Final Report 1986 -1987*

Recommendations 45

• R1
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT EACH PLACE MAGNETIC PLACARDS ON SELECTED NUMBERS OF PATROL CARS TO ADVISE THE PUBLIC OF THE URGENT NEED FOR BETTER CONTROL OF VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSIONS. C. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
• R2
  THE GRAND JURY STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES RETAIN THE SOUTH TOWER BUILDING OF THE MID-VALLEY COMPLEX BECAUSE OF THE LARGE VOLUME OF SERVICES AND DISTANCES BETWEEN FACILITIES, THE LACK OF A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, AND THE RELATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING A NEW FACILITY. C. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTERS
• R3
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FUND THE CREATION OF A NEW CAMPS AFTERCARE PROGRAM PATTERNED AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM DELETED FROM THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT'S 1985-86 BUDGET. 4. COMPUTERIZED PROGRAM TRACKING AND EVALUATION
• R4
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DESIGN AND SEEK FUNDING FOR A SYSTEM WHICH WILL COMPREHENSIVELY AND SCIENTIFICALLY EVALUATE PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS AND TRACK THE PERFORMANCE OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE GRADUATED FROM CAMP AND RETURNED TO THE COMMUNITY. 5. OTHER CAMP PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
• R5
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT IDENTIFY ANY ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN THE CAMP PROGRAM, MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FUNDING, AND SEEK ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OTHER NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS. B. STRENGTHENED PROBATION SUPERVISION IN THE COMMUNITY The Committee finds that probation supervision of juveniles in the community needs to be strengthened in three ways: 1. SUPERVISION
• R6
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE DETENTION AREAS MAINTAINED BY THE SHERIFF AND MARSHALL BE INSPECTED AND MONITORED DAILY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE UTMOST POSSIBLE SAFETY OF STAFF AND INMATES. D. JAIL INSPECTION LOG BOOKS
• R7
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE SHERIFF'S AND MARSHAL'S DEPARTMENT AND ALL LOCAL POLICE AGENCIES REQUIRE THAT EACH DETENTION FACILITY MAINTAIN A LOG BOOK WITH ENTRIES OF ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED WITH PERIODIC INSPECTIONS OF THE JAILS. E. MEDICAL STAFF SECURITY TRAINING AT LOS ANGELES COUNTY/U.S.C. MEDICAL CENTER
• R8
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ENSURE THAT PROBATION PROGRAMS WHICH HELP TO ALLEVIATE JAIL AND PRISON OVERCROWDING BE AFFORDED THE KIND OF ADEQUATE AND STABLE FUNDING BASE NEEDED TO ASSURE THEIR CONTINUED AND EFFECTIVE EXISTENCE. C. CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONTRACT MONITORING IN JUVENILE PROBATION SERVICES The Committee believes that new contracting opportunities in the provision of juvenile services should be identified and their feasibility assessed. In addition, performance on contracts already awarded should be aggressively monitored. The following contracting issues came to the Committee's attention: — The Committee believes that, for the provision of medical services to minors detained in the juvenile halls or committed to the camps, efficiency and effectiveness could be enhanced and cost savings achieved through contracting for nursing services in those facilities. The Committee believes that the Probation Department should assess the feasibility of such an approach. — The Committee found that the quality of food served at one of the juvenile halls which it visited needed improvement. The Committee believes, accordingly, that monitoring of food services contracts for the three juvenile halls should be strengthened, especially as regards the quality of food served there. RECOMMENDATIONS 9. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT ASSESS THE FEASIBILITY OF CONTRACTING FOR NURSING SERVICES IN ITS JUVENILE FACILITIES. 10. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT STRENGTHEN ITS MONITORING OF THE FOOD SERVICES CONTRACTS IN THE JUVENILE HALLS, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE QUALITY OF FOOD SERVED. D. COMPETITIVE PAY SCALE FOR PROBATION PROFESSIONALS The Committee has found that there is an increasing disparity between the pay scale of the County's probation professionals and that of correctional professionals at the State level. The disparity is producing a drain of the Probation Department's most promising younger members, who are leaving County service for better paying jobs as, for example, parole agents with the Department of Corrections. This drain threatens to become an exodus in coming years as the State increases its correctional hiring to deal with the growing number of parolees from its prisons. In a department which, for want of hiring opportunities over several years, has large numbers of very senior staff, the loss of its best younger members to other agencies can only be viewed as a matter of major concern for the future effectiveness of probation in Los Angeles County.
