Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 1999-2000 • Agency Response

Final Report 1999 - 2000

Published: June 19, 2000 302 pages Consolidated Report

View Original PDF

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

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

Findings 10 findings

Ensure risk assessment consistency, by ensuring that at least 60% of all cases have an initial Risk & Needs Assessment completed, and that 35% of all cases be reassessed at the mid-term of probation.

Probation Costs and Charges A. Formal Probation B. Summary Probation Conclusions

Revocation and Measures of Probation Effectiveness A. Formal Probation B. Summary Probation Conclusions INTRODUCTION Although the Grand Jury does not have the authority to study and make recommendations about the courts’ systems, this report includes information on summary probation, which emanates from the courts. This Grand Jury report compares: • The profile of probationers sentenced by the courts to formal and summary probation. • The costs of supervising formal and summary probationers. • The rate at which formal and summary probation is revoked. To accomplish these objectives, various documents and standard data reports produced by the County and the courts were reviewed, and representatives from the Municipal Courts and Los Angeles County Probation Department were interviewed. In addition, we worked with the Municipal Courts, the Probation Department, the Information Systems Advisory Body, and the County Internal Services Department to design and produce special data processing reports on formal and summary probation case profiles and revocation activity, to better define the formal and summary probation populations and probation violation outcomes. To obtain a better understanding of formal probation monitoring effectiveness and the reasons for revocation, a limited sampling of formal probation cases was conducted. All data gathering and sampling activities focussed on probation cases that were active during Fiscal Year 1998-99. After completing the analysis, a draft report was prepared and a meeting was held with representatives from the Los Angeles Municipal Courts and the Chief Probation Officer and managers from the Probation Department, to discuss the report findings, conclusions and

Ensure that at least 60% of existing cases, where probationers have outstanding financial obligations, will be reported to the courts for violation, at least 90 days prior to the end of the probation term.

Establish controls to ensure that 94 percent of all court reports will be submitted to the courts two days prior to scheduled hearing. In order to achieve these goals, the Probation Department has implemented an Adult Compliance Team (ACT) program, which is designed to ensure that monitoring activities for minimum supervision caseloads are current, the processing of notifications of new arrests on all active probation cases are expedited, and probation officers assigned to certain specialty caseloads are assisted. In addition, the Department is in the process of modifying its automated probation violation tracking capability within APS. To accomplish this, modifications to the existing system will be implemented, and new functionality will be added. To a large extent, these improvements will automate current manual processes. In addition, new processes will be established to track cases and identify probationers that are in violation of conditions of probation, thus providing probation officers with an added tool for identifying probation violation activity. These changes are being made possible, in part, because of increases in resources appropriated to the Department in recent years. For example, the Probation Department received funds in FY1999-2000 to lower caseload to probation officer ratios for Domestic Violence, Child Threat and Minimum Supervision case types. Other process improvements, including the establishment of a kiosk system to expand client-reporting tools and validate reporting authenticity, are also being implemented. It is the hope of the Department to meet or exceed all of these goals within the next 18 months to two years. In addition, the Department would like to receive additional funding for probation officer personnel to further reduce caseload to probation officer ratios. To support continuous process improvement, the Department would also like to establish a Research & Evaluation Unit. We support the Department’s goals and objectives, and believe the

The circumstances of the offense for which the individual was placed on probation, including whether the conviction was for a violent crime. Points are assigned for each characteristic. Any person who scores 15 points or higher will be assigned to one of the more intensive supervision caseloads. If the score is 14 points or less, the person will be assigned to an AMS caseload unless there are factors that suggest a specialized caseload may be more appropriate. In these instances, the risk score of 14 points or less may be set aside by the probation officer, with approval from his/her supervisor, and the probationer may be assigned to one of the Department’s more intensive supervision caseloads. In FY1998-99, the Probation Department provided services to 90,968 individuals, who were distributed between supervision categories, as shown in Table 1.1 below. Table 1.1 Distribution of Misdemeanor and Felony Cases by Case Category – FY1998-99 CASE MISD FELONY TOTAL % MISD % FELONY % CLIENTS/ CATEGORY CLIENTS CLIENTS CLIENTS CLIENTS CLIENTS CATEGORY HRO 550 1 5,891 1 6,441 3.3% 96.7% 18.1% DOM 996 2 ,046 3,042 32.7% 67.3% 3.3% CTH 245 1 ,852 2,097 11.7% 88.3% 2.3% NTU 198 1 5,488 1 5,686 1.3% 98.7% 17.2% GNG 26 716 7 42 3.5% 96.5% 0.8% OTH 27 587 6 14 4.4% 95.6% 0.7% AMS 16,449 35,897 52,346 31.4% 68.6% 57.5% TOTAL 18,491 7 2,477 9 0,968 20.3% 79.7% 100.0% HRO = High Risk Offender; DOM = Domestic Violence; CTH = Child Threat; NTU = Narcotics Testing Unit; GNG = Gang; OTH = Other; AMS = Automated Minimum Supervision To assess the differences between formal and summary probationers, a profile of formal and summary probationers was requested from the Probation Department and the courts detailing the number of counts per probationer and the number of prior convictions by type of offense. This information was provided by the courts and is presented later in this section. The Probation Department could not electronically compile the information and manual compilation was not feasible. As a result, the only formal probation profile information available is as presented in Table 1.1. As shown in the table, 52,346 persons, or approximately 57.5 percent of all Probation Department clients were assigned to Automated Minimum Supervision (AMS) caseloads in FY 1998-99. Of these, approximately 68.6 percent had been convicted of felony offenses and 31.4 percent had been convicted of misdemeanor offenses. In the high risk and specialized caseload categories, over 95 percent of all clients had been convicted of felonies, with the exception of domestic violence and child threat categories, which were assigned 67.3 percent and 88.3 percent felons respectively. Based on a review of the scoring criteria employed by the Probation Department’s risk assessment tool, the data included in Table 1.1, interviews with Probation Department and Municipal Court managers and judges, and other factors, the AMS misdemeanant client profile appears to most closely correspond with that of persons who are placed on summary probation in Los Angeles County. Accordingly, the analysis of formal probation caseload and practices focuses on the AMS population rather than the case categories that generally receive more intensive supervision. This is discussed more fully, below. Probation Department Automated Minimum Service Workload The Adult Services Field Bureau and Adult Special Services Bureau of the Probation Department operate 14 Area Field Offices which are geographically dispersed throughout the County. The Directors at thirteen of these Area Field Offices manage probation officers who are responsible for HRO, Gang and AMS cases. Also housed at all 13 of these locations are probation officers responsible for Narcotics Testing, Domestic Violence and Child Threat specialty cases. Unlike the other specialty cases, Narcotics Testing is managed centrally. Probation officers at the fourteenth location–the La Madera Office (which recently moved and has been renamed the Riverview Office)–are responsible solely for AMS cases. During the period of this study, the La Madera Office monitored AMS probationers who resided within the boundaries of the Foothill, Pasadena, Pomona, Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Area Field Offices. In FY1998-99, probation officers at the La Madera Office monitored an average of 16,165 AMS probationers, which was approximately 37 percent of the total County AMS caseload at that time. According to the Director of the La Madera Office, cases are now being accepted from an additional five Area Field Offices: Firestone; South Central; Long Beach; Long Beach-Harbor; and Santa Monica. Once the full transition of these caseloads occurs, the Director anticipates that the La Madera Office will be responsible for a total of 25,000 to 30,000 AMS cases—or up to 70 percent of the County’s total AMS caseload. The Field Services Bureau Director has confirmed this estimate. This is significant because the La Madera Office operates a program that relies heavily on compliance data that is entered into the Department’s Adult Probation System (APS) by clerical personnel. This data is monitored by probation officers, who use the information to prepare progress reports for the courts, determine probationer compliance with conditions 90 days prior to the end of their probation term, and report on any other violations which may surface during the period of probation. After initial probationer orientation, there is no requirement that the probationer meet with the probation officer, nor does the probation officer make a field visit to the probationer’s home or work location. Instead, the probationers are generally required to report monthly, by mail. Given the scope of this investigation, it was not practical to evaluate AMS probation monitoring practices at all of the Area Field Offices. Accordingly, the evaluation focussed on the La Madera Office because (a) the probation officers at that location are responsible solely for an AMS caseload, (b) the operation is highly routine, and depends heavily on automated reporting of probationer compliance, and (c) the Department is migrating toward the La Madera Office model for managing AMS cases in the future. In addition to the review of the La Madera office, also reviewed were AMS case management functions at the Firestone and Pomona Area Field Offices since they have both implemented new procedures that the Department is considering replicating at La Madera and at other offices. A profile of each office follows. Firestone Area Field Office – The Firestone Office has established an Intake process for all new AMS and NTU cases referred by the courts. Under this new process, an Intake Officer at the Firestone Office performs initial probationer orientation, and may retain supervision over an AMS case for up to 30 days to monitor initial compliance with the court order. If an AMS probationer meets these interim conditions of probation, the Intake Officer then transfers the case to La Madera. If interim conditions are not met, the Intake Officer may report violations to the court. In other locations, cases are transferred directly to the La Madera Office from the courts, and probation officers at the La Madera Office conduct initial orientation and compliance monitoring. Although it is too early to reach conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the Firestone Area Office model, it is the Department’s reported intention to increase probation success by initially providing more intensive supervision of AMS probationers prior to transfer to a banked caseload. Pomona Area Field Office – The Pomona Area Field Office has developed a computerized AMS case management system known as the Compliance Tracking System (CTS). Every day, the system automatically flags cases where a probationer is out of compliance with the terms and conditions of probation (e.g., financial, program, and community service conditions). This system automatically produces probationer notification letters, instructions, and other correspondence after clerical prompts. Using these features, clerical staff are able to produce packets of documentation for each probation officer which (a) identify non-compliant probationers, (b) provide detailed case information for the preparation of court reports and, (c) supply form letters and other materials that aid with probation enforcement. However, this system does not automatically interface with the Department’s APS system or other supporting data systems relied upon by the Department, so all probationer case data must be independently researched and input into APS by clerical personnel. This is a labor intensive process, which increases the potential for data input error and inconsistencies between the APS and CTS databases. Accordingly, the Department is presently engaged is a project to export CTS to other Area Field Offices, and to implement an automated interface between CTS and APS. When implemented, this effort will provide an enhanced tool for probation officers, and should increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the AMS monitoring process. Given the complexities of these processes, and the changes being undertaken by the Department, flow charts were prepared of AMS caseload management at four locations:

The homeless, while understandably irritating to many and an embarrassment to society, are apparently being treated with understanding by Los Angeles County law enforcement. Volunteer organizations agree that the police are very helpful, compassionate, and they even volunteer for special programs such as “Thanksgiving in the Street” and the “Christmas Carnival.”

The use of canines is a police tactic that reflects credit on the departments. The few earlier complaints are no longer heard. The K9s in all departments are now trained to “find and bark”. Money and time are saved and criminals are apprehended.

Domestic disputes continue to represent troubling, and at times, highly dangerous police calls. Increased awareness and efforts are being made in LA County. However, the meritorious DART program is only operational in about 50% of Los Angeles City. While supported by the Chief of Police, it has not been uniformly mandated. Thus, it largely is dependent upon individual division commanders to implement. Moreover, DART depends upon quality shelters which may have a variety of priorities and goals. Fortunately, there are many highly motivated police in the program, but there is a shortage of resources. Ancillary to training related to domestic violence, sworn officers receive guidance related to their own possible family violence. Guidelines and departmental standards are reflected in both roll call and advanced training. LASD Family Violence policy for deputies extends to 5 pages. Noteworthy is the Beverly Hills Chaplaincy Program that utilizes civilian volunteers, who are able to provide guidance and counseling to department members.

F10

There are consistent policies and guidelines stating that “bullets do not stop cars” and, in most instances, vehicles are not used to ram. According to one expert, “police are asking for more power from their cars, not more skills from the officers.” While numerous car chases are shown on television, the good news is that the incidence of these cases is not increasing.

Recommendations 92

R00-01

Home Depot Discrimination
R1

DC&FS should work collaboratively and cooperatively with FFAs and other child welfare advocates to address the complex issues facing child welfare in a major urban environment such as the County of Los Angeles. q The combination of the organizational, management, and systems problems of DC&FS and the high number of cases and investigations has resulted in a child welfare system that does not meet the needs of the children under its care, and undermines compliance with contracts, regulations, and safety guidelines. q Inherent conflicts of interest in the structure of FFAs and the poor relationship between FFAs and DC&FS also contribute to substandard care for children. As such, this recommendation is presented with the understanding that no single entity involved in child welfare can address or solve any of the issues single-handedly. The various organizations and agencies directly involved in child welfare have interdependent roles and responsibilities. DC&FS should collaborate with all the following: q The State of California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division (CCL). q Foster Family Agencies (FFAs). q Dependency Court judges and attorneys. q The County of Los Angeles Children and Family Commission. q CASA volunteer program administrators and volunteers. q Foster parents. q Biological parents and other relatives. q Schools. q Task forces, associations, and other agencies or organizations. A holistic approach to child welfare based on collaboration, cooperation, and flexibility will be critical to implementing the following recommended changes, as well as making other system-wide improvements. The remaining recommendations are presented in five major categories: q The overall model of child welfare. q Outcomes and performance measures, including contract monitoring, quality assurance, and investigations. q DC&FS organizational and management issues q FFA operations. q Roles and responsibilities of foster parents. CHILD WELFARE MODEL
R00-02

State Prison Practices
R2

Make the best interests of the child paramount in all aspects of placement in FFAs and, by extension, in child welfare overall. The best interests of the child must drive decisions regarding placement in foster care instead of the cost factors and need for expedience that currently shape placement decisions. Clarify the role of FFAs within a continuum of care model. DC&FS should evaluate whether the County’s children are best served by two competing foster care systems or whether the benefits and strengths of FFAs are better for all children in foster care: q Outcomes from both systems must be evaluated and compared. The benefits to children as well as the cost of providing additional supervision must be considered: § Do children placed in licensed homes have better outcomes versus those in FFA certified homes – are there fewer placement failures in one model versus the other? § Would all children fare better with the additional supervision provided by FFA social workers, or are 15 to 30 minutes per month adequate for some children? § Is the quality of foster parents measurably better in one model versus the other – do FFAs do a better job of recruiting and training foster parents than the County and the State? q A rationale for maintaining both must indicate how children’s needs will be best met. For example: § Only children assessed as “severely emotionally disturbed” (or having other serious behavioral or emotional problems) could be placed in treatment FFA homes; children with ordinary problems would always be placed in licensed homes. § Children who “fail” in a licensed home would automatically be placed in an FFA certified home. DC&FS should clearly define the differences between licensed homes, certified homes, group homes, and residential treatment centers, working with representatives from those organizations to ensure clarity, consensus, and consistency. The role of FFAs should be clearly explained to all organizations and individuals involved with children placed in foster care. Training for CSWs should include information on all placement options. Define child-centered rationales for each placement option. Child-centered rationales for each placement option should be developed and widely communicated among all interested parties. The differences between all placement options, and the corresponding rationale, must be clarified and consistently communicated and implemented by DC&FS. Bias, preference, or cost should not influence CSW decisions. OUTCOMES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
R00-03

West Hollywood Council Corruption
R3

Develop child-centered outcome standards and measurements for children, CSWs, FFAs, and foster parents. The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors adopted five specific outcome measures for children: q Economic well-being. q Education/workforce readiness. q Good health. q Safety and survival. q Social and emotional well-being. DC&FS and FFAs should jointly develop tools and measures to evaluate specific outcomes in the five areas, and consider outcomes-based models in other jurisdictions. For example, in Cook County, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services has recently established performance measures in the contracts with the service providers. Specific targets are included in the annual contracts for both resource allocations (e.g. no more than 25 cases per caseworker) and “positive outcomes” (e.g., “x” number of children in your care will be returned to parents, adopted, or placed under guardianship). Results are audited, and contracts are not renewed for agencies that do not meet their targets. This has been significant in increasing adoptions of foster children. Economic well-being. Children in foster care should expect to have their basic economic needs addressed, including: q Do children have clean clothing and shoes that fit and do not make them stand out significantly from their peers? q Do they receive age-appropriate allowance or spending money? q Have they had the opportunity to accumulate personal possessions that are “theirs” and accompany them if they leave a given foster home? q Are they allowed to participate in family outings and vacations? FFA social workers can readily observe the condition of clothing, disbursement of allowance, and participation in family outings and vacations, with back-up confirmation provided by CSWs, teachers, CASA volunteers (if assigned), and interviews with the child. Education/workforce readiness. Attending school, graduating from high school, and being prepared for further education or employment is critical to the long-term life success of children in foster care. Outcome measures for school success could include: q Are children’s educational records complete and included in their package? q Are there established educational goals for the child? Are “good” grades maintained? Are “poor” grades improving? q Do teacher conferences indicate progress toward established goals? q Are recommended educational interventions implemented and successful? Additionally, CSWs and FFA social workers should encourage and train foster parents to have education-friendly homes. For example: q Do foster parents attend “back to school night” and school open houses? q Are there age-appropriate books in the home? q Is television watching or video game playing limited? q Do children have quiet, well-lighted areas for homework and studying? Good health. Poor health will undermine a child’s ability to function at optimal levels. DC&FS and FFAs must ensure that foster children receive appropriate health care, on a “well-child” basis, as well as for the treatment of illnesses or injuries. DC&FS must fully disclose a child’s medical history and treatment needs to the FFA and to the foster parents to monitor: q Is the child thriving, gaining weight and height in accordance with child development guidelines? Does the child receive routine “well-child” check-ups? q Are illnesses or injuries dealt with promptly? q Are chronic illnesses or conditions treated? q Does the child report that appealing and nutritious food is available? q Does the child receive adequate dental care and instruction in oral hygiene? q Are children who take medications for behavioral, emotional, or psychological needs routinely assessed for progress, dosage requirements, or side effects? Are the associated problems treated appropriately through therapy, behavior modification, or other appropriate intervention? Are pre- and post-assessments conducted as part of the child’s Needs and Services Plans? Safety and Survival. Title 22 provides many rules and regulations to ensure the safety and survival of children in foster care. To ensure understanding, compliance, and rapid correction of problems, DC&FS and FFAs should implement the recommendations (presented later in this chapter) related to FFA quality assurance, CSW and FFA social worker communication, and effectiveness of audits and investigations. Appropriate outcome measures include reduction in the number of complaints and allegations overall, as well as the number of substantiated allegations. Social and Emotional Well-Being. The social and emotional well-being of children in foster care are the most neglected of the five measures due to: q The lack of thorough initial assessments. q High CSW work volume. q Lack of in-depth and problem-specific foster parent training. q CSW and FFA acceptance of foster parents who are either unable or unwilling to support the child’s social and emotional well-being. In addition to the recommendations related to initial assessments, CSW work volume, and foster parent training, all parties in the child welfare system need to make the social and emotional well-being of foster children as high a priority as health and safety. q Thorough psychosocial assessments made at the time of the initial assessment would provide the baseline data to set objectives and measure progress. q Psychosocial post assessments at routine intervals would monitor progress in such areas as self-esteem, depression, and other psychological or emotional areas. q Periodic status reports prepared by teachers and therapists as well as by the CSW and FFA social worker assigned to the child would provide more perspectives and detail to determine the child’s progress.
R00-04

Child Support Order and Unjust Circumstances
R4

Develop and implement a new assessment model. DC&FS should develop and implement a child-centered assessment model to ensure thorough assessments of children as they enter the child welfare system and at established check- points during their time in the system. Children should be assessed with minimal disruption to their lives, particularly important given the major disruption of being removed from their parents’ home. For example, the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (AFCS) has established a new program to minimize the disruption in children’s lives. For severe cases of abuse and neglect in which a child is not hospitalized, AFCS coordinates their initial response with the New York City Police Department and the five borough District Attorneys. Police summon a caseworker and the district attorney when a minor is involved and is severely abused or neglected. Within 3 to 4 hours, the child is escorted to a Child Advocacy Center, where trained staff can calm and reassure the child. It avoids the distress that children often feel when brought to a precinct station, which had been the police’s only option. Furthermore, the child is questioned once with both social workers and attorneys present. This minimizes the repetition of questions, which can be grounds for eliminating the testimony of young children. Placement decisions and immediate care can be handled simultaneously with the investigation. The County of Los Angeles should establish assessment facilities that can provide a variety of services on both an out-patient and in-patient basis, including: q Background check and fingerprinting of relatives (which must be completed before a child can be placed with relatives). q Explanation to the children regarding why they are being removed from their homes, what is happening to their parents, and what they can expect next. q The opportunity to compile all important information and files related to the children, including: § Educational records (grades, school-related problems, etc.) § Behavioral and medical background and records health records (e.g., chronic conditions, prescription medications, etc.) § History and reason for past placement failures, such as oppositional, violent, or sexualized behavior; manipulative behavior; run-away patterns; etc. § Family history, etc. q Complete and thorough psycho-educational assessments. The benefits of such thorough initial assessments include: q Maintaining a complete package of information. q Allowing all care providers to start “on the same page” by providing a complete package of information to CSWs, FFA social workers, and other professionals involved with the child. Then, as a team, these professional can meet to: § Develop thorough and appropriate Needs and Services Plans for the children. § Establish reasonable treatment objectives and milestones. § Agree on outcome measures. q Making the best placement decisions possible by providing a complete package of information to CSWs, FFA social workers, and other professionals involved with the child to ensure optimal placement. The child should return to the assessment facility per an established schedule – at least annually – to monitor progress toward established objectives. A child should automatically be reassessed when a second placement results in a failure. A placement is considered to fail when the child does not thrive in that environment; when there is behavior that the foster parent cannot or will not tolerate; or when there are allegations of abuse and the child is moved, pending an investigation. Given the criticality of sound initial assessments and monitoring, the County of Los Angeles should aggressively pursue Federal, State, and local funding to implement such an effort immediately. The aim should be to use assessments to make more thoughtful placements that should increase the success in terms of reunification, reduced recidivism, fewer changes in foster home placements, etc. DC&FS should increase involvement of biological parents when possible in the initial assessment and monitoring of the child. Specifically, DC&FS should also implement a holistic approach by involving the biological parents as much as possible to increase the likelihood of successful and lasting reunifications. Providing equal access to resources (e.g., therapy, parenting classes, etc.) should help to break the cycle of entry and re-entry into foster care. Biological parents should understand why successful placements and treatment will benefit them and their children.
R00-05

Inaccurate/Harmful Credit Reporting
R5

Build child-centered teams to assess and monitor foster children. DC&FS should lead the effort to develop child-centered teams to oversee children in foster care. Such teams would include CSWs, FFA social workers, mental health workers, health care workers (if required), educators, foster parents, and biological parents (when possible) to assess each child thoroughly as he or she enters the system. These professionals would have the expertise to develop thorough, outcomes-based Needs and Treatment Plans that focus on the five outcome measures adopted by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors: economic well- being, education/workforce readiness, good health, safety and survival, and social and emotional well-being. DC&FS should examine the program recently implemented by the Missouri Division of Family Services (as well as the similar effort being piloted in New York City): q After a successful pilot program, Missouri introduced statewide an intensive and front- loaded team effort designed to address the problems that caused a child’s removal from his or her home immediately. q Within 72 hours of the removal from home, the Division of Family Services worker calls a meeting including: § Biological parents. § Foster parents. § Court personnel (where applicable). § Any person the biological parents wish to include as part of their network of support (including clergy, relatives, friends, attorneys, advisors, school personnel, etc.) § Other significant people in the child’s life (teachers, clergy, etc.). There is an open atmosphere, and the conditions or actions that led to the removal of the child are discussed. q A plan is developed to correct those conditions so that the child can be restored to his or her family. Unless that happens, follow-up meetings with the same participants are called after 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, and 6 months to discuss progress. q The meetings are documented, and information gained there is used, if no progress is made, to document later applications for the termination of parental rights. The effort has been effective in speeding up a child’s return to family. DC&FS ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES Both a 1998 management audit and the 1999 DC&FS Management Transition Assessment identified many of DC&FS’s organizational and management problems in significant detail, along with specific, detailed recommendations for improvement.
R00-06

Alleged Grand Jury Neglect
R6

Review and implement recommendations detailed in previous reports pertaining to DC&FS and FFAs. DC&FS should use the existing studies and audits as a point of departure for addressing organizational and management problems. The new Department Director should review the documents thoroughly and select those recommendations which support her overall goals for the Department. The Department should not use its limited resources to “reinvent the wheel” – rather it should test the viability of assumptions underlying existing recommendations, modify them as necessary, and implement them on either an overall or pilot basis. Once the most feasible recommendations for improvement have been selected, the Director should develop an action plan, assigning priorities, accountability, time frames, and milestones for measuring progress.
R7

Decentralize the DC&FS organizational structure. To meet the needs of children throughout the County, DC&FS should be decentralized to put the services it provides closer and to be more responsive to those who rely on them, including foster children, their biological parents, and their foster parents. Furthermore, the decentralized Department should link its eight regional Operations offices with the Service Planning Areas (SPA) centers that offer related County services (e.g., mental health). CSWs currently do not have the opportunity to get to know their assigned children – 15 to 30 minutes once a month is not enough time to establish a trusting relationship. Therefore, having the CSW “follow” the child through placements in various County locations is not the best use of the CSW’s time. DC&FS should assign CSWs to a specific SPA and limit the distances they must drive to see their assigned cases. CSWs should be assigned to children placed with foster families (in a given SPA region), who are affiliated with various FFAs. Regular interaction with a variety of FFAs will provide multiple opportunities for different CSWs to observe and monitor the differences among FFAs. A similar model is being implemented in the five boroughs of New York City (The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island) – namely, foster care will be handled within the borough where the child’s family lives. Without this program, children could be placed miles from their home, school, and friends. It has been adopted in the Bronx, and contracts are being reviewed for the other boroughs with a June 2000 target date.
R00-08

Misapplication of Health Dept. Rules
R8

Enhance the CSW work environment. CSWs are currently unable to deliver the expected level of services to the children assigned to their care, despite their best efforts: q CSWs do not provide FFA social workers with complete and accurate Needs and Treatment Plans on a timely basis. q CSWs do not spend enough time with their assigned cases to form significant bonds, observe problems, or apply their clinical knowledge. q CSWs do not routinely consult with FFA social workers on the progress or treatment plans of their assigned cases. Because of the high caseload and inability to meet expectations, DC&FS has an ongoing problem in recruiting and retaining CSWs. The most logical solution (and based on other states’ best practices) is to reduce CSWs’ caseloads. q DC&FS should decrease the average case load of CSWs, based on best practices in other regions: § The New York City average caseload is 12, down from 27 in 1996. In June 1996, the average caseload for Child Protective Workers (CPWs) in New York City was greater than 26. An intensive program to bring on new workers with greater training and offer advanced training to caseworkers was coupled with a privatization effort. That has brought the caseload down as of February 1999 to 12 cases per CPW. In addition, salaries for CPWs had been capped at about $30,000 -- that has been increased to just under $50,000 for workers with more than 10.5 years of service. § The Cook County, Illinois, average caseload ranges from 20 to 24. § The St. Louis, Missouri, average case load ranges from 23 to 26. q DC&FS should provide more initial and ongoing training, with as much emphasis on child development and foster-care related problems as on program compliance. q DC&FS should provide mentors to CSWs – experienced CSWs who work side-by-side with new CSWs for at least one year. Alternatively, DC&FS should consider permanent partnerships between CSWs. In the short term, until needed funding is available, DC&FS should implement an immediate stop gap, realizing that such actions are not an ongoing solution. Rather than being in a constant state of “catching up” and “making do,” in the short term, DC&FS should redefine the roles of CSW from a case manager to a contract monitor for FFAs. The CSWs’ primary role should be to represent the State and the County on the child-centered team (as described in
R00-09

Church Alleges Misconduct/Non-Accountability
R9

DC&FS–FFA should improve communications processes and information flow. DC&FS must improve its relationship with FFAs and FFA social workers. The Department should demonstrate its commitment by: q Embracing and implementing the child-centered team assessment model. q Encouraging collaboration and teamwork. q Ensuring that all relevant information is made available to all member of the team, especially FFA social workers, on a timely basis. q Providing mandatory, joint CSW/FFA social worker team-building to decrease the “us versus them” environment reported by CSWs, FFA social workers, and foster parents. q Developing a problem resolution and follow-up process to help CSWs and FFA social workers resolve their differences in the best interest of the child. DC&FS SYSTEMS All aspects of the child welfare system require rapid access to and processing of complete and accurate information about children.
R00-10

Alleged Racist Conduct
R10

Develop comprehensive DC&FS systems and infrastructures to collect, update, track, and report updated, timely, complete, and accurate information. As elaborated in the 1998 management audit, DC&FS should develop comprehensive, integrated, on-line computer-based systems to collect, update, track, share, and report all information related to children in foster care: q Current and prior placements. q History of problems for a given child. q History of problems for a given FFA. q History of problems for a given foster family. q Complete database of licensed and certified foster parents, as well as group homes and residential treatment centers. q Special programs and resources database, (e.g., emancipation programs, teen parent programs). q Audits and investigations. q Contract status and billings. Integrated databases will: q Minimize the need to enter the same data numerous times, increasing the likelihood of accurate data. Furthermore, updates such as changes in area code, newly certified or decertified foster parents, will not have to be entered repeatedly in different systems. q Allow multiple users to access and update information about the child, including results of court appearances, school records, incident reports, etc. q Facilitate better identification, tracking, and follow-up of problem patterns with: § Foster children. § Foster parents. § Specific FFAs. q Increase the likelihood of correct FFA billings and DC&FS payments for actual placements and services provided. On-line systems will allow CSWs and OHCEU investigators to comment on or add to existing records. The system could be configured to generate appropriate documentation and reports automatically, as well as “tickler” reports to remind staff to follow-up on specific issues. With appropriate and secure access to protect the integrity of the data (e.g., such as limiting access to data based on the role of the user), FFAs and FFA social workers should also be able to access the system to review the history of a new placement (in real time) or update records with new information electronically. To further relieve some of the paperwork burden of the case management (for CSWs and OHCEU investigators), DC&FS should provide CSWs with laptop computers to facilitate data entry while they are in the field. The input could be downloaded electronically at the office or via modem on a daily basis. OUT-OF-HOME CARE EVALUATION UNIT (OHCEU) INVESTIGATIONS In light of the ongoing and growing backlog in the OHCEU unit, the need for investigations to continue is debatable, especially considering that the immediate safety of the child is addressed by the responding CSW. Nevertheless, the benefits of investigations include the ability to: q Monitor the evaluations made by CSWs through comparison of alleged versus substantiated allegations. q Assist CSWs and FFAs in evaluating whether a home should continue to be certified. q Observe and track patterns in abuse accusations, either by children as they move from home to home, or by foster parents, as children placed with them report the same problems repeatedly. q Reduce the County’s liability exposure and provide expert witnesses in court proceedings. DC&FS must develop strategies to maintain the benefits in the face of an ever-increasing gap between workdays available and workload generated, as described in Recommendation 11.
R00-11

Penal Code §147 Hate Crime
R11

Address the gap between OHCEU workload and available staff. DC&FS should address the gap between workload and available staff by: q Increasing the efficiency of investigators through increased systems and administrative support. q Decreasing the number of new investigations. q Increasing the number of investigative staff. Increase the efficiency of investigators by providing improved systems support. DC&FS should design or improve systems to facilitate development of final reports and implementation of recommendations. A computerized case management system that imports data from current systems and simplifies the reporting and follow-up will enhance the ability of investigators to focus on the substance of their investigations. (Note: This system enhancement should be done in conjunction with Recommendation #10.) Increase the efficiency of investigators by providing effective administrative and other support staff. Much investigator time could be saved if administrative support staff handled all clerical-related duties, including scheduling meetings, coordinating a “tickler” file for reminders, researching and presenting information from data bases, screening calls, gathering required documentation, and typing final reports. The current allocation of three staff members is inadequate, especially because they also enter Special Incident Reports (SIRs) into the database system. At a minimum, one clerical worker per SPA in support of the investigators would permit prioritization of support efforts, and enhance the ability to develop a team approach to conducting investigations. Decrease the number of new investigations that staff is required to absorb every week. Investigative resources should be devoted to those cases in which there is the greatest likelihood of uncovering significant problems with the foster home. Under the current system, all Child Abuse Hotline calls receive an investigation. The only difference between calls alleging priority 3 or 4 abuses and those alleging priority 1 or 2 abuses is that the higher priority calls are to be investigated five days sooner. It is likely, however, that investigating the higher priority cases would be more productive in addressing the purposes of the unit. The duty worker involved in the call should be permitted to exercise judgment regarding whether a full-scale investigation is called for in priority 3 or 4 cases, particularly when the responding CSW does not substantiate the allegation. OHCEU should consider a complete investigation only for repeat instances or patterns, or when the responding CSW replaces the affected child. New cases referred would be reduced by about 40%. Increase the number of investigators in the unit. The highest priority in reassignment of resources is in areas providing direct services to children. Because OHCEU investigations are indirectly beneficial (since the responding CSW resolved the reported problem immediately and investigations occur after-the-fact), other recommendations of direct benefit to children should be implemented before adding staff to the OHCEU unit. Additional staff should be added after a thorough workload evaluation and process improvement effort has been completed. Exhibit 12 depicts the potential implication of the staffing recommendations. Exhibit 12 Workload for OHCEU Investigations 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Number of Weeks to Complete Investigation snoitagitsevnI fo rebmuN Workload projected with no changes Workload with case reduction Workload with case reduction and efficiency improvements Staff days available Staffing decisions should also consider the different skill sets required to conduct the three groups of tasks outlined in the investigations. The initial incident response requires staff with the clerical, research, analytical, and communications skills to: q Assess the breadth of the report. q Conduct searches of databases to identify additional at risk foster children. q Track down the involved parties, including FFA personnel and the CSW for each child placed in the home. q Follow up to ensure that the matter has been resolved. The investigation phase requires analytical, oral communication and interviewing skills, along with the ability to exercise considerable independent judgment associated with the recommended outcome. In some instances, negotiation skills are called for. The conclusion phase requires organizational skills and writing ability, oral communication skills, and the ability to coordinate the implementation of recommendations generated during the investigation phase. While it is neither practical nor desirable to have different staff perform each of these three steps for each investigation, it may be possible to reassign some of the steps to specialists to improve efficiency. Monitor investigator caseload, and use pre-determined criteria to eliminate or defer investigations when caseloads become excessive. The investigative caseload could become unacceptable due to position shortages or a dramatic increase or peak in referrals. Requested investigations should be triaged and, if necessary, some requests eliminated or deferred, thereby avoiding ever-growing delays in the instigation of investigations. Hard-working staff becomes overwhelmed with the volume and backlog. This option should be done as infrequently as possible, with predetermined criteria for those to be deferred. One method in place before mid- 1999 was to skip investigations if the FFA decertified the home after the CSW replaced the minor. Considering whether a home has been decertified could become an effective temporary triage mechanism to reduce workload. There may be other criteria to consider, including repeat allegations, age and number of involved children, or a pending audit. Use the audit staff as reviewers of all investigative outcomes for a single FFA. Because auditing staff is not regionally based, their perspective is sometimes not that of an entire FFA. Using the auditors in this manner could help them uncover potential problems, patterns, or opportunities as they approach an audit of the FFA. It could also serve as a way to identify patterns of problems that investigators could pursue. Stagger the termination of the FFA contracts, so that only one-third of them are up for renewal in any given year. This will permit the auditing staff to conduct the reviews during the first year of each contract, ensuring that problems or confusion will be cleared up early in the contract period. Additional benefits include permitting contract preparation staff to continually reflect most recent improvements in contract terms and conditions, and include spreading the contract preparation and issuance workload more evenly. FFA OPERATIONS While the privatized model of FFAs is indispensable to meeting the demand for foster care in the County, FFA operations can be improved in these areas: q Recruitment standards. q Training content and assessment. q Compliance with rules and regulations.
R00-12

Disputed Cause of Death
R12

Standardize FFA practices based on identified best practices to improve performance at all FFAs, including recruitment of consistently high quality foster parents. DC&FS and FFAs should consider the best practices identified throughout the course of the management audit – as well as typical practices and those to avoid – presented in Exhibit 13. Exhibit 13 Best Practices Identified at 25 FFAs Practice Aspects of FFA Operations Philosophy Typical § FFAs make a strong commitment to serving children “in the system” despite pressure to make placements without adequate information. Best § “Accountability is a key value.” § “Child welfare comes first.” § “We have higher expectations (of our foster parents) than other FFAs.” § Consider development of standards and accreditation with Council on Accreditation – similar to JCAHO hospital accreditation organization. Avoid § FFAs’ primary goal is to meet needs of DC&FS versus the needs of children or the skills or limitations of specific foster parents by placing the majority of intake requests. Recruitment/Initial Screening Typical § FFAs certify 25% of telephone inquiries. § Typical red flags include: • Primary concern is financial remuneration. • Foster parenting would be sole source of income. • Unwillingness to forgo corporal punishment. § FFAs reject foster parent candidates if housing is inadequate (e.g., number of bedrooms, number of children already in home) § FFAs reject foster parent candidates if they do not attend initial screening meetings. Best § FFAs certify 10% or fewer of telephone inquiries. § FFAs limit the number of children they will place in a home to four (with exceptions made for siblings). § FFAs have dedicated recruitment staff (in some cases, social workers are expected to share in recruitment responsibilities). Avoid § FFAs certify 50% to 100% of the telephone inquiries. § FFAs prefer single mothers on welfare because they make the best foster parents because they are home with the children and most similar to what children are accustomed to. § FFAs do not limit the number of children placed in a home (e.g., single mother with 6 foster teenagers). § FFAs use only one promotional/outreach tool (e.g., Penny Saver or churches). Recruitment/Orientation Typical § FFAs conduct orientation at FFA office after initial telephone screening. Best § FFAs combine orientation with initial home visit. § FFAs evaluate existing family psycho-dynamics. Avoid N/A Initial Training Typical § Foster parents complete MAPP training. § FFAs provide additional, customized training program, such as PRIDE (Parent Resource Instruction, Development, and Education) or STEP (Systematic Training for Effective Parenting). § Foster parents complete 12 to 30 hours of pre-certification training. § FFAs do not test or otherwise assess what foster parents have retained. Best § Foster parents complete 30 hours of pre-certification training. § Training focuses on family dynamics, not just on the child. § FFAs stress accountability for training material through follow-up discussion with foster parents who must demonstrate what they understand and how they can apply course content. § FFAs include pre- and post-testing for STEP training. § FFAs continue to screen and weed out potential foster parents during and even upon completion of training. § FFAs require foster parents – even if they have been previously certified by another FFA – to complete all the training again. § FFAs provide information about community resources such as WIC (Women, Infant, and Children nutrition program), suitable after-school programs, etc. § FFAs provide foster parents with complete documentation of Title 22 rules and regulations, FFA standards and expectations, and DC&FS standards and expectations. Avoid § Combine orientation with initial training. § Conduct training in short class periods over a 10- to 12-week period, minimizing retention of course content. Practice Aspects of FFA Operations Follow-up Training Typical § FFA leaves the choice of annual training topics up to foster parents. § Foster parents attend 12 hours per year. § FFAs do not test or otherwise assess what foster parents have retained. Best § Foster parents complete 20 hours of annual training. § FFAs provide interactive training versus a lecture format. § FFA training includes role plays to explore various difficult situations. § FFA social workers help foster parents access training for specific issues, such as sexual acting out or extreme oppositional behavior. § FFAs host monthly support groups for foster parents or informs foster parents of such groups as ChildShare. Avoid N/A Placement Typical § FFAs make placements with minimal information. § FFA social workers insist on talking to CSW – not just the TA – prior to making a placement. Best § FFA social workers will decline placements if the FFA does not have the appropriate home. Avoid § FFA social workers are pressured to make placements, regardless of information or availability of appropriate placement. § Most FFA social workers reported some pressure to make sub-optimal placements, despite assurances by administrators that this does not happen. § FFAs accept “D” rated children for foster home placement rather than encouraging group home placement. § FFAs place children based primarily on ethnicity of child. FFA Social Worker Visits Typical § FFA social workers visit their assigned homes once a week. Best § Foster parents have 24-hour access to their assigned social workers via pager. § FFA social workers are in regular telephone contact between weekly visits. § FFAs are small enough to ensure that FFA administrators – not just the assigned social workers – know each family individually. § FFA social workers visit with and observe children in their foster homes as well as in neutral environments, such as schools or after-school programs. Avoid § FFA social workers visit their assigned homes every other week, per the “old” contract. § FFA social workers do not spend “quality” time with foster parents. § FFA social workers only visit with and observe children in the foster home environment Practice Aspects of FFA Operations DCFS/FFA Relationship Typical § CSWs and TAs routinely withhold information about children they are trying to place: • They may not have the information, especially TAs. • They may not want to provide the information because “difficult” children are harder to place. § Neither FFAs nor foster parents have the information to make appropriate placements: • Either they do not have qualified parents for a given type of child or the qualified parents already have enough children placed in their homes. • Foster parents accept children whom they would not if they had complete information prior to the placements. Best § CSWs work constructively and collaboratively with FFA social workers. § CSWs provide all information (e.g., court-related, medical, psychological, educational, etc.) on a timely basis to FFA social workers. Avoid § FFAs treat CSWs with excessive deference. § FFA social workers are instructed to give presents regularly to their CSWs (e.g., gourmet coffee, muffins, etc.). § FFAs are informally “blacklisted” by CSWs when they disagree about how a case is handled. CSW Visits to FFA-Certified Foster Homes Typical § CSWs make monthly visits to their assigned foster children and visit with them for 15 to 30 minutes. Best N/A Avoid § CSWs never visit the child. (Most experienced foster parents reported that one or more of the CSWs assigned to children placed in their homes never made a single visit.) § CSWs visit their assigned children sporadically. § CSWs wait until the end of the month, then demand inconvenient visits (e.g., keep the child home from school, bring to DC&FS office with less than one day notice, etc.). § CSWs only contact foster parents when there is a court date and the CSW is required to prepare and submit a report. Practice Aspects of FFA Operations Quality Assurance and Problem-Solving Typical § FFA social workers make weekly visits to their assigned foster homes. § FFAs maintain an informal network to inform each other regarding decertified foster families. Best § FFA social workers make weekly visits and monthly home inspections at every foster home. § FFA social workers look for signs of emotional neglect, not just rules compliance. § FFA social workers look at the parent and the level of supervision, and do not focus solely on a specific incident. § FFA administrative staff randomly and routinely checks foster parent files. Avoid § FFA social workers limit their contact to the minimum required by the contract. § FFA social workers ignore potential problems if CSW indicates it is not a problem. Recruitment Standards. While selection of foster parents is an inherently subjective process, the more similar guidelines and training FFAs implement the more objective the process. DC&FS should identify the FFAs with the best track records of capable foster parents, and then work with them to develop consistent guidelines for all FFAs to follow. Some of the best practices identified through the FFA site visits include: q Using multiple outreach vehicles – print media, radio, religious organizations, etc. q Establishing standards in compliance with the State and DC&FS regarding financial stability, race or ethnicity, etc. q Combining the initial orientation with the first home visit. Training Programs. DC&FS should work with FFA representatives to evaluate the various training programs and select the best components of each. With some flexibility to meet unique FFA needs, FFAs should offer the same initial and ongoing training programs to foster parents. Training Assessment. Foster parents should be evaluated to determine how well they are mastering the material presented in training programs. Extreme caution should be used, however, to avoid a stringent testing atmosphere, which would undoubtedly discourage many from becoming foster parents. Nevertheless, if foster parents are being held to a higher standard, they should demonstrate mastery of basic childhood development and parenting concepts. FFA training staff should also use class participation as a way to gauge understanding and retention – simply attending a course should not result in automatic credit. Compliance with Rules and Regulations. DC&FS and FFAs must agree on the rules and regulations to be enforced in every certified foster home. Any exceptions to established rules should be made based on a formal request (e.g., “Title 22 Compliance Exception Request”) by the foster parent and the FFA and must be reviewed and approved by DC&FS. Foster parents should not be “shopping” for lax FFAs, and lax CSWs should not be considered “good.” ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF FOSTER PARENTS Foster parents need and deserve training, support, and respect for the difficult tasks they undertake. They are blamed for continuing the same abuse or neglect that forced many children into foster care in the first place, but seldom receive praise for nurturing these children during difficult periods of transition and leading them toward successful futures.
R00-13

Damaged Books/Forgery in Prison
R13

Develop foster parenting as a legitimate and valued profession. The State CCL, DC&FS, and FFAs must work together to cultivate foster parenting as a legitimate and valued profession and to help change the negative attitudes toward foster parenting. Rather than being tainted by “doing it for the money,” foster parents deserve remuneration for providing important child-care services.
R00-14

Misuse of Public Funds – Sierra Madre
R14

Provide more comprehensive and consistent training and support to foster parents. All foster parents, whether they are licensed by the State or certified by FFAs, should have the same opportunities to receive training; receive the same information about Title 22; and be held accountable for understanding the same material, rules, and regulations. Such consistency would increase the quality of foster care across the County, and facilitate the evaluation and tracking of foster family quality. Training. DC&FS and FFAs should work together to develop more comprehensive and consistent training for foster parents to provide the support foster parents need and deserve and to increase the quality of foster parents overall. q MAPP, PRIDE, and STEP training programs should be compared and evaluated. The best features of each should be integrated into standardized training materials required for all foster parents. At the same time, FFAs should have the flexibility to develop additional materials to reflect the needs of their foster parents. q DC&FS and FFAs should design (or obtain) and deliver problem-specific training at the time a child with such problems is placed in a home. Foster parents should be forewarned about a child’s specific issues and receive problem-specific training. Foster parents with advance knowledge and training should have more success coping with children who may have problem behaviors and be more effective in helping the child. For example: § Understanding the differences between age-appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior. § Setting limits for children at different ages. § Understanding emancipation guidelines for working with teenagers. § Working with depressed, withdrawn, oppositional, or hyperactive children. q FFA social workers should make more frequent visits and phone calls when an especially difficult child has been placed. Title 22 (Welfare & Institutions Code) Compliance. DC&FS, FFAs, and CCL should work together to determine standards for increased flexibility in foster home rules and regulations to increase: q Overall compliance by allowing foster parents to exercise common sense. q Consistency of compliance across FFAs (to deter foster parents looking for “easy graders”). q Consistency of compliance across CSWs (to deter FFAs looking for “easy graders”). q Safety and security of the child. ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT q Financial audits of DC&FS payments to FFAs should be preformed. There is concern that payments could be inaccurate, given the incomplete information available on DC&FS databases. q The amount of money paid to State-licensed versus FFA-certified foster families should be reviewed. There should be increased flexibility in both economic incentives and reimbursements for State-licensed and FFA-certified foster families for working with children with more complex problems. PROPOSED ACTIONS This final section outlines a systematic approach for reviewing and implementing the recommendations set forth in this management audit. The first section addresses general actions steps that the different involved organizations and agencies should take to effect the recommended changes. The second section is an outline, listing the time frame, priorities, and accountabilities for implementing the recommendations. ACTION STEPS Because the recommendations represent systemic changes to the FFA model, DC&FS, FFAs, and the other stakeholders should implement the recommended changes, using a multi-step approach, as outlined next. An organization such as ACSA or the FFABCK Steering Committee should be involved with review and implementation of recommendations to represent the interests of FFAs. Many of the recommendations complement and build on each other. Therefore, they should be implemented systematically and not “piecemeal”. Action Step 1: Review and Accept the Recommendations in Principle. First, the DC&FS and representative FFAs should review the recommendations one by one, and accept them in principle. Recommendations should be modified as suggested by group consensus or as required to meet specific constraints, such as State laws and codes, County codes, legal requirements, or availability of resources. All recommendations should be accepted, rejected, or modified; none should be ignored. At this point, the final priorities, timelines, and accountabilities can be set. In most areas, this report has presented the intended thrust of proposed improvement in the recommendations without trying to be too prescriptive regarding the details. Most important is the commitment of the FFAs and DC&FS to improvements in the FFA model and to child welfare overall. Action Step 2: Assign a Project Team to Supervise Implementation. Second, the importance, scope, and interrelationships of the recommended changes require centralized attention and monitoring to ensure a successful outcome. Consequently, a project team, reporting to the DC&FS and representative FFAs should be appointed to handle day-to-day supervision, coordination, and monitoring of implementation efforts. Action Step 3: Develop Activity Plans with Assigned Accountabilities. Third, for each recommended change, DC&FS and FFAs in consultation with the project team should identify the appropriate manager (at DC&FS) or other individual (at FFAs) with responsibility for it. The intent is to suggest ultimate responsibility; certain aspects may be delegated to individuals below the level of the assigned recommendation manager. Moreover, the individual with lead accountability may have to coordinate cross-functionally with other DC&FS or FFA executives and managers. As a starting point, we propose where such responsibility might generally be placed for each recommendation. We also note the relative priority and timing for implementing each recommendation. The assigned recommendation managers should prepare an Activity Plan for each recommendation. Cost implications should be refined at this point, depending on the specific course of action. Each Activity Plan also should contain a statement of each recommendation with the identified manager and defined performance objective. The performance objective is a statement of the expected situation or condition after implementation of the recommendation. This objective should serve as a benchmark to measure accomplishment of the associated recommendation. The Activity Plan should detail the sequential action steps required to enact the recommendation, the assignment of responsibility for completing each step, and the start date and duration of each step. The project team should review and approve each Activity Plan. Action Step 4: Begin Implementation and Monitor Progress. Fourth, once the Activity Plans are approved, the action steps should begin. Each assigned recommendation manager should prepare a quarterly, one-page report concerning the progress of each Activity Plan (i.e., recommendation) for the project team and DC&FS Director. In turn, the project team should summarize these reports for the Department and the FFAs. As recommendation managers identify adjustments necessary to the Activity Plans, they should consult with the project team and note the needed adjustments on their progress reports. The project team should give a quarterly oral report to DC&FS and the FFAs regarding progress to date in implementing the recommendations. Optimally, project teams should share with the Grand Jury progress made, “lessons learned,” adjustments made, and overall successes and setbacks. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS As a starting point, each recommendation is listed in the order they are discussed in this report, noting: q Relative importance — high, medium, low. q Timing for implementation — immediate, near term, long term, and ongoing. q Complexity of the recommendation — easy, moderately difficult, or hard to implement. q Suggested DC&FS or FFA accountability for implementing the recommendations. The symbols for each of these considerations are defined in Exhibit 14. Exhibit 14 Legend for the Recommended Actions Considerations for Legend for Information Provided Each Recommendation Relative importance ¶¶¶ = High priority ¶¶ = Medium priority ¶ = Low priority Timing = Immediate= FY 1999-2000 = Near term = FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002 = Long term= FY 2002-2003 and thereafter ... = Ongoing = Once implemented, maintained on an ongoing basis Complexity 4 = Easy to implement 44 = Moderately difficult to implement 444 = Hard to implement Accountability First listed incumbent has lead responsibility for implementation. Others listed where cross-functional accountabilities are necessary. Detailed descriptions of each recommendation are contained in the section titled “Recommendations”. Exhibit 15 recaps the recommendations set forth in this report. Exhibit 15 Recommended Actions Relative Complex- Account- Recommendation Importance Timing ity ability 1 DC&FS, FFAs, and other child ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS welfare advocates should work Director, collaboratively and cooperatively to FFAs address the complex issues facing child welfare in a major urban environment such as the County of Los Angeles 2 Make the best interests of the child ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, paramount in all aspects of FFAs placement in FFAs and, by extension, in child welfare overall. Develop child-centered outcome ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, standards and measurements for FFAs children, CSWs, FFAs, and foster parents. Develop and implement a new ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS assessment model. Relative Complex- Account- Recommendation Importance Timing ity ability 5 Build child-centered teams to ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, assess and monitor foster children. FFAs 6 Review and implement ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, recommendations detailed in FFAs previous reports pertaining to DC&FS and FFAs. Decentralize the DC&FS ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS organizational structure. Enhance the CSW work ¶¶ ... DC&FS environment. Improve DC&FS-FFA ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, communication processes and FFAs information flow. Develop comprehensive DC&FS ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS systems and infrastructures to collect, update, track, and report updated, timely, complete, and accurate information. Address the gap between OHCEU ¶¶ ... DC&FS workload and available staff. Standardize FFA practices based ¶¶ ... FFAs on identified best practices to improve performance at all FFAs and to recruit consistently high quality foster parents. Develop foster parenting as a ¶¶ ... DC&FS, legitimate and valued profession. FFAs 14 Provide more comprehensive and ¶¶ ... FFAs consistent training and support to foster parents. REDUCING THE HEALTH RISKS OF SWIMMING AT LOS ANGELES COUNTY BEACHES TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms
R00-16

