Additionally, the Priority Based Budgeting approach does not appear to have had any substantive impact on City services. The budget summary organizes and presents existing City services in the six priorities. However, there does not appear to be any re- alignment of City functions or services to reflect these priorities. Implementation of an effective strategic plan should result in some structural and budgetary re-alignment of City functions and services to reflect the strategic vision and priorities. Finding: The Mayor’s Office “A Fresh Start” document provides some City-wide strategic direction for the City of Los Angeles. In May 2005 the incoming Mayor issued a document entitled “A Fresh Start.” This document established the top five priorities for Mayor in his management of City 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 273 departments. Each priority included several initiatives for making progress on these priorities. The following outlines these priorities and initiatives:
F13
Page 263
Alleged child care fraud is referred by the APPs to the DPSS Welfare Fraud Prevention Section. This section checks the referral to ensure that all pertinent documents are attached to the referral. DPSS investigates the allegations of fraud and may refer the case to the County of Los Angeles District Attorney for prosecution. The Civil Grand Jury is concerned that in a one year period hundreds of referrals from the APPs to the DPSS Welfare Fraud Section resulted in only ten referrals to the District Attorney’s office. Some DPSS Welfare Fraud Prevention Section personnel have inadequate training to detect evidence of fraud. .
F14
Page 263
Misrepresentation of employment is a major source of welfare fraud: • Some parents in the welfare to work program earn very little income - a few hundred dollars per month - but are reimbursed thousands of dollars per month for miles driven and child care expenses. • The same person (child care provider) who is paid by the County to provide child care services may also be receiving In Home Support Services (IHSS) from the County. The IHSS worker is provided to individuals to assist them in activities of daily living. A CalWORKS participant/parent could be employed to provide IHSS services to the same person (child care provider) providing their child care. There is no cross check. • Fictitious names of employers and places of employment have been “verified” by phone calls made to co-conspirators. • Some parents work as aides with the IHSS Program and receive thousands of dollars in mileage. • Some parents claim to work for relatives. • Some parents conspire with friends or relatives to fraudulently claim child care benefits and split the money. • Some parents claim to provide tutoring during the hours the child is in school. • Some child care providers claim hours for care during the hours the child is in school. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 247
F15
Page 264
DPSS has stated that: “There is no limit, currently, to the number of hours allowed to the parent for paid child care per day”.
F16
Page 264
Trustline Registry Form: this form “….was created by the California Legislature to offer parents, employment agencies, Child Care Resource and Referral Programs (APPs and DPSS), and child care providers access to a background check conducted by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) which includes checks of the California Criminal History System and Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) at the DOC and FBI records.” This form is processed for DPSS by the appropriate State licensing department and the State advises that it may take six weeks or more to complete.
F17
Page 264
The County of Los Angeles Administrative Memorandum Number 00- 10, dated 5-22-00, defines a license-exempt provider’s own children in the following way: “The definition of a license-exempt child care provider’s own children include all grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and first cousins for whom child care services are being provided. These children are considered immediate family members and there is no limitation on the number that may be cared for. In addition, the license-exempt provider may also provide child care services for the children of one other family. Child care payments may be authorized during the same time period for all of the children whose parents are participating in CalWORKS welfare-to-work activities or working.” This broad, unlimited definition of license-exempt provider’s own children encourages fraud and abuse of the system.
F18
Page 265
DPSS contracts with outside agencies to provide services for the GAIN case management in two new GAIN regional offices to perform vital steps in the CalWORKS process. These contract worker positions include case workers, supervisors, and clerk typists.
Recommendations 13
-
R1Page 292The Mayor’s Office should develop a City-Wide strategic plan to provide an overall vision for the community, establish priorities for City government, and provide a framework for City department and agency strategic planning and operations. REPORTING PROGRESS ON CITY-WIDE ISSUES For any City government to be successful it must have the confidence and support of those it serves. Maintaining this confidence and support is often difficult because it is often difficult to clearly demonstrate what has been accomplished and what progress is being made. Is the City safer? Are neighborhoods improving? Is it easier to travel throughout the City? Are jobs and the economy improving?