• R9
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECT THE COUNTY FIRE CHIEF TO STAFF THE CDSO'S SENIOR ANALYST POSITION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987-88, TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL RESOURCE FOR TO ALLOW THAT INDIVIDUAL TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPING AND MONITORING EVACUATION PLANS AND PROCEDURES FOR COUNTY BUILDINGS. Training
• R10
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT A POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL BE WRITTEN FOR EACH DESK AND ALL SUPERVISORY POSITIONS IN THE COURT. DESK MANUALS SHOULD INCORPORATE TASK DEFINITIONS ALREADY AVAILABLE, AND ALSO A DETAILED LIST OF DESK RESPONSIBILITIES AND REPORTING ASSIGNMENTS. THE SUPERVISOR MANUAL SHOULD EXPLAIN THE SUPERVISOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR STAFF MANAGEMENT, HIRING, PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS, REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES AND WORK ASSIGNMENTS. The court should update all policies and procedures manuals at least annually. In addition to a centralized file of these manuals, each clerk should have his/her own copy. A review of this document should be a mandatory component of training. In addition, it will serve as a reference document on the job. C. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The court has no measurable goals and objectives for either the court or any specific functions. Therefore, they are operating with no criteria for measuring operational efficiency or effectiveness. Their general operating objective has been to keep things running smoothly. Information required as a basis for establishing goals, objectives and performance indicators is measured and made available by the court. For instance, the court forecasts caseloads as part of the annual budget process. This information is monitored by the court informally. Because of their vulnerability to external factors, however, they are guarded about any attempt to formalize the use of indicators. There are several difficulties inherent in developing indicators for the court. For instance, a change in judicial procedures, brought about either through legislation or judicial case management, will filter down to the courts. Likewise, third-party activities also come into play. A case in point is the recent drug crackdown program conducted by the Long Beach Police Department. In that instance, a pilot project earned itself permanent status by its remarkable success.
• R11
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT MEASURABLE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND CORRESPONDING PROGRAM INDICATORS, BE SET FOR THE COURT AND ALL DESKS. THE INDICATORS COULD THEN BE BUILT INTO THE ANNUAL PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS. These measures should follow from the caseload forecasts the court produces as part of the annual budget exercise. Desk-specific items could include backlog (cases filed less cases disposed), cost per case and average time to disposition. Court specific indicators should include a high-level aggregate of the desk measures and administrative indicators, such as budget adherence. To effectively set goals and objectives, then, the court would have to do a lot more work up front in coordinating their forecasts with other local agencies. This step should significantly minimize unexpected variances. D. CONTROLS
• R12
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT LEGISLATION BE SOUGHT WHICH WILL PERMIT ROUTINE HIV-ANTIBODY TESTING OF ALL JUVENILES WHO ARE ADMITTED TO PROBATION DEPARTMENT FACILITIES. F. VISION THERAPY FOR DELINQUENT MINORS
• R13
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT SEEK GRANT FUNDING TO CONDUCT A PILOT STUDY IN ONE JUVENILE PROBATION CAMP TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF VISUAL THERAPY AS A MEANS OF CORRECTING DELINQUENT TENDENCIES IN APPROPRIATE MINORS. II. INTER-AGENCY COUNCIL ON CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT (ICAN)
• R14
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER CONTINUE TO MONITOR DEPARTMENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE THIRTY-DAY PAYMENT POLICY.
• R15
  THE CURRENT GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE 1987-88 GRAND JURY REVIEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR VENDOR PAYMENT.
