Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 1972-1973 • Agency Response

Final Report 1972*

Published: July 27, 2015 160 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Findings 11 findings

F1
"Development of Community Day Center Program Objectives Utilizing Behavior Modification Principles and Techniques": USC and Crenshaw Area Probation Office. Unfortunately, no appropriate space has been approved by the Los Angeles County Real Estate Management Department for this program. The young people who might have had a concrete opportunity for redirection of attitude and behavior are being denied this opportunity. The children lose. Society loses. Law enforcement and the criminal justice system workload increase. The sense of urgency is not understood. The Committee urges the Real Estate Department to weigh the immediate cost of renovating the South Vermont Street location against the ultimate dollar costs of recidivism. We suggest that the adage "penny wise and pound foolish" applies. The Committee spent considerable time in observing the USC-CDC program, learn- ing about the principles of Behavior Modification (which include student response to stimulus as well as teacher response to situations) and listening to speakers. We concluded that such an approach was of sufficient magnitude in preparing one to become an effective teacher, that a recommendation be sent to Dr. Wilson Riles, State Superintendent of Instruction. We recommended that a course in Behavior Modification principles become a pre- requisite to credentialing. Several invitations were issued to Dr. Riles requesting an exchange of his ideas on this subject. We are still hoping to have this exchange. We have charged that the institutions are failing the young person. The young person who is failing in regular school - attitudinally and academically, will be as much a failure after going through the criminal justice system and perhaps even more so. His environment remains just as conducive to perpetuating the conditions which initially pushed him into the criminal system. In reality, the negative attitudes have been reinforced in these institutions. If any hope for another chance has managed to survive, it certainly is quickly killed when the youth is returned to his community. The attitudes on the part of both the school administrators and teachers, together with the lack of curriculum articulation, are discouraging factors. Written programs and policies may read well. The Committee noticed a discrepancy between the written word and the deed. Frequently people in responsible positions are rationalizing to the point of believeable deception. The recipients of those non- existing services remain unbelievers. The experts admit and recognize that the efforts expended and the programs devised for the purpose of redirecting the youth are ineffective. Yet, policy makers continue to spend money in the same proportions. In the September 13, 1972 edition of the Los Angeles Times, an article appeared regarding the cost of reform schools. Cali- fornia reported a figure of $7,000 annual costs per youth. Harvard currently lists a yearly cost of $5,395, including tuition, room and board and personal expenses. This fact, coupled with the high recidivism statistics, should be sufficient incentive to explore other avenues. The County of Los Angeles is spending 62 million dollars involving 5,000 positions in our protective care program; 16 million dollars with 787 positions for placement care and only 9 million dollars and 511 positions for delinquency prevention pro- grams. Everyone benefits more by spending the money in the areas which will keep most young people out of the criminal justice system. It would be wiser to convert our archaic system into a viable one - one which provides the full range of services that children need to become decent and law-abiding citizens. There should be a reallocation of funds. Monetary support should be placed in areas where there is a better chance for success. The youth should be given the opportunity to get a sound education - be given a fair chance not to be channeled into the criminal justice system. In a letter dated September 20, 1972, the Grand Jury requested the Board of Super- visors to direct the Chief Administrative Officer and the County Superintendent of Schools to convene a task force to investigate, specifically for this purpose, ways and areas of inter-agency, intra-community resources cooperation and coordination. (See for text of original communication.) On October 11, the Chairman unexpectedly had the opportunity to informally discuss with Supervisors Debs and Dorn the concept and the basis for this recom- mendation. They expressed support of the concept and urged Chief Administrative Officer Arthur G. Will to explore this matter more thoroughly. The following day, at a previously scheduled meeting, the Foreman and the Chairman met with CAO Arthur G. Will and Vincent Terry, Liaison official from the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. The results of that productive meeting were two-fold: The CAO will convene a meeting with County Superintendent of Schools
F2