-
R2Page 292The Mayor’s Office should develop an annual “State of the City” or performance report that focuses on City government’s accomplishments, key outcome information, and progress toward the City’s strategic vision, goals, or objectives. 276 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury CITY DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY STRATEGIC PLANNING In addition to a City-wide strategic plan, it is important that individual City departments and agencies use strategic plans to help define and focus each organization’s priorities and operations. Ideally, these strategic plans would be consistent with the framework established by a City-wide strategic plan. Developing strategic plans to direct government or agency operations has become a best practice in public sector management. Many states have passed legislation requiring each state agency to develop a strategic plan. The Federal government passed the Government Performance and Results Act requiring all federal agencies to develop strategic plans and performance indicators focused on outcomes or results. Many local governments require departments to develop long-term strategic plans, with some requiring they be updated yearly through development of an annual business plan.
-
R3Page 294The Mayor’s Office should develop a consistent approach or model, with the assistance of the City Administrative Office, for City departments and agencies to use in developing and implementing strategic plans. The executive management team of the City of Los Angeles has a substantial amount of knowledge and experience in strategic planning, using several different models and approaches. This knowledge and experience can be used to develop a consistent approach or model for strategic planning. A guiding coalition, taking advantage of the City’s strategic planning expertise could be formed to develop and oversee the implementation of an approach or model for City departments to use in developing and implementing strategic plans. In addition to strategic planning expertise, the guiding coalition must include key City leaders with the position power and credibility necessary to drive the implementation of the model and ensure progress is made.
-
R4Page 294The Mayor’s Office should establish a steering committee or guiding coalition of City executive management personnel to develop and oversee the implementation of an approach or model for City departments and agencies to follow in developing and implementing strategic plans. A best practice among local governments is to hold an annual strategic planning conference for departments and agencies to share and coordinate their strategic planning efforts. The benefits of such a conference could include: • Reinforces the need for and importance of department and agency strategic planning • Provides an opportunity to share and discuss City-wide strategic information such as key trends, issues, and priorities 278 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury • Highlights past successes resulting from strategic planning, as well as shortcomings in the approach or model that need to be addressed • Facilitates discussion and coordination of common or overlapping missions, goals, and strategies Several City of Los Angeles personnel interviewed discussed the benefits of the annual Emergency Preparedness Planning Meeting held at the UCLA Conference Center. Many stated this provided an excellent opportunity for departments and agencies to discuss and coordinate on emergency planning issues and strategies. A similar planning meeting, focused on broader strategic issues facing the City, would likely have similar benefits.
-
R5Page 295The Mayor’s Office should conduct an annual strategic planning conference for City departments and agencies to share and coordinate their strategic planning information and successes. A key element of effective strategic planning is establishing and using a set of performance indicators that specifically measure progress toward the vision, goals, or objectives. These indicators should be focused primarily on outcomes or results.
-
R6Page 296The Mayor’s Office, with the assistance of the City Administrative Office, should clearly define the categories of performance indicators to be used by City departments and agencies. City of Los Angeles departments and agencies should define a manageable set of key performance indicators that are directly related to strategic visions, goals, or objectives.
