Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
• Agency Response
ZEV Y Arosla Vsky The Honorable Board of Supervisors Third District County of Los Angeles DON Knabe Fourth District
⚠️ 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 16 findings
F1
When a person obtains Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, he oLs.oe is assumed eligible for IHSS assistance. The District Attorney contends that if the Department of Public Social Services determines that the person has assets which would make him/her ineligible for SSI, the DPSS caseworker does not notify the Social Security Administration of these findings. However, in the Grand Jury's discussions with executive management from DPSS, we were advised that all sixty existing field offices do in fact have a liaison person who contacts the Social Security Administration and advises it of a recipient's possible ineligibility for SSI and other issues of concern, to the extent allowed by current privacy laws. It should also be noted that SSI recipients must report their annual income at telephone number 1-800-772-1213. Reference can be made to Social Security Publication SSA-4926-SM (January 2008). Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is not the same as Social Security benefits paid to those age 62 and over.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1: County Code Chapter 5.40 section should be amended by the Board of Supervisors to create a simple framework for departments using County vehicles.
F2
DPSS collects time sheets which are supposed to be signed by the IHSS aid recipient and the aid provider. Information from that time sheet is forwarded to the State of California, and a state warrant, made payable to the aid provider, is prepared. DPSS keeps the time sheets, but has no filing system for easy retrieval of these important records, which are often required by the district attorney in the prosecution of fraud cases. DPSS executive management concedes this is a problem, due to the enormous amount of paperwork received per month (over 300,000 time sheets) by the Central Time Sheet Processing Operation, and the current system of filing, which is by manual batching. DPSS is holding off on a more efficient, automated approach to this filing system due to a pending upgrade to the state's computer system, which will hopefully address some of the inefficiencies of manual processing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
5: The CEO should require that all County departments provide to the Auditor-Controller's Office the names of employees authorized to use a County take-home vehicle, including exempt employees and the reason for the exemption.
F3
When a person applies for IHSS assistance, a medical verification of the person's physical/mental/medical condition is required to be prepared and signed by a medical doctor. Without validation, the process as it currently exists is subject to fraudulent use and/or signature forgery.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1 : The Board of Supervisors should direct all County departments to track and monitor after-hour vehicle usage to ensure sufficient business justification exists for the take-home vehicle.
F4
Cases have been identified by the district attorney wherein care providers are allegedly providing aid under different names and fraudulently collecting benefits. Cases have also been identified wherein aid recipients are allegedly receiving aid under different identities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
2: The Board of Supervisors should amend the County Code by adding language that established criteria for the standard vehicle types and require department to submit any exceptions to such criteria to the Board of Supervisors. CEO response: While some individual departments have provided comments in their attached responses to the Grand Jury Report, we have collectively determined that our response to these " recommendations will require further analysis and additional time to complete. As such, this Office has convened a taskforce consisting of Auditor-Controller, Fire Department, Internal Services Department, Department of Public Works, Sheriff Department and County Counsel to ensure necessary input in developing our response. The taskforce will identify the required Code amendments to effectively respond to these recommendations. We anticipate submitting our response to the recommendations to the Board of Supervisors within 60 to 90 days.
F5
DPSS administers various federal and state-funded aid programs at the county level, including General Relief (welfare), CalWorks, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, and IHSS. The district attorney has identified a number of cases where benefits from one program would reduce or eliminate eligibility for another program, and contends that DPSS computer databases do not "talk to" one another, so inter-program opportunities for fraud abound.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
DIRECTORS OF DCFSt PROBATION. DJvIl AND LACOE SHOULD DESIGN THE A CURCULUM THAT ADU'ESSESPAACTICAL AN IMPLEMENT JOINTLY PREPARE THEM EDUCATIONAL SKILLS FOR ALL CHILDREN TO BETTER FOR INDEPENDENCE. In preface to this recommendation, it was stated that data substantiatingtherltportedone entering the juvenile hallsanq canips was nDt to three years grade lag of the students available. A recent study completed by LACOE' sassessment unit confirrns that there is the halls and camps. atlee to five year grade levêldeficiency for students entering Response Understading (MOG) which Probation and LACOE have enacted a Memorandum of details the roles and responsibìlties which each agency wìl !ulfill in irnplementing a camps. Areport Comprehensive Educational R.eform Prograni in the juvenile halls and educational pathways. of that program details thecuniculum design based on four . High school graduation . Passage of Californa High School Exit Exam (CASHEE) Mt.WìlUam Fùjìoka. Chief ExecutIveOffcer Grand Jur Response Civil July 25, 200& · Passage ofa test qualifyng for a General Education Development (GED)cettificate · Specialized Rap, vocational and career educatìon and -enrollment in a jtlor()r undergraduate college The reform component of theprogra. includes a redesigl1of th~currei:t Pl'ogtams. to reflect a change from incarceration methodology tooneofrehabiltatiQn. In theduvtnile halls where the average length of stay is 19 days, the program wil focus on a multi- which wil be based on acollectìon of stUdent data disciplinary assessment (M))A) (school records, transcripts, health exams, criminogertc needs, êld psychologìcal testing). A specialzed student data retrieval system is already fuctioning at i,oth th.e halls andcarnps. Based upon the MDA, an individualized learrtng plan (ILP) is student. In the caips wliereäininimum stay is five inöìlths, the COl'sttcted för each curicl,lun:i is design~d to provide. remediation classes for those studel1tswho ønterwith are able to pass the CAHSEEan(lear a an academic deficiency, as well as those who are currently opportunities for vocational and high school diploma. Iii thecarps there career courses~bu.t thêse wil beexpafided at specialized camps hi the near futue. Probation, LACOE, DMH, DCFS, and other county agencies includhig the Eduçation Coordinating Council and County Librarian have collaborated on designing and an imlementation schedule, and have planned an accountâbilityprocessto formulating enhance tle fulfillment of this reform program. The goal of ther~form program is to and to transition youths to a productive life up.on retur to their reduce recidivism cottunities. LACOE staff and members of the ComprehensìveEducation Reform Conllnittee (CERC) will. continue to be involved in. the iirplem~ntati0n of the reforms, andaie available and wi11iïg töserve on. any future countyide effort to develop plans for implementing the recommendations contained in the Grand Jur Report.