• R16
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNTY PURCHASING AGENT REINSTITUTE MONTHLY PURCHASING TASK FORCE MEETINGS NO LATER THAN APRIL 1, 1987.
• R17
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE 1987-88 GRAND JURY EXPLORE THE NEED FOR AN IN-DEPTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE COUNTY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR-PUBLIC GUARDIAN DEPARTMENT. D. SELF-GOVERNING SPECIAL DISTRICTS
• R18
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNTY PURCHASING AGENT DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO ADEQUATELY TRACK VENDOR PERFORMANCE.
• R19
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT, USING THE GUIDELINES DEVELOPED BY THE COUNTY PURCHASING AGENT, COUNTY DEPARTMENTS DEVELOP SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR TRACKING AND REPORTING VENDOR PERFORMANCE THROUGH MANUAL OR AUTOMATED SYSTEMS. PROCEDURES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR PROVIDING VENDOR PERFORMANCE DATA FOR LACAPS, ONCE THE SYSTEM IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED. Automated Systems
• R20
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE 1987-88 GRAND JURY REVIEW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 1985-86 GRAND JURY PERTAINING TO THE LOS ANGELES MUSIC CENTER OPERATING COMPANY, LOS ANGELES MEMORIAL COLISEUM, AND MARINA DEL REY SLIP ASSIGNMENT PROPOSAL. H. GRAND JURY SELECTION AND ORIENTATION
• R21
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST THAT LAC-CAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS AMEND THEIR CURRENT ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION TO PROVIDE FOR QUARTERLY MEETINGS.
• R22
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER UNDERTAKE A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE COST EFFICIENCY OF THE LAC-CAL PROGRAM (WITH REGARD TO MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS). THE SCOPE OF SUCH A STUDY COULD INCLUDE TAKING A RANDOM SAMPLE OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS (FOR FIXED ASSETS ACQUIRED THROUGH LAC-CAL) AND DETERMINING THEIR MAINTENANCE COSTS. THE ANALYSIS WOULD THEN COMPARE THE COST OF THE SAMPLE OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS TO THE COSTS OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS FOR THE SAME FIXED ASSETS, HAD THEY NOT BEEN ACQUIRED THROUGH LAC-CAL.
• R23
  THE CURRENT GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS TO THE 1987-88 GRAND JURY THAT IT FURTHER EXAMINE THE COST EFFICIENCY OF LAC-CAL. III. A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE WEINGART CENTER OBJECTIVES The Social and Human Services Committee of the 1986-87 Los Angeles County Grand Jury has been concerned with the effectiveness of publicly funded programs for public inebriates, the homeless, and other individuals requiring alcohol, medical, mental health, and/or other public social services. The Weingart Center Association, a private non-profit organization, is one of the most visible and principal providers of such services in the downtown Los Angeles area. It receives more than four million ($4,000,000) program dollars from the City and County of Los Angeles. Accordingly, the Grand Jury's Audit and Social and Human Services Committees requested Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, as their contract auditor, to review and analyze the current use of public dollars in the Weingart Center's multipurpose program, and to make recommendations for measures to improve the cost effectiveness and quality of the services provided there. APPROACH The auditor's task was to find optimal ways to coordinate the operations of the publicly funded service vendors and the Association. The consultants examined – Organizational issues in the administration of City and County funded programs operating at the Weingart Center, located at 566 South San Pedro Street in the City of Los Angeles – Inter-agency cooperation in such areas as intake, referral, record keeping, resource sharing, capital equipment, and staffing – Effectiveness and/or efficiency of publicly funded agency operations – The relationship between service needs and the maximum capacity of the Weingart Center – A conceptual framework for the Weingart Center that might serve as a possible prototype or model for the operation of a multiservice center involving public and nonprofit agencies
• R24
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST THE PRESIDING JUDGES OF THE COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURTS TO DIRECT COURT STAFF TO ASSIST THE COUNTY IN DEVELOPING COST DATA RELATIVE TO THE IMPACT OF UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS ON COURT SERVICES, AS DISCUSSED HEREIN.
