Post-Release Inmate Fees

Extent of Family Counseling Participation During Camp Detention One of the fundamental points of Probation’s LA Model is the inclusion of “families as partners in the treatment and aftercare process.”55 It is not clear as to the types and levels of family involvement assumed or expected in coming up with the LA Model. During this investigation, the Committee members received Probation data indicating that nearly two out of three young men and three out of four young women had history with DCFS prior to entering camp.56 Members of the CGJ learned during our juvenile camp inspections that DMH identified needs and provided family counseling to youth and parent/guardian during detention at camp. During observations of Transitional MDTs, the Committee members noted a DMH representative making referrals in the community to continue family counseling. During one of the Home Visits, a DMH representative joined us and offered family counseling to family members. Members of this Committee requested a DMH representative to provide data to determine the extent of participation in family therapy by the youths and their families as compared to the participation level recommended by DMH clinicians. We needed the total possible number of family therapy sessions as recommended by DMH and the actual number of sessions attended by families. We were unable to receive these data. Instead, a DMH representative reviewed the number of instances of DMH-provided transportation requests for in-person family therapy participation. DMH representative also collected the data from several camps for family members who provided their own transportation to attend family therapy sessions. Based on these two groups, DMH provided the total monthly in-person family therapy participant numbers. We understood that DMH also allowed call-in participation for family therapy sessions but were informed that DMH did not currently track the number of call-in participants. The Committee members were unable to obtain the total possible number of family therapy sessions for the group; however, a DMH representative reviewed a random sample of MDTs from the “East Camps” named in Table 11 below and determined that approximately 38% of the MDTs recommended family therapy after the youth’s exit from camp. We also understand that the number of family sessions recommended also varies for each youth. Since the total number of recommended sessions could not be determined, we could not get an accurate percentage of youth and family counseling participation levels. The following table provides the (i) average monthly population provided by Probation and (ii) the total family sessions attended in person for each month through September provided by DMH, for the three East Camps named below. 55 See footnote 28. 56 See Table 4 above. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 36 Table 11 Average Population and In-Person Family Counseling Sessions for East Camps For January through September 2018 2018 Camp Afflerbaugh Camp Paige Camp Rockey In-Person In-Person In-Person Average Average Average Month Family Family Family Population Population Population Sessions Sessions Sessions January 52 3 38 1 46 23 February 48 5 36 3 46 14 March 38 7 31 4 48 16 April 34 7 34 4 47 17 May 29 3 32 5 44 19 June 27 3 28 2 44 13 July 29 6 27 5 39 8 August 27 4 25 4 39 12 September 26 3 27 9 40 8 Source: Probation and DMH. Number of “In-Person Sessions” includes only sessions with youths whose family members either used the DMH-provided transportation or provided their own transportation for these visits. Since family members could also call in for these sessions, the numbers noted in the preceding table should not be taken as the total number of youths involved in family sessions for the months noted. DMH-recommended frequency for family therapy is based on a number of variables including but not limited to the treatment plan, availability of families, youth desired participation, and the availability of clinicians. Also, note that a small sampling of MDTs found 38% of youth were recommended for family counseling. Even with these missing components for a more accurate comparison basis, the information provided by a DMH representative notes a stark lack of family counseling participation for youth during camp detention. The Committee members also learned that family therapy for camp-detained youth could only be done jointly with the youth and his family member due to billing limitations and insurance requirements. Family members could participate in person or by calling in but DMH did not offer separate counseling sessions with a clinician in the community for family members to be better accommodated for counseling. As we have stated before, juvenile camps are located in the outskirts of the County. Based on the recent population data, approximately 40% of the camp youth are from the Supervisor District 2. We also understand that significant numbers of the youth were released back to parents and guardians. During our Home Visits, we saw that the Centinela Field POs brought bags of food to the families. Simply put, these were not families of much means. The parents had already taken many days off work to attend various required sessions, including MDTs, court hearings, and other required appearances. We cannot imagine how much more time could be taken off to attend family therapy sessions at camp or to call in for these sessions. These difficulties in scheduling and 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 37 limited time for both the family members and the clinicians do not diminish the need for family therapy. To expect attendance for family counseling sessions held at camps from the southern region of the County, particularly for those family members who do not have the flexibility with work for time-off, is not reasonable. Unless the separate family counseling sessions for family members in the community