Racist Conspiracy and DA Misconduct
R00-17

El Segundo Post Office Irregularities
R00-18

County Recorder Delays
R00-19

Inmate Alleges Frame-up
R00-20

Retirement Board Misconduct
R00-21

Care Rates For Foster Youth
R00-22

Malfeasance of Long Beach Officials
R00-23

County Assessor’s Practices
R00-24

Obstruction of Justice
R00-25

Police Perjury - Pasadena Police Dept.
R00-26

Death at Hands of LAPD
R00-27

Alleged Property Theft by LAPD
R00-28

Use of Undocumented Workers by County/USC Medical Center
R00-29

Improper Imprisonment and Poisoning of Son
R00-30

Alleged Court Malfeasance
R00-31

Alleged LAPD Theft of Money
R00-32

Missing Property File
R00-33

DA Family Support Unit Erroneous Claim
R00-34

Sheriff’s Department Discrimination
R00-35

Mental Health Department Discrimination
R00-36

Fatal Fall of UCLA Student
R36

The hospital area is very overcrowded. The staff of 28 is inadequate to properly serve the needs of the youth in this facility. Additional space and help is needed in this infirmary area for youth to receive proper care. Birth control pills are not given nor their use explained to females, even though the charge nurse has suggested it. On the other hand, Camp Scott does supply females with this information and pills to make sure they were better prepared when they leave. There are 385 supervisors split in three shifts, to control the entire complex through all functions. There are a total of 60 teachers in 37 classrooms, all of whom seemed to be working well together. However, Probation, teachers, and Health Services have very poor working and communication skills with one another. There is a need for specialist and bilingual educators. . Also, Probation, teachers, and the nursing staff agree that over 50% of the youth have severe mental problems. Juveniles at this facility range in age from 9 to 21 and are kept from 3 to 48 days. It should be noted that all youth including mentally challenged are tested at Barry Nidorf for classification and assignment to other camps. Comment: In our opinion, the school system here needs greater attention to helping the mentally challenged youth they encounter. The facility shows an excellent daily schedule as to how the youth will be served; however, it was not what the inspection team observed. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this facility in FY2000 - There are no plans to do any type of work at this facility in the master plan. CONCLUSIONS – JUVENILE FACILITIES Most detention facilities, along with the camps in the probation system, are in great need of capital improvements. The camp living conditions for juveniles, when compared to jail or prison facilities, are at best sub-standard. Many small things can be done on a facility by facility basis by the director, teachers, and youth, which would enhance the appearance of their facilities. However, to correct the major problems, it will be up to the Board of Supervisors to invest the money needed for the future of our youth. Major work needs to be done by LACO as to the manner in which they interact with the Probation Department and Health Services regarding the instruction of youth. The Probation Department needs to closely monitor the contractors to ensure both the quality and timely completion of repair work at the juvenile facilities. Most juvenile facilities in the County Probation system are in extreme disrepair. Interior and exterior painting of all facilities need immediate attention. There are serious general plumbing problems in facility bathrooms and showers. Those camps that have escape and protection fencing need repairs. It was noted that the kitchen equipment presently being purchased is breaking within three years of purchase and it is difficult to get repair parts or anyone knowledgeable to do the work. Safety, health, ground management, and sanitation problems recur throughout this report primarily because there is inadequate custodial and/or gardening services in the facilities. Security communications concerning campus phones and walkie-talkies are out-dated. The majority of all camp drinking fountains are filthy and the water is vile-tasting. . RECOMMENDATIONS – JUVENILE FACILITIES
R00-37