• R25
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND INVOLVED COUNTY DEPARTMENTS GIVE ALL POSSIBLE SUPPORT TO EFFORTS TO INTRODUCE STATE LEGISLATION TO MANDATE TRAINING FOR ALL FOSTER PARENTS. 2. RESPITE CARE FOR FOSTER PARENTS
• R26
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS TO THE 1987-88 GRAND JURY THAT IT AUTHORIZE A COMPLETE AUDIT OF THOSE CONTRACTING POLICIES NOT REVIEWED BY THE 1986-87 GRAND JURY. Ruth Slater, Chairman Gerard Rastello Doris Seward Ernest Sorotskin, Vice Chairman Fred Vollmer
• R27
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IMPLEMENT THE REQUESTS MADE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS REFLECTED IN RECOMMENDATION 26.
• R28
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST THE PRESIDING JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR AND MUNICIPAL COURTS TO DIRECT COURT STAFF TO INCLUDE COSTS BUDGETED IN THE COURT EXPENSE BUDGETS IN THEIR ANALYSIS OF COURT COSTS ASSOCIATES WITH SERVICES PROVIDED TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. SEE RECOMMENDATIONS 24 AND 26.
• R29
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR AND MUNICIPAL COURTS IMPLEMENT THE REQUESTS MADE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS REFLECTED IN RECOMMENDATION 28.
• R30
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FORMALIZE PROCEDURES TO ROUTINELY INQUIRE INTO THE CITIZENSHIP OR ALIEN STATUS OF ALL ADULTS REFERRED TO THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FOR PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION. THE MISDEMEANOR INVESTIGATION WORKSHEET TO CORRESPOND WITH THE FELONY WORKSHEET SHOULD ALSO BE MODIFIED IN THIS REGARD.
• R31
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR MANUALLY COMPILING DATA RELATED TO CITIZENSHIP OR ALIEN STATUS DETERMINED THROUGH THE PROBATION INVESTIGATION PROCESS FOR ADULTS.
• R32
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT CONDUCT STATISTICAL TESTS OF ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT WORKLOAD RELATED TO SERVICES TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS, UTILIZING THE ASSISTANCE OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE AS DISCUSSED IN THE SECTION.
• R33
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FORMALIZE PROCEDURES TO INQUIRE ROUTINELY INTO THE CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF ALL JUVENILES SCREENED THROUGH THE CRIMINAL INTAKE PROCESS.
• R34
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DEVELOP PROCEDURES, IN THE ABSENCE OF MODIFYING THE JAI SYSTEM (SEE RECOMMENDATION 37), FOR MANUALLY TRANSMITTING INFORMATION RELATED TO THE CITIZENSHIP STATUS OF JUVENILES TO INVESTIGATION AND SUPERVISION UNITS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.
• R35
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DEVELOP METHODOLOGIES FOR DETERMINING FULL COSTS FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN JUVENILES PLACED IN PSYCHIATRIC AND GROUP FOSTER HOMES, UTILIZING THE ASSISTANCE OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER.
• R36
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT UTILIZE THE ASSISTANCE OF THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS RELATED TO PROBATION DEPARTMENT SERVICES, AS DISCUSSED IN THIS SECTION.
• R37
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DATA PROCESSING AND PROBATION DEPARTMENTS TO CONDUCT A DETAILED DESIGN AND COST STUDY TO DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL FOR COMPILING DATA FROM JADS AND THE JAI SYSTEM.
• R38
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONSIDER FUNDING FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THESE SYSTEMS AFTER DESIGN AND COST INFORMATION IS KNOWN.
• R39
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIRECT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO REQUEST APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM (CJIS) PROJECT CONSULTANTS TO DEVELOP DETAILED SYSTEM DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATES FOR INCLUDING THE CAPABILITY TO TRACK WORKLOAD ACTIVITY FOR SERVICES TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS IN THE VARIOUS SUBSYSTEMS, AND THROUGH THE PROACTIVE INFORMATION EXCHANGE PROGRAM, AS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT.