cannot be as clinically effective, DMH should consider allowing these family members to attend separate family counseling sessions in the community to better equip the family for eventual reunification with the youth. Not affording this flexibility undermines the extensive work already being done at juvenile camps. A DMH representative informed us that DMH clinicians typically work a 4/40 work schedule that allows each person to work four days per week to complete a week’s work schedule and these hours need to include group therapy, individual sessions, required MDTs, and family sessions. There was a clinician from DMH participating in each of the Transitional MDTs we observed. DMH clinicians also provide court required counseling sessions, such as substance abuse or anger management counseling, as well as individual sessions. DMH clinicians interviewed stated that they worked at more than one site and split their work week between different facilities. The Committee members learned that the clinicians use their personal cars for transportation without reimbursement for mileage. This Committee focused on DMH work with family counseling for several reasons. A significant portion of youth released from camps are placed back home for reentry and reintegration in the community. Before being released from camp, the parent or the guardian has had numerous days off from work to make various appearances. We suspect that many of these families experienced financial hardship from work absences. Given that many of the youth are also given court mandated counseling for substance abuse and anger management, we also assume that the family life prior to entering camps involved significant tensions, to say the least. During each Home Visit, we noted that there were other siblings in the family. We only observed five families through our Home Visits. But even so, given the background, this Civil Grand Jury believes that it is not unreasonable to assume that many of the parents or guardians need help so that better family dynamics can be introduced in the home after the youth’s exit from camp. In fact, it may not be inaccurate to suggest that some of the families are at a breaking point. This Civil Grand Jury believes that DMH should consider whether separate family counseling in the community can begin and also work through the billing and/or insurance issues as necessary. DMH operates “Juvenile Justice – Transitional Outpatient Treatment Services” (TOTS) clinics in five locations in the County. As for sites to be used for conducting these sessions, DMH should begin with existing sites, such as the TOTS clinics and even the Hub Clinics, where expanding family services could be considered to include enhanced DMH services. County Board of Supervisors has already approved combined service centers. For example, a Family Justice Center at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical Campus has been proposed. DMH, DHS, and Probation should consider if the family members of camp youth could be helped with 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 38 a coordinated family counseling program for families of dual status youth. For the families who reside in Supervisor District 2, such services at this new Family Justice Center could provide combined services to strengthen families. In addition, there is already a Family Support Center in Van Nuys that houses a DMH TOTS clinic, where DMH, DCFS, and other support services are provided in a single building. There is no Hub Clinic at this site but DHS maintains an ambulatory clinic in the adjacent building. This site should also be considered for providing community based intensive coordinated family counseling for family members of dual status youth so as to better prepare family reunification with camp youth after camp exit. Without sufficient preparation to assist these family members to interact positively, the time at camp for the detained youth is merely a break from the negative or toxic family interactions. The data provided in Table 11 are not conclusive but are at least clear enough to begin the discussion to assess whether adequate support is being given to the family to increase the level of family counseling sessions for camp youth and his family. Findings: 4.1 Our data from DMH include only in-person family sessions. Although there may be those calling in to join family sessions with camp youth, this Civil Grand Jury was unable to obtain the data for these call-in sessions. 4.2 Family sessions are done only as joint sessions with the youth and family member (whether in person or by phone). We also understand that the reasons for joint sessions may be due to billing or insurance related requirements. 4.3 DMH camp clinicians work at more than one site, addressing and attending many required meetings and providing court-mandated counseling. Given the time needed to tend to required and mandated work, DMH management needs to assess the adequacy of staffing at camps to provide other services, such as family counseling sessions. 4.4 DMH clinicians use personal vehicles to work at multiple sites each week. 4.5 If separate family counseling sessions are clinically effective, these separate family sessions should be added in locations that already provide family services. 4.6 There is a Family Support Center in Van Nuys that houses a DMH TOTS clinic, along with Probation, DMH, DCFS, and other support services in a single building. Plans for Family Justice Center at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical Campus are under consideration. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 39 4.7 Significant numbers of youth entering camps in 2018 were found to have DCFS history. But the DMH data indicate a low level of participation in family counseling provided at camps. It is not clear to this Civil Grand Jury as to the level of family participation assumed as one of the key elements of the LA Model.

