Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 1992-1993 • Agency Response

Final Report 1992 -1993*

Published: April 09, 2009 130 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 11 findings

2. Lack of jurisdiction

limited to training Los Angeles Police Officers. Since 1988, over 2,576 recruits have attended the LAPD training academy. This is an average of 515 recruits per year. Of the 2,576 recruits, 29 were from non-affiliated law enforcement agencies.6 The number of recruits attending the academy in any one year fluctuated between 875 in 1990 and 27 in 1992.7 Exhibit II-2 documents the number of LAPD recruits and non-affiliated law enforcement agencies attending training since

The recommended action was in the planning process Changes were in process

The 1992-93 Grand Jury understood that organizational cost and efficiency are a continuing concern for both public and private sectors, especially in today's economic environment. A Grand Jury "Report Management System" would provide the ability to efficiently and cost- effectively use Grand Jury Reports and Agency Responses as an information resource. In addition, the system would enable the Grand Jury to efficiently and effectively track agency responses and calendar reminders regarding the need to conduct further action or schedule compliance visits. The anticipated benefits of the system are as follows: It would allow the Grand Jury to make more effective use of its existing work product and therefore reduce the possibility of wasting time by conducting overlapping studies. It would streamline the time required to obtain background information on prior studies, which is currently done manually. It would efficiently track responses and actions of various agencies to Grand Jury report recommendations and allow succeeding grand juries to monitor compliance, if desired. The committee found that improvement in the tracking, reporting, and closeout of Grand Jury

resources. Even though the LASD and LAPD work cooperatively in many instances, there is no formal agreement for the agencies to share training resources. The LASD provides basic POST recruit training for most of the law enforcement agencies in the County. The LAPD is one of the few agencies in the County that does not train new recruits at the LASD's facilities. When training requirements increase dramatically above levels the LAPD or LASD training divisions are capable of managing, the current alternative is to send recruits to a Junior College such as Rio Hondo to obtain the POST training. The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is currently

assessing options for encouraging law enforcement agencies to develop regional law enforcement training resources. The Commission on POST has been active in developing a plan to establish regional training centers throughout California as mandated by Penal Code Section 13508.12 Some highlights of Penal Code Section 13508 are as follows: The commission shall do each of the following: Α. Establish a learning technology laboratory that would conduct pilot

Powers Agreements to achieve economies of scale. Also, they are increasingly affiliating with Community Colleges to provide basic POST training as well as other specialized training. Sacramento County The Sacramento County Sheriff, Sacramento Police Chief and the President of Sacramento Community College, on behalf of their agencies are currently drafting a Joint Exercise of Powers agreement to formally create a "Sacramento Regional Public Safety Training Center." The purpose of the training center is to provide professional training and education using the latest advancements in technology, methodologies and facilities. Appendix D provides a full copy of the Draft Joint Powers Agreement. The agreement indicates that a fundamental reason for consolidating facilities is to share the cost of operating, maintain training and education facilities. The proposed training complex will be located at the recently closed Mather Air Force Base Navigator School. The closing of Mather Air Force Base created an excellent opportunity for the creation of a regional training center utilizing existing structures. When operational, the training center will be governed by a board of directors consisting of the following: Chief of Police, Sacramento Sheriff, County of Sacramento Executive Director, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training President, Sacramento City College, Los Rios Community College District A Public member selected by the Board San Bernardino County The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department has affiliated with the San Bernardino Valley Community College to established a Regional Training Center. As part of the Regional Training Center, the Department has developed an Emergency Vehicle Operations Training Program. The Sheriff's Department and the San Bernardino College have established an agreement to share in the revenue received as a result of attendance at the training center. This will result in an estimated $1 million in revenue for the Sheriff's Department in fiscal year 1992-93. Also, an additional $1 million in revenue will be generated through tuition payments from other law enforcement agencies for training at the Sheriff's Emergency Vehicle Operation Training Center. The revenue generated from the Sheriff's training programs is deposited in a trust fund and used specifically for law enforcement training purposes. For example, the revenue generated by the Emergency Vehicle Operations Center is used to finance the cost of constructing the facility. The following are the probable benefits which would result from merging the

