Delivery of Human Services Committee

There is an insufficient supply of appropriate foster care homes for children entering the foster care system, especially for children with special needs. The licensing period for new foster homes can deter some prospective foster parents from applying for licenses.

Medical and dental care of foster children is not provided in a consistent manner. There is no mandatory health screening or psychological assessment prior to placement of children into foster homes. Health information is maintained with the child by the foster parents, often without a backup copy in the case services file.

Many DCS social workers have potentially excessive caseloads, making it difficult to closely monitor children in the foster care system. The excessive number of cases per worker also prevents disciplinary action against DCS social workers not . performing required monitoring steps.

Case file management is paper intensive, which can result in a disproportionate amount of time spent on administrative functions rather than child monitoring. There are few provisions made for 18 year olds leaving the foster care system.

An "Independent Living Program" has recently been instituted; however, fewer than half the referrals made by DCS graduated from the program last year. It appears that most 18 year olds leaving the foster care system are inadequately prepared to properly enter the community. Examples of where deficiencies may exist are educational levels, marketable job skills, and independent living adaptability. Foster parents lack mandatory training which could help them better understand

requirements and support available to them from DCS. Approximately half of all new foster parents leave the foster care program within the first two years. An exit survey conducted by DCS showed that many foster parents felt they received little support from DCS.

85 V. GANGS The Delivery of Human Services Committee did not make an in-depth study of the gang situation in Los Angeles County. While this issue is of great concern to the people of this community, we felt that the issue was too complex for us to pursue. We are aware that there are many interest groups already dealing with this problem; police gang details, concerned citizen groups and city, county, state and federal government task forces. The committee is of the opinion that these special interest groups are better prepared to make meaningful recommendations dealing with this extremely difficult problem area. Nevertheless, it is the hope of the committee that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors direct their attention to the gang problem, which impacts on all of society and must not be ignored. APPENDIX (The Appendices for the contract audit reports are not included below.) PERSONS INTERVIEWED Honorable Kathryn Doi Todd, Prior Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court Honorable Paul Boland, Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court Julius Libow, Mediator, Dependency Court Michelle Lewis, Director, Probation Department, Placement Coordinator Elaine Lomis, Skid Row Out-patient Mental Health Clinic Helen Maxwell, Superintendent, MacLaren Children's Center Art Tantardino, Director, Probation Department, Dorothy F. Kirby Center Richard Kushi, Director, Skid Row Out-patient Mental Health Clinic Robert Chaffee, Director, Children's Services Department John A. English, Supervising Deputy Probation Officer, Crenshaw Area Office Dr. Dolores J. Richie, Head, Office of Education, Dorothy F. Kirby Center Aros Mouton, Director, Probation Department, Crenshaw Area Office Phyllis Key, Director, Skid Row Out-patient Mental Health Clinic Dr. Solomon Henderson, Principal, Juvenile Community Schools William K. Burkart, Superintendent, San Fernando Juvenile Hall Roberto Quiroz, Director, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health Fred Berson, Principal, Camp Afflerbaugh School Jack McMahon, Probation Department, Director, Camp Afflerbaugh Harry Cummings, San Fernando Juvenile Hall Mary Dederick, Director, Camp Scott Barry Nidorf, Chief Probation Officer Kathy Durand, President, Foster Parents Association Roger Smith, Supervising Deputy Probation Officer, Gang Detail FACILITIES VISITED San Fernando Valley Juvenile Hall, Sylmar MacLaren Children's Center, El Monte Skid Row Mental Health Services, Los Angeles 86 $50,000,000,000,000$60,000,000,000,000 B0000000000000000000000000000000000000 Probation Field Service Office (Crenshaw), Los Angeles $6000000000000000000000000000000000000 Dorothy F. Kirby Center (Probation Department), Los Angeles Eastlake Juvenile Hall, Los Angeles Northeast Juvenile Justice Center-Intake & Detention Control, Eastlake Juvenile Court Camp Afflerbaugh-Paige, LaVerne $3000000000000000000000000000000000000 Camp Scott (Probation Department), Saugus Out-patient Mental Health Clinic, Los Angeles State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the S Secretarion of the second Between 1999 Special control of the Special Control of the Special Control of the Special Control of the Special Control of the Special Control of the Special Control of the Special Control of the Special Control of the Special Control Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Springs and Spring Management Statement Service Cold Manager Comment STATE OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE PARTY OF THE P BenganasaBenganasa 18 1000 $500000000$800000000 Secretarion of the second September 2 87 . . . . . . . . . - GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS-FINANCE COMMITTEE 900000000000000000000000000000000000000 . * . . GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS-FINANCE COMMITTEE Standing L to R: James Hart, Dorothy Keye, Joseph Baranoff Lawrence Keller, Emma Fischbeck, Chair Seated L to R: . . GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS—FINANCE COMMITTEE Purpose The purpose of the Government Operations-Finance Committee was to investigate and research methods of effecting cost-savings through improved monitoring of selected county government entities. Areas of Concern The following items were assigned to this committee: Citizen Complaints Community Redevelopment Agencies • Adequacy of Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Funding • Welfare Dollar Error Rates, Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services Internal Controls within the Los Angeles County Purchasing and Stores Department • Effectiveness of Reassessment Procedures within the Los Angeles County Tax • Assessor's Office Background With the exception of community redevelopment agencies, a preliminary inquiry into these areas of concern revealed that county administrators were aware of problem areas and were addressing them. I. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS The Government Operations-Finance Committee received, reviewed and took appropriate action on nine citizens' complaints. II. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES The Grand Jury's concern with community redevelopment agencies was due to an apparent lack of accountability, constant media coverage alleging mishandling of Spring control responsibilities and citizen complaints. The committee mailed a request for information to all community redevelopment agencies in Los Angeles County regarding compliance with state law in the matter of their activities with low, very low and moderate income housing. The committee recommends that the background information received remain on file and available to future grand juries in the Grand Jury Office and updated from year to year. Although all 65 community redevelopment agencies responded, some appeared reluctant and others forwarded incomplete information. Certain community redevelopment agencies were selected for audits based in part on these surveys. An executive summary of these contract audits follows. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: LOS ANGELES PURPOSE The purpose of the investigation was to examine specific issues pertaining to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (Agency). FOCUS/ISSUE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury directed Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a review of the Agency's compliance with state law pertaining to the 20% set-aside funds for fiscal years June 30, 1986, June 30, 1987 and June 30, 1988, reporting of housing units, placement of tenants in housing and usage of relocation subsidies. The Agency was selected for review primarily because of citizen complaints, and the recent media attention concerning alleged hidden and misleading information reported by the Agency. BACKGROUND Redevelopment agencies' primary source of funding is through tax increment financing. The law provides that 20% of tax increment funds be set aside for very low, low and moderate income housing. SCOPE OF WORK Review the 20% set-aside housing funds. Evaluate definition of "family housing unit." Review controls for reporting to the State. Review compliance with the law governing placement of qualified tenants. Review relocation subsidies and practices. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION We investigated compliance of the 20% set-aside of tax increments for fiscal years 90 June 30, 1986, June 30, 1987 and June 30, 1988 as follows: Obtained understanding of law changes. Recomputed tax increment allocation for propriety and reasonableness. • Obtained explanations and reviewed support for project areas allocating less than • 20% of tax increments for low and moderate income housing. Tested 20% set-aside expenditures for fiscal years June 30, 1986, June 30, 1987 • and June 30, 1988. We investigated and evaluated housing units statistics as follows: Obtained Agency's definition and usage of a dwelling unit. Obtained an understanding of procedures used by the Agency for reporting of • statistical data for State and City external reporting purposes. Examined source documents provided by the Agency and used by the State and City in published reports. We investigated relocation subsidies: 0 Obtained and reviewed procedures used by the Agency to expend relocation subsidies. Obtained and reviewed housing unit relocation subsidy amounts for each fiscal • year June 30, 1986, June 30, 1987 and June 30, 1988. FINDINGS There is ambiguity in the state law pertaining to the definition of a dwelling unit and the usage of low and moderate designated funds for "homeless" shelters. The Agency reports data to both the State and City for public usage. Certain areas of the Agency's internal controls of reporting need strengthening since there appear to be weaknesses in the current reporting process. Furthermore, the Agency has no adopted set of policies and procedures governing its operations, relating to low and moderate income housing. Recertification of some designated very low, low and moderate income housing tenants after the initial admittance into a redevelopment project is not performed by the Agency. State law does not require recertification. We tested allocations and expenditures for compliance with the laws applicable to the 20% set-aside. No significant exceptions were noted for the items tested. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council propose/support legislation that clearly defines certain terminology used by redevelopment agencies in their gathering and reporting of statistical data to the State such as "Dwelling Units," "Family," etc. Legal definitions in this area would facilitate the consistency of reported statistical data to the State by all redevelopment agencies. The Grand Jury further recommends the Agency make a formal request of the State to clarify the definition of a dwelling unit for statistical reporting purposes to ensure consistency of reported dwelling units from the various redevelopment agencies. The Grand Jury also recommends the Agency adopt a formal definition of a dwelling unit for reporting purposes. Additionally, the Agency should incorporate the definition in the Agency's housing policy manual therefore providing a clear definition which will facilitate consistency when gathering and reporting statistical and cost data to outside entities. 2. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council propose/support legislation to clarify the law related to the propriety of expending low and moderate income funds on homeless shelters. The Grand Jury also recommends the Agency make a formal request to the State to clarify the definition of low and moderate income housing to include or exclude "homeless" shelters. 3. The Grand Jury recommends the Agency review the State Controller's reporting instructions and comply with the categorization of revenues and expenditures as stipulated by the State and footnote any deviations to the reporting instructions. The Grand Jury recommends the Agency formally request the Los Angeles City 4. Council prepare written instructions for requested information. In the absence of a clear understanding, the Grand Jury further recommends the Agency fully disclose descriptions of components included on a report. Additionally, the Grand Jury recommends the Agency take whatever action necessary to identify and correct any errors, ambiguities, differences between estimated and actual costs, etc. in its internal cumulative statistical data to date to ensure its integrity since this statistical data will continue to be compiled on a cumulative basis. 92 5. The Agency's accountability for data appears to stop once the data is submitted to the City or State. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends the Agency review published State and City reports since the publishings are the final reporting to the public as to the statistics of the Agency's activity. The Grand Jury further recommends the Agency develop a formal review procedure of all Agency data published in State and/or City reports. This review should be performed by a responsible individual within the Agency to ensure its integrity. The review process should include a mechanism for providing feedback to the publishing entity as to discrepancies noted. 6. The Grand Jury recommends the Agency adopt a formal written set of policies and procedures for all Agency activities pertaining to the low and moderate income housing fund. The manual should be modified on an annual basis to ensure that legal and Board changes are made on a timely and uniform basis throughout the Agency. Additionally, the manual should include a "glossary" of ambiguous and frequently used terms. 7. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council propose/support legislation requiring the periodic recertification of all very low, low and moderate income tenants. The Grand Jury also recommends the Agency consider recertifying all very low, low and moderate income tenants on a periodic (three or five year) basis. The Grand Jury recommends the Agency establish a formal review process 8. for statistical data and designate a person responsible for such review. 9. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council propose/support legislation requiring the approval of an independent body in any situation where an Agency is seeking exemption from the 20% set-aside requirement in whole or in part. CITY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: REPLACEMENT HOUSING PURPOSE The purpose of our investigation for the Grand Jury was to examine state law related to replacement housing at the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (Agency). FOCUS/ISSUE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury directed Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a review of the Agency's compliance with state law pertaining to the replacement of certain low and moderate income housing destroyed or removed in connection with the Agency's redevelopment plans and to ascertain if the Agency has adequate systems, policies, procedures and controls in place to ensure and monitor compliance on an ongoing basis. The review was requested by the Grand Jury as a result of recent media attention pertaining to the Agency and the Grand Jury's concern as to whether the Agency was replacing the required number of dwelling units as prescribed by state law. BACKGROUND The Agency's primary responsibility is to eliminate slums and blight, revitalize older neighborhoods, provide additional housing, encourage economic development and create employment opportunities. To accomplish these objectives, the Agency is authorized to prepare and implement redevelopment project plans in approved project areas. Funds to implement the redevelopment project plans are received from federal grants, tax increment financing and the sale of various types of debt instruments. The preparation of redevelopment project plans and their method of implementation is regulated by various provisions of the State of California Community Redevelopment Law of the Health and Safety Code. These laws prescribe the procedures the Agency must adhere to during the implementation of a redevelopment project. Certain provisions of state law require the Agency to prepare redevelopment plans for each project area to be redeveloped. SCOPE OF WORK Evaluate the Agency's compliance with state law pertaining to the replacement of certain low and moderate income dwelling units destroyed or removed in connection with the Agency's redevelopment plans. In connection with the Agency's redevelopment plans, ascertain if the Agency has adequate systems, policies, procedures and controls in place to ensure and monitor compliance with state law on an ongoing basis. The period covered and tested by this review was Replacement Housing Plans adopted or amended during the period January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1984, which also included a Replacement Housing Plan adopted January 7, 1985. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION We investigated the Agency's compliance with its replacement housing requirement. Obtaining an understanding of state laws pertaining to replacement housing. Conducting interviews with selected Agency staff and others. Obtaining an understanding of procedures, where applicable, used by the Agency for ensuring and monitoring compliance with state law. Examining selected source documents provided by the Agency. Introduction The Agency is responsible for ensuring that the removal and replacement of low to moderate income persons' dwelling units in a project area, as identified in a Replacement Housing Plan, meets the criteria of applicable law prescribed in the State of California Community Redevelopment Law of the Health and Safety Code. Further, the Agency is also responsible for ensuring that all tenants occupying those dwelling units designated as low and moderate income persons' dwelling units are occupied by persons or families meeting the income levels prescribed by state law and, in addition, that a prescribed number of replacement units be designated for very low income persons or families. FINDINGS Agency's Status of Housing Production Reports There is an absence of written procedures to ensure that all Replacement Housing Plans for dwelling units are included in the Status of Housing Production reports. Procedures to Ensure Compliance with State Law Section 33334.5 - Replacement of Destroyed Housing The Agency does not have written procedures to ensure its compliance with state law pertaining to the replacement of destroyed dwelling units within four years from the time an existing dwelling unit is demolished or removed. i.i. Grand Jury's Concern on Replacement Housing Though the Agency did not have written procedures to ensure compliance with State Law Section 33334.5, Coopers & Lybrand concluded that the Agency did replace dwelling units identified in Replacement Housing Plans adopted or amended during the period January 1, 1977 through December 31, 1984, including a Replacement Housing Plan 95 2007/2/10 adopted January 7, 1985, in excess of dwelling units destroyed and that the dwelling units were replaced within four years from the date of demolition of the dwelling units. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends the Agency implement written procedures to ensure that all units included in Replacement Housing Plans are appropriately tracked and monitored through the use of Status of Housing Production reports. These procedures could include: (1) periodic review of Status of Housing Production reports to verify that all replacement housing project dwelling units included in those reports are supported by a Replacement Housing Plan, and (2) periodic review of Replacement Housing Plans to verify that all units in those Plans are included in the Status of Housing Production reports. 2. The Grand Jury recommends the Agency implement written procedures to ensure that copies of demolition permits for all demolished dwelling units and all certificates of occupancy for replacement dwelling units be received by the Agency and filed in the project files to be used as a basis for the date of dwelling unit demolition and replacement. The Agency's procedures should also encompass criteria whereby, on a periodic basis, tests are performed on these permits and certificates to ensure the time spread between demolition and replacement is not greater than four years. THE CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: MANAGEMENT REVIEW PURPOSE The purpose of our investigation was to examine specific issues pertaining to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of West Covina (Agency). FOCUS/ISSUE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury directed Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a review and to evaluate the adequacy of the Agency's policies and procedures for selection, approval and monitoring of developers. In addition, Coopers & Lybrand was directed to evaluate the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the Agency's policies and procedures pertaining to the 20% tax increment set-aside and replacement housing requirements. The Agency was selected for review primarily because of continuing adverse media attention concerning the relationship between the Agency and its developers. BACKGROUND The Agency was formed in 1971 to guide West Covina's economic development through the redevelopment of certain blighted areas. The Agency's primary source of funding is through tax increment financing. State redevelopment law provides that 20% of the tax increment funds be set aside for very low, low and moderate income housing. SCOPE OF WORK Perform a high level review of the Agency's organization structure and review process for housing activity. Review the policies and procedures in effect for selection, approval and monitoring of project developers. Review the policies and procedures implemented to ensure compliance with the 20% tax increment set-aside and replacement housing requirements. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION We investigated the organizational structure and review process utilized by the Agency for housing activity. Obtained and documented understanding of the organizational structure through review of the Agency's organization chart. Reviewed the job descriptions of Agency staff including representative duties and the related training, experience, knowledge and abilities required for each job. Conducted interviews with Agency and West Covina City officials regarding their job duties, training and experience. We investigated the informal policies and procedures utilized by the Agency in selection, approval and monitoring of developers. Conducted interviews with Agency employees who are responsible for gathering and analyzing data to be used in selection, approval and monitoring of developers and representatives from the Finance, Human Services and Planning Departments of the City. Reviewed selected documents to verify representations made to the above inquiries. Reviewed and confirmed our understanding of the informal process with the Assistant Executive Director of the Agency. We investigated the informal policies and procedures utilized by the Agency to ensure compliance with the 20% tax increment set-aside and replacement housing requirements. Obtained an understanding of state law pertaining to the 20% set-aside requirement. • Conducted interviews with Agency staff responsible for implementing the 20% set-aside and West Covina City officials responsible for administering the housing needs of the City, including low and moderate income housing. Reviewed documents submitted to the State by the Agency relating to the 20% • set-aside. FINDINGS In relation to 20% tax increment set-aside: The Agency has no policies or procedures to ensure compliance with the 20% Α. set-aside law. There is uncertainty as to whether the Agency can use Community Redevelopment B. Grant and Federal Section 8 Funds to establish that the City of West Covina is making a substantial effort to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. C. Certain amounts reported by the Agency to the State in 1988 did not agree to underlying documentation. There are no guidelines to ensure compliance with the replacement housing laws. D. In relation to the selection, approval and monitoring of developers: E. The Agency has no policies or procedures in place to select, approve and monitor developers. There is no job description for the Executive Director of the Agency. F. G. Job descriptions on file address only representative duties of Agency staff and responsibilities that may be inherent in each position are not addressed. Н. There are no guidelines to provide for project options or alternatives, which leaves the Agency in a position of accepting developer proposals as is or lose potential incremental tax dollars. ١. There are no guidelines for preparation of financial and economic analyses 98 presented to the Agency's Board. This makes it difficult to compare projects for approval or to compare projects already approved. In addition, such analyses do not address potential additional costs to the Agency or City. J. There is no policy to address the method and timing of payments to be made to the Agency by developers. K. The review procedures over financial and economic analyses appears insufficient, especially considering the fact that Agency staff preparing the analyses do not have financial backgrounds. RECOMMENDATIONS In relation to 20% tax increment set-aside: The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency adopt a formal set of policies and procedures for all Agency activities pertaining to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. These policies and procedures should be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that legal and Board changes are made on a timely and uniform basis. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency, the Board of Supervisors, and the City of West Covina make a formal request to the State to clarify the definition of "a substantial effort" and what monies may be used to determine if that effort is being met in relation to the needs of the community. The Grand Jury also recommends that the Agency obtain a legal opinion as to whether or not Community Development Block Grant and Section 8 monies may be used in determining whether the City of West Covina is making a substantial effort to meet the low and moderate income housing needs. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency develop a formal review procedure for all data to be reported to entities outside the Agency. This review should be performed by a responsible individual within the Agency to ensure its integrity. This mechanism should provide for documentation of the source of that data and evidence of the review process. 4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency obtain the required information 1 from its relocation consultants as soon as practicable to determine when the low and moderate income housing units were destroyed and, if necessary, request a formal extension from the State regarding the replacement of these units. SydneydaSpecial The Grand Jury also recommends that the Agency establish guidelines to ensure its future compliance with redevelopment replacement housing laws. In relation to the selection, approval and monitoring of developers: 5. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency adopt policies and procedures to provide guidance as to how it intends to implement the redevelopment law, specifically in how the Agency will select, approve and monitor developers operating in the redevelopment project areas. 6. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency prepare a job description for the Executive Director which addresses the duties to be performed. 7. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency review the current job descriptions of its staff and address responsibilities of Agency positions in relation to the policies and procedures. Such responsibilities should be incorporated into a Policies and Procedures Manual of the Agency. In addition, the Grand Jury recommends that job responsibilities of the Executive Director address the duties to be performed and the related responsibilities inherent in the position, while also considering the duties and responsibilities the Executive Director has as City Manager. 8. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency establish guidelines to provide for viable options or alternatives to be presented to the Agency and the public when a project developer is to be selected. Such guidelines should address minimum procedures to evaluate project options as well as a consideration of potential impact on a proposed project due to increasing competition from neighboring redevelopment agencies and the feasibility of the "regional" aspects of the Agency's projects. 9. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency's Board establish guidelines for a financial and economic analyses presentation. These guidelines should provide for financial and economic analyses to be presented in a format that facilitates comparison between alternative current proposals and past proposals. In addition, the analyses should consider the potential impact of pending and current proposals in neighboring areas. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency's Board adopt a policy for the method and timing of payments relating to changes in developer contracts to ensure that the Agency receives full value for negotiations and contracts entered into with developers. 11. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency strengthen the review procedures over the financial and economic analyses prepared by its staff, either through the use of outside consultants, the City of West Covina's Finance Department or the hiring of Agency staff with sufficient financial expertise. CITY OF WEST COVINA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: EXPANDED MANAGEMENT REVIEW PURPOSE The purpose of our investigation was to examine specific issues pertaining to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of West Covina (Agency). FOCUS/ISSUE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury engaged Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a management review and to evaluate the adequacy of the Agency's policies and procedures for selection, approval and monitoring of developers. In addition, Coopers & Lybrand was engaged to evaluate the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the Agency's policies and procedures pertaining to the 20% tax increment set-aside and replacement housing requirements. The above procedures were performed by Coopers & Lybrand and a report was issued thereon. Based on the findings noted in the report, the Grand Jury has engaged Coopers & Lybrand to perform an expanded management review relating to coordination between the Agency and other City departments; allocation of common costs from the City to the Agency; and review of actual project revenues as compared to projected revenues. The results of the expanded management review are included in this report. The Agency was selected for initial review primarily because of continuing adverse media attention concerning the relationship between the Agency and its developers. BACKGROUND The Agency was formed in 1971 to guide West Covina's economic development through the redevelopment of certain blighted areas. The Agency's primary source of funding is through tax increment financing. SCOPE OF WORK Interview selected Agency and other City department personnel in order to • determine the level of interaction between the Agency and the other City department. Park of the second Review the procedures used in the allocation of City general and administrative costs to the Agency. Review actual sales tax and property tax increment revenues as compared to projected tax revenues used in the project planning process for selected projects. In addition, Coopers & Lybrand has performed follow-up procedures on two issues • identified during work performed on the original management review: Review proposed forfeited revenues on Fashion Plaza expansion. • Review guidelines under redevelopment law as to what constitutes a "dispropor- ۰ tionate share" of administrative expenses in relation to all Agency expenses. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION We investigated the organizational structure and lines of communication between the Agency and the City of West Covina. Reviewed the organizational structure of the Agency and the City of West Covina. Conducted interviews with selected Agency and City of West Covina officials. Reviewed agendas for interdivision and interdepartmental meetings. We investigated the methods in use for allocation of City general and administrative costs to the Agency. Obtained an understanding of state law pertaining to administrative expenses. Conducted an interview with the Agency's Accounting Manager, who is responsible ٠ for recording the allocation of administrative costs. • Reviewed documents to support the allocation procedures in use. We investigated the methods and assumptions in use for computing projected sales tax and property tax increment revenues. Reviewed documents and reports supporting projections for the Fashion Plaza and West Covina Village projects. Reviewed documents and reports for the proposed Fashion Plaza expansion. FINDINGS No formal minutes are prepared for Division Manager Group Meetings. Α. В. There was a lack of documentation supporting the allocation percentages of several 102 key executives' salaries and employee benefits from the City to the Agency. In addition, rent is allocated to the City arbitrarily at a flat rate per year, which is not based on any logical relationship between the City and the Agency. C. The State Community Redevelopment Law provides no guidelines to determine what a "disproportionate share" of administrative expenses is in relation to total Agency expenses. D. Estimated project revenues used in the planning process are not formally compared to actual sales tax and property tax increment revenues generated by the completed project. E. The methodology utilized in projecting future revenues on proposed projects appears incomplete. F. The proposed Fashion Plaza expansion indicates the Agency is willing to contribute substantial incremental property and sales tax revenues as an incentive to the developer. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends that formal minutes be prepared for all Division Manager Group Meetings. Preparation of minutes provides formal documen- tation of Division Manager Group Meetings and ensures that all participants have a concise, objective account of items discussed and conclusions reached. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency maintain documentation which supports the percentage allocation of key executive salaries and employee benefits from the City to the Agency. The Grand Jury also recommends that a rational allocation basis be established for rent charged by the City to the Agency and that all allocation percentages in use be reevaluated on a regular basis to determine their reasonableness. In addition, the agreement between the City and the Agency concerning the allocation of the City Accounting Manager's salary, as well as salaries of various City employees, should be formalized and evaluated periodically for propriety. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors and the West Covina City Council recommend/support legislation that provides guidelines within the state law as to what a "disproportionate share" of administrative expenses would be in relation to all expenditures. This would enable all state agencies to monitor these expenses more closely. MagnetalistsMagnetalists 4. The Grand Jury recommends that actual project sales tax and property tax increment revenues be compared and analyzed against projections. This anlysis will provide the Agency feedback on the accuracy of the methods and assumptions utilized in preparing the projections. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency include the following concepts 5. in calculating projections of project sales tax and property tax increment revenues: The effects of inflation. . The present value of future cash flows. Quantification of estimated future costs to be incurred by the City as a result of the project. In addition, the Grand Jury recommends that all calculations be reconciled • to supporting schedules. 6. The Grand Jury recommends that continued negotiations with the developer be pursued in an effort to improve the proposed terms of the Fashion Plaza Expansion Project in favor of the Agency and City. In addition, the Grand Jury recommends the Agency obtain a legal opinion as to whether state law allows 100% of property tax increment revenues to be contributed as an incentive to the developer in light of the requirement to set aside 20% of tax increment monies for low and moderate income housing needs. THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: COMPTON PURPOSE The purpose of the investigation was to examine specific issues pertaining to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Compton (Agency). FOCUS/ISSUE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury directed Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a review of the Agency's compliance with state laws pertaining to the 20% set-aside funds, reporting of housing units, placement of tenants in housing and usage of relocation subsidies for fiscal years June 30, 1981 through June 30, 1988. The Agency was selected to review primarily because of recent media attention concerning the resignation of the Agency director. BACKGROUND Redevelopment agencies' primary source of funding is through tax increment financing. The law provides that 20% of tax increment funds be set aside for very low, low and moderate income housing. SCOPE OF WORK Review the 20% set-aside housing funds. Evaluate definition of "family housing unit." Review controls for reporting to the State. Review compliance with the law governing placement of qualified tenants. Review relocation subsidies and practices. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION We investigated compliance of the 20% set-aside of tax increments for fiscal years June 30, 1981 through June 30, 1988 as follows: Obtained understanding of redevelopment laws of the State of California effective • during this period. Recomputed tax increment allocation for propriety and reasonableness. • Obtained explanations and reviewed support for project areas allocating less than • 20% of tax increments for low and moderate income housing. Tested 20% set-aside expenditures for fiscal years June 30, 1981 through June • 30, 1988. We investigated and evaluated housing units statistics as follows: Obtained Agency's definition and usage of a dwelling unit. Obtained an understanding of procedures used by the Agency for reporting of • statistical data for State and City external reporting purposes. Examined source documents provided by the Agency and used by the State and • City in published reports. We investigated relocation subsidies as follows: Obtained and reviewed procedures used by the Agency to expend relocation subsidies. Obtained and reviewed housing unit relocation subsidy amounts for each fiscal 8 year June 30, 1981 through June 30, 1988, in which relocation subsidies were made. FINDINGS There is no generally accepted definition of a dwelling unit included in the state Α. law for usage by redevelopment agencies for the reporting of statistical data to the State. The state law provides no guidelines to determine what a "disproportionate share" В. of administrative expenses are in relation to total agency expenses. C. The Agency reports data to both the State and City for public usage. Certain areas of the Agency's internal controls over reporting need strengthening since there appear to be weaknesses in the current reporting process. The Agency has no formal internal review process to ensure the integrity of D. statistical data reported to the State or the City. Ε. The Agency has no adopted set of policies and procedures governing its operations, relating to low and moderate income housing. F. The Agency is expending the 20% set-aside funds for items such as anti-graffiti, fencing and weed clearing. Additionally, support for certain expenditures selected for testing was not obtainable. G. No resolutions have been passed by the Agency for years in which the 20% set- aside requirement has not been met. This is not in accordance with state law. H. Appropriate supporting documentation for relocation subsidies is not being maintained. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors and the Compton City Council recommend/support legislation that clearly defines certain terminology used by redevelopment agencies in their gathering and reporting of statistical data to the State such as "Dwelling Units," "Family," etc. Legal definitions in this area would facilitate the consistency of reported statistical data to the State by all redevelopment agencies. The Grand Jury further recommends the Agency make a formal request of the State to clarify the definition of a dwelling unit for statistical reporting purposes to ensure consistency of reported dwelling units from the various 106 redevelopment agencies. The Grand Jury also recommends the Agency adopt a formal definition of a dwelling unit for reporting purposes. Additionally, the Agency should incorporate the definition in a housing policy manual, therefore providing a clear definition which will facilitate consistency when gathering and reporting statistical and cost data to outside entities. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors and the Compton City Council recommend/support legislation that provides guidelines within the State law as to what a "disproportionate share" of administrative expenses would be in relation to all expenditures. This would enable all State agencies to monitor these expenses more closely. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency review the State Controller's report more closely to ensure the accuracy of the data submitted. Additionally, support for all data related to housing units and construction started and completed should be retained with a copy of the report for the Agency's records. 4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency establish a formal process of reviewing published City and State reports since the publishings are the final report to the public as to the statistics of the Agency's activity. Currently, the Agency's accountability for data appears to end once the data is submitted to the City or State. The review process should be performed by a responsible individual within the Agency to ensure its integrity. The review process should include a mechanism for providing feedback to the publishing entity when discrepancies are noted. 5. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency coordinate with the City's Housing Department to adopt a formal written set of policies and procedures for all Agency activities pertaining to the 20% set-aside fund. The manual should be modified on an annual basis to ensure that legal and Board changes are made on a timely and uniform basis throughout the Agency. Additionally, the manual should include a "glossary" of ambiguous and frequently used terms. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency establish procedures to ensure 6. the 20% set-aside allocation is being calculated on an annual basis and that supporting documentation is retained for all Agency expenditures. Additionally, 8 8 the Agency should ensure that expenditures are within the guidelines established by state law. Any areas of the law that are unclear to the Agency should be 1.8 brought to the attention of the State and clarification requested. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency develop a formal procedure to 7. ensure resolutions are passed explaining why the 20% set-aside requirement is not being met in applicable years. The Grand Jury also recommends the Board of Supervisors and the Compton City Council recommend/support 107 legislation requiring the approval of an independent body in any situation where an agency is seeking exemption from the 20% set-aside requirement in whole or in part. 8. The Grand Jury recommends that the Agency develop a formal procedure to ensure all required supporting documentation for relocation subsidies is maintained in a centralized relocation file. APPENDIX (The Appendices for the contract audit reports are not included below.) PERSONS INTERVIEWED Community Redevelopment Agencies Ernani Bernardi, Councilman, Seventh District, City of Los Angeles Edward G. Feldman, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles District Attorney's Office Marieanne Reich, CPA, ClA, Principal Accountant, Tax Division Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller's Office Diane Shamhart, Los Angeles County Chief Administrative Office Leonard Shapiro, Publisher, L. A. Observer Michi Takahashi, Administrative Assistant, Local Agency Formation Commission Fernando Villa, Attorney, Parker, Milliken, Clark, O'Hara & Samuelian Mary Wawro, Senior Assistant County Counsel, Los Angeles County Dr. Clifford O. Young, Associate Professor, Department of Administration, University of Southern California, San Bernardino Margaret E. Bell, Representative, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy, Office of the Controller, State of California, Sacramento Wayne Beck, Auditor, Division of Local Government and Fiscal Affairs, Bureau of Special Districts, Office of the Controller, State of California, Sacramento Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy, California Assembly, 42nd District Adequacy of Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Funding J. Tyler McCauley, CPA, Chief, Audit Division, Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller's Office Diane Sandoval, Division Manager, Retirement Accounting, Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association Welfare Dollar Error Rates - Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services Gail Dershewitz, Program Deputy, Quality Assurance, Line Operations Section, Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services Rose M. Pigneri, CIA, Principal Accountant-Auditor, Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller's Office Internal Controls within the Los Angeles County Purchasing and Stores Department J. Tyler McCauley, Chief, Audit Division, Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller's Office H.E. Davis, Purchasing Agent in Charge, Los Angeles Purchasing and Stores Department 108 Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secretarion Secre Beginstern of physical con- Effectiveness of Reassessment Procedures within the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's Office John Lynch, Assessor, Los Angeles County ANADARA SANTA Hazel McIntosh, Administrative Deputy, Assessor's Office Secretarion of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the Secondary of the September 2009 Markey School State AppropriatelySeparations Water contraction ManagadagaManagadaga Manager of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the March Consideration phorest and the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distribution of the distri September 900000 117/11/03 ManagaranaManagarana MATERIAL PROPERTY. AND CONTRACTOR 109 - $2000000000000000000000000000000000000 4 . . . GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS-SERVICES COMMITTEE . . . September 1998 . . 1.11 Sana GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS-SERVICES COMMITTEE Standing L to R: Mayfield Marshall, Daniel Strauss, Chair, Louis Brutocao Seated L to R: Roger Ayers, Frank Kelker . . GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS—SERVICES COMMITTEE Secretarians Secretarians Purpose As authorized by the Grand Jury, the committee worked in two areas: to determine the government's responsibility to the homeless; and 1. to investigate environmental problems as influenced by cost effectiveness and 2. politics. Areas of Concern The committee chose to focus its investigations in areas where it felt meaningful results could be achieved: How effectively is Los Angeles County implementing the Aid for Families with 1. Dependent Children (AFDC) Homeless Assistance Program initiated on February 1, 1988 as a result of State Assembly Bill 1733? 2. In anticipation of the shortage of potable (drinkable) water in Los Angeles County, is reclaimed water being adequately used as an alternative resource? To assist the committee in its investigation of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program, the Grand Jury approved a study by the contract auditor Coopers and Lybrand. The contract auditor was also requested by the committee to look into the current and future plans of the Department of Water and Power for utilization of reclaimed water. Executive summaries of the two contract audit reports follow in this section. 9 8 111 I. THE AFDC HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PURPOSE The purpose of this review is to examine the administration of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Homeless Assistance Special Needs Program in Los Angeles County. FOCUS/ISSUE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury directed Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a review of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program. The review was requested by the Government Operations-Services Committee to determine the effectiveness of the County's administration of State and Federal funds and of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program in achieving permanent housing for homeless families. BACKGROUND The AFDC Homeless Assistance Program was initiated on February 1, 1988 as a result of State Assembly Bill 1733. This program which was approved by the Governor on September 29, 1987 makes California the only state with this program. Assembly Bill 1733 created a new non-recurring special need payment for temporary housing for homeless AFDC applicants and recipients. The special need program pays for the security and utility deposits. (The last month's rent is included as part of the security deposit and is only paid then requested by the landlord.) This provides an important resource for homeless families which are frequently excluded from permanent housing by high move-in costs. Since these costs can run as high as $1,000 for a one bedroom apartment, it has often been difficult for AFDC families to save such a comparatively large amount of money out of their grant. AFDC homeless assistance is based on current or potential eligibility for the AFDC program. In this connection, families already in the AFDC program which have become homeless are immediately eligible for assistance based on verification. Families which are not currently in the AFDC program may receive immediate assistance with temporary housing while also applying to the AFDC program. The program includes the following features: Payments are limited to AFDC eligible families. Special need payments provide families with immediate resources for housing. A portion of funds already earmarked for AFDC Federal, State and County use were set aside for the AFDC Homeless Assistance Special Needs Program. Funds are available to the Homeless Assistance Program based on AFDC cost sharing 112 ratios. In this connection, the Federal and State governments pay the majority of AFDC special needs payments. The purpose of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program is to provide financial assistance and social services to families and children deprived of support or care due to the death, incapacity, unemployment, or continued absence of one or both parents. State law requires that the program be administered to help maintain and strengthen family life and to encourage parents and children to attain maximum self-support and independence. SCOPE OF WORK The study included an evaluation of the following areas: Administration of State and Federal funds. Implementation of program procedures, as they apply to the intake of potentially eligible applicants. Access to the program by potentially eligible applicants. Documentation of potentially eligible applicants and follow-up activities to assist ٩ applicants in obtaining assistance. Determination of the basis for the funding of the program and the allocation of 8 direct expenditures and county administrative expenses. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Our methodology used for this review consisted of the following major work steps: We investigated the organizational structure for the delivery of services: Reviewed the organizational structure of the Department of Public Social Services 0 (DPSS) to determine functions performed and the inter-relationship of responsibilities and functions regarding AFDC and the Homeless Assistance Program. We investigated the administration of the Homeless Assistance Program: Participal September 1 Conducted interviews at various levels, including both management and line • caseworkers. This was done to identify both the overall management objectives and the specific responsibilities and activities within the districts. We investigated the sources of complaints regarding the implementation and effectiveness of the Homeless Assistance Program: Conducted interviews of advocates who have specific interests in the success of 0 the Homeless Assistance Program. This step was performed to assist in identifying potential areas of concern. We investigated statistical data on program expenditures and implementation: Collected and analyzed statistical information related to funding, implementation 0 of the program and associated expenditures. Determined and evaluated the State, Federal and County administration procedures 8 for funding the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program. This was performed to determine the method and allocation of funding and costs. We investigated the process of AFDC Homeless Assistance Program applicants: Reviewed and evaluated selected directives, procedures, forms and processing 8 requirements for AFDC homeless assistance applicants. The applicant processing requirements were evaluated to determine access to and standardization of the program's implementation. FINDINGS Findings regarding processing and documentation of applicants include: Α. The DPSS for the County of Los Angeles appears to meet the minimum 0 administrative and funding requirements of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program, as outlined by the State of California. However, the parameters of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program are subject to interpretation. In this connection, other counties may interpret standards differently and thus process proportionately more applicants and request a larger proportionate share of funding for the program. • An initial screening process used by some DPSS districts is considered to be intimidating by homeless advocacy groups. A concern exists that the nature of the screening process results in potentially eligible applicants not pursuing the application process. Processing of potentially eligible applicants is performed in two different ways and is determined by the districts. The differences in processing result from the differences in the volume of applicants, in languages spoken, and in the types of services provided at each location. The screening process for AFDC applicants has been in use for approximately ten years. Applicants who sign a withdrawal form are not counted as part of the homeless assistance denial (determined to be ineligible) statistics. A concern has existed that potential applicants sign a withdrawal from the application process and are not counted. If applicants withdraw from the application process they are AND COLORS OF STREET not counted as part of the denial statistics. However, these applicants are counted as part of the overall AFDC applicant statistics. As of March 1, 1989, the Application for Public Assistance will have a "check box" which asks $2000000000000000000000000000000000000 "Are you homeless?" Affirmative responses to this question will not be compiled for statistical purposes. $5000000000000000000000000000000000000 There is no formal follow-up procedure for applicants who are initially denied temporary shelter or permanent housing. The County is not required to perform follow-up on applicants who have been determined