DMH TOTS Clinics and Medi-Cal Coverage Reinstatement DMH implemented the “Juvenile Justice – Transitional Outpatient Treatment Services” so that youth who have been prescribed psychotropic medication(s) during camp detention can continue to receive care immediately after release from County’s juvenile camps.57 Known as “TOTS,” this began as a pilot program approximately a year ago to continue providing timely professional mental health services to youth exiting camps. Currently, these services have been expanded to all youth exiting juvenile camps and juvenile halls. The TOTS program exists to provide mental healthcare needs so that medication, crisis management, and follow-up psychiatric care can continue immediately after release from juvenile camps. TOTS serves as a bridge between the services received while at camp and to continue the services once back in the community and works to transition the youth until long- term “community linkages” are in place for camp-released youths.58 As a result of TOTS clinics, youth and his parent or guardian are afforded a transition time to reinstate coverage under Medi- Cal before connections with mental health services in the community can start. TOTS services are provided without regard to the youth’s insurance status and are funded with the County’s general fund. According to a TOTS clinician we interviewed, access to TOTS services ranges from no more than once or twice after camp release, to some youth who continue receiving services for up to three or four months. Currently, TOTS services are provided at five Probation Offices. DMH clinicians are available at four sites once a week and one day a month at the fifth site. To continue mental health services in the community, some of the youth have private insurance coverage but many camp youth rely on Medi-Cal benefits. Under existing Medi-Cal eligibility rules, Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) suspends Medi-Cal benefits when a youth enters juvenile camp. The Committee members learned that Probation coordinates camp detention information with DPSS. After more than 12 months stay at a County juvenile camp, DPSS terminates Medi-Cal benefits for the youth. If a youth is released prior to the 12-month period, then the benefits can be reinstated. For camp-released youths under 18 years of age and returning to family, DPSS notifies the parents to contact DPSS to reinstate Medi-Cal benefits. Parents are also reminded during Transitional MDTs to reinstate Medi-Cal benefits for the youth. To reinstate Medi-Cal benefits, the youth must actually be home to receive benefits. For some of the youths who will need to continue counseling or who take psychotropic medicine, timely Medi-Cal reinstatement is critical to continue the needed mental health services in the community. As described above, DMH TOTS clinics provide immediate service after camp exit, but Medi-Cal reinstatement is a necessary step for most camp-released youth to continue mental health services in the community. 57 See information at http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/dmh/1030469_TOTSFinalizedPamphletTOTS-FINALCOPY11_07_17.pdf (accessed February 5, 2019). 58 Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 41 For youth over 18 who are listed as a dependent on the parents’ income tax return, parents’ financial information is used to determine Medi-Cal eligibility. For youths over 18 who are independent and not included on the parents’ income tax return, their Medi-Cal eligibility is based on their own financial situation, and DPSS requires redetermination procedures to be completed. For youths between 12 to 19 years old, DPSS may enroll them in the “Minor-Consent Medi-Cal Program” that allows for month-to-month benefits to be provided for a limited range of benefits, such as mental health services, sexually-transmitted diseases needs or pregnancy related services, without the traditional Medi-Cal identification. This program allows minors to be enrolled without parental involvement. For youths 18 to 26 years old and who were in foster care or group home “placements,” DPSS states that the group is automatically eligible for Medi-Cal benefits. Once released from placement, such “Former Foster Care” youths between 18 and 26 are automatically eligible to continue on Medi-Cal without the need for submitting annual eligibility forms. “Former Foster Care” group includes those released from County juvenile camps. DPSS found that many camp-released youth do not stay in one place, ending up with multiple addresses for contact. For such youth, notices regarding Medi-Cal eligibility can be lost, resulting in lost coverage or delays in benefit reinstatement process. For youth without a stable home address, DPSS allows a “District of Residence” to be set up so that notification and mail can be received at a DPSS District Office for Medi-Cal benefits. In addition, DPSS can issue Medi-Cal emergency cards for prompt medical services. DPSS sends eligibility documents approximately two months before the person turns 26 years old. At that time, if at the age of 26 the former foster youth does not qualify for Medi-Cal, then insurance coverage is accessed under the Affordable Care Act. DPSS allows Medi-Cal applications to be initiated online under the DPSS “Your Benefits Now” portal. Former foster care youths could also be eligible for other benefits provided by DPSS beyond medical coverage under Medi- Cal but these benefits are not described in this report. During our interview with a DPSS representative, the Committee members learned that DPSS works with the Sheriff’s Department and takes Medi-Cal applications at Twin Towers to qualify detainees for benefits. Benefits are held in suspension until the detainee is released from jail. DPSS already suspends youth’s Medi-Cal benefits when he begins camp detention. For the youth whose benefits were suspended, there should be a streamlined process to reinstate Medi-Cal coverage. On each Transitional MDT, there were reminders to the parent to make appointments for Medi-Cal reinstatement. If benefits were suspended based on notification from Probation, this Civil Grand Jury believes that DPSS should develop a streamlined reinstatement process where a notice from Probation, after the youth checks in with his Field PO, could be used to streamline the reinstatement process. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 42 There is a significant population of camp youth who receive DMH services during camp detention. For some of the population, it is critical to be able to continue receiving these services in the community. The Civil Grand Jury also realizes that there may be federal or State requirements that prohibit DPSS from streamlining the reinstatement process. Unless that is the case, DPSS should streamline the Medi-Cal reinstatement procedures through Probation notifying DPSS. Findings: 5.1 Probation coordinates with DPSS and sends information so that camp-detained youth’s Medi-Cal coverage is suspended during detention. To reinstate his Medi-Cal benefits, however, the parent or guardian must make an in-person appointment at DPSS to reinstate Medi-Cal coverage.