December) a meeting of a few identified school districts' administrators and related private/public agencies for the purpose of: (a) exploring ways of community implementation of the recommendations, and (b) exploring methods of greater cooperation and coordination. In 1970, Charles E. Silberman authored the book, "Crisis in the Classroom." This was the result of a three-year survey of public education in our country. In it he noted that the formal classroom environment in most schools is a detriment to education. The present system creates discipline problems rather than control. The report recommended that public education reorder itself along more informal lines, freeing the student to pursue his own interests. It further stated that this is possible within the present system if teachers and administrators receive adequate support and encouragement to make learning more individualized. This is only one of many books advocating similar changes. When the decrease in the population in probation camps (attributed to the State Subsidy Program), it appears to the Committee that individualized teaching is feas- ible, practical and absolutely essential. We recommend that this method be imple- mented immediately by incorporation of the concept of learning centers. We commend the attempts made by the County Superintendent of Schools to rectify an almost intolerable situation. The Superintendent established the Program Definition Committee consisting of dedicated personnel who recognize the student's needs. This Committee has made pertinent and realistic recommendations.2 These
F3
Special Schools and the regular public schools. That better articulation of curricula between the Special Schools and
F4
regular public schools be established. That every effort be expended by all concerned in assisting the youth
F5
to make a more effective transition back into regular public school. That the Probation Department, the County Superintendent of
F6
Schools and all school administrators immediately notify all personnel that those who cannot adjust to the commitment of helping to break the delinquency cycle will be counseled out of the system. That a policy be established by all concerned that in matters affecting
F7
the juvenile that primary consideration be given to the best interests of the juvenile. Other considerations must be secondary. That the Board of Supervisors direct that a Task Force be formed
F8
immediately to address itself to the assignment of creating the optimum climate for development of a sound educational environ- ment for children.
F9
That a course in Behavior Modification principles be a prerequisite to credentialing.
F10
That the probation officers act as a teaching aides in Special Schools classes where needed.
F11
That the County Superintendent of Schools aggressively support and implement The Program Definition Committee's recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Marie Y. Shibuya, Chairman Beverly Logan, Secretary Bernice Lofton Walter Maier Ernest Paik George M. Peacock Murray H. Strasburg Charles R. Wheeler ADDENDUM TO THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORT On November 13, 1972, the Chief Administrative Officer convened a meeting (pursuant to a Board directive, September 26) with the following in attendance: County Superintendent of Schools Richard Clowes Asst. Supt. Business and Financial Services Richard Horne Asst. Supt. Administration of School Operations Thomas Ross Chief Probation Officer Kenneth Kirkpatrick Director, Department of Health Services Liston Witherill Foreman, 1972 County Grand Jury Laurence T. Greiner Chairman, Education Committee Marie Shibuya Education Committee Bernice Lofton Education Committee Beverly Logan Education Committee Walter Maier Education Committee Ernest Paik Education Committee George M. Peacock Education Committee Murray H. Strasburg Education Committee Charles R. Wheeler Liaison, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Vincent Terry The purpose of the meeting was to: (a) discuss the deficiencies in the County's educational system which were identified in the Grand Jury's report and (b) develop approaches to solutions to these problems. After a very fruitful discussion, it was determined that a working committee be formed. This committee would be composed of representatives from County Schools Office, Probation, Health Services, specific school districts within the County and the Chairman of the Education Committee. The charge to this committee is to seek ways in which to develop cooperative efforts to redirect the educational system (Probation facilities, Special Schools and regular public schools) so that meaningful inroads can be made into the juvenile problem. A report will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors within a month with sug- gested plans. - Comments - - PABLO A. CARTAGENA ROBERT G. METZNER EARLE Y. SULLIVAN MICHAEL J. DILLON LESLIE E. KELLY GLORIA L. EINSMANN GEORGE A. PECK, JR. MURRAY H. STRASBURG Chairman THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORT It is not only time for the romance between the American public and the motor car to be legitimized or at least controlled, it is possibly too late. Very soon that romance must develop into a suicide pact. At the present rate of increasing perform- ance of the majority of production cars and the increase in octane rating of regular gasoline from seventy to ninety-two during the past thirty years, soon all cars will have to be potential "Indy" winners just to compete on the market. Emissions and performance are in a direct relation; the higher the performance the higher the emissions. In urban areas the major, and the only uncontrolled, sources of air pollution are motor vehicles. Within this County, stationary sources of air pollution have been reduced to a very commendable minimum, these sources being under County control. The major pollutor, the motor vehicle, is slightly controlled by changing standards set at state and federal levels of government. Very commendable emission standards set for 1975 possibly may be achieved, but probably will be negated shortly there- after by the geometric increase in County population and the requirement for trans- porting that