ineligible for the AFDC 2017-1-1752発送の投資を設置 Homeless Assistance Program. However, if the applicant is an approved AFDC recipient, an eligibility worker will have ongoing communications with recipients. Applicants who are denied are usually referred to other programs. Since the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program was initiated on March 1, * 1988, when initial training was "on the job," DPSS has made substantial Status could progress instructing eligibility workers to follow directives and procedures as changes in the program have been implemented. However, inconsistencies in the applicant process may have occurred because the program was new and because of the limited initial training. A review of the prior training program 2000 was initiated, occurring from February through May of 1989. DPSS evaluated its requirements for the additional AFDC homeless activities and allocated additional staffing resources. DPSS has allocated 16 additional staff to the 利やいいこうの 動物の自分を対象 program since its initiation. Interested parties have been concerned that recipients of temporary shelter 0 29200000000000000000000000000000000000 have not received the full duration of benefits allowed. Temporary shelter is provided to eligible and potentially eligible applicants of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program. An evaluation of documented and actual processing procedures did not indicate that the benefit period was being misrepresented. The "Notice of Action" clearly states the total benefit period for temporary shelter to be 21 days, with an additional 7 days based on good cause. In this connection, a copy of this "Notice of Action" is given to the recipient whenever temporary housing benefits are paid. CONT. Findings regarding reasonable access to the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program в. include: Concerns regarding reasonable access to the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program are based on comparative statistics with other counties. Comparative statistics for October and November 1988 indicate that the percentage of AFDC homeless requests for temporary and permanent housing for Los Angeles SESSESSESSESSESSESSESSESSESSESSESSESSES 115 MANAGEMENT | 1 County is the lowest among the 15 largest counties. The number of requests in Los Angeles County for October 1988 were approximately 0.8% of the total combined caseload of applicants and approved cases. The average percentage for the remaining 14 largest counties for October 1988 were approximately 2.34%. However, comparative statistics generated among the counties are subject to bias because of the different interpretation and application of State regulations. The County does not promote or publicize the AFDC Homeless Assistance ٠ Program. Applicants typically hear of the program through "word of mouth" or through community groups. DPSS supports outreach programs through community meetings which include representatives from shelters and advocacy groups. An information form -- "Important Information for Homeless Families" (PA1323) -- is also available, but must be requested. The information form is provided to potentially eligible applicants when they indicate that they are homeless. This form (PA1323), however, is oriented toward existing AFDC recipients. Special brochures are often prepared by DPSS to inform the public of other special programs. As rental costs have increased, it has become more difficult for certain AFDC homeless clients to find and sustain permanent housing. The AFDC grant portion which can be used for housing is frequently insufficient to support a household. An acceptable method for improving access to permanent housing is through pooled resources of recipients, where two families find and maintain shared housing and expenses. Regulations do not forbid recipients from pooling resources and sharing housing. However, DPSS is not required and does not provide assistance in matching recipients with permanent housing and/or in matching recipients to pool resources. C. Findings regarding the method of funding program costs and administrative allocation include: 4 There is no upper limit on program assistance for funds from the State and Federal governments, because the homeless program is part of AFDC. AFDC funding sources and ratios remain the same whether an applicant is receiving temporary or permanent housing assistance. If an applicant is later found to be ineligible the ratios do change and a larger portion of the costs revert to the State and County. The Federal government does not provide funding for applicants found to be ineligible. 116 2000000 State and Federal funds account for the major portion of the AFDC Homeless 0 Assistance Program costs, as follows: Percentage of Program Costs for Federally Eligible Applicants Assistance Administrative Payments Costs Federal 50.0% 50.0% State 44.6% 25.0% County 5.4% 25.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% D. Findings regarding the comparison of expenditures and implementation for Los Angeles County and other large counties: The State established an initial estimated budget of $38.6 million for fiscal year ending June 30, 1989. The current rate of expenditure for all counties has doubled this initial estimate. However, in comparison to other counties, Los Angeles County which has approximately 33% of all AFDC cases, has spent 15.1% ($6.5 million for the month of October 1988) of the total state AFDC homeless assistance expenditure. The interpretation of statistics provided by the California State Department 0 of Social Services has resulted in confusion. The confusion is generated by the use of the statistics in the calculation of ratios. Two interpretations of October 1988 statistics are provided as follows: Los Angeles County spent $4.94 per AFDC case compared to $11.01 for all counties in California for the month of October 1988. Los Angeles County had an approval rate for temporary and permanent housing of 8.49 approvals per 1000 AFDC cases compared to 18.06 for all counties, for the month of October 1988 for the current 1988-89 fiscal year. Los Angeles County spent $481.90 per AFDC homeless assistance case compared to $469.69 for the 15 largest California counties, for the month of October 1988. Los Angeles County had an approval rate of 96.5% of total AFDC homeless assistance cases compared to 93.6% for the 15 largest California counties, for the month of October 1988. In addition, the total number of AFDC homeless assistance requests as a percentage of the total caseload was 0.8% for Los Angeles County and 2.23% for the 15 largest California counties, for the month of October 1988. The difference in the interpretation of the statistics results from the use of total AFDC cases rather than the AFDC homeless assistance cases. The AFDC homeless assistance cases are a subset of the total AFDC cases. Assuming that the statistics provided by the California State Department of 0 Social Services are comparable among counties, Los Angeles County appears to have interpreted the requirements of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program more strictly than other counties. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that the Department of Public Social Services standardize intake procedures for potentially eligible AFDC homeless applicants at all locations. Specific intake eligibility workers should be designated at each location 0 to deal with the unique issues associated with homeless clients and the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program. Because the screening process can discourage applicants and circumvent the presentation of program information, homeless applicants should be immediately directed to an intake worker. This will assist potentially eligible applicants who may not initially qualify to receive appropriate information on the program for subsequent eligibility. The intent of screening applicants is to determine the needs of individuals 0 and to connect them to appropriate services. The Grand Jury recommends that the Department of Public Social Services 2. compile statistics on all applicants who withdraw their applications prior to approval or denial. The Department of Public Social Services currently compiles statistics on 0 the number of requests received, approvals and denials. However, they do not compile statistics on withdrawals. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the appropriate 3. agency, or group of agencies, to assist AFDC recipients in finding permanent housing. The Department of Public Social Services should work closely with such a group to optimize the level of resources utilized through this program. This agency or group of agencies would be responsible for the following activities: Identifying potential permanent housing for the AFDC qualified homeless. Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separate de Separa Developing a shared housing program which could become a central clearing house for individuals who cannot qualify for housing because of cost. Assist potentially qualified applicants with intake problems associated with the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program. Recipients of AFDC homeless assistance are often unable to locate housing 8 while being assisted with temporary shelter during the 21-28 day period. The AFDC Homeless Assistance Program is not responsible for and currently has no function to assist applicants in obtaining permanent housing. However, the Department of Public Social Services should and does coordinate with many charitable institutions such as the "House of Ruth," the "Salvation Army," and others, who provide temporary assistance to the immediate needs of the homeless. These institutions also coordinate with the AFDC homeless assistance eligibility workers in helping individuals enter the program if they qualify. 4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Department of Public Social Services substantially increase public awareness of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program at its district locations and at all centers which currently provide temporary shelter and assistance to potentially eligible recipients. The Department of Public Social Services is actively involved with numerous 200 outreach programs with various public and private organizations. Brochures which include eligibility requirements should be prepared to supplement existing Department of Public Social Services efforts. Brochures have been 1000 an effective means of communication for other programs and would serve to ensure that this program is more fully utilized by needy families. ACCOUNTS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OF TH 5. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors request and oversee the preparation of an analysis outlining the reasons for the Los Angeles County comparatively smaller percentage of temporary and permanent housing requests. In this connection, the Grand Jury further recommends that the Board of Supervisors request that the State Department of Social Services investigate the differences among counties of the interpretation of guidelines over the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program. 