Alleged Malfeasance by Montebello City Council
R00-38

Alleged Child Abuse at Camp Afflebaugh
R00-39

Conspiracy to send Complainant to Prison
R00-40

Misconduct by District Attorney’s Office
R00-41

West Covina City Council Impropriety
R00-42

Civil Service Commission Improper Policies / Discipline
R00-43

Alleged LAPD Perjury
R00-44

Illegal Seizure of Vehicles by City of Pico Rivera
R00-45

Purported 5th Amendment Violation
R00-46

Building and Safety Violations
R00-47

Stolen Property and DA Refusal to Charge
R00-48

Compton Parole Unit Abuse
R00-49

Unlawful LAPD Arrest and Search
R00-50

Sexual Harassment at County/USC Medical Center
R00-51

Inappropriate Behavior by Sheriff and DC&FS
R00-52

Perjury by LAPD Officer
R00-53

Rampart LAPD Perjury and Planting of Evidence
R00-54

El Monte Police Department Brutality and Corruption
R00-55

Improper Conduct by Port of LA and LA City Attorney’s Office
R00-56

Video Spying by Pasadena School Police Department
R00-57

County Hospital Admin. Position Given To Unqualified Person
R00-58

Public Projects Not Meeting ‘Sustainable Growth’ Tests
R00-59

‘Wrong Name’ Citation With No Request for Action
R00-60

Police Brutality by LAPD Southwest Division
R00-61

Mistreatment of Son at Camp Fred Miller
R00-62

Frame-up by LAPD Rampart Division Officers
R00-63

Denial of Fair Trial Rights
R00-64

False Reports and Misconduct by LAPD Northeast CRASH
R00-65

Federal and State Tax Evasion
R00-66

Malicious and Unlawful Prosecution and Sentencing FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. While the Complaints Committee recognizes that there is a comprehensive prison system of appeals for inmates, as well as redress in court, there appears to be a need for the Grand Jury to be responsive to prisoner complaints. While this concern would not rise to the level of attempting to resolve personal conflicts a prisoner may allege, it would be concerned with prison conditions and management. 2. During the course of the year it became apparent, as the Committee reviewed the citizens’ complaints to the Grand Jury, that there is a large segment of society that is frustrated by its attempt to resolve problems with government agencies. Los Angeles County is a culturally and racially diverse community of over 10 million people. Many are unsophisticated, intimidated by government agencies, or lack English fluency. As a result, citizens do not know where to go to redress actual or perceived disputes and problems involving government and its bureaucracies. In 1994 the Board of Supervisors, in an attempt to open a line of communication between the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the public, established the Office of the Ombudsman. Since its inception the Office of the Ombudsman has demonstrated a constant pattern of proactive, innovative service to the people of Los Angeles County. The Office has been repeatedly praised by professionals and was the recipient of the National Association of Counties award for Distinguished Service in improving county government. The Office of Ombudsman is eminently cost effective and, to date, no litigation against the county has originated from Office of Ombudsman clientele. San Francisco, with a population of fewer than one million and a more homogeneous demographic profile, budgets five times as much for its ombudsman program as does Los Angeles. New York City, 20% less populous than Los Angeles County, budgets 600% more for its ombudsman program. With a modest budget increase, The Los Angeles County Office of Ombudsman could begin, on an incremental basis, an expansion of its role to include additional County departments in its program. A budget increase of $265,237 to be allocated as follows, would provide for the expansion of the Ombudsman Office. Office of Ombudsman Estimate of Budgetary Increase Necessary to Expand the Office (January, 2000) Salaries & Employee Benefits: 2 Community Services Liaison $146,000 @$60,763.68 yearly/person 2 Community Service Counselors 77,237 @ $32,182.92 yearly/person ________ Subtotal $223,237 Services and Supplies: Communications 5,000 County Counsel 5,000 Office Furniture 15,000 Office Equipment 7,000 Mileage 3,000 Supplies 7,000 Subtotal 42,000 Annual Net County Cost Increase $265,237 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends that future grand juries be responsive to inmate complaints related to conditions and management within the prisons in Los Angeles County. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors provide the resources and a mandate for the Office of the Ombudsman to assist citizens who have complaints or concerns involving other county departments as determined by the Ombudsman. CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Rosetta Saunders, Chairperson Eugene A. Taylor, Jr., Co-Chairperson Walter Lowenstein Latonia McDaniel Yvonne M. White A COMPARISON OF FORMAL AND SUMMARY PROBATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1. Formal and Summary Probation Profiles A. Formal Probation B. Summary Probation Conclusions Recommendations 2. Probation Costs and Charges A. Formal Probation B. Summary Probation Conclusions Recommendations 3. Revocation and Measures of Probation Effectiveness A. Formal Probation B. Summary Probation Conclusions INTRODUCTION Although the Grand Jury does not have the authority to study and make recommendations about the courts’ systems, this report includes information on summary probation, which emanates from the courts. This Grand Jury report compares: • The profile of probationers sentenced by the courts to formal and summary probation. • The costs of supervising formal and summary probationers. • The rate at which formal and summary probation is revoked. To accomplish these objectives, various documents and standard data reports produced by the County and the courts were reviewed, and representatives from the Municipal Courts and Los Angeles County Probation Department were interviewed. In addition, we worked with the Municipal Courts, the Probation Department, the Information Systems Advisory Body, and the County Internal Services Department to design and produce special data processing reports on formal and summary probation case profiles and revocation activity, to better define the formal and summary probation populations and probation violation outcomes. To obtain a better understanding of formal probation monitoring effectiveness and the reasons for revocation, a limited sampling of formal probation cases was conducted. All data gathering and sampling activities focussed on probation cases that were active during Fiscal Year 1998-99. After completing the analysis, a draft report was prepared and a meeting was held with representatives from the Los Angeles Municipal Courts and the Chief Probation Officer and managers from the Probation Department, to discuss the report findings, conclusions and recommendations. We would like to thank the judges, managers and staff of the Municipal Courts, Probation Department, Information Systems Advisory Board, and Internal Services Department for their assistance throughout this study. Their candor, expertise and willingness to produce various data and special reports were valuable contributions toward the completion of this project. Description of Probation Services The California Penal Code authorizes the courts to grant probation as an out-of-custody alternative to jail for less serious offenders, since incarceration is not appropriate, practical or cost effective in all cases. County probation departments are charged with assisting the courts in identifying felony offenders who are suitable candidates for formal probation. Probation departments also may be requested to assist courts with identifying misdemeanor offenders who are suitable candidates for formal probation or conditional release, commonly referred to as “informal probation” or “summary probation.” Formal probation is defined in the Penal Code as: “the suspension of the imposition or execution of a sentence and the order of conditional and revocable release in the community under the supervision of a probation officer.” [Penal Code § 1203(a)]. Thus, under the Penal Code, a person who is sentenced by the court to formal probation is referred to the probation officer for the period of the probation grant. The probation officer then supervises compliance with the terms and conditions of the court order. Conditional sentencing, or summary probation, is also defined in Penal Code §1203(a) as, “the suspension of the imposition or execution of a sentence and the order or revocable release in the community subject to conditions established by the court without the supervision of a probation officer” (emphasis added). Unless otherwise ordered by the courts, persons granted a conditional sentence report directly to the court, and the county probation department is not responsible for supervising compliance with the terms and conditions of the court order. By State law, neither formal nor summary probation may be granted to any person convicted of violent or serious felonies such as arson, robbery, burglary, attempted murder, kidnapping, and others, or, a person who was on probation for a felony offense at the time of the commission of a new felony offense. For defendants convicted of felony offenses eligible for probation, State law requires that the probation officer investigate the circumstances surrounding the crime and the prior history and record of the person being considered, before sentencing is imposed. The report must include a recommendation on whether the defendant should be placed on formal probation and if fines and/or restitution payments to crime victims should be paid. For defendants convicted of misdemeanors, the courts may either refer the matter to a probation officer for investigation, or pronounce summary probation without a probation officer’s investigation. If the case is not referred to a probation officer, the court may, but is not required to, consider the type of information that would have been included in a probation report. When summary probation is ordered, the courts are authorized to demand reports from the probationers and to establish administrative procedures in the courts necessary to carry out the purposes of probation. This includes requiring probationers to appear in court for progress reports and to provide documentation indicating that they are enrolled in or regularly attending court mandated programs. For most offenses, summary probation can be imposed for a three- year period. In instances where the terms and conditions of either type of probation are violated, the courts are authorized to revoke, modify, or terminate probation. Rearrest of the probationer by a law enforcement agency or a probation officer, or issuance of a bench warrant for rearrest (e.g., in instances where a probationer has not paid his or her fines) is grounds for revocation and termination. Modification or revocation of formal or summary probation requires a court hearing. In addition to formal probation and summary probation, California law also allows certain drug, marijuana and narcotics convictions to be suspended and the defendant granted “deferred entry of judgment” (DEJ). Under this program, the court may dismiss the charges against a defendant upon the defendant’s successful completion of a County drug diversion program. The defendant is granted a minimum of 18 months to complete the program, which can be extended by the court to a maximum of 36 months. If a person granted a deferred entry of judgment fails to comply with the court order, the conviction is entered and the court sentences the defendant. Sentences may include incarceration or probation. Persons may be supervised while in DEJ status by a probation officer, or directly by the court. Impact on Probation Supervision Practices As defined by law, there are unique differences in formal probation, summary probation, and the deferred entry of judgment program. These differences are complicated in Los Angeles County by the characteristics of the criminal justice system, the many viewpoints of elected officials, and the bias of individual justice agencies regarding their respective roles and responsibilities regarding probation. Judges from the Superior Court and each of the 24 municipal courts, the District Attorney, prosecuting city attorneys, the Probation Department and others all participate in identifying persons who may be eligible for probation, determining the conditions of probation and ensuring that court orders regarding probation are met. These factors, as well as others, have resulted in a system which is fragmented, inconsistently managed, and which lacks a reasonable evaluation system. This report examines these questions, and provides the courts and the County with suggestions for improving the effectiveness of probation, and establishing a system for monitoring the probation process. Recognition of Court and Probation Changes While fieldwork for this investigation was being conducted, the Superior and Municipal Courts of Los Angeles County agreed to unify their operations. With unification comes opportunities for restructuring processes, reassigning duties among judges, standardizing procedures across courts, expediting cases, and modifying the manner in which summary probation services are managed. However at this time, there are no official plans for changing the summary probation function in the new court structure from what has existed in the Municipal Courts. All fieldwork and analysis for this audit pertain to Municipal Court operations in place at the time of unification. This approach was also taken with the Los Angeles County Probation Department. Under current management, the Probation Department is restructuring the processes, systems and priorities of formal probation adult supervision services in the County. Toward these ends, several goals have been established for the immediate future. Specifically, the Department intends to: 1. Ensure risk assessment consistency, by ensuring that at least 60% of all cases have an initial Risk & Needs Assessment completed, and that 35% of all cases be reassessed at the mid-term of probation. 2. Establish mechanisms to ensure that at least 70% of active cases, where probationers have failed to report for orientation, will be reported to the courts for violation of probation. 3. Establish mechanisms to ensure that at least 60% of active cases, where probationers have new arrests, will be reported to the courts for violation of probation. 4. Ensure that at least 60% of existing cases, where probationers have outstanding financial obligations, will be reported to the courts for violation, at least 90 days prior to the end of the probation term. 5. Establish controls to ensure that 94 percent of all court reports will be submitted to the courts two days prior to scheduled hearing. In order to achieve these goals, the Probation Department has implemented an Adult Compliance Team (ACT) program, which is designed to ensure that monitoring activities for minimum supervision caseloads are current, the processing of notifications of new arrests on all active probation cases are expedited, and probation officers assigned to certain specialty caseloads are assisted. In addition, the Department is in the process of modifying its automated probation violation tracking capability within APS. To accomplish this, modifications to the existing system will be implemented, and new functionality will be added. To a large extent, these improvements will automate current manual processes. In addition, new processes will be established to track cases and identify probationers that are in violation of conditions of probation, thus providing probation officers with an added tool for identifying probation violation activity. These changes are being made possible, in part, because of increases in resources appropriated to the Department in recent years. For example, the Probation Department received funds in FY1999-2000 to lower caseload to probation officer ratios for Domestic Violence, Child Threat and Minimum Supervision case types. Other process improvements, including the establishment of a kiosk system to expand client-reporting tools and validate reporting authenticity, are also being implemented. It is the hope of the Department to meet or exceed all of these goals within the next 18 months to two years. In addition, the Department would like to receive additional funding for probation officer personnel to further reduce caseload to probation officer ratios. To support continuous process improvement, the Department would also like to establish a Research & Evaluation Unit. We support the Department’s goals and objectives, and believe the recommendations contained in this report will enhance management’s ability to conduct self- evaluation and improve services to the community. 1. FORMAL AND SUMMARY PROBATION PROFILES • Nearly 58 percent of the 91,000 formal probationers in FY1998-99 were assigned by the County Probation Department to its minimum supervision caseload, where regular contact with probation officers is conducted by mail and compliance monitoring is automated. The Department determined that the remaining 42 percent posed a greater risk to the community. These individuals were therefore assigned to higher risk and specialty caseloads in which more direct probation officer contact and monitoring occurs. • The Municipal Courts do not maintain a formalized system for assessing the risk of its summary probation cases and assigning them accordingly to supervision classifications. Instead, the level of supervision and direct contact with summary probationers monitored by the courts is determined primarily by the sentencing judge. Some judges require regular in-court progress reports; others require none unless probation is violated. As a result, it is possible for lower level misdemeanants assigned to summary probation to have more direct contact with justice agency officials than convicted felons assigned to the Probation Department’s minimum supervision caseload. • As allowed by State law, County judges chose to assign 18,491 misdemeanants to formal probation in FY1998-99. Of these, 16,449, or nearly 90 percent, were assigned to a minimum supervision caseload. At the same time, judges chose to assign many misdemeanants with significant criminal backgrounds to summary probation. Case records reveal numerous summary probationers with extensive prior convictions, including some with up to ten prior felony convictions. This points to the lack of clarity regarding the criteria used to determine when one probation system should be used rather than the other. • The Municipal Courts produced a report identifying its approximately 500,000 summary probation cases per year. A. FORMAL PROBATION The formal probation system in Los Angeles County is administered by the County’s Chief Probation Officer and the staff of the Probation Department. The primary functions of the department are sentencing investigations; pre-trial services; probation supervision; and juvenile detention. For FY1999-2000, the Department has an annual budget of approximately $305 million and 4,200 employees. The Probation Department’s Adult Supervision division is staffed by 263 deputy probation officers that supervised 90,968 probationers in FY1998-99. These officers are responsible for orienting new probationers, monitoring probationer compliance with the terms and conditions of probation, and reporting to the courts as required. To accomplish this, the Department has established several supervision categories that are designed to provide the highest level of monitoring and probation officer contact for persons who pose the greatest risk to the community. Although the Department has established many sub-groupings, the following major categories are currently in use. • High Risk Offender (HRO) – This category includes persons who pose the greatest risk to the community or of violating the terms and conditions of their probation. Typically, the persons assigned to this category have been convicted of more serious felonies, have a prior criminal history which may include assaultive behavior, may have indications of drug and/or alcohol abuse, and may owe large amounts of money for fines and/or restitution (over $10,000). By policy, the Department has historically assigned an average of 200 HRO cases to each probation officer working this caseload. • Specialty Caseloads (Gang, Child Threat, and Domestic Violence) – Like HRO probationers, persons assigned to other specialty caseloads pose the greatest risk to the community of violating the terms and conditions of their probation. The Gang category (GNG) includes persons who have known gang affiliations. The Child Threat category (CTH) includes persons who have been convicted of misdemeanor or felony crimes against children, or are determined to pose a potential threat to children. The Domestic Violence category (DOM) includes persons who have been convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic abuse charges. By policy, the Department has historically assigned an average of 50 cases to each probation officer working a Gang caseload, 70 cases to each probation officer working a Child Threat caseload, and 150 cases to each probation officer working a Domestic Violence caseload. • Narcotics Testing Unit (NTU) – This category includes persons who have been convicted of misdemeanor or felony drug charges, and exhibit characteristics of habitual drug use. Depending on the severity of their drug use, these probationers are required to submit to weekly, biweekly, or monthly drug testing designed to closely monitor compliance with court orders. Because defendants move between supervision tiers depending on compliance with the testing order, average caseloads range between 50 and 1,000 cases per probation officer assigned to the NTU. • Automated Minimum Supervision (AMS) – This category includes persons who have been convicted of misdemeanor or felony charges but, because of the nature of the offense, prior criminal history and other factors, are considered to be lower risk to the community. Also referred to as “banked caseloads,” the Department assigns an average of approximately 1,000 cases to each AMS probation officer. In FY1999-2000, the Probation Department received additional positions and funding which will allow it to reduce the average caseload per probation officer in some of these categories. Based on a September 7, 1999 restructuring proposal, it is the Department’s goal to reduce average Domestic Violence caseloads from 150 to approximately 100 cases per probation officer, and reduce the AMS caseloads from 1,000 to approximately 600 cases per probation officer. The Department believes that these changes, when fully implemented, should increase the ability of the Department to monitor probationers in these areas. Adult Supervision Classification System To determine the case category into which a probationer will be placed after sentencing by the courts, the probation officer assigned to the court prepares a risk assessment which attaches a score to various defendant characteristics. Based on the “National Institute of Corrections Model Probation System,” the case classification system used by the Probation Department measures risk against the following criteria. 1. Whether the individual exhibits behavior suggesting drug or alcohol abuse, or is known to be a drug or alcohol abuser. 2. Whether the individual has known gang involvement or affiliation. 3. The age of the individual at the time of first conviction. 4. Whether the individual has any prior probation grants and revocations. 5. Whether the individual has any history of violent or assaultive behavior, with additional points for possession of a deadly weapon, use of physical force, stalking, or assault with a deadly weapon. 6. The circumstances of the offense for which the individual was placed on probation, including whether the conviction was for a violent crime. Points are assigned for each characteristic. Any person who scores 15 points or higher will be assigned to one of the more intensive supervision caseloads. If the score is 14 points or less, the person will be assigned to an AMS caseload unless there are factors that suggest a specialized caseload may be more appropriate. In these instances, the risk score of 14 points or less may be set aside by the probation officer, with approval from his/her supervisor, and the probationer may be assigned to one of the Department’s more intensive supervision caseloads. In FY1998-99, the Probation Department provided services to 90,968 individuals, who were distributed between supervision categories, as shown in Table 1.1 below. Table 1.1 Distribution of Misdemeanor and Felony Cases by Case Category – FY1998-99 CASE MISD FELONY TOTAL % MISD % FELONY % CLIENTS/ CATEGORY CLIENTS CLIENTS CLIENTS CLIENTS CLIENTS CATEGORY HRO 550 1 5,891 1 6,441 3.3% 96.7% 18.1% DOM 996 2 ,046 3,042 32.7% 67.3% 3.3% CTH 245 1 ,852 2,097 11.7% 88.3% 2.3% NTU 198 1 5,488 1 5,686 1.3% 98.7% 17.2% GNG 26 716 7 42 3.5% 96.5% 0.8% OTH 27 587 6 14 4.4% 95.6% 0.7% AMS 16,449 35,897 52,346 31.4% 68.6% 57.5% TOTAL 18,491 7 2,477 9 0,968 20.3% 79.7% 100.0% HRO = High Risk Offender; DOM = Domestic Violence; CTH = Child Threat; NTU = Narcotics Testing Unit; GNG = Gang; OTH = Other; AMS = Automated Minimum Supervision To assess the differences between formal and summary probationers, a profile of formal and summary probationers was requested from the Probation Department and the courts detailing the number of counts per probationer and the number of prior convictions by type of offense. This information was provided by the courts and is presented later in this section. The Probation Department could not electronically compile the information and manual compilation was not feasible. As a result, the only formal probation profile information available is as presented in Table 1.1. As shown in the table, 52,346 persons, or approximately 57.5 percent of all Probation Department clients were assigned to Automated Minimum Supervision (AMS) caseloads in FY 1998-99. Of these, approximately 68.6 percent had been convicted of felony offenses and 31.4 percent had been convicted of misdemeanor offenses. In the high risk and specialized caseload categories, over 95 percent of all clients had been convicted of felonies, with the exception of domestic violence and child threat categories, which were assigned 67.3 percent and 88.3 percent felons respectively. Based on a review of the scoring criteria employed by the Probation Department’s risk assessment tool, the data included in Table 1.1, interviews with Probation Department and Municipal Court managers and judges, and other factors, the AMS misdemeanant client profile appears to most closely correspond with that of persons who are placed on summary probation in Los Angeles County. Accordingly, the analysis of formal probation caseload and practices focuses on the AMS population rather than the case categories that generally receive more intensive supervision. This is discussed more fully, below. Probation Department Automated Minimum Service Workload The Adult Services Field Bureau and Adult Special Services Bureau of the Probation Department operate 14 Area Field Offices which are geographically dispersed throughout the County. The Directors at thirteen of these Area Field Offices manage probation officers who are responsible for HRO, Gang and AMS cases. Also housed at all 13 of these locations are probation officers responsible for Narcotics Testing, Domestic Violence and Child Threat specialty cases. Unlike the other specialty cases, Narcotics Testing is managed centrally. Probation officers at the fourteenth location–the La Madera Office (which recently moved and has been renamed the Riverview Office)–are responsible solely for AMS cases. During the period of this study, the La Madera Office monitored AMS probationers who resided within the boundaries of the Foothill, Pasadena, Pomona, Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Area Field Offices. In FY1998-99, probation officers at the La Madera Office monitored an average of 16,165 AMS probationers, which was approximately 37 percent of the total County AMS caseload at that time. According to the Director of the La Madera Office, cases are now being accepted from an additional five Area Field Offices: Firestone; South Central; Long Beach; Long Beach-Harbor; and Santa Monica. Once the full transition of these caseloads occurs, the Director anticipates that the La Madera Office will be responsible for a total of 25,000 to 30,000 AMS cases—or up to 70 percent of the County’s total AMS caseload. The Field Services Bureau Director has confirmed this estimate. This is significant because the La Madera Office operates a program that relies heavily on compliance data that is entered into the Department’s Adult Probation System (APS) by clerical personnel. This data is monitored by probation officers, who use the information to prepare progress reports for the courts, determine probationer compliance with conditions 90 days prior to the end of their probation term, and report on any other violations which may surface during the period of probation. After initial probationer orientation, there is no requirement that the probationer meet with the probation officer, nor does the probation officer make a field visit to the probationer’s home or work location. Instead, the probationers are generally required to report monthly, by mail. Given the scope of this investigation, it was not practical to evaluate AMS probation monitoring practices at all of the Area Field Offices. Accordingly, the evaluation focussed on the La Madera Office because (a) the probation officers at that location are responsible solely for an AMS caseload, (b) the operation is highly routine, and depends heavily on automated reporting of probationer compliance, and (c) the Department is migrating toward the La Madera Office model for managing AMS cases in the future. In addition to the review of the La Madera office, also reviewed were AMS case management functions at the Firestone and Pomona Area Field Offices since they have both implemented new procedures that the Department is considering replicating at La Madera and at other offices. A profile of each office follows. Firestone Area Field Office – The Firestone Office has established an Intake process for all new AMS and NTU cases referred by the courts. Under this new process, an Intake Officer at the Firestone Office performs initial probationer orientation, and may retain supervision over an AMS case for up to 30 days to monitor initial compliance with the court order. If an AMS probationer meets these interim conditions of probation, the Intake Officer then transfers the case to La Madera. If interim conditions are not met, the Intake Officer may report violations to the court. In other locations, cases are transferred directly to the La Madera Office from the courts, and probation officers at the La Madera Office conduct initial orientation and compliance monitoring. Although it is too early to reach conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the Firestone Area Office model, it is the Department’s reported intention to increase probation success by initially providing more intensive supervision of AMS probationers prior to transfer to a banked caseload. Pomona Area Field Office – The Pomona Area Field Office has developed a computerized AMS case management system known as the Compliance Tracking System (CTS). Every day, the system automatically flags cases where a probationer is out of compliance with the terms and conditions of probation (e.g., financial, program, and community service conditions). This system automatically produces probationer notification letters, instructions, and other correspondence after clerical prompts. Using these features, clerical staff are able to produce packets of documentation for each probation officer which (a) identify non-compliant probationers, (b) provide detailed case information for the preparation of court reports and, (c) supply form letters and other materials that aid with probation enforcement. However, this system does not automatically interface with the Department’s APS system or other supporting data systems relied upon by the Department, so all probationer case data must be independently researched and input into APS by clerical personnel. This is a labor intensive process, which increases the potential for data input error and inconsistencies between the APS and CTS databases. Accordingly, the Department is presently engaged is a project to export CTS to other Area Field Offices, and to implement an automated interface between CTS and APS. When implemented, this effort will provide an enhanced tool for probation officers, and should increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the AMS monitoring process. Given the complexities of these processes, and the changes being undertaken by the Department, flow charts were prepared of AMS caseload management at four locations: 1. The probation supervision process from court order through case classification, including transfer to the Firestone, La Madera and Pomona Field Offices. 2. The intake and initial supervision process at the Firestone Field Office, through transfer to the La Madera Office or violation. 3. The AMS monitoring process at the La Madera Office through probation termination or revocation. 4. The AMS monitoring process at the Pomona Field Office, using the Compliance Tracking System operated on the Office’s computer network. These flow charts are presented on the following pages as Exhibits 1.1 through 1.4. As shown, case processing differs significantly between the La Madera and Pomona offices. As will be described in later sections of this report, these differences impact staffing requirements and costs, and likely influence program effectiveness. Exhibit 1.1 START Los Angeles County Probation Department Flowchart Of Probation Supervision Process From Court Order Through Classification Court Orders Formal Probation The DPO Court Officer clarifies the terms & conditions of Probation, and instructs the Probationer to report to a designated Field Office or provide evidence of compliance. This DPO may retain supervision over a case for a limited period; collect fines, fees and Investigation DPO restitution; and/or require proof of Assigns Case By compliance with program orders. Geographic Region And Risk Based Classification X-Folder Investigation Clerk Transferred To Updates APS & Field Office Prepares X-Folder Pomona Field Firestone Field La Madera Field Office AMS Intake Office Intake Clerk Office Intake Clerk Clerk (See individual flowcharts for the process at each of the Field Office sites reviewed for this study). Exhibit 1.2 START Los Angeles County Probation Department Probation Flowchart Of Probation Supervision Case Transferred Process Firestone Field Office (New AMS) From Court Intake Clerk Sends Letter Probationer Advising Fails Probationer To Respond To Report Intake DPO Instructs Intake Probation Probationer on Intake DPO Officers make several Probationer terms & Schedules Probationer attempts to contact Reports conditions, Follow-Up Misses probationers for makes program Appointment Appointment meetings and referrals & orientation. The DPO collects money. will calendar a Violation Of Probation hearing if the The Intake DPO may Probationer Probationer retain an AMS case Keeps repeatedly fails to for up to 30 days, and Appointment respond to DPO a NTU case for up to instructions. 15 days in order to secure initial compliance. Intake DPO Probationer Prepares Meets Interim No Court Report Conditions For Violation of Probation Yes Clerk Case Transferred Transmits Judge to La Madera Report And Revokes & AMS Field Coordinates Issues Office. Court Warrant Calendar stropeR renoitaborP reciffO truoC reP noitcurtsnI Exhibit 1.3 START Los Angeles County Probation Department Flowchart Of Probation Supervision Process X-Folder Received La Madera AMS Field Office From Field Office Intake Clerk Rearrest data is manually obtained Validates Referred Back To from State & County criminal justice Classification By Classification R S ev c i r e e w e e n d in g By Not Area Office For i A n P fo S rm b a y t i u o n n i t s c y l s e t r e ic m a s l s a ta n f d f. p M o o st n e t d h ly to Inv o e r s A ti r g e a a t i I o n n ta D k P e O Questioned DPO Appropriate M S o u re p e In rv te is n i s o i n ve r v e e p ri o fi r e ti d n g b y a n m d a p il r a o n g d ra p m o s a t t e te d n t d o a A n P ce S a b r y e DPO c m e a n d tr e a t li o z e th d e c C le o ri u c n a t l y s t T a r f e f. a P su a r y e m r ents are (through CARRS) and posted Appropriate electronically to APS. Financial Screening Clerk Appropriate Confirms Over Re F s e tit e u t A io m n o , u F n in ts e & $10,000 90 Day APS Compliance Report Reviewed Rearrested? Re M S p e a o n i r le t t ? in r g P M ay a m de e ? nt A P tt r e o n g d ra e m d? By Su D p P e O rvision Probationer Assigned To AMS Monitoring During Term Of Probation Caseload No In-Person Reporting Required Court May Require Progress Reports Probation Compliance Terminates Orientation Clerk Schedules Group Supervision DPO O S r e ie s n s t i a o t n io s n Found Non-Compliant Non Pr R ep e a p r o e r s t F C o o r urt Yes Probation Mid-Term Compliance Violation of Probation La Madera staff report that probationers may miss up to two orientation sessions before a Violation Of Probation report is submitted to the Probationer Court seeking a bench warrant. Attends Orientation Clerk Transmits Report And Judge Revokes & Coordinates Court Issues Warrant Calendar No Exhibit 1.4 START Los Angeles County Probation Department Flowchart Of Probation Supervision Process Additional letters may be mailed to probationer as Pomona Field Office (AMS "Pomona Project") Probation reminders of program Case requirements, etc., if no Transferred evidence of notification From Court exists in the X-Folder Rearrest data is manually obtained from State & County criminal justice information systems, and monthly Intake Clerk reporting and evidence of program En D te a L r t s e a t C t & e T r M S T a o C il a s se Rearrested? Re M S p e a o n i r le t t ? in r g P M ay a m de e ? nt A P tt r e o n g d ra e m d? a d c in e t a f t o n e ta r t n r m a d is a l a iz p t n i e o o c d s n e t P e i a s d o r e r m t e o r c o e e A n c i a P e v e i S c v d l e e & . d r P i C c b a a y T y l S m m s t e b a a n y i f l f . t s a A s a ll re Probationer Re: Monitoring During Term Of Probation m CA ad R e R t S o ) t a h n e d C p o o u s n te ty d T e r l e e a c s tr u o r n e i r c a (t l h ly r o to ugh Financial No In-Person Reporting Required APS. Financial data is manually posted Obligation Court May Require Progress Reports to CTS by clerical staff. Probation Violation Reports Are Produced Every 90 Days By CTS Probationer For DPO Review Probationer Name Appears Name Not On List On List Probationer Probationer DPO Attempts Responds and/or Doesn't Respond Contact With Complies, And No and/or Comply Probationer Further Immediate Action Taken Clerical staff produce these reports on all cases due to expire so that the DPO can ensure the probationer has complied with all terms & conditions 90 Day APS Probation Probation Compliance Expiration Report Terminates Reviewed By DPO Supervision DPO Clerk Transmits Prepares Court Non Report And Judge Revokes & Report For Compliance Coordinates Court Issues Warrant Violation of Calendar Probation Observations about formal probation A number of observations can be made about the formal probation process in the County of Los Angeles. First, approximately 80 percent of probationers sentenced to formal probation for a felony conviction in FY1998-99 were convicted of felonies. State law precludes a summary probation sentence for convicted felons. Further, as required by the Penal Code for each of these persons, the Probation Department prepared a pre-sentence investigation report which provided judges with information regarding the circumstances of the offense, the criminal record of the defendant, a victims’ statement, a sentencing recommendation and other information to assist the judges in making their sentencing decisions. Twenty percent of formal probationers, or 18,491 persons in FY1998-99, were sentenced to formal probation for misdemeanor convictions. Penal Code §1203(4)(d) states, “If a person is convicted of a misdemeanor, the court may either refer the matter to the probation officer for an investigation and report or summarily pronounce a conditional sentence.” According to Probation Department management, investigating probation officers prepare pre-sentence investigation reports on a very small proportion of misdemeanor convictions. While the law states that if a probation report is not requested for misdemeanor offenders, the “court may consider any information concerning the person that would have been included in a probation report,” the sources of such information are variable. Based on interviews and observations conducted for this study, the court typically obtains such information from the prosecuting attorney, victims, and the defendant. There are no established guidelines for ensuring that this information is consistently reported, complete or accurate. Accordingly, Municipal Court judges are at a potential disadvantage when sentencing misdemeanor offenders to either formal or summary probation. Once a probationer is assigned to formal probation, the Probation Department has established a conceptually good system for assessing risk to the community, and determining necessary levels of supervision. Department management reports that it is presently evaluating the Risk Assessment tool. An evaluation of the tool was not part of the scope of this audit. B. SUMMARY PROBATION The Municipal Courts of Los Angeles County administer conditional sentences, or summary probations. Though State law provides the courts with the choice of assigning defendants convicted of misdemeanors to either formal or summary probation, most judges choose summary probation for which supervision is provided directly by the courts. The County’s 24 separate municipal court districts and 190 authorized municipal court judicial positions supervised 499,094 summary probation cases in FY1998-99. This represented approximately 96.3 percent of all misdemeanor offenders on either formal or summary probation in that year. In the Los Angeles Municipal Court, the largest Municipal Court district in the county, there were 163,765 individuals on summary probation in FY1998-99. Table 1.2 presents the FY1998-99 summary probation caseload for the Los Angeles Municipal Court and each of the other Municipal Court districts in the County. The flow chart on the page following (Table 1.2) outlines the process followed for most summary probation cases. As can be seen, the process begins as it does for formal probation with a judgement of guilt and sentencing by the judge. Unlike a felony sentence to formal probation, though, a sentence to summary probation for a misdemeanor offender is not based on a standardized investigation such as those conducted by the Probation Department. Instead, information about the defendant is presented to the judge by the prosecuting attorney at arraignment. This information is typically not as detailed as Probation Department investigations, but generally includes the current charge(s) and the defendant’s criminal history. These two factors, combined with possible victim statements and the defendants’ responses to any inquiries made by the court, usually serve as the basis for determining whether placing a defendant on probation would pose any undue risk to the community. Table 1.2 Summary Probation Caseload By Municipal Court District - Los Angeles County FY1998-99 Court Cases Alhambra 7,121 Antelope 15,622 Beverly Hills 4,106 Burbank 7,731 Citrus 35,425 Compton 17,302 Culver 3,979 Downey 24,091 East Los Angeles 14,753 Glendale 11,489 Inglewood 12,893 Long Beach 30,933 LA: Criminal 1,856 LA: Central Arraignment 45,671 LA: Hollywood 10,873 LA: Metro 43,969 LA: Van Nuys 32,925 LA: San Pedro 10,403 LA: Catalina 297 LA: San Fernando 20,842 LA: West Los Angeles 9,900 Los Angeles Municipal Court 176,736 Los Cerritos 15,202 Malibu 2,959 Newhall 9,878 Pasadena 10,325 Pomona 11,781 Rio Hondo 16,434 Santa Anita 9,048 Santa Monica 5,678 South Bay 21,331 Southeast 20,468 Whittier 13,809 Total 499,094 Source: Special report generated from the Trial Court Information System (TCIS) Exhibit 1.5 SUMMARY PROBATION PROCESS Plea: Guilty/ No Contest Time Sentence Jail Served Case Summary Probation Terminated Compliance Monitoring Pay Fines, Fees, $ to Cashier Yes No Restitution on schedule? Proof of Proof to Community Violation service Court service performed? Progress Enrolled, Notice to Counseling/ report in court attended, probationer to programs (discretionary) completed? appear in court regarding violation Probation Other terminated at end of sentenced No period Probationer Further arrests appears in court Yes & agrees to comply: judge modifies or reinstates probation No Probation revoked & bench warrant issued Court Arrested on Yes appearance bench warrant No Pending case (removed from inventory) Court statistics show that in most instances municipal court judges conclude that defendants convicted of misdemeanors do not pose a risk to the community and assign them to summary probation. In FY1998-99, for example, there were 194,603 new misdemeanor filings in the Los Angeles County municipal courts and 176,736 cases on summary probation for some or all of the year. For summary probation, every judge conducts their own assessment of defendant risk to the community. The profile of summary probationers from FY1998-99, presented in Table 1.3, provides some key characteristics of Los Angeles County’s summary probation population. Both average and median are presented because the average alone can be non-representative if there are extreme high or low amounts in the population. The median is the point where half of the data points are higher and half are lower. The average data in Table 1.3 indicate that there are some extreme cases pushing the average numbers higher, particularly for total prior convictions and the number of prior non-traffic misdemeanors. The medians support this idea because they are lower for all measures. Table 1.3 Profile of FY1998-99 Summary Probation Caseload Average Median Number of counts for which defendants convicted 1.13 1.0 Prior felonies 0.4 0.0 Prior traffic misdemeanors 0.25 0.0 Prior non-traffic misdemeanors 1.22 0.0 Total prior convictions 1.7 1.0 Source: Special report generated by the County Consolidated Criminal History Reporting System (CCHRS) using data extracted from the Trial Court Information System (TCIS) computer system. Total number of cases differs from that reported by the TCIS. The median data is Table 1.3 indicates that most of the summary probation population is fairly low risk as measured by number of counts on their current conviction and the number of prior convictions. However, the average prior non-traffic misdemeanors and the average and median for total prior convictions indicate that there are individual cases with high numbers in both measures. A review of a sample of individual summary probation case records revealed that there are many cases with a significant number of prior convictions. A selection of 6,911 cases showed that 1,827 cases, or 26 percent, had 3 or more prior convictions and 243 cases had 10 or more prior convictions. 336 cases from the sample had 3 or more prior felony convictions. Defendants with a high number of prior convictions would appear to be candidates for formal probation if it offered a higher level of supervision. However, it appears that some judges prefer the summary probation system and their own supervision of probationers to that provided by the Probation Department even for higher risk misdemeanants. Summary Probation Monitoring As shown on the Summary Probation Process flow chart, after a defendant is ordered onto summary probation, the court’s main function is to monitor his or her compliance with court-ordered terms and conditions. The terms and conditions most typically include one or more of the following: 1. Payment of fines, fees, and restitution. 2. Performing community service. 3. Attendance of counseling or rehabilitation programs. Judges perform summary probation compliance monitoring and probationer supervision. Court administrative staff performs the tasks associated with monitoring such as reviewing probationers’ fine payment, community service, and attendance of rehabilitation and therapeutic programs. There is no risk assessment or classification system such as that used for the formal probation system to determine the level of judicial supervision for the probationer. Instead, the level of supervision is determined at the discretion of the sentencing judge. Some judges choose to have their probationers make regular in-court progress reports as often as once a month. Some require the same type of hearings at regular intervals such as every six months. Still others require no court hearings after sentencing at all unless the probationer violates the terms and conditions of his or her summary probation. One of the impacts of this discretion and the different approaches used by judges is that lower risk misdemeanants could end up having a higher level of supervision and more direct contact with court authorities than a convicted felon assigned to the Probation Department’s Automated Minimum Service (AMS) caseload. The convicted felon in that case would only have to mail in a post card to the Probation Department each month and otherwise comply with all conditions of probation. While there is substantial variation in the level of supervision provided by municipal court judges, the level of review provided by municipal court support staff is fairly consistent at all courts. Payment of fines, fees, and restitution is tracked against court-ordered deadlines in almost all instances by court clerk staff. Verification of court-ordered community service and/or attendance in counseling or therapeutic programs is required by the courts in the form of proof of enrollment, attendance, and completion of the program or service. Depending on the judge, it may be sufficient for the probationer to provide verification documents to a court clerk or the probationer may be required to present this information to the judge directly in a summary probation progress report hearing. When probationers do not make payments on schedule or do not provide the required program/community service verification documentation, they are classified as being in violation of probation. In some courts, this will trigger a probation violation hearing. In other courts, such a hearing is bypassed and the sentencing judge automatically issues a bench warrant for the probationer’s arrest and revokes probation. If the probationer voluntarily becomes compliant before the scheduled violation hearing or before being arrested on a bench warrant, probation may be reinstated, though possibly modified. If a probationer does not appear for a calendared violation hearing, or appears but indicates that he or she cannot or will not comply with the probation terms and conditions, a bench warrant for their arrest will be issued and probation revoked. Any summary probationer arrested on a bench warrant will appear in court and may have their probation reinstated, modified, or terminated and a new sentence issued. Since the number of summary probationers greatly exceeds the number of formal probationers in Los Angeles County and the judges’ summary probation caseloads are much greater than those of the Probation Department’s probation officers, the question of what the courts do differently to manage such large caseloads is raised. Part of the answer is that many probationers have little or no contact with the judges after their sentencing. As mentioned above, some judges require no court appearances after sentencing unless the probationer violates his or her probation terms and conditions. Countywide Municipal Court statistics show a probation revocation rate of approximately 21.1 percent, which translates into 105,308 cases (21.1% x 499,094) with at least one revocation during the year. That leaves approximately 393,786 cases where court appearances may not be required at all depending on the policies of the sentencing judge. Besides the fact that some judges’ policy is to require no or few court appearances, absent any violations, much of the ongoing monitoring of summary probationer conditional compliance is performed by court clerk staff instead of judges. This further reduces the judges’ probation supervision workload. With the exception of the La Madera office discussed above, it is more common in the Probation Department for probation officers to perform compliance monitoring rather than clerical staff. Comparison Of Formal And Summary Probation There are clear differences in the profile, organization, and processes for formal and summary probation in Los Angeles County. Some of the most significant of these comparisons are: • While nearly 58 percent of all formal probationers were assigned to minimum supervision caseloads in FY1998-99, the remainder were assigned to various high risk and specialty caseloads because of offense and behavior characteristics that suggested increased risk to the community. Because high risk and specialty caseloads involve a higher level of probation supervision activity, the minimum supervision formal probation caseload is most comparable to summary probation. • However, out of the formal probation minimum supervision population in FY1998-99, only 31 percent–or 16,449 individuals-–had been convicted of misdemeanors. The remainder had been convicted of felonies. In comparison, nearly all summary probationers had been convicted of misdemeanors. • Misdemeanor offenders sentenced to formal probation represent a small proportion of the total number of defendants sentenced to formal and summary probation. Of the total 500,537 misdemeanor offenders assigned to either summary or formal probation in FY1998-99, approximately 96.3 percent were sentenced to summary probation. • For convicted felons, the Probation Department is required by law to prepare a detailed pre- sentencing investigation report for the court. These reports include detailed information regarding the charges, circumstances and criminal history of the defendant, as well as victim statements and other information useful to the court when making its sentencing decisions. Municipal court judges do not receive such information on misdemeanor cases unless they request investigation by the Probation Department. Instead, the judges make sentencing decisions based on less information received directly from the prosecuting attorneys, the victims, and the defendant. There are no guidelines or standards on the quality or type of information provided by these individuals to the municipal courts. • Once a person is sentenced to formal probation, the Probation Department conducts a risk assessment, makes a determination of the appropriate level of supervision required for the probationer, and conducts an orientation. No such process exists for summary probation cases. Instead, risks to the community and supervision levels are decided by individual judges based on information obtained during the court hearing, and defendants are generally oriented directly by the judge and courtroom clerk. • The municipal courts have established procedures that provide a high level of assurance that conditional violations of probation will be brought immediately to the attention of the court. Procedures for reporting conditional violations in the Probation Department are more variable. At the La Madera Office, procedures suggest that many conditional violations will not be reported upon until 90 days prior to the expiration date of probation, if at all. At the Pomona Area Field Office, such violations are more regularly flagged for attention by the assigned probation officer. These differences suggest that opportunities may exist for the courts and the Probation Departments to strengthen (a) the criteria and risk factors to be considered when assigning persons to formal or summary probation; (b) standards and court rules which prescribe the minimum level of information to be provided by prosecuting attorneys on misdemeanor cases where summary probation may be a sentencing option; and, (c) guidelines for determining the level of supervision required for summary probationers, including requirements for reporting. Although we recognize the independence of the courts and of individual judicial officers, these tools would provide a number of benefits for the bench. For example, formalized criteria and risk factors to consider when sentencing individuals to formal or summary probation would provide the court with standards against which probation effectiveness could be measured. Standards and court rules on the minimum amount and quality of information to be provided prior to misdemeanant sentencing would ensure a greater level of reporting consistency by the various prosecuting attorneys. Lastly, by establishing guidelines for determining optional levels of supervision required for different categories of summary probationers, judges would be assisted in their efforts to ensure that persons assigned to summary probation meet court ordered conditions. If the courts choose to implement these suggestions, the Probation Department should coordinate the effort and provide technical assistance to the judicial committees charged with the task. If the Probation Department fulfills these roles, consistency between jurisdictions and the quality of published standards would be more assured. CONCLUSIONS The profile of the formal probation population differs significantly from that of the summary probation population in Los Angeles County. While nearly 58 percent of all formal probationers were assigned to minimum supervision caseloads in FY1998-99, the remainder were assigned to various high risk and specialty caseloads because of offense and behavior characteristics that suggested increased risk to the community. Out of the formal probation minimum supervision population in that year, only 31 percent had been convicted of misdemeanors. The remainder had been convicted of felonies. In comparison, nearly all summary probationers had been convicted of misdemeanors. These characteristics suggest that the formal probation minimum supervision client population contains persons who pose a greater risk to the community than persons sentenced to summary probation. Yet, this assumption is based solely on the conviction profile of probationers. For example, Superior Court judges routinely receive detailed sentencing recommendations from Probation Department investigators. However, such services to the municipal courts are limited. Instead, municipal courts must generally rely on information provided by the attorneys from the prosecuting jurisdictions, victims and defendants. The Probation Department should work with the courts to develop a standardized risk screening tool and judicial guidelines for sentencing persons to formal and summary probation. By implementing such a tool, the courts would also have more assurance that they are making informed sentencing choices. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Los Angeles County Probation Department assist the newly unified Superior Court in establishing the following standards and guidelines: 1.1. Regularly produced management reports detailing total summary probation caseload, caseload characteristics and key outcome measurements particularly including the number of cases held in suspense after a bench warrant is issued, by district, for regular review by judges and court managers. 1.2. Criteria and risk factors to be considered when assigning persons to formal or summary probation. 1.3. Standards and court rules which prescribe the minimum level of information to be provided by prosecuting attorneys on misdemeanor cases where summary probation may be a sentencing option. 1.4. Guidelines for determining the level of supervision and direct contact required for summary probationers, including requirements for reporting to the courts. Costs and Benefits Costs of implementing these recommendations would include staff time and probably some direct costs for computer programmers may be incurred. The proposed tools would provide the courts with standards against which probation effectiveness could be measured, ensure a greater level of reporting consistency by the prosecuting attorneys from the various jurisdictions around the County, and provide greater assurance that persons assigned to summary probation meet court ordered conditions and limit risk to the community. If the probation Department is requested to assist the courts, consistency between jurisdictions and the quality of published standards would be more assured. 2. PROBATION COSTS AND CHARGES • The average annual cost per summary probation case in the Los Angeles Municipal Court ranges from $103 to $137. The average annual cost per formal probation minimum supervision case ranges from $153 to $324 for the two offices reviewed for this study. Because the Probation Department charges its probationers a fee for its services, the net costs of formal probation at these offices can be adjusted to between $75 and $247 per case. Though allowed by law, the courts do not charge a fee for summary probation services. • The wide range of costs for probation services occurs for a variety of reasons, including: (a) differences in the level of probation supervision services provided to formal versus summary probationers; (b) differences in the mix and number of positions allocated to probation functions; and, (c) differences in supervision and compliance monitoring procedures. Given the limited performance and outcome measurements tracked by both systems, it cannot be determined if spending more per case results in better outcomes. To help manage costs, a standardized method is needed to compare costs to outcomes for the two probation systems. • Although the Probation Department prepares an annual estimate of its average cost per case, the methodology used does not apportion costs within case type and by program. The courts do not prepare annual estimates of their average cost per case at all. • The Probation Department should refine its analysis of its average cost of providing services by case type and program, so that it may better understand the cost factors associated with its various levels of supervision. There are no established effective systems to track the average costs per probationer or case. Without this information, it is not possible to compare the outcomes and effectiveness of the two probation systems relative to costs. In addition, the courts do not charge fees for summary probation services, as permitted by State law. The following analyses were conducted as part of this investigation to determine and compare the average cost per probationer for minimum supervision formal probation and summary probation cases. The estimates for formal probation are based on the Probation Department’s costs at the La Madera and Pomona area offices, two offices with sizable Automated Minimum Service (AMS) caseloads. Summary probation costs are based on costs at the Los Angeles Municipal Court, the largest municipal court district in Los Angeles County. How Services Impact Costs Some of the probation supervision costs incurred by the Probation Department and the Municipal Courts in Los Angeles County are very similar. For example, the court may calendar a progress report on a formal probation matter. In this case, the court hearing consumes approximately the same amount of court staff time for the formal probation matter, as would a similar hearing for a summary probation matter. In this example, there is no significant court cost difference for formal versus summary probation cases. However, the cost of other elements of progress reporting for formal and summary probation matters may differ. Based on interviews conducted for this study, the staff resources required for a probation officer to prepare a formal probation report for the court are significantly greater than the resources required for court staff to review records and report to the court on summary probationer compliance. Therefore, for formal probation matters, the cost of Probation Department services can generally be viewed as supplemental to those court costs that are normally incurred for both formal and summary probation hearings (e.g., calendaring, judicial review time, minute recording, etc.). Other costs may also differ because the level of supervision activity varies between summary and formal probation cases. For example, a person assigned to formal probation will generally be required to attend either an individual or group orientation session at the probation office to which they are assigned. No such orientation process exists for persons assigned to summary probation. When monitoring compliance, probation officers might also make proactive contact with probationers to ensure that conditions are being met. On summary probation matters, no effort is made by court staff to contact probationers to remind them that unless they enroll in a program, or pay their fine, a violation report will be submitted to the court. The fundamental differences in the way that formal and summary probation cases are supervised can therefore result in very different costs. As will be described in later sections of this report, these cost differences are affected by: • The types of cases that are assigned to formal versus summary probation. As shown in Section 1, only 31 percent of all Probation Department minimum supervision cases are misdemeanors and approximately 69 percent are felonies. In comparison, nearly 100 percent of summary probation cases are misdemeanors. One would expect that probationers convicted of felonies pose a greater risk to the community, and require a greater level of supervision. • The practices of individual judges may differ. Some judges order individuals to formal probation and expect the Probation Department to monitor probationer compliance and bring the case back to the court only if there is a re-arrest or conditional violation. Other judges require periodic progress reports and hearings at regular intervals during the term of probation in order to more directly monitor probationer compliance. In summary probation cases, probationer monitoring and progress are generally performed directly by judges. In order to more fully illustrate these basic differences, Exhibit 2.1 displays a profile of the general manner with which formal and summary probation differs in processing and staff involvement. A. FORMAL PROBATION COSTS To analyze the FY1998-99 costs of formal probation services, the AMS case intake function was evaluated at the Firestone Area Field Office, as well as the probation supervision operation at the La Madera Office, to arrive at the total La Madera case cost. In addition, also analyzed was the AMS case supervision function at the Pomona Area Field Office. For both case groupings, the municipal court cost of calendaring and hearing probation violations were added, based on cost estimates prepared for the Los Angeles Municipal Court, and reporting statistics generated by the La Madera Office and the Pomona Area Field Office. In addition, the average cost for each program was compared with the annual Cost Of Probation Services analysis conducted by the Department for minimum supervision probationers in that year. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 2.1, on the page following Exhibit 2.1. Exhibit 2.1 Major Activities For Formal And Summary Probation Los Angeles County – FY 1999-2000 Activity Formal Summary 1 Conduct Risk Assessment to determine Performed by probation officer No standardized procedures appropriate assignment of case. assigned to the court, or by intake officer at Area Field Office. Conduct orientation of new Terms and conditions are pronounced Terms and conditions are pronounced probationers to clarify terms and by the judge, and clarified by the court by the judge, and clarified by the court conditions, and compute restitution clerk at the time of sentencing. During clerk at the time of sentencing. amounts (if applicable). orientation, restitution computations Restitution amounts, if any, are are performed by probation officers at determined directly by the judge. No Area Field Offices. orientations are conducted by the courts. Establish accounts, collect and monitor Collection function performed by Court clerks establish accounts based the payment of fines, fees and County Treasurer-Tax Collector on on judicial order, and directly collect restitution. Report financial non- contract with the Probation payments from probationers. Since compliance to the court. Department. Probation Department summary probationers are not charged fiscal staff perform bad debt collection fees for the cost of probation, no bad functions for delinquent fees only. debt collection function is performed. Probation officers may work with Clerks report any violations directly to probationer to comply with other the court, and do not work with financial conditions (fines/restitution) probationers toward compliance. or report violations to the court. Monitoring of non-financial terms and Performed by AMS probation officers Performed by court clerks based on conditions of probation. with assistance from clerical staff, notification from programs, or proof based on notification from programs. provided by probationer. Clerks report Probation officers may work with any violations directly to the court, and probationer to comply with non- do not work with probationers toward financial conditions, or report compliance. violations to the court. Reporting on non-compliance with Performed by AMS probation officer. Performed by court clerks at regular terms and conditions. Reports may be generated on regular intervals defined by the court. Reports intervals defined by the court, or may be informal or be considered at a produced on an ad hoc basis by the full court hearing. probation officers when a violation is noted. Progress and violation reports are always considered at a full court hearing. An analysis of the cost for formal probation services included the FY 1998-99 direct costs for supervising probation officers, probation officers, supervising clerks, and clerical staff at the La Madera Office and Pomona Area Field Office who were assigned to minimum supervision caseloads. To this amount, Probation Department indirect costs (such as management, administration, services and supplies) and Countywide indirect costs (County administrative costs) were added. The average cost per case was derived by dividing the average number of active AMS cases for the year, into the total costs that we developed for each location. Table 2.1 Comparison of AMS Formal Supervision Costs FY 1998-99 Per Case Costs and Activity COST COMPONENT LA MADERA POMONA SYSTEM WIDE* Intake Component (Firestone) $89.48 N/A N/A Supervision Component 1 97.35 $130.71 $120.00 Total Probation Monitoring $286.83 $130.71 $120.00 Court Component 3 7.64 21.91 N/A Total AMS Formal Probation $324.47 $152.62 $120.00 * Represents a net cost after applying Cost of Probation Services revenue. As shown in the table, the cost varies considerably in this comparison. The La Madera, program, which is responsible for monitoring approximately 31 percent of the Probation Department’s AMS caseload, has the highest annual Department cost at $286.83 per case. Pomona, which directly monitored 6,486 cases in FY 1998-99–or approximately 12.4 percent of Department AMS caseload–had a Department cost of $130.71 per case. The Department’s COPS analysis, which is reportedly used to estimate the system-wide cost of monitoring minimum supervision probationers, was $120.00 per case in FY1998-99. We were unable to obtain detailed worksheets or documentation supporting the computation of the FY 1998-99 fee. However, we were told during interviews that this figure reflects an estimate of the cost to supervise minimum supervision cases, net of revenue received from COPS fees. The differences in these costs are explained by several factors, as discussed below. ♦ The average FY1998-99 caseload at the La Madera Office was approximately 1,109 cases per probation officer, while at the Pomona Area Field Office, the average caseload was approximately 1,567 cases per probation officer, or 41.3 percent greater than at La Madera. The program differences at these two offices therefore result in a lower cost per case at the Pomona Area Field Office. ♦ The probation officers at the La Madera Office are supported by a greater number of clerical personnel than the probation officers at the Pomona Area Field Office. Based on an analysis of current staffing, there are approximately 2.6 clerical workers for each probation officer at the La Madera Office. There are 1.7 dedicated AMS clerical staff for each probation officer at the Pomona Office. ♦ The Department is assigning more than twice the staff resources to cases monitored at the La Madera Office than those monitored at the Pomona Area Field Office. On average, the La Madera Office assigns 429 cases per staff position, while the Pomona Office assigns 940 cases per staff position. The La Madera per staff person workload therefore represents only 46 percent of the per staff person workload at Pomona. Although the Probation Department reports various workload statistics through the APS system and in its monthly “Area Directors Report,” limited data is maintained which demonstrates the operational effectiveness of the different probation supervision approaches used by the Department. Accordingly, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the cost effectiveness of the La Madera approach versus the Pomona Area Field Office approach to AMS case monitoring. Without such data, it is also difficult to determine the effectiveness of formal supervision for minimum risk probationers compared with that of summary probation. This is discussed more extensively in Section 3. Court Involvement with Formal Probation Supervision As mentioned previously, the courts also play a critical, ongoing role in the supervision of formal probationers. Based on a review of workload statistics for the La Madera and Pomona offices, probation officers had a report to case ratio of 41.1 percent and 23.9 percent respectively in FY1998-99. In addition, a review of multiple year records for 41 La Madera AMS case files for this study showed that court reports were prepared for 28 cases, or 68.3 percent of the sample cases at some point during the probation term. This data indicates that the court directly considers periodic progress reports, probation violation reports, and drug diversion termination reports on a routine basis, resulting in further costs for supervising persons on formal probation. Because these costs are comparable to those related to summary probation, they have been included in the analysis. Conservatively, assuming that the court actively participates in the supervision of 41.1 percent of La Madera cases each year, and 23.9 percent of Pomona AMS cases each year, average annual court costs of $37.64 and $21.91 per case also should be added to the estimated costs for formal probation. This increases total annual formal probation costs to $324.47 for a La Madera case and $152.62 for a Pomona case, as shown in Table 2.1. Offsetting Revenues Penal Code §1203.1b (a) states: “In any case . . . in which a defendant is granted probation or given a conditional sentence, the probation officer . . . shall make a determination of the ability of the defendant to pay all or a portion of the reasonable cost of probation supervision or a conditional sentence . . .” Further, “The probation officer . . . shall determine the amount of payment and the manner in which the payments shall be made to the county.” Subsection (b) requires the court to “order the defendant to pay the reasonable costs if it determines that the defendant has the ability to pay these costs.” Other sections of the Penal Code permit the court to order that administrative fees be paid for the collection of restitution, managing payment plans, and other programs affecting costs. In the County of Los Angeles, the Probation Department collected $7,567,432 in probation supervision fees in FY1998-99. Of this amount, $4,804,053 is attributed to COPS collections at the Area Field Offices. The balance included collections to support the costs for narcotics testing, work furlough and grants. The Department does not maintain financial data necessary to segregate the amount of COPS revenue attributable to each Area Field Office or to each probation supervision level (High-Risk Offender cases, Specialty cases, Automated Minimum Supervision cases, etc.). However, an analysis of financial and workload data by Area Field Office for FY1998-99 indicates that an average of $77.40 was collected for each case in that year. Applying this average to the per case cost in the Pomona and La Madera offices results in a net per case cost of $75.22 and $247.07 respectively, as shown in the table below. Table 2.2 Net County Cost Per AMS Case Pomona and La Madera Offices County of Los Angeles – FY1998-99 COST COMPONENT POMONA LA MADERA Total AMS Formal Probation 152.62 324.47 Less Estimated COPS Revenue (77.40) ( 77.40) Net County Cost 75.22 247.07 Actual per case revenue probably differs significantly by location and type of case. Therefore, applying an average revenue to the La Madera and Pomona per AMS case cost probably does not accurately reflect actual performance. Accordingly, the average offsetting revenue applied in this model can be used as only an indicator of the collection effectiveness of the Department overall. Methods Used By the Probation Department to Determine Estimated Costs and Revenues While the Probation Department prepares analyses of the cost of formal probation services, these analyses could be strengthened in several ways. Although no detailed work papers were provided by the Department, which would allow a thorough review of the methodologies used to determine costs, several issues surfaced during a review of the documentation that was available. • The Probation Department has established a methodology which computes the average cost of probation services system-wide, by case type. While this approach is appropriate for fee development purposes, the methodology would not be effective in determining the cost-effectiveness of one service delivery program versus another. As explained previously, the cost at the La Madera Office is higher than the cost at the Pomona Area Field Office, in part because the clerical staff to probation officer ratio at that location is more than 11/2 times greater than at Pomona (ratios of 2.6:1 versus 1.7:1, clerks to probation officers). • The method of organizing the Probation Department’s formal probation caseload differs significantly by program, and therefore costs should be segregated on this basis. Although determining an average Department-wide cost for minimum supervision cases is appropriate for purposes of analyzing COPS, cost estimates by program would strengthen the Department’s ability to evaluate cost-effectiveness. For example, the Pomona Area Field Office AMS case operation, with its higher average caseload and lower clerical ratio per probation officer, is less costly than La Madera on a per case basis. However, no system has been established to evaluate various effectiveness measures against these costs. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the Pomona Office is more cost-effective or merely less costly than La Madera. • Neither the Probation Department nor the Treasurer-Tax Collector have established the capability to easily segregate fees and collections by case type. Accordingly, the amount of collections attributable to minimum supervision cases versus higher risk cases cannot be determined. Revenue segregated by case type and program also cannot be determined. As a result, the Department does not have the ability to determine collection effectiveness–and therefore, formal probation compliance effectiveness–by caseload or Area Office. This would be a valuable tool for evaluating operational cost effectiveness. Accordingly, the methodologies for determining costs by case type and location should be strengthened for purposes of improving management’s ability to assess the cost-effectiveness of its operations. B. SUMMARY PROBATION Each of the County’s 24 municipal court districts maintains its own budget. Since a detailed analysis of expenditures was necessary to determine the average cost per summary probation case and it was not practical to obtain and analyze the budgets of each district, one municipal court district was used to determine the average cost per probationer. The district selected was the Los Angeles Municipal Court, the largest municipal court district in Los Angeles County, responsible for approximately half of the total municipal court filings in the county and approximately 36 percent of the summary probation caseload. Since the amount of time spent in direct contact with summary probationers varies significantly among judges, using cost data from the Los Angeles district, which had 94 authorized judicial positions in FY1998- 99, provides greater assurance that the different judicial approaches, and their related costs, are accounted for in the estimate. The method used to determine the average cost per summary probation case for FY1998- 99 is described below. The goal was to identify the portion of municipal court and other county costs attributable to the post–sentencing functions associated with summary probation. Post- sentencing functions include compliance monitoring, cashiering, progress report hearings, and probation violation and modification hearings. The decision to use only the costs of post- sentencing functions was made because pre-sentencing activity (arraignment, pre-trial hearings, trials, etc.) occurs whether the defendant is assigned to formal or summary probation. The Los Angeles Municipal Court district does not maintain records that distinguish their costs or staff time between pre-and post-sentencing activities for summary probationers. To help determine these costs, we identified an average cost of operating a courtroom and then determined the average amount of courtroom time spent on post-sentencing summary probation activities. Total costs per courtroom include not only direct courtroom costs such as the salaries of judges, court clerks, and court reporters but also the costs of direct support (administrative and office clerical and support staff at each court), indirect court and county-wide costs (District- wide administrative costs and county services such as county counsel, human resources, etc.), other county costs for bailiffs, public defenders, and prosecuting attorneys, and a portion of county-wide court costs such as data processing and jury expenses. Identifying an average cost per courtroom enabled us to exclude the costs of courtrooms that do not handle post-sentencing misdemeanor activities, primarily the courtrooms or portions of courtrooms (some have a mixture of case types) that hold only small claims, civil, felony arraignment, and felony preliminary hearing and trial proceedings. The portion of the remaining costs attributable to post-sentencing summary probation activities were then identified, as detailed below. The following approach was used to determine an estimate of the average court cost per summary probationer. FY 1998-99 was used as the base year for this analysis. • Total Los Angeles Municipal Court FY1998-99 expenditures were identified. • The costs of public defender, prosecuting attorney, bailiff, interpreter, and centralized data processing were identified and added to total Los Angeles Municipal Court expenditures since these other county and city services are involved in post- sentencing summary probation proceedings (the prosecuting attorney in many misdemeanor and infraction cases is the city attorney, not the district attorney) • A weighted court filing caseload for FY1998-99 was obtained to determine the proportion of judicial and court staff time allocated to misdemeanors and infractions. These two offense categories generate almost all of the summary probation caseload The weighted caseload system used was developed and is used by the Judicial Council of California to determine the number of judicial positions needed at each trial court throughout the state. Filings are weighted by type of case (felonies, four categories of misdemeanors, two categories of infractions, small claims, parking etc.) as an indicator of the average level of judicial and other resources necessary to process and dispose of a case. • Estimates of the amount of courtroom time allocated to post-sentencing summary probation activities such as probation violation hearings and progress reports were obtained from court managers, judges, and other municipal court staff. An analysis of the Los Angeles Municipal Court’s Condition of Calendar Summary report, a court management report that lists all calendared events, was also conducted to assess how courtroom time is allocated. • The number of cases assigned to summary probation in the Los Angeles Municipal Court in FY1998-99 was determined through a special report generated by the Municipal Court TCIS computer system and the average cost per case was determined. The results of this cost analysis are as follows: Table 2.3 Methods for Determining Municipal Court Costs for Misdemeanor and Infraction Activities Los Angeles Municipal Court FY1998-99 FY 1998-99 Total LAJD Expenditures(1) $111,575,565 Plus Interpreters (funded through Superior Court) $ 12,800,000 Plus allocated data processing cost (allocated County-wide) $ 8,686,600 Total LAJD Court Expenditures $133,062,165 Total number LAJD courtrooms in FY1998-99 117 Cost per courtroom $1,137,283 Number of court days in FY1998-99 248 Cost/courtroom/day $4,586 # courtrooms dedicated to misdemeanors and infractions(2) X 58.5 Daily court cost of misdemeanor/infraction activities $268,281 Plus daily cost of prosecuting attorney/public defender $25,910 Total daily court cost for misdemeanor/infraction activities $294,191 Total annual court cost for misdemeanor/infraction activities (daily cost x 248 court days) $72,959,368 Source: LAMC Management Systems Analysis Unit; Los Angeles County Superior Court (for interpreter costs); Los Angeles County Human Resources Department (salary and benefits information) (1) Includes State and County funded direct support, the District’s share of indirect County-wide costs, bailiff services provided by the Sheriff’s Office, indigent defense services, and the District’s allocated cost for county-wide data processing services (2) Based on percentage of FY1998-99 weighted caseload attributable to misdemeanors and infractions (2,888,671 out of 5,773,923, or 50% of the total) The final step in determining the portion of the $72,959,368 total annual Los Angeles Municipal Court cost for misdemeanor and infraction activities attributable to summary probation post-sentencing activities is presented in Table 2.4. Estimates of the average amount of court time allocated to these functions range from 25 to 33 percent according to a number of municipal court judges and managers interviewed. These estimates were applied to total misdemeanor courtroom costs to determine the average cost per summary probation case as shown in Table 2.4. Table 2.4 Average Cost per Summary Probation Case Los Angeles Municipal Court, FY1998-99 Low High Total annual cost for misdemeanor/infraction proceedings $72,959,368 $72,959,368 Staff time allocated to post-sentencing summary probation activities 25% 33% Post-sentencing summary probation annual costs $18,239,842 $24,076,591 Number of FY1998-99 summary probation cases 176,439 176,439 Average cost per probation case $103 $137 To validate the estimated amount of staff time and resources allocated to post-sentencing summary probation activities, a review of four month’s worth of data from the Los Angeles Municipal Court’s FY1998-99 Condition of Calendar Summary report was conducted. This analysis showed that approximately 54 percent of all District misdemeanor courtroom events (calendared hearings and case dispositions) are post-sentencing summary probation hearings, mostly probation violation hearings and probation progress reports. However, this percentage cannot be directly applied to total costs to determine the costs of post-sentencing summary probation activities for three reasons. The first reason the calendared event statistics cannot be applied directly to court staff time allocation estimates is that the statistics include both formal and summary probation violation hearings. Though court staff is supposed to use different codes for the two types of probation when they record case activity in the municipal court computer system, this is not always done. The second limitation of the calendared event statistics is that they are not weighted to account for variations in the time and level of resources needed for different type of court events. For example, probation progress report hearings usually take no more than a matter of minutes compared to felony sentencing hearings that can take substantially more time. Yet both are counted as one event. The final limitation of the calendared event statistics is that progress report hearings calendared and included in the report are waived by some judges if the probationer has appeared at the court and provided sufficient evidence of probation compliance to the court clerk. Since the calendared event report is prepared prospectively and not updated to reflect what actually took place, waived hearings are still recorded on the report as calendared events. When all of these factors are considered, we believe the data in the Condition of Calendar summary report is consistent with the 25 to 33 percent time allocation estimate used to determine the average cost per summary probation case. The cost-effectiveness of summary probation needs to be measured While the estimated average cost per summary probation case appears to be lower than the average cost per formal probationer, the conclusion should not be drawn that the municipal court system is more efficient or effective. The important measure for either system is effectiveness. For the summary probation system, the estimated average cost is highly dependent on the assumed allocation of court staff time spent on post-sentencing summary probation hearings and activities. As more court time is spent per case through activities such as more in- court progress report hearings, the average cost per case increases. From a management perspective, the challenge for court managers is to determine the optimal amount of court staff time and costs to allocate per case to achieve the desired results. At this time, the Municipal Courts do not have systems in place to routinely collect the data needed to help make these decisions. Instead, judges make decisions individually concerning the amount of direct contact they will have with summary probationers without the advantage of system- wide empirical data showing the impact of judicial contact on violations and other probation outcomes. Judges who choose frequent progress reports and contacts generate a higher average cost per case and may or may not produce better results. While individual judges may track their own case outcomes, such information is not available to all judges or court managers throughout the county. Such individual collection methods may be less exact than if the data were collected using a standardized method and centralized system. Regularly collected court statistics showing the link between frequent in-court progress report hearings and probation violation rates, for example, would help judicial officers assess the benefits and cost-effectiveness of more progress report hearings. The Municipal Courts’ TCIS computer system stores data for each probationer on their number of hearings, violations, and revocations. Extracting and linking this data would provide evidence to be used by judicial officers and court managers to determine the optimal cost per case. Offsetting Revenue As allowed by State law, the Probation Departments charges a fee known as the Cost of Probation Services (COPS) to probationers who are found to have the ability to pay. The same statute (Penal Code §1203.1b) allows a COPS fee to be charged to defendants given conditional sentences. The Los Angeles County Municipal Courts have not established such a fee. In FY1998-99, the Probation Department collected $4.8 million in COPS revenue on an average of 62,000 cases during the year. This equated to an average of $77.40 per probationer system-wide. Assuming an average cost per summary probation case of $103 (the low end), total costs would be $51,406,682 assuming 499,094 cases per year. The Probation Department presently has a cost to collection ratio for its COPS fees of approximately 22.9 percent. Applying that ratio to total court costs would result in net collections of $11,772,130 per year. This estimate is conservative because (a) it is based on the low-end cost per case estimate; and, (b) the collection ratio for Probation is for all case types. It is probable that the courts would have a higher rate of payment from summary probationers than the Probation Department has from felons and high-risk offenders. The law does specify that the sentencing judge must consider a defendant’s ability to pay when setting fees. The Probation Department uses a standardized “ability to pay” matrix when determining fees and the courts would need a similar instrument if such fees were imposed. The courts are now funded primarily by the State through the State Trial Court Fund which is comprised of a combination of State General Fund and County monies. The County monies consist of revenue from a number of fees charged and collected by the County. By State law, these revenues, which were retained as county revenue prior to implementation of State Trial Court Funding, must be transferred from the County to the State Trial Court Fund. State Penal Code §1203.1b allows for charging probationers fees to cover the cost of formal or summary probation services. The law does not specify that such revenue must be transferred to the State Trial Court Fund. It would appear then that the County could retain revenues from any fees charged for the cost of summary of probation services. This matter would have to be reviewed by County Counsel and State representatives to determine if that is the correct interpretation and to resolve how such revenues would be treated. CONCLUSIONS The average cost per summary probation case ranges between $103 and $137 based on costs and caseloads reported for the Los Angeles Municipal Court. The average cost per formal probation minimum supervision case ranges from $153 to $324 for the two offices reviewed for this study. Because the Probation Department charges fees for services, the net costs of formal probation at these offices can be adjusted to between $75 and $247 per case. The courts do not charge a fee for summary probation services. The wide range of costs for probation services occurs for a variety of reasons, including: (a) differences in the level of probation supervision services provided to formal versus summary probationers; (b) differences in the mix and number of positions allocated to probation functions; and, (c) differences in supervision and compliance monitoring procedures. For example, the higher costs for formal probation results, in part, because probation officers prepare progress and violation reports for the courts. No such reports are prepared for summary probation cases. Higher costs within the courts occur because some judges require more summary probation progress reports than other judges. Neither the Probation Department nor the courts systematically collect and analyze cost and outcome data to determine if the additional costs produce better outcomes. Although the Probation Department prepares cost analyses of formal probation services, the methodology does not distinguish between operations with high clerical worker to probation officer ratios. RECOMMENDATIONS The Probation Department should: 2.1. Develop a cost accounting methodology which provides more accurate estimates of per case costs by program and case type, linked to probation outcomes; 2.2. Develop a program evaluation system which fully considers the cost of probation services by program and case type, and which can be used to support resource allocation decisions; 2.3. Develop a methodology for allocating actual revenue collections by location and case type, and prepare regular reports on collection effectiveness. 3. REVOCATION AND MEASURES OF PROBATION EFFECTIVENESS • The Municipal Courts and the Probation Department do not systematically track and report probation violations and revocations, two key measures of probation effectiveness. An analysis of revocations for the two systems revealed that variations in the operations of the Probation Department and the Municipal Courts and weaknesses in their record keeping systems need to be addressed for these key outcome measures to serve as useful management tools. • The revocation rate for formal probationers does not accurately portray formal probation violation activity. It does not include the large number of violations for narcotics and drugs offenders assigned to the Deferred Entry of Judgement program, for which revocations are recorded differently than for the rest of formal probation. In addition, the Probation Department’s violation reporting system and procedures do not fully capture all probation violation and revocation activity. • Summary probation revocation rates vary considerably between court districts, reflecting variations in procedures for dealing with violations at different courts and inadequacies in court violation reporting systems. • While uniform approaches are not necessary or desirable, the courts and the Probation Department need a consistent system for measuring and reporting key measures of system effectiveness. Violation rates, methods of dealing with violations, number and reasons for revocations, and revocation outcomes should be tracked and regularly reported to court and Probation Department management to measure and improve effectiveness and to allow for comparisons of the two systems. As another means of comparing Los Angeles County’s two probation systems, data on revocation rates for formal and summary probation were collected and analyzed. Various revocation rates for each system are presented below followed by a comparison of rates for the two systems. Why revocation rates were evaluated An assumption was made for this analysis that the more effective the probation system, the lower the number of violations and revocations. Effectiveness in this case means that an appropriate level of supervision is being provided and violations and resultant revocations are minimized. Violations are considered an important measure of effectiveness because as more occur, more court-ordered sentences are not being served and the risk to the community is increased. By analyzing the revocation rates of the two probation systems, it was assumed that comparisons could be made of the relative number of violations and effectiveness of each system. However, differences in procedures and record keeping between the Probation Department and the municipal courts, as well as between the 24 districts of Los Angeles County’s municipal courts demonstrated limitations to using revocation alone as a measure of system effectiveness. Without reliable record keeping and management systems in place, a low revocation rate could simply mean that violations are going undetected. A high rate without good systems could mean that violations are being detected, but it does not reveal how many revocations result in subsequent compliance. Why and how probation is revoked The terms and conditions of formal and summary probation in Los Angeles County usually include one or more of the following: prohibition of further arrests; a requirement to pay fines, fees, penalties, and restitution; participation in a drug and alcohol or domestic violence rehabilitation program; and, participation in a community service endeavor such as trash removal on the highways. Other terms and conditions specific to the offense or case circumstances may also be ordered by the courts such as a restraining order in a domestic violence case. Under both formal and summary probation, there are wide ranges of sanctions which judges may impose on individuals who have violated the terms and conditions of probation. When a violation notice or report is submitted to the court by the Probation Department or a court clerk, the judge may revoke probation and jail the probationer, or revoke and restore probation as originally granted or with modifications. The judge may also choose to continue the probation without revoking the original grant, or continue the probation with modifications to the original grant. Under the summary probation system, new arrests and conditional violations are almost always handled and disposed of through the court hearing process. Conditional violations and some probationer re-arrests are tracked by Municipal Court staff with the aid of the court’s computerized information systems. As violations are identified, most courts either: 1) notify the probationers that they must appear in court for a possible probation violation hearing; or, 2) issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the probationer, which automatically revokes their probation. Neither judges nor staff in the Municipal Courts contact probationers who have violated their probation to informally work out plans to get them back into compliance. Such arrangements are made only through court hearings for summary probationers. Under the formal probation system, the probation officer has considerable discretion regarding the types of violations to be presented to the court. Although new arrests are generally brought to the courts’ attention quickly, violations of other probation conditions may only be brought to the court after a probation officer’s informal attempts at enforcing compliance, or not at all. Instead, probation officers may provide probationers with some flexibility on satisfying probation conditions. For example, Probation Department staff advises that, by policy, probation officers at the La Madera Office allow probationers to miss up to two probation orientation sessions before a violation report is prepared for the court. Therefore, neither the Probation Department nor the courts expect that every conditional violation on a formal probation matter will be brought before the court, or transmitted to the court in a timely manner. For this investigation, the following data was compiled and analyzed to compare formal and summary probation. • Felony and misdemeanor revocations by formal probation case type. • Formal probation violations identified and reported for the La Madera and Pomona Automated Minimum Supervision (AMS) caseloads. • Summary probation revocations by Municipal Court district. • Felony and misdemeanor revocations by Department of Justice offense category for formal and summary probation. • Reasons for revocation for a sample of formal and summary probation cases. A. FORMAL PROBATION REVOCATIONS As shown in Table 3.1, approximately 15.3 percent of all misdemeanor defendants and 17.6 percent of all felony defendants assigned to formal probation had their probation revoked at least once during FY1998-99. On average, 17.2 percent of all defendants had their probation revoked at least once. For minimum supervision cases, the misdemeanor and felony revocation rates were 15.1 percent and 11.6 percent respectively, with an overall revocation rate of 12.7 percent. Table 3.1 Felony and Misdemeanor Revocations By Formal Probation Case Category Probationers with One or More Occurrences County of Los Angeles – FY1998-99 CASE MISD FELONY TOTAL MISD DEF FEL DEF TOT DEF % MISD DEF % FEL DEF % TOT DEF CATEGORY DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND REVOKED REVOKED REVOKED REVOKED REVOKED REVOKED HRO 550 15,891 16,441 9 3 3 ,126 3,219 16.9% 19.7% 19.6% DOM 996 2,046 3,042 1 75 4 26 601 17.6% 20.8% 19.8% CTH 245 1,852 2,097 2 9 1 91 220 11.8% 10.3% 10.5% NTU 198 15,488 15,686 4 2 4 ,523 4,565 21.2% 29.2% 29.1% GNG 26 716 742 4 2 16 220 15.4% 30.2% 29.6% OTH 27 587 614 4 1 43 147 14.8% 24.4% 23.9% AMS 16,449 35,897 52,346 2,480 4,161 6,641 15.1% 11.6% 12.7% TOTAL 18,491 72,477 90,968 2 ,827 1 2,786 15,613 15.3% 17.6% 17.2% Additional information derived from the Probation Departments’ automated Adult Probation System (APS) indicates that many minimum supervision probationers had their probation revoked more than once. Misdemeanor minimum supervision clients who had their probation revoked in that year averaged 1.92 revocations each, while felons averaged 1.54 revocations each. The entire population of minimum supervision probationers with one or more revocations averaged 1.68 revocations each. The data above suggests that the Probation Department regularly monitors probation compliance for clients assigned to the Automated Minimum Supervision caseload so that the courts may consider sanctions when the conditions of probation are violated. This conclusion is also supported by other management data generated by the individual Area Field Offices in the Department’s monthly “Directors’ Report.” For example, the La Madera Office reported that out of a total average caseload of 16,165 probationers in FY1998-99, 6,419 violations were discovered and reported by the La Madera Office staff (5,202 conditional violations and 1,217 new arrests), or an average of approximately 40 violations for every 100 minimum supervision probationers. Similarly, the Pomona Area Field Office AMS probation officers identified approximately 31 violations for every 100 probationers over a nine month sample period reviewed for this study (March 1999 through September 1999). Based on data generated from the Pomona Office’s Compliance Tracking System (CTS), all but 7.0 percent of these violations were reported to the courts. This data indicates that the violation reporting rate for these two offices is higher than the 12.7 percent revocation rate for the minimum supervision caseload in the Department overall, as shown in Table 3.1 for FY1998-99. Adjusting La Madera violation data for probationers with multiple revocations, one can infer that approximately 23.6 percent of all La Madera Office clients had violations reported to the court in that year. At the Pomona Area Field Office, an estimated 14.3 percent of AMS probationers had violations reported to the court. This assumes that per probationer violations reported to the courts mirror per probationer revocations Revocations by Department Of Justice Category Approximately 68.6 percent of all minimum supervision formal probation cases were for felonies and 31.4 percent were for misdemeanors in FY1998-99. A further evaluation of workload data maintained by the Probation Department indicates that approximately 46.6 percent of all minimum supervision cases were for various drug, marijuana and narcotics offenses. This is significant for several reasons. California Penal Code §1000.1(a) provides that defendants who plead guilty to certain drug, marijuana and narcotics charges may be granted “deferred entry of judgment” (DEJ). Under this program, the court may dismiss the charges against a defendant upon the defendant’s successful completion of a County drug treatment program. The defendant is granted a minimum of 18 months to complete the program, which can be extended by the court to a maximum of 36 months. Many DEJ cases are referred to the Probation Department for monitoring during this 18- month to 36-month period. Defendants are given this period to comply with any DEJ conditions imposed by the court and generally do not have their DEJ status terminated unless they are rearrested for certain offenses. Instead, the Probation Department is required to provide periodic progress reports, as directed by the Court. Our sample of formal probation cases indicates that these DEJ progress reports are generated approximately every six months. Accordingly, the nature of this program indicates that very few DEJ participants will have their DEJ status revoked during the initial 18 month or 36 month period. This is borne out by Probation Department statistics for FY1998-99 which indicates that for the three Department of Justice crime categories of Drug, Marijuana and Narcotics offenses, there was a revocation rate of only 9.1 cases per hundred. This is 28.3 percent lower than the caseload average of 12.7 revocations per hundred cases and, because these cases represent 46.6 percent of total minimum supervision, it skews the overall average for the Department downward. If a DEJ defendant does not have a new arrest during the 18-month to 36-month program period, their DEJ status will terminate. If the drug program and other conditions have been completed successfully, the charges will be dropped. If the drug program and other conditions have not been completed, the guilty plea is entered and the defendant is sentenced. Sentencing may include a formal probation grant. The Probation Department does not maintain statistics on the number or percent of DEJ cases which terminate successfully or unsuccessfully. However, the District Attorney’s Office advises that Drug Diversion cases had a 62.6 percent failure rate in FY1998-99. This rate was confirmed in discussions with Probation Department managers. Accordingly, drug, marijuana and narcotics cases were omitted from our analysis of revocation rates by DOJ code. This has the effect of increasing the average revocation rate for all remaining formal probation cases to 15.8 cases per 100 probationers. For misdemeanor cases, the rate increases to 23.9 revocations per 100 probationers. The misdemeanor caseload is most comparable to summary probation, as will be discussed more fully below. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate the formal probation minimum supervision revocation rates for misdemeanor cases, and for all cases in FY 1998-99. Table 3.3 Formal Probation Revocation Rates For Misdemeanor Category Minimum Supervision Caseload Los Angeles County Probation Department – FY 1998-99 MISD MISD REVOC CUMU. % CODE DOJ CATEGORY DEFEND REVOC RATE/100 REVOC MT Misd Traffic 2,258 7 19 31.8 32.0% PR Prostitution 97 28 28.9 33.2% FO Forgery 113 32 28.3 34.7% PT Petty Theft 564 1 44 25.5 41.1% TH Theft Felony 186 47 25.3 43.1% VA Vandalism 343 83 24.2 46.8% DD Drunk Driving 3,363 7 13 21.2 78.6% AS Assault 233 49 21.0 80.7% AB Assault Battery 422 88 20.9 84.7% MO Misd Other 388 76 19.6 88.0% HR Hit Run 290 56 19.3 90.5% All Other Codes 1,154 2 13 18.5 100.0% TOTAL 9,411 2,248 23.9 Table 3.4 Formal Probation Revocation Rate for All Categories Minimum Supervision Caseload Los Angeles County Probation Department – FY 1998-99 TOTAL TOTAL REVOC CUMU. % CODE DOJ CATEGORY DEFEND REVOC RATE/100 REVOC MT Misd Traffic 2,271 7 20 31.7 16.3% VA Vandalism 380 90 23.7 18.3% PT Petty Theft 634 1 48 23.3 21.7% VT Vehicular Theft 1,105 2 43 22.0 27.2% AB Assault Battery 444 91 20.5 29.2% DD Drunk Driving 3,836 7 53 19.6 46.3% BU Burglary 2,496 4 14 16.6 55.6% FO Forgery 1,169 1 92 16.4 60.0% RO Robbery 828 1 25 15.1 62.8% AS Assault 1,480 1 94 13.1 67.2% TH Theft Felony 8,119 7 82 9.6 84.9% All Other Codes 5,166 6 67 12.9 100.0% TOTAL 27,928 4,419 15.8 Reasons for Revocations The Probation Department does not maintain statistics on the reasons that probation is revoked so a statistical profile of revocation by reason could not be provided in this report. Instead, we conducted a detailed review of 41 La Madera Office AMS case files from FY 1998- 99 to determine various characteristics about the case population in that year. The results of our sampling are described below. • Of the 41 files reviewed, probation was revoked a total of 16 times. Therefore, this occurred at a rate of approximately 39 revocations per 100 cases. • Of these, probation was revoked due to a new arrest in seven cases, or 43.8 percent of the cases with revocations. • Probation was revoked, or DEJ status terminated, in an additional five cases because the probationer failed to register for a program, as directed by the court. This represented 31.3 percent of sample cases with revocations. • Probation was revoked in an additional three cases, or 18.8 percent of the cases with revocations, because the defendant failed to appear for a court hearing or Probation Department orientation. • Revocation occurred in one case, representing 6.3 percent of total revocations, because the defendant failed to pay court ordered fines and fees. Because of sampling limitations, the distribution of revocation reasons cannot be relied upon for comparison purposes. However, by reviewing detailed case records, we were able to obtain a flavor for the effectiveness of the formal probation supervision process at the La Madera Office. The following summaries of five of the 41 cases which were reviewed provides some insight regarding probation successes and failures in FY 1998-99. Sample #1: The defendant was referred to the Probation Department on 2/2/96 after convictions for possession and under the influence of methamphetemine. He had been sentenced to 12- months Drug Diversion, during which time he was required to pay fines and fees and to complete a drug education program. On 2/4/97, the court extended the term of the diversion because the probationer had not completed the conditions of the Drug Diversion. The court then ordered six- month progress reports to be prepared by the Probation Department. Progress reports on 8/4/97, 3/31/98 and 9/30/98 showed continuous progress, except for the payment of fines and fees. On 9/30/98 the Probation Department recommended that the case be terminated once fines and fees had been paid. Because payment was not made, the case was calendared for a violation hearing on 2/2/99. The defendant appeared in court, paid his fines and fees, and the case was dismissed. This sample suggests that despite regular progress reporting, the courts can be lenient on some cases. Despite an initial 12-month drug diversion referral for the defendant, the court extended the diversion term for an additional 12 months after it became apparent that the defendant would not meet conditions within the initial 12-month period. After a threat of violation, the defendant complied with the final conditions and the case was terminated an additional 12 months later. Sample #2: The defendant was referred to the Probation Department for a three-year probation term on 11/5/97 after a conviction for felony check fraud. He had no prior criminal history and had clear ties to the community. Although he had a Risk Assessment score of only 4, the investigating probation officer recommended that his case be assigned to a High-Risk Offender caseload. The override was not approved by the supervising probation officer and the case was assigned to an Automated Minimum Supervision caseload. Evidence in the file indicates that the defendant showed continued compliance with conditions during the first six months, and reached full compliance on 5/5/98. Mail-in monthly reporting cards were current at the time of the case review. In this sample, all defendant characteristics available in the file and the Risk Assessment score suggested that minimum supervision was an appropriate assignment. It is unclear why the investigating probation officer recommended that the case be assigned to a High-Risk Offender caseload. Further, the defendant’s full cooperation and continued compliance suggest that, had the conviction not been for a felony, a summary probation sentence may have been more appropriate. The Probation Department has had to do very little to ensure compliance on this case. Sample #3: The defendant was referred to the Probation Department for a three year probation term on 11/3/97 after a conviction for using false identification during a routine traffic stop. The defendant was an illegal alien. Assigned to an Automated Minimum Supervision caseload, on 4/16/98, the defendant was sent a letter scheduling an orientation session. The defendant failed to appear on the scheduled orientation date of 5/14/98. There has been no follow-up by the Probation Department since that time, and the court has not been notified of non-compliance. It is clear that the Probation Department has not performed well on this case. Orientation was not scheduled for nearly six months after referral by the court, which was entirely inappropriate given the fact that the defendant was an illegal alien with weak ties to the community. Further, the Probation Department had not reported to the court that the defendant failed to appear for orientation seven months after the scheduled orientation date. Sample #4: The defendant was referred to the Probation Department for a three year probation term on 6/19/98 after a misdemeanor driving under the influence conviction. First contact with the Probation Department was three months after conviction, on 3/18/98. The defendant showed initial compliance with conditions by reporting for orientation and enrolling in a drinking driver counseling program. However, on 9/14/98 the Probation Department recommended that probation be revoked because the defendant was not complying with program attendance, had not enrolled in a community service program, and had not paid any fines or restitution. On 9/14/99 the court chose to revert the case to summary probation (there is no explanation of reasoning in the file). This case is unusual because the court chose to revert the case to summary probation after the defendant displayed continued non-compliance while on a formal probation caseload. Sample #5: The defendant was referred to the Probation Department for a three year probation term on 2/5/99 after a felony burglary conviction. The defendant was placed on a minimum supervision caseload, in part, because there was no record of prior convictions. There is no evidence in the file of initial compliance with conditions of probation, and the defendant was arrested six more times for various drug and burglary charges. On 9/20/99 the defendant was convicted of a second burglary charge and sentenced to state prison. This case indicates that even when there is a standardized risk-screening tool, it only provides an indication of the future risk of non-compliance. In addition, because of the rapid and habitual pattern of continued criminal activity, it is uncertain whether this individual should have been a candidate for probation at all. B. SUMMARY PROBATION REVOCATIONS Revocation data were collected for summary probation in a special report with data from the Municipal Courts’ TCIS computer system. At our request, the following data was extracted from TCIS by County staff for each active summary probation case in FY1998-99: • Court district. • Case number. • Number of defendants associated with case. • Description of charges and relevant Code section(s). • Whether probation was revoked. Analyses of this data were conducted to determine the revocation rates for the summary probation population as a whole, by court district, and by offense. As discussed earlier in this report, common violations leading to revocation include re-arrest, failure to pay court-ordered fines and fees, failure to enroll in or regularly attend a court-ordered program, and failure to perform court-ordered community service. If a probationer is rearrested, he or she will appear in court to be arraigned, at which time the judge will be informed of the defendant’s criminal history and if he or she is already on summary probation for another case. Summary probation may be revoked at that time. Conditional violations other than re-arrest are identified by Municipal Court staff who track each probationer’s fee, fine, and restitution payments and enrollment and attendance in court-ordered therapeutic and community service programs. When probationers are found out of compliance, one of two scenarios occurs in most Municipal Courts. One scenario is that the court will notify the probationer to appear in court for a hearing in which probation may be revoked, modified, or revoked and reinstated. The second scenario bypasses the possible probation violation hearing. Instead, all cases with violations are reported to the sentencing judge who revokes probation and issues bench warrants for the probationers’ arrest without a formal hearing. Under the first scenario, probationers who receive notices but do not appear in court will have bench warrants issued for their arrest. For these probationers and all probationers issued bench warrants under the second scenario, a probation violation hearing takes place only if the probationer voluntarily appears in court or is rearrested and the bench warrant is served. Summary probation revocations by Municipal Court district for FY1998-99 are presented in Table 3.5. As can be seen, probation revocations occurred in 105,210 summary probation cases, or 21.1 percent of the 499,094 total FY1998-99 cases reported from the Trial Court Information System (TCIS). The data extracted from the TCIS system reports all cases in which a revocation occurred during FY1998-99. As shown in Table 3.5, there is variation in the revocation rates between court districts, ranging from a low of 8.4 percent in the Alhambra district to a high of 38.8 percent in the Citrus district. By comparison, the rate for the Automated Minimum Service (AMS) misdemeanant formal probation caseload, as reported earlier in this report section, was 23.9 percent. The difference in revocation rates between court districts probably reflects the lack of standardization in how probation violations are treated by different municipal court districts. Some districts offer opportunities for probationers to attain compliance before the judge revokes probation. For example, the Los Angeles Municipal Court has one of the higher revocation rates in the County at 26.9 percent, probably due to that District’s policy of automatically issuing bench warrants and revoking probation when violations are detected by court staff. Summary probation revocation data was sorted and analyzed by U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) offense category to allow for a comparison with formal probation revocations. The Probation Department produces a management report showing its caseload by DOJ offense category. The Municipal Courts do not track revocation data by offense, so this data was extracted and sorted from a County-wide data base which contains approximately 500,000 summary probation records. Because it was not feasible to extract revocation data by offense for all 500,000 records, the Van Nuys Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Municipal Court was selected for this analysis. This court was selected because it is a large court and is reasonably representative of many courts in the County. Revocations by DOJ offense category for the Van Nuys court are presented in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 Summary Probation Cases with One or More Revocations by Municipal Court District, FY 1998-99 Rate/100 Municipal Court District Cases Revocations Cases Alhambra 7,121 595 8.4 Antelope 15,622 3,294 21.1 Beverly Hills 4,106 503 12.3 Burbank 7,731 979 12.7 Citrus 35,425 13,758 38.8 Compton 17,302 1,813 10.5 Culver City 3,979 540 13.6 Downey 24,091 2,756 11.4 East Los Angeles 14,753 1,312 8.9 Glendale 11,489 2,956 25.7 Inglewood 12,893 1,728 13.4 Long Beach 30,933 6,974 22.5 LA: Criminal 1,856 360 19.4 LA: Central Arraignment 45,671 11,879 26.0 LA: Hollywood 10,873 3,586 33.0 LA: Metro 43,969 11,676 26.6 LA: Van Nuys 32,925 9,291 28.2 LA: San Pedro 10,403 3,792 36.5 LA: Catalina 297 61 20.5 LA: San Fernando 20,842 5,040 24.2 LA: West Los Angeles 9,900 1,772 17.9 Los Angeles Municipal Court 176,736 47,457 26.9 Los Cerritos 15,202 2,082 13.7 Malibu 2,959 410 13.9 Newhall 9,878 1,008 10.2 Pasadena 10,325 1,028 10.0 Pomona 11,781 1,581 13.4 Rio Hondo 16,434 3,741 22.8 Santa Anita 9,048 787 8.7 Santa Monica 5,678 1,331 23.4 South Bay 21,331 3,486 16.3 Southeast 20,468 2,679 13.1 Whittier 13,809 2,412 17.5 Total 499,094 105,210 21.1 Source: Special report generated by the Municipal Court TCIS computer system The data in Table 3.6 shows that the overall revocation rate was 28.2 revocations per 100 probationers for the Van Nuys court, or higher than the Countywide rate of 21.1. Individual offense rates range from a low of 14.5 per 100 cases for Trespassing to a high of 53.9 per 100 cases for Contempt of Court. The data in Table 3.6 also shows the number of cases by offense for summary probationers in that court. As shown, five offense categories comprise the majority of probationers (approximately 67 percent of all summary probation cases for the court): Drunk Driving; Traffic Misdemeanors; Assault/Assault and Battery; Drugs/Narcotics; and, Petty Theft. Table 3.6 Summary Probation Cases with one or more Revocations by Offense Van Nuys Municipal Court, FY1998-99 # # Rate/100 Offense Cases Revocs. Cases Drunk Driving 9,793 2,775 28.3 Misdemeanor Traffic 4,177 758 18.1 Assault/Assault & Battery 3,758 1,650 43.9 Drugs/narcotics 2,454 742 30.2 Petty Theft 1,865 420 22.5 Trespassing 952 138 14.5 Theft-Felony/Petty 890 161 18.1 Hit & Run 884 225 25.5 Prostitution 858 274 31.9 Lewd Conduct 654 134 20.5 Disturbing the Peace 624 136 21.8 Vandalism 491 249 50.7 Misdemeanor Other 359 86 24.0 Other Misdemeanor 338 88 26.0 Weapons 272 78 28.7 Forgery 268 129 48.1 Offense not coded 262 77 29.4 Contempt of Court 102 55 53.9 Subtotal 29,001 8,175 28.2 Other Various (1) 3,924 1,116 28.4 Total Cases 32,925 9,291 28.2 (1) This category is comprised of a variety of offenses, each of which had 50 or less cases per offense category Attempts were made to obtain data on the reasons for summary probation revocation for all summary probation cases but such information cannot be electronically extracted from court computer systems. Instead, 100 Los Angeles Municipal Court summary probation cases that had been revoked during FY1998-99 were randomly selected and the reason for revocation extracted from the case files. The results are presented in Table 3.7. Table 3.7 Reasons for Summary Probation Revocation: 100 FY1998-99 Randomly Selected Los Angeles Municipal Court Case Files Percent Reason Total Failure to pay fine 42% Failure to appear in court 30% Re-arrest 11% Failure to register for program 9% Other 4% Failure to pay victim 3% Failed drug test 0% Case file not found 1% Total 100% It is difficult to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of the summary probation system based on the revocation data presented above. What can be seen is that summary probation is revoked in many cases, that the rate of revocation varies by court district and offense, and that the most common reasons for revocation are failure to pay fines and failure to appear in court. What can’t be determined is the frequency of probation violations since some violations do not result in revocation or the frequency with which revocation results in subsequent compliance, modification or termination of probation. It cannot be determined from revocation rates how many cases became inactive after revocation because the bench warrant was issued but never served. To help assess summary probation effectiveness, it would be useful for court managers to routinely collect this type of outcome and effectiveness data. Many summary probationers who have failed to appear in court for a violation hearing suffer no consequences for violating their probation unless they are stopped or rearrested. The courts do not have information at their disposal about the frequency and eventual outcomes of this common situation. Comparison of Formal and Summary Probation Revocation Rates A comparison of revocation rates by offense was compiled for formal and summary probation. For comparability, the Probation Department’s lower risk AMS misdemeanant caseload was used because it most closely mirrors the summary probation population that is made up of defendants convicted of misdemeanors and infractions. For summary probation, caseload statistics from the Van Nuys Municipal Court were used. Table 3.8 shows the distribution of cases by DOJ offense category in FY 1998-99 for the two populations. Table 3.8 Distribution of Probation Caseload by Offense AMS Misdemeanant Formal Probationers and Van Nuys Municipal Court Summary Probationers* FY1998-99 Summary Formal Summary Formal # # % All % All Offense Cases Cases Cases Cases Drunk Driving 9,793 3363 32.1% 35.7% Misdemeanor 4,177 2258 13.7% 24.0% Traffic Assault/Assault & 3,758 655 12.3% 7.0% Battery Petty Theft 1,865 564 6.1% 6.0% Trespassing 952 0 3.1% 0.0% Theft- 890 186 2.9% 2.0% Felony/Petty Hit & Run 884 290 2.9% 3.1% Prostitution 858 97 2.8% 1.0% Misdemeanor 697 388 2.3% 4.1% Other Lewd Conduct 654 0 2.1% 0.0% Disturbing the 624 0 2.0% 0.0% Peace Vandalism 491 343 1.6% 3.6% Weapons 272 0 0.9% 0.0% Forgery 268 113 0.9% 1.2% Not coded 262 0 0.9% 0.0% Contempt of 102 0 0.3% 0.0% Court Other Various 3,924 1154 12.9% 12.3% Total Cases 30,471 9,411 * Excludes probationers convicted of narcotics, drugs, and marijuana charges due to the different method of recording revocations in the Deferred Entry of Judgement program. In addition, this comparison may not be exactly parallel since the Van Nuys Summary Probation population may differ from the countywide formal probation population for misdemeanor offenders. As can be seen in Table 3.8, formal probation had a greater concentration of Drunk Driving, Misdemeanor Traffic and Other Misdemeanor cases. Summary probation has a higher concentration of Assault/Assault & Battery, and Trespassing cases than does formal probation. The distribution of cases for all other offenses was not dramatically different between the two systems. It should be noted that the offense categories of Drugs, Narcotics, and Marijuana were removed from this analysis for both summary and formal probation because revocation of these cases is treated differently due to the Deferred Entry of Judgement program discussed earlier in this section. Table 3.9 shows the number of revocations for the two populations for FY 1998-99 by offense category for the categories where both systems had 100 or more cases. As shown, revocation rates vary by offense with no clear pattern emerging. Table 3.9 Distribution of Probation Revocations by Offense AMS Misdemeanant Formal Probationers and Van Nuys Municipal Court Summary Probationers* FY 1998-99 Summary Summary Formal Formal Revocation # # # # Rate/100 Offense Cases Revocs. Cases Revocs. Summary Formal Drunk Driving 9,793 2,775 3363 713 28.3 21.2 Misdemeanor Traffic 4,177 758 2258 719 18.1 31.8 Assault/Assault & Battery 3,758 1,650 655 137 43.9 20.9 Petty Theft 1,865 420 564 144 22.5 25.5 Theft-Felony/Petty 890 161 186 47 18.1 25.3 Hit & Run 884 225 290 56 25.5 19.3 Prostitution 858 274 97 28 31.9 28.9 Vandalism 491 249 343 83 50.7 24.2 Misdemeanor Other 359 86 388 76 24.0 19.6 Forgery 268 129 113 32 48.1 28.3 Sample Total 26,547 7,433 8,257 2,035 28.0 24.6 * Excludes narcotics, drugs, and marijuana cases due to the different method of recording revocations in the Deferred Entry of Judgement program. In addition, this comparison may not be exactly parallel since the Van Nuys Summary Probation population may differ from the countywide formal probation population for misdemeanor offenders. Formal probation revocation rates are higher in some offense categories and lower in others compared to summary probation revocation rates. The overall summary probation revocation rate of 28 revocations per 100 cases at the Van Nuys Municipal Court is higher than the formal probation revocation rate of 24.6 revocations per 100 cases for offense categories with 100 or more cases, excluding narcotics, drugs, and marijuana offenses. This difference probably reflects the greater flexibility and probation officer discretion in how violations are dealt with under the formal probation system. Long Term Issues One of the major distinctions the courts make when assigning defendants to summary and formal probation is whether the defendants are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies. As discussed in Section 1, approximately 96.3 percent of convicted misdemeanants assigned to probation are assigned to summary probation. On the other hand, 100 percent of convicted felons assigned to probation are assigned to formal probation. While the distinction between felons and misdemeanants may provide a good general measure of a defendant’s relative risk to the community, it is not conclusive without other information about prior convictions, the number of charges and counts on the sentencing conviction, the defendant’s history of drug and/or alcohol abuse, violence, and other factors. The Probation Department’s Risk and Needs Assessment tool provides a consistently applied mechanism for defining a formal probationer’s relative risk to the community. A convicted felon, for example, may be determined to be low risk based on this assessment and placed on the minimum supervision caseload. A convicted misdemeanant may be assessed as high risk based on their background and placed in a more closely supervised caseload group. A formalized risk assessment tool is not used by the courts for summary probation defendants; instead, risk levels for these cases are determined at the discretion of the sentencing judge. Judges may make an assessment that a summary probationer needs to make regular in court progress reports regardless of their risk to the community. In such a situation, a convicted felon assigned to the Probation Department’s minimum supervision caseload would end up receiving less supervision than the convicted misdemeanant assigned to summary probation. CONCLUSIONS The utility of revocations as a measure of probation effectiveness is limited, and statistics such as revocation rates may only be a partial measure of probation system effectiveness. Therefore, violation and revocation rates for both probation systems need to be regularly measured and reported. A low revocation rate does not necessarily mean that there are few violations. It may mean that the system is ineffective at identifying its violators and that some violations are going undetected. A high revocation rate may indicate that violations are being identified, but it does not reveal whether revocation results in subsequent compliance. For example, probation revocations that result from issuance of a bench warrant that is never served will most likely end up as an inactive case with compliance never achieved, unless the probationer is arrested on other charges. Each year, thousands of bench warrants are issued in Los Angeles County but never served unless the probationer is arrested on other charges. Unfortunately not even revocation rate data, with its limitations, is systematically collected and reported to court and County managers and decision-makers. Given that there are close to 600,000 defendants assigned to formal and summary probation during a year, the outcomes and effectiveness of both systems need to be maintained and reported to ensure the accountability and continual improvement of both systems. State law precludes assignment of convicted felons to summary probation and allows assignment of convicted misdemeanants to either summary or formal probation. As a result, convicted felons determined by the Probation Department to be low risk and assigned to the minimum supervision caseload can end up receiving less supervision than misdemeanants assigned to summary probation who are required to regularly make progress reports in court. Some low risk convicted felons may be better served on summary probation and some high-risk misdemeanants may be better served on formal probation. A consistent approach to risk assessment and determination of supervision requirements by the courts and the Probation Department would allow for a more cohesive probation system. Changes in State law are needed to allow sentencing low risk felons to summary probation. By State law, summary probation is currently not a sentencing option for convicted felons. Therefore, legislative changes would be necessary for the courts to be provided with this degree of sentencing latitude. Accordingly, as a longer term strategy for developing a risk-based program for assessing and supervising probationers, the Board of Supervisors may wish to direct County Counsel to determine specific changes in law which would be required to provide the courts with the legal foundation for this change. Once the County is confident that a risk-based measurement system has been successfully implemented, it should then advocate to the State legislature for changes in law to provide the courts with broader sentencing alternatives for certain convicted felons. RECOMMENDATIONS The Probation Department should: 3.1 Collaborate on development of more meaningful measures of probation system effectiveness including: (a) The number and types of violations identified by the Probation Department or the courts. (b) The number or percentage of violations resolved without court intervention or judicial action. (c) The number or percentage of violations resulting in revocation. (d) The reasons for revocation (e.g., re-arrest, failure to pay fines, etc.). (e) The number or percentage of violations for which bench warrants are issued. (f) The number or percentage of probation cases that become compliant after revocation. 3.2 Make necessary changes in their computerized information systems to allow the new measures of effectiveness to be regularly recorded and summarized in management reports. 3.3 Report this information on a regular basis, such as monthly, to court judicial officers and managers and Probation Department managers. 3.4 Report this information on a regular basis, such as annually, to decision-makers such as the Board of Supervisors and relevant court oversight bodies. The Board of Supervisors should: 3.5. Request a report in six months from the Probation Department on their success in collaboratively developing a risk assessment tool for use by the courts similar to what is now used by the Probation Department. 3.6. Direct County Counsel to research changes in State law needed to provide the courts with sentencing flexibility between summary and formal probation so that assignment to either system is based on probationer risk, not type of conviction, and develop a plan to advocate the State legislature for changes in State law as appropriate. Costs and Benefits The one-time costs for programming and staff time needed to prepare the recommended management reports would be the primary costs of implementing these recommendations. No significant new direct ongoing costs would be incurred. The benefits of the recommendations would include improved management information regarding the effectiveness of the two probation systems that would also enable the Probation Department and the courts to make changes in their procedures and operational policies to realize improved probation outcomes. USE OF FORCE TRAINING BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY The police are SOME OF the most powerful agents of the state. they can disrupt the daily routines of citizens more than any other public official by deciding who shall be stopped, who shall be detained, who shall be arrested, and who shall go free. Not even the president has their immediate and direct power over life and death. INTRODUCTION The Criminal Justice Committee agrees with this characterization of police authority. We would add that law enforcement, ever mindful of this power, must always reach to improve, to engage the community, and to earn and maintain the public trust. It was this observation that prompted our investigation. Former Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote that the most common civil rights violation is police abuse and misuse of force. This assertion is reiterated by the media, where instances of unnecessary, inappropriate, and excessive−even lethal−force used by police are alleged. To determine if training in any manner contributes to this purported abuse, the Criminal Justice Committee assessed the “use-of-force” training conducted by selected police agencies in Los Angeles County. Emphasis was placed on the most commonly used categories. OBJECTIVES The Committee focused its study on the following: 1. Academy hours each officer or deputy receives combined with subsequent hours of on-the-job, roll call and refresher training. 2. “Use-of-force” models guiding the departments. 3. Less than lethal force training such as chemicals, bean bags and TASER. 4. Lethal force criteria and guidelines. 5. Canine use. 6. Policies and procedures for police contact with: a. Suspected mentally disordered persons b. Developmentally disabled persons c. Homeless persons d. Domestic disputes e. Fleeing vehicular suspects METHODOLOGY Law enforcement training for police departments within Los Angeles County occurs at one of five academies during the officer’s probationary period, at roll-call formations, and at annual and semi-annual refresher classes. Los Angeles City Police, the Long Beach Police Department, and the Sheriff’s Department have their own academies. The remaining eighty-six cities in L.A. County are trained, in order of frequency, at the L.A. Sheriff’s Academy, Rio Hondo Community College and the Orange County Sheriff’s Academy, which trained police officers from seven county cities and the L.A. Unified School District in the past year. To gain insight into the philosophy, policies, and conduct of this training, the Criminal Justice Committee visited and received comprehensive briefings and demonstrations, participated in hands-on activities, role played in one virtual reality scenario, and observed and interviewed trainees, instructors and staff. These visitations included: • Los Angeles Police Academy: 2 days • Los Angeles Sheriff’s Academy: 2 days • Long Beach Academy: 2 days • Pasadena Police Department: 2 days • Beverly Hills Police Department: 1 day These departments provided our Committee with written policies, manuals, instructional materials and videotapes. During briefings and orientations, experts and specialists instructed, demonstrated, and clarified topics such as the use of dogs, weaponry, and tactics utilized in special circumstances. All departments were cooperative and forthcoming in assisting the development of this report. The Los Angeles Police Department was particularly responsive and thorough, even providing a special briefing at the Grand Jury offices subsequent to our initial visits. FINDINGS Police officers and deputy sheriffs in Los Angeles County receive 952 hours at the Sheriff’s Academy and 1064 hours at the Los Angeles Police Academy. Long Beach offers 1040 hours; the state of California mandates only 640 hours. California Police Officers’ Standards of Training (POST) mandates both the subject matter and minimum hours of instruction academies must offer. The following chart indicates the hours of use-of-force training mandated by POST and those hours offered by the three academies visited. USE-OF-FORCE TRAINING HOURS POST LAPD Long Beach Sheriff Learning Domain #20 12 27 14 12 (“Use-of-Force”) Learning Domain #35 72 112 88 72 (Firearms/Chemicals) Learning Domain #3 60 87.5 84 60 (Arrest/Control) Based on departmental culture and the demographics of the law enforcement jurisdiction, additional post-academy training is uniformly viewed by all the departments studied as vital. Sworn enforcement personnel are in a probationary period for 12 to 18 months after leaving the academy. They are teamed during that period with a veteran partner. In cities that do not have their own academy, officers are given an additional 4-5 day orientation/training program reflective of the values and culture of that community’s special circumstances and priorities. Most officers receive 15-30 minutes training at daily roll-call, bi-monthly or monthly range firing and additional training such as self-defense, CPR, driver training, and use of chemical agents at both monthly and alternate year Advanced Officer Training (AOT), which can be a week in duration. The Use-of-Force Continuum model, so critical to the role of law enforcement, is best illustrated in the above “Situational Use of Force Options” chart of the Los Angeles Police Department. While not precisely reflective of all police entities in the County, the principles and force increments necessary are essentially compatible. Illustrative of this: 1. The primary goal of the officer or deputy is control of the subjects. 