Residential Vocational Training Programs with Priority for Probation Youth On December 4, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved Probation’s request to begin a residential vocational training program at a former juvenile camp.59 The Camp David Gonzales Residential Vocational Training Facility Pilot Project (Gonzales Program) for Transitional Aged Youth is for young men between the ages of 18 and 25 with an educational experience that prepares them for gainful employment and independent living.60 During training, full board and housing will be provided to participants. Current budget includes funding for a three-year program with estimated 330 participants in five successive six-month phases. The program is to offer a multi-core craft curriculum that will lead to an apprenticeship prep certificate required by building trades to enter the major joint apprenticeship opportunities. The program will allow the participants to complete the OSHA 30 certificate, hand tools training, building-trades awareness for the 14 trades, as well as preparing the participants with background training to assist them in oral interviews for open positions.61 The program is also “anchored with support to address participants’ housing challenges, as well as increased access to other pro-social support such as 59 County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 37, December 4, 2018, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1048506_120418.pdf, 36. 60 Letter from Chief Probation Officer, dated October 2, 2018, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/122965.pdf (accessed February 6, 2019), 11, and cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 7, May 15, 2018. 61 County Board of Supervisors, Meeting Transcript from December 4, 2018, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/transcripts/1048429_120418.pdf (accessed February 6, 2019), 102. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 43 restorative justice learning, conflict management, family reunification, parenting, and mentoring for sustained behavioral change and personal growth.”62 Upon completion of this program, the County is expected to employ some of the graduates of this program.63 Probation coordinated the implementation of this program through multiple funding sources, including philanthropic, academic, and non-profit sector participants. During one of the Home Visits, the Field PO shared that he was looking forward to enrolling his supervised youth in the Gonzales Program. There was a question as to whether successful completion guaranteed a job for the youth. Probation needs to continue its great work so that successful completion of the Gonzales Program leads to guaranteed job placements. On February 19, 2019, the County Board of Supervisors considered and authorized the Chief Executive Officer to enter into development agreements to fund the operation of a 400 student public charter college-preparatory boarding school in the 8400 and 8500 blocks of South Vermont Avenue, City of Los Angeles (South Vermont Avenue Project). The South Vermont Avenue Project is to prepare youth “for college and careers within the transportation infrastructure and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics fields.”64 The operation of this charter school is to be jointly funded by the County and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. While prioritizing foster and probation youth, the program is to prepare the County youth for “careers and college pathways in the transportation and infrastructure industry by teaching them transferrable industry skills.”65 This project is still in the planning and budgeting phase but the current expectation is for the project to begin operating in 2021-2022. In addition to these two residential vocational training programs, this Civil Grand Jury believes that Probation should consider restarting the fire-camp program previously operated at Camp Paige and Camp Rockey. Members of Detention Committee inspected the facility and learned of the fire camp programs previously operated at the two camps. When discussing this program with Probation representatives, the Committee members learned that the program required three days of fire training and two days of schooling and violated the school hour requirements for participants. In light of increasing forest fires in recent years, Probation should consider re- starting this as a residential vocational program for young men over the age of 18 with priority enrollment for Probation youth. As part of the program, those who have not completed high school should be given the opportunity to earn their high school diploma or its equivalent on site. 62 Attachment I to the Letter from the Chief Probation Officer, dated October 2, 2018, 1, available from the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 7, May 15, 2018. 63 County Board of Supervisors, Meeting Transcript from December 4, 2018, 97. 64 County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 20, February 19, 2019, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1052232_021919.pdf (accessed March 7, 2019), 27. 65 Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 44 When members of the Detention Committee inspected Camp Scott, we were impressed with the work of the Camp POs and others but we noted the lack of vocational training programs for the young women. At least in 2018, the young women entering camps had higher DCFS history than the young men. As part of the initial assessment at juvenile halls, young women are screened for signs of commercial sexual exploitation. Speaking with Camp POs, the Committee members learned that they were on alert for signs of recruiting that could occur even during camp detention. Given these risks for young women in camp detention, Probation needs to identify and implement a similar residential vocational training program for young women in the County. During our observation of Centinela Field POs in MDTs and Home Visits, the Committee members noted that certain CBO names came up