0.00 The State Department of Social Services is responsible for reviewing and @ approving county plans for implementation of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program. The Grand Jury recommends that the Department of Public Social Services 6. re-evaluate its implementation of the AFDC Homeless Assistance Program to determine that the program is obtaining the fullest benefit from State and Federal funds available. Although the Department of Public Social Services appears to be in compliance with State regulations for program expenditure and processing, the comparative number of cases processed by other counties implies that the opportunity exists to assist a potentially larger number of clients in securing and maintaining permanent housing. An aggressive approach should be taken with respect to the identification of needy families. II. WATER RECLAMATION PLANNING: CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER PURPOSE The purpose of this review is to examine utilization of reclaimed water by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). FOCUS ISSUE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury directed Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a review of utilization of reclaimed water by the City of Los Angeles DWP. The review was requested by the Government Operations-Services Committee to determine the adequacy of the DWP's planning and support for utilization of reclaimed water in the County. BACKGROUND The DWP obtains virtually all of its water from three sources. Approximately 75% is normally drawn from the Owens Valley in the Eastern Sierra Mountains. About 15% comes from groundwater from the San Fernando Valley and other local basins. Another 10% is normally purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California. Most of the MWD's water is transported from various Northern California locations via the California Aqueduct and from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct. The DWP is currently pursuing the implementation of three water reclamation projects: the Los Angeles Greenbelt Project, the Headworks Reclaimed Water Pilot Recharge Study and the Sepulveda Basin Reclamation Project. The MWD has long advocated water reclamation as an essential part of water supply planning for Southern California. The MWD is offering to induce local water agencies to develop reclaimed water projects under its Local Projects Program. Under this program, the MWD will reimburse those agencies which develop water reclamation projects. Reimbursement will be made for approved projects such that reclaimed water produced would displace an equal volume of water currently purchased from the MWD. Currently, the guaranteed minimum price the MWD will pay under the Local Projects Program is $75 per acre-foot (see paragraph below). This amount has been found to be close to the energy cost savings the MWD would realize from not having to pump acre-foot quantities of water into the Southern California area. The "acre-foot" is commonly used as a measure of water volume. It is defined as the volume of water necessary to cover one acre of area with a depth of one foot. It is equivalent to 325,851 gallons. SCOPE OF WORK The study includes a review of water reclamation efforts and planning by the DWP. This is a high level review focusing on key factors impacting water reclamation efforts at the DWP and the extent to which the DWP is engaged in water reclamation planning. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Our methodology used for this review consisted of the following major work steps: We investigated water reclamation efforts at the DWP: - 50 Interviewed key management personnel in the DWP with responsibility for development and utilization of reclaimed water. Interviewed key senior level staff from the MWD. Interviewed representatives from the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and Department of Recreation and Parks. Interviewed a representative from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. We investigated existing research on water reclamation: Reviewed numerous water reclamation planning documents. Reviewed numerous publications on the subject of water reclamation. We reviewed the materials provided by the Government Operations-Services Committee reflecting their stuides of water reclamation planning within the County. FINDINGS A. A master plan for water reclamation was not available from the DWP, nor does it appear that water reclamation is currently a major priority in water resource planning at the DWP. However, the DWP does have a planning function which evaluates projects for water reclamation. The DWP does not view reclaimed water as being a major source of its water for the near future. As demand for water increases, MWD water from the State Water Project is viewed as the most economical source of incremental supply. The DWP has pursued water reclamation proposals which appear to be cost B. effective. Examples of such proposals include the Los Angeles Greenbelt Project, the Headworks Reclaimed Water Pilot Recharge Study and the Sepulveda Basin Reclamation Project. However, the DWP is not pursuing water reclamation projects which are not economically feasible. As an example, the Sepulveda Recharge Project's reclaimed water would cost more to utilize than purchasing untreated interruptable water from the MWD. C. The cost of potable water is expected to increase with increasing demand. Higher water prices are anticipated in the future from increasing demand and reliance on MWD supplies. MWD water will be more expensive because of new water project construction and distribution in which more water would be channelled from Northern California to Southern California. The DWP's water reclamation efforts would increase if the MWD were to increase D. its water prices substantially and/or its reimbursement for reclaimed water under the local projects program. The DWP normally receives approximately 10% of its water from the MWD and is expected to rely more on the MWD as demand for water increases in the City of Los Angeles. The DWP's interest in reclaimed water primarily has been economic. In this connection, more reclaimed water projects would become attractive to the DWP if the MWD were to increase its prices significantly and/or increase its reimbursement for reclaimed water. The DWP controls approximately 90% of its water supply but is also entitled to E. a much larger portion of MWD water supplies than it is using currently. In the event of recurring water supply shortages, the DWP is legally entitled to MWD water supplies currently being used by other cities such as San Diego. Should 122 water demand exceed current supply on a long-term basis, the DWP has indicated in its assessment that there will be sufficient supply available from the MWD to meet anticipated demand for the foreseeable future. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors create a water conservation task force with the Metropolitan Water District as its lead agency. A principal goal of the task force would be increased utilization of reclaimed water throughout the County. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Department of Water and Power coordinate its planning function for the use of reclaimed water with the Metropolitan Water District. It is understood that the Department of Water and Power's current plans and policies assume sufficient supplies of potable water being available for the foreseeable future and thus preclude the necessity for using reclaimed water. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Metropolitan Water District build the infrastructure necessary to use reclaimed water from the Department of Water and Power which is currently not being used. 4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Metropolitan Water District provide additional economic incentives to encourage the use of reclaimed water by member agencies. 5. The Grand Jury recommends that the Department of Water and Power make every effort to conserve its storage supplies of water by obtaining more of its allowable share of water from the Metropolitan Water District. The Department of Water and Power has more control over its storage supplies in the Owens Valley and the San Fernando Valley groundwater basin than over Metropolitan Water District supplies. Relying less on Department of Water and Power storage supplies to meet normal water demand would create a more secure contingency supply of water in anticipation of potential shortages in the future. III. CITIZENS COMPLAINTS The committee received twelve citizens' complaints by April 1, 1989. All complaints were investigated and resolved with the approval of the entire panel. SPAN-1- 123 IV. PAST GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The committee was also asked to review responses to recommendations regarding solid waste disposal, sewage and traffic made to the City of Los Angeles by the 1987- 88 Grand Jury. Although response within 90 days is prescribed in California Penal Code, specific recommendations made to the City of Los Angeles were not answered in a timely manner and the committee has requested an explanation. V. RECLAIMED WATER UTILIZATION PURPOSE To study the availability and utilization of reclaimed water in Los Angeles County. The committee conducted its own investigation of reclaimed water utilization. FOCUS/ISSUE It is estimated that Los Angeles County's demand for potable water will exceed its supply by 1990. As a means of conserving potable water, reclaimed water can be used as a substitute for such things as landscape and food crop irrigation, groundwater recharge, industrial uses and seawater barriers. Ambitious plans for use of reclaimed water abound, but realization of those plans is slowed by a variety of obstacles. Our focus was to examine existing plans, completed projects and problems related to plans not yet implemented. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Department of Public Works and the County Sanitation Districts have pioneered water conservation techniques in Los Angeles County with catch basins, dams and sophisticated ground water recharge systems. In recent years, sizeable amounts of reclaimed water have become available as a by- product of sewage disposal systems, but utilization of reclaimed water has not kept pace with availability. The Government Operations-Services Committee was charged with environmental matters and chose to study utilization of reclaimed water as a part of its overall concern for water conservation. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The committee studied available documents relevant to our purpose and then conducted on-site inspections and personal interviews at both the city and county levels. The committee visited the following facilities: • Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District Headquarters and Water Stripping Facility County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Water Laboratory 9 Las Virgines Water District Sewage Disposal and Water Reclamation Facility 0 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Headquarters Hyperion Sewage Disposal Plant 8 County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant Los Angeles County Department of Health Services FINDINGS Los Angeles County currently has available from all sources more potable water than it is using. In 1990 the situation is anticipated to be reversed and demand will exceed supply by 120,000 acre feet per year (108.18 million gallons per day), and this shortfall may be increased over four times by the year 2000. Metropolitan Water District Comparison of Dependable Water Supplies with Demand Million acre feet per year 1980 Existing water supplies 1990 2000 2010 Local surface and groundwater 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 0.14 Wastewater reuse 0.15 0.15 0.15 imported: 0.42 0.42 Los Angeles Aqueduct 0.42 0.42 SPECTAL CAR 1.16 0.47 0.47 0.47 Colorado River 1.09 State Water Project 1.18 1.16 1.14 4.00 3.41 3.39 3.37 Total water supplies 2.95 3.53 3.95 4.35 Historical and projected demands Market of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of the Control of th 1.05 Surplus (or shortage) (0.12) (0.56) (0.98) In Los Angeles County the wastewater production is about 1,091,000 acre feet per year but only 52,869 acre feet per year (five percent) is being reused. The Sanitation 5.8 District Joint outfall System includes five water reclamation plants treating about 140 phritingBanks million gallons per day (full secondary treatment) and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) treats 385 million gallons per day with only partial secondary treatment. For the City of Los Angeles, the Tillman Water Reclamation Plant currently produces BESTANDERBESTANDER about 40 million gallons per day and the Glendale Water Reclamation Plant produces about 20 million gallons per day. Tillman capacity will double with expansion now in progress. All of the wastewater at the two plants receives full tertiary treatment. The massive city Hyperion sewage disposal system and water treatment facility is Appropriate and finds 125 SPG-12/69/20SPG-12/69/20 committed to full secondary treatment by 1998 and has ceased all discharge of sludge into the ocean. The county JWPCP is discharging sludge into the ocean in an area off Palos Verdes Penninsula and has requested the Environmental Protection Agency's approval to continue based on the need to continue "capping" a concentration of dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane contaminated sludge dating back to the early 1970's. The majority of reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation, industrial purposes and ground water recharge. That utilization could double within the next 20 years if all proposed projects are completed. Assuming the MWD estimate of current waste water utilization of eight percent is accurate, about 78.8 million gallons per day are being used. That figure could double by the year 2010 but would still represent only fifteen percent of available reclaimed water. In that same time period use of potable water is estimated to increase almost sixty-five percent. The Sanitation District and the MWD have thoroughly studied the utilization of reclaimed water and have extensive plans for projects through the year 2010. The plans seem reasonable, but a variety of political and economic obstacles exist that could prevent timely completion. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power also has plans for some use of reclaimed water but seems to have difficulty in reconciling the basic business of importing and selling potable water with distributing and selling the reclaimed product. The cost of building a distribution system for reclaimed water throughout Los Angeles County is so great that it must be considered prohibitive unless rates for potable water are increased with a portion of the increase going to pay for the cost of building the system. However, the MWD has had some success with their Local Projects Program which financially assists local agencies in developing reclaimed water supply projects. Unless the cost of potable water is increased many times over, the public seems reluctant to accept water as a scarce and valuable resource. The least expensive means of reclaimed water utilization is ground water recharge. In many cases such use does not necessitate costly distribution systems since percolation sites exist close to water reclamation facilities. For example, facilities such as Whittier Narrows, San Jose Creek and Pomona (Water Reclamation Plants owned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District) currently supply the Montebello Forebay area. This year (1989) it is estimated that 50,000 acre feet of reclaimed water will be spread. Looking to the future, it is conceivable that the Pacoima spreading grounds could utilize reclaimed water from both the Tillman and the Glendale Water Reclamation Plants. Although concerns about possible health hazards connected with ground water recharge may still exist in the minds of the general public, those concerns have been answered 126 satisfactorily by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. It appears that this information should be circulated to the general public. Several Los Angeles County and City departments have short-term plans for utilization of reclaimed water. However, there is currently no single entity at either the county or city level empowered to coordinate the work done by diverse departments on a long-range plan for utilizing reclaimed water to the extent needed to balance the anticipated deficit in potable water. CONCLUSIONS Reclaimed water represents a partial solution to the projected deficit in potable water by 1990. The public must be made aware of the impending water shortage and asked to support cost increases that represent the true resource value of potable water. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that the Southern California Metropolitan Water 1. District Joint Projects study of 1982 (reviewed in 1987) be carefully examined by the Board of Supervisors with an eye toward speedy implementation whenever possible. The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Los Angeles create a Water 2. Conservation Department headed by an ombudsman or director charged with total coordination of efforts by all city departments. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors establish a coordinating authority who would survey water conservation plans from all applicable departments and determine how interdepartmental cooperation could be implemented most efficiently and effectively. APPENDIX (The Appendices for the contract audit reports are not included below.) PERSONS INTERVIEWED Robert Berlein, General Manager, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Dianne Eaton, Public Relations Manager, Las Virgines Water District James Colbaugh, Director of Operations, Las Virgines Water District Earle Hartling, Project Engineer, Monitoring and Research, Technical Services Department, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 127 Don Avila, Assistant Information Officer, Information Services, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Stephen Maguin, Department Head, Solid Waste Management Department, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Ron McCoy, Assistant Chief Engineer for Water Systems, Department of Water and Power Kathleen Rice Brown, Public Works Commissioner, City of Los Angeles Harry Sizemore, Sewage Disposal Plant Manager, Hyperion Sewage Disposal Plant Cliff Gladstein, Aide to Tom Hayden, Member, California Legislature Frank Grant, Planning Manager, Wastewater Division, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works William Straub, Sanitation Engineer, Wastewater Division, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works Richard Atwater, Engineer, Resources Division, Municipal Water District of Southern California Ahmad Hassani, Senior Engineer, Resources Division, Municipal Water District of Southern California Virginia Grebbien, Associate Engineer, Resources Division, Municipal Water District of Southern California Leonard Mushin, Chief Environmental Health Officer, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Robert Smith, Cross-Connection and Water Pollution Control Program, Environmental Management, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Sylvia Barrett, Principal Chemist, Water Quality, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California James Langley, Plant Manager, Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Joint Orange County, Los Angeles County, Joint Projects Study (on uses of reclaimed water), Metropolitan Water District, 1982 Joint Projects Study (same as above) Status Report 12/87 Hyperion Treatment Plant, City of Los Angeles Expanding Use of Reclaimed Water in Los Angeles County, Earle Hartling, Project Engineer, County Sanitation Districts Strategy on Use of Reclaimed Water, Earle Hartling, Project Engineer, County Sanitation Districts, 10/22/86 Tillman Reclamation Plant, Los Angeles Public Works City of Los Angeles Clean Water Program, Los Angeles Public Works Tillman Times, quarterly publication of Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant 11/88 The DDT Story, Joint Water Pollution Control Project, Director of Microbiology, 1987 The San Gabriel River and Montebello Forebay Water Conservation System, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 128 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE 1 0.000 . . 9 * . . ya 130 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE Standing L to R: H. E. Resnick, Johnnie Raines, Danny Elias Seated L to R: Margaret Kogut, Marvin Crayton, Chair į į 74 i 1 ï GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE Purpose The purpose of the Grand Jury Recommendations Committee was to review the responses of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles County Chief Administrative Office to the findings and recommendations of the 1985-86, 1986- 87 and 1987-88 Grand Jury contained in each of its final reports. Scope/Focus Three mandated issues were reviewed: jails, audits and criminal justice. Findings The committee was satisfied that the recommendations had received thoughtful consideration. JAILS In reviewing the findings of the Jails Committee for preceding three years, 86.6% of the recommendations were implemented; 13.4% of the recommendations were not concurred with or were modified. AUDITS The findings of the Audit Committee for the three preceding years indicate 65% of the recommendations were implemented; 29% were not concurred with and 6% were not within the County's jurisdiction. CRIMINAL JUSTICE The findings of the Criminal Justice Committee indicates that for the three preceding years, 33% of the recommendations were implemented; 19% were not concurred with and 48% were continued for further study and planning. CONCLUSION The committee's findings in regards to those recommendations which were not concurred with or not implemented were due to budget constraints. In reviewing the jail issue, both the 1985-86 and the 1986-87 Grand Juries made recommendations regarding inmate overcrowding. However, due to those recommen- dations and to other factors, steps were taken to alleviate that condition. In reviewing the recommendations from the Audit and Criminal Justice Committees, we found several instances where recommendations were not accepted because changes were already in progress. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends succeeding grand juries establish a review committee to provide continuity and assure follow-up on the work of the preceding grand jury. The Grand Jury recommends the committee be selected and functioning at 2. the earliest possible time after the convening of the incoming grand jury. 3. The Grand Jury recommends the committee to study, analyze and follow-up on recommendations No. Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Managed Manage AND STATES GRAND JURY REPORT EDITING COMMITTEE Marie Control # 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 Section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of t , 131 GRAND JURY REPORT EDITING COMMITTEE Standing L to R: Robert D. Leland, Marvin Crayton, H. E. Resnick, Chair .