2. Most subjects will respond in a positive manner to the mere presence of the officer and his request. 3. It may be necessary to move immediately from an initial “cooperative” posture to an “Immediate Defense of Life” (IDOL) posture. 4. Verbalization should continue as a possible basis for de-escalation of what could become a confrontation. Officers use “Background, Age, Last Resort, Knowledge of the Total Circumstances, and Seriousness of the Crime” (BALKS) in their evaluations of the incident. 5. Force of any kind must be reasonable and necessary. The use of force by law enforcement is significantly less frequent than sensationalized media reports leads one to expect. The Los Angeles Police Department, for example, used some degree of force only 1% of the time in the past decade, or one in every one hundred stops necessitated some force. Indeed, in 1999 this ratio dropped to eight tenths of one-percent, or once in every 125 contacts. Each use of force must be reported with a detailed description of exactly what happened. The Los Angeles County Sheriff policy, for example, mandates that any use of force exceeding unresisted Department-approved searching or handcuffing must be reported immediately to one’s supervisor with a minimum rank of sergeant. The witnessing of force must also be reported to the supervisor. That supervisor is required to notify the watch commander or supervising lieutenant. Depending upon the degree of force, Internal Affairs may become involved and a shooting response team may be sent. With a shooting resulting in death or serious injury, the officer is automatically reassigned to non-field duties for a minimum of five days. The following more specialized categories of use of force were reviewed in more depth by the Committee. A. Less Than Lethal Force Less than lethal force options begin with the voice and demeanor of the officer/deputy, progressing to the application of chemical agents, physical restraints, the baton, the TASER gun, sting balls, stinger shot, bean bag shot and the Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) rifle that uses rubber bullets. Underlying a determination by law enforcement to use less than lethal force is the constant awareness that the officer must match the awesome power he/she has with awesome respect. Officers may use whatever force is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm and necessary to effect an arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance. 1. Chemical Agents All officers are trained in the use of chemical agents, which can cause serious allergic reactions in some individuals. Pepper spray (OC) is carried by all sworn persons in uniform and is used to subdue an individual who is resisting or interfering with an arrest, or to prevent injury, and has been found to be effective about 80 percent of the time. It is a highly concentrated form of peppers or related synthetics and when applied topically, it can cause gagging, coughing, an intense sense of burning, and other debilitating symptoms. Deployment of OC requires a “Use of Force” report and examination by a physician at a contract hospital or jail dispensary. Tear Gas (CS) is employed for crowd control and hostage/barricade instances. An example of its recent application was seen in Seattle, during the World Trade riots. 2. Physical Restraints Handcuffing, kicks, carotid neck restraint (sides of neck only), team take-down (formerly known as “swarming”), firm grip, wrist twist locks, leg restraints and hobbling are additional techniques that have “minimal” chance of causing injury. These weaponless techniques are routinely taught and employed. Although non-lethal, a “Use of Force” report is required. While seemingly less lethal than firearms, the Los Angeles Police Department categorizes Upper Body Control Holds as a use of force option in circumstances considered “life threatening.” Upper Body Control Holds include the modified carotid, full carotid, and locked carotid neck restraints. If applied with maximum effort, these techniques can render the suspect unconscious within eight to ten seconds and he will remain unconscious for up to eight to fourteen seconds. These holds can be lethal and, in extreme circumstances, should the suspect fail to regain consciousness, an ambulance will be requested. In all instances of Upper Body Control Hold application, the suspect will be examined by a physician at a contract hospital or jail dispensary. “Use of Force” reports are required. 3. Impact Weapons These include the baton, impact weapons, bean bags, TASER, and sting balls. They are used to control aggressive and combative suspects in situations where lethal force seems unjustifiable or unnecessary; where other attempts to subdue the person have been or will likely be ineffective, and where there is the belief it is unsafe to have contact with the subject. It is considered unsafe to use beanbags against a suspect less than thirty feet away. Reports are filed in these circumstances, and whenever the TASER is used, medical personnel (defined as a nurse or doctor at a contract hospital, jail dispensary, or a paramedic) will immediately examine the suspect. Flashlights, batons, and saps are other impact weapons considered non-lethal when normally employed in a display of force, in a come-a-long mode, or for blocking. These devices will not be used, except in a lethal mode circumstance, to strike the suspect’s head. With the exception of crowd control, employing these weapons requires a “Use of Force” report. Should the officer/deputy use the baton in a crowd control situation against an individual in an isolated incident, a report is then required. B. Lethal force Lethal force is authorized whenever it reasonably appears necessary to: • Protect against immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. • Prevent a crime which threatens life or serious bodily harm. • Stop/apprehend a fleeing suspect which the officer has reason to believe has committed a violent felony, including murder, mayhem, rape, robbery, and in some cases of assault with a deadly weapon. Further, the officer has reason to believe that the escape of this felon will constitute a continued threat to the community, and if apprehension is delayed, serious bodily injury or death could result. The Los Angeles Police Academy provides trainees with 72 hours of handgun use and 14 hours with a shotgun. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Academy offers 74 hours in firearms training. Both academies base their programs on the assumption that trainees (including armed service veterans) have no prior experience with firearms. In addition to range firing, students participate in live fire, virtual reality, and other “real world” scenarios. All LAPD officers must successfully accomplish four Fire Arms Training Simulations (FATS) and seven other situational tests, concluding with a written exam. The handling and use of firearms by sworn personnel is strictly defined in both policy and training. Characteristically, the following are the criteria: • Officers/deputies will not unnecessarily draw, display, or handle a firearm. • Warning shots will not be fired except as a preliminary to shooting to kill. • Handguns will not be cocked except when imminent use is anticipated. • Before using a handgun, if feasible, a verbal warning will be given. Weapons may be fired: • To prevent serious injury or death when lesser force is impracticable. • To capture or stop a fleeing felon (as described above). • To kill an animal that poses a danger, if no other means are practicable. • During lawful firearms training and practice. Officers must consider their surroundings and the possible danger to bystanders prior to discharging a firearm. The use by criminals of increasingly deadly firearms such as machine guns, assault rifles, large caliber handguns and armor piercing ammunition has forced police departments to respond; for example, by the acquisition of the Urban Police Rifle (UPR). This modified M-15 military long gun is now available to most departments and selected personnel. Training with this rifle tends to even the odds. Additionally, the shotgun slug can now be used with the shotgun. Officer/deputy−involved shootings and Upper Body Control Holds are subject to strict investigation. Depending upon the department, a senior officer or deputy will determine whether a Response Team or a Roll Out Team is appropriate. A careful, exhaustive investigation and review is undertaken to determine if the tactics and actions were appropriate. C. Use of Canines (K9s) The prompt and correct use of a trained canine team has proved a unique and valuable law enforcement resource. Properly deployed, a canine team significantly increases the degree of safety to citizens, enhances officer safety, and greatly increases the likelihood of suspect apprehension, while dramatically reducing the time necessary to conclude the search. Dogs can be utilized in a wide range of circumstances including varied tasks such as: searching for lost children and adults; building intrusion searches; locating, overtaking and/or capturing fleeing or barricaded persons or fugitives (Pasadena Police Department guidelines). However, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Manual is more restrictive, limiting their 8 dogs to deployments to “Searches for felony or armed misdemeanor suspects, who are wanted for SERIOUS crimes and present a clear danger to personnel conducting a search without a canine.” The LAPD uses dogs more frequently than most law enforcement agencies. The Department believes dogs should: • Mainly be used to locate. • “Find and bark,” almost never bite. • Reduce the incidence of use of force by officers. • Be used with suicidal suspects, hostage situations, and even assist in team takedowns. In a briefing provided to the Criminal Justice Committee, an LAPD canine use expert offered statistics confirming police enthusiasm for dog deployment. Their fourteen certified dogs participate in 700-750 searches each year, finding 50% of the subjects. The Dutch Shepherds and Belgian Malinois Dogs, exclusively used by LAPD, make contact (some form of bite) about 14%-16% of the time. The Long Beach Police Department also is enthusiastic about the use of canines and utilizes 16 dogs: 12 for search, 2 bloodhounds and 2 dogs for narcotics detection. All departments agree that a loud warning will be given before releasing the dog. Dogs should not be utilized for crowd control, except in imperative instances. Drug detection and searches are secondary uses and dogs are exclusively teamed with one officer/handler. D. Mentally Disordered Perhaps no aspect of police use of force has received more notoriety, and more censure, than that used against the perceived mentally ill. Widespread reaction is almost unanimous in decrying what seems to be unreasoned, inappropriate violent treatment of the mentally ill by law enforcement personnel. The mortality rate, 26 fatal LAPD shootings of the mentally ill in one six year period, sustains this public dismay. It may not be that L.A. City and County law enforcement is insensitive to the problem, but the absence of comprehensive academy and new officer training on this issue is not reassuring. In curricula of more than 1,000 hours, an otherwise impressive and most competent LAPD Academy provides fewer than a dozen hours (six classroom, five in scenario) directly aimed at coping with this growing problem. The Academy director points out that virtually everything taught at their Westchester facility helps officers cope with the mentally ill; however, many media reports would seem to suggest otherwise. Law enforcement policies and guidelines throughout the County of Los Angeles do not ignore this growing crisis. It has been observed that the dismantling of the mental health system and the closing of the mental hospitals have turned our streets into de facto mental wards. This may well have turned police officers into involuntary custodians of the mentally ill. Yet a review of the current Pasadena Police Department Advanced Officer Training (AOT) program, required in alternate years, reveals not a single hour of instruction relevant to this need. The L.A. Sheriff’s Department’s Field Operations Directive 92-2 dated August 27, 1997, clearly recognizes the growing mental health issue, yet Academy training has not responded with significantly expanded class hours. Unique to the Sheriff’s Department, newly graduated deputies are assigned custodial duties for at least a two-year period in one of the County jails. Additional custodial training of 80 hours at this time includes instruction on under-the-influence and disabled persons. Still later in his/her career, the deputy attends a three-week patrol school with further training in these areas. Long Beach Police with support from the Mental Evaluation Team (MET) appear to expand upon the limited mental illness training provided at their Academy. Their creed is to separate dangerous criminals from the mentally ill and to decriminalize these sick people. Initiated approximately five years ago, the MET team, in concert with the LA County Department of Mental Health, is composed of one Long Beach police officer and one mental health clinician. This team monitors calls, and can respond where needed, with the objective of providing intervention, referral or placement for those mentally disordered persons, allowing field officers to return to other duties. The MET program in Long Beach made approximately 580 calls in 1999, with nearly half of the subjects being hospitalized. The Department estimates that, in addition to helping people, MET responses saved hundreds of field officer hours and at least $182,000 in hospital admission costs (average admission: $2,200). Additional savings can be realized when factoring in hospital costs that may be avoided subsequent to admission. Police and deputy Academy training related to mental illness, while augmented in the field, appears to have lagged behind a growing need. E. The Homeless It is generally recognized that many homeless people suffer from mental illness or infirmities. Law enforcement in Los Angeles County has recognized problems associated with the homeless. While the academies offer few hours specifically aimed at homeless issues, there is training regarding the handling of under-the-influence conduct and drug-induced behavior which are also commonly found among the homeless. In the LAPD Academy twelve hours of training are offered, along with scenarios in which homeless or under-the-influence suspects are encountered. Subsequent to academy graduation, departments tailor their homeless policies to the needs of their community and place emphasis on contact and knowing the individuals. Beverly Hills has a Recovery Outreach Program. This program has three bicycle patrols, two vehicles for transport, and social service workers who combine to assist the homeless. In three years of operation, the program has emphasized personal contact, assistance and referrals. Police receive relatively few direct class hours aimed at the homeless and deputies receive none. However, they do have ongoing training throughout their career with initial orientation, roll call and advanced officer classes. This post-academy instruction should be based upon the principles that the homeless are troubled, need help, and that helping them helps the community. F. Domestic Disputes Underlying law enforcement training in domestic violence are countywide standards based upon “Zero Tolerance,” which requires an arrest in all instances where evidence of violence exists. This philosophy derives from the training provided in the academies− training predicated upon the concept that while domestic disputes frequently necessitate victim assistance, they also can be volatile and life-threatening to both the subjects and the responding police. Los Angeles Police Department officers receive 14 hours of class instruction in domestic disputes and they receive an additional 8 hours in handling related conflicts such as landlord, business, and neighbor disputes. Each of the Pasadena AOT modules provides 8 hours in “Family Violence” and the Beverly Hills Department requires a minimum of one 2-hour domestic violence telecourse and 2 hours in elder abuse annually. Additionally, a special 8-hour course, “Dispatcher’s Role in Domestic Violence” is now given, with one supervisor attending an 8-hour CD-ROM augmentation meeting. The Sheriff’s Academy provides an 8-hour block for deputies in domestic violence emphasizing such events as family disputes, “screaming woman”, domestic violence, rape and violations of restraining orders. Deputies may also receive up to 10 additional hours depending upon rank and assignment. The Long Beach Academy offers 9 hours in domestic violence training, with an additional 5 hours in scenarios and report writing. Particularly noteworthy is the concept of, and training incident to, the LAPD Domestic Abuse Response Team (DART) program, begun in 1994 in Van Nuys with the assistance of the Domestic Abuse Center. DART’s basic premise is to relieve the patrol officers who initially respond to the scene, while DART team members remain on the scene to provide support and assistance to the victim. Specially chosen by the Area Commanding Officer, the DART officer and one or two trained community volunteers deploy in a plain-unmarked vehicle to the domestic crime scene. DART officers receive their training by working in the Domestic Abuse Section of the Major Assault and Crime (MAC) Unit. Civilian Volunteers complete 40 hours of domestic violence training including history, profiles, current law, law enforcement role in domestic violence, restraining orders, victim crime programs, housing, support, and crisis intervention. The concept and training for DART encompasses all domestic violence circumstances, including homicides, “unknown trouble” calls, and child and elder abuse. DART presently is operational in eleven of the LAPD’s 18 divisions. G. Fleeing Vehicular Suspects Despite the frequency of live local television news coverage of dramatic auto chases by police, the actual number of such occurrences has remained constant, or even declined in some areas. Police and deputy training in this area can be summarized by stating that the use of firearms against fleeing or approaching vehicles has proved to be generally ineffective and inherently dangerous. Deputies/officers shall not fire at a moving vehicle, whether to disable the vehicle or to stop the suspect, unless they have probable cause to believe the suspect represents an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the deputies or others. Personnel shall take into account the location, vehicular and pedestrian traffic and any hazard to innocent persons before firing at moving vehicles. Law enforcement officers shall not place themselves or remain in the path of a moving vehicle. Local police policy is generally to avoid high-speed pursuit and ramming. The Beverly Hills Police Department recently sent officers to an innovative driving school in Camarillo, California, where the school trains officers to “outperform their cars (not the other way around)” and, foremost, stresses safety. As an example, The Colorado Highway Patrol reported a $100,000 saving in tires by the end of the first year after their officers applied the techniques learned at the Camarillo school. Applied training in pursuit and related vehicular tactics ranges from 24 hours at the Sheriff’s Academy to 40 hours at both LAPD and Long Beach Academies. CONCLUSIONS Members of the Criminal Justice Committee undertook the audit “Use of Force Training by Law Enforcement Agencies in Los Angeles County”, based upon a sense of urgency and concern over police violence and excessive use of force. These concerns were based on citizen and media complaints, anger and hostility, motivated by the many reports of police use of force. We asked, “Is this pattern the result of training?” Using this premise, our study was undertaken, leading to the following observations. 1. The academies are staffed with highly qualified, motivated, dedicated professionals committed to excellence; their leadership adds to this excellence. 2. The curricula in the academies significantly exceeds the required California Peace Officers’ Standards and Training (POST) hours and in spirit clearly exemplifies the goals of POST. 3. Emphasizing contemporary techniques and concepts, the academies subject the students to rigorous standards combining learning with the imperative that today’s peace officers are dedicated to becoming part of the community and share with that community the responsibility of crime prevention. 4. Academy and subsequent law enforcement training and policy consistently recognizes that peace officers are confronted daily with the necessity of using force to effect arrests and protect the public safety. Nevertheless, force may not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective. Force must be reasonable and necessary, remembering that the sanctity of life is uppermost. 5. Doctrine additionally provides that any force used must be the minimum necessary, and that verbalization should be continued at all times in an effort to defuse the circumstance. 6. Despite Use-of-Force training, there have been lapses and serious failures by individual officers in the field that have led to the deaths of some mentally disturbed persons. In part, the committee attributed this to: a. Insufficient training designed to equip officers to respond to a growing mental crisis. b. The absence of meritorious programs such as the Long Beach MET program in other police agencies. Both the Los Angeles Police Department and the Sheriff’s Department have specially trained officers who work with mental health clinicians qualified to identify and respond to the complex needs of the mentally ill. But, in Los Angeles City, for example, only one team went to just one of thirty- seven shootings involving the mentally ill. 7. The homeless, while understandably irritating to many and an embarrassment to society, are apparently being treated with understanding by Los Angeles County law enforcement. Volunteer organizations agree that the police are very helpful, compassionate, and they even volunteer for special programs such as “Thanksgiving in the Street” and the “Christmas Carnival.” 8. The use of canines is a police tactic that reflects credit on the departments. The few earlier complaints are no longer heard. The K9s in all departments are now trained to “find and bark”. Money and time are saved and criminals are apprehended. 9. Domestic disputes continue to represent troubling, and at times, highly dangerous police calls. Increased awareness and efforts are being made in LA County. However, the meritorious DART program is only operational in about 50% of Los Angeles City. While supported by the Chief of Police, it has not been uniformly mandated. Thus, it largely is dependent upon individual division commanders to implement. Moreover, DART depends upon quality shelters which may have a variety of priorities and goals. Fortunately, there are many highly motivated police in the program, but there is a shortage of resources. Ancillary to training related to domestic violence, sworn officers receive guidance related to their own possible family violence. Guidelines and departmental standards are reflected in both roll call and advanced training. LASD Family Violence policy for deputies extends to 5 pages. Noteworthy is the Beverly Hills Chaplaincy Program that utilizes civilian volunteers, who are able to provide guidance and counseling to department members. 10. There are consistent policies and guidelines stating that “bullets do not stop cars” and, in most instances, vehicles are not used to ram. According to one expert, “police are asking for more power from their cars, not more skills from the officers.” While numerous car chases are shown on television, the good news is that the incidence of these cases is not increasing. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Continued emphasis on the use of less-than-lethal force is necessary. 2. The use of dogs should be funded at a higher level by the Sheriff’s Department and by appropriate police departments where a viable program is not in place. 3. The five training academies utilized by LA County law enforcement should provide increased instruction concerned with mentally disordered persons. 4. The use of the Mental Evaluation Teams (MET), so well utilized in Long Beach, should be greatly expanded. 5. Each law enforcement agency should create a cadre of trained personnel as an alternative or an augmentation to MET, which could recognize and diffuse situations before they become deadly. 6. Require that “roll-out” teams (a team of prosecutors and investigators from the DA’s office) automatically respond to each officer-involved shooting. 7. The Sheriff’s Department should ensure that the Personnel Performance Index (PPI) not be diminished. This is a risk management tool used for tracing use-of-force cases and citizen complaints of departmental misconduct system. The PPI monitors the disposition of administrative investigations within the Department and has significantly reduced excessive force litigation. 8. The LAPD should provide the necessary resources to its Community Affairs Group to establish and fully implement a DART academy to ensure standardization of DART training. This academy would enhance and facilitate increased effectiveness of DART, combined with an improved domestic violence tracking system and meaningful, consistent volunteer training. The Grand Jury strongly suggests that the DART concept should be promoted throughout Los Angeles County law enforcement agencies. 9. Law enforcement should develop alternatives to high-speed chases. GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE Ronald L. Chovance – Chairperson Gunter Altman James B. Avery, Sr. Susie Chapman Florence L. Davis H.J. Holshuh II Toni Maurer Victor McCarty Inman Moore WELFARE FRAUD REPORT INTRODUCTION The Government Services and Education Committee decided after a thorough review of the Welfare Fraud Audit Report prepared by the 1998-1999 Grand Jury that it would be prudent to continue to focus on this subject, but with a narrow and deep approach. A review of prior Grand Jury Final Reports led the committee to the conclusion that early welfare fraud was all too pervasive and persistent. We also realized that we as a committee should not continue to study the entire subject. Further study convinced us that early fraud detected concurrent with the application for benefits was both easy to identify and had a high potential for saving significant amounts of public money. Whereas detection of welfare fraud in Los Angeles County has historically lagged from the onset of benefit payments, it seemed obvious that if fraud were identified before benefit payments commenced, major savings could be effected. A project that was identified is the Home Call Visit Program. The Home Call Visit Program should envision a field call by an investigator from the District Attorney’s office to the residence of every applicant for aid to verify eligibility. The “home call” identifies individuals who are ineligible for aid before cash payments or other benefits are issued. The purpose of the home visit is to corroborate the information provided on the aid application. Investigators look for evidence that the applicant is residing at their reported address, that there are no unreported adults living in the home, that children listed on the application are living with the applicant, and for evidence of unreported income or major assets such as vehicles. Home calls are made during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. In addition to meeting with the applicant, an investigator checks school records for children listed on the application, contacts the landlord, and speaks with neighbors if necessary to verify eligibility. Although applicants are not told the date or time that a home visit will occur, all applicants are informed by the Eligibility Worker (EW) at the time of application that a home call visit will take place. In addition, each application form has a large printed notice informing applicants that an investigator will make a home call to verify the information reported on the form. Also, notices are posted in each office lobby. In order to stay within constitutional bounds, investigators may not enter a residence without the express voluntary consent of the applicant. Investigators must identify themselves, state the purpose of their visit, and conduct the visit in a professional and respectful manner. Consent to enter must be given freely by the applicant, under no coercion or unlawful assertion of authority or intimidation. During the investigation of the home, the applicant, not the investigator, leads the search through rooms and is the one who opens doors and drawers. Applicants may refuse to meet with an investigator, but those who refuse are denied aid due to non-cooperation. The above description of the Home Call Visit Program is the way it must be applied to the Los Angeles County Home Call Visit Program. In various parts of the state of California, given the proper protocols, focus, tools, people, and education, this program has been performing with a high degree of efficiency. However, for this approach to become successful in Los Angeles County, a disciplined and unselfish mentality would be required by the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). OBJECTIVES Home Call Visits – Pilot Program To ensure the development of an effective protocol by the Los Angeles County DPSS for the Home Call Visit Program. Follow up of the 1998-1999 Grand Jury Recommendations on Welfare Fraud To review the points agreed to by the DPSS that were recommended after an exhaustive study by the 1998-1999 Grand Jury. FINDINGS Home Call Visits Due to advocacy group litigation aimed at blocking the Home Call Visit pilot program, on advice of County Counsel, the 1999-2000 Government Services & Education Committee opted not to continue its evaluation of the DPSS pilot program. However prior to being informed of this litigation, the Committee did considerable research and review. The visits to the home of each applicant as a condition precedent to benefit payments is both logical and fair to all concerned. Home visits can and should be conducted in an unobtrusive way by trained professionals. Properly done, the visit can provide information that assesses data provided by the applicant at the time of application. DPSS is involved in a pilot home visit project that we hope continues smoothly to a successful conclusion. Our research has indicated that home visits, because they are fact finding and investigative by nature, should be performed by professionals with backgrounds in investigation. The District Attorney’s office is the organization best equipped to manage the Home Call Visit Program. The DPSS eligibility worker (EW), by nature is motivated to qualify deserving persons for benefit payments. Verification of information provided by applicants is more appropriately performed by individuals with an investigative background rather than the more accommodating perspective of EWs. The importance of having well trained experienced investigators became apparent when two members of our committee participated as “ride alongs” on actual home visits in San Diego County’s “Project 100%”. What could have turned into very awkward situations, was handled with consummate skill by the members of the San Diego County District Attorney’s Welfare Fraud Unit. A home visit investigator makes no determination on the basis of discoveries made during the visit. The findings are reported to the EW who is handling the particular application and is the sole judge of eligibility for benefits. Frequently, benefits beyond the determination of eligibility can result from home visits. Observation of additional family needs can be much better ascertained than simply in an office interview between the EW and applicant. Follow up of 1998-1999 Grand Jury Final Report We have focused on monitoring the prior Grand Jury Welfare Fraud Audit Final Report, which was released on June 30th, 1999. On July 8th the Board of Supervisors instructed the DPSS to respond to this audit The DPSS responded on August 2nd, agreeing with 26 recommendations and setting their own target dates for implementation of these 26 recommendations. It should be noted that one recommendation might include more than one item. Under the headings of the 26 recommendations were 48 items , according to the DPSS timing and action calendar of August 2, 1999. Equally significant was the quarterly report due back to the Board of Supervisors on September 9, 1999. The DPSS failed to submit the report on time and failed to submit the report on four successive dates, all of which were selected by the DPSS. As of December 7, the report had still not been submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Due to the non-responsiveness of the DPSS, the work of the Grand Jury has been severely impeded. The committee requested the Department of Auditor–Controller to assist in obtaining responses to the recommendations, as well as auditing ten items selected from the 1998-1999 Grand Jury Final Report. Following are the 10 issues and our findings: Issue 1: In collaboration with the L.A. Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation, Welfare Fraud Prevention and Investigation (WFP&I) staff will provide fraud related training to EWs working on the Home Call Visitation Pilot to ensure that fraud referrals are made when appropriate. Target Date for Implementation: 9/99. Implementation Status: Implemented. Discussion: On September 15, 1999, DPSS began a Home Call Pilot Project in four District offices to verify eligibility of CalWorks applicants and assess for social services needs. Beginning on August 30, 1999, Home Call Eligibility Workers received two weeks of special training in the areas of potential fraud identification (one week) and applicable social services (one week). Issue 2: WFP&I will provide district managers with a monthly report of cases where fraud is found but the EW has not responded timely regarding the case disposition (denial/termination/reduction). Target Implementation Date: 9/99. Quarterly summary reports will be provided to the Internal Security Task Force. Target Implementation Date: 10/99. Implementation Status: In Progress. Discussion: DPSS’ “Welfare Fraud Referral and Disposition Report” (discussed at length under Issue 3) lists “Pending Dispositions Over 45 Days”. This data was consolidated in this report to preclude the need for a separate report for this information. Upon completion of an investigation, the WFP&I Early Fraud Investigator will forward the results of his/her investigation to the responsible Eligibility Worker. The EW must then review the results, resolve any inconsistencies, review the eligibility factors for the case and take the appropriate action on the case. Once action has been taken, the EW is required to notify the investigator of any negative action taken, or if it was determined that no action was required, the reasons for this decision. Investigations included in the “Pending Dispositions Over 45 Days” section of the “Welfare Fraud Referral and Disposition Report”, reflect complete investigations whose results have been forwarded to the EW. However, a response has not yet been received from the EW indicating what, if any, action was taken on the case in response to the findings of the investigation and 45 days or more has elapse since findings were forwarded to the EW. The first report covering the period September 1999 was provided to the Department’s District Directors on October 29, 1999. Issue 3: WFP&I will produce and distribute a monthly report on fraud referrals received from each district office. The report will be evaluated by DPSS executive staff to identify those districts with referral rates substantially above or below the norm in order to identify problems, or “best practices”. Target Implementation Date: 9-99. Implementation Status: In Progress. Discussion: DPSS is producing a “Welfare Fraud Referral and Disposition Report” which groups DPSS District Offices by Division and provides data on caseload volume, fraud referrals generated by EWs and forwarded to WFP&I, Early Action/Early Fraud referrals and the percentage of fraud referrals made in relation to the District’s average caseload. To increase the effectiveness of this report, WFP&I is also producing a “spin-off” report on the number of applications for assistance taken at CalWorks District Offices and for Non- Assistance Food Stamp applications taken in General Relief Districts in a given month, the number of Early Fraud Detection and Prevention (EFDP) referrals made in the month and the percentage of EFDP referrals made in comparison to applications taken. DPSS is also considering generating a second spin-off report on Early Action (EA) fraud referrals. EA referrals occur when potential fraud is identified as part of the redetermination/recertification process on approved cases. Of the 3,974 EA/EFDP referrals made during September 1999, 997 were EA referrals, so this is a significant activity for the Department. The spin-off report would likely compare the number of redeterminations/recertifications completed during the month to the number of EA referrals made during the month. The first report covered the month of September 1999 and this information was transmitted to the Department’s District Directors on October 29,1999. The more specialized report comparing applications to EFDP referrals was released on November 18, 1999. According to WFP&I management, the time period at this point is insufficient to analyze the data contained in the reports to identify those Districts whose performance is consistently better, or worse than that of other Districts. Issue 4: Eliminate banked caseloads in all districts consistent with the ten-month phase-in plan for LEADER (an automated information system). Target Implementation Date: begin by 8-99. Implementation Status: Implemented (based on DPSS’ response). Discussion: Given the timeframe for performing our review, we were unable to assess the implementation status of this measure. However, in its response, DPSS indicated, “All districts began unbanking caseloads in August 1999. However unbanking of caseloads has been expedited and all districts had eliminated banked files by November 1, 1999”. Issue 5: Assign high priority (“Category A”) referrals (e.g., multiple aid, conspiracy, household composition, and alleged overpayment over $ 5,000) of receipt. Target Implementation Date: 8-99. Implementation Status: In Progress. Discussion: DPSS indicated that the referral process was revised effective August 31, 1999. The Department provided us with statistics reflecting new referrals received during the month of October 1999. This data shows that on average a “Category A” fraud referral is being referred to a WFP&I investigator within 2.16 days of its receipt, with the majority of the cases being assigned the same day that they are received. On December 3,1999, five cases were selected from the listing of new cases referred for investigation during October to validate the receipt and referral dates. In addition, the status of the investigation on each of these cases was reviewed to determine if the investigation had been started, whether it was in progress, or it had been completed. An error was noted in the assignment date included on the case listing for one of the test items. Despite this error, four of the five cases were referred to a WFP&I investigator within the three-day time frame. Four of the five cases reviewed were assigned to a WFP&I investigator between October 4th and October 15th, with the fifth being assigned on October 29th. As of December 3rd, the investigation of one referral had been completed and it appeared that substantial progress had been made on investigations of two other referrals. Investigations on the final two referrals appeared to have either recently been initiated or still pending. Copies were obtained of the “Fraud Investigation Activity Report”(DPA 266) for the months of June through September 1999. These reports, which are submitted to the State Department of Social Services are prepared monthly and show the status of the WFP&I caseload at the end of each month. The reports indicate that for the month of September (the first month that the new prioritization guidelines became effective) new referrals were higher, and completed investigations were lower than the preceding three-month period. However, the overall caseload remained consistent throughout the four-month period. WFP&I management believes that the impact of the new changes on caseloads cannot be determined yet. While it appears that DPSS has reduced the timeframe for making referrals to its investigators, the effectiveness of this change can only be evaluated if the timeframe for process and disposition of these referrals is also being reduced. This issue needs to be reevaluated once additional historical performance data becomes available. Issue 6: Assign lower priority (“Category B”) referrals (e.g., statewide computer matches, and alleged overpayment under $ 5,000) of receipt. Target Implementation Date: 8-99. Implementation Status: In Progress. Discussion: DPSS indicated that the referral process was revised effective August 31, 1999. The Department provided statistics reflecting new referrals received during the month of October 1999. This data shows that on average, a “Category B” referral is being referred to a WFP&I Investigator of its receipt. Seven Category B referrals were selected for evaluation. There were apparent errors in the referral dates for two of the seven test items and in these instances, the timeframe between receipt and assignment could not be determined. For the remaining five referrals, three were assigned within the 30-day timeframe. For two of the seven referrals, investigations were in progress at the time of the review, while it appeared that an investigation had been initiated on two other referrals. For the remaining three referrals, the investigation was still pending at the time of the interview. To evaluate the effectiveness of this change, it is necessary to accumulate additional historical information to determine not only that referrals to WFP&I Investigators are occurring more quickly, but that the investigation and disposition of referrals is also timely. Issue 7: Expedite hiring to fully staff the Internal Affairs (IA) Unit, increasing the number by 100%, from 4 to 8 IA Unit staff recently authorized for FY 99-00. Target Implementation Date: 9-99. Implementation Status: Implemented. Discussion: DPSS provided us with the documentation indicating that four additional investigators were hired to work in the Internal Affairs Unit, bringing the total number of investigators assigned to the unit to eight. Of the four newly hired investigators, one was hired in early August 1999, while the remaining three were hired in late September 1999. Three of the four new investigators were formerly WFP&I investigators with four to seven years experience. According to Human Resources Division management, two of the new investigators joined the existing four investigators to perform Internal Affairs investigations. The remaining two investigators have been assigned the responsibility of conducting random audits (discussed at more length in issue 9). Issue 8: Implement revised criminal conviction guidelines. Target Implementation Date: 3-99. Implementation Status: Implemented. Discussion: In March 1999, DPSS revised their criminal guidelines used to screen applicants for employment. DPSS indicated that these changes were made to lessen the risk of employing persons having a propensity toward criminal behavior. The key changes in the guidelines were the addition of bribery, burglary, grand theft, and robbery to the group of prior offenses that would result in an applicant being classified as not acceptable to hire. Formerly, an applicant convicted of one or more of these offenses could be acceptable to hire after a stipulated timeframe had elapsed from the date of the applicant’s completion of probation/parole. In addition to the above, the timeframe from completion of probation/parole before an applicant would be deemed acceptable was extended from one to five years for the offenses of petty theft, receiving stolen property and shoplifting. A listing of employees hired by DPSS between March and July 1999 was obtained along with the “Completed Discipline Cases List” covering the same period. Appropriate personnel documentation was reviewed to determine whether or not the department had been applying its new criteria. Of the 33 applicants, new hires and rehires reviewed, six instances were noted where there had been conviction for a criminal offense. In only one of these instances was the offense a category IV offense, “Not Acceptable to Hire”. In that instance, the applicant was not hired. The remaining five instances involved either Category 1 offenses “Acceptable to Hire”, or Category II offenses “Acceptable to Hire After Stipulated Time”. For one new hire with a category II offense, it was noted that the applicant provided documentation, which showed that probation had been revoked by the Court in June 1993, and a bench warrant issued. There did not appear to be any documentation on file establishing what the ultimate resolution of this issue was. Despite this, the applicant was hired. Subsequently it was learned from the Department that the bench warrant issued in June 1993 is still outstanding. In the case of one of the new hires with a Category 1 offense, it was subsequently determined that the employee had also been previously convicted of a Category II offense. However, the employee had not disclosed the previous conviction. While disclosure of this conviction would not have affected the applicant’s eligibility for employment, DPSS management indicated that the employee would probably be suspended for failing to make full disclosure to the County. Based on test results, it appears that generally DPSS is applying its new criminal conviction guidelines in the screening of new employees. Issue 9: Issue WFP&I/IA Alerts to inform departmental employees of potential fraud indicators, and to encourage continued reporting of potential employee fraud. Target Implementation Date: 7/99. Implementation Status: In Progress. Discussion: DPSS has taken a number of steps to implement this recommendation. Most notably, the Department developed a video on Welfare and Employee Fraud, along with a companion guide. This material was released under Human Resources Memo 99-121 on October 19, 1999. According to the memo, training was to begin in October 1999 and is to be completed by December 31, 1999. Thereafter, training would be conducted on an annual basis. Further, the memo indicated that viewing was mandatory for all staff. As of November 18,1999, DPSS reported that training has just begun for its existing staff; however, 94 newly hired employees have received training. DPSS has also released an Employee Fraud Poster which office managers were instructed to post in high visibility areas on September 9, 1999. The poster states that “Fraud is Everyone’s Problem” and encourages staff to “Join the Team and Report Employee Fraud”. The poster also lists two telephone numbers that will connect the reader with the Auditor-Controller’s Employee Fraud Hotline. Four DPSS offices were selected for site visits to determine if these posters were conspicuously displayed. The posters were not displayed at two of the four sites visited and, at a third site, the number of posters displayed appeared inadequate. At one of the two sites where no posters were displayed, it was stated that a movie production company had filmed at the facility the previous day and that the production company had taken down all the material on the District bulletin boards. The site displaying an inadequate number of posters is a four-floor facility. The only Employee Fraud Poster displayed was located on the elevator door on the second floor of the facility. Finally, it was noted that effective with the release of Internal Affairs Alert 99-01 on July 8th, the Internal Affairs Section of DPSS’ Human Resources Division (HRD) began conducting random audits of district operations as they related to potential employee fraud issues. The DPSS has indicated that they had performed ten of these random audits during October and November 1999. However, no formal reports had yet been issued. After reviewing the list of procedures used by the Internal Affairs auditors in conducting their reviews, it was noted that the procedures included are designed to detect various types of employee fraud. For example, the auditor is required to examine the Caseload Activity Report (CAR) of Intake Eligibility Workers to identify cases that have been in intake for more than 90 days. Similarly, the auditor should be reviewing the CAR to determine if there are any approved cases in an intake EW file. Both of these conditions are abnormal and may be an indicator of improprieties on the part of an EW. Upon request, a listing of draft findings was provided from four of the five random audits conducted during October. In each case the findings noted were consistent with the types of findings that would be disclosed by performing the procedures included in the Internal Affairs auditor work plan. Issue 10: WFP&I will release posters reporting on prosecution of recipient fraud for posting in employee work areas to show staff that their referrals bring results and to inform them of investigative activities. Target Implementation Date: 9/99. Implementation Status: In Progress. Discussion: DPSS’ Welfare Fraud Prevention and Investigation (WFP&I) section has developed a series of posters that report on the prosecution of a recipient fraud. The first series, which consists of three posters, includes a “mug shot” of a recipient convicted of welfare fraud, along with information such as: • Case name. • District office where fraud occurred and was detected. • Date convicted. • Type of fraud. • Amount of cash overpayment/food stamps over-issuance. • Amount of Medi-Cal benefits recipient was not entitled to. In addition to the above, a description of the offender’s sentence is included, along with the slogan, “Your Fraud Referrals Do Make a Difference.” According to WFP&I, they did distribute the first series of posters on November 19,1999 with instructions to post them through February 2000, at which time a new series of posters will be distributed. On November 24, 1999, unannounced site visits were made to three DPSS offices to determine if the Recipient Fraud Posters had in fact been displayed. As previously discussed, one of the offices indicated a movie production company had come in and removed all of the posters from the bulletin boards, etc. At a second location, management indicated that they had only received the posters on the previous day and had not yet had an opportunity to display them. At the third location, the posters had been displayed; however, the posters were only exhibited on two of the four floors of the facility. CONCLUSIONS Home Call Visits 1. In the latter part of September 1999, the DPSS started a pilot Home Call Visit program in Belvedere, East Valley, Exposition Park, and Lancaster. The results in these four districts effectively show a marked increase in denials of aid in spite of the fact that the program didn’t start until October 1, 1999. For the months of September, October, & November 1999 versus the same months of 1998, denials increased by 165 cases (22%). Of that number, 98 cases (59%) were denied based upon the Home Call Visit program. Using the following statistics that have been provided and agreed to by the DPSS, if the Home Call Visit program were expanded to the entire 23 districts of Los Angeles County, substantial savings would occur. Assuming an average of three people on aid at a grant of $626 monthly would equal for 12 months $7,512 and assuming that life on aid averages 30 months in Los Angeles County, the grant amount equals $18,780 for 30 months. The pilot program which has been initiated in the above mentioned 4 districts has accounted for approximately 100 denials for a 2 month period. This would equate to 600 denials in a 2 month period for the 23 districts, which would result in 3600 cases being denied annually as the result of home call visits. Translating this into dollars, those 3600 home call visit denials multiplied by the average applicant grant of $18,780 for 30 months would equate to savings of $67,608,000 for that period. This is just a beginning. The program should produce far greater savings as it matures. 2. The following conditions must be incorporated into the program. • Welfare Fraud Investigators must be under the operational control of the District Attorney’s office. • Welfare Fraud Investigators must make the Home Call Visits. • Welfare Fraud Investigators are limited status peace officers within Penal Code §830.35. • All applicants for welfare must have a home call visit prior to approval. • The EW has final control of the decision reached on each applicant, but confers with the Investigator in reaching the proper conclusion. • The EWs and Investigators should occupy the same offices and/or buildings. • Each EW and each Investigator must have their own computer. The automated, integrated information system (designated by DPSS as LEADER) needs to be fully implemented at the time Home Call Visits go into effect. Follow up of Grand Jury 1998-1999 Welfare Fraud Audit Report 1. There has been extreme weakness in developing a strong monitoring plan to allow the agreed upon recommendations to be implemented and updated in a timely and effective manner. 2. The organizational structure necessary to communicate performance goals is ineffective. 3. Major philosophical differences become apparent when systems proven in other jurisdictions are rejected outright or not given serious consideration. 4. Taking into consideration economic variations, long range planning is required to ensure the resources necessary for future DPSS operations. 5. The tardiness as detailed in Issue 2 is reflective of the DPSS resistance to change. This tardiness by the DPSS is totally unacceptable. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County should direct DPSS to fully implement the Home Call Visit Program. 2. The Board of Supervisors should provide the necessary resources, as detailed on pages 10- 11, for the DPSS and the DA to ensure success of the Program. 3. The Board of Supervisors should instruct the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to hire an outside firm as long as necessary to perform the management and administrative duties necessary to move the Department of Public Social Services forward in the accomplishment of its targeted goals. This assignment must encompass organizational restructuring, automation, benchmark objectives and management principles. This task should be given to a totally independent management firm that will report directly and exclusively to the Board of Supervisors. 4. The Board of Supervisors must place a higher priority to the oversight of the DPSS. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Richard Niederberg, Chairperson Byron Culp, Co-Chairperson James B. Avery, Sr. Betty Burns Susie Chapman Walter Lowenstein Latonia McDaniel Inman Moore Maurene F. Nelson Tammi Sharp Margarett Tucker THE FOSTER FAMILY AGENCY MODEL WITHIN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS INTRODUCTION Objectives and Scope Methodology FINDINGS: CURRENT SITUATION Overview of Child Welfare Current Situation at DC&FS Recruitment and Selection of FFA Foster Parents Placement of Children into Foster Care CSW Case Management FFA Intake and Placement Investigations into Complaints and Allegations of Abuse CONCLUSIONS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Context for Change FFA Operations Foster Parent Roles and Responsibilities OHCEU Monitoring and Investigations RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Child Welfare Model Outcomes and Performance Measures DC&FS Organizational and Management Issues DC&FS Systems OHCEU Investigations FFA Operations Role and Responsibilities of Foster Parents Issues beyond the Scope of this Report PROPOSED ACTIONS Action Steps Recommended Actions LIST OF ACRONYMS ACSA Association of Child Service Agencies AFCS Administration for Children’s Services (Child welfare dept. in NYC) CASA Court-Appointed Special Advocate CCL Community Care Licensing (State of California) CDSS California Department of Social Services CPW Children’s Protective Worker (social worker job title in NYC) CWS/CMS Child Welfare System/Case Management System, the State of California computer-based database for information on children in the child welfare system CSW Children’s Social Workers at DC&FS DC&FS County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services FCRB Foster Care Rates Bureau (State of California) FFA Foster Family Agency FFABCK Foster Family Agency Better Care for Kinds, steering committee representing many Los Angeles area foster family agencies FTE Full-time equivalent, term commonly used to describe full-time employees or the number of employees combined to make a full-time employee ITRAK Name of the computer system used by the Department of Children and Family Services to track information on foster family investigations MAPP Model Approach to Partnership and Parenting, a training program MFCC Marriage, Family, and Child Counseling, a common certification for students who have completed a master’s degree MSW Master of Social Work, a common master’s level degree for social work OHCEU Out-of-Home-Care Evaluation Unit, the organization unit at the DC&FS charged with investigating complaints at foster homes PRIDE Parent Resource Instruction, Development, and Education, a training program for foster parents provided by many Foster Family Agencies SIRs Special Incident Reports, the reports filed to report any incident involving a foster child SPA Service Provider Area, the name of regional centers in the County of Los Angeles designed to provide a variety of social services from a single, regional location STEP Systematic Training for Effective Parenting, a training program for foster parents provided by many Foster Family Agencies TA Technical Assistant, the clerical support staff who assist DC&FS CSWs with finding appropriate foster homes for children WIC Women, Infants, and Children, a social service agency providing nutritional guidance, education, and food stamps to qualifying pregnant women and women with young children THE FOSTER FAMILY AGENCY MODEL LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES INTRODUCTION The 1999-2000 Grand Jury performed a management audit of the Foster Family Agency (FFA) model within the County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DC&FS). This first chapter outlines the study objectives and scope, methodology, documents reviewed, and other agencies or organizations contacted. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objectives of the study were to evaluate: q Recruitment and selection of FFA foster parents. How do FFAs recruit and select foster parents for certification? What criteria and processes do they use to screen out unqualified FFA foster parents from those with potential to become caring foster parents who are willing to comply with the rules and regulations? What are the expectations of potential foster parents? q Training of FFA foster parents. What kind of training are foster parents required to attend? What standards for completion and achievement exist? What training do they receive prior to certification? What kind of training do they receive on an annual, ongoing basis? How effective and relevant is the training? q Investigation of complaints and abuse. What steps are taken by the FFAs and by DC&FS to investigate complaints or allegations of abuse? When are on-site investigations undertaken? What kind of follow-up and actions are taken to resolve complaints and abuse? How are repeated complaints of a particular foster parent tracked? q Monitoring of DC&FS Children’s Social Workers. How does DC&FS ensure that Children’s Social Workers (CSWs) complete their monthly visits to foster children? How does the Department ensure that CSWs work effectively with FFA social workers? q Monitoring of FFA foster parents. How is the compliance with State rules and regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations Title 22 – Welfare and Institutions Code) and contract program statements monitored? What standards for performance quality or outcomes exist? How is the performance of FFAs and foster parents monitored and measured? What information is collected and tracked? q Information and Communication. What information and results are shared between DC&FS, the FFAs, FFA foster parents, Community Care Licensing-the State agency responsible for regulating foster care (CCL), and other counties and agencies (e.g., Department of Probation, Department of Mental Health, etc.)? Furthermore, the Grand Jury considered the overall continuum of care provided to children in the County of Los Angeles foster care system. In other words, any findings regarding FFAs must be considered in the context of the entire child welfare system, given the: q Bifurcated system, offering both CCL-licensed foster homes and FFA certified foster homes. q Shifting priorities and policies at the State and local levels. q Recent trends to emphasize family preservation, family reunification, and adoption in lieu of long-term foster care. q Recent trends to emphasize natural, home settings in lieu of group homes or residential treatment centers. q High caseloads of DC&FS CSWs. q Internal management and organizational problems at DC&FS. METHODOLOGY This management audit differs from previous studies and audits of child welfare in the County of Los Angeles. Rather than focusing solely on auditing FFA operations, the Grand Jury considered how FFAs fit into the overall continuum of care for children in the child welfare system and their interactions with DC&FS. Furthermore, through focus groups, questionnaires, and home visits, the opinions and concerns of foster parents themselves were obtained. In completing this study, the Grand Jury undertook and accomplished the following tasks: 1. Document Review. The Grand Jury collected and reviewed documents related to DC&FS and FFAs. 2. DC&FS Interviews. Thirteen interviews were conducted with DC&FS management and staff. 3. External Interviews. Eleven interviews were conducted with individuals and groups involved in the child welfare system as advocates and professionals external to DC&FS. 4. FFA Site Visits. Site visits were conducted with 25 FFAs randomly selected from the approximately 76 currently under contract with DC&FS. A court order was obtained to facilitate the site visits with the following randomly selected FFAs: q Alpha Treatment Centers q Harbor View q America Care q Holy Family q Aviva Center q Homes of Hope q Beta Foster Care FFA q Inner Circle q Bienvenidos Children's Center q Koinonia q Children of the Village q Linden Center q Children's Institute International q McKinley Children's Center q Children's Way q Nuevo Amanecer Latino q Dangerfield Institute of Urban Problems q Optimist Youth Homes q Drew Child Development Corp. q The Sycamores q Excel Intervention Program q Walden Environment q Florence Crittenton FFA q Wings of Refuge q Futuro Infantil Hispano The three-to-four hour site visits typically included a group interview with agency management (e.g., the agency executive director, the program manager, recruitment staff, and intake administrators), followed by an informal focus group with agency social workers. FFA social workers completed the survey and the survey results are in the Appendix. The site visits were confidential – neither positive nor negative findings are attributed to specific FFAs. Rather, the findings focus on identifying typical or common practices, best practices, and practices to avoid in the following areas: q Philosophy or approach to providing foster care. q Foster parent recruitment process and standards. q Foster parent orientation and training practices. q Relationships with foster parents. q Placement philosophy and practices. q Relationship and interactions with DC&FS. q Quality assurance and problem-solving approaches and practices. 5. Foster Parent Focus Groups. 300 foster parents (whom DC&FS randomly selected from all FFA foster families) were invited to attend one of eight focus groups held in locations throughout the County. Six FFAs provided conference rooms for the focus groups, including Bienvenidos, Koinonia, McKinley, Optimist, Personal Involvement Center, and Walden Environment. These were located in the following regions: Antelope Valley, Carson/Long Beach, Los Angeles/Glendale/Pasadena, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, and South Central Los Angeles. Fifty-seven foster parents participated in the two-to-three hour sessions and completed a survey. The focus group participants were from a cross-section of FFAs: q 88% of the foster parents who completed the survey have been foster parents for two or more years. q 22% have only one foster child currently in their homes; 55% have two to three foster children currently in their homes; and 22% have four or more children in their homes. q 89% have been with only one FFA. q 89% have only worked as FFA-certified foster parents and have never been a foster parent licensed by the State. 6. Review of Investigation Files. Twenty-five randomly selected files documenting investigations were reviewed. 7. Foster Parent Site Visits. Five foster families, selected from among the 25 files reviewed, were visited (see #6 above). One of the selected families was not home; another family did not have the child we had asked to visit. Consequently, interviews were conducted at only three of the sites visited. 8. Other Jurisdiction Comparisons. Child welfare agencies were contacted in Cook County, Illinois, New York City, and St. Louis, to obtain comparable data. The following agencies provided information: q New York City Administration for Children Services q Illinois Department of Children and Family Services q Missouri Division of Family Services q St. Louis Child Services FINDINGS: CURRENT SITUATION This chapter presents an overview of the child welfare system in the County of Los Angeles, as well as the current situation at DC&FS and the role of FFAs. OVERVIEW OF CHILD WELFARE Children in the child welfare system in the County of Los Angeles are under the supervision of DC&FS. As of July 1999, approximately 66,000 children are under the supervision of DC&FS. Placement of these children depends on numerous factors, beginning with the severity of the problems in the children’s homes. Nearly 20% of the children are not removed from their parents’ homes. The majority of children who are removed from their homes (nearly 35%) are placed with relatives; an additional 15% are adopted. The remaining approximately 30% are placed in out-of-home care, including State-licensed foster homes; FFA-certified foster homes; group homes; shelters; and other facilities (e.g., MacLaren, medical facilities, etc.). This study focuses on the 7,126 children (nearly 11%) who are placed in FFA-certified foster homes, as shown in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 Distribution of Children under DC&FS Supervision Number of Percent of Out-of-Home Care Children Children Licensed foster homes (CCL) 3,408 (5,265) 5.1% ŁŁŁŁ FFA certified foster homes 7,126 (8,232) 10.8% Group homes 2,284 3.4% Placed with relatives 22,893 (25,755) 34.6% Placed with legal guardians 1,207 1.8% Adoptions 9,819 14.8% Shelter care 3,733 5.6% Court-specified home (60 day visit) 1,571 2.4% Other (MacLaren, medical facility, etc.) 269 0.4% Out-of-State Placements Placed with relatives 850 1.3% Placed with legal guardians 150 0.2% Not removed from own homes 12,897 19.5% Total Children under DC&FS Supervision 66,207 (65,996) 100.0% Numbers in parentheses indicate the figures reported in the December 23, 1999, report to the Los Angeles County Foster Care Task Force. To put DC&FS in context, comparative information was obtained from New York City, New York; Cook County, Illinois; and St. Louis, Missouri. These statistics are presented in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 Comparative Child Welfare Statistics New York Cook St. Louis City, New County, City and Comparative Child Welfare Statistics York Illinois County Total number of children in foster care 34,800 24,544 3,661 Number of children in: § Privatized care 27,800 18,830 N/A § County/Public 7,000 5,714 N/A § Relative Placement (included in 6,200 12,522 1,288 above numbers) Approximate caseload 12 20-24 23-26 (Note: For NYC, numbers are for Social (down from Workers with children in foster care for 27 in 1996) less than 90 days.) Adoptions § 1997 3,800 2,229 N/A § 1998 3,848 4,293 § 1999 4,009 7,315 The most striking differences between foster care in Los Angeles County and other jurisdictions include: q The higher number of foster children in Los Angeles County (66,207 children in foster care in Los Angeles County versus 34,800, 25,544, and 3,661 for New York, Cook County, and St. Louis, respectively). q The smaller number of children in privatized foster care in Los Angeles (7,126 in Los Angeles versus 27,800 and 18,830 in New York and Cook County, respectively). q The higher volume of case loads for CSWs in Los Angeles (45-50 in Los Angeles versus 12, 20-24, and 23-26, in New York, Cook County, and St. Louis, respectively). Certified versus Licensed Homes The State CCL Division is responsible for licensing and monitoring foster homes throughout the State. Children placed in licensed homes are visited monthly by their assigned Children’s Services Worker (CSW) from DC&FS. Prior to July 1999, CCL delegated the authority to license foster homes to DC&FS. In July 1999, DC&FS lost the right to license foster homes, due to ongoing Department problems. In contrast, the State licenses FFAs, who in turn certify foster homes. Children placed in FFA-certified foster homes are visited weekly by FFA social workers, in addition to the monthly CSW visits. FFA social workers have dual roles: to support the family (foster parents and foster children) and to monitor and ensure compliance with Title 22 and contract rules and regulations. Rate Structure In addition to the increased number of visits and foster home oversight provided by certified foster homes, the cost is also higher. (Note: Rates for foster care in both licensed and certified homes are set by the State CCL.) Monthly rates for children in licensed foster homes are based on the complexity of the case, but are in the range of $400 per month. For example, children requiring medication or ongoing medical attention command higher rates than children without such problems do. Monthly rates for children in FFA certified foster homes are based exclusively on the age of the child. The rate structures for licensed and certified homes are compared in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 Comparison of Licensed and Certified Foster Home Rates Licensed Foster Home Rates FFA Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Age “B” “D” “F-1” F-2” “F-3” “F-4” “P” Rate 0-4 years $393 $1,078 $718 $847 $1,078 $1,273 $668 $1,362 5-8 years $434 $1,064 $702 $832 $1,064 $1,257 $709 $1,416 9-11 years $481 $,1066 $705 $835 $,1066 $1,260 $756 $1,458
R12-14