consistently. One such CBO was Playa Vista Job Opportunities and Business Service (PVJOBS), a non-profit organization founded in 1998 to fulfill a Los Angeles City Council mandate to provide construction job training opportunities for the heavily disadvantaged residents in the City of Los Angeles. PVJOBS coordinated the hiring of the at-risk construction workforce for the development of the Playa Vista area of the City of Los Angeles. PVJOBS’ jobs coordinator experience has expanded and its strategic workforce development plan brings together employers, training providers, community-based organizations, and labor unions to provide on-the-job training opportunities for local at-risk residents in the City of Los Angeles. To date, PVJOBS made over 8,000 placements in the construction trades and related fields. In 2011, a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor established PVJOBS Right Turn to improve the long-term labor market prospects of juvenile and young adult offenders from high poverty and high crime communities in Central and Eastern Los Angeles. PVJOBS initially worked with LACOE to reach the camp youth in this program. PVJOBS outreach has expanded to working with Field POs, including the Centinela Field POs. PVJOBS focuses on the idea of restorative justice and technical training for the youth, as well as providing mentoring for the participants. Each participant is enrolled for two years in the Right Turn program. PVJOBS shares its site with an Independent Study Charter School so that the participants of the Right Turn program can finish high school with a flexible schedule. Current funding phase will allow 120 participants to enroll and participate in the program for two years. Based on available information from California Child Welfare Indicators Project’s website for 2016-17 through the third quarter of 2018-19, members of this Committee prepared the following summary of employment information for Probation and child welfare/DCFS youth noted for the County. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 45 Table 12 Outcomes of Youth Exiting Probation and DCFS Placement at Age 18 or Older PROBATION DCFS Quarter Known Completed Obtained Known Completed Obtained Whereabouts High School Employment Whereabouts High School Employment During or Equivalent During of Equivalent Quarter Quarter 2018-Q3 29 14 3 116 76 60 2018-Q2 43 17 5 163 113 92 2018-Q1 47 16 7 205 152 123 2017-Q4 45 25 5 210 168 129 2017-Q3 37 18 5 224 158 126 2017-Q2 48 26 20 253 181 132 2017-Q1 21 10 8 270 182 145 2016-Q4 4 1 1 255 177 148 2016-Q3* 34 7 4 228 153 108 2016-Q2* 34 7 4 219 159 122 2016-Q1 35 7 2 210 150 88 Source: California Child Welfare Indicators Project. http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/CDSS_8A.aspx. *We note that the same data appeared for the two months and considered that they may not be accurate. But the information is included as we found them in the source. We did not follow up on the parameters of this data collection. As a result, we assumed that the Probation youth is broader than only accounting for camp-detained youth. We also assume that the data is based on self-identification by youth. Since the information is based on youth with known whereabouts, the data do not provide an accurate or complete picture of the youths involved with Probation or DCFS. Even with these limiting factors, the results are stark. We have prepared the above information for Probation and DCFS youth to show the significant difference in the high school graduation or equivalent levels and the employment data for these two groups. We prepared this summary to demonstrate that data collection platforms already exist and that County departments should identify these existing data collection platforms and gain access to the collected data. Given the stark reality of employment status for Probation-involved youth, Probation should continue to lead and implement vocational programs that lead to guaranteed jobs upon successful program completion. As part of the program requirement, this Civil Grand Jury believes that each participant should be required to finish high school. In addition, each vocational training program should include an initial job guarantee as an incentive to complete the program and move toward employment and successful reentry back to community. Finally, each participant should be given a stipend so that upon completion, sufficient funds are available so that he can pay the necessary security deposit and first month’s rent to start on the new path. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 46 Findings: 6.1 It was not clear if the successful completion of the Gonzales Program would lead to job placement for the participants. 6.2 Probation has not stated whether it will track the outcome of participants who successfully complete the Gonzales Program. 6.3 The South Vermont Avenue Project is one of the recently approved vocational training programs appropriate for Probation-involved youth. 6.4 The County Board of Supervisors recently approved or considered two residential vocational programs for Probation youth. A fire camp was operated by Probation at Camp Paige and Camp Rockey in the past. Those fire-camp programs offered a 48- week program, consisting of three days of training and two days of schooling each week. 6.5 Camp Scott is the only camp in the County for young women and does not provide any vocational training onsite. They enter the camp with high levels of DCFS history and we learned that they are at high risk for becoming involved in commercial sexual exploitation. 6.6 The data provided in Table 12 noted a low completion rate of high school education among Probation youth. 6.7 The Gonzales Program will provide room and board during the vocational training period. There is no stipend provided for this training. If funding for this stipend can be found, a process should be implemented so that at the very least any Probation youth can access these funds at the end of the program to assist him transitioning back to community.