F6
Neither the State of California nor the County of Los Angeles conducts a criminal background investigation on the provider of IHSS services. Since the recipient has carte blanche to choose a provider, but cannot conduct a background investigation, the county is in a position to do so on behalf of the recipient.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Reassessments of the recipient's need for continuing IHSS care are not done in a timely and systematic manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE DEPUTY CEO, DCFS, PROBATION? AND DMH, IN CONSULTATION WITH LACOEAN OTBER SCHOOL DIStIDCTS, SHOULD DEVELOP A PLAN AND A TIMELINE FOR A COMPREHENSNE INFORMATION SYSTEM TO CAPTURE ALL RECORDS ON ALL CHILDREN IN THE SYSTEM. Response: consult wìth the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH .on LACOE wìll continue to and tinieline for a comprehensive information system to the development of a plan capture all records on all children in the system. The Project Coordînator of F.oster Mr. Wiliam Fujioka Executive Offcer Chief Civi.Grand J"I ~espo:nse JUly 25, 2008 ¥out1Services has design.edand inplenienìed adatacôllectiohsystenias requied by the .graits; Shehø.scØl1eêted data on foster yõiith inêiuding.~~4ireêt()l' informätion," as wella.sstu4~l1t açaçh~l1ic ~nformation,servces provided ~ncludingtitQring, mentoring of aid counseling, special education identification'aldmore..A.ddìtonally~ the State phase tWo ofa statewide stident inonnationsystcm. In California ispöised to begin. phase. on,e, the.StateIiplemented tlÎqtiestl,ldent idel1tifiersso that løcal educational age1lcies aidstate agençies could tragk individual stl.nentmovenieiit and basîc demographic Înfortation. In phasetwo,t1e State will beliplementirig theCalifomía Longitidinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPA.DSy.Whilethefinallistof the published, this databasewil11'()t only provide basic inclu.ded dataelenients has nøt been hOl.se stn4eiits'açadernic .data a.ei()gta.ph.çs a.rid enrollment data" pllt Will also state assessments, stidenttranscripts,andprògram paricipation. inclqdingthe results of In sU1ar,LAGOE recøgiiz~stheva.tle øf theinfo1'atiaí1 cQiitaecl in the Civì1 Gran4 Jii reportaid lOOKS (orwarq tg.partiçiPøting with other .cPW1tyagel'cie$. in dlscnssingand implementing..therecommendationsin.this report. Sincerely, ~~:?~..~~ ~J~~~ (~~~c,~1 ~ DarliiieP. Robles~Ph.D. Sllperlntendent DPR.:R.TR.:sw/imi Li\.COE çç: L)r.Roiia1ÇlT.:ßanqolpli, Director, 1¥r. Gerald Rîiey~AssistantStlperintendent, LAGOE ATTACHMENT G PROBATION DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT G COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPARTMENT 9150 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY - DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90242 ROBERT B. TAYLOR (562) 940-2501 Chief Probation Officer July 25,2008 TO: William T. Fujioka QChi~ef A deminii~strautive- Officer FROM: Robert B. Taylor Õ Chief Probation Offcer SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE 2007-08 GRAND JURY'S FINAL REPORT Attached is the Probation Department's response to the Grand Jury's recommendations contained in their 2007-08 Final Report. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Robert Smythe, Deputy Director, Administration at (562) 940-2516. RT:rs
F8
Personnel of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) are not always qualified to assess the kind and intensity of the care required, which is roughly analogous to Medicare's definition of "custodial care." Among the chief determining criteria for receiving IHSS is the requirement that but for this program, the recipient would require out-of- home placement. Quoting from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) report entitled In-Home Supportive Services: Past, Present and Future, January 2003: "The IHSS program is based on a social model - one that relies on a social worker assessment rather than assessment based on medical criteria. As such, caregivers are not medical personnel, nor are the social workers and, obviously, the consumer... "Quality of care is dependent on the caregivers qualifications and job satisfaction and how accurately the social worker's assessment of the consumer's need comports with the consumer's actual supportive service needs." Recipient need assessments have a significant subjective component, influenced by the personal bias of the social worker, personality interactions, and the innate desire to be charitable. DPSS also realizes that the initial assessment home visit, reassessment visits and scheduled visits are sometimes stage-managed in order to draw the maximum benefit of the program. The attempted reassessment via repeated random visits, to a supposedly housebound recipient who is never home, should be a cause for concern.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
As an alternative to personalized, in-home care, electronic home monitoring could be made available for those recipients who neither want nor require personal contact.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Providers of in-home care complain that they are not getting paid by the recipients of in-home care. Conversely, recipients complain that the providers are not providing the level and/or quality of care for which they are being paid from IHSS funds. In some cases, time cards have been forged or altered. 10