population. The solution to this problem will be disruptive to the economic picture and to personal preferences. It will be expensive and extremely difficult to achieve but must be undertaken immediately. It may already be too late. Previous Grand Juries have attacked the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District as the culprit in the smog problem. It is our feeling that they have missed the point. The APCD certainly does not produce smog, they merely monitor it. That portion of emissions over which they have authority is well under control. Previous attacks on the APCD have been annual, repetitive and extremely critical. They seem to have missed another point. The APCD and the Hearing Board are, from our observation, more interested in obtaining rapid compliance with their regulations (and are very successful in that aim) than in instituting long, expensive and sometimes fruitless legal proceedings. However, when the APCD had to resort to action by their Enforcement Branch, it has a magnificent conviction rate of over 97% in the more than 1200 cases prosecuted in 1971. Early this year, the Coalition for Clean Air quoted the recommendations of the 1971 Grand Jury as their main allegations against the APCD. These charges were referred to the State Air Resources Board. This Committee felt that further investi- gation of the APCD while the Air Resources Board Commission was hearing those charges would be unnecessary harassment. This Committee also feels that as of late October the Air Resources Board Commission is being extremely deliberate in arriv- ing at its final conclusions. This Committee has noted and commends the many steps toward a better environ- ment within the County, for instance, the City of Long Beach for, its continuing program of improvement of the water quality of the harbor, its positive approach to possible oil pollution from off-shore drilling sites, its use of reclaimed water from the Sanitation District and the conversion of its fleet vehicles to natural gas. We also commend the City of Los Angeles for the considerable improvement of water quality within its harbor area. The County also should be complimented for maintaining the purity of the waters within Marina del Rey. This Committee has been impressed by the expertise and competence of the higher level officials of the County and the City of Los Angeles in the Departments of Sanitation and Harbors. Los Angeles County seems to be doing very well in maintain- ing water quality with the exception of the difficulties at the Terminal Island Outfall. That condition will be corrected when facilities now under construction are com- pleted. The sanitation districts are under expert and competent direction. They have, under current legislation and appropriations, more funding than they can expend with present construction and labor restrictions. We believe that the APCD accomplishes more toward the goal of restricting emissions from stationary sources by encouraging compliance with their regulations (through the APCD Hearing Board) than they would be able to through court action. That they be given adequate funds to enlist public WE RECOMMEND: support by showing their record of accomplishment. The County of Los Angeles is particularly well endowed with academic institutions of note. Many have branches, departments, or separate facilities completely devoted to the study of environmental problems. That the County utilize these experts to the fullest WE RECOMMEND: extent possible, including grants of financial support for studies of County environmental problems. That the Board of Supervisors create the position of WE RECOMMEND: and appoint an Ombudsman for Environmental Matters, to: Advise the Board of Supervisors as to questions and companies from (a) the residents of the County (b) Act as a liaison among the Board, Department Chiefs and experts in their fields from various university or college faculties Be nominated by the Environmental Faculties of UCLA, USC and (c) Cal Tech. Final selection to be made by the Board of Supervisors from those nominees. It must be accepted that the major contributor to our smog problem is the internal combustion engine. In the foreseeable future no practical alternative to the over use of single passenger vehicles exists. WE URGENTLY RECOMMEND: That the Board of Supervisors take immediate action to implement a viable, expandable Mass Transit System not dependent on passenger revenues for its operation and expansion. Mass transit within fifteen years is mandatory for the County of Los Angeles. By that time population growth, even if restricted, will negate any reduction made possible by improved emission standards because the number of vehicles required to move the population will be increased. Any alternatives for control, i.e., gas rationing, enforced car pools, smog production taxes or exorbitant parking fees, would be extremely unpopular and probably unenforceable. Finally, That the Board of Supervisors initiate a study of WE RECOMMEND: the feasibility of concentrating all electric power plants (preferably atomic power plants) for the Southern California area on a suitable Channel Island. Such a location is beyond the active earthquake area and is remote enough to minimize the effects of any nuclear accident. Respectfully submitted, George A. Peck, Jr., Chairman William J. Braddock Pablo A. Cartagena Michael J. Dillon Gloria L. Einsmann Leslie E. Kelly Robert G. Metzner Murray H. Strasburg Earle Y. Sullivan and an owner of Section of the least and the same The second - The state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of t

Recommendations 19

* 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.