years $522 $1,065 $704 $834 $1,065 $1,260 $797 $1,537 14+ years $573 $1,068 $705 $835 $1,068 $1,259 $848 $1,607 The monthly rate is paid to the FFA, who then distributes about $500 to the foster family to reimburse them for such expenses as food, clothing, allowance, etc. The rest of the monthly rate goes toward the overhead payroll of the FFA, including intake, recruitment, training services, social workers, and other ancillary services provided by the FFA (e.g., emancipation programs, etc.). The base percent of the rate paid to foster families is set by the State, although FFAs can pay more than the base rate. Origins of FFAs Per DC&FS documents, FFAs evolved out of Home Finding Agencies licensed by the California Department of Social Services in 1980 to provide pre- and post- adoptive homes for children in their care. In 1983-84, Home Finding Agencies were changed to Foster Family Agencies, creating another level of care as an alternative to group homes. FFAs are private non- profit agencies that recruit, certify, train, and provide support to foster parents. Despite this official background, management audit interviews revealed little consensus regarding why FFAs were established. Some of the perceptions include an increase in the: q Number of drug-exposed infants requiring foster care. q Number of teenagers requiring foster care in non-group home settings. q Overall demand for foster care. Regardless of the origins, most agree that FFAs meet a critical need for placements and provide much-needed additional oversight and the County needed greater capacity to handle the demand for foster family placements. Treatment versus General Demand The widely acknowledged cost-related placement hierarchy is in direct contrast to one DC&FS document that indicates that the needs of the child determine the type of placement: q Licensed homes are intended for children with normal needs; D and F rates for special needs q FFA-certified homes are intended for “special needs children” with emotional problems requiring structure within family home structure. q Group homes are intended for children with severe behavior issues, necessitating specialized treatment services. Another DC&FS document describes the target population of FFAs as “…children with special and unique needs that cannot be serviced in a licensed foster home. Children that are severely emotionally disturbed usually ranging in age from 6 to 18 years of age required additional services and staff to monitor development and progress.” Interviews with CSWs, and with FFA administrators, social workers, and foster parents indicate that treatment needs are not routinely considered when making placements: q CSWs report that they prefer FFAs because of the more frequent FFA social worker contact with the child. q FFA administrators report they must make placements based on minimal information about the child. q FFA social workers report that information regarding the child’s medical, psychological, and behavioral status is routinely withheld or unavailable. q Foster parents are not expecting “severely emotionally disturbed” children. FFA Contracts To obtain a contract with the County, FFAs complete the following steps: q Submit a concept paper describing their programs and the target population they plan to serve. q If DC&FS determines there is a need for such programs and services, FFAs submit program statements to both DC&FS and CCL. DC&FS is in contact with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) regarding the applicants’ licensing status. q Upon approval of the program statement, a letter of support is issued and mailed to the CDSS, Foster Care Rates Bureau (FCRB), in Sacramento. q Upon FCRB approval of rates, a meeting is scheduled with the DC&FS Contract Section to begin the contracting process. q DC&FS reviews the license, rate letter, and insurance. If everything is in order, the FFA and the Director of DC&FS sign the contract. DC&FS currently has contracts with approximately 76 FFAs. It was not possible to obtain a current, accurate count of the FFAs, with reported numbers ranging from 76 to 79. CURRENT SITUATION AT DC&FS DC&FS is a large department dealing with some of the County’s most difficult problems – the safety and well-being of the 66,000 children in the system. The Department has been hampered in fulfilling its mandate by a history of internal organizational and management problems, as well as public scandal, specifically the abuse and death of children in out-of-home care (CCL-licensed and FFA certified foster care and group homes) as well as those reunified with their biological parents. Because of the high profile nature of DC&FS problems, the Department has been under considerable scrutiny for several years, resulting in the resignation of the last director in July 1999. Several studies and audits have been conducted in recent years, including a Grand Jury investigation of group homes; a management audit by PriceWaterhouse/Coopers; an assessment by the DC&FS Interim Director; an FFA Blue Ribbon Task Force; and a Little Hoover Commission report. This management audit by the 1999-2000 Grand Jury is also in response to ongoing concerns about the Department, specifically the children in FFA certified foster homes. As of December 1999, the Department has new leadership – newly appointed Director Anita Bock – who is poised to make substantive changes internally as well as in how it delivers and monitors foster care for the children of Los Angeles County. Organizational Structure DC&FS is currently organized in six bureaus, including Administration and Management Services, Executive Services, Specialized Programs, Operations, Fiscal Services/Revenue Enhancement, and Resources, as shown in the organizational chart in Exhibit 4. Approximately 2,500 CSWs carry cases out of eight regional offices within the Bureau of Operations, while the Out-of-Home Care Programs division, which recruits FFAs and monitors their contracts, is in the Bureau of Resources. Quality Assurance, which investigates complaints in certified foster homes, is in the Executive Services Bureau. Finally, services directly related to children in foster care, such as Emancipation Services (for foster children who are 14 years old or older and are unlikely to return to their biological parents) are in another bureau, Specialized Programs. Exhibit 4 Current DC&FS Organizational Chart Director Senior Deputy Director Chief Deputy Bureau of Bureau of Bureau of Admin. and Mgmt. Services Executive Services Specialized Programs Human Resources Quality Assurance Kinship Care Services Affirm. Action/Civil Rights Juvenile Court Services Emancipation Services Policy & Training Specialized and Alt. Services Bureau of Fiscal Services and Executive Office Emergency Services Revenue Enhancement Other Bureau of Bureau of Fiscal Services Resources Operations Revenue Enhancement Out of Home Care Programs Regional Operations Community-Based Support Management Information Other Adoptions MacLaren Children's Center Other RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF FFA FOSTER PARENTS FFAs recruit foster parents from a variety of sources, including family or home-oriented magazines, “Penny Saver” flyers, and other print media; local religious institutions; word of mouth; and referrals from other foster parents. The selection process has two distinct stages: initial screening and orientation. Most FFAs indicate they continue to screen and reject potential foster parents throughout the pre-certification training, as additional information becomes available. Initial Screening. Initial screening is usually by telephone, with FFA staff asking such basic qualifying questions as the number of bedrooms, the number of biological children in the home, whether anyone in the household has a criminal background, primary source of income, and prior experience. FFA staff will also explain basic requirements, including: q Number of children per bedroom (a maximum of two). q Training requirements for both parents (if a two-parent household). q Fingerprinting of both parents. q The scrutiny to which foster parents are subjected – weekly social worker visits, monthly CSW visits, home inspections, etc. At this point in the screening process, many potential foster parents self-select out of the process; the FFA turns others down when they clearly will not be able to comply with the stringent rules and regulations. FFAs report that only 10% to 25% of initial screenings result in certified foster parents. Following the initial screening, foster parent candidates come to the FFA office for a more thorough orientation followed by a home visit. Some FFAs combine the orientation with the first home visit to provide a more immediate sense of whether the home will be appropriate. In contrast, some combine the orientation meeting with initial training, although the FFA will continue to weed out inappropriate foster parent candidates. The foster parent candidates who are eligible and complete the initial 8 to 12 hours of training will be certified by the FFA prior to receiving their first placement. Foster parents must complete the FFA’s pre-certification training even if they have previously been trained and certified by another FFA. Training of FFA Foster Parents. Foster parents are required to complete 8 to 12 hours of initial training, and12 hours of additional training every year. FFAs provide mandatory training for foster parents, but have the flexibility to use one of a number of programs, including MAPP, PRIDE (Parent Resource Instruction, Development, and Education), and STEP (Systematic Training for Effective Parenting). Others combine various aspects of all three or develop their own curricula. Foster parents receive certificates for attending and completing courses, but there are no tests or other assessments to determine understanding of concepts, retention of material, or whether the material is relevant to the children currently placed in their homes. PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN INTO FOSTER CARE Children are removed from their homes (or their current foster home) and enter the foster care system as a result of: q An ongoing investigation of the child’s home situation, ultimately indicating that the home or foster home environment is not safe. In this situation, a CSW has already been assigned to the family or child. q Mandatory reporting (e.g., via the Child Abuse Hotline) or response to an emergency situation (e.g., physical or sexual abuse), in which a child is immediately removed from the home, pending substantiation of the allegations. q Response to an emergency situation, such as the arrest, incapacitation, or death of the parent, in which there is no one to care for the child. Before placing a child into foster care, the CSW must first ascertain that there are no related family members with whom the child can be placed (e.g., grandparents, aunts or uncles, etc.). Even if family members are located, they must be fingerprinted and have clean criminal background checks prior to receiving the child. In this case, the child may stay temporarily at a shelter or the MacLaren Center. If no relatives are available, an appropriate out-of-home care placement must be found. CSWs provide Technical Assistants (TAs) with such basic information as the child’s age and gender. If the child is already in the system (e.g., is being moved from one foster home to another), the CSW may be able to provide additional information, such as the nature of the child’s problems, whether the child requires medication, why the child is being removed from the current foster home, what is the child’s race/ethnicity, etc. TAs then access the State Child Welfare System/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) to find an appropriate placement, following the established hierarchy of placement options: q State licensed foster home (least expensive). q FFA-certified foster home (more expensive, with more social worker support and access to therapeutic services). q Group home (even more expensive, in a more restrictive environment, with more supervision and more therapeutic intervention). q Residential treatment center (most expensive, with the greatest level of supervision and therapeutic intervention). Furthermore, CSWs reported varying degrees of compliance with a policy (allegedly discontinued in April 1999), stating that a minimum of 30 licensed homes must be contacted prior to contacting an FFA-certified foster home. CSWs also reported that a given child must be rejected for placement by five FFAs before placing the child in a more restrictive group home. As soon as the TA locates a home (licensed or certified) willing to take the child, the TA informs the CSW (who may or may not contact the licensed home or FFA directly) who then delivers the child to the home. At the time of placement, the CSWs are responsible for providing the FFA with: q A complete assessment of the child. q All required information related to the child. q Review and discussion of the child’s needs. q The complete placement packet, which includes the Needs and Services Plan, all medical information and reports, and all educational information and records at the time of placement. CSW CASE MANAGEMENT CSWs self-reported average case loads range from 45 to 60. DC&FS provided the following scale for average caseloads. Exhibit 5 CSW Average Case Loads Approximate Type of Cases Average Case Load Emergency response 30 Family maintenance and reunification 38 Permanency plan 54 Adoption 70 to 80 Per CCL, CSWs are required to visit each child assigned to them once a month. Furthermore, they maintain the child’s file, which includes the case plan, minute orders from the Dependency Court, and other relevant information. CSWs may also be required to attend court. The CSW is the primary link between the child, his or her biological parents and siblings, and the Dependency Court. A single CSW may be assigned to children placed in diverse parts of the County, resulting in extensive periods of unproductive time driving to different, distant locations throughout the County. The DC&FS maintains that the CSW is the primary case manager for the child and retains the following tasks and responsibilities: accesses FFA homes through FFA Intake Workers; develops the care plan for the child; determines the case and visitation plan; provides the FFA with background information, health history, and Medi-Cal card; makes face- to-face contacts with child/foster parent as required by CDSS Division 30, Visitation Regulations; prepares all court documents; keeps the FFA advised of all changes in the case plan; and consults with the FFA social worker as needed. The contract also outlines that CSWs and FFAs work together to accomplish the objectives of the child’s care plan, care plan updates, and Needs and Services plan. Monitoring of FFA Foster Parents The quality and performance of foster parents are monitored by FFA social workers and administrators who have weekly contact. CSWs are assigned to a specific child (or siblings) in a foster home and typically have children in numerous homes throughout the County. In contrast, FFA social workers are assigned to the foster parents and, by extension, to the children placed in that home. FFA INTAKE AND PLACEMENT As described earlier in this chapter, FFA intake staff are typically contacted by DC&FS TAs or CSWs to verify placement availability. CSWs typically have no direct contact with the foster parent until after the placement decision has been made and they deliver the child. FFAs will make the best placement possible, based on the information provided to them by DC&FS and balancing it with the strengths of the foster parents with available space, as noted in Exhibit 6. Nevertheless, FFAs report that the quality of the information provided is frequently inaccurate or incomplete, making optimal placements problematic. Exhibit 6 Information about Children and Foster Parents Information about the Child Information about the Foster Family (Provided by DC&FS) (Provided by FFA) • Age • Age preferences • Single child or sibling placement • Number and age of children already • Ethnic or racial background placed • Language needs (e.g., Spanish-speaking • Prior success or failure with children only) with similar profiles • Behavioral or emotional problems or • Willingness to take emergency or issues middle-of-the-night placements INVESTIGATIONS INTO COMPLAINTS AND ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE The investigation unit is part of the Out-of-Home Care Evaluation Unit (OHCEU) in the Quality Assurance Division of the Bureau of Executive Services. OHCEU is responsible for conducting audits of out of home care facilities, including licensed homes, FFAs, and institutional placement facilities. In addition, the unit investigates those facilities after allegations of child abuse arise, when a complaint not associated with child abuse indicates a need to conduct an inquiry, and when a pattern that indicates underlying problems is identified in incident reports. Over the past 8 months, investigators have been trained to the same level as CCL investigators. OHCEU Audits OHCEU established new comprehensive audit guidelines in mid-1999 for the review of FFAs, which represent much of the unit’s audit workload. The new standards require: q Visiting 15% of children placed in FFA facilities q Visiting 15% of the facilities themselves q Reviewing 15% of the personnel records q Reviewing 127 elements of the contracts with FFAs. OHCEU discusses the findings twice with an audited FFA before the findings are included in its final report, and corrective action plans are developed and monitored. There are currently five investigative staff in OHCEU dedicated to audits of the approximately 76 FFAs. Because all of the contracts last three years and expire at the same time, audits are of limited value during the last full year of the contract. OCHEU Investigations Unscheduled investigations conducted as a result of incident and child abuse reports are significantly more voluminous. Approximately 40 calls per week are generated from the Child Abuse Hotline, which generates most of this workload. Fewer than 11 full-time equivalents (FTEs) respond to those calls, and the average caseload is 73, not including the backlog. New cases are added at the rate of approximately one per day per worker. CSWs and FFA social workers report that an investigation may not be initiated until six months to one year after the original incident has been reported. By this time, the child may have long been removed from the home, and the home may have been decertified. At the time of this management audit, OHCEU staff were undertaking a major effort to clean up the backlog, which amounted to more than 700 active cases, and 900 inactive cases (in which the investigation was complete, but the final reports and approvals had not been finished). At the same time, new procedures were put in place to assure more rapid and consistent investigations. The major tasks of OHCEU in response to the calls and incident reviews include: Initial Incident Response. OHCEU’s response to the reported incident includes the following steps: q Establish the level or priority of the alleged incident, which is determined by the duty worker, verified by the investigator, and reconfirmed by the unit supervisor. The priorities range from one to four as follows: Exhibit 7 Incident Priorities Priority Nature of Incident Sexual abuse, oral sex, rape, sodomy, or physical abuse; great 1 bodily injury or death; severe neglect results in child suffering ulcers, malnutrition. Sexual abuse (e.g., masturbation, inappropriate sexual touching), 2 physical abuse that results in injury or bruises, felony record of staff, ritualistic abuse. Shoving and pushing; no injury or bruises; misuse of medication (missed a dosage, not pick up prescription); lack of supervision; 3 licensing issues (house dirty, lack of bedding, etc.) CCL can review and impose financial sanctions. Verbal abuse; name calling, etc.; lack of supervision, physical 4 spanking reprimand; no bruises or injury. q Determine the responsible CSW for the alleged victim and notify the CSW of the complaint. q Follow up to determine whether the allegation has been substantiated and whether the child has been relocated. q Determine whether other foster children are placed at the same facility. q Notify the CSWs of the other foster children in the facility of the complaint, and, if available, the findings of the initial investigation. q Determine whether the County should temporarily refrain from placing children at that facility until the investigation is completed. q Determine whether the subsequent investigation can be “downgraded” to a five- or ten- day response. This is proposed by the duty worker and verified by the unit supervisor. Investigation. OHCEU investigation staff follows these steps: q Interview the alleged victim and other children in the facility. q Interview the facility staff and other involved professionals. q Inspect the home and interview neighbors or collaterals. q Review relevant reports regarding the facility to detect patterns. Conclusion and Follow-up. Once the investigation has been conducted, OHCEU investigation staff completes these steps: q Complete the investigation report and associated paperwork q Determine whether allegations are substantiated; if so, instigate a Corrective Action Plan, a Do Not Refer status, or a Do Not Use status on the facility q Develop, if necessary, a Do Not Refer or Do Not Use request for the Director’s approval q Notify all parties with regard to the disposition of the investigation q Collect and file documentation from involved parties, including the CSWs and the FFAs. The investigator assigned to that duty, called the “duty worker”, typically reviews a case first. Responsibility for being duty worker rotates among the available investigators. The duty worker handles the initial incident response, and refers each case to an investigator who is geographically assigned. In that manner, investigators become familiar with the FFAs in their areas and are exposed to patterns in complaints through their regular investigation duties. In addition, they establish relationships with the staff at the FFAs in their regions. The unit supervisor reviews all priority assignments and referrals. The Grand Jury reviewed 25 investigative files from the 24-month period of January 1998 through January 1999. All files indicated that the initial incident response was prompt, that the CSW conducted an immediate evaluation of the allegations, and that corrective action, where necessary, was taken immediately. Exhibit 8 shows a recent improvement in the time it takes for cases to be reviewed. Exhibit 8 OHCEU Investigation Time Line Weeks until Initial review Weeks until subsequent report Cases by CSW OHCEU follow-up review completed Two months Cases for 24 months Immediate Six months Longest: 18 months Cases since 6/20/99 (when new guidelines Immediate Three weeks N/A went into effect) FFA Investigations of Complaints and Abuse Because of their more frequent contact with foster parents, FFA social workers and administrators are in the best position to observe the warning signs of problems in a foster home. As a result, FFAs self-report Incidents at a higher rate than CSWs report for licensed homes. Furthermore, FFAs report trying to work with foster parents informally and formally (through correction plans) to address problems prior to making a Special Incident Report (which automatically alerts OHCEU and the CSW assigned to the case). In some cases, FFAs take the initiative to decertify homes with unresolved problems. Serious allegations, such as Priority 1 violence or sexual abuse, result in removing the child from the home. Children may stay in the home for other, less serious incidents while OHCEU determines whether the complaint is substantiated or not. As of July 1999, FFAs are not permitted to be actively involved in ongoing investigations and are not allowed to inform foster parents regarding ongoing investigations. Nevertheless, 80% of Special Incident Reports result in unsubstantiated complaints, according to a review of DC&FS records. CONCLUSIONS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT This chapter outlines the key conclusions, including strengths and opportunities for improvement, of the management audit. CONTEXT FOR CHANGE Despite the best intentions and tremendous efforts of many DC&FS employees, FFAs, foster parents, and other children’s advocates (e.g., attorneys, CASA volunteers, the Los Angeles Commission for Children and Families, etc.), the child welfare system in Los Angeles County is characterized by numerous problems and flaws. The appointment of a new Department Director provides a timely opportunity to implement system-wide changes, make internal DC&FS improvements, and enhance the overall continuum of care for foster children in the system. From a system-wide perspective, there is general agreement that the child welfare system is broken in these areas: q Organizational and management problems of DC&FS impact the system overall. q The continuum of care model does not thoroughly address or meet needs of families and children. q High caseloads impact the ability to make the thorough assessments required for making optimal foster placements. q The lack of systems hinders the ability to evaluate and track foster family quality and other relevant data. q The lack of outcome measures for DC&FS, FFAs, foster parents, and children results in a lack of accountability and hinders the evaluation of performance and progress. Despite systemic problems in child welfare overall, FFAs provide numerous benefits to children in the system, including: q More frequent observations of how children are faring in foster care. q More feedback to other professionals, including CSWs, Dependency Court (judges and attorneys), psychologists, educators, etc. q More frequent observations of foster home physical conditions and social/psycho- dynamics. q Increased and consistent support to foster parents. q Opportunity to evaluate the performance of foster parents and recommend training in specific areas. q FFA social workers are required to have master’s level education (e.g., MSW, MFCC, counseling, psychology, etc.) while CSWs are only required to have bachelor degrees. q More oversight than licensed homes. Additionally, the survey results of the 57 foster parents who attended eight focus groups indicate significant strengths. Overall, 96% reported that their FFAs gave them a clear and accurate idea of what it means to be a foster parent. In terms of orientation and training: q 98% had attended training programs before children were placed with them. q 87% reported that the training prepared them for their first months as foster parents. q 96% reported that their FFAs gave them a clear and accurate idea of what it means to be a foster parent. q 84% found that the quality of pre-certification training was good or excellent. q 81% reported that the quality of annual training was good or excellent. q 98% found the training to be very or somewhat useful/relevant. q 73% feel they have all the information they need to be able to take care of the foster children in their homes all or most of the time. q 87% believe they get the support and information they need from their FFAs for routine problems all or most of the time. q 75% believe they get the support and information they need from their FFAs for serious problems all or most of the time. The opportunities for improvement presented in this section are grouped according to these major categories: q Current delivery of care and services to children in the child welfare system, including outcome measures, initial assessment and placement of children, and understanding of the role of FFAs. q DC&FS operations, including the organizational structure, systems infrastructure, role of CSWs, and working relationships with FFAs. q FFA operations, including recruitment and selection of foster parents, orientation and training, intake, and placement. q Foster parent roles and responsibilities. q OHCEU monitoring and investigations. CURRENT DELIVERY OF CARE AND SERVICES TO CHILDREN IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM The best interests of the child are rarely paramount in considering the placement options for children in the system. The structure of child welfare in Los Angeles County has built-in conflicts making it difficult to support and implement programs and practices designed to meet the best interests of the children in the system. Despite a widely stated child-first philosophy, decisions made throughout the system – by DC&FS and by FFAs – appear to be motivated primarily by cost considerations and secondarily by shifting policies and politics. Furthermore, the high volume of cases together with CSW understaffing and turnover result in a system built on a warehousing, “board and care” model, not on treatment and services to improve children’s lives. q A cost-driven approach to placing children in foster care by definition does not put the specific interests or needs of the child first. The cost of each tier of placement drives the placement decision, more than the needs of the child. For example, group homes are considered to be the least natural environment (as well as the most expensive), yet some children cannot function in a less structured environment. As a result, children with disruptive behavioral or severe emotional problems are placed in foster homes, although the CSWs and FFA social workers would agree the children belong in group homes. Then, the children “fail” multiple times in foster homes before they are placed in a group home. q Although the majority of CSWs prefer the additional oversight provided by FFA foster homes, they feel pressured to place children with licensed foster homes. Nevertheless, some CSWs appeal directly to FFAs and bypass licensed homes because of their desire for additional oversight. q CSW use of Technical Assistants (TAs) results in clerical staff with little information or training having delegated responsibility to make placements, especially when CSWs lack the necessary time to do thorough follow-up themselves prior to a placement. q Shifting policies –family reunification versus adoption, or adoption versus long-term foster care – may result in moving children who are thriving in their current situations. § The court, against the judgment of CSWs, FFA social workers, and the foster parents may recommend family reunification themselves. § Adoptions may be favored over long-term foster care in a stable environment. For example one foster parent focus group participant reported she had to decide whether to adopt or give up a child who had been in her home for four years q The financial incentives of FFAs pressure FFA administrators and social workers to accept children for placement even when they cannot make an optimal placement. FFAs have established capacity levels (whether they are large or small) which they must maintain to continue to offer their range of services. § FFA administrators who want to provide customer service to DC&FS by accommodating their placement needs and maintain viable business operations, make sub-optimal placements. There is little incentive to refuse a placement on the grounds that the FFA does not have an appropriate family for the child, because such responses can backfire if CSWs perceive that a given FFA repeatedly cannot help out with placements. § Despite the stated intentions of FFA administrators to the contrary, most FFA social workers report they are pressured periodically to make sub-optimal placements (the pressure ranges from subtle to direct). In other words, they will place a child in a home, which is not a good match according to their professional judgment to maintain placement levels desired by FFA management. § Foster parents who work most successfully with a specific age group or gender are pressured to take other children, who then may ultimately fail (or the foster parent fails). It is a crisis-driven process: Finding a bed is critical, so there is no time for thorough assessments. The high caseloads of CSWs and financial incentives for FFAs combine to make thorough initial assessments of children virtually impossible. CSWs are unable to meet basic job requirements because of the high volume of cases. DC&FS is required to supervise FFAs, monitor FFA contract compliance, and provide services to children, but lacks the resources to do these tasks thoroughly. q CSWs spend a minimal amount of time (15 to 30 minutes per month) with assigned children, limiting their ability to make thorough clinical observations or recommendations. Additionally, medical and psychological treatment services must be approved by CSWs who may not process the required paperwork in a timely manner, resulting in children not getting required treatment. As a result, foster parents reported that children were uncomfortable with their CSWs, whom they barely know and whom they associate with being removed from their homes or foster homes. The lack of visits is also noted in the 1996-1997 Grand Jury Management Audit of Group Homes. q According to FFA social workers, foster parents, and some CSWs, CSWs do not make the mandated monthly visits to their assigned children. FFA social workers and foster parents both reported that some CSWs never visit while a child is placed with them (ranging from four months to two years). CSWs do contact the children prior to court appearances, when they must prepare the paperwork and update their reports. q FFA social workers and foster parents report that CSWs move children to more convenient locations, even when the children are thriving in their current placements. While this may be to move a child closer to his or her own community, FFA social workers and foster parents perceive it in terms of the CSWs’ convenience. High turnover and ineffective training undermine CSW performance. There has been reported a high turnover of CSWs. High turnover of CSWs has a negative impact on the continuity of care for the children: q 60% of CSWs have been with DC&FS for less than five years. q Foster parents report turnover as high as eight CSWs assigned to a single child in two months (though most report a lower level). Exhibit 9 CSW Turnover Rates Year Hired Turnover Rate 1996 25% 1995 40% 1994 40% 1993 40% It is also reported that the DC&FS CSW Core Academy Training is sub-optimal, with more time on application oriented as opposed to fundamental type of knowledge. The high rate of attrition among recently hired CSWs may be due, in part, to insufficient mentoring and coaching in training units. Neither DC&FS nor FFAs are held accountable for outcomes – the improving quality of life for children in foster care. The child welfare system lacks standard measures for a variety of outcomes, including well- being of the child; compliance of all out-of-home care facilities (e.g., licensed foster homes, certified, foster homes, group homes, etc.); FFA performance; and DC&FS performance. In the survey distributed to FFA social workers at the 25 FFAs randomly selected for site visits, 235 FFA social workers ranked nine outcome measures for children in order of importance, as shown in Exhibit 10. Exhibit 10 Ranked Importance of Nine Outcome Measures Rank Outcome Measure First Nurturing, loving environment Second Safety Third Food, shelter, clothing Fourth Related social services (e.g., mental health, counseling, special education) Fifth School enrollment and attendance Sixth Continuity of relationship between the FFA social worker and child Seventh Continuity of relationship between DC&FS CSW and child Eighth Extracurricular activities (e.g., scouts, sports, arts) Ninth Staying in the same community Currently, however, there are no outcome measurements, other than paper audit trails. Contracts for FFAs are renewed based on the current proposal, instead of being linked to performance during the term of the preceding contract (e.g., how many complaints, how many homes decertified, etc.). (Note: New bids must be issued every three years, per State guidelines.) Basically: q Treatment plans may not be updated to reflect the changing needs of the child. q “Politically” promoted outcomes, such as increased rates of reunification or adoption, may or may not be in the best interest of the child. For example, the rate of reunification with parents is not a good measure if the child dies in their care or ends up back in foster care. q Prior to recent improvements, made since mid-1999, quality assurance processes had been primarily based on compliance with established checklists, not on actual observation. There is inconsistent understanding and implementation of the role of FFAs in the care of foster children. While DC&FS documents clearly specify the role of FFAs in terms of meeting the needs of children with special and unique needs that cannot be serviced in a licensed foster home, the actual use of FFAs is considerably different. q CSWs report preferring certified foster homes over licensed foster homes, primarily due to the additional oversight and services, regardless of the child’s needs. q CSWs’ placement of children who have just been removed from their homes will have insufficient time to learn about special needs or conditions. q High caseloads force CSWs to focus on finding a bed – not on a careful clinical assessment of a child’s special needs or problems. q TAs who make the initial calls typically lack complete information about the child and have no way of knowing whether the child has special needs or is severely emotionally disturbed. q Because so much information about the child is withheld, FFA administrators and social workers frequently accept placements without knowing the scope of a child’s condition or problems. q DC&FS states that the majority of FFAs are “treatment FFAs” that are required to provide any therapeutic treatment within the monthly rates. In contrast, most FFAs interviewed did not define themselves in terms of providing direct psychological or related services and state they are not allowed to conduct independent evaluations or provide psychological or other related treatment. § FFA social workers integrate application of their skills and expertise – all FFA social workers are required to hold master’s degrees – when working with foster parents and foster children. Although they may be trained to conduct clinical assessments and make recommendations, they do not provide “therapy” in the traditional sense of spending 45 to 50 minutes in a confidential session with a patient. Indeed, their primary job is to provide support for foster parents. § While some FFAs have psychologists on staff, most rely on local community agencies to provide the treatment specified in the child’s Needs and Treatment Plan. § One of the 25 FFAs interviewed has alternative staff who support and monitor foster parents, which permits the FFA social workers to provide treatment directly to the children in their assigned homes. q None of the foster parents who participated in the eight focus groups indicated they had been recruited specifically to provide homes for severely emotionally disturbed children. DC&FS OPERATIONS DC&FS has numerous organizational and management problems, exacerbated by the sheer volume of work and understaffing in such critical areas as Operations (CSWs) and Quality Assurance (OHCEU investigators). Although many of the Department’s internal problems have been described in detail in the 1998 Management Audit and are also addressed in the DC&FS Management Transition Assessment submitted by the Interim Director in November 1999, organizational structure, systems, and DC&FS-FFA communication and information flow merit emphasis in this report. The current DC&FS organizational structure does not support internal collaboration or communication. DC&FS is currently organized in six bureaus, including Administration and Management Services, Executive Services, Specialized Programs, Operations, Fiscal Services/Revenue Enhancement, and Resources. Approximately 2,500 CSWs carry cases out of eight regional offices within the Bureau of Operations, while the Out-of-Home Care Programs Division, which recruits FFAs and monitors their contracts, is in the Bureau of Resources. Quality Assurance, which investigates complaints in certified foster homes, is in the Executive Services Bureau. Finally, services directly related to children in foster care, such as Emancipation Services (for foster children who are 14 years old or older and are unlikely to return to their biological parents) are in another bureau, Specialized Programs. As a result, the current organizational structure of the Department does not support collaboration and communication among the various bureaus and divisions providing direct services to children. The new Director has indicated that a reorganization to meet the needs of the children more effectively is a high priority. DC&FS lacks a systems infrastructure to maintain and track data. DC&FS lacks both computer-based and manual systems to maintain even the most basic data, such as up-to-date lists of certified foster families and their addresses. As a result, the Department does not know in aggregate where all the children in its care are on any given day. In other words, every caseworker knows where his or her assigned children are, but a centralized, accurate, and complete list of children in aggregate does not exist. In the course of this management audit, the Grand Jury reviewed and compared documents in which significant numbers were inconsistent or inaccurate. Specifically: q The number of FFAs varied (from 76 to 79). q The number of children in FFA foster care varied, according to various undated documents. q Lists of current FFAs varied, with the result that some lists were incomplete or inaccurate. q Telephone numbers were wrong, primarily because area codes had not been updated. q The names of FFA directors or other administrators had changed and not been updated. Furthermore, DC&FS was unable to produce a complete listing of certified foster homes (to use as a base document for randomly selecting 300 foster parents to attend focus groups): q Initial requests at the beginning of the management audit, in October 1999, resulted in being told “they were working on it.” q Follow-up requests (throughout November and December 1999) resulted in being told the information was unavailable. Subsequent follow-up revealed that DC&FS’s County Counsel recommended against providing the data. q Finally, on January 20, 2000, once a supportive letter was obtained from the FFABCK Steering Committee, the Department provided a list of 300 randomly selected foster parents that had been produced on December 21, 1999. q When invitations to participate in the voluntary focus groups were mailed, the FFAs informed us that invitations had been sent to foster parents that had been decertified or had moved out of the County. Of the 300 mailed invitations to FFA foster families, 22 or 7% were sent to wrong addresses or to decertified foster homes: § Nine were returned by the U.S. Post Office due to incorrect addresses. § Ten of the families had been decertified. § Three were not current (e.g., had moved out of the area or were no longer foster parents). The Grand Jury was able to conduct only three of five foster family visits coordinated by DC&FS Special Programs staff and CSWs: q The fourth family was not at home on the day selected for the visit. There is no way of knowing if the CSW contacted the family ahead of time and the family was not responsive or if the CSW never contacted the family. q The fifth family had not been correctly identified, and although at home, had no knowledge of the case being tracking. Data on ongoing investigations for OHCEU were lost when the system went down (due to a “Y2K” computer breakdown). The lack of taped backups (per the contract) was a surprise to OHCEU, due to ineffective contract monitoring. DC&FS may pay FFAs for non-current placements. Although a financial audit of DC&FS and FFAs was not conducted, it is possible that DC&FS may be paying for non-existing or non-current placements. Given the lack of up-to-date and accurate information regarding the placement of children and the status of FFA foster parents, DC&FS has no way of knowing whether FFAs are purposely or inadvertently billing the Department for children no longer placed in their foster homes. The relationship between DC&FS and FFAs is largely uncooperative and adversarial, with frequently adversarial relations between CSWs and FFA social workers. From the CSW perspective, FFAs may be too close to the foster parent and unable to evaluate the child’s needs objectively. In social work, CSWs or FFA social workers may become overly emotionally involved with foster parents or foster children, inhibiting objective evaluation and decision-making. From the perspective of FFA social workers, FFA input is not valued and child safety concerns may be ignored by the CSW. According to FFAs, going up the DC&FS chain of command to resolve such problems frequently results in blanket supervisor support of the CSW and subsequent informal “blacklisting” of the FFA. For example, FFAs report that in some cases CSWs will help foster parents get an emergency CCL license when the FFA recommends moving the child and decertifying the home against the CSWs wishes. q Information, including the children’s Needs and Treatment Plans and medical history, is routinely withheld from FFA social workers, making it difficult for them to make optimal placements, provide appropriate psychological or medical treatment, or ensure compliance with Needs and Treatment Plan objectives. As a result, they cannot provide the foster parents with complete information. § 47% and 48% of the foster parents who completed the survey report they get the support and information they need from their CSWs all or most of the time for routine and serious problems, respectively. § 59% believe that DC&FS withholds information most of the time or sometimes compared to 46% who believe that FFAs never withhold information. q A lack of understanding regarding the legal nature of client confidentiality and an apparent lack of familiarity with contract and DC&FS policies results in CSWs using “confidentiality” as an excuse to withhold critical information from FFAs. § Treatment services must be approved by CSWs who may not process the required paperwork in a timely manner, resulting in children not getting the treatment they require. For example, prescriptions for psychotropic medications (e.g., anti- depressants) do not follow children who change homes, thereby causing them to be abruptly taken off their medication. § Foster parents are not informed if children are (or potentially are) HIV positive, have Hepatitis C, or other highly contagious diseases that can be handled with appropriate information. § Foster parents are not informed about significant behavioral problems, such as sexualized behavior or extreme oppositional or violent behavior. § Foster parents report that children are aware of and exploit the lack of teamwork among CSWs and FFA social workers. q CSWs may bypass the FFA and contact preferred foster parents directly, thereby undermining the terms of the contract. q Despite a colorblind policy regarding the race or ethnicity of children, CSWs and FFA social workers make placements based on their own biases and preferences. q FFA social workers report frustration when they do much of the legwork, prepare the reports, turn them over to the CSWs, and are not acknowledged for their efforts or expertise. FFA OPERATIONS Despite the DC&FS contractual standards, the quality of FFAs varies significantly in these key areas: q Recruitment and selection practices and processes. q Orientation and training. q Quality of foster parents. q Quality assurance practices and processes. The quality and thoroughness of foster family recruitment and selection varies considerably from FFA to FFA and is ultimately a subjective process. Despite similar guidelines for the recruitment and selection of foster parents at most FFAs, deciding which foster parents to certify is largely subjective. Furthermore, some base their outreach efforts on a limited perspective: q Some limit their outreach to a single method (e.g., the Penny Saver or a particular church). q One FFA recruits only Hispanic families (“because they make the best foster parents”). q Another FFA reports a preference for single welfare mothers (“because they’re always home and it’s what the children are accustomed to”). Combined orientation and training programs may be less effective than separate processes. FFAs that combine orientation programs with initial training may be less willing to continue the “weeding out” process, despite assurances to the contrary. Initial training and ongoing training are not standardized. Training programs are not standardized, so there is no assurance that training is equally rigorous. Furthermore, FFAs lack testing or assessment processes to gauge the extent to which foster parents understand or retain the material presented. Furthermore, the 1998 management audit of DC&FS supports our finding that there is no standardized curriculum or approach to DC&FS parenting classes. Because of differing recruitment, orientation, and training approaches and standards, the quality of foster parents varies significantly. Some foster parents are much better than others are in terms of attitude, understanding of their roles and responsibilities, understanding of child development, mastery of “parenting skills,” and ability to cope with difficult situations. The “worst” FFAs are those which do not decertify the “worst” foster parents. In the focus groups, certified foster parents described the following situations: q Teenage children who sneak out of the house repeatedly, indicating a lack of supervision. q Keeping their knives “in a box on a high shelf” versus under lock and key, indicating lack of compliance with established rules. q Putting the needs of biological children ahead of foster children, indicating the potential for emotional neglect. FFA social workers described these less-than-optimal foster home situations: q Children who are “too” well-behaved, indicating an over controlling and fearful environment. q Children who are frequently truant from school, indicating a lack of supervision. q Children who spend too much time watching television or playing video games, indicating an unstimulating home environment that lacks adequate emphasis on reading, education, physical activities, music, and other forms of entertainment. FFAs are in the difficult position of finding the correct balance among their conflicting needs: q Recruiting an adequate supply of foster parents to meet DC&FS demand versus recruiting the most qualified foster parents available. q Providing support for foster parents who have an admittedly difficult job versus advocating for foster children whom may be very difficult. q Providing support for foster parents versus monitoring foster parents to ensure compliance with rules and regulations. In theory, all FFAs believe they certify high quality foster parents, provide the support and training required, and move quickly to resolve problems, either by recommending removal of the child or decertification of the home. In practice, FFAs may keep sub-standard foster parents because they are willing to work with difficult-to-place children, to meet DC&FS demand, or the FFA has low quality standards. FOSTER PARENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Foster parents have perhaps the most demanding role within the child welfare framework. Foster parents must: q Provide a safe and nurturing environment for children who may be emotionally fragile or have severe problems. q Open their hearts, yet not get “too” attached. q Modify their daily routines to comply with extremely stringent rules and regulations q Open their homes to intrusive scrutiny and examination. Nevertheless, foster parents have the fewest rights or protections and often have the least amount of information about the children in their home and about the system overall, despite mandatory training. FFAs and foster parents report the following situations: q Foster parents are typically left out of critical decision-making processes (e.g., they are not allowed in court), although they spend the most time with the child. q While only 28% of foster parents who completed the survey agree that complaints about the condition of their homes or treatment of the children in their care were legitimate: § 66% report they are informed quickly and completely about the nature of the problems. § 65% report that they have adequate time to resolve the problems. § 76% agree they get the help and support they need to solve the problems. q Nearly 80% of surveyed foster parents believe they are treated fairly by their FFAs all or most of the time. In contrast, only 60% believe they are treated fairly by DC&FS all or most of the time. q CSWs and FFAs are not allowed to inform foster parents when they are under investigation. Once completed, foster parents who have been investigated are stigmatized, even if the investigations ultimately reveal they are not to blame for a child being removed from their homes. q A child may go to court and be reunified with his or her biological parents, but foster parents are not notified – the child simply never comes home. q Biological parents may encourage their children to lie about their foster parents, in the mistaken belief that they will get their children back. This strategy backfires – the foster parents may be investigated, and the children will be moved to another foster home. The CWS/CMS system does not differentiate between foster homes decertified for non- compliance and those foster parents who decided to “take a break” from fostering. Foster parents operate in a “zero tolerance” environment in which there are no “time outs” to evaluate issues before taking the drastic step of removing the child from the home. While the safety of the child is paramount, every tragedy spawns a new regulation. While no one denies that foster parents should be held to a higher standard, foster parents also have no opportunity to use their common sense or judgment for specific children. q If all knives have to be locked up, how will teens learn to cook for themselves and be more independent? q If there are only infants in the home, why can’t knives be placed out of the way instead of being locked up? q If a teen isn’t suicidal, why can’t she have regular access to a razor to shave her legs? q If a teen is well behaved and attends school regularly, why can’t he or she attend a prom unescorted by his or her foster parents? Although one goal of foster home placement is to provide a more normal, day-to-day life for foster children (versus group home or institutional living), many regulations make normal life nearly impossible: q Spending the night at a friend’s home would require the friend’s parents to be fingerprinted. q Shopping with friends at the mall would require the foster parent to be present at all times. This lack of flexibility discourages many potential foster parents or encourages others to comply only superficially. Emancipation programs are not universally available. Teenagers in foster care face special problems. If they have been in the system a long time, it is unlikely they will ever return to their biological parents. Emancipation services are designed to assist these children to prepare for independent, adult living; however, all FFAs do not provide such services. Furthermore, within DC&FS, Emancipation Services is not in the same bureau as case-bearing CSWs. As a result, both teenagers and their foster parents may not get the information or support they need. Because Title 22 regulations are extremely restrictive, foster parents may not be permitted to provide the opportunities to build confidence or prepare children for the transition to independent living. Furthermore, teenagers who by nature are testing their abilities (and the world around them) are increasingly likely to test the limits of foster family rules and regulations (which are significantly more restrictive than those in a “normal” home). Foster parents of teenagers report high turnover, due to the difficulty in ensuring compliance. In contrast, foster parents of teenagers participating in Emancipation Programs report a greater ability to keep the children in their home. OHCEU MONITORING AND INVESTIGATIONS OHCEU is charged with auditing FFA compliance and investigating allegations of abuse of children in FFA certified foster homes, as well as licensed and group homes. Formal monitoring is required because: q CSWs may not have the time or opportunity to observe subtle problems through informal, on-the-job monitoring. q FFAs have financial and “customer service” incentives to maintain placements and may overlook or discount the severity of problems. Staffing is inadequate to handle the workload as it has been defined by the OHCEU. Formal monitoring is hindered by inadequate staffing as well as the lack of effective policies and procedures to ensure that allegations of complaints and abuse in FFA-certified homes are monitored and investigated thoroughly and on a timely basis. Investigations that begin much later than four weeks after the alleged incident diminish in importance, reliability, and effectiveness. (CSWs and FFAs reported that investigations might take up to six months to initiate.) Although the estimates should be verified by a complete workload study, we estimate that it takes approximately 2.5 days per case to complete an investigation cycle, including all major tasks already described under Findings: Current Situation. Exhibit 11 dramatizes the gap between work coming in and the available staff days to handle it. Exhibit 11 OCHEU Projected Workload 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Number of Weeks to Complete snoitagitsevnI fo rebmuN Workload projected with no changes Staff days available Each week the unit will fall 60 workdays farther behind. While it is possible to use tools, such as overtime and suspension of vacation authorization, to overcome a temporary backlog, they are not effective long-term strategies to handle a significant gap between ongoing workload and available staff days. Investigator efficiency can be improved through improving the databases and system resources of OHCEU. Access to reliable and accurate databases with interfaces designed to reduce multiple entries of the same data could significantly reduce the amount of the time spent on the initial incident response. In most cases, the information gleaned by the investigators is largely consistent with the information gathered by the CSWs and FFA social workers during their initial reviews of the allegations to assure child safety. Nevertheless, case notes and a final investigation report prepared by the OHCEU investigator are typically typed separately, largely duplicating records already available in the file. OHCEU staff spend a great deal of time entering Special Incident Reports (SIRs) into the ITRAK system (OHCEU’s data-tracking database). The system was intended to help identify patterns of problems at foster care homes. All historical data in that system were lost because of a Y2K problem. At the time of the management audit, OHCEU staff was working with vendors to correct the problem. Although senior staff states that they were assured that back-ups were in place and restoration was possible, this was evidently not the case. The incident has sensitized OHCEU senior staff to the importance of data security and restoration protocols. The operation of the unit is hampered by the lack of access to the data, and efforts to assure rapid restoration or data re-entry should be negotiated with the vendor. Beyond this problem, there is an additional statewide data system, the CWS/CMS system that also provides current and historical data on foster care facilities and children. Included in most of the case files was a copy of the CWS/CMS system report associated with the subject facility. Particularly for the earlier cases, some of the information included in the system did not seem to be reliable. For example, there is a report listing all current and historical child placements in the subject facility. In earlier cases, that listing usually did not list any children in the home. OHCEU often had to rely on FFA files to determine who was placed in the home. Because of these issues of reliability, duty workers still verify placements by contacting staff at the FFAs to assure that all involved children are accounted for and their CSWs are notified. DC&FS monitoring is limited to FFA administrative offices. While the State regulations specify CSW visits for children, DC&FS is not required to monitor FFA-certified homes for Title 22 compliance. As a result, DC&FS FFA monitoring has been limited to FFA administrative offices. The CCL and OCHEU are responsible for investigating allegations, yet there are no processes or systems in place to facilitate coordination or collaboration (e.g., a cross-referenced list of certified homes under investigation by either CCL, OCHEU, or both). In short, DC&FS lacks both the tools and the information to determine the level of care foster children actually receive, the full extent of harm children may face in foster care, and how to prevent children from harm in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS OVERALL Recommendation 1: DC&FS should work collaboratively and cooperatively with FFAs and other child welfare advocates to address the complex issues facing child welfare in a major urban environment such as the County of Los Angeles. q The combination of the organizational, management, and systems problems of DC&FS and the high number of cases and investigations has resulted in a child welfare system that does not meet the needs of the children under its care, and undermines compliance with contracts, regulations, and safety guidelines. q Inherent conflicts of interest in the structure of FFAs and the poor relationship between FFAs and DC&FS also contribute to substandard care for children. As such, this recommendation is presented with the understanding that no single entity involved in child welfare can address or solve any of the issues single-handedly. The various organizations and agencies directly involved in child welfare have interdependent roles and responsibilities. DC&FS should collaborate with all the following: q The State of California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division (CCL). q Foster Family Agencies (FFAs). q Dependency Court judges and attorneys. q The County of Los Angeles Children and Family Commission. q CASA volunteer program administrators and volunteers. q Foster parents. q Biological parents and other relatives. q Schools. q Task forces, associations, and other agencies or organizations. A holistic approach to child welfare based on collaboration, cooperation, and flexibility will be critical to implementing the following recommended changes, as well as making other system-wide improvements. The remaining recommendations are presented in five major categories: q The overall model of child welfare. q Outcomes and performance measures, including contract monitoring, quality assurance, and investigations. q DC&FS organizational and management issues q FFA operations. q Roles and responsibilities of foster parents. CHILD WELFARE MODEL Recommendation 2: Make the best interests of the child paramount in all aspects of placement in FFAs and, by extension, in child welfare overall. The best interests of the child must drive decisions regarding placement in foster care instead of the cost factors and need for expedience that currently shape placement decisions. Clarify the role of FFAs within a continuum of care model. DC&FS should evaluate whether the County’s children are best served by two competing foster care systems or whether the benefits and strengths of FFAs are better for all children in foster care: q Outcomes from both systems must be evaluated and compared. The benefits to children as well as the cost of providing additional supervision must be considered: § Do children placed in licensed homes have better outcomes versus those in FFA certified homes – are there fewer placement failures in one model versus the other? § Would all children fare better with the additional supervision provided by FFA social workers, or are 15 to 30 minutes per month adequate for some children? § Is the quality of foster parents measurably better in one model versus the other – do FFAs do a better job of recruiting and training foster parents than the County and the State? q A rationale for maintaining both must indicate how children’s needs will be best met. For example: § Only children assessed as “severely emotionally disturbed” (or having other serious behavioral or emotional problems) could be placed in treatment FFA homes; children with ordinary problems would always be placed in licensed homes. § Children who “fail” in a licensed home would automatically be placed in an FFA certified home. DC&FS should clearly define the differences between licensed homes, certified homes, group homes, and residential treatment centers, working with representatives from those organizations to ensure clarity, consensus, and consistency. The role of FFAs should be clearly explained to all organizations and individuals involved with children placed in foster care. Training for CSWs should include information on all placement options. Define child-centered rationales for each placement option. Child-centered rationales for each placement option should be developed and widely communicated among all interested parties. The differences between all placement options, and the corresponding rationale, must be clarified and consistently communicated and implemented by DC&FS. Bias, preference, or cost should not influence CSW decisions. OUTCOMES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Recommendation 3: Develop child-centered outcome standards and measurements for children, CSWs, FFAs, and foster parents. The County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors adopted five specific outcome measures for children: q Economic well-being. q Education/workforce readiness. q Good health. q Safety and survival. q Social and emotional well-being. DC&FS and FFAs should jointly develop tools and measures to evaluate specific outcomes in the five areas, and consider outcomes-based models in other jurisdictions. For example, in Cook County, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services has recently established performance measures in the contracts with the service providers. Specific targets are included in the annual contracts for both resource allocations (e.g. no more than 25 cases per caseworker) and “positive outcomes” (e.g., “x” number of children in your care will be returned to parents, adopted, or placed under guardianship). Results are audited, and contracts are not renewed for agencies that do not meet their targets. This has been significant in increasing adoptions of foster children. Economic well-being. Children in foster care should expect to have their basic economic needs addressed, including: q Do children have clean clothing and shoes that fit and do not make them stand out significantly from their peers? q Do they receive age-appropriate allowance or spending money? q Have they had the opportunity to accumulate personal possessions that are “theirs” and accompany them if they leave a given foster home? q Are they allowed to participate in family outings and vacations? FFA social workers can readily observe the condition of clothing, disbursement of allowance, and participation in family outings and vacations, with back-up confirmation provided by CSWs, teachers, CASA volunteers (if assigned), and interviews with the child. Education/workforce readiness. Attending school, graduating from high school, and being prepared for further education or employment is critical to the long-term life success of children in foster care. Outcome measures for school success could include: q Are children’s educational records complete and included in their package? q Are there established educational goals for the child? Are “good” grades maintained? Are “poor” grades improving? q Do teacher conferences indicate progress toward established goals? q Are recommended educational interventions implemented and successful? Additionally, CSWs and FFA social workers should encourage and train foster parents to have education-friendly homes. For example: q Do foster parents attend “back to school night” and school open houses? q Are there age-appropriate books in the home? q Is television watching or video game playing limited? q Do children have quiet, well-lighted areas for homework and studying? Good health. Poor health will undermine a child’s ability to function at optimal levels. DC&FS and FFAs must ensure that foster children receive appropriate health care, on a “well-child” basis, as well as for the treatment of illnesses or injuries. DC&FS must fully disclose a child’s medical history and treatment needs to the FFA and to the foster parents to monitor: q Is the child thriving, gaining weight and height in accordance with child development guidelines? Does the child receive routine “well-child” check-ups? q Are illnesses or injuries dealt with promptly? q Are chronic illnesses or conditions treated? q Does the child report that appealing and nutritious food is available? q Does the child receive adequate dental care and instruction in oral hygiene? q Are children who take medications for behavioral, emotional, or psychological needs routinely assessed for progress, dosage requirements, or side effects? Are the associated problems treated appropriately through therapy, behavior modification, or other appropriate intervention? Are pre- and post-assessments conducted as part of the child’s Needs and Services Plans? Safety and Survival. Title 22 provides many rules and regulations to ensure the safety and survival of children in foster care. To ensure understanding, compliance, and rapid correction of problems, DC&FS and FFAs should implement the recommendations (presented later in this chapter) related to FFA quality assurance, CSW and FFA social worker communication, and effectiveness of audits and investigations. Appropriate outcome measures include reduction in the number of complaints and allegations overall, as well as the number of substantiated allegations. Social and Emotional Well-Being. The social and emotional well-being of children in foster care are the most neglected of the five measures due to: q The lack of thorough initial assessments. q High CSW work volume. q Lack of in-depth and problem-specific foster parent training. q CSW and FFA acceptance of foster parents who are either unable or unwilling to support the child’s social and emotional well-being. In addition to the recommendations related to initial assessments, CSW work volume, and foster parent training, all parties in the child welfare system need to make the social and emotional well-being of foster children as high a priority as health and safety. q Thorough psychosocial assessments made at the time of the initial assessment would provide the baseline data to set objectives and measure progress. q Psychosocial post assessments at routine intervals would monitor progress in such areas as self-esteem, depression, and other psychological or emotional areas. q Periodic status reports prepared by teachers and therapists as well as by the CSW and FFA social worker assigned to the child would provide more perspectives and detail to determine the child’s progress. Recommendation 4: Develop and implement a new assessment model. DC&FS should develop and implement a child-centered assessment model to ensure thorough assessments of children as they enter the child welfare system and at established check- points during their time in the system. Children should be assessed with minimal disruption to their lives, particularly important given the major disruption of being removed from their parents’ home. For example, the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (AFCS) has established a new program to minimize the disruption in children’s lives. For severe cases of abuse and neglect in which a child is not hospitalized, AFCS coordinates their initial response with the New York City Police Department and the five borough District Attorneys. Police summon a caseworker and the district attorney when a minor is involved and is severely abused or neglected. Within 3 to 4 hours, the child is escorted to a Child Advocacy Center, where trained staff can calm and reassure the child. It avoids the distress that children often feel when brought to a precinct station, which had been the police’s only option. Furthermore, the child is questioned once with both social workers and attorneys present. This minimizes the repetition of questions, which can be grounds for eliminating the testimony of young children. Placement decisions and immediate care can be handled simultaneously with the investigation. The County of Los Angeles should establish assessment facilities that can provide a variety of services on both an out-patient and in-patient basis, including: q Background check and fingerprinting of relatives (which must be completed before a child can be placed with relatives). q Explanation to the children regarding why they are being removed from their homes, what is happening to their parents, and what they can expect next. q The opportunity to compile all important information and files related to the children, including: § Educational records (grades, school-related problems, etc.) § Behavioral and medical background and records health records (e.g., chronic conditions, prescription medications, etc.) § History and reason for past placement failures, such as oppositional, violent, or sexualized behavior; manipulative behavior; run-away patterns; etc. § Family history, etc. q Complete and thorough psycho-educational assessments. The benefits of such thorough initial assessments include: q Maintaining a complete package of information. q Allowing all care providers to start “on the same page” by providing a complete package of information to CSWs, FFA social workers, and other professionals involved with the child. Then, as a team, these professional can meet to: § Develop thorough and appropriate Needs and Services Plans for the children. § Establish reasonable treatment objectives and milestones. § Agree on outcome measures. q Making the best placement decisions possible by providing a complete package of information to CSWs, FFA social workers, and other professionals involved with the child to ensure optimal placement. The child should return to the assessment facility per an established schedule – at least annually – to monitor progress toward established objectives. A child should automatically be reassessed when a second placement results in a failure. A placement is considered to fail when the child does not thrive in that environment; when there is behavior that the foster parent cannot or will not tolerate; or when there are allegations of abuse and the child is moved, pending an investigation. Given the criticality of sound initial assessments and monitoring, the County of Los Angeles should aggressively pursue Federal, State, and local funding to implement such an effort immediately. The aim should be to use assessments to make more thoughtful placements that should increase the success in terms of reunification, reduced recidivism, fewer changes in foster home placements, etc. DC&FS should increase involvement of biological parents when possible in the initial assessment and monitoring of the child. Specifically, DC&FS should also implement a holistic approach by involving the biological parents as much as possible to increase the likelihood of successful and lasting reunifications. Providing equal access to resources (e.g., therapy, parenting classes, etc.) should help to break the cycle of entry and re-entry into foster care. Biological parents should understand why successful placements and treatment will benefit them and their children. Recommendation 5: Build child-centered teams to assess and monitor foster children. DC&FS should lead the effort to develop child-centered teams to oversee children in foster care. Such teams would include CSWs, FFA social workers, mental health workers, health care workers (if required), educators, foster parents, and biological parents (when possible) to assess each child thoroughly as he or she enters the system. These professionals would have the expertise to develop thorough, outcomes-based Needs and Treatment Plans that focus on the five outcome measures adopted by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors: economic well- being, education/workforce readiness, good health, safety and survival, and social and emotional well-being. DC&FS should examine the program recently implemented by the Missouri Division of Family Services (as well as the similar effort being piloted in New York City): q After a successful pilot program, Missouri introduced statewide an intensive and front- loaded team effort designed to address the problems that caused a child’s removal from his or her home immediately. q Within 72 hours of the removal from home, the Division of Family Services worker calls a meeting including: § Biological parents. § Foster parents. § Court personnel (where applicable). § Any person the biological parents wish to include as part of their network of support (including clergy, relatives, friends, attorneys, advisors, school personnel, etc.) § Other significant people in the child’s life (teachers, clergy, etc.). There is an open atmosphere, and the conditions or actions that led to the removal of the child are discussed. q A plan is developed to correct those conditions so that the child can be restored to his or her family. Unless that happens, follow-up meetings with the same participants are called after 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, and 6 months to discuss progress. q The meetings are documented, and information gained there is used, if no progress is made, to document later applications for the termination of parental rights. The effort has been effective in speeding up a child’s return to family. DC&FS ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES Both a 1998 management audit and the 1999 DC&FS Management Transition Assessment identified many of DC&FS’s organizational and management problems in significant detail, along with specific, detailed recommendations for improvement. Recommendation 6: Review and implement recommendations detailed in previous reports pertaining to DC&FS and FFAs. DC&FS should use the existing studies and audits as a point of departure for addressing organizational and management problems. The new Department Director should review the documents thoroughly and select those recommendations which support her overall goals for the Department. The Department should not use its limited resources to “reinvent the wheel” – rather it should test the viability of assumptions underlying existing recommendations, modify them as necessary, and implement them on either an overall or pilot basis. Once the most feasible recommendations for improvement have been selected, the Director should develop an action plan, assigning priorities, accountability, time frames, and milestones for measuring progress. Recommendation 7: Decentralize the DC&FS organizational structure. To meet the needs of children throughout the County, DC&FS should be decentralized to put the services it provides closer and to be more responsive to those who rely on them, including foster children, their biological parents, and their foster parents. Furthermore, the decentralized Department should link its eight regional Operations offices with the Service Planning Areas (SPA) centers that offer related County services (e.g., mental health). CSWs currently do not have the opportunity to get to know their assigned children – 15 to 30 minutes once a month is not enough time to establish a trusting relationship. Therefore, having the CSW “follow” the child through placements in various County locations is not the best use of the CSW’s time. DC&FS should assign CSWs to a specific SPA and limit the distances they must drive to see their assigned cases. CSWs should be assigned to children placed with foster families (in a given SPA region), who are affiliated with various FFAs. Regular interaction with a variety of FFAs will provide multiple opportunities for different CSWs to observe and monitor the differences among FFAs. A similar model is being implemented in the five boroughs of New York City (The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island) – namely, foster care will be handled within the borough where the child’s family lives. Without this program, children could be placed miles from their home, school, and friends. It has been adopted in the Bronx, and contracts are being reviewed for the other boroughs with a June 2000 target date. Recommendation 8: Enhance the CSW work environment. CSWs are currently unable to deliver the expected level of services to the children assigned to their care, despite their best efforts: q CSWs do not provide FFA social workers with complete and accurate Needs and Treatment Plans on a timely basis. q CSWs do not spend enough time with their assigned cases to form significant bonds, observe problems, or apply their clinical knowledge. q CSWs do not routinely consult with FFA social workers on the progress or treatment plans of their assigned cases. Because of the high caseload and inability to meet expectations, DC&FS has an ongoing problem in recruiting and retaining CSWs. The most logical solution (and based on other states’ best practices) is to reduce CSWs’ caseloads. q DC&FS should decrease the average case load of CSWs, based on best practices in other regions: § The New York City average caseload is 12, down from 27 in 1996. In June 1996, the average caseload for Child Protective Workers (CPWs) in New York City was greater than 26. An intensive program to bring on new workers with greater training and offer advanced training to caseworkers was coupled with a privatization effort. That has brought the caseload down as of February 1999 to 12 cases per CPW. In addition, salaries for CPWs had been capped at about $30,000 -- that has been increased to just under $50,000 for workers with more than 10.5 years of service. § The Cook County, Illinois, average caseload ranges from 20 to 24. § The St. Louis, Missouri, average case load ranges from 23 to 26. q DC&FS should provide more initial and ongoing training, with as much emphasis on child development and foster-care related problems as on program compliance. q DC&FS should provide mentors to CSWs – experienced CSWs who work side-by-side with new CSWs for at least one year. Alternatively, DC&FS should consider permanent partnerships between CSWs. In the short term, until needed funding is available, DC&FS should implement an immediate stop gap, realizing that such actions are not an ongoing solution. Rather than being in a constant state of “catching up” and “making do,” in the short term, DC&FS should redefine the roles of CSW from a case manager to a contract monitor for FFAs. The CSWs’ primary role should be to represent the State and the County on the child-centered team (as described in Recommendation #5 above) with the principle goal of providing the FFA social workers with the most complete and accurate information available. Complete and accurate information would enable FFAs and FFA social workers to perform the full scope of their contracts, including clinical assessments and treatment. Furthermore, the CSW would be expected to: q Furnish complete and accurate Needs and Treatment Plans on a timely basis. q Meet regularly with FFA administrators and FFA social workers to discuss assigned children. q Monitor FFAs, providing feedback to DC&FS. q Act as the liaison between the child, the biological parents, Dependency Court, the FFA foster parents, and others involved in the child’s care (e.g., teachers, therapists). This redefinition of the CSWs’ roles should be viewed as a temporary measure until caseloads can be reduced. Recommendation 9: DC&FS–FFA should improve communications processes and information flow. DC&FS must improve its relationship with FFAs and FFA social workers. The Department should demonstrate its commitment by: q Embracing and implementing the child-centered team assessment model. q Encouraging collaboration and teamwork. q Ensuring that all relevant information is made available to all member of the team, especially FFA social workers, on a timely basis. q Providing mandatory, joint CSW/FFA social worker team-building to decrease the “us versus them” environment reported by CSWs, FFA social workers, and foster parents. q Developing a problem resolution and follow-up process to help CSWs and FFA social workers resolve their differences in the best interest of the child. DC&FS SYSTEMS All aspects of the child welfare system require rapid access to and processing of complete and accurate information about children. Recommendation 10: Develop comprehensive DC&FS systems and infrastructures to collect, update, track, and report updated, timely, complete, and accurate information. As elaborated in the 1998 management audit, DC&FS should develop comprehensive, integrated, on-line computer-based systems to collect, update, track, share, and report all information related to children in foster care: q Current and prior placements. q History of problems for a given child. q History of problems for a given FFA. q History of problems for a given foster family. q Complete database of licensed and certified foster parents, as well as group homes and residential treatment centers. q Special programs and resources database, (e.g., emancipation programs, teen parent programs). q Audits and investigations. q Contract status and billings. Integrated databases will: q Minimize the need to enter the same data numerous times, increasing the likelihood of accurate data. Furthermore, updates such as changes in area code, newly certified or decertified foster parents, will not have to be entered repeatedly in different systems. q Allow multiple users to access and update information about the child, including results of court appearances, school records, incident reports, etc. q Facilitate better identification, tracking, and follow-up of problem patterns with: § Foster children. § Foster parents. § Specific FFAs. q Increase the likelihood of correct FFA billings and DC&FS payments for actual placements and services provided. On-line systems will allow CSWs and OHCEU investigators to comment on or add to existing records. The system could be configured to generate appropriate documentation and reports automatically, as well as “tickler” reports to remind staff to follow-up on specific issues. With appropriate and secure access to protect the integrity of the data (e.g., such as limiting access to data based on the role of the user), FFAs and FFA social workers should also be able to access the system to review the history of a new placement (in real time) or update records with new information electronically. To further relieve some of the paperwork burden of the case management (for CSWs and OHCEU investigators), DC&FS should provide CSWs with laptop computers to facilitate data entry while they are in the field. The input could be downloaded electronically at the office or via modem on a daily basis. OUT-OF-HOME CARE EVALUATION UNIT (OHCEU) INVESTIGATIONS In light of the ongoing and growing backlog in the OHCEU unit, the need for investigations to continue is debatable, especially considering that the immediate safety of the child is addressed by the responding CSW. Nevertheless, the benefits of investigations include the ability to: q Monitor the evaluations made by CSWs through comparison of alleged versus substantiated allegations. q Assist CSWs and FFAs in evaluating whether a home should continue to be certified. q Observe and track patterns in abuse accusations, either by children as they move from home to home, or by foster parents, as children placed with them report the same problems repeatedly. q Reduce the County’s liability exposure and provide expert witnesses in court proceedings. DC&FS must develop strategies to maintain the benefits in the face of an ever-increasing gap between workdays available and workload generated, as described in Recommendation 11. Recommendation 11: Address the gap between OHCEU workload and available staff. DC&FS should address the gap between workload and available staff by: q Increasing the efficiency of investigators through increased systems and administrative support. q Decreasing the number of new investigations. q Increasing the number of investigative staff. Increase the efficiency of investigators by providing improved systems support. DC&FS should design or improve systems to facilitate development of final reports and implementation of recommendations. A computerized case management system that imports data from current systems and simplifies the reporting and follow-up will enhance the ability of investigators to focus on the substance of their investigations. (Note: This system enhancement should be done in conjunction with Recommendation #10.) Increase the efficiency of investigators by providing effective administrative and other support staff. Much investigator time could be saved if administrative support staff handled all clerical-related duties, including scheduling meetings, coordinating a “tickler” file for reminders, researching and presenting information from data bases, screening calls, gathering required documentation, and typing final reports. The current allocation of three staff members is inadequate, especially because they also enter Special Incident Reports (SIRs) into the database system. At a minimum, one clerical worker per SPA in support of the investigators would permit prioritization of support efforts, and enhance the ability to develop a team approach to conducting investigations. Decrease the number of new investigations that staff is required to absorb every week. Investigative resources should be devoted to those cases in which there is the greatest likelihood of uncovering significant problems with the foster home. Under the current system, all Child Abuse Hotline calls receive an investigation. The only difference between calls alleging priority 3 or 4 abuses and those alleging priority 1 or 2 abuses is that the higher priority calls are to be investigated five days sooner. It is likely, however, that investigating the higher priority cases would be more productive in addressing the purposes of the unit. The duty worker involved in the call should be permitted to exercise judgment regarding whether a full-scale investigation is called for in priority 3 or 4 cases, particularly when the responding CSW does not substantiate the allegation. OHCEU should consider a complete investigation only for repeat instances or patterns, or when the responding CSW replaces the affected child. New cases referred would be reduced by about 40%. Increase the number of investigators in the unit. The highest priority in reassignment of resources is in areas providing direct services to children. Because OHCEU investigations are indirectly beneficial (since the responding CSW resolved the reported problem immediately and investigations occur after-the-fact), other recommendations of direct benefit to children should be implemented before adding staff to the OHCEU unit. Additional staff should be added after a thorough workload evaluation and process improvement effort has been completed. Exhibit 12 depicts the potential implication of the staffing recommendations. Exhibit 12 Workload for OHCEU Investigations 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Number of Weeks to Complete Investigation snoitagitsevnI fo rebmuN Workload projected with no changes Workload with case reduction Workload with case reduction and efficiency improvements Staff days available Staffing decisions should also consider the different skill sets required to conduct the three groups of tasks outlined in the investigations. The initial incident response requires staff with the clerical, research, analytical, and communications skills to: q Assess the breadth of the report. q Conduct searches of databases to identify additional at risk foster children. q Track down the involved parties, including FFA personnel and the CSW for each child placed in the home. q Follow up to ensure that the matter has been resolved. The investigation phase requires analytical, oral communication and interviewing skills, along with the ability to exercise considerable independent judgment associated with the recommended outcome. In some instances, negotiation skills are called for. The conclusion phase requires organizational skills and writing ability, oral communication skills, and the ability to coordinate the implementation of recommendations generated during the investigation phase. While it is neither practical nor desirable to have different staff perform each of these three steps for each investigation, it may be possible to reassign some of the steps to specialists to improve efficiency. Monitor investigator caseload, and use pre-determined criteria to eliminate or defer investigations when caseloads become excessive. The investigative caseload could become unacceptable due to position shortages or a dramatic increase or peak in referrals. Requested investigations should be triaged and, if necessary, some requests eliminated or deferred, thereby avoiding ever-growing delays in the instigation of investigations. Hard-working staff becomes overwhelmed with the volume and backlog. This option should be done as infrequently as possible, with predetermined criteria for those to be deferred. One method in place before mid- 1999 was to skip investigations if the FFA decertified the home after the CSW replaced the minor. Considering whether a home has been decertified could become an effective temporary triage mechanism to reduce workload. There may be other criteria to consider, including repeat allegations, age and number of involved children, or a pending audit. Use the audit staff as reviewers of all investigative outcomes for a single FFA. Because auditing staff is not regionally based, their perspective is sometimes not that of an entire FFA. Using the auditors in this manner could help them uncover potential problems, patterns, or opportunities as they approach an audit of the FFA. It could also serve as a way to identify patterns of problems that investigators could pursue. Stagger the termination of the FFA contracts, so that only one-third of them are up for renewal in any given year. This will permit the auditing staff to conduct the reviews during the first year of each contract, ensuring that problems or confusion will be cleared up early in the contract period. Additional benefits include permitting contract preparation staff to continually reflect most recent improvements in contract terms and conditions, and include spreading the contract preparation and issuance workload more evenly. FFA OPERATIONS While the privatized model of FFAs is indispensable to meeting the demand for foster care in the County, FFA operations can be improved in these areas: q Recruitment standards. q Training content and assessment. q Compliance with rules and regulations. Recommendation 12: Standardize FFA practices based on identified best practices to improve performance at all FFAs, including recruitment of consistently high quality foster parents. DC&FS and FFAs should consider the best practices identified throughout the course of the management audit – as well as typical practices and those to avoid – presented in Exhibit 13. Exhibit 13 Best Practices Identified at 25 FFAs Practice Aspects of FFA Operations Philosophy Typical § FFAs make a strong commitment to serving children “in the system” despite pressure to make placements without adequate information. Best § “Accountability is a key value.” § “Child welfare comes first.” § “We have higher expectations (of our foster parents) than other FFAs.” § Consider development of standards and accreditation with Council on Accreditation – similar to JCAHO hospital accreditation organization. Avoid § FFAs’ primary goal is to meet needs of DC&FS versus the needs of children or the skills or limitations of specific foster parents by placing the majority of intake requests. Recruitment/Initial Screening Typical § FFAs certify 25% of telephone inquiries. § Typical red flags include: • Primary concern is financial remuneration. • Foster parenting would be sole source of income. • Unwillingness to forgo corporal punishment. § FFAs reject foster parent candidates if housing is inadequate (e.g., number of bedrooms, number of children already in home) § FFAs reject foster parent candidates if they do not attend initial screening meetings. Best § FFAs certify 10% or fewer of telephone inquiries. § FFAs limit the number of children they will place in a home to four (with exceptions made for siblings). § FFAs have dedicated recruitment staff (in some cases, social workers are expected to share in recruitment responsibilities). Avoid § FFAs certify 50% to 100% of the telephone inquiries. § FFAs prefer single mothers on welfare because they make the best foster parents because they are home with the children and most similar to what children are accustomed to. § FFAs do not limit the number of children placed in a home (e.g., single mother with 6 foster teenagers). § FFAs use only one promotional/outreach tool (e.g., Penny Saver or churches). Recruitment/Orientation Typical § FFAs conduct orientation at FFA office after initial telephone screening. Best § FFAs combine orientation with initial home visit. § FFAs evaluate existing family psycho-dynamics. Avoid N/A Initial Training Typical § Foster parents complete MAPP training. § FFAs provide additional, customized training program, such as PRIDE (Parent Resource Instruction, Development, and Education) or STEP (Systematic Training for Effective Parenting). § Foster parents complete 12 to 30 hours of pre-certification training. § FFAs do not test or otherwise assess what foster parents have retained. Best § Foster parents complete 30 hours of pre-certification training. § Training focuses on family dynamics, not just on the child. § FFAs stress accountability for training material through follow-up discussion with foster parents who must demonstrate what they understand and how they can apply course content. § FFAs include pre- and post-testing for STEP training. § FFAs continue to screen and weed out potential foster parents during and even upon completion of training. § FFAs require foster parents – even if they have been previously certified by another FFA – to complete all the training again. § FFAs provide information about community resources such as WIC (Women, Infant, and Children nutrition program), suitable after-school programs, etc. § FFAs provide foster parents with complete documentation of Title 22 rules and regulations, FFA standards and expectations, and DC&FS standards and expectations. Avoid § Combine orientation with initial training. § Conduct training in short class periods over a 10- to 12-week period, minimizing retention of course content. Practice Aspects of FFA Operations Follow-up Training Typical § FFA leaves the choice of annual training topics up to foster parents. § Foster parents attend 12 hours per year. § FFAs do not test or otherwise assess what foster parents have retained. Best § Foster parents complete 20 hours of annual training. § FFAs provide interactive training versus a lecture format. § FFA training includes role plays to explore various difficult situations. § FFA social workers help foster parents access training for specific issues, such as sexual acting out or extreme oppositional behavior. § FFAs host monthly support groups for foster parents or informs foster parents of such groups as ChildShare. Avoid N/A Placement Typical § FFAs make placements with minimal information. § FFA social workers insist on talking to CSW – not just the TA – prior to making a placement. Best § FFA social workers will decline placements if the FFA does not have the appropriate home. Avoid § FFA social workers are pressured to make placements, regardless of information or availability of appropriate placement. § Most FFA social workers reported some pressure to make sub-optimal placements, despite assurances by administrators that this does not happen. § FFAs accept “D” rated children for foster home placement rather than encouraging group home placement. § FFAs place children based primarily on ethnicity of child. FFA Social Worker Visits Typical § FFA social workers visit their assigned homes once a week. Best § Foster parents have 24-hour access to their assigned social workers via pager. § FFA social workers are in regular telephone contact between weekly visits. § FFAs are small enough to ensure that FFA administrators – not just the assigned social workers – know each family individually. § FFA social workers visit with and observe children in their foster homes as well as in neutral environments, such as schools or after-school programs. Avoid § FFA social workers visit their assigned homes every other week, per the “old” contract. § FFA social workers do not spend “quality” time with foster parents. § FFA social workers only visit with and observe children in the foster home environment Practice Aspects of FFA Operations DCFS/FFA Relationship Typical § CSWs and TAs routinely withhold information about children they are trying to place: • They may not have the information, especially TAs. • They may not want to provide the information because “difficult” children are harder to place. § Neither FFAs nor foster parents have the information to make appropriate placements: • Either they do not have qualified parents for a given type of child or the qualified parents already have enough children placed in their homes. • Foster parents accept children whom they would not if they had complete information prior to the placements. Best § CSWs work constructively and collaboratively with FFA social workers. § CSWs provide all information (e.g., court-related, medical, psychological, educational, etc.) on a timely basis to FFA social workers. Avoid § FFAs treat CSWs with excessive deference. § FFA social workers are instructed to give presents regularly to their CSWs (e.g., gourmet coffee, muffins, etc.). § FFAs are informally “blacklisted” by CSWs when they disagree about how a case is handled. CSW Visits to FFA-Certified Foster Homes Typical § CSWs make monthly visits to their assigned foster children and visit with them for 15 to 30 minutes. Best N/A Avoid § CSWs never visit the child. (Most experienced foster parents reported that one or more of the CSWs assigned to children placed in their homes never made a single visit.) § CSWs visit their assigned children sporadically. § CSWs wait until the end of the month, then demand inconvenient visits (e.g., keep the child home from school, bring to DC&FS office with less than one day notice, etc.). § CSWs only contact foster parents when there is a court date and the CSW is required to prepare and submit a report. Practice Aspects of FFA Operations Quality Assurance and Problem-Solving Typical § FFA social workers make weekly visits to their assigned foster homes. § FFAs maintain an informal network to inform each other regarding decertified foster families. Best § FFA social workers make weekly visits and monthly home inspections at every foster home. § FFA social workers look for signs of emotional neglect, not just rules compliance. § FFA social workers look at the parent and the level of supervision, and do not focus solely on a specific incident. § FFA administrative staff randomly and routinely checks foster parent files. Avoid § FFA social workers limit their contact to the minimum required by the contract. § FFA social workers ignore potential problems if CSW indicates it is not a problem. Recruitment Standards. While selection of foster parents is an inherently subjective process, the more similar guidelines and training FFAs implement the more objective the process. DC&FS should identify the FFAs with the best track records of capable foster parents, and then work with them to develop consistent guidelines for all FFAs to follow. Some of the best practices identified through the FFA site visits include: q Using multiple outreach vehicles – print media, radio, religious organizations, etc. q Establishing standards in compliance with the State and DC&FS regarding financial stability, race or ethnicity, etc. q Combining the initial orientation with the first home visit. Training Programs. DC&FS should work with FFA representatives to evaluate the various training programs and select the best components of each. With some flexibility to meet unique FFA needs, FFAs should offer the same initial and ongoing training programs to foster parents. Training Assessment. Foster parents should be evaluated to determine how well they are mastering the material presented in training programs. Extreme caution should be used, however, to avoid a stringent testing atmosphere, which would undoubtedly discourage many from becoming foster parents. Nevertheless, if foster parents are being held to a higher standard, they should demonstrate mastery of basic childhood development and parenting concepts. FFA training staff should also use class participation as a way to gauge understanding and retention – simply attending a course should not result in automatic credit. Compliance with Rules and Regulations. DC&FS and FFAs must agree on the rules and regulations to be enforced in every certified foster home. Any exceptions to established rules should be made based on a formal request (e.g., “Title 22 Compliance Exception Request”) by the foster parent and the FFA and must be reviewed and approved by DC&FS. Foster parents should not be “shopping” for lax FFAs, and lax CSWs should not be considered “good.” ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF FOSTER PARENTS Foster parents need and deserve training, support, and respect for the difficult tasks they undertake. They are blamed for continuing the same abuse or neglect that forced many children into foster care in the first place, but seldom receive praise for nurturing these children during difficult periods of transition and leading them toward successful futures. Recommendation 13: Develop foster parenting as a legitimate and valued profession. The State CCL, DC&FS, and FFAs must work together to cultivate foster parenting as a legitimate and valued profession and to help change the negative attitudes toward foster parenting. Rather than being tainted by “doing it for the money,” foster parents deserve remuneration for providing important child-care services. Recommendation 14: Provide more comprehensive and consistent training and support to foster parents. All foster parents, whether they are licensed by the State or certified by FFAs, should have the same opportunities to receive training; receive the same information about Title 22; and be held accountable for understanding the same material, rules, and regulations. Such consistency would increase the quality of foster care across the County, and facilitate the evaluation and tracking of foster family quality. Training. DC&FS and FFAs should work together to develop more comprehensive and consistent training for foster parents to provide the support foster parents need and deserve and to increase the quality of foster parents overall. q MAPP, PRIDE, and STEP training programs should be compared and evaluated. The best features of each should be integrated into standardized training materials required for all foster parents. At the same time, FFAs should have the flexibility to develop additional materials to reflect the needs of their foster parents. q DC&FS and FFAs should design (or obtain) and deliver problem-specific training at the time a child with such problems is placed in a home. Foster parents should be forewarned about a child’s specific issues and receive problem-specific training. Foster parents with advance knowledge and training should have more success coping with children who may have problem behaviors and be more effective in helping the child. For example: § Understanding the differences between age-appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior. § Setting limits for children at different ages. § Understanding emancipation guidelines for working with teenagers. § Working with depressed, withdrawn, oppositional, or hyperactive children. q FFA social workers should make more frequent visits and phone calls when an especially difficult child has been placed. Title 22 (Welfare & Institutions Code) Compliance. DC&FS, FFAs, and CCL should work together to determine standards for increased flexibility in foster home rules and regulations to increase: q Overall compliance by allowing foster parents to exercise common sense. q Consistency of compliance across FFAs (to deter foster parents looking for “easy graders”). q Consistency of compliance across CSWs (to deter FFAs looking for “easy graders”). q Safety and security of the child. ISSUES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT q Financial audits of DC&FS payments to FFAs should be preformed. There is concern that payments could be inaccurate, given the incomplete information available on DC&FS databases. q The amount of money paid to State-licensed versus FFA-certified foster families should be reviewed. There should be increased flexibility in both economic incentives and reimbursements for State-licensed and FFA-certified foster families for working with children with more complex problems. PROPOSED ACTIONS This final section outlines a systematic approach for reviewing and implementing the recommendations set forth in this management audit. The first section addresses general actions steps that the different involved organizations and agencies should take to effect the recommended changes. The second section is an outline, listing the time frame, priorities, and accountabilities for implementing the recommendations. ACTION STEPS Because the recommendations represent systemic changes to the FFA model, DC&FS, FFAs, and the other stakeholders should implement the recommended changes, using a multi-step approach, as outlined next. An organization such as ACSA or the FFABCK Steering Committee should be involved with review and implementation of recommendations to represent the interests of FFAs. Many of the recommendations complement and build on each other. Therefore, they should be implemented systematically and not “piecemeal”. Action Step 1: Review and Accept the Recommendations in Principle. First, the DC&FS and representative FFAs should review the recommendations one by one, and accept them in principle. Recommendations should be modified as suggested by group consensus or as required to meet specific constraints, such as State laws and codes, County codes, legal requirements, or availability of resources. All recommendations should be accepted, rejected, or modified; none should be ignored. At this point, the final priorities, timelines, and accountabilities can be set. In most areas, this report has presented the intended thrust of proposed improvement in the recommendations without trying to be too prescriptive regarding the details. Most important is the commitment of the FFAs and DC&FS to improvements in the FFA model and to child welfare overall. Action Step 2: Assign a Project Team to Supervise Implementation. Second, the importance, scope, and interrelationships of the recommended changes require centralized attention and monitoring to ensure a successful outcome. Consequently, a project team, reporting to the DC&FS and representative FFAs should be appointed to handle day-to-day supervision, coordination, and monitoring of implementation efforts. Action Step 3: Develop Activity Plans with Assigned Accountabilities. Third, for each recommended change, DC&FS and FFAs in consultation with the project team should identify the appropriate manager (at DC&FS) or other individual (at FFAs) with responsibility for it. The intent is to suggest ultimate responsibility; certain aspects may be delegated to individuals below the level of the assigned recommendation manager. Moreover, the individual with lead accountability may have to coordinate cross-functionally with other DC&FS or FFA executives and managers. As a starting point, we propose where such responsibility might generally be placed for each recommendation. We also note the relative priority and timing for implementing each recommendation. The assigned recommendation managers should prepare an Activity Plan for each recommendation. Cost implications should be refined at this point, depending on the specific course of action. Each Activity Plan also should contain a statement of each recommendation with the identified manager and defined performance objective. The performance objective is a statement of the expected situation or condition after implementation of the recommendation. This objective should serve as a benchmark to measure accomplishment of the associated recommendation. The Activity Plan should detail the sequential action steps required to enact the recommendation, the assignment of responsibility for completing each step, and the start date and duration of each step. The project team should review and approve each Activity Plan. Action Step 4: Begin Implementation and Monitor Progress. Fourth, once the Activity Plans are approved, the action steps should begin. Each assigned recommendation manager should prepare a quarterly, one-page report concerning the progress of each Activity Plan (i.e., recommendation) for the project team and DC&FS Director. In turn, the project team should summarize these reports for the Department and the FFAs. As recommendation managers identify adjustments necessary to the Activity Plans, they should consult with the project team and note the needed adjustments on their progress reports. The project team should give a quarterly oral report to DC&FS and the FFAs regarding progress to date in implementing the recommendations. Optimally, project teams should share with the Grand Jury progress made, “lessons learned,” adjustments made, and overall successes and setbacks. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS As a starting point, each recommendation is listed in the order they are discussed in this report, noting: q Relative importance — high, medium, low. q Timing for implementation — immediate, near term, long term, and ongoing. q Complexity of the recommendation — easy, moderately difficult, or hard to implement. q Suggested DC&FS or FFA accountability for implementing the recommendations. The symbols for each of these considerations are defined in Exhibit 14. Exhibit 14 Legend for the Recommended Actions Considerations for Legend for Information Provided Each Recommendation Relative importance ¶¶¶ = High priority ¶¶ = Medium priority ¶ = Low priority Timing = Immediate= FY 1999-2000 = Near term = FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002 = Long term= FY 2002-2003 and thereafter ... = Ongoing = Once implemented, maintained on an ongoing basis Complexity 4 = Easy to implement 44 = Moderately difficult to implement 444 = Hard to implement Accountability First listed incumbent has lead responsibility for implementation. Others listed where cross-functional accountabilities are necessary. Detailed descriptions of each recommendation are contained in the section titled “Recommendations”. Exhibit 15 recaps the recommendations set forth in this report. Exhibit 15 Recommended Actions Relative Complex- Account- Recommendation Importance Timing ity ability 1 DC&FS, FFAs, and other child ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS welfare advocates should work Director, collaboratively and cooperatively to FFAs address the complex issues facing child welfare in a major urban environment such as the County of Los Angeles 2 Make the best interests of the child ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, paramount in all aspects of FFAs placement in FFAs and, by extension, in child welfare overall. Develop child-centered outcome ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, standards and measurements for FFAs children, CSWs, FFAs, and foster parents. Develop and implement a new ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS assessment model. Relative Complex- Account- Recommendation Importance Timing ity ability 5 Build child-centered teams to ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, assess and monitor foster children. FFAs 6 Review and implement ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, recommendations detailed in FFAs previous reports pertaining to DC&FS and FFAs. Decentralize the DC&FS ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS organizational structure. Enhance the CSW work ¶¶ ... DC&FS environment. Improve DC&FS-FFA ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS, communication processes and FFAs information flow. Develop comprehensive DC&FS ¶¶¶ ... DC&FS systems and infrastructures to collect, update, track, and report updated, timely, complete, and accurate information. Address the gap between OHCEU ¶¶ ... DC&FS workload and available staff. Standardize FFA practices based ¶¶ ... FFAs on identified best practices to improve performance at all FFAs and to recruit consistently high quality foster parents. Develop foster parenting as a ¶¶ ... DC&FS, legitimate and valued profession. FFAs 14 Provide more comprehensive and ¶¶ ... FFAs consistent training and support to foster parents. REDUCING THE HEALTH RISKS OF SWIMMING AT LOS ANGELES COUNTY BEACHES TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms Summary Section 1. Introduction 1.1 Scope of this Report 1.2 Evaluation Approach 1.3 Organization of the Report Section 2. Background 2.1 Water Quality at Los Angeles County Beaches 2.2 Extent of Health Risks of Swimming at the Beach 2.3 Causes of Beach Water Pollution 2.1 Overview of the Major Agencies and Organizations Involved in Water Quality Issues Section 3. Improving Water Quality Monitoring and Risk Communication 3.1 Beach Monitoring and Risk Assessment 3.2 Risk Communication Section 4. Recommendations for Improving Water Quality during Dry Weather At Seven Problem Beaches 4.1 Surfrider 4.2 Topanga Canyon Beach 4.3 Santa Monica Canyon 4.4 Santa Monica Pier 4.5 Pico-Kenter Storm Drain 4.6 Mother’s Beach, Marina del Rey 4.7 Cabrillo Beach Section 5. Recommendations for Improving Quality of Urban Runoff 5.1 Setting Goals for the Uses of Rivers, Creeks, Estuaries and Ocean 5.2 Identifying Pollution Sources 5.3 The Regional Board’s Role in Designing Programs 5.4 Enhancing Incentives to Improve Water Quality 5.5 Matching Authority with Responsibility 5.6 Policies for Diverting Urban Runoff into the Sewer System 5.7 Monitoring and Enforcement 5.8 Funding for Water Quality Programs LIST OF ACRONYMS BMP Best Management Practice CDS Continuous Deflective Separation DBH Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors DHS Los Angeles County Department of Health Services NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RCD Resource Conservation District RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SIC Standard Industrial Classification SMURRF Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility SMBRP Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TWC Topanga Watershed Committee WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WHO World Health Organization
R90-91