• R40
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONSIDER FUNDING FOR NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE THIS CAPABILITY AFTER BENEFITS AND ESTIMATED COSTS ARE KNOWN.
• R41
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER REEVALUATE STAFFING NEEDS TO ASSIST CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENTS WITH ESTIMATING THE COST OF SERVICES TO UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS ONCE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND DEPARTMENTS IMPLEMENT OTHER PERTINENT RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT.
• R42
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZE POSITIONS AND FUNDING RECOMMENDED FOR ADDITIONAL AUDITOR STAFF IN THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER'S OFFICE TO CONDUCT STATISTICAL AND COST ANALYSES RECOMMENDED THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT.
• R43
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLEARLY DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY NECESSARY FOR THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO TAKE THE LEAD ROLE IN DEVELOPING AND MONITORING A SYSTEM FOR COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO IDENTIFY AND REPORT THE LEVEL OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
• R45
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN FOR SEEKING FINANCIAL RELIEF FROM THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS FOR THE BURDEN OF CARING FOR THE UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION.
• R46
  THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENTS OF HEALTH AND PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES CONTINUE THEIR EFFORTS TO IMMEDIATELY DEVELOP PROCEDURES TO ACCUMULATE RELIABLE DATA TO SUPPORT CLAIMS FOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE ELIGIBLE SERVICE TO LEGALIZED ALIENS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GRAND JURY ADMINISTRATIVE AUDIT OF THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL COURT OBJECTIVES The Long Beach Municipal Court is one of twenty-four judicial districts within the Los Angeles Municipal Court system. The municipal courts within the County receive guidelines for judicial and administrative affairs from the State's Judicial Council. In addition, the State Controller's Office has established accounting and reporting procedures for the courts. At the local level, however, there is no overall coordinator or oversight agency. Because of this lack of general oversight, the individual courts have developed a great deal of independence and as a result, specific administrative procedures are often unique to each court. The Government Operations Committee requested an audit to examine the overall organization and administrative policies of one of the municipal courts within the County. The Long Beach Municipal Court Supervising Judge and Administrator agreed to have their court be used as a case study. The review was conducted by the firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. It is hoped that some of the recommendations can be transferable to the other remaining courts. APPROACH Through interviews with court and third-party officials this study has documented the Long Beach Court's organizational structure and identified their standard operating procedures. In addition, a comparative analysis of Long Beach and the county as a whole has provided insights of the court's general efficiency and effectiveness. The study team met with all supervisors within the Long Beach Court, starting with the Court Administrator/Clerk. These interviews were designed to focus on operating procedures as they are mandated for, or designed by the Long Beach Court. The assumption going in was that standard operating procedures were in place, but not communicated externally. In addition, the interviews were meant to uncover the court's organizational structure, identify the distribution of responsibilities and give a general feel for the court's operating environment. The interviews were specifically designed to determine how the court managed the following issues: — Organization — Policies and Procedures — Goals and Objectives — Controls — Staffing, and — Training. Information given in the interviews were compared to available documentation, including organization charts, state documents and court-prepared resources. The comparative review was limited by the amount of information supplied by the courts and kept by the County. For instance, it was necessary to use court-supplied full-time equivalents for the staff levels of each court because no agency in the County regularly records actual staff levels. This study also assumes the validity of the "weighted caseload", a statistic established by the State Judicial Council for balancing the frequency of court procedures with the effort required to process the different types of proceedings. For instance, a felony offense is assumed to require about three and a half times as much involvement by a court clerk as a traffic infraction. The comparative analysis was aimed at evaluating the court's efficiency and effectiveness relative to the other twenty-three courts in the system. An initial attempt to include adjacent counties was abandoned because common indicators were not available. While the twenty-four Los Angeles County courts may all have their own personalities, resources are all consistently designed and measured. A. ORGANIZATION