-
R7Page 296City of Los Angeles departments and agencies should identify best practices, develop clear and concise performance reports, with easy to read and understand graphics and charts, demonstrating the impact of department and agency programs and activities. These reports should be provided to constituent groups and employees, and should be used to share and celebrate successes, and to identify and communicate areas where additional focus and change is required. It is important that performance information reported be based on sound data and that the information be complete, accurate, and consistent. The intent of providing performance information is to provide a basis for evaluating the organization and to support decision making at various levels. 280 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury SPECIFIC CITY DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY STRATEGIC PLANNING EFFORTS As part of this investigation we reviewed the strategic planning efforts of seven City departments and agencies. The phases of strategic planning, and the key elements of each as described in the introductory section of this report, were used to evaluate these efforts. The following Strategic Planning Scorecard summarizes the results of our review. Specific information on each department or agency is presented following the scorecard. STRATEGIC PLANNING SCORECARD City Emergency General Information Planning Preparedness Services Technology Strategic Analysis Trends No Yes Yes Yes External Issues No Yes Yes Yes Internal Issues No Yes Partial Yes Decision Making Mission/Vision Partial Yes Yes Yes Goals/Objectives Partial Yes Partial Yes Strategies/Approach No Yes Partial Yes Implementation Responsibility Assigned No Yes Yes Yes Tracking Tools No Yes Yes Yes Evaluation/Revision Performance Indicators Partial Yes Yes Yes Customer Feedback No Yes Yes Yes Public Recreation/ Water / Works Parks Power Strategic Analysis Trends Yes Yes Yes External Issues Yes Partial Yes Internal Issues Yes Partial Partial Decision Making Mission/Vision Yes Yes Yes Goals/Objectives Yes Yes Yes Strategies/Approach Yes Yes Yes Implementation Responsibility Assigned Yes Yes Yes Tracking Tools Yes Yes Yes Evaluation/Revision Performance Indicators Yes In Development Yes Customer Feedback Yes In Development Yes 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 281 Department of City Planning The Department of City Planning: • Prepares and maintains a general plan which is a comprehensive declaration of purposes, policies and programs for the development of the City including such elements as land use, conservation, circulation, service systems, highways, public works facilities, branch administrative centers, schools, recreational facilities, and airports. • Regulates the use of privately-owned property through zoning regulation specific plan ordinances and State laws and through the approval of proposed subdivisions. • Investigates and reports on applications for amendments to zoning regulations, and passes upon zone variance and conditional use applications. • Reviews the acquisition of land by the City for public use and the disposition of surplus land. • Conducts studies relating to environmental quality, and provides advice and assistance relative to environmental matters. The Department does not have any meaningful strategic plan in place. The Department has a mission statement. However it is not tied to any strategic issues, vision, or goals. The Department has developed budget goals. However, these are short-term (one- year) goals tied to the Department’s budget requests. The Department has also developed performance indicators that are part of LA-STAT. However, again these are not related to a strategic direction or priorities. The Department did provide a draft Strategic Management Plan for the Department developed in June of 1989 and intended to cover the period from 1989 to 1994. This plan began to establish some specific objectives for the Department, as well as specific strategies for achieving those objectives. However, there is no indication that the draft plan was ever finalized or implemented. 282 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Emergency Preparedness Department The Emergency Preparedness Department is responsible for planning for and preparing the City of Los Angeles for a disaster. The Department coordinates the interdepartmental preparedness, planning, training, and recovery activities of the Emergency Operations Organization, its divisions, and all City departments. Additionally, it serves as a liaison with other municipalities, state and federal agencies, and the private sector; and performs related public education and community preparedness activities. The Department is relatively small, with a total of 17 employees. The Emergency Preparedness Department provided two Departmental Strategic Plans, one developed in 1999, and one developed in 2004. Strategic Analysis The Emergency Preparedness Department identified key strategic issues as a foundation for their strategic plans. Many of these issues are identified through an annual staff strategic planning meeting. Being a small Department provides the capability to include the entire staff in such strategic discussion and planning meetings. Strategic Decision Making Both Emergency Preparedness strategic plans provide clear mission and vision statements, establish clear priorities through goals. Strategy Implementation Specific strategies are assigned to staff, and progress is monitored through reporting at regular staff meetings. Strategy Evaluation and Revision The Emergency Preparedness Department strategic plan establishes performance measures to evaluate progress toward the vision and goals. Additionally, progress is evaluated each year at the annual Department strategic planning meeting and adjustments made as needed. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 283 Department of General Services The Department of General Services provides services to support City government. This includes managing facilities, equipment, supplies, security, communication, maintenance, and other support services for City departments. The Department of General Services did not provide a specific Department-wide strategic plan. However, the Department has some of the key elements of strategic planning. Strategic Analysis The Department of General Services has developed substantial information on key trends that impact its ability to provide service. This information is compiled into monthly and quarterly Scorecard Review Reports. These reports include substantial operational information, as well as information on customer services and satisfaction. This information could provide a strong foundation for Departmental strategic planning. Strategic Decision Making The Department of General Services has established an overall mission statement. The Department has also developed a list of the Department’s visions for the future – to be implemented between 2005 and 2009. The Department has developed budget goals. However, these are short-term (one-year) goals tied to the Department’s budget requests. The Department has also developed what it terms goals for many of its functional areas. These goals are really more tasks or projects and do not reflect the priorities of the Department or functional units. The Department has also developed performance indicators that are part of LA-STAT. However, again these are not related to a strategic direction or priorities. Strategy Implementation The Department of General Services has a very extensive project tracking and reporting system, providing executive management with a good overview of progress being made on specific projects or tasks. This could provide a good foundation for tracking on progress toward Department priorities. Strategy Evaluation and Revision The Department conducts regular review meetings on the progress made on projects and tasks. Again, this could provide a strong foundation for evaluation and revision of strategic in support of goals. 284 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Information Technology Agency The Information Technology Agency is responsible for managing the City’s information technology. Core services provided include E-Services, Policy & Planning Services, Application Portfolio Management, Communications Infrastructure Services & Support, Agency Business Support, and End User Support Services. The Information Technology Agency has a long history of developing and implementing strategic plans for its operations – dating back to an Integrated Systems Plan developed in 1975. Currently, the agency is operating under the guidance of two complementary strategic planning documents. The strategic planning document currently being used by the Information Technology Agency is the Information Technology Strategic Plan for the City of Los Angeles. This plan, developed with the assistance of Gartner Consulting, focused on the information technology needs of the City as a whole. This plan includes a City-wide vision for information technology focused on how information technology can be used to meet City business needs. The plan outlines specific strategies for City-wide information technology governance, a City-wide data architecture, and strategies to meet specific City business needs. It is apparent that the Gartner Consulting methodology for developing the City-wide Information Technology Strategic Plan was to build the plan on the mission, vision, goals or priorities of the City as a whole. However, since no City-wide strategic plan exists, it was necessary to extrapolate the key strategic elements from such things as speeches made by the Mayor and budget documents. A 2003 strategic planning document, also currently being used by the Information Technology Agency, is referred to as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) Initiative. This document and approach is focused on changing the way the City manages and deploys information technology products and services. The focus of this effort is on how the Information Technology Agency provides service and making improvements in those services. Strategic Analysis Both strategic planning efforts used by the Information Technology Agency are based on comprehensive strategic analysis efforts. Key trends have been identified and analyzed, and the perspectives of key stakeholders and customers have been collected and analyzed using both focus groups and surveys. Best practices have been identified using both outside peers and industry experts such as Gartner. Alternative strategies have been developed and analyzed. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 285 Strategic Decision Making The Information Technology Agency’s strategic plans have established clear visions and missions, and priorities reflected in goals and objectives. They also establish a broad range of strategies for achieving the vision and goals. Additionally, the Information Technology Agency has made strong use of steering committees and similar decision making bodies to ensure there is both a broad perspective available when decisions are made, and that there is involvement and ownership by those impacted by decisions or responsible for implementation. Strategy Implementation The Information Technology Agency has used a project management approach for assigning and creating accountability for implementing strategies, with routine review of progress. Strategy Evaluation and Revision The Information Technology Agency has established a comprehensive set of performance indicators or metrics to monitor and evaluate progress. This includes both general customer surveys and point of service surveys to determine satisfaction with services provided. 