91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 Fiscal Year Most collect telephone calls made by inmates are local toll calls and are provided by Pac Bell. The rates charged for such calls include a surcharge per call of $2.65 plus a first minute and additional minute charges that are both time-of-day and distance sensitive. An example of what a 10 minute long call made at 2:00 p.m., with a distance of 25 miles, would cost is provided in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 County Of Los Angeles, Sheriff's Department Example of a Collect Call Costs FY 1998-1999 Rate Element Cost Components Operator Surcharge $.95 Pay Station Surcharge .25 Inmate Surcharge 1.45 Day Rate – 25 Miles: q First Minute @ $.2014 .2014 q Each Additional Minute @ $.1400 1.2600 Total Cost for 10 Minute Call $4.1114 q Jail Stores. IWF now contracts its Jail Stores operations with Canteen Corporation (Canteen). Prior to contracting Jail Store operations with Canteen, the Inmate Services Unit had more than 60 employees who sold commissary items to inmates. In FY 1994-1995 and FY 1995-1996, Jail Store profits were approximately $500,000 each year. Canteen began operation of Jail Stores in fall 1997. More than $2 million in profits were generated in FY 1998-1999, with Jail Store operations outsourced to Canteen. Canteen pays the IWF a 31% commission on gross sales. q Vending Machines. Two companies, Burris & Son Vending and MAB Vending, provide vending services in County jails. Commissions from vending machine sales in FY 1998-1999 were $292,373. Commissions range from 15% to 22%, depending on the products sold. q Interest on IWF Funds. In accordance with California Government Code Section 53600 and Section 53630, IWF deposits virtually all of its cash in the Los Angeles County Treasury. IWF’s deposits, along with funds from other local government agencies, make up a pool that the County Treasury manages for investment purposes. The County Treasury charges a fee of 7 to 9 basis points annually on the funds in the County's investment pool (a basis point is equal to 0.01%). This expense is deducted from pool earnings prior to allocation of interest earned to the individual funds. In FY 1998-1999, interest earned on IWF balances in the County pool was approximately $2.5 million, with year-end accruals. Earned interest is deposited into the IWF fund account maintained by the Treasurer. Exhibit 5 shows the interest earned by IWF for the period July 1998 through June 1999. Exhibit 5 County Of Los Angeles, Sheriff's Department Inmate Welfare Fund Interest Allocation July 1998 Through June 1999 Allocated Approximate Average Daily Accrued Interest Annual Month Ending Fund Balance ($) Earned ($) Earnings (%) July 1998 $39,913,773.54 $188,667.70 5.67% August 1998 $35,763,016.90 $168,362.34 5.65% September 1998 $36,857,602.51 $170,132.44 5.54% October 1998 $35,000,939.12 $161,049.09 5.52% November 1998 $36,863,769.34 $162,744.14 5.30% December 1998 $38,634,531.03 $171,869.85 5.34% January 1999 $52,555,957.49 $231,382.18 5.28% February 1999 $58,383,525.03 $240,431.24 4.94% March 1999 $60,759,895.64 $261,111.76 5.16% April 1999 $60,011,293.80 $254,414.70 5.09% May 1999 $59,463,475.07 $258,517.52 5.22% June 1999 $57,841,170.74 $245,992.37 5.10% Total $2,514,765.33 q Hacienda La Puente Refund (FY 1997-1998). Each year, IWF funds HLPUSD educational programs provided to jail inmates. When HLPUSD receives State funding, based on the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of inmates in classes, HLPUSD refunds the amount of the State funding to IWF. For the 1997-1998 school year, HLPUSD received from the State and refunded to IWF more than $5.5 million. Inmate Welfare Fund Approved 1999-2000 Budget IWF has an approved budget for FY 1999-2000 of approximately $72,252,000. The budget is divided into three major categories: Total Services and Supplies of $39,383,000; Fixed Assets of $3,000,000; and Other Financing Uses of $ 29,869,000. Available revenues to support the $72 million budget are generated by the sources of funding, displayed in Exhibit 6. Exhibit 6 County Of Los Angeles, Sheriff's Department Sources of Funding (FY 1999-2000) Sources of Funds Amount Fund Balance on June 30, 1999 $23,141,000 Canceled Reserves and Designations 12,256,000 Interest 2,000,000 Revenue 34,855,000 Total $72,252,000 Exhibit 7, "Sheriff-Inmate Welfare Fund, FY 1999-2000 Adopted Budget," provides detail at the account code level. Exhibit 7 County Of Los Angeles, Sheriff's Department IWF Adopted Budget FY 1999-2000 IWF Adopted Budget Services and Supplies Clothing and Personal Supplies $910,000 Communications 85,000 Household Expense 270,000 Maintenance Equipment 610,000 Maintenance, Building and Improvements 380,000 Medical, Dental and Lab Supplies 10,000 Office Expense, Postage 35,000 Office Expense, Stationary and Forms 75,000 Office Expense, Other Office Furniture 100,000 Photocopy Supplies 30,000 Publications 250,000 Office Supplies Audio Video 15,000 IWF Adopted Budget Office Supplies 100,000 Office Equipment 100,000 Professional and Specialized Service Feed, Permits and Testing 50,000 Inmate Education 15,000,000 Other Professional and Specialized Service 1,539,000 Purchasing Services 25,000 Inmate Services and Accounting Staff 1,300,000 Reimbursements Rents and Leases, Equipment 10,000 Small Tools and Instruments 450,000 Special Departmental Expense Recreational Supplies 45,000 Bulletins and Mailings 5,000 Cable TV Service 60,000 Outside Training 5,000 Film, Development and Supplies 10,000 Miscellaneous Inmate Welfare Programs 13,064,000 Trusty Barbershop 15,000 Vocational Supplies 25,000 Transportation and Travel Traveling Expense 10,000 Transportation and Travel – Other, Freight 50,000 Computer Hardware 4,750,000 Total Services and Supplies $39,383,000 Fixed Assets 3,000,000 Other Financing Uses Jail Hospital Information System 4,000,000 Title 15 Staffing Reimbursement 2,200,000 Sybil Brand Construction Project 10,791,000 Other Capital Projects 4,112,000 Custody Facility Maintenance 8,766,000 Total Appropriation Request $72,252,000 Inmate Services Programs The Inmate Services Unit administers several inmate programs, as outlined next: q Office of Religious and Volunteer Services. More than 2,000 representatives from the various ministries — Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Moslem, Christian Scientist, Jehovah Witness, Episcopalian — currently volunteer within the County jail system to provide for the spiritual needs of the incarcerated men and women. Christian Chaplain Services, Inc., under contract with LASD, provides a Chaplain Coordinator, responsible for coordinating the counseling, Bible study, and worship services at each facility. Inmate Services Unit employees coordinate and support the work of these chaplains and volunteers. Members of self-help organizations also conduct meetings inside the custody facilities, including representatives from Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, and the Women’s Lawyers Organization. The Friends Outside program provides direct-client services to inmate families. Friends Outside employees administer the program from offices located at Men’s Central Jail and Twin Towers Correctional Facility (TTCF). Visits are made in the attorney’s room of the Men’s Central Jail or in the modules of TTCF. This program is provided under a Board of Supervisors’ approved contract. q Inmate Commissary. Under contract, the Canteen Corporation (Canteen) operates the Inmate Commissary, also know as the Jail Store. Once each week, inmates may order snacks, toiletry, and other items by completing a Commissary Order Form. Because the jails operate in a “cashless” environment, the cost of ordered items is charged against an inmate's account. q Vending Machines. Inmates may also purchase certain items made available in vending machines. Vending purchases are paid using a vending card. Purchased and held by inmates, the vending card keeps track of its current value by deducting the costs of purchases when the card is inserted into the vending machine. q Correctional Education. LASD contracts with the Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (HLPUSD), Correctional Education Division, to provide educational programs at all County jail facilities. During the period July 1998 through June 1999, HLPUSD provided approximately 1.84 million student hours of teaching to 122,140 students in the County of Los Angeles jails. HLPUSD provides academic, special purpose, and vocational classes to interested inmates. Exhibit 8 lists some of the classes provided to inmates. IWF pays in advance for delivery of the HLPUSD programs. Based on the number of hours of instruction provided, a portion of HLPUSD expenses is reimbursed through grants and State budget monies (i.e., ADA). When received, HLPUSD refunds the reimbursed amount to IWF. Exhibit 8 Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, Correctional Education Division: List of Classes Offered Academic Classes English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) GED Certificate Prep & Test Special Classes High School Diploma Track Art/Drawing Domestic Violence Education. REACH Drug Treatment Program (Rebuilding, Education, Awareness, Counseling, Hope) Graphic Arts Health and Safety HIV/AIDS Education Job Search Skills Parenting Education Prenatal Education Substance Abuse Education TALK (Teaching And Loving Kids), a Visitation Program Vocational Classes Animal Grooming Auto Body and Repair Building Maintenance Carpentry Carpet and Floor Laying Ceramics Commercial Painting Cosmetology/Manicuring Food Preparation and Service Introduction to Computers Introduction/Building Traders Landscaping/Sprinkler Repair Office Occupations Offset Printing Power Sewing Sign Painting/Graphics Telecommunications Welding Library Services CONCLUSIONS: STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT This section outlines the key conclusions, including strengths and opportunities for improvement, of the study. MAJOR STRENGTHS During the course of the study, several observations were made that are clear strengths for LASD as it strives to improve its administration and use of the IWF funds. With annual revenues of approximately $35 million, the sheer size of the IWF fund presents opportunities that a smaller fund would not be able to consider. LASD has aggressively pursued contract negotiations with IWF vendors to maximize available funds through commissions on sales. As a result, LASD is in the enviable position of having an IWF with annual revenues that are greater than many other departments’ annual budgets. As a Special Fund, whose purpose is defined in Section 4025 of the California Penal Code, the size of the IWF fund could support significant initiatives that could result in meaningful change in inmate programs. A relatively small amount of the funding, dedicated annually to new program research, development, pilot implementation, and outcome measurement, could enhance and solidify a leadership position for LASD in the nation. The County and LASD view IWF as an important source of funding. IWF represents a significant incremental funding source that may be expended primarily for the benefit, education, and welfare of inmates confined in the County jails. If IWF did not exist, efforts to fund inmate programs through the General Fund would be routinely subjected to the realities of limited resources and the competing demands of different programs. The existence of IWF makes support of inmate programs easier. Furthermore, because funds not needed for the welfare of inmates may be used for the maintenance of County jail facilities, IWF can fund jail maintenance programs that may have otherwise been deferred. The IWC is comprised of committed civilians with diverse backgrounds. The IWC is made up of a diversified, cross-section of nine civilians, representing a broad range of professional backgrounds, business experience, community leadership, and ethnic diversity. The variety of Commission member professions includes: accountant, architect, banker, businessman, dentist, journalist, law enforcement, and medical doctor. In addition to their professional experiences, Commissioners have been active in their communities. Commissioners bring their own perspectives and hopes for what the IWC can accomplish and how they may be of service to the Sheriff. They are sincerely interested in: (1) providing leadership and new ideas in their advisory role to the Sheriff, (2) supporting the Sheriff’s efforts to develop effective programs that work toward rehabilitating inmates and reducing recidivism, and (3) serving the Sheriff and the inmates as well as the Los Angeles community at large. Other California sheriff’s departments contacted — Fresno, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco — either have no advisory commission or just a commission comprised of sheriff’s department personnel. The fact that the County of Los Angeles IWC is made up of civilians enables it to bring a valuable non-Departmental perspective to the funding requests that it is asked to review and approve. This independent, civilian commission is easily a "best practice" that other sheriff's departments should consider. The new Sheriff, elected in 1998, prides himself in the important leadership role he has adopted in providing a vision for LASD. The newly created Correctional Services Division (in which the Inmate Services Unit is found) is tasked with placing more focused attention on the breadth of correctional services provided to inmates. The new leadership — starting with the new Sheriff and cascading down through the ranks — brings a commitment to championing new ideas and a willingness to explore new and different ways to do things. A renewed energy and a potential for change has accompanied this new leadership. New approaches and new programs should be considered and adopted before this nurturing environment, full of excitement and hope, is dissipated by the din of daily routines. LASD has assigned staff to manage and administer IWF. The Inmate Services Unit is dedicated solely to the management and administration of the IWF. With its clear focus on the IWF funds and the programs funded by it, the Inmate Services Unit can work on programs and operations without distraction. Through the development of internal expertise and the funding of external resources, LASD is well positioned to implement the recommendations outlined in this study, such as measurements of program success and ongoing incremental improvements based on program monitoring. (Note: Much of the staff focus has been on processing payments, accounting for funds, tracking revenues, etc. As discussed later, our recommendations require an additional focus on the strategic use of IWF funds.) The County Counsel, through its Legal Advisor, assumes an active role in IWF. The County Counsel’s office has assigned a Legal Advisor to LASD to: (1) ensure that requested uses of IWF funds meet the legal requirements of Section 4025 of the California Penal Code, (2) serve as an advocate for LASD in how IWF funds are used, (3) clarify the role and actions of the IWC, and (4) protect the integrity of the process used to determine how IWF funds would be allocated. (Note: With such active involvement, the Legal Advisor will need to take care to focus on giving legal advice versus making business decisions.) The document flow for processing a funding request for IWC review and approval is well defined. In June 1999, the Legal Advisor helped IWF staff to document the workflow for obtaining approval for the expenditure of IWF funds. The procedures detail the document flow and steps to be taken beginning with the submission of a written request to the Inmate Services Unit through review and approval by the IWC. These procedures are an important first step to ensure clear understanding and encourage compliance. A number of IWF-funded programs are considered excellent models for other law enforcement agencies. On the basis of interviews within the County of Los Angeles and with other sheriff's departments, a number of IWF-funded programs are referred to as excellence models, including TALK (a visitation program, “Teaching And Loving Kids”) and the Biscailuz Recovery Center. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT In the past, IWF has had financial audits conducted that focused on financial transactions and fund balances. The County's Auditor-Controller and others are comfortable with the integrity of the contracting procedures and financial checks and balances that are in place. Therefore, the focus of this study has been on opportunities for strengthening its management practices. In identifying the opportunities for improvement, the Grand Jury considered IWF's historical context, the recent growth and use of funds, and the shortcomings for IWF in best using these funds in future years. Therefore, the opportunities are presented as constructive directions for IWF to embark on rather than a report card of its past performance. There is no formal IWF Strategic Plan in place that provides a long-term vision of how IWF will contribute to the success of LASD. No Strategic Plan exists for IWF. Because there is no plan, IWF expenditures are made based either on the anticipated needs when the IWF budget is prepared or as individual requests are submitted for consideration to the IWC. During interviews with LASD personnel, none knew of a Strategic Plan for IWF. Although Inmate Services has complied a “wish list” document, an enumeration of projects that might be funded through IWF, it is not a Strategic Plan. The lack of a Strategic Plan may be explained by the evolution of IWF. Although in existence some fifty years, revenues for IWF were limited until 1987. Once IWF had access to revenues generated by telephone commissions and bonuses, the size of the fund increased. And with each round of new contracts, the revenue stream has increased. Telephone-based revenue grew from nothing before 1987, to approximately $4 million in 1991, to about $11 million in 1995, to more than $31 million in FY 1998-1999. Total revenues for IWF in FY 1998-1999 were more than $43 million (including the refund from HLPUSD). The approved FY 1999-2000 budget for IWF is in excess of $72 million, which includes carryovers from prior years. IWF has changed from a relatively small fund, to one with a budget substantially larger than whole departmental budgets. Prior to 1993, the uses of IWF funds were limited to the “benefit, education, and welfare” of inmates. With the amendment of Section 4025 in 1993, maintenance of county jail facilities became an appropriate use of IWF funds. At the same time, the County of Los Angeles was experiencing an economic downturn and funding shortages. Many County departments chose to defer maintenance and facility investments because of these shortages and the need to maintain ongoing operations. Within LASD, competition for available IWF funds increased. Moreover, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) viewed IWF as an important source for funding LASD's needed maintenance efforts. Since 1993, dollar amounts (and the percentage of total IWF dollars) allocated to maintenance-related efforts at LASD have increased significantly. Without a Strategic Plan, the projects funded by IWF will be determined by “who gets there first”, “who writes a better justification”, “how much money is left”, “what important project can’t get funded through the General Fund”, and a host of other reasons. As a result, funding may or may not be based on LASD’s vision and goals, and how IWF can support that vision and those goals. The IWC does not review all funding uses of IWF. LASD divides uses of IWF funds into two general categories: (1) ongoing operational uses and (2) special requests, which are submitted to the IWC for approval. The ongoing operational uses include both routine recurring expenditures (e.g., “admission kits” for newly booked inmates) and larger major renovation, maintenance, data systems, supplies needs, or "Other Financing Uses". For example, Other Financing Uses include such items as funding for the Jail Hospital Information System (JHIS), Title 15 Staffing Reimbursement, or Custody Facility Maintenance. On the basis of a review of the logs listing items presented to the IWC for review and approval, the dollars approved by the IWC were significantly less than IWF funds expended. After the election of a new Sheriff, the IWC was dissolved. Between October 1998 and July 1999, items requesting IWF funding were reviewed and approved by the LASD Budget Authority. Furthermore, even when the IWC does convene, certain items contained in the IWF Budget are not brought before the Commissioners for review. Clearly, if no IWC is sitting, it cannot review or approve funding requests; moreover, LASD should not delay requests pending the formation of a new IWC. Because the IWC acts only in an advisory capacity, the approval of requests without its review is well within the authority of the Sheriff. If the IWC is to be effective in acting as a consistent sounding board for the Sheriff, however, the IWC should, if at all possible, review all funding requests. Having different individuals or groups approve IWF funding requests, especially without the benefit of being able to refer to clearly communicated priorities and guidelines or funding patterns of the past, will possibly generate the appearance of a capricious and inequitable review process. As the IWC, or for that matter any other reviewer, considers a request for IWF funding, the following information is lacking: (1) a formal Strategic Plan and (2) written policies that clearly define what types of expenditures are appropriate for IWF funds. Without such information, it will be difficult to ensure that programs funded by IWF will consistently support the vision and goals of LASD. There is no written documentation that provides clear funding guidance regarding what categories of expenditures — "funding mix" — are appropriate for IWF. Documentation that provides guidance regarding what are appropriate IWF expenditures is primarily limited to Section 4025 of the California Penal Code displayed earlier as Exhibit 1. The Section 4025 provisions are general in nature, providing the needed flexibility for a state such as California with 58 very different counties, but do little to clarify exactly how a given county might apply it to its particular situation. In discussions with LASD personnel, Section 4025 was almost always the referenced source for what IWF funds could be used. When asked to clarify how the language in Section 4025 should be applied by LASD, however, there was no uniformity in responses. Title 15, Section 1043, Inmate Welfare Fund — Accounting, was helpful in providing some insight and guidance, but was repealed in 1998. To the best of our knowledge, there is no case law that is applicable to this issue. The Custody Division Manual, §3-75/020.00 — Inmate Welfare Fund Expenditures, offers some guidance in the following: "Inmate Welfare Fund monies and supplies shall not be used to offset necessary and required expenses of confinement such as meals, clothing, housing or medical services." Clarification is needed as to what comprises “required expense of confinement”. That clarification does not exist. A draft of a revision to this section, dated January 5, 2000, further dilutes any clarification by using only “meals or housing” rather than “meals, clothing, housing or medical services.” The lack of any clear guidelines can be attributed to many things. Prior to 1993, IWF funds could only be used for the benefit, education, and welfare of inmates. IWF has grown from a special fund with limited revenues and application into one with significant revenues and considerable latitude – maintenance of county jail facilities – as to what expenditures are possible. Indeed, IWF has been cast in the role of provider of substantial incremental funds for jail maintenance. Since 1993, IWF has helped offset a General Fund budget that inadequately addressed the “deferred maintenance” of LASD physical plant and facilities. As a result: q The vagueness of Section 4025, coupled with little clarification at the Los Angeles County level, complicates the review and approval process and increases the number of requests submitted for review. Not having a clearly stated policy regarding appropriate uses of IWF funds generates IWF requests that needlessly go through the review process only to be denied. Additional resources are used to respond to questions about what may or may not be acceptable and how to document requests. Requests submitted and denied are returned, often without a helpful explanation as why the request was denied (e.g., “Not an appropriate request.”). Once denied, however, funding requests can be reworked and resubmitted. With the benefit of some wordsmithing and the addition of appropriate phrases, the re-worked request can end up being approved. With little or no change to the actual project, a project, previously denied, is approved. Resources, which might otherwise be put to more productive uses, are used to provide individualized request-by-request help, covering appropriate uses of IWF funds and how to document and submit funding requests. q Section 4025 is vague regarding projects to be funded by IWF, allowing for broad interpretation. As already discussed, Section 4025 is vague in how IWF funds may be used, and internal IWF documents do little to clarify how Section 4025 will be applied within LASD. As a result, LASD has used IWF to fund a broad range of programs and items. Although the vagueness of Section 4025 offers LASD significant flexibility in how funds are expended, this flexibility has downside risks. Without clear guidelines, IWF funding decisions are subject to second-guessing by outside agencies. Continued use of IWF funds for certain items, seen as “pet projects” but of little perceived value, subjects LASD to outside pressures. Such outside criticism, justified or not, takes the focus of IWF away from its primary purpose — education, benefit, and welfare — and may needlessly redirect resources that could otherwise be better used. q Because of the lack of clear guidelines, IWF-funded projects may come under debate as to whether they meet the spirit of Section 4025. Penal Code Section 4025 was amended in 1993 so that any funds not needed for the welfare of the inmates may now be used for the maintenance of county jail facilities. The statute lists permissive expenditures to include the salary and benefit of personnel used in the programs to benefit inmates, including education, drug and alcohol treatment, welfare, library, accounting, and other programs deemed appropriate by the Sheriff. But the first question would normally be, “Are there programs for the benefit of inmates that should be funded that are not?” The 1993 amendment gives much wider latitude to the permissive uses of IWF funds. To date, the use of these funds has not been challenged in court. In the event the courts were to determine that funds needed for the inmates’ welfare were instead used for jail maintenance (or other needs outside this open-ended definition), the remedy could be to replace the wrongfully expended funds. As Penal Code Section 4015 makes most costs associated with jail operations a county charge, the County General Fund would likely be the source for the funds. Because IWF currently represents a major source of possible funding for large dollar projects, multiple year projects have been funded through IWF. Some may not fully comply with at least the spirit – if not also the letter – of Section 4025. For example, is the development of systems for inmate tracking, inmate property management, and inmate record management for the “benefit” of inmates, a “maintenance” item, or a “necessary and required expense for confinement”? How would an inventory control system for food services be viewed, “a necessary and required expense for confinement”? Smaller projects are also subject to the gray area of what is appropriate for IWF funds. Would the installation of a new video monitoring and recording system be considered a “benefit” to inmates, or "a necessary expense for confinement"? Another example of a major project that could be argued from different perspectives is the Jail Hospital Information System (JHIS) – clearly a worthwhile project that needs to be done. Funding through IWF will exceed $15 million and perhaps it would not have been done without the use of IWF funds. Nevertheless, some could argue that JHIS is potentially "a stretch" to include the design, development, testing, and implementation of the JHIS, including labor costs, as an example of “jail maintenance”. It meets a general test of being for the “benefit and welfare” of the inmate population, but could fail the test of offsetting “necessary and required expenses of confinement,” such as medical services. In conclusion, without clear guidelines on what are appropriate uses for IWF, justifications becomes labored and further bring into question compliance with the spirit of the fund (see Exhibit 1). So when funds are used to purchase suicide blankets or concertina wire, is that an example of a required expense of confinement? There is no formal orientation for new IWC Commissioners. For many years, the IWC had a fairly stable membership. In 1998, the sitting IWC submitted their resignations and a new IWC was formed. Of the nine sitting Commissioners, only three had previously served on the IWC. The six newly appointed Commissioners have approached their new positions with energy and a desire to contribute, but with no formal training or orientation. Moreover, they are not interested in being "a rubber stamp" for items brought before the IWC for consideration and approval. All new Commissioners participated in focus groups that addressed various IWF related- topics. The topics of greatest concern to the Commissioners were: IWC orientation; IWF purpose and mission; and IWC strategic planning, including decision-making criteria, inmate program development, programmatic performance measures, and funding mix. The reported way to come-up-to-speed regarding the IWC was to attend meetings, listen, and ask questions. Each of the Commissioners reported that they had received a document that provided them an overview of IWF, covering background information about some current programs, vendors, and contracts. But each also thought that a formal orientation would have been valuable. The Commissioners have been selected, and have so volunteered, because of their desire to serve their community. Their ability to do so is determined by what they know about IWF. Some of the questions that an orientation may address are: What is its purpose, how does it work, what has it accomplished, what is it planning to accomplish, and what is the job of a Commissioner? Commissioners asked about personal liability and insurance. The Commissioners’ ability to be effective — to bring to bear their experience, their professional knowledge and judgment, and their position within their community — is diminished, subject to their understanding of the role of the IWC and their role on the IWC. LASD does not systematically share experiences and successes with other law enforcement agencies. LASD willingly and routinely shares information about its IWF and its programs when approached. When designing new programs, LASD seeks out "best practices" and successful programs to model from other large law enforcement agencies, such as those found in New York, Chicago, Miami-Dade, etc. Participation in formal or informal exchanges of information with other sheriff's departments in California on the management of IWF or on programs funded by IWF also occurs, but not in a systematic way. For example, previously more active, LASD has not actively participated in the California Jail Program Association since the mid-1990s. Several of the other counties contacted spoke highly of such LASD programs as TALK, which was well regarded and copied. But LASD was not currently looked to as an active participant, although the smaller State jurisdictions believed they would benefit from LASD's experiences. The rewards of participation in associations or other groups with similar IWF legal requirements, operational considerations, or programmatic interests are not always easy to define. Participation does, however, help an organization keep from falling victim to the “not invented here" syndrome. Sharing ideas among program professionals brings a new perspective. Moreover, because other sheriff's departments are trying to make improvements, they can benefit from LASD's leadership role in sharing its experiences. In many ways, the size of LASD's IWF permits it to contribute significantly to the development and piloting of innovative programs that can become Statewide and national models. Conversely, LASD can benefit from the successes of other sheriff's departments. At times, smaller sheriff's departments are better positioned to try and refine innovations on a smaller scale that might then be applied and expanded in the County of Los Angeles. Financial audits are limited to financial standards and paper trail audits. The last audit performed on IWF was completed in 1998 for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1997. It was a financial audit of the balance sheet, statement of revenues and expenditures, and the statement of changes in the balance fund. The audit looked at the financial operations of the fund. According to the Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller’s office, there is currently no requirement to audit the IWF. With the repeal of guidelines in Title 15, Section 1043, it is not clear if an audit of IWF is even suggested anywhere. As important as financial audits are, more meaningful audits also look at the operation of a function and determine if it is in compliance with the policies, procedures, and practices that govern the function. Having an outside auditor periodically review both IWF's accounting records and operational activities helps ensure that the pressures of day-to-day operations do not diminish the focus on adhering to IWF’s purpose and generally good business practices. RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations are set forth to position IWF for the next three to five years in how it can best strategically use and manage its funds. During the 1950s through the 1970s, the revenues were small and did not require the level of sophistication that a $35 million fund requires today. What may have been considered innovative a decade ago, may be commonplace today and passé tomorrow. Therefore, LASD and IWF must continually strive to improve and expand its capabilities. Our recommendations are presented in the context that IWF is today a large fund that has been used for meeting immediate LASD programmatic, infrastructure, and maintenance needs; continuing inmate education and welfare programs of the past; and introducing new programs and initiatives. Our recommendations will help to position IWF so that it can be used more strategically in the future, particularly in terms of meaningful and lasting programmatic outcomes. STRATEGY Recommendation 1: The Inmate Services Unit, with the involvement of the IWC, should develop a Strategic Plan for IWF. As a fund with annual revenues in excess of $35 million, IWF is at the stage of development that it requires a Strategic Plan to guide the fruitful use of its funds and programs. Although IWF managers and Commissioners consider each program proposal from a strategic or tactical perspective, LASD has done little in the area of true strategic planning. Strategic planning is both a bottom-up and top-down process. The Sheriff has the primary responsibility for driving strategic thinking throughout LASD. The Sheriff may delegate the planning process activities to IWF; however, the Sheriff must instill the importance of strategic thinking, business planning, change throughout LASD’s work environment, and programmatic innovation within IWF. IWF’s Strategic Plan should be congruent with LASD’s priorities and goals, the County’s mission and expectations, the policies set by the Board of Supervisors, and the California Penal Code. A Strategic Plan can move IWF away from being simply a funding tool — a bank account. In concert with a clear vision for IWF, a Strategic Plan can ensure that funding is designated for those projects that are important building blocks in getting from today’s "here and now" to the future’s vision. Development of a Strategic Plan for IWF should be a joint effort of the Inmate Services Unit and IWC with input, review, and approval of the Sheriff. The planning phases for IWF to consider in preparing a Strategic Plan are: q Phase 1: Articulate a vision for IWF. IWF should begin with developing a vision about the future of the Fund, including its compatibility with LASD's future directions, strategic uses of available funds for both near- and longer term change and innovation, etc. The vision is what IWF can be, and considers IWF’s future requirements. It describes what IWF could become in the next 5, 10, or more years. The Sheriff should discuss this vision with the IWF team and Commissioners as a means to further refine it. In moving forward, LASD should revisit its vision and periodically refine and renew its commitment to it. q Phase 2: Conduct an environmental scan. Next, an objective analysis of the current environment in which IWF operates needs to be undertaken. This analysis should include an assessment of both IWF's external and internal environments; identification of "best practices" in inmate education and welfare programs; related strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. u Phase 2a: Analyze IWF's external environment. The external analysis should include: inmate population demographics; environmental, social, and economic trends; governmental and legislative initiatives; new technology; and related considerations. u Phase 2b: Analyze IWF's internal environment. Coupled with the examination of the external environment, IWF should conduct an internal environmental review, which describes its history, purpose, core programs, operations, facilities, available resources, governance and organizational structure, LASD programmatic and maintenance priorities and previous outcomes, and the County's and LASD's values and expectations. q Phase 3: Define IWF's mission. Based on the vision, LASD should then develop its mission statement, based on the compiled information and consistent with LASD's mission and Section 4025. The mission statement should clearly state what role the Inmate Services Unit will play by asking such questions as: “Who are we?” “Why were we?” “How are we?” “Where are we?” “What leadership role in inmate programmatic innovations do we want to assume in California? In the nation? In the world?” The answers to these questions can serve as a starting point for honing IWF's mission. IWF should also consider different models. For example, the Inmate Services Unit might define itself as a grant-making organization, which funds programs and projects that are then implemented by either LASD or contractors. (Note: In many ways, this model reflects IWF's current approach.) Also as part of the mission statement, IWF can also set forth its philosophy or desired values. q Phase 4: Develop IWF planning assumptions. Probably one of the most important next phases is the definition of planning assumptions, including IWF’s response to the SWOT analysis of the external and internal environment, its opportunities, and abilities to address potential barriers to change (such as the County's reliance on IWF for maintenance). In developing the planning assumptions, IWF can consider the “best case,” “most likely case,” and “worst case” scenarios. During these discussions, IWF and IWC should consider the financial and ethical implications of different profit margins. In the context of strategic planning, IWF has the opportunity to explore whether the “most likely case” scenario is desirable and, if not, develop strategies to make the “best case” scenario more likely. Priorities should then be set. q Phase 5: Set strategic priorities for IWF. The mission statement and planning assumptions will form the foundation for establishing priorities. It is typically recommended that agencies limit priorities to the top 3 to 6 priorities to be tackled over the next one to three years. Among the strategic priorities should be the development of "funding mix" strategies. During recessionary times, more IWF dollars may be required for maintenance; during economically better times, more IWF dollars may be devoted to inmate welfare and education programs. In addition, although some initiatives may overlap, IWF should define what criteria determine if a request meets the definition of inmate education, welfare, health, maintenance, etc. q Phase 6: Develop goals and objectives to support IWF strategic priorities. The first part of the strategic planning process is an outgrowth of research, discussions, meetings, and internal reviews. What is critical is the development of the specific objectives that will forge IWF’s future directions and become operational. Therefore, the Commissioners and IWF’s managers should set goals and objectives that support IWF’s strategic priorities. These goals and objectives can then be summarized in an Action Plan, which outlines how IWF will implement the newly defined strategic directions. The Action Plan should summarize the Strategic Plan goals and objectives and indicate at a minimum: u Activities to be accomplished. u Timing. u Expected outcomes and performance measurements. u Assigned accountability (who is responsible for implementation). IWF managers will need to balance how they realistically achieve the Strategic Plan while they perform their day-to-day duties or operations. q Phase 7: Link IWF Strategic Plan to IWF's and LASD's budgets. Too often, Strategic Plans are developed in isolation from an organization's financial reality. When such isolation occurs, the Plans become “wish lists” and little is implemented. Consequently, to ensure that reality checks occur, the goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan must be incorporated into the IWF budgeting process. In some cases, where certain investments may be needed, the target dates for completion may need to be adjusted because of financial constraints. In other cases, new high priority initiatives may receive needed funding over other historically valued activities. The Strategic Plan should then be the driving factor in developing the portions of the LASD budget that use IWF funds. Other LASD plans, such as Facilities Plans or Information System (IS) Plans, should also reflect approved IWF funding. q Phase 8: Communicate the intent of the Strategic Plan. Moreover, once developed, the Strategic Plan should be formally communicated to the Board of Supervisors, CAO, Auditor-Controller, IWF staff, involved LASD employees, and other interested entities. Specifically, IWF employees must know: u What the goals are and understand how they (or their operations) contribute toward their achievement. u How progress and achievement will be reported and monitored. q Phase 9: Monitor, adjust as required, and report progress. An integral part of the strategic planning process is the ongoing evaluation of progress and results. Evaluation is critical for furnishing feedback on the implementation process, changes in the external or internal environment; impact on the jails, programs being delivered, maintenance requirements, inmates' needs; etc. Through such evaluation and feedback mechanisms, the Strategic Plan can be refined as warranted and become a useful road map for the future. Moreover, IWF managers should report progress to the Commissioners at least quarterly and summarize achievements at year-end for the Sheriff, Commissioners, CAO, and other interested parties. The Sheriff should hold IWF managers accountable for the achievement of the goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan. q Phase 10: Annually refine the Strategic Plan. Accomplishments from the prior year can be documented and used for redefining the subsequent year’s goals and objectives. A strategic-planning calendar should also be part of the evaluation process. In this way, the specific time frames for reviewing accomplishments, reviewing progress toward priorities, and redefining goals and objectives are formally outlined and can become part of routine operations. Through such scheduling, strategic planning becomes an ongoing process. In summary, developing a Strategic Plan requires that some or all of the following be done: (1) define a strategic planning process and all its stakeholders, (2) have a clearly articulated mission and goals, (3) clearly define the categories or types of projects or programs that will be considered for funding, (4) ensure that the proposed categories are consistent with statutes, regulations, and standing LASD policies, (5) establish criteria for setting funding priorities, (6) set a target mix of projected funding by project type, and (7) develop an operating plan that focuses on how to accomplish the mission. IWF has made a significant contribution to LASD. Continuing to do business this way, however, begs the questions: “What might have been?” "What can it become?" Without a Strategic Plan and operating guidelines, expenditures become individual efforts, not an LASD- focused effort. Because of the lack of criteria for setting priorities, guidelines regarding the mix of activities to be funded, and measurements for success, LASD will lose out in exploiting the potential of IWF funds. Clear guidelines for IWF expenditures, coupled with a thoughtful Strategic Plan, will help ensure that IWF-funded programs support the Sheriff’s vision. Recommendation 2: IWF should review all funded programs at least annually to assess their overall effectiveness. As part of the annual planning and budgeting process, the Inmate Services Unit should review current programs funded by IWF. As LASD changes over time, as the amount and sources of funding changes, and as the usefulness of individual programs change, verifying that IWF is maximizing the returns on the investment of its funds is important. Accurate and timely project tracking and reporting is essential if programs are to be reviewed. As this internal "report card" on the prior year’s operation is being developed, it will be necessary to compare the Strategic Plan against the operational reality. What criteria were established for setting funding priorities? How much got funded in each category? Was the Strategic Plan’s target mix for project funding met? Did the programs achieve the desired outcomes? Can those outcomes be measured? To perform this kind of analysis, the Inmate Services Unit should create a Program Officer position with specialized expertise in program evaluation and independence from the program providers. For stability and given the specialized expertise, this position would probably be a civilian position. (Note: Sworn-officer personnel are routinely reassigned within LASD, which makes the continuity of program development and delivery difficult.) In general, throughout IWF, LASD should consider a mixture of sworn and civilian positions, especially because there are few written guidelines regarding the appropriate uses of IWF funds and because future assignments may be influenced by a sworn officer's decisions in the Inmate Services Unit. With each cycle of program development and contract extension, the Program Officer should define measurable outcomes that define success. Without this independent review of a program’s anticipated outcome, program funds could be spent year after year on a program that “looks good” but makes no contribution to the success of LASD or its inmates. Additionally, it is important that these outcomes be tied to LASD’s vision and goals. Programs that do not contribute to LASD’s success or the inmates' benefit should be discontinued. Each year, the Inmate Services Unit should assess the benefits of the Program Officer position and determine whether additional expertise in this area is required. Recommendation 3: IWF should invest in the future by targeting a percent of available annual funding for innovative pilot programs. As the environment changes, ways of solving problems change. The “old way” is not the “new way.” As problems become better defined, IWF will need to develop innovative and often experimental programs to address these problems. Potential new programs can only be talked about and discussed so much in white papers and trade journals. At some point, they have to be tested in the "real jail world". LASD is fortunate in that setting aside an amount annually for development of innovative pilot programs is possible, given the annual revenues of IWF. In many respects, such efforts could be considered part of research and development of new innovations. Whether a program is developed internally, through a joint effort of community agencies, or by a contracted specialist, new experimental pilot programs should be developed and tested. The goal of developing and implementing innovative programs, as well as the funding to pilot them, should be part of the Strategic Plan. The size and diversity of the County of Los Angeles jail system should present fertile grounds for many different types of programs. LASD, in developing and piloting these programs, can gain widespread recognition. Taking the initiative to use the most current thinking – or in some cases invent new thinking – to develop and implement correctional programs will support and enhance LASD’s leadership within the field of correctional programming. Programs developed within the Los Angeles jail system, such as the child visitation program called TALK (Teaching And Loving Kids), have been recognized and copied by other jurisdictions. A specific communications plan should be developed for the sharing and publicizing of such programs, which would also support the last recommendation on leadership. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND STRUCTURE Recommendation 4: LASD should target definable subsets of the inmate population for selection and participation in programs developed specifically for them. In reviewing possible programs for development, LASD should analyze the demographics of the inmate population to identify target subpopulations and potential common rehabilitative needs within those target segments. For example, it might be possible to identify a subset of the sentenced inmate population that has more than 90 days of time to serve and similar rehabilitative needs. Participation in these programs may be semi-voluntary — if selected and if accepted, the inmate would need to be willing to accept and live by the program’s rules of behavior. (Note: LASD's Biscailuz Recovery Center currently has such requirements.) Such a target group could be housed together and provided focused training for substantially the whole 90-day period. If the demographics show a subset of inmates with only 30 days of time remaining, then a program could be modified accordingly (e.g., shorter and simpler interventions with appropriately reduced expectations of what can really be accomplished). In some cases, programs may not be suitable for such adaptation. In other cases, programs might focus on preparing inmates to take advantage of community resources that support the transition from jail to the community. For example, a program that integrates jail programs with community programs in support of a seamless transition could be offered to inmates scheduled for release within “x” days. Opportunities offered by the new Workforce Investment Act [replacing the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)] should be investigated as a resource for such transitional community programs. The targeted programs would have clearly defined expectations as to what should be accomplished. In addition, means of measuring and evaluating the outcome could be designed into the program from the start. As these programs are developed and tested, problems can be identified and resolved. And if the hoped for outcome cannot be achieved, the program would be revamped or dropped. LASD, however, is currently handicapped in implementing such an approach because of the lack of basic data on inmates, such as: stratification of inmate subpopulations, length of stay trends (including timing from pre-sentenced to sentenced, sentenced awaiting, transfer to State prisons, time remaining; total time served), or socio-economic, psychological, or demographic profiles of inmates by various variables. For example, during the course of the management audit, LASD was unable to fulfill simple data requests, such as a profile of the length of stay of inmates. LASD is currently designing an assessment "intake-outtake" process that would help to build some of the baseline data on inmates for designing and evaluating targeted programs. Recommendation 5: IWF should measure and evaluate the success of IWF-funded programs. A critical component of any program should be its measurement and evaluation. Implementing more programs and having more inmates attend programs does not equate to having successful programs with meaningful outcomes. Program success needs to be defined with respect to how the program supports the overall vision and goals of LASD and meets inmates' welfare, education, and benefit needs. A critical component of this measurement and evaluation process is a clear statement of the overall mission of correctional programs. Are programs meant to be rehabilitative, providing inmates with values and skills that will enable them to be law-abiding members of their community? Or are they meant to provide time-consuming activities that calm the inmate population, reducing the incidents of disciplinary problems? A clear statement of the desired outcomes is essential if the program’s success is to be determined. The challenge is to define what “success” means, and then find a way to measure it. Programs may be successful in achieving their own internal goals but, if those goals are not clearly linked to LASD’s goals, then the program should be reviewed and modified. If the programs’ goals cannot be linked to LASD’s goals, then the program should be discontinued. Part of a program’s development should be a clear definition of (1) how it supports LASD’s vision and goals, and (2) how to measure the program’s success in support of those goals and inmates' needs. Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District (HLPUSD) provides academic, vocational, and special subject classes for inmates in the County jails. This partnership has existed since 1973. The statistics are impressive. More than 120,000 inmate students attended classes in FY 1998- 1999. Inmate students earned GEDs, High School Diplomas, and Achievement Certificates. Given the short length of stay of most jail inmates, the HLPUSD educational programs appear to be successful. An additional question might be “Are they as successful as they could be?” Working in cooperation with LASD, changes might be made that could increase the availability of interested inmate students, thereby increasing classroom hours. Would that make the program more successful? But without a LASD definition of success, there is no way to assess or measure it. The additional evaluation question that needs to be asked is, “Do the HLPUSD programs support LASD’s correctional programs goals?” Further, programs need to be measured and evaluated against one another. A particular program may successfully support LASD’s goals, but could the funds expended on that particular program be better spent on a different program? All ongoing programs should be subjected to measurement and evaluation. But it is especially important to focus on new and pilot programs before significant resources are expended in the rollout of the program. The evaluation process allows pilot programs to be expanded if successful, adjusted or modified if necessary, and cancelled if ineffective. The measurement and evaluation process also allows for the assessment of the program in changing environments. A program designed and implemented 10 years ago may have met all the then-current criteria for success. But with time, needs may change: program content, delivery methods, target inmate population, instructor availability, etc. Periodic evaluation of programs ensures that programs meet inmate needs (as defined by LASD) and support the goals of LASD. Even if all IWF funds (in excess of $30 million annually) were dedicated to inmate programs, the question would still be, “Are the programs effective?” Indeed, the challenge is to allocate the IWF funds in the most beneficial manner. If at the end of the day, all the correctional programs do not make any difference in how released inmates behave, then the programs should be discontinued. Recommendation 6: The Inmate Services Unit should initiate project-tracking procedures for all IWF-funded projects. The status, progress, completion, and success of IWF-funded projects should be tracked and reported. The Inmate Services Unit does a good job of tracking funding requests through the review and approval process. Once approved, the Inmate Services Unit ensures that the necessary and appropriate procurement documents are initiated and forwarded for processing. Fiscal Administration provides routine accounting reports, which provide some project-based information. But there is no comprehensive project-based tracking and reporting. All funding for major projects should be tracked from inception through completion under a single project. Requests submitted over a period of time should reference the original project. Additionally, the allocation of labor, administrative overhead, etc., should be charged and tracked by project. At IWF, requests for different phases or parts of a larger project are sometimes logged and tracked individually. Failing to track a major project as a whole prevents the useful and prudent review and approval of individual requests as they relate to the entire project. Project tracking provides a current view of a project that includes more than expenditures against budget items. Some of the project status information to be monitored and reported involve: project progress (actual versus planned); funding (requested, approved, initiated); activities completed, including percentage of activities completed; vendor evaluations; project operation; project success and benefits received, press releases: budget versus actual performance; "lessons learned"; etc. Each project should offer opportunities to celebrate successes and learn from experience. Providing appropriate levels of feedback to the IWC will demonstrate to the IWC that the programs approved and funded by them are more than paper requests; the programs translate into real benefits for the inmate population. Furthermore, project tracking will help focus on the performance of project participants and vendors, providing feedback that should improve the performance of future projects. FINANCIAL MONITORING Recommendation 7: The IWC should review and approve all expenditures made through IWF. As already noted, the IWC acts in an advisory capacity to the Sheriff with regard to the expenditure of IWF funds. If the Sheriff is to benefit from this advice, and if the Commissioners are to provide reasoned and balanced advice to the Sheriff, the IWC must be aware of all items funded with IWF funds. LASD submits an IWF budget to the Board of Supervisors. The FY 1999-2000 approved budget was for approximately $72 million. Uses of those funds can be divided into two broad categories: (1) fund expenditures approved by the IWC and (2) fund expenditures based on the prior period operational and maintenance needs, which are not approved by the IWC. Having two different methods of accessing IWF funds could potentially create problems. These problems could be exacerbated because: (1) no clear policies or guidelines detailing what are appropriate IWF fund expenditures exist, (2) the different approval routes may be confusing, and (3) allegations might be made that certain items are deliberately funded in a manner to avoid review by the IWC. It is a matter of appearance. IWF lacks written policy or practice to provide insight or reasons why some projects require IWC review and approval and others do not. Such ill-defined practices may give the appearance of an undependable and discriminatory review process. Having all IWF funding expenditures reviewed and approved by the IWC not only guards against such appearances, but also provides the IWC with a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of how all IWF funds are being used. The IWC’s ability to provide the Sheriff with fair and objective advice regarding the expenditure of IWF funds is enhanced. Procedures for the review of all IWF expenditures should be developed that would focus the IWC’s time on important and large dollar projects. For example, one criterion might be that all programs with anticipated costs greater than “x” dollars would require IWC review and approval. Further, certain types of projects (e.g., new initiatives or pilot programs) might also require IWC review and approval. But certain routine expenditures (e.g., replacement of recreational equipment or supplies) might be reviewed by the IWC as part of a budgeted amount per facility. Once approved by the IWC, the Inmate Services Unit could be authorized to commit funds for that purpose up to the budgeted amount per facility. Recommendation 8: The Inmate Services Unit should schedule annual audits of IWF that are performed by, or under the guidance of, the Auditor-Controller. The Inmate Welfare Fund, a special fund controlled by the Sheriff, had revenues in excess of $40 million in FY 1998-1999. It is anticipated that the fund routinely will have revenues in excess of $35 million. The approved FY 1999-2000 budget for IWF is in excess of $72 million. IWF currently has no legal requirement to be audited. Prior to its repeal in 1998, Section 1043, Title 15, recommended that a biennial audit be performed. Furthermore, Section 1043 recommended that an annual itemized report of expenditures be submitted to the Board of Supervisors, posted in each jail facility, and made available to the public. The size of IWF, the current business practices, the current lack of an operational policy that clearly defines what is and what is not an appropriate expenditure of IWF funds, and the susceptibility to possible claims of misuse, all reinforce the need for an annual audit of IWF. The audit should address (1) compliance with accounting standards and financial reporting, and (2) compliance with newly established IWF guidelines and policies. LEADERSHIP Recommendation 9: LASD should proactively pursue a national and international leadership role in inmate programmatic innovations. In the area of inmate services and programs, LASD, in general, and the Inmate Services Unit, in particular, should continue to work cooperatively with other sheriff's departments in California, the United States, and the world. To date, LASD and IWF track and consider programs delivered by its peers (e.g., other large, urban jail systems such as New York) and are helpful when inquiries are made regarding IWF programs. Part of the Inmate Services Unit’s mission and one of its goals should be formally to establish and maintain LASD as a supporting and sharing leader among county jail systems. Efforts to become more involved with professional associations concerned with jail programs at the State, national and international levels should also be encouraged. LASD should strive to guard against an attitude of superiority. Just because LASD operates one of the larger, if not the largest, jail system in the world, does not mean LASD cannot learn from a smaller county. Many aspects of a jail program developed in a smaller, quieter, county jail may not apply directly to the massive Los Angeles system. But a lot could be learned. Indeed, smaller counties do not have the challenges of Los Angles County; they do not have to run a major metropolitan transportation system, daily serve more than 70,000 meals, or meet other demands of a jail system with almost 22,000 inmates on any given day. Smaller counties, however, can try innovative programs in a more contained, less hectic environment. LASD should be prepared to benefit by listening, understanding, and sharing. Willingness to work with other sheriff's departments should not be determined or influenced by what might be immediately gained. LASD has one of the largest jail systems in the world. It is larger than other jails within California by factors of 4, 10, and more. As LASD develops new or innovative pilot programs, it should willingly disclose its plans to other counties, asking for their thoughts and comments. A collaborative and sharing approach will help develop trust among the counties. The active participation of LASD with other sheriff's departments and associations should be aggressively supported by a focused public relations effort. Placement of positive articles in local newspapers, publication of jail program articles in trade magazines, posting programmatic developments and results on a Web Site, and other routine outreach efforts should be made to get the positive story out into the community. PROPOSED ACTION STEPS This final section outlines a systematic approach for reviewing and implementing the recommendations set forth in this management audit. The first section addresses general actions steps that LASD should take to effect the recommended changes. The second section is an outline, listing the time frame, priorities, and accountabilities for implementing the recommendations. LASD should implement the recommended changes, using a multi-step approach, as outlined next. Many of the recommendations complement and build upon each other. Therefore, they should be implemented systematically and not piece meal. Action Step 1: Review and accept the recommendations in principle. First, the LASD should review the recommendations one by one, and accept them in principle. Recommendations should be modified as suggested by group consensus or as required to meet specific constraints, such as County codes, legal requirements, or availability of resources. All recommendations should be accepted, rejected, or modified; none should be ignored. At this point, the final priorities, timelines, and accountabilities can be set. In most areas, the intended thrust of proposed improvement in the recommendations has been presented without trying to be too prescriptive regarding the details. Most important is LASD’s commitment to continual improvement in its strategic use of IWF monies. Action Step 2: Assign a LASD project manager to supervise implementation. Second, the importance, scope, and interrelationships of the recommended changes require centralized attention and monitoring to ensure a successful outcome. Consequently, a project manager, reporting to the Sheriff, should be appointed to handle day-to-day supervision, coordination, and monitoring of implementation efforts. Action Step 3: Develop Activity Plans with assigned accountabilities. Third, for each recommended change, the Sheriff in consultation with the project manager should appoint a LASD manager with responsibility for it. The intent is to suggest ultimate responsibility; certain aspects may be delegated to individuals below the level of the assigned LASD manager. Moreover, the individual with lead accountability may have to coordinate cross- functionally with other LASD executives and managers. As a starting point, we propose where such responsibility might generally be placed for each recommendation. Also noted are the relative priority and timing for implementing each recommendation. In most cases: q Implementation of the recommendations with immediate priority should commence as soon as possible. q Intermediate priority recommendations can be deferred until action of the higher priority recommendations is under way. In some cases, lower priority recommendations may be implemented earlier because they are easy to accomplish and may result in some “quick victories.” Other high priority recommendations may be implemented later once LASD has established more of a foundation for their success. The assigned LASD managers should prepare an Activity Plan for each recommendation. Cost implications should be refined at this point, depending on the course of action LASD must adopt. Each Activity Plan also should contain a statement of each recommendation with the identified LASD manager and defined performance objective. The performance objective is a statement of the expected situation or condition after implementation of the recommendation. This objective should serve as a benchmark to measure accomplishment of the associated recommendation. The Activity Plan should detail the sequential action steps required to enact the recommendation, the assignment of responsibility for completing each step, and the start date and duration of each step. The project manager should review and approve each Activity Plan. Action Step 4: Begin implementation and monitor progress. Fourth, once the Activity Plans are approved, the action steps should begin. Each assigned LASD manager should prepare a quarterly, one-page report concerning the progress of each Activity Plan (i.e., recommendation) for the project manager. In turn, the project manager should summarize these reports for the Sheriff and IWC. As LASD managers identify adjustments necessary to the Activity Plans, they should consult with the project manager and note the needed adjustments on their progress reports. The project manager should give a quarterly oral report to IWC regarding progress to date in implementing the recommendations. Optimally, LASD should share with the Grand Jury progress made, “lessons learned,” adjustments made, and overall successes and setbacks. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS As a starting point, our report has outlined each recommendation, listed in the order they are discussed in this report, and has noted: q Relative importance — high, medium, low q Timing for implementation — immediate, near term, long term, and ongoing q Complexity of the recommendation — easy, moderately difficult, or hard to implement q Suggested LASD accountability for implementing the recommendations. Detailed descriptions of each recommendation are contained in the section, Recommendations. Exhibit 9 recaps the recommendations set forth in this report. The symbols for each of these considerations are defined in Exhibit 10. Exhibit 9 County of Los Angeles, Sheriff's Department Recommended Actions Relative Complex- Account- Recommendation Importance Timing ity ability 1 The Inmate Services Unit, with the ¶¶¶ ... Sheriff involvement of the IWC, should develop a Strategic Plan for the IWF. IWF should review all funded ¶¶¶ ... IWF programs at least annually to assess their overall effectiveness. IWF should invest in the future by ¶¶¶ ... Sheriff targeting a percent of available annual funding for innovative pilot programs. The LASD should target definable ¶¶¶ ... Sheriff subsets of the inmate population for selection and participation in programs developed specifically for them. IWF should measure and evaluate ¶¶¶ ... Inmate the success of IWF-funded Services programs. Unit 6 The Inmate Services Unit should ¶¶¶ ... Inmate initiate project-tracking procedures Services for all IWF-funded projects. Unit 7 The IWC should review and ¶¶ ... IWC approve all expenditures made through the IWF. The Inmate Services Unit should ¶¶ ... Inmate schedule annual audits of the IWF Services that are performed by, or under the Unit guidance of, the Auditor- Relative Complex- Account- Recommendation Importance Timing ity ability Controller. LASD should proactively pursue a ¶¶ ... Sheriff national and international leadership role in inmate programmatic innovations. Exhibit 10 County of Los Angeles, Sheriff's Department Legend for the Recommended Actions Considerations for Legend for Information Provided Each Recommendation Relative importance ¶¶¶ = High priority ¶¶ = Medium priority ¶ = Low priority Timing = Immediate= FY 1999-2000 = Near term = FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002 = Long term= FY 2002-2003 and thereafter ... = Ongoing = Once implemented, maintained on an ongoing basis Complexity 4 = Easy to implement 44 = Moderately difficult to implement 444 = Hard to implement Accountability First listed incumbent has lead responsibility for implementation. Others listed where cross-functional accountabilities are necessary. . DETENTION FACILITIES REPORT INTRODUCTION The Grand Jury is mandated by California Penal Code §919(b) to inspect all County and Municipal Police Departments, Jails, holding cells in Superior and Municipal Courts, as well as Juvenile Camps and other institutions that are operated by the Los Angeles Probation Department. These inspections will include but not be limited to the inmates housing conditions, telephone calls, medical needs, food served with recommended dietary allowances (RDA), number of personnel and their operations training, policy and procedures manual, yearly fire inspections reports, use of safety and detoxification cells, rules and disciplinary penalties manual, issue of personal care items, showers, and standard bedding and linen issue. Many of the above items are also minimum standards for adult local detention facilities as required in Titles 15 and 24 as prepared by the California Board of Corrections. There are many other agencies that also conduct annual or semi-annual inspections of all jails and holding cells, including but not limited to the Local or State Health Department, The California Board of Corrections, and the State or Local Fire Departments. The Los Angeles County jail system is the largest in the United States. The daily inmate population in the County exceeds 22,500 incarcerated men and women. Added to this are approximately 4,000 juveniles being held daily in camps, juvenile halls, or other facilities. Also there is a Sheriff’s facility in Lancaster called Mira Loma that houses in excess of 600 Immigration and Naturalization Service (I.N.S.) prisoners waiting to be deported. Directors have indicated these facilities will be expanding to 1100 beds in the near future. METHODOLOGY OF CAMP INSPECTIONS For inspections the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Jails Committee divided Los Angeles County into four areas: North, East, South, and West. Each team inspected jails, courthouse holding facilities, juvenile camps, and detention centers in their respective areas. These teams inspected all 201 facilities in the County, including some facilities that had never before been inspected. Unannounced visits in groups of two or three people were made to each facility in each area. At each inspection site a request was made concerning the capacity of the facility, number of people housed that day, the ethnic percentages presently incarcerated, and if the state-mandated 300- minute education program was being followed. Also the directors of all juvenile detention facilities were queried as to their specific needs or requests to enhance programs at their locations. Complete reports were submitted to the chairperson, which included observations, health and safety issues, and information from all sources obtained from directors, teachers, students or inmates. The camp and detention facilities were rated Excellent, Above Average, Average, and Poor. The chairperson compiled this information, decided on facilities that required second and third visits or exit conferences, and prepared this information for the Final Report. . After an extensive review of various reports and proposals, interviews with facility directors, probation officers, and school personnel, the Committee was able to obtain sufficient information concerning the monies to be made available in the coming year to fund some of the numerous deferred maintenance projects in the juvenile facilities. In many cases it is not a sufficient amount; however, it is a start in the proper direction. There are a few instances in which no money has been allocated. The report has been divided into the areas of youth camps, juvenile facilities for the mentally challenged, juvenile detention centers, and adult detention facilities, which include court holding cells and jails. . YOUTH CAMPS Challenger Memorial Youth Center - Facility built 1990 5300 West Ave. I Lancaster – 661-940-4144 Camp Jarvis-Rated Poor. – Capacity: 110 youth. Found in the barracks area were cut bunk pads, filthy water fountains, vile-tasting water, and graffiti. Bathroom and shower floors were extremely dirty. Wall plugs were broken and unsafe. The tables need to be leveled and floor anchored for safety. Weed abatement is needed. Camp Scobee-Rated Poor. – Capacity: 110 youth. This camp has a large number of mentally challenged youth and this was used as the excuse for the unsightly situation we encountered. Restrooms and barracks had urine and dirty clothing all over the floors. Bunk pads were all sliced up as if to hide things in them. There were extreme amounts of graffiti, filth was abundant, and it appeared there was little or no discipline. Health Services inspection most likely would have closed the camp. Complete painting, much plumbing and lighting work are needed. Challenger staffing quarters-Rated Poor. – There is a lack of adequate sleeping quarters for probation staff who are on duty 56 _ hours each week. One gym was lost to make room for the staff to sleep. Teacher computers are second rate, monitoring equipment needs upgrading, and better walkie-talkies are needed. Better interaction is needed between Probation and LA County Office of Education (LACO) teachers. Challenger Kitchen Facilities–Rated Poor. - Broken steamers need replacement. Inside freezer handles for exit were broken off and needed replacement. Hanging plugs for food cart warmers were broken and some were not safe for use. Challenger Schools-Rated Poor. – There is a need for closer supervision of the teaching staff. On two separate visits, it was observed that students slept during the lectures. Teachers were watching stock market news on a TV monitor while students drew pictures on paper. One classroom we entered had a teacher at his desk while a VCR video played a movie that had no apparent bearing on the subject being taught. Probation and child placement personnel gave us an estimate both here and at Sylmar Juvenile Hall that the cost to keep one bed full for one year in the camps, excluding teacher salaries, is in excess of $29,000 per year. Comment: If we are not teaching and rehabilitating these juveniles, we are paying a high price for warehousing them. Challenger Special Housing Unit (SHU)-Rated Poor. – 27 students incarcerated. A special housing unit is used for detention of the youth in need of special control for behavioral modification whether it is for a short or long stay. These facilities have single rooms and an educational program is provided to people incarcerated for more than a few days stay. Comment: These facilities, as are several others in the camp and detention program, are unsafe. In the event of a major earthquake or fire, the loss of life may be very serious. There are usually . one or two people working these units and, in the event of an earthquake, the question is how fast the supervisors can mobilize and evacuate the units? Each cell must be manually unlocked to release the youth. If there are 30 youths in individual cells, how quickly during a 7.0 earthquake can they unlock the cells before there is loss of life? If they can get to all the cells, can they get them unlocked? If the earthquake were severe enough, it might twist the doorframes so they cannot be opened. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for these facilities in FY2000 will be to replace heater/air conditioner controllers. – cost $641,000. Youth Camp Rocky – Facility built 1942 1900 North Sycamore Canyon Road San Dimas – 909-593-2391 Rated Poor. Capacity: 120 – day of inspection: 117. This camp is in need of major maintenance work. No merit or work experience programs are in place so the youth have only mandated academic and physical education programs. The grounds were a disgrace. No fire fighting or earthquake supplies were available, and no evacuation plans were posted. The gym has been red- tagged since the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The security entrance is not available, painting of the complete plant is needed, and there is a need for additional trained staff. Working walkie- talkies are needed, along with someone with computer experience. Brush clearance around the complete camp is necessary. A major item for repair is the gym for the youth. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be to replace the water and irrigation lines. – cost $55,000. Youth Camp Holton – Facility built 1958 12653 North Little Tujunga Canyon Road San Fernando – 818-896-0571 Rated Poor. Capacity: 120 – day of inspection: 118. The Probation Department, LACO, and Ancillary Support Services are not resolving problems in this camp. It is one of two camps in the hills that depend on a pump flow of water to the camp. The pump and waterlines are old and constantly break down. A complete electrical retrofit is needed as well as repairs to damages from 1994 Northridge earthquake. Security lighting upgrades are needed. Also needed are monitor equipment upgrades. This is another kitchen in need of a new steam pot. The needs of the youth are not being served due to the fact that the Probation Department and the LACO teachers do not communicate well. Interaction is hampered by a provision in the teachers’ union contract that creates a safety problem for the Probation Department. Teachers are not required to open their classrooms until 8:30AM, which results in large numbers of students congregating outside with limited supervision. Comment: The singular action taken by a teacher at this camp to write for grant money is a shining example of what can be done to aid the academic program. She was able to secure enough to supply her class with new computers. . Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be exterior painting, heating and air conditioning upgrades as needed. – cost $705,000. Camp Miller – Facility built 1962 433 Encinal Road Malibu – 818-889-0260 Rated Poor. Capacity: 125 – day of inspection: 125. This camp shares a kitchen, nurse, and pool use with Camp Kilpatrick. Camp supplies are inadequate. The plumbing, painting, electrical, grounds, and health and safety are at unacceptable levels. There are no earthquake supplies, fire fighting equipment, or evacuation plans. The nearest hospital, police, or paramedics are 20 minutes away. Office equipment is outdated, and the gym has been red-tagged since the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The kitchen is in need of storage shelving. Bilingual teachers are needed. Also only a minimal amount of sporting goods equipment is available for physical education classes. An extra shift nurse, a lab technician, and more frequent lab specimen pickups are needed. Air conditioning has been installed; however, bathrooms need exhaust fans. The gym needs to be repaired. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be to repair dry rot, exterior painting, and remove sewage pond waste. – cost $120,000. Youth Camp Gonzalez – Facility built 1962 1301 North Las Virgenes Road Calabasas – 818-222-1192 Rated Poor. Capacity: 125 – days of inspection: 123. Serious contractor problems were discovered here. This is a Probation Department problem we have found in other camps where the Probation Department let contracts for bid. We visited this camp 3 times over a time frame of 4 months and found conditions changed slowly. The sewer and plumbing problems were 90 % resolved after 4 months. There are no work experience or merit programs here, only physical education. There is a desperate need for bilingual teachers here as in other camps. Most camps consist of 50-75% Hispanic youth. Over 50% of the youth in this camp are at 5th grade education level or lower. There are no evacuation plans and no fire or earthquake supplies. The teachers and Probation Department agree that a swimming pool would help to suppress youth anxieties. The major problem here is one of health and safety for the youth of the camp because of sewer and plumbing problems. For the 123 youth in this camp, there are only 6 portable toilets and 6 portable showers. This is not the only camp with this type of problem; however, several others that had the same problems did get them fixed in 6 weeks. There is a definite need to look closer at contract monitoring. The gym is not usable due to earthquake damage. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be to repair gym and dorm roofs, kitchen and dining hall roofs, exterior painting, heating and air conditioning upgrades, alarm and public address system upgrading. – cost $415,000. . Youth Camp Scudder – Facility built 1957 28750 North Bouquet Canyon Road Saugus – 661-296-8500 Rated Poor. Capacity: 125 – day of inspection: 121. The institution of a merit or work experience program could do wonders for this camp. Youth need to spend 10 minutes a day picking up the trash and pulling weeds which would improve camp appearance. There are no earthquake supplies, fire fighting equipment or evacuation plans. All drinking fountains were filthy and the water tasted vile. The plumbing was in poor condition. This camp is one of the four where a specific school principal is in charge and is working with probation so the education needs of the youth are being met. A bilingual teacher would be a major asset. A SHU is needed, as well as an ice machine, new ovens, and a cement mixer to fix the sidewalks. A program of possible merit at this camp would be to utilize the resources of a local dog trainer. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be to repair hot water tanks, telecommunication upgrading, heating/air conditioning, and roofing of the school, dorms, kitchen, and dining hall. – cost $1,015,000. Youth Camp Munz – Facility built 1950 42220 North Lake Hughes Road Lake Hughes – 661-724-1211 Rated Poor. Capacity: 125 – day of inspection: 123. This camp is completely opposite of its neighbor, Youth Camp Mendenhall, in that there are no work experience, merit programs, or student participation in maintaining the camp facilities. There is abundant trash everywhere, filthy water fountains, vile-tasting water, badly kept dorms, and dirty latrines. There is a need for additional staff, as well as staff sleeping and meeting quarters. School basics are in place at this facility and the teachers understand their role in instruction of the youth. This is another school of the above mentioned principal’s domain where her teachers do teach and motivate. Comment: There is a definite need for better director communication if this camp is to help the youth. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 show nothing in the master plan for work or repairs at this camp. Challenger Memorial Youth Center – Facility built 1990 5300 West Avenue “ I ” Lancaster – 661-940-4000 Camp Onizuka-Rated Average. – Capacity: 110 youth. The toilet separators are rusting out at the floor level. There are holes in ceramic tile floors, and many cracked windows in the restrooms and barracks. No evacuation route is posted. The plumbing is bad with filthy water fountains and vile-tasting water. The camp needs inside painting and electrical repairs. The mattresses in the barracks are slit. Camp Smith-Rated Average. – Capacity: 110 youth. There are filthy water fountains with vile-tasting water. There are no posted evacuation routes, and no fire fighting or earthquake . supplies. Barracks conditions were judged fair; however, bathroom and shower areas need to be better cleaned and deodorized. Bunk pads were slit and inside painting is needed. Camp McNair-Rated Average. – Capacity: 110 youth. This camp is short staffed. There is no sports equipment and no posted evacuation routes. The floors and water fountains were filthy. It appears that better custodial service is needed. New shower barriers are needed. Better cleaning and deodorizing of bathrooms and showers are required. Fire Camp Routh – Facility built 1958 12500 Big Tunjunga Canyon Road Tujunga – 818-352-4407 Rated Average. Capacity: 109 – day of inspection: 108. This camp is operated for 16-18 year- old youth for instruction in fire fighting. Some youth have become firefighters in both the County and cities. This camp has been waiting 10 years for a kitchen. The laundry room needs commercial washers and dryers for the heavy loads of fire fighting gear. One restroom wall needs complete replacement and the entire septic system needs to be replaced. Staff quarters are at best minimal and all office equipment is outdated by at least 10 years. There is an urgent need for additional classroom space. All floors in every area of the camp are in need of steam cleaning and polishing; however, the machine for that purpose has been broken for the past two years even though requests for replacement have been made. There is also a need for a new water pump and supply line. Comment: The youth camps need to teach some trade classes in addition to the mandated programs. The suggestion heard at all camps is that they need some type of academy to train youngsters in trades to prepare them for jobs on the outside when they are released. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be to connect to the public sewer, shortfall waterline, roadwork, new roof and heating/air conditioning for two dorms, and exterior painting. – cost $1,775,000. Camp Kilpatrick – Facility built 1962 427 Encinal Road Malibu – 818-889-1353 Rated Average. Capacity: 125 – day of inspection: 125. Encountered on our first visit to this sports camp were aides to a US Senator inspecting the camp. Everything was in perfect condition. The grounds were freshly planted, lawns and bushes trimmed, and nothing was out of place anywhere. On our second visit two months later we found, as at all other camps, trash was overflowing and the grounds were not maintained. The gym is in need of earthquake retrofit. Replacement of two grills and a steam pot in the kitchen are needed. Extra security lights and a large light pole in center grounds would enhance night security patrols. Comment: This camp has all the best athletes from within the system and gets outside support from places such as the NFL. The teachers and probation officers all state that once here, the youth do not wish to leave. This camp has the best computer and motion picture lab to be found in the probation system. Most assuredly this is because of the grant writing work of the computer lab instructor. . Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be to remove sewage pond waste and water line replacement for dorms B & C. – cost $216,000. Youth Camp Afflerbaugh – Facility built 1962 6631 North Stevens Ranch Road La Verne – 909-593-4921 Rated Good. Capacity: 120 – day of inspection: 116. The directors have implemented a work experience program. They are attempting to teach a cooking class to the youth. Also they have the youth working on keeping the grounds planted and clean. The discipline is very strict in this camp. This camp would benefit from complete painting, more barrack space, and upgrading of all plant facilities. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be exterior painting, new roofs and heating/air conditioning in dorms, school, kitchen, dining hall and administration areas, as well as new hot water tanks and plumbing the ward dorm. – cost $1,014,000. Fire Camp Paige - Facility built 1962 6601 North Stevens Ranch Road La Verne – 909-593-4921 Rated Good. Capacity: 120 – day of inspection: 116. This is a camp for youth aged 16-18 that are trained for fire fighting by the county fire department. They are paid for their time at the fire lines. Youth under 18 are no longer allowed to fight fires, but can do “mop up” duties. Upon completion of their time served, some of these young men go on to the County or other fire departments. Probation Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be exterior painting, new roofs, heating/air conditioning dorms, kitchen, dining hall, and administration areas. - cost $592,000. Youth Camp Scott – Facility built 1957 28700 North Bouquet Canyon Road Saugus – 661-296-8500 Rated Good. Capacity: 125 – day of inspection: 123. This is the only camp for females and it appears to be very crowded. The staff is helping girls with their personal hygiene and grooming needs out of pocket. Probation Department needs to be involved in this situation. There is excellent communication between school and probation staff at this camp and at the other schools run by the above-referenced principal in the 3 other camps. There is a definite need for a new movie screen, large TV and new VCR for ladies who earn the right to use them through the merit program. The auditorium/gym is in need of complete painting and cleaning both inside and out. This camp would also benefit from having some sports equipment. Comment: It would be of great help if there were a hair style salon on grounds for the girls to help build their self-esteem as young women. . Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be the replacement of roofs on dorms, kitchen/dining facility, gym and school, as well as telecommunication upgrades and heating/air conditioning for all rooms. – cost $1,112,000. Challenger Memorial Youth Center – Facility built 1990 5300 West Avenue “ I ” Lancaster – 661-940-4000 Camp Resnick-Rated Good - Capacity: 110 youth. As in most individual camps in the Challenger complex, there is a lack of books and games for youth in their free time. No posted evacuation routes were observed. Youth Camp Mendenhall – Facility built 1950 42230 North Lake Hughes Road Lake Hughes – 661-724-1211 Rated Excellent. Capacity: 125 – day of inspection: 124. The camp director, teachers, and probation officers are all working together and seem to know what needs to be done to help the youth. There is a merit and work experience program and they are considering teaching some types of trade classes. Students commented they would learn faster if there were separate grade classrooms. Due to other programs to supplement education the youth here are finding better self esteem and look forward to trying to go back out in the community. All students are involved in the upkeep and maintenance of their camp. Therefore, it is in excellent condition except for plant maintenance of painting and plumbing. This is the third of the four camps that one principal has under her control where the teachers are working with and for the youth and give that extra 10%. Probation & LACO cooperation is excellent at this camp. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be a school roof replacement and a hillside erosion tank. – cost $161,000. JUVENILE FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY CHALLENGED Youth Camp Dorothy Kirby M.H. – Facility built 1960 1500 South McDonnell Avenue LA (Commerce area) - 323-981-4313 Rated Excellent. Capacity: 100 – day of inspection visit: 98. Although classified as a camp it is an institution for the mentally challenged youth. There is a staff ratio of 1 to 1 for the youth. There is an excellent quality education program and teachers and staff work well together. All furniture in the cottages was being refurbished and repainted at the time of our visit. This facility and its directors should be considered the showplace as to how all camps should look and be run. The facility is almost 40 years old and better maintained than any other facility we inspected, thanks to a very dedicated director. A full time gardener would be beneficial in maintaining the grounds. . Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this camp in FY2000 will be upgrading the gate hardware in the sallyport and cleaning all duct work. – cost $28,000. MacLaren Children’s Emergency Shelter – Facility built 1975 4024 North Durfee Avenue El Monte – 626-455-4501 Rated Excellent. Capacity: 240 - day of inspection visit: 136. There are no probation youth at this center. There are primarily children from broken homes or foster care homes. This is a very well staffed and excellently run facility. 250 supervisors handle the care of the mentally challenged youth here, so there is always a ratio of at least 1:1 and in many cases 2:1. There is a full kitchen to supply any special dietary needs of the youth at any time of the day or night. A complete medical staff is on duty 24 hrs. a day, seven days a week. Facility is divided into units for boys, girls, mothers with or expecting children. Each facility for the youth is called a cottage and holds 16 youth. There is an exceptional education program consisting of 12 different classrooms with aides and special help as needed. The educational facility consists of 1 classroom for elementary, 1 classroom for middle school regular education and 1 classroom for middle school special education. There are 2 high school classrooms for regular education and 2 classrooms for special education. A computer classroom is available for daily use. There are four special classes available for the severely challenged youngsters. We learned that a major problem facing this facility is that when someone leaves to go to a foster care home, they often run away. Within a period of five or six weeks they usually return to the shelter and the process begins all over again with evaluations, medical checkups, and settling them back into the program. While the rated capacity is 240, the shelter is only equipped to handle 100 to 125 youth. There are many times the population goes much higher and it becomes necessary to request special relief to handle the volume. The transitional home Starview is equipped to handle 56 youngsters from MacLaren and accepts only when they have the space. No other foster home is equipped to handle these youngsters with their emotional problems. The next closest home available is Harbor-view; however, they rarely take any of the children from this facility. The average stay at MacLaren is 30 days. The medical staff has a doctor on duty or on call 24 hrs. a day and 15 nurses. JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS JUVENILE COURTS Barry Nidorf Juvenile Courts - Facility built 1972 (rebuilt 1994) 16350 Filbert Street Sylmar - 818-364-2035 Rated Excellent. The court holding portion has 2 cells so it is very difficult to segregate as to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A busy day for the holding cells is 4 to 6 youth. While the cells are in excellent condition, there is usually a shortage of staff. A sound barrier should be placed between the courts and the railroad tracks approximately 40 yards away. When a train passes, court proceedings must stop until the noise level subsides. . Los Padrinos Juvenile Courts – Facility built 1957 7281 Quill Drive Downey - 562-922-8861 Rated Excellent. Both the courts and Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall are on the same grounds. This makes it very convenient if someone is remanded directly from court to the juvenile hall. There is also a detention center for adults at this facility. Eastlake Central Juvenile Courts– Facility built 1906 & 1941 1601 Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles - 323-226-6601 Rated Excellent. There are five courts, three adult holding cells, one juvenile general holding cell, and a staging area all in excellent condition, well staffed and managed. JUVENILE HALLS Eastlake Central Juvenile Hall – Facility built 1906 & 1941 1605 Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles - 323-226-6601 Rated Poor. Capacity: 420 –day of inspection: 666 youth. The INS section of this facility was well managed; however, there is a need for more bilingual teachers and counselors. The main portion of this very old facility is poor. The facility can best be described as falling apart. The kitchen, medical station, fire equipment and evacuation plans were all below standard. One pool was excellent but it is never used, while the other needs a pool pump and replastering to repair a leak. The balance of the grounds, barracks, bathrooms, plumbing, and windows were all in very poor condition. The SHU at this facility has 60 units, 16 of which were unusable for various reasons. The security phone system and walkie-talkie system are antiquated. The hospital space for the number of students here is inadequate and creates a health and safety hazard. In the classrooms, we observed teachers lecturing to students, teachers reading newspapers while students slept at their desks, and in others the students sleeping while teachers watched the stock market report on the TV monitors. This situation was observed in 9 of the 20 classrooms visited that day. Comment: The lack of coordination and cooperation between Probation and LACO is detrimental to the educational process and juvenile justice system. This facility is overcrowded, understaffed, and needs to be completely renovated & rebuilt. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects and master additions for this facility will cover the next 4 years at a cost of $32,285,954. . Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall – Facility built 1957 7285 Quill Drive Downey - 562-940-8631 Rated Poor. Capacity: 800 – day of inspection: 759. The average population at this facility is 650 males and 60-80 females. Probation officers have to use pepper spray on a daily basis here to control situations. The entire plant is in need of painting. There is a pool for youth to use but it has had a leak for two years. This facility is without work experience programs, merit programs, and no trade classes are taught. There is a problem in getting students to class. It is difficult to get 700 plus youth ready to go to school at 8:30AM and to have to control them with 60 staff while waiting until the teachers open the classrooms at 8:29AM. The civilian cooking staff and servers do an average job. There are 3 doctors and dentists that share the workweek and duties in a 10-bed nursing care unit. This detention center like others and some camps has a SHU for lockdown of special troubled youth. Personnel must unlock each cell with no master release. We point out the potential for major lawsuits in possible disasters. Each cell is checked and logged constantly. Comment: The medical staff is to be commended for the excellent job they perform here under the pressures and stress at this facility. These facilities are now 42 years old, and like others in the County, are falling apart due to lack of major yearly upkeep. There is a 27 acre plot of ground that is currently unused and could be developed for sports activities, including football, baseball and soccer. However, we discovered that it is also a breeding ground for Blue Herons. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this facility in FY2000 will be to replace steam lines, install an exhaust fan in the kitchen, rebuild the freezer, replace the heat exchangers, repair sprinklers, and repave the service yard driveway. – cost $218,000. Barry Nidorf Juvenile Hall - Facility built 1972 (rebuilt 1994) 16350 Filbert Street Sylmar - 818-364-2035 Rated Poor. Capacity: 603 – day of inspection: 791. The gym at this facility, as in 5 camps, has been unusable since 1994 earthquake. Security phones positioned on the campus have not worked for three years. Probation personnel carry outdated walkie-talkies. This facility has individual lockup cells that are as clean as can be expected. The grounds are in terrible condition, the pool is barely usable, and plumbing repairs and painting are needed everywhere. Electrical jobs were numerous, and no evacuation plans were observed. Also not found were fire and earthquake supply cabinets. We found that a fire safety violation had not been addressed nor corrected 6 months after fire notice was given. The kitchen was well run and has a large staff of 36. The hospital area is very overcrowded. The staff of 28 is inadequate to properly serve the needs of the youth in this facility. Additional space and help is needed in this infirmary area for youth to receive proper care. Birth control pills are not given nor their use explained to females, even though the charge nurse has suggested it. On the other hand, Camp Scott does supply females with this information and pills to make sure they were better prepared when they leave. There are 385 supervisors split in three shifts, to control the entire complex through all functions. There are a total of 60 teachers in 37 classrooms, all of whom seemed to be working well together. However, Probation, teachers, and Health Services have very poor working and communication skills with one another. There is a need for specialist and bilingual educators. . Also, Probation, teachers, and the nursing staff agree that over 50% of the youth have severe mental problems. Juveniles at this facility range in age from 9 to 21 and are kept from 3 to 48 days. It should be noted that all youth including mentally challenged are tested at Barry Nidorf for classification and assignment to other camps. Comment: In our opinion, the school system here needs greater attention to helping the mentally challenged youth they encounter. The facility shows an excellent daily schedule as to how the youth will be served; however, it was not what the inspection team observed. Probation Department Deferred Maintenance Projects for this facility in FY2000 - There are no plans to do any type of work at this facility in the master plan. CONCLUSIONS – JUVENILE FACILITIES Most detention facilities, along with the camps in the probation system, are in great need of capital improvements. The camp living conditions for juveniles, when compared to jail or prison facilities, are at best sub-standard. Many small things can be done on a facility by facility basis by the director, teachers, and youth, which would enhance the appearance of their facilities. However, to correct the major problems, it will be up to the Board of Supervisors to invest the money needed for the future of our youth. Major work needs to be done by LACO as to the manner in which they interact with the Probation Department and Health Services regarding the instruction of youth. The Probation Department needs to closely monitor the contractors to ensure both the quality and timely completion of repair work at the juvenile facilities. Most juvenile facilities in the County Probation system are in extreme disrepair. Interior and exterior painting of all facilities need immediate attention. There are serious general plumbing problems in facility bathrooms and showers. Those camps that have escape and protection fencing need repairs. It was noted that the kitchen equipment presently being purchased is breaking within three years of purchase and it is difficult to get repair parts or anyone knowledgeable to do the work. Safety, health, ground management, and sanitation problems recur throughout this report primarily because there is inadequate custodial and/or gardening services in the facilities. Security communications concerning campus phones and walkie-talkies are out-dated. The majority of all camp drinking fountains are filthy and the water is vile-tasting. . RECOMMENDATIONS – JUVENILE FACILITIES 1. The Probation Department should consider developing trade classes and/or special education academies for the advanced students, in addition to mandated programs. 2. The Probation Department should convert Camp Scudder from a juvenile male camp to a juvenile female camp. It is adjacent to Camp Scott which is presently a female facility and a second female camp is necessary. 3. The Probation Department should develop another facility such as “Starview” to operate in conjunction with MacLaren Hall. 4. The Probation Officers serving at juvenile halls should be required to serve a minimum of one year at that facility before transfer. 5. The Probation Department should seek surplus “steam pots” from other County agencies. 6. The Probation Department should hire additional employees for custodial services and gardening work in the camp system. 7. The Board of Supervisors should ensure that LACO and the Probation Department engage in constructive communication at all levels to resolve issues of conflict such as: • The safety issue on getting students into class before 8:29AM. • A teamwork approach to mutual problems in all facilities. 8. We recommend that the Probation Department give particular attention to the following areas: • Perform weed abatement. • Repair running tracks, volleyball courts, baseball diamonds, gymnasiums. • Weatherproof skylights and buildings. • Paint inside/outside all youth facilities. • Upgrade plumbing and electrical where needed. • Provide additional books and games for leisure time. • Solicit the National Guard for all their old uniforms for juveniles. • Provide bilingual teachers and GED programs at all juvenile facilities. • Petition judges to make juvenile stays a minimum of 12 weeks for educational purposes and rehabilitation. • Equip all SHU units with quick-release master cell door openers. • Replace all water fountains for health and safety purposes. • Maintain teams of plumbers and painters to visit and upgrade each facility. • Replace all security phones and walkie-talkies. 9. The Probation Department and LACO management should both employ professional grant writers to take advantage of State and Federal grant fund programs that are available. 10. We recommend that Probation upper management and all members of the Board of Supervisors conduct unannounced visits to youth detention facilities. . ADULT DETENTION FACILITIES One of the new operations in some of the smaller municipal city jails is a private company being used to staff and manage those jails. This may become the wave of the future for more local cities. This operation will save the cities financial costs as most sworn officers make two or three times the salary of civilian jailers. There possibly would be even further savings, as limited employee benefits need to be paid. There are some problems with the contract jailers, such as sufficient jail performance and supervisory training. Title 15 §1021 and §1023 state that these positions have up to one year of assignment to complete required training. These conditions have been explored and examined by The California Board of Corrections and their results will be included in the next Title 15 revision. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s lockup facilities all operate the same from facility to facility. Their operation manuals are all updated annually, fire inspection manuals are updated on the same basis and are found in a majority of court lockup facilities. Inspection reports not located on the days of inspection were sent to the Grand Jury. All missing reports were forwarded within two weeks for completion of this report. Most of the Sheriff’s Department holding cells require a visual observation of inmates. Inspection logs have been placed on these cells so timed documentation can be noted on the logs. The Sheriff’s Department has done an excellent job of all their required documentation to protect the inmates. Many of the Municipal Jail personnel fail to use this type of documentation log for required observation as stated in §1055, §1056, & §1058 of Title 15. They have stated that, with TV monitors, the logbooks are not needed. The California Board of Corrections is looking into these problems. Many of the sheriff’s court lockups are located in buildings that are over 35 years old. At the time of their construction, the number of inmates being brought to court was between 10% or 15% of today’s court appearances. This is a large problem in most of the courts today as there is not enough room to separate all the different classification of inmates as now required due to type of crime, sex of inmate, juvenile, ethnic background, or sexual orientation. Because of these problems, in many circumstances, inmates have to be chained to benches in hallways for their own protection, resulting in a security breach. Many of the sheriff’s stations and court lockups are operating with a shortage in personnel causing many facilities to operate with considerable overtime. At present there is a department-wide push for new recruits, and if enough are hired this problem could be eliminated. Generally most of the court lockups are overcrowded in Los Angeles County. This overcrowding has added to the graffiti that already exists in the cells. Many of these holding cells could have graffiti painted out one day and within the week it would be back again. Many of the deputies stated to us that after inmates had visits with attorneys and had returned to their individual cells or holding facility they found it necessary to do searches for contraband pens, pencils, and markers. Even though the attorneys do not realize it, they are compounding the graffiti problem. Many sheriff’s units, Los Angeles Police Department divisions, and other municipal police departments are having a problem keeping up with the broken windows created by the . inmates. Most cracked or broken windows are repaired within a day or two for safety reasons; however, inmates continue to break windows at will. The older jails have more of a problem with this because they have many more windows than newer jails that were constructed with less windows and better lighting. After inspecting all the city jails in Los Angeles County, we find that the Pasadena City Jail is an exemplary model. If the Pasadena City Jail could be visited prior to the building of prospective new jails, it would assist in the efficiency of the jails being planned. Additional income for the City of Pasadena Jail System comes from the paying inmates sentenced by local courts to spend an evening or weekend. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is in negotiations with the City of Pasadena to handle up to 50 I.N.S. detainees per day. This is an operation that could bring an estimated one million dollars annually into the jail budget. The latest modern equipment in the Pasadena jail also makes for a more efficient, safer, and secure jail for not only the jailers but also the inmates. Examples of these items are: • Dental Hygiene aids, which have a small foam applicator impregnated with the toothpaste on a paper stick. This allows the inmates to maintain dental hygiene without providing them with objects that can be used to harm themselves or to be used to make a shank to harm others. • An override safety system to open all cell doors at one time or individually with the use of a master switch at the main control desk. • A computerized jail check-tracking system. • Detoxification cells fully visible from the intake and office areas. • An intercom system to allow jailers to communicate with inmates separately or all inmates in the “pod”. • A control and observation center from which all “pods” can be observed. There are also cameras in each “pod” for observation and safety of all inmates. • The female cells have smoked-colored glass around the toilet areas for their privacy and can be observed only when the night-light is turned on. • A new telephone system is being discussed for the detoxification cells that has the earpiece and speaker microphone built into the wall. This will allow the inmate to make phone calls, while deterring them from tearing any portion of the phone from the wall to cause damage or injury. • A tunnel was dug under the street in the original construction between the jails and courthouse holding area. Due to cost and other conflicting matters, the tunnel was never completed. Should this tunnel be completed, it would add safety and security to inmate transfer between courts and jails. Security cameras could be installed in the tunnel, which could eliminate increased police and/or jailers being sent with inmates going back and forth from court. One of the sheriff’s newer facilities, Century Regional Detention Facility, built in 1992, is among the finest of facilities this committee visited. Located at 11703 So. Alameda in Lynwood, this facility has a capacity of 1800 inmates, averages 1600 or more a day, and usually has over 250 females a day. All inmates are given a full medical examination upon arrival and inmates with serious health problems are sent to Twin Towers. Each cell has an intercom system so the jailers can communicate one on one with inmates immediately if there is an emergency. . Their kitchens are very large, clean, and operate efficiently. There are four courts at this facility and all women are held here until they have their arraignment hearing, after which they are transferred to Twin Towers. Using all the latest equipment, TV monitors, intercom systems, automatic door openers, and separate pods for 300 inmates each, it is possible to operate with a lower number of sheriff’s personnel than would normally be required. A second facility being operated with minimum jail personnel is the Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster. This facility at present has 650 I.N.S. inmates and has the capacity to be expanded to 1100. Remodeled and opened in 1997 by the Sheriff’s Department with an agreement with the I.N.S., the facility operates under Federal guidelines and Title 15. They have found by using the best of both sets of laws, they can better provide for the inmates with fewer problems for all concerned. Each prisoner is given a complete physical of arrival. There are 3 Federal Courts on site to expedite the processing of inmates who are Federal prisoners. The I.N.S. pays the Sheriff’s Department for the incarceration of these prisoners. The I.N.S. has suggested that this facility be upgraded to hold 1100 prisoners by renovation of existing buildings. The latest Sheriff’s facility to be opened for operations is the Biscailuz Recovery Center in East Los Angeles. This facility has been remodeled over the past two years and was opened on July 15, 1999. This is a facility within the jails system that is a rehabilitation program for specific problems of male inmates who are at least eighteen years of age. Their problems may relate to drug abuse and/or domestic violence. The drug rehabilitation program is a twelve-step Impact Program and the Domestic Violence is a separate program. Both programs have dedicated bilingual teachers. The inmates are housed in three dormitories of thirty inmates. Each dormitory has 36 beds, 10 toilets and trough urinals, 6 showers, and 4 wash basins. There is no operational kitchen at this facility; however, all meals are delivered from the Central Regional Facility of the Sheriff’s Department. The Hacienda–La Puente Unified School District Correctional Education Division, conducts the Domestic Violence Program. The Pasadena Impact Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center leads classes on habits and attitudes of men convicted of drug abuse. There is one director and two teachers who do an exceptional job servicing these programs. When initially opened, this facility was equipped to handle 120 inmates, but after four months, the recovery center wishes to increase the capacity by another 120 inmates. Should more money be allocated from the Inmate Welfare Fund, as was the case for the original opening plan, the capacity of this special center could be increased. The 1999-2000 Grand Jury visited and inspected Biscailuz Recovery Center as a body. The Grand Jury was impressed by the work done to remodel these old buildings and the landscaping job done by the inmates. The results show that much good can and does come from hard work, especially when one takes pride in one’s surroundings and living quarters. The grounds are kept up by the inmates and are immaculate. The living quarters of the inmates show the pride these men have in wanting to make new lives for themselves. In mid-December 1999, the new Airport Court facilities opened near the Los Angeles Airport. These facilities have all the new technology incorporated into the holding facilities for the daily inmates they receive. It is very gratifying to find a facility that the inmates cannot . destroy with graffiti. We believe that it would be in the best interest of all jails, holding facilities, detention centers, and juvenile camps to use the type of paint that was used here (Vetrochem®) that can simply be washed off when inmates attempt to apply graffiti. This would definitely save hundreds of hours of labor and paint expenses. CONCLUSIONS –ADULT FACILITIES Our committee visited 201 jails, courts, and holding facilities and found them to be in fair to average condition. A great number, especially under the Los Angeles Police Department jurisdiction, were lacking in space and were unable to separate inmates as required by law. This over-crowded condition caused a number of prisoners to place their mattress on the floor for sleeping purposes, which is against health and safety codes. Numerous sheriff facilities are also short on space and have similar problems. A major concern is in the court holding areas where, due to lack of space, the Sheriff’s Department has inmates handcuffed to benches both inside and outside of the holding cells. This is done to maintain the separation as required by law. Inmates that are handcuffed on benches require more deputies for constant observation, something not needed when they are in holding cells. With the increased use of civilian jailers to operate the jail facilities, more sworn officers are released to do field work. This is a growing trend, expected to be the wave of the future, to save money for the individual cities. Most jails and court holding cells are in need of painting to cover graffiti created by the inmates. Also, it would help if the jails and court holding cells would paint exit arrows on the walls and floors when they repaint the walls. . RECOMMENDATIONS – ADULT FACILITIES 1. Funds should be allocated to all Los Angeles County Jail facilities for personnel to operate such facilities without the considerable amount of overtime presently required. 2. Many deferred maintenance problems that exist at almost every facility should be given a high priority. 3. Safety evacuation procedures need to be established. 4. Wherever possible, cell doors should be equipped with safety override systems so that, in the event of an emergency, all cell doors could be opened from a master control switch. 5. Cities and the County should budget a larger amount of money annually for jail repairs and upgrading. 6. Court lockups should be enlarged so that inmates can be separated as required by law as to race, gender, and sexual orientation. 7. The Sheriff’s Department should utilize civilian positions in the court lockup system. 8. All non-sworn jail personnel should have their certificates of instruction with their personnel file, at each place they work. . East Facilities ADDRESSES CITY PHONE Alhambra Court Municipal 150 No. Commonwealth Alhambra 626-308-5312 Alhambra Court Superior 150 No. Commonwealth Alhambra 626-308-553 Alhambra PD 211 So. First St. Alhambra 626-570-515 Altadena LASD 780 E. Altadena Dr. Altadena 626-798-113 Arcadia PD 250 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia 626-574-514 Santa Anita Racetrack 285 West Huntington Dr. Arcadia 626-574-663 Avalon LASD 215 W. Summer Ave. Avalon 310-510-0174 Azusa PD 725 N. Alameda Ave. Azusa 626-334-294 Baldwin Park PD 14403 E. Pacific Ave. Baldwin Park 626-960-195 Industry LASD 150 No. Hudson Ave. City of Industry 626-330-3322 Claremont PD 570 W. Bonita Claremont 909-399-541 Covina PD 444 N. Citrus Covina 626-331-339 El Monte PD 11323 E. Valley Blvd. El Monte 626-575-4162 Rio Hondo Court 11234 E. Valley Blvd. El Monte 626-575-4162 Glendora PD 150 So. Glendora Ave. Glendora 626-575-4162 Hollywood Park Racetrack 1050 So. Prairie Avenue Inglewood 310-419-139 Irwindale PD 5050 No. Irwindale Ave. Irwindale 626-430-2244 La Verne PD 2061 Third St. LaVerne 909-596-191 Biscailuz Center 1060 No. Eastern Los Angeles 323-881-368 Central Area LAPD 251 E. 6th St. Los Angeles 213-485-3294 Central Arraignment Courts 429 Bauchet Los Angeles 213-974-628 County Courthouse 111 N. Hill St. Los Angeles 213-874-480 Criminal Courts 210 W. Temple Los Angeles 213-974-630 East LA Sheriff 5019 E. 3rd St. Los Angeles 213-264-415 East Los Angeles Courts 214 So. Fetterly Los Angeles 213-780-222 Hollenbeck LAPD 2111 E. 1st St. Los Angeles 213-485-2942 LA Coliseum 3939 So. Figueroa Los Angeles LACMC – USC jail ward 1200 No. State St. Los Angeles 213-226-456 Men’s Central Jails 441 Bauchet St. Los Angeles 213-974-491 Metropolitan Traffic Courts 1945 So. Hill St. Los Angeles 213-744-410 Newton Area LAPD 3400 So. Central Los Angeles 213-846-6544 Parker Center LAPD 150 No. Los Angeles St. Los Angeles 213-485-512 Staples Arena PD 1111 So. Figueroa St. Los Angeles 213-742-710 Sybil Brand 4500 E. City Terrace Dr. Los Angeles 213-267-208 Twin Towers Facilities 450 Bauchet St. Los Angeles 213-687-354 Los Angeles Dodger Stadium 1000 Elysian Park Avenue Los Angeles 323-224-261 Monrovia Courts 300 W. Maple Monrovia 626-301-406 Monrovia PD 140 E. Lime Ave. Monrovia 626-256-800 Santa Ana Courts 300 W. Maple Ave. Monrovia 626-301-406 Montebello PD 1600 Beverly Blvd. Montebello 213-887-1212 Harbor Patrol Marina Del Rey 310-823-7762 Edelman's Children’s Court 201 Centre Plaza Dr. Monterey Park 213-526-603 Monterey Park PD 320 W. Newmark Ave. Monterey Park 626-307-124 Pasadena Courts 300 E. Walnut Room # 101 Pasadena 626-356-556 Pasadena Courts 200 No. Garfield Pasadena 626-356-526 Pasadena PD 207 No. Garfield Ave. Pasadena 626-405-661 Rose Bowl 1001 Rose Bowl Drive Pasadena 626-577-311 LAC Fairgrounds 1011 West McKinley Pomona 909-620-218 Pomona Courts 350 W. Mission Blvd. Pomona 909-620-325 . Pomona Courts 400 Civic Ctr. Plaza Rm. # 705 Pomona 909-620-326 Pomona PD 490 W. Mission Blvd. Pomona 909-620-215 San Dimas LASD 122 No. San Dimas Ave. San Dimas 818-913-171 San Gabriel PD 625 So. Delmar San Gabriel 626-308-282 San Marino PD 2200 Huntington Dr. San Marino 626-300-072 Sierra Madre PD 242 W. Sierra Madre Blvd. Sierra Madre 626-355-1414 South Pasadena PD 1422 Mission St. So. Pasadena 626-799-112 Temple LASD 8838 E. Las Tunas Dr. Temple City 626-285-717 Walnut LASD 21695 E. Valley Blvd. Walnut 818-913-171 West Covina Courts 1427 W. Covina Pkwy. West Covina 818-813-325 West Covina PD 1444 Garvey Ave. West Covina 818-814-858 Whittier Courts 7339 Painter Whittier 310-907-317 Whittier PD 7315 So. Painter Whittier 310-945-825 North facilities ADDRESSS CITY PHONE Lost Hills LASD 27050 Agoura Rd. Agoura 310-456-665 Burbank PD 200 N. Third St. Burbank 818-238-100 Burbank Court Municipal 300 E. Olive Ave. Burbank 818-557-349 Burbank Court Superior 300 E. Olive Ave. Burbank 818-557-349 Calabasas Courts 5030 N. Calabasas Parkway Calabasas 818-222-114 West Valley LAPD 21201 Victory Blvd. # 102 Canoga Park 818-887-435 Glendale PD 140 No. Isabel St. Glendale 818-548-484 Glendale Court Municipal 600 E. Broadway Glendale 818-500-349 Glendale Court Superior 600 E. Broadway Glendale 818-500-349 Gorman Sub Station LASD 49819 Gorman Post Rd. Gorman 661-248-609 Crescenta Valley LASD 4554 Briggs Avenue La Crescenta 818-248-346 Antelope Valley LASD 1010 W. Ave. " J " Lancaster 661-948-846 Lancaster Superior Court 1040 W. Ave. " J " Lancaster 661-945-635 Lancaster Municipal Court 1040 W. Ave. " J " Lancaster 661-645-634 Lancaster Sheriff Station 501 W. Lancaster Blvd. Lancaster 661-948-846 Northeast LAPD 3353 San Fernando Rd. Los Angeles 213-485-256 No. Hollywood LAPD 11480 Tiara Dr. No. Hollywood 818-756-882 No. Hollywood LAPD 11640 Burbank Blvd. No. Hollywood 818-623-401 Devonshire LAPD 10250 Etiwanda Ave. Northridge 818-756-828 Foothill LAPD 12760 Osborne Pacoima 818-756-886 Palmdale LASD 1020 E. Palmdale Blvd. Palmdale 661-267-430 West Valley LAPD 19020 Van Owen Reseda 818-756-854 San Fernando PD 910 First Street San Fernando 818-898-126 San Fernando Superior Court 900 E.Third Street San Fernando 818-898-240 San Fernando Municipal Court 919 E. Third Street San Fernando 818-898-240 Sheriff Parks Sub Station 1000 Universal Center Dr. # M 11 Universal City 818-622-954 Santa Clarita Valley LASD 23740 Magic Mt. Parkway Valencia 661-255-112 Valencia – Newhall Municipal Court 23747 W. Valencia Blvd. Valencia 661-253-733 Van Nuys Jails 6240 Sylmar Van Nuys 818-756-835 Van Nuys Courts 14400 Erwin St. Mall Van Nuys 818-374-210 Van Nuys Courts 6230 Sylvan Van Nuys 818-374-200 South Facilities ADDRESSES CITY PHONE Bell PD 6326 Pine Avenue Bell 310-806-457 Bell Gardens PD 7100 So. Garfield Ave. Bell Gardens 310-806-457 Bellflower Courts 10025 E. Flower St. Bellflower 310-804-8054 Carson LASD 21356 So. Avalon Blvd. Carson 310-830-112 Compton PD 301 So. Willowbrook Ave. Compton 310-605-560 Compton Superior Court 200 W. Compton Blvd. Compton 310-603-738 Compton Municipal Court 200 W. Compton Blvd. Compton 310-803-715 . Downey PD 10911 Brookshire Ave. Downey 310-861-077 Downey Courts 7500 E. Imperial Highway Downey 310-803-715 Downey Courts 8206 East 3rd Downey 562-803-704 Gardena PD 1718 W. 162nd St. Gardena 310-217-967 Hawthorne PD 4440 W. 126th St. Hawthorne 310-970-797 Hermosa Beach PD 540 Pier St. Hermosa Beach 310-318-036 Huntington Park PD 6542 Miles Ave. Huntington Park 310-584-633 Huntington Park Courts 6548 Miles Ave. Huntington Park 310-586-639 Lakewood LASD 5130 No. Clark Ave. Lakewood 310-866-906 Lomita LASD 26123 Narbonne Ave. Lomita 310-539-166 Long Beach PD 400 W. Broadway Long Beach 310-570-726 Long Beach Municipal Court 415 W. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach 310-491-594 Long Beach Superior Court 415 W. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach 310-491-594 H.R.Moore Community Education 7706 Central Los Angeles Juvenile Justice Courts 7625 So. Central Courts Los Angeles 310-586-605 Newton Area LAPD 3400 Central Los Angeles 238-846-654 77th St. Area LAPD 7600 So. Broadway Los Angeles 213-485-4164 Southeast Area LAPD 145 W. 108th St. Los Angeles 213-485-693 Southeast Area LAPD 1546 W. Martin Luther King Los Angeles 213-485-261 Manhattan Beach PD 420 15th St. Manhattan Bch. 310-545-886 Maywood PD 4317 E. Slauson Maywood 213-562-500 Norwalk LASD 12335 Civic Center Dr. Norwalk 310-863-871 Norwalk Courts 12720 Norwalk Blvd. Norwalk 310-807-728 Pico Rivera LASD 6631 So. Passons Blvd. Pico Rivera 310-949-242 Redondo Beach PD 401 Diamond St. Redondo Beach 310-379-247 Redondo Beach LASD 117 W Torrance Blvd. Redondo Beach 310-318-870 Harbor Area LAPD 2175 John Gibson Blvd. San Pedro 310-548-761 San Pedro Courts 505 So. Centre St. San Pedro 310-519-602 South Gate PD 8620 California Ave. Southgate 310-563-540 South Gate Courts 8640 California Ave. Southgate 310-563-403 Torrance PD 300 Civic Center Dr. Torrance 310-328-345 Torrance Muni Court 825 Maple Ave. Torrance 310-222-3344 Torrance Superior Court 825 Maple Ave. Torrance 310-533-888 Vernon PD 4305 Santa Fe Ave. Vernon 213-586-517 West Facilities ADDRESSS CITY PHONE Beverly Hills PD 464 N. Rexford Beverly Hills 310-550-495 Beverly Hills Courts 9355 Burton Way Beverly Hills 310-288-121 Culver City PD 4040 Duquesne Ave. Culver City 310-837-122 Culver City Courts 4130 Overland Ave. Culver City 310-202-311 Lennox LASD 4331 Lennox Blvd. Inglewood 310-671-753 Inglewood Municipal Courts 1 Regent St. Inglewood 310-419-529 Inglewood Juvenile Courts 1 Regent St. Inglewood 310-419-527 Inglewood PD 1 Manchester Blvd. Inglewood 310-412-521 Hollywood LAPD 1358 No. Wilcox Ave. Los Angeles 213-485-4302 Hollywood Courts 5825 Hollywood Blvd Los Angeles 213-856-573 LAX substation LAPD 802 World Way Los Angeles 310-646-225 LAX Airport Courts 11701 So. La Cienega Los Angeles 310-727-618 Pacific Area LAPD 12312 Culver Blvd. Los Angeles 310-202-450 Rampart Area LAPD 2710 W. Temple St. Los Angeles 213-485-4062 West Los Angeles LAPD 1663 Butler Los Angeles 310-575-840 Wilshire Area LAPD 4861 W. Venice Blvd. Los Angeles 213-485-402 Lax-Airport Detail 402 World Way Los Angeles 310-215-236 WLA Municipal Court 3000 So. Robertson Blvd. Los Angeles 310-558-775 Century Sheriff Station 11703 S. Alameda Lynwood 213-567-812 . Malibu Municipal Courts 23525 Civic Center Way Malibu 310-317-1322 Marina Del Rey LASD 13851 Fiji Way Marina Del Rey 310-823-7762 Palos Verdes Estates PD 340 Palos Verdes Dr. Palos Verdes 310-378-421 Santa Monica PD 1685 Main St. Santa Monica 310-458-8482 Santa Monica Courts 1725 Main St. Santa Monica 310-260-370 Signal Hill PD 1800 E. Hill Street Signal Hill 310-989-720 West Hollywood LASD 720 No. San Vicente Blvd. West Hollywood 310-805-885 West L.A. Courts 1633 Purdue Ave. West L.A. 310-312-650 Special Facilities ADDRESSS CITY PHONE Camp Miller 433 S. Encinal Rd. Agoura Area 818-889-026 Camp Kilpatrick 427 S. Encinal Rd. Agoura Area 818-889-135 Camp Gonzalez 1301 N. Las Virgenes Rd. Calabasas 818-222-1192 Camp Dorothy Kirby M.H. 1500 So. McDonnel Ave. LA / 323-981-431 Commerce Los Padrinos Juvenile Courts 7281 E. Quill LA / Downey 310-922-886 Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall 7285 E. Quill Camp Rocky 1900 No. Sycamore Canyon Rd. LA / San 909-593-239 Dimas Camp Afflerbaugh 6631 N. Stevens Ranch Rd. La Verne 909-593-492 Camp Paige 6601 N. Stevens Ranch Rd. La Verne 909-593-492 Camp Mendenhall 42230 No. Lake Hughes Rd. Lake Hughes 661-724-121 Camp Munz 42220 No. Lake Hughes Rd. Lake Hughes 661-724-121 Mira Loma INS Detention Center 45100 No. 60th St. West Lancaster 661-949-381 Camp Jarvis 5300 West Ave. " I " Lancaster 661-940-415 Camp McNair 5300 West Ave. " I " Lancaster 661-940-414 Camp Onizuka 5300 West Ave. " I " Lancaster 661-940-4144 Camp Resnick 5300 West Ave. " I " Lancaster 661-940-4044 Camp Scobee 5300 West Ave. " I " Lancaster 661-940-401 Camp Smith 5300 West Ave. " I " Lancaster 661-940-404 MacLaren Children’s Emerg. Shelter 4024 No. Durfee Avenue El Monte 626-455-450 Mental Health Courts / Holding 1150 No. San Fernando Rd. Los Angeles 323-226-290 Juvenile Justice Center 7625 Central Avenue Los Angeles 213-586-605 Eastlake Juvenile Courts 1601Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles 323-226-859 Eastlake Detention Ctr. 1605 Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles 323-226-660 Eastlake Juv. Facilities INS section 1605 Eastlake Avenue Los Angeles 323-226-8744 Juvenile Courts 1945 So. Hill Street # 808 Los Angeles 213-744-415 Camp Holton 12653 No. Little Tujunga Rd. San Fernando 818-896-057 Peter Pitchess Honor Rancho – So. 29300 The Old Road Saugus 661-257-488 Peter Pitchess Honor Rancho – No. 29300 The Old Road Saugus 661-257-488 Peter Pitchess Honor Rancho -– E. 29300 The Old Road Saugus 661-257-488 Peter Pitchess Honor Rancho –- W. 29300 The Old Road Saugus 661-257-488 Peter Pitchess Honor Rancho -- fire 29300 The Old Road Saugus 661-257-488 Camp Scott (females) 28700 No. Bouquet Canyon Rd. Saugus 661-296-850 Camp Scudder 28750 No. Bouquet Canyon Rd. Saugus 661-296-881 Sylmar Juvenile Courts 16350 Filbert Sylmar 818-364-210 Sylmar Juvenile Court Holding Cell 16350 Filbert Sylmar 818-364-210 Camp Routh 12500 Big Tujunga Canyon Rd. Tujunga 818-352-440 RESEARCH AND FOLLOW-UP COMMITTEE H. J. Holshuh II, Chairperson James B. Avery, Sr. Betty Burns Walter Lowenstein Victor McCarty RESEARCH AND FOLLOW-UP COMMITTEE REPORT INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES This is the second year that the Grand Jury has formed a research and follow-up committee. Last year, that Committee began the novel task of reviewing the past Grand Jury recommendations and pursued the appropriate responses from the agencies targeted. The 1998-1999 Committee stated that their review of the past 5 years was painfully slow and tedious, but became aware that a vast majority of the recommendations (estimated at 90%) had been eventually considered and implemented by the various agencies. Based on their experience, the 1998-1999 Research and Follow-up Committee recommended that all future Grand Juries appoint such a committee to monitor the status of at least the past year’s Grand Jury recommendations. They also highlighted the need for a computerized tracking system, and indeed the 1998-99 Grand Jury purchased and emplaced a computer system at the end of their tenure. Unfortunately, last year’s Research and Follow-up Committee was unable to document their tracking process and, in spite of their laborious cross-checking, left no working data. It thus fell upon this year’s Committee to make sure that a response came back for each of the recommendations of past Grand Juries, and then collate that data on the new computer. A secondary goal was to identify and present to the entire Grand Jury those recommendations that were not fully implemented, and those that would have the most positive impact on the agencies reviewed and the community. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS We chose initially to survey and input on the computer all the Grand Jury recommendations of the past three years, identified by year and specific committee or investigation. The Committee then recorded the formal responses to those recommendations, along with any other pertinent data or observations. Most County agencies, such as the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), the District Attorney, Health Services, Sheriff’s Department, etc. were familiar with the legal requirements to respond promptly to the Grand Jury recommendations. Other agencies did not conform to the 1997 amended provisions of Penal Code §933(c), which requires that the governing body of the public agency “comment” to the presiding judge of the Superior Court on the Grand Jury findings and recommendations Every elected county officer or agency head shall comment , as well as the mayor of any city mentioned. In 1998-99, three agencies did not respond in a timely manner and a letter of clarification was sent to each. On October 22, 1999, the Los Angeles City Department of Animal Services and the Mayor responded to the supervising judge. On January 10, 2000, the Grand Jury received a non-formatted letter of information and response from the Centinela Valley Union High School District, followed on January 19 by a response letter from the Los Angeles County Office of Education. To date, the Los Angeles Coliseum Commission has not responded. California Penal Code §933.05 clearly defines and indicates the appropriate format for responses to Grand Jury findings expected from the responding person or entity. The respondent can agree with the finding, or wholly or partially disagree. Then the agency will report whether the recommendation has or will be implemented, will not be implemented, or requires more analysis. If more study is needed, the timeframe specified is no more than 6 months from the Grand Jury Final Report. While the quality and/or usefulness of the formal responses varied widely, over 70% of the recommendations from the Final Report of the 1998-99 Grand Jury received comments from the reviewed agencies. In general, most departments and agencies tended to agree with the majority of the Grand Jury recommendations. Lack of needed increased funding was cited as the main obstacle to implementation of the recommendations. Other reasons cited included that some actions were in planning stages or already in progress. Infrequently, it was unclear where the responsibility rests. Only rarely did the respondent totally disagree with the findings and recommendations. Historically the responses have been filed with the presiding judge of the Superior Court and/or the Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury then had to request copies of those formal responses, either from the Board or the agency involved. For most of the Grand Jury civil investigations, the Board of Supervisors would direct the targeted agency to develop the response. During the course of follow-ups, it became obvious that it was not effective to make recommendations specifically directed toward the Board of Supervisors. These were almost always lost in the Board’s delegation of responsibility to a public agency or official under their authority. This Committee made contact with the Records Management Section of the Board of Supervisors in an attempt to learn if the Board had ever acknowledged directly or indirectly approximately 26 pointed recommendations from the past 3 years. The Committee was directed to access the records of Tuesday Board sessions from their County Web site – www.bos.co.la.ca.us/bos.htm This proved laborious and fruitless, mostly proving the negative; that the Board did not consider those issues. A good example was the 10 directed recommendations of the 1997- 98 Health Services Committee on the emergency number 911. No record was found that the Board had ever addressed those issues. In addition, it was noted that the County Chief Administrative Officer was often the designated responder for the Board. If the CAO writes back for the Board, “Support or sponsorship would be a matter for Board policy determination”, that will be the extent of the response and the matter ends there. This phrase seems to be a euphemism for recognition with a lack of either rejection or implementation of the suggested recommendation. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Future Grand Juries should continue to have a Research and Follow-up Committee to monitor civil investigations, as well as maintain the computer database for historical review and prevention of duplication of audits. While the follow-up of criminal indictments might be interesting, that should not be the task of this committee. 2. Grand Jury Committee recommendations should be directed only to the target agency and should be focussed and concise. Sweeping general recommendations directed toward the Board of Supervisors are of little value and should be discouraged. The only recommendations of value for the Board are those dealing with specific backing of needed State or Federal legislation. SPEAKERS AND EVENTS COMMITTEE Maurene F. Nelson, Chairperson Gunter Altman Jacquelin McHenry Inman Moore Richard Niederberg Margarett Tucker SPEAKERS AND EVENTS COMMITTEE REPORT The 1999-2000 Los Angeles County Grand Jury invited 35 speakers to make presentations and answer questions regarding many facets of living and working in the Los Angeles basin. One important aspect of hearing these speakers was the impressive amount of information and understanding we received on how city and county government operates. Information we gained from many of these speakers enabled us to perform at a higher level as members of the Grand Jury. The speakers included members from the Board of Supervisors and their senior County staff, police agencies, the criminal justice system (both prosecuting and defense attorneys), community groups, school officials, and various other County departments. The 1999-2000 Los Angeles County Grand Jury visited these locations as a group. Biscailuz Recovery Center LAPD Crime Laboratory Los Angeles Police Department Officer Graduation Ceremony Los Angeles Processing and Distribution Center - United States Postal Service Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Deputy Graduation Ceremony Los Angeles Times MacLaren Children’s Center North County Correctional Facility Office of Coroner, County of Los Angeles Parker Center Evidence Storage Facility Twin Towers Detention Facility William S. Hart Museum and Park INDEX High Speed Vehicular Pursuits Historical Buildings Home Visits Program-Welfare Eligibility Acronyms- Foster Family Model Homeless contacts with Police Agencies Acronyms- Inmate Welfare Fund How to become a Grand Juror Acronyms- Water Quality Agencies Immigration and Naturalization Service Advanced Officer Training Inmate Welfare Fund Americans with Disabilities Act I.N.S. Arboretas Introduction to the Grand Jury Arwen® Rifle Jail Inspections Audit Committee Jails Committee Audit Report Juvenile Detention Centers Auditoriums L A County Department of Beaches Beach Water Quality L A County Department of Public Works Biscailuz Recovery Center L A County Dept. of Health Services Botanical Gardens L A County Ombudsman Cabrillo Beach L A County Sheriff’s Academy California P.O.S.T. Training L A County Sheriff’s Department California Penal Code §919(b) L A County Sheriff’s Personal Perf. Index California Penal Code §933© LAPD California Penal Code §933.05 LASD California Penal Code §1000.1(a) Library Multipurpose Rooms California Penal Code §1203.1(b) Limited Juris.[Municipal] Court Lock-Ups California Penal Code §1203(a) Long Beach Mental Evaluation Team California Penal Code §1203(4) (d) Long Beach Police Academy California Penal Code §4025 Los Angeles Police Academy Car Chases Los Angeles Police Department Child Abuse Allegations in Foster Homes MacLaren Hall Child Welfare Malibu Beach Children’s Social Workers Marina Del Rey Citizens’ Complaints Committee Mental Evaluation Team Citizens’ Complaints Report Mentally Ill Treatment by Police Community Care licensing Museums Complaints received Ocean Pollution COPS fees Ombudsman Criminal Justice Committee Orange County Sheriff’s Academy Criminal Justice Report Orientation Committee and Report Custody Division Manual §3-75/020.00 P.O.S.T. Training DC&FS Penal Code §919(b) Dept. of Children and Family Services Penal Code §933c Detention Facilities, Mentally Challenged Penal Code §933.05 Detention Facilities Report Penal Code §1000.1(a) Disabled Access to Arts Facilities Penal Code §1203(a) Domestic Abuse Response Team Penal Code §1203(4)(d) Edit and Publication Committee Report Penal Code §1203.1b(a) Foreman’s Statement Penal Code §4025 Formal and Summary Probation Pepper Spray Foster Care Police Brutality Foster Family Agency Model Police Dogs Government Services and Education Comm Private Sector Jail Operators Grand Juror Roster Probation Camp (females) Grand Juror Selection Process Probation Camps Grand Jury Advisors Probation, Formal Grand Jury Events Probation, Summary Grand Jury Officers Recommendations regarding: Grand Jury Picture Citizens’ Complaints Grand Jury Speakers Adult Detention Facilities Grand Jury Staff Beach Water Pollution Group Homes Disabled Access Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District Follow-up of prior Reports Handicap Access Formal Probation Health and Human Services Committee Foster Care H lthRi k fS i i tB h Inmate Welfare Funds Juvenile Detention Facilities Summary Probation Use of Force by Police Utilization of the Grand Jury Welfare Fraud Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements to become a Grand Juror Research and Follow-up Committee Research and Follow-up of Prior Reports Rio Hondo College Police Academy Santa Monica Pier Sewage Spills South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. Speakers and Events Committee Speakers and Events Report Special Housing Units Storm Drains Storm Water Diversion into the Sewers Stun Guns Superior Court Lock-Ups Surfrider Beach Table of Contents Taser® Guns Tear Gas Theatres Title 15, California Administrative Code Title 22, Welfare and Institutions Code Title 24, California Administrative Code Topanga Canyon Beach Twin Towers Detention Center Uniform Building Code Urban Runoff Urban Runoff Infraction Citations Use of Canines Use of Force Training Welfare Fraud Youth Camps Youth Fire Camp Zero Tolerance in Domestic Disputes
R97-01

Minority Probationary Discrimination
R97-58

State Prison Officer Misconduct 97-58a State Prison Officer Misconduct-2nd Complaint
R99-21

County Tax Collector
R99-46

Prison Guard Misconduct
R99-47

Retaliation Against Whistle Blower
R99-51

Violation of Speedy Trial Rights
R99-56

Privatization to Circumvent Affirmative Action
R99-64

Claim For Damages/Late Claim Relief
R99-69

Minority Probationary Discrimination
R99-71

Hazardous Material Violation
R99-74

American Medical Response Practices