LAPD and LASD training resources. A network of regional training resources could more efficiently accommodate a. fluctuations in training requirements. When one agency's training requirements dramatically increase due to a surge in hiring, the required facilities could be available to that agency. The cost of constructing highly technical training facilities could be shared by b. both agencies. The regional training program could provide a coordinated network of training facilities throughout the County including: firearms training facilities, role playing village for practical applications, and driver training facility. A merging of LAPD and LASD training resources could reduce cost through c. the elimination of duplicate facilities and personnel. d. The potential for revenue enhancement activities could be developed with all revenues dedicated to regional training activities. An example of the potential for sharing revenue is from an Emergency Vehicle Operations Course developed by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury has determined that significant monetary benefits may result from the consolidation of LAPD and LASD training resources. I. It is recommended that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in cooperation with the City of Los Angeles order the formation of a Los Angeles County regional law enforcement academy training task force. The task force should consist of members representing the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles. The task force should report its findings to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Mayor and City Council by June 1, 1994. Specifically, the task force should do the following: Prepare a cost benefit analysis of developing a regional academy. Α. Inventory all LAPD and LASD training resources to determine how a regional В. training program with a network of regional training facilities could be organized. C. Provide a model management and organizational structure for a regional training program. D. Assess the potential for funding assistance from the Commission on POST as well as other sources. E. Determine how a Law Enforcement Regional Training Program Joint Powers Agreement between law enforcement agencies and community colleges district could be structured to meet the requirements of participating agencies. Π. It is further recommended that neither the City of Los Angeles nor the County of Los Angeles should incur any additional expenditures related to the construction of new training facilities until recommendations from the task force are considered and acted upon. B. CITIZEN'S COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES Concern about substantial payments being made by the County to settle excessive force cases against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD), together with the then-existing and since resolved, impasse between Sheriff Sherman Block and the Kolts Commission regarding the handling of citizens' complaints, prompted the committee to investigate how such complaints are dealt with by the LASD. The scant time available because of the number of indictment hearings which the Grand Jury had to conduct restricted the scope of the study. The committee examined statistical data and did examine one complaint in detail. The resolution of that complaint took an inordinately long time but this fact did not affect the committee's conclusion. The LASD procedures currently in effect make it highly unlikely that the investigation of any current complaint will take so long to complete. The committee found the LASD to be very cooperative in supplying it with the information that was requested. The statistical data it examined summarized the results of the investigation of citizens' complaints of excessive force which were concluded in 1992. The committee also asked for and was given information on the case it had selected for a detailed review. The data consisted of tapes of interviews conducted by personnel of the Department's Internal Affairs Bureau with the complainant, deputies involved in the incident, and civilians who witnessed it. The data also included summaries of the evidence which had been prepared for and which had formed the basis for the Department's decision. The committee also conducted interviews with various county officials. In making its evaluation, the committee took into consideration information which it received from the Los Angeles County Counsel who represented the Sheriff's Department, and from the counsel for the plaintiff in the same civil lawsuit. All the data was carefully studied by the committee. FINDINGS The complaints regarding the use of force which were resolved in 1992 involved 287 deputies. Complaints against 32 deputies (11% of the total) were deemed by the Department to be founded. In the case examined in detail, the Department ruled that the complaint of excessive force was unsubstantiated. One deputy was found to have committed a relatively minor infraction, and discipline for that was imposed. The committee concluded, however, that excessive force had indeed been employed. Further, it concluded that, in order for the Department to decide otherwise, it had to have ignored the evidence given by civilian witnesses and to have accepted the evidence given by the deputies. The committee found the civilian witnesses' evidence convincing. This case presents yet another compelling illustration of the necessity for an independent civilian review of complaints alleging misconduct by members of LASD. In this regard, the committee reviewed the recommendations of the Kolts Report of July, 1992, which examined the "policies, practices and procedures of the LASD ...as they relate to allegations of excessive force, the community sensitivity of deputies and the Department's citizen complaint procedure." The committee examined the response to the Kolts Report by Sheriff Block in October, 1992; the agreement subsequently reached by Sheriff Block and James Kolts; and the response to this agreement by the Coalition for Sheriff's Accountability made up of some 40 community organizations and individuals concerned with the protection of civil rights and liberties. With regard to the question of civilian review of complaints alleging excessive force, the LASD agreed to the appointment of an ombudsman "to assure that citizens' complaints are investigated in a timely fashion and who will communicate to the citizen the progress of an investigation and its results to the extent permitted by law." The LASD also agreed to the appointment of a "panel of retired judges reflective of the diversity of County population and mutually acceptable to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors ... to review all records in connection with the adjudication of a citizen's complaint of injurious force in all instances where the citizen's complaint has been held to be unfounded or unable to be resolved and the citizen requests such a review." The reviewing judge, selected from the panel by the ombudsman, "will either affirm the adjudication of the complaint by the Department or remand it for further investigation or readjudication if in the opinion of the judge the record does not support the result. After this further review, the Sheriff will make the final determination." The Coalition for Sheriff's Accountability pointed out, however, that a panel of retired judges reflective of the diversity of county population cannot be achieved from within the list of 265 retired judges receiving pensions in Los Angeles County. Only ten on the list are women, and the average age of all retired male judges in the county is 75. An analysis of 87 judges on an original proposed list of retired judges for whom information as to race was available indicated that 90.8 percent were Caucasian males. Included on the list was one male African American, two male Asian Pacific Islanders, one male Latino, and three Caucasian females. The Coalition suggested that a review panel consisting almost exclusively of older, Caucasian, male judges may compromise the perception of objectivity among minority group members with complaints against the LASD, and erode public confidence and trust in their decisions.