Data Collection and Availability Based on our review of publicly available reports and studies related to Probation, the Committee members were made aware of computer system and data extraction difficulties within County departments. During this investigation, the Committee members requested data and information from several County departments. Typically, upon receipt and review of initial set of information, there were follow-up requests and additional questions to clarify the information we received. We had no difficulty receiving general statistical information from our sources. When the Committee members requested general information such as the historical population in Probation camps, this information was provided to us during the interview. Once our requests became more specific, we noted that the data needed to be compiled and it took some time to receive this information. In instances where the data included in this report required an explanation of how the information was compiled by our source, an explanation is provided before or after each table. There is usually a statement to indicate the limitations of the provided information to highlight how the information was derived. During background research, publicly available reports highlighted the difficulties in extracting data from County departments, including Probation. Set forth below is a sample of such statements in studies and reports: • Probation extracted data used to compute outcome measures from its databases. …Data for supplemental outcomes are sometimes more problematic because Probation’s data are only as good as the information obtained from community-based organization service providers, schools, and other county government departments (e.g., Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health). …Data for some programs were relatively complete. In other programs, only a small fraction of program participants had data available for 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 48 supplementary measures, calling into question the appropriateness of any findings based on such a small subsample.66 • Probation uses 46 different data systems to manage clients, staff, contracted providers, and a range of other information. Of these 46 systems, 25 are operated by Probation and 21 are systems operated by other County Departments or vendors, but accessed by Probation. Many of these systems are electronic document systems, not databases from which data can be extracted. Across data systems, there is a limited ability to link data and limited data sharing with other County departments, which reduces data utility and creates a number of challenges across all levels of Probation staff.67 • In some cases, interagency data sharing has been stalled due to extremely restrictive interpretations of the confidentiality provisions within federal statutes and regulations. Other California counties share data much more freely and effectively across agencies.68 • In addition to the lack of extractable data and linked data, the Probation Department’s outdated data systems and insufficient resource for IT staff, staff training, and systems upgrades impede the Department’s ability to make data-driven decisions. In particular, the Department has a limited capacity to track client outcomes. The absence of outcome data prevents the Department from comprehensively evaluating the effectiveness of its programs, making it difficult to ascertain whether or not programs are working.69 • Several stakeholders indicate that a better case management data system (or more consistent use of such systems) is needed, and would enable some automation and save time on reports. Many individuals noted that the current data situation makes it difficult for sharing of data among agencies serving the same population (mental health, child welfare, etc.). There is a general desire to see an increased use of electronic data systems, particularly to track outcomes and to automate reports.70 In addition to County departments, the Committee members also relied on data collected by a State agency, as well as a non-profit organization for some of the information included in this report. While requesting County-specific information from JBAY, we learned that JBAY also uses information compiled by the California Department of Social Services through the California Child Welfare Indicators Project. We learned that JBAY prepares its Annual Reports regarding two transition housing programs with the data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project and JBAY’s information collected through two different tracking systems. 66 Fain, xxvii. 67 LA Probation Governance Study – 120 Day Status Report, 17. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid, 23. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 49 The Committee members made requests to JBAY for County-specific information used in preparing its most recent Annual Report. In that process, we learned that some of the County’s service providers are not fully entering the necessary data into the JBAY’s tracking system for the THP-Plus program. Incomplete data entered into the JBAY’s THP-Plus tracking system causes the entire data to be skewed and not useful. As for the THP+FC program, we were informed by JBAY that the County service providers in the THP+FC program are prohibited from utilizing JBAY’s THP+FC tracking system. We learned that this prohibition is due to the County Counsel’s legal position that the data regarding THP+FC participating youth cannot be entered into the JBAY’s tracking system. As a result of the County Counsel’s legal position, only the incomplete data regarding THP-Plus service providers are available for the County. The County Counsel should reconsider the basis for prohibiting County service providers from sharing data related to these two transition housing programs with JBAY. As part of this report, and to support our argument to allow the