286 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Department of Public Works The Department of Public Works, the City's third largest Department, is responsible for construction, renovation, and the operation of City facilities and infrastructure. The Department builds the City streets, installs its sewers, and constructs storm drains as well as public buildings and service facilities. The Department is comprised of five Bureaus: • Contract Administration • Engineering • Sanitation • Street Lighting • Street Services The Department of Public Works is overseen by the Board of Public Works. The Board is an executive team composed of five members, selected and appointed by the Mayor, and confirmed by City Council to five year terms. The Board of Public Works Commissioners serve as the General Managers of the Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works developed its current strategic plan beginning in 1997, publishing the plan in 1999. The intent of the plan was to “institutionalize a continuous planning process” and “proactively address key operational and organizational issues”. The plan included four key themes or guiding principles – customer service, infrastructure, employee involvement, and one Department. Strategic Analysis The Department of Public Work’s Strategic Plan was developed on a strong foundation of strategic analysis. Customers were identified, and satisfaction surveys were used to identify their perspectives. Meetings were held with the Mayor’s Office and City Council Offices to get feedback on services and performance of the Department. Focus meetings were also held with staff from other City Departments and agencies, and a special meeting was held with the Systems Technology staff to identify issues from their perspective. To obtain input from Department employees a Department-wide Employee Conference was held. Employee surveys were also distributed to Department employees, as well as a strategic planning newsletter. The Department identified key strategic issues – developing an Issues Framework. These issues were reviewed by the Strategic Planning Committee as well as the Strategic Planning Joint Labor-Management Committee. 2005 – 2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 287 Strategic Decision Making Through the strategic decision making process the Department developed a clear mission and vision. Strategic priorities were also developed – termed as strategic directions. Additionally, a broad range of specific strategies were developed and adopted. Strategy Implementation A key element in the implementation of the Department of Public Works’ Strategic Plan was for each of the Department’s bureaus to develop strategic plans to focus and direct individual bureau operations. Each bureau has developed such plans, and included both strategic focus and direction as well as specific tasks, with responsibility assigned. Strategy Evaluation and Revision The Department of Public Works established performance indicators. Initially these were included in a Monthly Status Report provided to Department of Public Works management. The report included high level, summarized information on financial, budgetary, personnel, and performance management Department-wide. Much of this information is now part of the LA-STAT system. The Department has also developed an annual report which summarizes the functions of each part of the Department, and outlines goals, achievements, and awards for the Department. The Department also initiated an extensive review of the Department Strategic Plan, and is in the process of updating it. 288 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
-
R13Page 263DPSS should develop and implement an enhanced welfare fraud detection and investigation training program for employees in the Welfare Fraud Prevention Section in conjunction with the Los Angeles County District Attorney and receive periodic State and local training. Personnel trained and employed by this program should be compensated commensurate with their increased responsibilities.
-
R14Page 264If the parent is working for cash or for relatives, the payer should sign, under penalty of perjury, certifying the hours, the amount paid, and the work accomplished. A cross check between child care provider services and IHSS services, requiring copies of tax returns, and random field checks at the employment location should be mandatory. DPSS should eliminate child care allowance if employment legitimacy cannot be determined.
-
R15Page 264Any paid child care in excess of ten hours per day for 5 days per week or 12 hours per day for 4 days per week should be monitored and verified on site by DPSS.
-
R16Page 264Trustline Registry Form background check must be approved and received by DPSS prior to any authorization for child care (including License-exempt and Trustline Exempt). DPSS should work with the State to expedite the Trustline Registry Form.
-
R17Page 264The definition of “own children” should be limited to only the biological or legally adopted children of the child care provider. A limit should be placed on the number of children cared for by one child care provider, based on the capacity of the provider and the site, to provide safe and healthy child care. 248 2005-2006 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury
-
R18Page 265Contract agency employees should be required by DPSS to undergo the same background checks required of DPSS employees in the same job category.