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Initial fraud referrals are supposed to be sent to DPSS headquarters. However, in some cases, DPSS employees attempting to report suspected IHSS fraud have been met with responses DPSS RESPONSE TO FY 2007-2008 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS ranging from apathetic to hostile on the part of district office supervisors and managers. Reports of suspected fraud, forwarded to DPSS headquarters, are not followed up on with the employees who initiated the reports; in essence, a lack of feedback. Senate Bil (SB) 1104 grants jurisdiction for IHSS fraud investigations to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), formerly known as the Department of Health Services. Specific provisions contained in SB 1104 created fraud detection and quality assurance protocols, adherence to which is not optionaL.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
An Affidavit of Support, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form 1-864, must be submitted by those who are sponsoring foreign nationals under the family based immigration system. Furthermore, the Affidavit of Support is required in certain employment-based immigration situations. Section 213a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 CFRs) creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor( s) and the foreign nationaL. The Act DPSS RESPONSE TO FY 2007-2008 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS also creates a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor( s) and the federal agency or any state agency which may provide means-tested public benefits to the sponsored immigrant. Implemented in 1996 to ensure that foreigners do not become public charges after admittance to the U.S.A., the Affidavit of Support requirement must be satisfied in order for many foreigners to ultimately obtain legal permanent residence. The Affidavit of Support terminates once the sponsored immigrant "naturalizes" or when credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work as defined by the Social Security Act. Form 1-864 and 1-864A data may be disclosed to other federal, state and local agencies providing means tested public benefits for-Ose in any civil action against the sponsor(s) for breach of contract. Social Security numbers may be verified with the Social Security Administration. It may also be disclosed as a matter of routine use to other federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low- income working individuals and families. It is not a tax rebate, but rather a federal subsidy. In addition, the EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits; the EITC will not be used to determine eligibilty for Medicaid, SSI, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing or most payments of temporary assistance for needy families. The EITC is based on a past and an anticipated calendar year of income. Applicants must fie a federal tax return and have a valid Social Security number. Full details are contained in IRS Notice 797 and Form W-5.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Although the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot comment upon or review State of local administration of IHSS is dependent California operations, the successful and professional upon state databases. The state's and Los Angeles County's Department of Social Services computers and software must handshake and exchange data, primarily with the following: · State Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System (MEDS) · Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) There is no longer a demarcation between county and state functions; we live in a virtual world. Even checking a person's federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) status requires DPSS to go through the state systems to obtain Social Security Administration data. Obviously, Los Angeles County DPSS is at the mercy, interest and competence of state agencies, particularly the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Providers and recipients of IHSS services sign and submit a biweekly timesheet which is ultimately processed by the state, the payment warrant is issued by the state, and fraud investigation is within the purview of the state. The acceptance of scrawled or absent signatures on the timesheet does not constitute good management of a multibillion dollar program such as IHSS. Dual endorsement of the payment warrant would definitely be a good business practice.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The Advance Pay feature of IHSS is reportedly abused, particularly by the recipient receiving "advance pay" for weeks and months without submitting a time card in support of that pay. DPSS RESPONSE TO FY 2007-2008 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
No recommendations for this finding
F16
A member of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury, a past service provider in the IHSS program, was approached by an IHSS employee to sign up to take other recipients. All the member had to do was give the IHSS employee permission to re-use the member's provider information, which was already in DPSS files, and periodically sign papers. For this, the member would keep one- half of each check / warrant, and yield the other half to an associate of the DPSS employee. The grand jury member was subsequently approached by someone who was not a county employee, but offering a similar scam. He told the member that "...Iots of people are doing it." Needless to say, the current grand jury member emphatically refused both offers.
No recommendations for this finding