be facilitated by a better organized DCS policies and procedures manual, one organized around the case process and accompanied by a table of contents and index. Interviews with DCS staff confirmed this observation. The DCS Children's Services Desk Guide and Children's Social Worker Handbook A- Z do not provide clear, concise procedural guidance to assist social workers manage their cases. The booklet is a collection of Department directives spanning the period from 1991 through part of 1993. The children's services handbook does not contain an index or table of contents to identify where specific policies and procedures are contained. Based on the cases in our sample, there is a question as to whether DCS consistently

F10

provides proper notice to all parties. This is a serious problem which could be verified through further sampling of cases. As part of court-ordered services, DCS is required to properly notify parents/guardians of hearings regarding their case. This is outlined in DCS Policy Number Court 91-02, 91-03, and Welfare and Institution Code Sections 335 and 337. In 23 of the 75 cases in our sample (30%), we found at least 1 instance of improper notice in the case. In our interviews with judicial officers, they expressed a concern that there is improper notice far too often.

F11

Court orders for visitations often do not provide specific visitation requirements. Therefore, the auditors were not able to assess DCS's compliance with visitation court orders. Judicial Officers are responsible for setting the terms and conditions for visitations between children and their families. DCS is responsible for ensuring that these court orders are implemented appropriately. The reference manual, Making Reasonable Efforts: Steps for Keeping Families Together recommends that courts make specific visitation orders. These orders should include a schedule for visitation that can be expanded at the discretion of the social worker. It should also specify the time for visitation, the location of visitation, transportation arrangements that must be made, and any specific restrictions on visitations the court requires or will permit." Many of the court orders for visitations in our sample were not specific enough for the auditors to determine whether DCS was complying with visitation requirements. Often court orders for visitations were vague with regard to visitation requirements. This included the time period of visitations, frequency of visitations, and what assistance, if any, DCS was required to provide the family.

Recommendations 11

R1

established by this year's Continuity Committee. That future grand juries be aware of the costs of preliminary meetings ("scoping") with
R2

