📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 2014-2015
Los Angeles County Automated External Defibrillator Report
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
Page 47
Currently, the decision to institute a PAD program is within the discretion of individual county departments.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 47
Although no one interviewed disputed the usefulness of AEDs, on balance the costs to Los Angeles County in expanding installation of the devices, as well as the time needed for training government personnel on the use of AEDS, do not justify countywide installation of AEDs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 48
Educating the public on the purpose of AEDs, including training in the use of existing AEDs, is economically feasible and would help make better use of already installed AEDs.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 48
The city of Los Angeles PAD program is understaffed. Its existing devices are in need of maintenance and may currently be a liability.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1Based on observations of the group homes visited, the committee commends the efforts of these group home providers in delivering services and promoting the safety and well-being of the home residents. 11 Information obtained from http://ChronicleofSocialChange.org. 12 Board of Supervisors Statement of Proceedings, March 3, 2015. 106 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT The committee also applauds the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ decision to participate in the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program. It will be a tremendous savings for the county and a win-win situation for all parties. ACRONYMS ARC Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program CAP Corrective Action Plan CCL Community Care Licensing Division DCFS Department of Children and Family Services GH Group Home RCL Rate Classification Level PPQA Placement Permanency and Quality Assurance unit COMMITTEE MEMBERS Wesley C. Thompson, chair Larry Lyman, vice chair Earline Parker, secretary Doris K. Reed Joyce Simily Margaret Yasuda 107 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT This page intentionally left blank. 108 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT METRO RIDERSHIP Jim Contreras, chair Simeon Zano, vice chair Shari E. Pearce, secretary METRO RIDERSHIP TOPIC The Los Angeles County 2014–2015 Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) formed the Metro Ridership Committee (committee) to look into increasing the ridership within the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) system and investigate the efforts of Metro to do the same. The committee also looked into whether Metro would receive maximum funding from federal sources based on achieving the farebox recovery goal of 33 percent.1
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office