provision of data, the data compiled from limited participants in a few of our tables are included in this report and noted these limitations. The County Counsel should review and reconsider if improvements and/or clarifications can be made as to how the data is gathered and provided so that the information for the County youth can be collected and included in the State-wide report. If such movement in the legal position can be done, then there is a need for a procedure to be in place to verify the accuracy of the provided data. The Committee members also received some information from LAHSA in the process of preparing this report. LAHSA uses the HMIS, a technology system required by HUD to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to individuals and families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. HMIS is a platform for managing information about persons experiencing homelessness, which serves as the basis for the Coordinated Entry System (CES).71 LAHSA-funded programs, DMH-funded programs serving persons experiencing homelessness, and DHS-funded providers delivering intensive case management services are mandated to participate in HMIS. A small group of agencies not funded by these sources voluntarily participate in HMIS.72 There is soft participation across DMH, DHS, and public housing authorities.73 Agencies that participate in HMIS enter data on new clients as they access services and update data on existing clients as information, such as their contact information or their housing status, changes over time.74 In a pilot program for improving access to Youth CES for camp youth, we understand that a LAHSA representative participated in MDTs at camps to input the necessary data in the HMIS. Information collection was done by a LAHSA representative since Probation is considered a law enforcement agency that cannot access HMIS. Once the data is collected, we 71 LAHSA, Interim Report Back – Comprehensive Analysis of the 2017 Homeless Count Results, August 25, 2017, 10, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 77A, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114790.pdf (accessed March 19, 2019). 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 50 understand that LAHSA is required to prioritize the housing need and follow HUD procedures and parameters for housing placements. The collection of data for input in the HMIS platform is not the same as one having access into the HMIS system and allowing review of information available from HMIS. This distinction could be noted and further explored as to whether the collec ion of data during MDTs could be had with Probation representatives already familiar with the youth. This discussion needs to be done with County Counsel to determine whether such data collection done by Probation staff could facilitate a more efficient process to connect the camp youth with LAHSA’s Youth CES program for housing at camp exit. If this distinction could be made and the legal distinction be allowed by County Counsel, Probation should work with the Chief Information Officer in the CEO’s Office to implement a process that works for both Probation and LAHSA, consistent with parameters provided by County Counsel. Once such electronic information is transferred to LAHSA, the information could be input into the HMIS system, without access to the HMIS system from Probation. We also learned that the Chief Executive Officer’s Research and Evaluation Services (RES) unit was able to collect data from six County agencies and LAHSA for a recent report. On February 20, 2018, the CEO reported back to the County Board of Supervisors regarding potential ways that the homeless population that is unaccounted for in the Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count could be reflected in the future allocation of funding for the Measure H Strategies.75 RES unit collected administrative records from seven data systems maintained by six County agencies, as well as the HMIS, to produce a different homeless estimate than the LAHSA count.76 The agencies and systems from which data were collected to produce the alternative count are: DCFS (IDSS), DHS (ORCHID and CHAMP), DMH (IBHIS), DPSS (LRS), LASD (AJIS), WCADS (WIOA, LACYJ, and AAA).77 The data reviewed by the CEO yielded 121,812 unique persons identified as homeless in January 2017, doubling the LAHSA’s Point-in-Time count of 57,794.78 RES geocoded the administrative data used to produce the CEO estimate based on facility zip codes in the service records and, for DPSS, the areas served by DPSS’ district offices.79 The Chief Probation Officer should work with bureau chiefs to identify whether a similar geocoding technology should be used for the various data that is being collected and should be collected going forward. The Committee members learned from the Centinela Field POs, that they were able to extract data from several systems to make a point-in-time assessment of criminal justice system involvement of previously supervised youth. A point-in-time review of several County department databases was done to determine the status of randomly selected camp exited 75 Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, 1, cited in the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 12, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114788.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). 76 Attachment I to Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, I, attached to the County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Item 12, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/114788.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). 77 Footnote 3 of Chief Executive Office Letter, February 20, 2018, Attachment I, 2. 78 Ibid, i. 79 Ibid, ii. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 51 youth. Centinela Field POs randomly selected youths from 2013 to 2017 and reviewed their current criminal justice status. Each Centinela Field PO is assigned zip code(s) and oversees the youth who resides in the assigned zip code area. The sample pool of youth did not include youth supervised by DPOs working primarily in the 90044 zip code area. Table 13 Point-in-Time Review of Outcomes of Youth Supervised by Centinela Field POs Random Sample of Supervised Youth between 2013 to 2017 Prison or Jail Pending Probation No Pending Total Hearing Case* Total Persons 51 6 30 14 101 Percentage 50.5% 5.9% 29.7% 13.8% 100% Source: Probation. *Includes deceased persons. Centinela Field POs compiled this data from (i) the Probation Case Management System, (ii) the Juvenile Automated Index system of the courts, and (iii) the booking number assigned by the County Sheriff’s Department upon arrest. Centinela Field POs believe that there are a number of persons who have died since Probation jurisdiction ended; however, this information could not be determined and is included in the number of persons noted under the caption “No Pending Case.” Further, the number of persons noted under this column only indicates that there were no pending criminal proceedings at the time of this review and no other inference should be made. In assembling this study group, the youth residing in the zip code area 90044 were deliberately not included. This area is considered to be one of the most crime-ridden areas in the County. As this table demonstrates, existing systems and data input can provide helpful information for review of trends and comparisons. This data collection process could be further refined by Probation representatives for additional point-in-time assessment of status to assess any trends. But the more important review should be to determine the extent to which the camp-released youth continued schooling, as well as recommended mental health services after termination of probation and whether such participation made significant differences in the outcome. Some of the data included in this report already indicate a stark difference in high school completion rate and employment rate. There are existing platforms that collect useful data to understand the behavior and outcomes of Probation-involved youth in broader terms than the camp-exiting youth. To the extent that the collected data are useful, County departments could consider obtaining licenses for these platforms and begin implementation procedures for collecting accurate data. From our perspective, there is no reason why the County data could not be collected by a lead agency from the County. The lead agency should also implement controls to verify initially that the provided information is accurate. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 52 To this end, LAHSA Report Back to the Board of Supervisors, dated December 1, 2017, recommended several data related items, including establishing a set of universal data elements with a mandate for LAHSA, DCFS, Probation, and DMH to regularly track each data element.80 The Report Back also noted that data elements captured by different departments are on multiple systems and incompatible with each other, particularly noting that DCFS data collection system is not linked to HMIS used by LAHSA and DMH and recommends integrating with HMIS.81 On December 18, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors “directed the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Information Officer to develop a Board policy in 90 days, in consultation with County Counsel, that delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Information Officer … as the County’s ‘data steward’ to link common clients and their service records across Departments and anonymize data for the purposes of program evaluation; identify, evaluate, analyze and research County programs that serve vulnerable populations with the ability to engage external evaluators where appropriate….”82 Given the restrictions for law enforcement agencies for accessing HMIS, this Civil Grand Jury is not convinced that this system should be the central platform for data collection. As a starting point, the Chief Information Officer should revisit LAHSA’s comment and determine what hurdles exist from achieving a variable of LAHSA recommendation with the Chief Information Officer acting as “data steward,” as directed by the County Board of Supervisors. Findings: 7.1 In the process of receiving County-specific data from JBAY, this Civil Grand Jury learned that County service providers in the THP+FC program are prohibited from utilizing JBAY’s THP+FC tracking system. This Civil Grand Jury learned that this prohibition is due to the County Counsel’s legal position that the data regarding THP+FC participating youth cannot be entered in the JBAY’s tracking system. As a result of this legal position, only the data from County’s THP-Plus service providers are available on the JBAY tracking system and only to a limited extent. 7.2 This Civil Grand Jury also learned from JBAY that data submitted by County service providers for the THP-Plus program are not always complete or accurate. 7.3 This Civil Grand Jury submits that the collection of data for input into the HMIS platform is not the same as having access into the HMIS system and allowing review of information available from HMIS. 80 LAHSA Report Back, dated December 1, 2017, 23, attached to the County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Item 26, June 13, 2017, http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/sop/1025670_061317.pdf (accessed March 12, 2019). 81 Ibid, 24. 82 County Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, Item 14, December 18, 2018, 18 - 19. 2018-2019 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SUCCESS? EXITING JUVENILE CAMPS 13 - 53 7.4 The CGJ understands that the Chief Executive Officer’s RES unit geocoded the administrative data from multiple sources to produce the CEO estimate enhanced homeless population information based on facility zip codes.