📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 2014-2015
5. Department of Health Services Write-Off Follow-Up
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 15 findings
F1
Page 88
Production systems are fragmented over 64 Los Angeles County data centers plus three private out-of-state data centers.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 88
Development and hosting are going out of Los Angeles County hands. This means jobs and county funds are moving out of the county.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 88
Software development industrywide has such a high failure rate that extra oversight is warranted.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 88
Los Angeles County has no method to determine to what degree completed software development programs have been a success, and there is no permanent record of lessons learned from the experience of developing new systems.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 88
There appears to be no standard system development methodology for Los Angeles County.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 88
There appears to be no standard project management methodology for Los Angeles County.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 88
Data security is constantly being challenged, so the Los Angeles County chief information officer has been working to upgrade and standardize security.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 88
Data are not standardized within Los Angeles County chief information officer–defined clusters of departments, except within the justice (ISAB) group.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 88
Some departments worry about Information Technology Services (ITS) responsiveness and ITS’s ability provide a high level of service.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 88
Some Los Angeles County data centers inadequately conduct backup. The most- comprehensive backup operation appears to be that of the ITS Data Center at Downey. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 89
Many Los Angeles County departments worry about the disaster survivability of the ITS Data Center and the Orange County backup site. Three departments worry so much that they run their mission critical systems on private data centers outside of the county, in fact, even outside of California.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Page 89
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is moving toward consolidating most of Los Angeles County data centers into one disaster-resistant facility.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Page 89
Los Angeles County information systems use many different programming languages. The county has no standard or guideline on how to select a programming language for use on its development projects.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Page 89
There are no enterprise-wide programming standards for the languages that are used. There is no central guide to good programming practices.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Page 89
In Los Angeles County, there is a countywide tendency to replace existing systems rather than modernize them, in part because COBOL is unjustifiably considered obsolete, and lack of expertise in COBOL contributes to this tendency.
No recommendations for this finding