the contract auditor before investigations begin.
R3

production manager/editor/proofreader for interim reports, the Final Report, and any subsequent reports that may be issued. This person would work under the direction of the Editorial Committee. + GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dorothy Goodrich, Chairperson (Resigned December, 1992) Robert L. Carroll, Chairperson (January, 1993 - June, 1993) Donald Dodd Benjamin Lench Richard Mankiewicz Marilyn Reingold James Wright GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The responsibility of the Government Operations Committee is to review operations of various governmental bodies within Los Angeles County. This year's committee reviewed numerous citizen complaint letters and initiated two investigations. A. REVIEW OF THE PROCESSES FOR DETECTION AND PREVENTION OF WELFARE FRAUD IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES (DPSS) INTRODUCTION The Grand Jury had heard cases involving welfare fraud and wanted to further understand how the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) responds to the possibility of fraud identified by the Department's various automated systems. The 1992-93 Grand Jury Government Operations Committee asked its contract auditor, Price Waterhouse, to conduct a study examining the welfare fraud controls of Los Angeles County's DPSS. The Grand Jury believes that most welfare recipients are honest and that they truly need the assistance they apply for. This study is aimed at the deficiencies in the management of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) which make it possible and, too often, easy for persons to receive aid in excess of that to which regulations entitle them. The number of persons receiving welfare aid in Los Angeles County has increased from 900,000 in 1983 to over 1.5 million in 1992. In the last decade the amount of welfare aid distributed annually in Los Angeles County has more than doubled from $1,241,446,219 in 1982 to $2,593,585,433 in 1992.1 With this dramatic increase in welfare aid, the Grand Jury thought that an independent review of welfare fraud controls would be prudent. Price Waterhouse was asked to conduct this study for the committee. The scope of this study is limited to management controls to prevent fraud in the two largest welfare programs administered by DPSS; the study does not express a formal opinion on the effectiveness of all the Department's fraud control systems. The programs studied were General Relief (GR) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The following aspects of fraud controls were reviewed: 1Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. Research and Statistics Section. Trends in Public Assistance Grant Expenditures. Policies and procedures to detect and prevent fraud; Management's response to control of fraud; and Potential problems in ensuring that fraud is detected. Because of the complexity of the various manual and automated systems of DPSS, the scope of this study is limited to two automated systems that are critical to preventing and detecting fraud. The first is the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) which is a federally- mandated, state-run system that provides information ranging from social security number validation to prior wage earnings, assets, and other known welfare received history. The second is the Welfare Case Management Information System (WCMIS) which is a county-run system that maintains a record of all welfare aid cases funded within Los Angeles County. There are three welfare fraud prevention and detection mechanisms, as follows: Eligibility Worker: Eligibility Workers play a significant role in identifying fraud and
R4

cooperation with the appropriate state authority. These should include: Generating letters to recipients regarding a specific IEVS match in question (i.e., SSI, wage earnings, PVS); and Generating letters to employers regarding verification of IFDS wage earnings match information on aid recipients. Once such requirements are defined, seek resources to design and implement improvements to automated fraud detection systems. In the course of preparing a request for support, DPSS should update their analysis of the cost and benefit of fraud prevention with a focus on the potential for savings from improvements to automated systems.
R5

Review the priorities for processing Integrated Fraud Detection System (IFDS) reports to ensure processing of Duplicate Aid Detection System (DADS) reports are properly prioritized.
R6

Conduct periodic internal audits to ensure compliance with DPSS policy requiring Eligibility Supervisors to annotate all Payment Verification System (PVS) match reports, regardless of impact, on the PVS Control Listing. Amend the DPSS Operations Handbook Division 20-006 requirement of two separate
R7

Notice of Actions for recovery of overpayments. Only one Notice of Action should be sent concerning overpayments. Instruct the Department's Corrective Action Committee to:
R8

Analyze and recommend solutions to reduce the backlog of Integrated Fraud Detection System (IFDS) Abstracts. Consistently monitor IEVS information reports, and communicate with each District Director regularly concerning the status of actions to reduce processing backlogs and progress in fraud prevention. Redesign the county's fraud detection process, with particular attention to the
R9

following: Intake and approval of applications; Transferring cases to Approved Eligibility Workers; Monitoring changes reported on the monthly CA-7 Forms; and Processing of IFDS and PVS abstracts. Monitor and report the number of fraud referrals which result in actual fraud findings
R10

from the following: Eligibility workers; Automated systems; and Public hot line. Develop a system which will ensure that the status of each task be automatically
R11

reported to management. B. INVESTIGATION OF PROPERTY TAX BILLING INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Early in its term the Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint letter which alleged that the County was suffering sizable losses (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) because of a huge backlog of property tax billings at the Auditor/Controller's Office. The alleged backlog consisted of more than 120,000 problems, "exceptions" and "transfers," which the property tax computer system had not been able to process so that real property tax billings were mishandled, were billed to the wrong person, were in an incorrect amount, or were not billed at all. The Government Operations Committee elected to investigate these allegations. The Committee found that serious problems in the property tax billing and accounting procedures exist and that these problems are primarily the result of the fact that there are separate data bases. The Grand Jury recommends that a previously begun but currently suspended project to combine the data bases (Phase III) be completed. The Grand Jury was recently informed by the Interim County Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) that his office concurs with this recommendation and that the project will be completed. PROCEDURE The Government Operations Committee interviewed the CAO and managers and supervisors of the Auditor/Controller's Office, the Assessor's Office, and the Treasurer/Tax Collector's Office. Further information was gathered by observing the Auditor/Controller's personnel at work and by reviewing procedures that were employed by them. In addition, the committee reviewed pertinent records at the Auditor/Controller's Office. All of the investigations were conducted by members of the Government Operations Committee without the expenditure of funds for contract auditors.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.